Mr. KELLER. I beg your pardon? Mr. DINGELL. You don't challenge that? Mr. KELLER. No, not the proposition. I just don't want to endorse it 100 percent. Mr. DINGELL. You are not able to deny it? Mr. KELLER. I beg your pardon? Mr. DINGELL. You are not able to deny it? Mr. KELLER. No. Mr. DINGELL. One of the things Mr. Vanik sent GAO to do was to find out how the program was conducted. On the basis of discussions to this point, I am gathering GAO did not go into this with its usual and customary care? Mr. KELLER. Well, we think we did, but there is always room for Mr. DINGELL. Well, the record tends to indicate otherwise. Counsel? Mr. WARD. Section 207 of 18 U.S.C. relates to conflict of interest after someone leaves Government employment. What evidence is there of followup within the executive interchange files? What followup did they do to be sure that section 207 was being adhered to? Mr. GABRIEL. I think maybe you are getting us out of the scope of our review. I would like to address the case of Mr. Bridges. Mr. WARD. All right, let's talk about Mr. Bridges. Mr. GABRIEL. That point is covered by Department of Commerce's General Counsel. They sent his job description through the General Counsel at the agency through the Civil Service Commission, and through the Commission on Interchange. The General Counsel raised the same point that you are raising: There would be a potential conflict of interest when the man returns to industry. The issue is, did he ever return? The last evidence we had was he never went back to his company. Mr. WARD. That is right, he didn't. Mr. GABRIEL. Another point. When you are asking us to look into 18 cases, and we are with one eye on the clock and one eye on the program and getting the results; there is a limit as to how exhaustive an examination of 18 cases can be. And from the nature of your question, it would sound like, we should have followed the participants back to their companies. And I would say the answer is "No." Mr. KELLER. Perhaps the interchange people can talk to it better— but I don't believe that it is followed up as to what happens after they go back and what they do. Mr. WARD. But you looked at the interchange files, right? Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, sir. Mr. WARD. Did you notice anything about a followup? Mr. GABRIEL. I don't have that kind of detailed information. Mr. WARD. What was the condition of the files? Mr. GABRIEL. Well, when we went in initially, we couldn't get access, as Mr. Keller pointed out. Mr. DINGELL. You could not? Mr. GABRIEL. Not initially, at the Commission. Mr. DINGELL. Why not? Mr. GABRIEL. I don't know why. Mr. DINGELL. Well, would you inform us why not? Would you find out why not and then inform us why not? Mr. GABRIEL. OK. [The information subsequently submitted follows:] At the start of our review, we were given access to files at the Commission. However, the Commission's Executive Director would not permit us to make copies of the nomination forms submitted by the participant's employer or performance appraisals prepared by the host agency because he felt certain data on the forms dealing with an individual's weaknesses or performance could have a serious impact on the individual's future career. We requested and were permitted to copy answers to specific questions on the nomination forms relating to Government agencies which should be considered for an interchange assignment and plans for future assignment with the nominating company. Mr. KELLER, I think Mr. BUTLER. May I interrupt? Mr. DINGELL. Certainly. Mr. BUTLER. I think he is saying, is he not, that eventually he got access. Mr. GABRIEL. We did. Mr. KELLER. It took a few days. I guess they were sensitive about what we were looking for. Mr. DINGELL. I want to know whether you were cooperated with by the agency and, if not, why not? It strikes me that if you had difficulty in getting access to files, you weren't receiving cooperation. Mr. KELLER. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, was after an initial fuss, we did get complete cooperation and access to the files, but we can check the record and verify that. I would like to go back, just rather than leaving it hanging, to Mr. Ward's point of a followup after the interchange man goes back to his company, as to what happens to him. And I think it is a good point, but it seems to me you have an identical problem with anybody who leaves the Government and goes to work for industry. In other words, the only policing effect that I am aware of is with the agency where the man is employed. The agency should be wary of his advancing any ideas on matters he was concerned with while he was employed with industry. It is kind of a difficult thing to get hold of. Mr. WARD. But under the concept of the program, the guy is taken with the understanding he goes