POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 26, 2012
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: October 17, 1988
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
STAT
STAT
NOTE FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
flCtFilef
17 October 1988
CCA 3454-88
C/Administrative Law Division/OGC
Office of Congressional Affairs
*Post-Employment Restrictions
Attached for your information is a copy of H.R. 5043, the
"Post-Employment Restriction Act of 1988." The Act recently
passed the House. I had sent you an earlier version of the
bill in August. A companion bill passed the Senate in April.
Attachnent
STAT ocA/LEG,
18 Oct 88
Distribution:
Orig - addressee
1 - D/OCA (w/o att.)
1.7 DDL/OCA(w/o att.)
Records (w/att.rm
1 - DMP Chrono (w/o att.) --
1 - OCA/LEG Subj File (w/att.)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
mummer Lr,, .i.ovic .7 A...0INitthitteSSIUNAL ifiliWitta-i--:HOUSE 1 11 10081
men . and staffs of the Energy .and ..r----"--...*. POSTEMPLOYMENT quest for a ruling or tither &termination.
? Commerce Committee and the Public RESTRICTIONS ACT OF I988 contract, claim, contanversy, -investigation,
? Works Committee, a compromise has Mr-. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I move to tharge' aumatt??' wrest' or other Pull"-
been fashioned which I understand suspend the rules and pass the bili "0+ in which mach person knows that the
? tar matter?
meets the concerns of all interested R. 5043') to amend section 207 of United States bi a ONTO or has a direct and
parties. ? .,ltitle I8,. United States Code, relating substantial interest,
In particular, the provision now con- to restrictions on postemployment ac- .?"tio? which such persOn knowswas actual-
tallied hi the bill allows carowners to titaties, at amended. . . . ly pending under his or-her official responsi-
whom a State has issued title to grant The Clerk read as follows bility as such officer or employee within a
it power of attorney to the automobile period of 1 year before the termination of
dealer where title at the time of sa the Be it enacted by the b?43 Setrate and Rouse of his or her service- or employment with the
le United States Government,. tuid . is physically held by a lienholder. Representatives of ? the United States of "tiii3 which involved a, spetific party- or
Limiting the use of the power of atter-- America in Compress assembled, specific parties at the thDE it was so pend-
near to this "first sale" instance should memos 1. SifORTITILa ? " ing,
sestet auto dealers in. completing the This Act may be cited as the "Post-Em- shall be punished as provided in subsection
sales transaction while affording suffi- olornent Restrictions Act of 1988". (g). ?
dent safeguards against odometer SEC. 2: aearRicrIONS ON rOSMAITIOTNIENT AC- "(3) ONE-YEAR REIGTNIcrioNs win' assescr
fraud. In particular, TR
the provision pre- TIMES. To TRADE NEGOCCIRTJ,ONS.?Any MESON subject
Vents auto dealers from executing (a) RESTRICTIONS.?Section 207 of title ill,. to the restrictions contained in paragraph
United' States Code, is amended to read as (1) who, within 1. year after ,his or her sere
powers of attorney in later transfers follows: .ice or employment with the United. States
of the vehicle and from. creating long "V 207. Restrictions on former officers, employ-- Government tesminales, knowingly?
paper trails that are difficult for law em, and elected officials of the executive and "(A) acts as agent or attorney for, or all-
enforcement officials to- trace. . itristative branches: restrictions on partners of erwise represents, aids, or advises any other
In our effort to balance the conmet- cedilla current officers and employees of the Pei hull (except the United States) Concern-
ing demands of auto dealers and State executive branch ?Mg any formal or informal appearance
consumer affairs' officials, I- believe it "(a) RESTRICTIms Cas All? ?SEWERS AND befare' or
"(BY es, with to
is important to reiterate Congress' EMPLOYEES OF TEE ENGcOisVE BRANCH AND
an mak
y communic the hitt influence,ation on behalf of any other
desire to protect the ultimate ma- personAGENCIES ?
