Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

find, unfortunately, that not much is being done and that it really is impossible to gauge the extent of the problem.

And ethics officials in fact are not doing much, but it is their perception that this is a real problem and a big problem. Not only should legislative remedies be produced, but we also believe that the monitoring and implementation of the existing laws is one of the things that the Office of Government Ethics should provide leadership on and give some direction to those agency ethics officials, including models for how you monitor this.

I think much more could be done, and it is clearly recognized by these officials as a real and a serious problem.

Senator COHEN. As you heard this morning, the Justice Department has discontinued the requirement that any of its attorneys file the confidential disclosure statement. I find that to be somewhat staggering in its implications.

But what do you think about the recommendation that, I suspect is going to emanate from Mr. Martin in terms of reducing the detail of the disclosure? Is there merit to his argument that as long as you know there is one share of stock or 10,000 shares of stock, that is all that has to be listed? Do you think you don't have to have the specific details in order to determine whether or not an official is complying with the OGE standards?

Ms. MCBRIDE. Mr. Chairman, there are actually two parts to what Mr. Martin said here this morning.

The first was, he said he would greatly lessen the requirement for public disclosure, and, again, when he came before this committee in his confirmation hearing, Senator Roth asked him the question: Do you think that the public disclosure requirements are overbroad, or are they adequate? He told this committee he felt that they were adequate.

Obviously, he has had a change of heart. We do not think there should be any cutting back in the public disclosure requirements. Mr. Martin says there is no de minimis for conflict of interest.

There certainly is a de minimis in terms of disclosure. You do not have to disclose in most cases until a holding reaches $1,000. We think those categories of value are fair. It is important to know the magnitude of a holding, and we think that this Congress should really continue to resist proposals, which certainly have been offered, to weaken public financial disclosure.

Second, we also think the confidential system should be kept in place and that there should not be restrictions in terms of cutting back on information.

When you look in the area which has been discussed here this morning, contracting and procurement, many contract and procurement officers do not reach the level of the GS-16 or above. Many of the people who are making day-to-day decisions in which there could be significant conflicts of interest are in that level GS13 to GS-16.

So we think the confidential system should be kept in place. We think the information should not be reduced, and we think that OGE and the White House really are long overdue in acting on this particular problem.

Senator COHEN. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin?

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions.

Your request of the OGE for materials under the Freedom of Information Act was to determine whether or not, as I understand your testimony, their interpretation of the Executive order was unique for Mr. Meese or whether that has been a generalized interpretation.

Did they answer your question that it has been a generalized interpretation, or have they said that they can't answer that; they want you to determine that from reading the 18,000 dollars' worth of materials?

Ms. MCBRIDE. Unfortunately, with our budget, we will not be getting the 18,000 dollars' worth of information. We did not pose the question, Senator Levin. That was the reason we wanted the information.

We made just a simple request following the outline on how you use the Freedom of Information Act. We simply said we would like to get the information, anything written, that deals in whole or in part, letters, advisory opinions, with the appearance of conflict of interest.

We did not pose the specific question of whether their ruling in the Meese case had been unique or whether it is generalized. It was our hope to get the information and, from that, to make this determination. We also wanted to know whether Mr. Martin had significantly changed the interpretation from previous OGE directives.

Senator LEVIN. What we will do is ask limited questions for the record to determine the answer to that question. It is a fair question. We will frame the question something like—give us a half dozen instances in other situations where you applied your interpretation that the appearance violation is not a violation-and try to get that for the record.

I think that will be helpful because he has given us that assurance, I believe, that it has been a generalized interpretation. We will ask him for six examples of where it has been.

Ms. MCBRIDE. That would be helpful. Thank you.

Senator LEVIN. There are some other questions, by the way, for the record, of Mr. Martin that I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman.1

I also think we ought to put in the record the correspondence, if it already hasn't been put in the record, between himself, me, and there may be some other correspondence. But I would like in the record some letters that I sent to him as a response in the record.2 And also, I think these excerpts from the three cases that we have made reference to also ought to be made part of the record.3 Senator COHEN. Those will be synopsized and included as part of the record.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you.

Senator COHEN. I just have one other question that has to do with the Department of Interior case that you mentioned.

1 See p. 194.

2 See p. 179. 'See p. 154.

If you can supply for us any details relevant to those cases, it might be useful to us. Where you say that the allegation of a double standard between the OGE interpretation and the executive branch agency applications for specific employees has been raised by those employees, it would be useful to us to study how this problem is now going to perhaps lead to an equal protection problem. Ms. MCBRIDE. Yes, we can give you the name of the ethics officer who said that, and we are certainly free to provide it to this committee.

Senator COHEN. Thank you very much.

Ms. MCBRIDE. Thank you.

[Ms. McBride's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN MCBRIDE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear on behalf of Common Cause before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management on issues relating to oversight of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). I am Senior Vice President of Common Cause, a citizens' organization of 250,000 members. I have worked on ethics-ingovernment issues for most of my twelve-year tenure at Common Cause and participated, on behalf of Common Cause, in the development and passage of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978.

We thank this subcommittee for undertaking this review of the activities of the Office of Government Ethics. Today's hearing presents an important opportunity to assess whether the Office of Government Ethics is fulfilling its statutory mandate to provide direction in "preventing conflicts of interest on the part of officers and employees of any executive agency."

My statement covers four issues which are central to OGE's implementation of its duties under Title IV of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and on which we have been asked to comment: first, OGE's interpretation of Executive Order 11222 and the standard of conduct regulations; second, the administration of the government ethics programs by executive branch agencies; third, the implementation of the public and confidential financial disclosure systems by OGE and designated agency officials; and finally, enforcement of post-employment conflict of interest provisions.

-2

I. Executive Order 11222 and Implementing Regulations

Executive Order 11222, issued in 1965, prescribes standards of conduct and authorizes agencies to issue regulations to implement its provisions.

At his 1983 confirmation hearings for

the position of director of the Office of Government Ethics, David Martin applauded Executive Order 11222. He stated that the Executive Order, which sets out non-criminal provisions governing executive branch conflicts of interest, "should share equal status and importance with the conflict-of-interest laws and the Ethics in Government Act."

Recently, however, Mr. Martin has characterized compliance with major portions of the Executive Order dealing with the appearance of conflicts of interest as "aspirational" and relabeled violations as simply "problems."

Senator William

is unprece

The reaction to Mr. Martin's new position from those involved in ethics issues was immediate and clear. Cohen (R-ME) said: "Mr. Martin's position dented." Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said, "I find Mr. Martin's interpretation of the Executive Order and regulations issued pursuant thereto to be simply wrong." Common Cause Chairman Archibald Cox, former Solicitor General and Watergate Special Prosecutor, has termed Mr. Martin's interpretation "frightening." Mr. Martin's incorrect interpretation of the Executive Order represents a serious, dangerous, and radical change in ethics standards governing federal employees. It is clear that Mr. Martin's interpretation of the Executive Order conflicts with the

« AnteriorContinuar »