back to the company. Shouldn't the added responsibility-I mean, it is certain he is going back to the very place he came from, and shouldn't he be checked upon? Well, you mentioned Mr. Bridges. Let's talk about Mr. Bridges for a moment. Mr. Bridges came from Tenneco. In his nominating form, his company said they would like him to get experience in East-West trade relationships because they saw a great market in trade with State-controlled economy countries. The interview was with one agency, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of East-West trade. That is where he wound up. You found nothing wrong with that? Mr. GABRIEL. No. That was the specific case we were asked to look at. We brought this case and even the nomination forms to Mr. Mark Talisman, who at the time, was coordinating that with Mr. Vanik. But we went, I would say, a little deeper into that. We went into the memorandums from the General Counsel and the information from the supervisors that said they were going to restrict his duties. We reviewed the job descriptions, et cetera. We also reviewed the rulings of the General Counsel from the Civil Service Commission. We did not find he was writing regulations or controlling policy decisions. So that is the type of information we went into. But we agree with what you said, and we found that information on the nomination forms, and we did bring that to the attention of Mr. Talisman. Mr. WARD. A legitimate concern, I think, is whether this program is being used as a training ground for industry executives. Now, it turns out Bridges did go into East-West trade with another company. Mr. GABRIEL. After he left and did not return to his company? Mr. WARD. Yes. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to me if I could understand just a little bit more about the procedure that is followed. For example, before any person is placed with the Government, his employer fills out what you call a nominating form. Is that correct? Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BUTLER. And do we have copies of that form floating around here somewhere? Mr. WARD. Yes sir. Mr. BUTLER. Well, I judge the principal thrust of that is how will this man benefit from the Government service and where would you recommend that he be assigned that he would get the most benefit for us. Is that the basic thrust of the nominating form? Oh good, now I have been handed Mr. Bridge's nominating form. So that answers my first question, I think. Now, his nominating form is submitted, and then is it circularized in some way among the Government agencies? Mr. GABRIEL. It was a screening process by the Commission to screen the nominations against needs that were submitted to the Commission. Mr. BUTLER. Well, prior to that, you had information from Government agencies? Mr. GABRIEL. That is right. You had needs information coming in, and you had availability information coming in. There was a so-called screening that the Commission did. They initially screened potential applicants and removed some. And then whatever remained, they tried to match needs with applicants. Mr. BUTLER. They matched them up? Mr. GABRIEL. Right, between needs and availability. Now, in some instances and we have examples in our book-people interviewed. more than one agency. I would like to mention those. For example, Robert Bates interviewed the following agencies: The Federal Communications Commission; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Commerce; the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the Defense Supply Agency. And information we developed showed the Federal Commerce Commission rejected him for a potential conflict. Now he eventually went to the Department of Commerce. So what I am trying to demonstrate is that they weren't all locked in such as the Bridges case. Then there are other individuals that have interviewed more than one agency. We also found about 'seven cases-and we were developing the point of what we would consider a restrictive nomination. We called this to the attention of the Commission people and we understand they are very aware of the two questions on the nomination form that caused the problem. That part of the selection procedure which we were asked to look into is being changed to make these nominations more general. Mr. DINGELL. You say it is to be changed? Mr. GABRIEL. Well, let me check my backup. At the time we were looking at cases in actuality. Whether it has been changed and implemented would be something that would have to be followed up with the Commission. I wanted to make the point that they were not all restrictive nominations. But we did find about 7 out of 37 that were restrictive. Mr. DINGELL. Did you make specific recommendations in your report, in the GAO report, with regard to the conflict of interest? Mr. KELLER. No; we did