..( 1) ptimanarr. REsmicuoNs..Any person (except the United States) to,
er of the- used car. The policy which any department, agency, court, or .court-
person who is an officer or employee or the
underlies the Federal truth-in-mileagemartial of the United States, or any officer
executive branch of the United States Gov-
laws is to protect the consumer. from errmient, or of any Independent agency of or employee thereof, in connection with any
unscrupulous car salesmen who roll the United States (including the Govern- tratienegotiatten?
back odometers and fraudulently rep- ment Printing Office and the General Ac- "ti) in which :such person knows- that the
resent high.roneage autos as low-mile- counting Office), including the Preskient, United States is a? party or has a direct and
age ones I hope the use of powers of the Wee President, and any special Govern-
substantial interest, and
attorney in auto- sales does not exacer- ment employee, and who, after his or her "(11)(1) whieh such person knee b was actu-
service . or employment with the. United ally pending under his or her official re-
bate the gtroblem Of odometer tamper- States Government tetininates, knawingly? sponsibility as such officer or employee
lag. However; If it does, I expect that "(A) acts as agent -or attorney for, or oth- within a period of 1 year before the tenni-
my colleagues will join me In working erwise represents, ?tee, er advises may other nation of his- or her service or emphayrnent
with State officials arid the National person (except the United States) concern- with the United States Government, or
Highway Traffic Safety Adrainistra- Ina any formal or informal appearance "(Il) in which- such person partied
Min in cracking dovn on such fraud, before, or ? personally and substantially as such officer
notwithstanding any perceived incon- "(B) makes, with the intent to influence, ? or employee-within a period oft year-before
? venience for auto saleS. any commiiniention on helaiat of any ? other the termination Of or her service or em-
person (except the United States) to, ployment with the United States Govern-
I would like to thank . again Chair- any department,, agency, court, or court- !mat,
man Guam Amnerson and Chairman martial of the United Stales, or any officer shall be punished as provided in subsection
Joan I:inmate and their staffs and or employee thereof, in connection with any (gt For purposes- of this parsgraph, the
commend- them for their cooperation judicial or other proceeding, application, re- term grade negotiation' means- negotiations
and assistance in this iraportant issue. guest for a ruling or other determination, undertaken to enter Into- a trade agreement
Mr SHARP Mr eaker r have no contract, chine controversy, investigation, pursuant to- section 1102 of the- Omnibus
. . . Sp
further requests for time , , and I yield ctmrge, accusation, arrest, or other particle Trade and Competittveness Act. of 1988.
lar matter?? This paragraph applies only in a case in
back the balance of my time. ?"U) in which such. person knows that the which neither paragraph (1) or ( this
The of is
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. United States is a party or has a &reel and subsection applies. . ?
GRAY of Illinois). The ?question is on substantial interest, "tb), ONE-Ygsa Rasnizmicers ox- Cmnini
the motion offered by the gentleman "ail in which the person participated Per- SeamitExactiront Rem= leinsotima..?
from Indiana [Mr. Sauer" that the scmally and substantially as such. officer or "(I) Fhtsrerenoris.?In addition to the re-
House suspend the rides and- agree to employee through decision, approver, disap- sirietions set- forth in subsection (a), any
the resoluticro prover,. recommendation, the rendering of person whols an officer or Employee of the
, House Resoulutiou 583. advice, investigation, or otherwise executive ,and exutive branch or an Independent agency
The question was taken; and (two- -(iii) which involved a, specific party or (Including, the Government Printing Office
thirds having voted in favor thereof) speetne parries at the time of such partial- and the General Accounting Office). who- is
the rules were suspended and. the reso- pation, referred to in. paragraph (2) (other than a
lution was agreed to.? shall be punished as provided in subsection special Government employee who serves
A motion to -reconsider was laid on (g). , less than- 60 days intim 1-year period- before
the table? "(2) Tviceessa eastrammons.--Any person - his or her service or employment as such
subject to the-restrictions contained in pant- employee termixates); and. who; within 1
? graph (1) who, within 2 years after his or year after his ar her service or employment
GENERAL LEAVE ? her service or employment with the United as latch officer or emoirmee terminates.
States Gcwenament terminates. knowingly? knowingly?
Mr. .81-TARP. Mr. Speaker. I. ,ask .1A), acts as agent or attorney for, or ofe. - "(A) cs a a agent or attorney for, or oth-
unanimous consent that all. Members erwise, reprecenta, any other person (except erwise represente, any other- person- texcept
may have 5 legislative days in which to the United States). in any formal or infor- the Limited States) trt-any-formal or Infor-
revise and extend their remarks On malaPpearance nelom. or ? . . mal appearance before, or, -
House Resolution 583, the resolution ? -(3) makes, with the intent to Influence. -Cal makes. with the intent to influence,
knit agreed to.? any communication on behalf of any other any emmuniCallan on behalf 01 any Person
The pro? tempore. is person (except the liniteciStatesi-to, (except the United States) to,
any department, agency.. court, or court- any department or- agency in -which such
there Objection to the request of the ?martial of the United States, or any -officer person served wit:hirer year Wpm- such per-.
gentleman from Indiana?-or employee thereof, in connectkm, with any - son's-service or empboyment: as such officer
There was no- objection.?judicial or other proceeding. application. re- - or employee terminated, or-any- otheer or
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part -
! ? H 10082
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE ? October 12, 1988
employee thereof, - in connection with any
judicial, rulemaking, or other proceeding,
application, request for a ruling or other de-
termination, contract, claim, controversy,
Investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or
other particular matter, which such person
knows Is pending before such department or
agency or in which such person knows that
such department or agency has a direct and
substantial interest, shall be punished as
provided in subsection (g).
