lack of concern and lax enforcement have led some Americans to believe that there is a double standard. One for them and one for the "big guys:" If you are powerful, politically connected, an appointee of a popular President, and your conduct is questionable, OGE acts like a St. Bernard and comes to the rescue. If you aren't big, aren't connected, aren't wealthy, the Feds come on like Doberman pinschers—tough luck.

Today's hearing is the first in a series on ethics in government. We will today begin to examine the mission, organization, operation and performance of the Office of Government Ethics.

The Office of Government Ethics, or OGE, was established under Title IV of the Ethics in Government Act to provide direction to the Executive Branch on policies aimed at preventing conflict-of-interests by Federal employees.

Specifically, OGE was empowered to implement financial disclosure requirements, enforce ethical standards of conduct, develop regulations on post-employment activities and monitor and investigate executive agency ethics programs.

For some months, the subcommittee has dissected the Office of Government Ethics under our microscope. After that examination, we have found that Congress is not getting what it expected when it created OGE to oversee the Executive Branch Ethics Program. Our investigation has disclosed that while OGE is fulfilling some of its mandated responsibilities, it has been lax in carrying out its most important duties.

The subcommittee staff found that OGE was quite responsive in providing prompt legal advice, and in conducting ethics training for some government employees. These are important services and certainly help to prevent ethics violations.

However, when it comes to tackling the more difficult challenges of the job—such as providing ethics policy guidance to the many departments and agencies, or ensuring that the ethical standards of conduct are uniformly and stringently enforced—OGE has simply failed to fill the leadership role which Congress outlined for it in the Ethics Act.

Further, OGE does not regularly collect any basic management data to fulfill its responsibilities for continuously monitoring Federal agency ethics programs. As a result, OGE is out of touch with the agencies and is often unable to identify and correct problems before they become crises.

Finally, it is important to note that OGE was created by Congress to fill an enforcement vacuum. Congress decided in 1978 that a central office was needed which would vigilantly enforce administrative sanctions against those Federal officials and employees who violated the ethical standards of conduct.

Congress concluded that the agencies were not adequately enforcing those standards. Thus, OGE was given administrative enforcement authority and a clear mandate to use it.

As we will hear from several of our witnesses today, OGE has failed to exercise this crucial authority. Some have suggested that this supposed watchdog is more a toothless terrier on valium.

In the wake of revelations about Michael Deaver's post-White House conduct, and in light of the apparent interest of some to "deregulate" or "privatize" the Executive Branch Ethics Program, a number of laws have been proposed to tighten ethical standards, particularly the criminal post-employment laws which apply to former government officials.

However, before Congress enacts this type of legislation, we ought to ask whether the problem is a lack of necessary laws or whether instead the problem is inadequate enforcement of the existing laws.

Our hearing today will attempt to answer these questions as they apply to the Federal Executive Branch.

Our witnesses will focus on a variety of subjects, all related to the operation of the Executive Branch Ethics Program and to OGE's role within it.

Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Fred Wertheimer, President of Common Cause, a citizens' organization that has made government ethics a major focus of its work.

We will then hear from Stanley Brand, who was General Counsel to the Clerk of the House of Representatives when the Ethics in Government Act was enacted. Mr. David H. Martin, the Director of the Office of Governments Ethics will then testify about the current Executive Branch Ethics Program. He will be followed by Gerald H. Yamada, Deputy General Counsel, designated Agency Ethics Official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr. Gabriele J. Paone, Deputy Agency Ethics and Audit Coordination Official, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Mr. Yamada and Mr. Paone will discuss ethics problems at their agencies.

The witnesses are advised that a copy of the House rules is available for your reference and will be there at the table. I refer to House Rule XII, Clause (k).

Do you wish to have counsel with you, Mr. Wertheimer?

TESTIMONY OF FRED WERTHEIMER, PRESIDENT, COMMON CAUSE, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAL FREEDMAN, ATTORNEY, COMMON CAUSE

Mr. Wertheimer. Not counsel, Mr. Chairman, but I am accompanied by Michal Freedman, who works on this issue on our staff and who is an attorney.

Mr. Sikorski. Will she be providing testimony?

Mr. Wertheimer. She may.

Mr. Sikorski. In that case, Ms. Freedman, do you wish to have counsel present?

Ms. Freedman. No.

Mr. Sikorski. Do either of you have objections to being sworn?

Mr. Wertheimer. No.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Sikorski. Go ahead, Mr. Wertheimer.

Mr. Wertheimer. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to appear on behalf of Common Cause to discuss the role of the Office of Government Ethics in providing direction and oversight for Executive Branch ethics policy.

I have provided a more complete statement to the committee which we would like to ask be inserted in the record and then I will summarize my comments.

Mr. Sikorski. Without objection, that will be appropriate and we appreciate that.

I have had occasion to read it through and I think you have done an excellent job. I hope you don't rub too many edges away in your summary.

Mr. Wertheimer. Thank you.

We believe that the standards of public service for this country are profoundly threatened today. We are faced with a crisis in the ethical standards and activities of our public officials.

We see this crisis in continuing revelations about ethics problems of high-level government officials and the crisis is exacerbated by an Office of Government Ethics not paying attention to the various ethics problems facing the government.

The problem really is twofold. You see a series of public stories, public allegations, charges, questions raised about the activities of public officials. That is one set of problems, and then almost invariably you see nothing done with those problems, you see no resolution, you do not see government statements explaining whether they are right or wrong, whether anyone objects to it, and that, of course, is a second set of problems and one that comes directly within the purview of the Office of Government Ethics.

We are very pleased that you are holding this subcommittee hearing and investigation into this matter. We believe as an organization that these questions are very fundamental questions. They are basic to the issue of whether you have an honest government, whether you have integrity in government, whether people can have confidence in government.