not. Mr. DINGELL. Would you tell us why not? Mr. KELLER. Well, our report was based on the 15 cases that we examined. Mr. DINGELL. Didn't you find evidence of possible encouragement of conflict of interest in the nature of the program in the cases that you reviewed? Mr. KELLER. No; we couldn't find that. Mr. Dingell. Mr. DINGELL. You mean to say you didn't find that there is an inherent structural possibility of conflict of interest in a program of this kind where an individual comes in from a specific individual industry, works on problems of concern to that industry, and then returns to the industry? Mr. KELLER. I guess that is where you and I might differ a bit. We do not think it is that inherent anymore than some of the other programs of Government. I think the answer is Mr. DINGELL. I am not going to compare it with other programs in Government. I am simply going to compare it with this program You are going to tell me when a fellow comes from a pesticide industry, he works on questions regarding pesticide in the Federal Government, that there isn't a possibility of conflict of interest? Mr. KELLER. I think there is always a possibility. Mr. DINGELL. Did you make any specific recommendations in your report? Mr. KELLER. No, sir, we did not. Mr. DINGELL. Don't you think you should have? Mr. DINGELL. We found an instance where an individual by the name of Bowen came in and worked extensively on energy matters, wrote regulations relating to pricing in which his company was a substantial potential beneficiary. Was that question reviewed by you in your analysis of these matters? Mr. KELLER. Well, we had already made our report on that case and we recommended that it go to the Department of Justice. Mr. DINGELL. You recommended that it go to the Department of Justice? Why? Mr. KELLER. Because we thought there was a possibility of a conflict. 69-982 O - 76 - 2 Mr. DINGELL. I find it curious you found a possibility of conflict in the 1 case, but in these other 15 cases, you didn't find the Bowen case was sufficiently a matter of concern that it would alert your need for conflict of interest questions being reviewed by the agency that sets up this Presidential Executive Interchange program? Mr. KELLER. We found in the Bowen case that he was actually involved, not potentially involved. Mr. DINGELL. Have you made any specific recommendations to the agency about conflict of interests and steps that should be taken by the Presidential Executive Interchange Program to prevent a conflict. of interest? Mr. KELLER. No; we have not. Mr. DINGELL. Would you advise us why not? Mr. KELLER. Well, it is a very difficult thing to get hold of. You know, you can argue you should set up the criteria. Well, should the criteria be, if a fellow comes in from an oil company Mr. DINGELL. I don't propose to engage in a discussion with you as to what these ought to do. We will address ourselves to that in the record with some vigor. I am curious to know why you didn't address yourself in connection with your review of this program. Evidently Mr. Vanik felt apprehension on the subject. This subcommittee felt sufficient concern on the matter to devote a considerable amount of our limited resources to it. You people, even on the basis of recommendations from the Attorney General for criminal prosecution of an individual, you people are not able to come up with a conclusion that there ought to be some kind of recommendations concerning the program itself to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. Isn't that a curious situation? Mr. KELLER. Well, on its face, I would say it was, but I Mr. DINGELL. Not on its face. I think it is so obvious that it denies haggling. Mr. KELLER. What I wanted to say is that I think the interchange program has become increasingly aware of this potential Mr. DINGELL. We do not discuss at this time what they are increasingly aware of. We have attempted to sensitize them and apparently have had some success. That is not the question that was asked. My question was, did you make recommendations, and if not, why not. In one instance you recommended criminal prosecution. In the other instance, you don't even alert the agency to the possibility of criminal prosecution. Now I find myself hard-put to find that a competent analysis or report or investigation by your agency was made. As a matter of fact, it smacks to me of bumbling. Mr. KELLER. Well, I don't agree with you on that. Mr. DINGELL. Well, just answer the question. Why didn't you recommend to the agency about the possibility of conflict when in the other instance, you recommended criminal prosecution of individuals in the program? Mr. KELLER. It is our opinion, on the basis of the facts we developed in the 15 cases, that it was not justified at that point. Mr. DINGELL. And you didn't allude to the Bowen case? |