"(2) PERSONS TO WHOM RESTRICTIONS
APPLY.--(A) Paragraph (1) shall apply to a
person (other than a person subject to the
restrictions of subsection (c) or (d))?
"(i) employed at a rate of pay fixed ac-
cording to subchapter II of chapter 53 of
title 5, or a comparable or greater rate of
pay under other authority, or
"(ii) employed in a position which involves
significant decisionmaking or supervisory
responsibility, as designated by the Director
of the Office of Government Ethics, in con-
sultation with the department or agency
concerned.
Only positions which are not referred to in
clause (I), and for which the basic rate of
pay is equal to or greater than the basic
rate of pay payable for GS-17 of the Gener-
al Schedule, or positions which are estab-
lished within the Senior Executive Service
pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978, or positions held by active duty com-
missioned officers of the uniformed services
who are serving in a grade or rank for which
the pay grade (as specified in section 201 of
title 37) is pay grade 0-7 or 0-8, may be des-
ignated under clause (ii).
"(B) With respect to persons in positions
designated under subparagraph (A)(ii), the
Director of , the Office of Government
Ethics may limit the restrictions of para-
graph (1) to permit a former officer or em-
ployee, who served in a separate agency or
bureau within a department or agency, to
make appearances before or communica-
tions to persons in an unrelated agency or
bureau, within the same department or
agency, having separate and distinct subject
matter jurisdiction, upon a determination
by the Director that there exists no poten-
tial for use of undue influence or unfair ad-
vantage based on past government service.
On an annual basis, the Director of the
Office of Government Ethics shall review
the designations made under subparagraph
(A)(1i) and the determinations made under
this subparagraph and, in consultation with
the department or agency concerned, make
such additions and deletions as are neces-
sary. Departments and agencies shall coop-
erate to the fullest extent with the Director
of the Office of Government Ethics in the
exercise of the Director's responsibilities
under this paragraph.
."(C) RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER SENIOR EXEC-
UTIVE Bastion PERSONNEL.?In addition to
the restrictions set forth in subsection (a),
any person who?
"(1) is appointed to a position in the exec-
utive branch or an independent agency (in-
cluding the Government Printing Office
and the General Accounting Office) which
is listed in section 5314, 5315, or 5316 of title
5, or
"(2) is appointed by the President to a po-
sition under section 105(aX2)(B) of title 3 or
by the Vice President to a position under
section 106(a)(1)(B) of title 3.
and who, within 1 year after that person's
service in that position terminates, knowing-
ly?
"(A) acts as agent or attorney for, or oth-
erwise represents, any other person (except
the United States) in any formal or infor-
mal appearance before. or
"(B) makes, with the intent lo influence,
any communication on behalf Of any other
person (except the United States) to,
any department or agency in which such
person served within 1 year before such per-
son's service in such position terminated, or
any officer or employee thereof, in connec-
tion with any judicial, rulemaking, or other
proceeding, application, request for a ruling
or other determination, contract, claim. con-
troversy, investigation, charge, accusation,
arrest, or other particular matter in which
such person knows that the United States is
a party or has a direct and substantial inter-
est, shall be punished as provided in subsec-
tion (g).
"(d) RESTRICTIONS ON VERY SENIOR EXECU-
TIVE BRANCH PEasoman..?(1) In addition to
the restrictions set forth in subsection (a),
any person who?
"(A) serves in the position of President or
Vice President of the United States,
"(B) is appointed to a position in the exec-
utive branch or an independent agency (in-
cluding the Government Printing Office
and the General Accounting Office) which
Is listed in section 5312 or 5313 of title 5,
"(C) is appointed by the President to a po-
sition under section 105(a)(2)(A) of title 3 or
by the Vice President to a position under
section 106(a)(1)(A) of title 3, or
"(D) serves on active duty as a commis-
sioned officer of a uniformed service in a
grade or rank for which the pay grade (as
specified in section 201 of title 37) is pay
grade 0-9 or 0-10,
and who, within 1 year after that person's
service in that position terminates, knowing-
ly?