We also believe that a vigorous Office of Government Ethics could do much to ensure that government officials honor the highest standards of ethics. Instead, the current office in our view falls far short of that goal, providing virtually no leadership.

Congress did intend this office to play a forceful role in enforcement of ethics standards against even our highest officials. If we are to have an effective ethics government program, the agency must play an active role in identifying problem areas in the law, providing formal guidance and interpretation of those issues. It goes without saying that the Office of Government Ethics should avoid confusing and misinterpreting the law.

In our testimony, we set forth a review of the OGE's oversight of major allegations of unethical conduct by high-level officials. The review in our opinion indicates how reluctant OGE has been to pursue questionable conduct by senior officials. It discusses OGE's reluctance to issue regular public findings containing its evaluation of the conduct of high level officials about whom allegations of wrongdoing have been made, its apparent failure to order corrective actions and its apparent limited review of the allegations against such officials.

Abuse of the public trust by public officials as a potential problem of governing is not a new phenomenon. We have always faced the situation where individuals have been willing to compromise integrity and government for their private ends. That is not the issue.

The issue is how government deals with these problems, whether it treats them seriously, whether it tries to prevent them and whether it sends a message to the citizens of this country that it cares about these issues.

One of the most profound changes I have seen over the last ten years on the issues and ethics question goes to the fact that in the past, wrongdoing, self-dealing, was done secretly. It was hidden and the reason is because there was a basic concept that these actions were wrong, that they were improper and that if you got caught doing them publicly, there would be a price to pay.

Today we see blatant activities, perhaps the largest, greatest symbol of it is Mr. Deaver posing on the cover of Time Magazine as a symbol of influence peddling in Washington, but it reflects a larger attitude, an "anything goes" attitude, the kind of attitude that not only does not protect the public from wrongdoing, but almost invites it, sends a message that people can do what they want because no one is going to hold them accountable.

Few things in our view are more discouraging and demoralizing to honest government policies, which is the great bulk of government employees in our society, and to American taxpayers, than the spectacle of public officials cashing in on their positions of public trust without being held to account. No one can reasonably question the importance of a strong government agency to help preserve government ethics.

This is not the role the Office of Government Ethics is playing today. This office was created to provide overall direction on Executive Branch ethics policies.

Among the most important goals of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which established OGE, was the creation of a central agency that would enforce, that would ensure enforcement of ethics violations. The Act explicitly authorizes the Director of OGE to order corrective action for agencies and employees.

As part of OGE's enforcement functions, the Senate Government Affairs Committee in its 1983 report on reauthorizing OGE emphasized the importance of OGE issuing public reports concerning its findings in cases involving highly visible public firms.

A necessary responsibility of OGE, therefore, is to inquire into, review, and analyze allegations of wrongdoings, particularly when they are related to high-level officials.

These responsibilities constitute important functions of an effective agency. Where allegations are made against high-level officials, they are all the more important.

The notion of the need for a strong agency at the time the Act was created is a very basic and simple one and it reflects the history of these kinds of issues.

Absent enforcement, absent the appearance of enforcement, absent a sense that people care and are going to hold people accountable, you are setting the stage for laws and rules to be violated, even the best of laws and rules.

Even with the problems we have with our Internal Revenue system today and peoples' noncompliance, the fact of the matter is the great bulk of people in our society comply with tax laws. They do it voluntarily, the whole system is based on voluntary compliance.

Most of them do it, I believe, because of the commitment to this country and to being honest and straightforward, but there is also a sense and a recognition that there is a price to pay for not complying with those rules, with tax laws.

I don't believe anyone in this city today has a sense that there is any price to pay for not complying with ethics rules except for perhaps having the media do the job of making these things public and sticking with them long enough so that there has to be a political decision made that this is too much of a problem for the problem to continue.

But in terms of the sense of creating a climate of voluntary compliance, which is what enforcement is about in our society, there is no climate whatsoever today, and we believe that the Office of Government Ethics is responsible for creating that climate under this law, and is responsible through its actions for the fact that the climate has not been created.

Under the structure established in the Ethics in Government Act, designated agency ethics officials known as DAEO's have firstline responsibility for taking action to remedy violations of ethics standards.

Because DAEO's are frequently general counsels or staff within general counsel's office, they are often subordinate to the political appointees whose conduct among others they are meant to oversee.

In many cases, they are not subordinate, but when you are dealing with high-level officials, they are and it is that kind of complex situation that in part OGE was intended to deal with and that it is particularly important for OGE to pay attention to because it is very hard from a practical matter for the first-line agency officials to carry out the function of holding the highest officials in our government accountable for ethics activities.

If we look at the words of Mr. Martin, the present head of OGE, they spell out certain kinds of activities that would make sense, at least his belief that they should be carried out.

For example, in an interview in U.S. News and World Report in April 1986, he said,

Anytime a charge of conflict of interest or misconduct is brought to our attention or we find out about it, we investigate.

At his confirmation hearings in 1983, Mr. Martin said,

Where there is any question of an official's status, in terms of his compliance with the Ethics in Government Act, the OGE should issue a public statement.

Those two statements, I think, are very important. They go to a key part of what Mr. Martin has defined as the responsibilities of OGE and the question of whether those responsibilities are being carried out.

We have attempted through a study that is included in our testimony to try to measure to what extent these activities are occurring and I want to review it with you in brief.

In advance, however, I would like to make the point that there are basic limitations on what we or any other outside group or representative of the media or anyone else who is interested in this can find out.

Bottom line, I think the question facing this committee and OGE goes to establishing precisely what their record has been in dealing with these matters.