"(I) acts as agent or attorney for, or other-
wise represents, any other person (except
the United States) in any formal or infor-
mal appearance before, or
"(ii) makes, with the intent to influence,
any communication on behalf of any other
person (except the United States) to,
any department, agency, or person de-
scribed in paragraph (2), in connection with
any judicial, rulemaking, or other proceed-
ing, application, request for a ruling or
other determination, contract, claim, con-
troversy, investigation, charge, accusation,
arrest, or other particular matter in which
such person knows that the United States is
a party or has a direct and substantial inter-
est, shall be punished as provided in subsec-
tion (g).
"(2) The departments, agencies, and per-
sons referred to in paragraph (1) uith re-
spect to appearances or communications by
a person in a position described in subpara-
graph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1)
are?
"(A) any department or agency in which
such person served in such position within a
period of 1 year before such person's service
or employment with the United States Gov-
ernment terminated, and any officer or em-
ployee of such department or agency,
"(B) any other person appointed to a posi-
tion in the executive branch which is listed
in section 5312, 5313, 5314, 5315, or 5316 of
title 5, and
"(C) in the case of a former President or
Vice President, the following: any depart-
ment or agency in the executive branch of
the United States Government, any inde-
pendent agency of the United States, and
any officer or employee of any such depart-
ment or agency.
"(e) Rigsrarcrioss ON MEMBERS or CON-
GRESS AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES or THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.?
"(1) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND ELECTED OF-
FICERS.--(A) Any person who is a Member of
Congress or an elected officer of either
House of -Congress and 'who, within 1 year
after that person leaves office, knowingly?
"(i) acts as agent or attorney for, or other-
wise represents, any other person (except
the United States) in any...formal or infor-
mal appearance beforetor ?
"(ii) makes, with the intent to influence,
any communication on behalf of any other
person (except the United States) to,
any of the persons described in subpara-
graph (B), in connection with any matter
which such former Member of Congress or
elected officer knows is pending before the
Congress or any matter on which such
former Member of Congress or elected offi-
cer seeks action by the Congress or by a
Member of Congress in his or her official
capacity, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (g).
"(B) The persons referred to in subpara-
graph (A) with respect to appearances or
communications by a former Member of
Congress or elected officer, are any Member
of Congress, elected officer, or employee of
the House of Congress in which such former
Member or officer served.
"(2) PERSONAL STAFF.?(A) Any person who
is an employee of a Senator or an employee
of a Member of the House of Representa-
tives and who, within 1 year after that em-
ployment terminates, knowingly?
"(i) acts as agent or attorney for, or other-
wise represents, any other person (except
the United States) in any formal or infor-
mal appearance before, or
"(ii) makes, with the intent to influence,
any communication on behalf of any other
person (except the United States) to,
any of the persons described in subpara-
graph (B), in connection with any matter
which such former employee knows is pend-
ing before the Congress or any matter on
which such former employee seeks action by
the Congress or by a Member of Congress in
his or her official capacity, shall be pun-
ished as provided in subsection (g).
"(B) The persons referred to in subpara-
graph (A) with respect to appearances or
communications by a person who is a
former employee are the following:
"(I) the Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives of whom that person was
an employee; and
"(ii) any employee of that Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives.
"(3) CornarrrEs sTsrr?Any person who is
an employee of a committee of Congress
and who, within 1 year after that person's
employment as such employee terminates,
knowingly?
"(A) acts as agent or attorney for, or oth-
erwise represents, any other person (except
the United States) in any formal or infor-
mal appearance before, or
"(B) makes, with the intent to influence,
any communication on behalf of any other
person (except the United States) to,
any person who is an employee of that com-
mittee of Congress, in connection with any
matter which such former employee knows
is pending before the Congress or any
matter on which such former employee
seeks action by the Congress or by a
Member of Congress in his or her official
capacity, shall be punished as provided in
subsection (g).
"(4) LEADERSHIP STAFF.?(A) Any person
who is an employee on the leadership staff
of the House of Representatives or an em-
ployee on the leadership staff of the Senate
and who, within 1 year after that person's
employment on such staff terminates know-
ingly?
acts as agent or attorney *for, or other-
wise represents, any ? other person (except
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
October 12,1.988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE H 10083
the United States) in any formal or hafor- ethority of the minority party leadership of
mai appearance before, or the House of Representatives
"(ii) makes, with the intent to influence, "(H) the term 'employee on the leadership
any -communication on behalf of any other _staff of the Senate' means an employee of
person (except the United States) to. ' the office of a Member of the leadership of
the Senate described in subparagraph (L), -
"(I) the term 'Member of Congress' means
a Senator or a Member of the House of Rep-
resentatives;
"(J) the term 'Member of the House of
Representatives' means a Representative in,
or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress;
"(K) the term 'Member of the leadership
of the House of Representatives' means the
Speaker, majority leader, minority leader,
majority whip, minority whip, chief majori-
ty whip, chief minority whip. Democratic
Steering Committee, Democratic Caucus.
Republican Conference, Republican Re-
search Committee, and Republican Police
Committee, of the House of Representa-
tives; and
"(L) the term 'Member of the leadership
of the Senate' means the Vice President,
and the President pro tempore, -Deputy
President pro tempore, majority leader, mi-
nority leader, majority whip, minority whip.
Conference of the Majority, Conference of
the Minority, chairman and secretary of the
Conference of the Majority or Conference
of the Minority, Majority Policy Committee,
and Minority Policy Committee, of the
Senate.
"(f) OFFENSES LIMITED TO ACTS FOR COM-
PENSATION.?(I) An act does not constitute
an offense under subsection (a), (b), (c), (d),
or (e) unless the act is done for compensa-
tion.
"(2) As used in this subsection, the term
'compensation' means ? anything of value
which is provided, directly or indirectly, for
services rendered, including a payment, gift,
benefit, reward, favor, or gratuity.
"(g) PENALTIES.?The punishment for an
offense under subsection (a). (b), (e), (d), or
(e) is the following:
"(/) Any person who engages in the con-
duct constituting the offense shall be im-
prisoned for not more than 1 year or fined
In the amount set forth in this title, or both.
"(2) Any person who willfully engages in
the -conduct constituting the offense shall
be imprisoned for not more than 2 years or
fined in the amount set forth in this title, or
troth.
"(h1 GENERAL EXC.EPTIONS.?
"(I ) CERTAIN ELECTED one-curs AND EM-
PLOYEES.?(A) The restrictions contained in
subsection (a) shall not apply to any appear-
an employee of a committee of the House of -anee, communication, or representation
Representatives, an employee of a joint which_ is made in carrying out official duties
-committee of the Congress whose pay is dis- as an elected official of a State or local gov-
ernment.
'ell) The restrictions contained in subsec-
tions (a)(2), (a)(3), (b), (e), (de and (e) shall
not apply to any appearance, eonummica-
tion, or representation by a foi mem Member
of Congress or officer or employee of the
executive or legislative branch, which is
made in carrying out official duties as?
"(1) an elected official of a State or local
government, or
"(ii) an employee of (I) an agency or in-
strumentality of a State or local govern-
ment, (II) an institution of higher educa-
tion, as -defined in section 1201(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1985, or (III) a hos-
pital or medical research organization de-
scribed in section 501(eX3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax
any of the persons - described hi subpara-
graph (B), in connection with any matter
which such person knows is pending before
the Congress or any matter on which such
former employee seeks action by the Con-
gress or a Member of Congress in his or her
official capacity, shall be punished as pro-
vided in subsection (g).
"(B) The persons referred to in subpara-
? graph (A) with respect to appearances or
communications by a former employee are
the following:
"(i) in the case of a former employee on
the leadership staff of the Rouse of Repre-
sentatives, those persons are any Member of
the leadership of the Rouse of Representa-
tives, and any employee on the leadership
staff of the Rouse of Representatives; and
? "CO) in the case of a former employee on
the leadership staff of the Senate, those
persons are any Member of the leadership
of the Senate, and any employee on the
leadership staff of the Senate. ,
"(5) Loam-now ON RESTRICTIONS.?(A)
The restrictions contained in paragraphs
(2), (3), and (4)- imply only to acts by a
former employee who was paid for services
rendered as such employee at a rate of pay
equal to or greater than the basic rate of
pay payable for GS-17 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, for a
period of more than 60 days during the 1-
year period before that former employee's
. service as such employee terminated, -
e(B) The restrictions contained in para-
graphs (2), (3), and (4) shall not apply to
any appearance, communication, or repre-
sentation by a former Member of Congress,
elected officer, or employee which is made
In carrying out official duties as an officer
or employee of the United States Govern-
ment
"(6) Dearnnexons.--As used in this subsec-
tion?
"(A) the term 'committee of Congress' in-
cludes standing committees, joint commit-
tees, and select committees:
"(B) a person is an employee of a House of
Congress if that person is an employee of
the Senate or an employee of the House of
Representatives;
"(C) the term 'employee of the House of
Representatives' means an employee of a
Member of the House of Representatives,
bursed by the Clerk of the House of Repre-
sentatives, and an employee on the leader-
ship staff of the Rause a Representatives,:
"(D) the term 'employee- of the Senate'
means an. employee of a Senator, an em-
ployee of a committee of the Senate, an em-
ployee of a joint committee of the Congress
whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate, and an employee on the leader-
ship staff of the Senate;
e(E) a person is an employee of a Member
of the House of Representatives if that
person is an employee of a Member of the
House of Representatives under the clerk
hire allowance;
"(F) a person Isere employee of a Senator
If that person is an employee in- a position
in the office of a Senator
"(G.) the term 'employee on the leadership --under section 501(a) of such Code, if the ap-
staff of the Souse of Representatives' pearance, -comimmication. or representation
means an employee of the office of a is on behalf of such government, institution,
Member of the leadership -of the Rouse of -hosrdtaleor-organisation.
Representatives described in subparagraph eel) lernsaiterronee ORGANIZATIONS.?"The
(K)-the minority sergeant-at, armse and any -restrictions contained in subsections (a)(2),
policy-level employee appointed under au- (a)(3), Cb). ice (d), and (e) shall not apply to
the representation of, or advice or aid to, an
international organisation of which -the
United States is a member.
"(3) PUBLIC SPEECHES AND APPEARANCES.?
The restrictions contained in subsections
Os), tel, (d), and (e) shall not apply to the
making of" public speeches or public appear-
ances.
e(i) DESIGNATION! OF SEPARATE STATUTORY
AGENcIES AND BUREAUS.?
"(1) Desnaterross.?Por purposes of sub-
sections (b) and (e), and except as provided
In paragraph (2). whenever the Director of
the Office of Government Ethics deter-
mines that a separate statutory agency or
bureau within a department or agency in
the executive branch exercises functions
which are distinct and separate from the re-
maining functions of the department or
agency, the Director shall by rule designate
such agency or bureau as a separate- depart-
ment or agency.
"(2) INAPPLICABILITY or DESIGNAI Itlf(b.?(A )
A designation of an agency or bureau under
paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to?
"fie a former head of that designated
agency or bureau; and
"(ii) any former officer or employee of the
department or agency within which the des-
ignated agency or bureau exists, if the offi-
cial responsibilities of the officer or employ-
ee included supervision of that designated
agency or bureau. .
"(B) No agency or bureau within the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President may be des-
ignated under paragraph (1) as a separate
department or agency.
"(C) Even if an agency or bureau is desig-
nated under paragraph (1), a person subject
to the restrictions-set forth in subsection (c)
may not make any representation or other
appearance prohibited by that subsection
before, and may not make any communica-
tion prohibited by that subsection to, any
person who is serving in a position set forth
in section 5312, 5313, 5314, 5315, or 5316 of
title 5, In the department or agency within
which the designated agency or bureau
exists.
e(j) Estee-rum FOR SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNO-
',mom INFORMATION.?The restrictions con-
tained in subsections (a), (b), (c). and (d)
shall not apply with respect to the making
of communications by .a former officer or
employee solely for the purpose of furnish-
ing actentitic or technological information,
such communications are made under pro-
cedures acceptable to the department or
agency concerned or if the head of the de-
partment or agency concerned with the par-
ticular matter, in consultation with the Di-
rector of the Office of Government Ethics,
makes a certification, published in the Fed-
eral Register, that the former officer or em-
ployee has outstanding qualifications in a
scientific, technologkal, or other technical
discipline, and is acting with respect to a
particular matter which requires such quali-
fications, and that the national interest
would be served by the participation of the
former officer or employee.
"(k) RESTRICTIONS ON PARTNERS OF OFFI-
ems AND EMPLOYEES.?Any person who is a
partner of an officer or employee of the ex-
ecutive branch of the United States Govern-
ment, or of any independent agency of the
United States (Including the Government
Printing Office and the-General Accounting
Office), including the President,' the Vice
President, and- any special Government em-
ployee, said who knowingly acts as agent or
attorney for anyone other than the United
States ? before any department, agency,
=court, or court-martial of the United States,
or any officer or employee thereof, -in con-
nection with any judicial or other proceed-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
H 10084
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE October 12, 1988
ing. application, request for a ruling or
other determination, contract, claim, con-
troversy, investigation, charge, accusation,
arrest., or other particular matter in which
such person knows that?
"(1) the United States is a party or has a
direct and substantial interest, and
"(2)-such officer or employee or special
Government employee participates or has
participated personally and substantially as
an officer or employee through decision, ap-
proval, disapproval, recommendation, the
rendering of advice, investigation, or other-
wise,
shall be imprisoned for not more than 1
year or fined in the amount set forth in this
title, or both.
"(1) RECEPTION FOR TssrimoNT.?Nothing
In this section shall prevent a former
Member of Congress or officer or employee
of the executive or legislative branch from
giving testimony under oath, or from
making statements required to be made
under penalty of perjury.
"(DI) ADMINISTRATIVE DEBARMENT.?
"(1) AIITDORITY.?If the head of a depart-
ment or agency in which a former officer or
employee of the executive branch or of an
independent agency served finds, after
notice and an opportunity for a hearing,
that such former officer or employee know-
ingly engaged in conduct constituting an of-
fense under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of
this section, such department or agency
head may prohibit that person from
making, on behalf of any other person
(except the United States), any informal or
formal appearance before, or, with the
intent to influence, any communication to,
such department or agency on a pending
matter of business for a period of not more
than 5 years, or may take other appropriate
disciplinary action. For purposes of this sub-
section, proof of conduct constituting an of-
fense must be established by a preponder-
ance:of the evidence. -
"(2) REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.?ADY
-disciplinary action under paragraph (1)
shall be subject to review in an appropriate
United States district court.
"(3) PROCEDURES.?Departments and agen-
cies in the executive branch and independ-
ent agencies shall, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Government
Ethics, establish procedures to carry out
this subsection.
"-(n) Civn. PENavrrEs.?The Attorney Gen-
eral may bring a civil action in the appropri-
ate United States district court against any
person who engages in conduct constituting
an offense under subsection (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e), or (j) and, upon proof of such conduct
by a preponderance of the evidence, such
person shall be subject to a civil penalty of
-not more than $50,000, or the amount of
compensation which the person receives for
the prohibited conduct, whichever amount
is greater. The imposition of a civil penalty
under this subsection does not preclude any
other remedy which is available by law to
the United States or any other person.
"(o) Isurrscrivs RELIEF.?If the Attorney
General has reason to believe that a person
is engaging in conduct constituting an of-
fense under subsection (a), (b). (c), (d), (e),
or (j), the Attorney General may petition an
-appropriate United States district court for
an order prohibiting that person from en-
gaging in such conduct. The court shall
order the trial of the action on the merits to
be advanced and consolidated with the hear-
ing on the petition. The court may issue
such order if it finds that such conduct con-
stitutes such an offense. The filing of a peti-
tion under this subsection does not preclude
any other remedy which is available by law
to the United States or any other person.".
(b) Cormoastratc ADIENDME?rf.?The table
of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by
amending the item relating to section 207 to
read as follows:
"207. Restrictions on former officers, em-
ployees, and elected officials of
the executive and legislative
branches; restrictions on part-
ners of certain current officers
and employees of the executive
branch.".
SEC. & EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) IN GENERAL.?Subject to subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by this
Act take effect 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) EFFECT ON EXPLOYMENT.?(1) The
amendments made by this Act apply only to
persons whose service as a Member of Con-
gress or an officer or employee to which
such amendments apply terminates on or
after the effective date of such amend-
ments.
(2) With respect to service as an officer or
employee which terminates before the ef-
fective date of this Act, section 207 of title
18, United States Code, as in effect at the
time of the termination of such service,
shall continue to apply, on and after such
effective date, with respect to such service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a
second demanded?
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, a second will be consid-
ered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
FRANK) will be recognized for 20 min-
utes and the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. COBLE] will be recog-
nized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. PRANK].
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week the House, in
a courageous fashion, adopted a reso-
lution which dealt with the question
of the rights of employees.
0 1645
It dealt with that very small minori-
ty of situations when employees might
be aggrieved because, I believe from
my experience in 8 years that legiti-
mate complaints would arise in only a
small minority of cases. We are here
today to deal with another situation
where I believe Our respect for this in-
stitution calls on us to pass a law
which will probably be not needed in
very many cases. But I think it is im-
portant that we show that we are fully
prepared to live under the laws that
we set for other people.
When Lyn Nofziger was convicted of
lobbying his former colleagues he
pointed out that the act he had been
convicted of did not apply to Members
of Congress. He was right. That, of
course, is no justification for him
knowingly to have violated the law.
But I do believe that it is legitimate
for us to pass this law which among
other things, would apply to Members
of Congress the restrictions on lobby-
ing one's former colleagues for a 1-
year period.
We do not come here today because
any pattern of egregious abuse has
been brought toward. We do not have
a pattern of Members abusing it.
Members ought to know, yes, there are
former Members who are allowed on
the floor of this House who use other
facilities. In my 8 years here I have
never been lobbied on the floor of the
House by an ex-Member. I believe that
ex-Members are quite scrupulous in
observing the propriety with regard to
that.
But there are ex-Members who do
serve as legislative representatives, a
logical way for them to be employed.
What this bill says is not that that is
an inherently evil practice, but that a
cooling-off period ought to exist. We
are in a very collegial occupation. We
work with each other, we lobby each
other, we do each other favors, we try
to persuade each other. The nature of
the legislative process demands colle-
giality or it does .not work. If there
were 435 atavistic individuals, each de-
ciding on his or her own to do exactly
what he or she wanted, the place
would simply grind to a halt. Good
personal relationships among Mem-
bers are an essential part of this insti-
tution.
? What this bill says is not that there
Is any pool of corruption here, not
that people here are particularly
prone to abuse. Indeed, I believe after
8 years of service here that quite the
contrary is true, that the average level
of ethical and moral .concern here is
higher than it is in the society at
large.
But what we are saying is this:
There ought to be a cooling off period
for 1 year. Why 1 year? Well, there is
never any magic to 1 year as opposed
to 6 months or 11/2 years, but 1 year
seems about right.
What we are saying is this: There
ought to be a 1-year lapse between the
time that we work with each other as
colleagues, as co-Members and the
time when one of us approaches an-
other on behalf of a private interest.
Lobbying is a very legitimate function.
None of us could work well, this insti-
tution would not work well without
well-informed and responsible lobby-
ists.
But there ought to be a cooling-off
period between the time when we ap-
proach each other as full colleagues
and when one approaches the other as
a lobbyist. That is one of the things
this bill does.
Another thing it does is to address
some of the concerns that Whitney
North Seymour outlined when he
made his public statement after the
Deaver case was concluded.
Under the law as it exists now, the
office of Government Ethics can com-
partmentalize agencies for the pur-
poses of this law. So that, as Michael
-Deaver argued, he was allowed in his
judgment to lobby the Office of Man-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
October 12, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
agement and Budget because he was a
special assistant to the President.
Our version of the bill substantially
restricts compartmentalization. It
wipes it out with regard to the high
level executives, the levels 1 and 2 of
the executive compensation and se-
verely restricts it with regard to lower
levels.
There was also a provision in the
bill, as it now exists, as the law now
exists, which says that you cannot
lobby someone only on a matter that
Is of significance to him. So one de-
fense was, "Well, I lobbied the guy,
but he didn't care about it so I am
okay."
We have substantially responded, I
? believe, to what Whitney North Sey-
mour did.
Now there are other differences be-
tween our bill and the bill which
passed the Senate. The differences are
primarily with regard to Members of
Congress, congressional staffs, and
nonpresidentially appointed civil serv-
ants.
Our bill is not as restrictive.
With regard to political people,
elected Members of both Houses and
top Presidential appointees, I believe
we are essentially the same. I think we
target a little better in some ways, but
essentially we are the same. We do not
act as strictly with regard to commit-
tee staff and Members' staffs and with
regard to civil servants. I am pleased
with our position there. One thing
that I received as subcommittee chair-
man from the Reagan administration
were a number of letters, from the
Justice Department, the SEC and
others, saying that the Senate restric-
tions with regard not to the political
appointees, but to the high level civil
servants would make it difficult for us
to recruit people.
I am not worried about recruitment
of Secretaries of State and Members
of the House and the Senate. Shame
on anyone who would turn down a
Cabinet job or the enormous privilege
of serving in this body or the Senate.
And it may this week seem less of a
privilege than it sometimes does. But
It is still about as great a privilege as
can be bestowed upon someone in a
democratic society. Anyone who is de-
terred from accepting that hotior be-
cause he or she might have diminished
postemployment opportunities does
not concern me. But when we are talk-
ing about the hard-working staff, the
staff that sits next to me here that did
such excellent work on this bill and
that served all of us-- so well, when we
are talking about GS-17's and 18's, I
want to be restrictive the way we are
In our bill. The 17's and 18's, they
cannot switch sides, they cannot work
for the Government and then go work
for the opposition. But they are not
subject to the kind of restrictive and I
think excessive bans as they are in the
Senate.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to a
couple of our colleagues who sit here;
the gentlewoman from Ohio f Ms.
KAPrual and the gentleman from
Michigan Mr. WOLPE] because of
their concern as representatives of
American working people with people
who would work for the _American
Government in a trade area and then
quit arid use the expertise acquired in
that work to help people compete with
Americans.
We have in fact some stronger lan-
guage than the Senate does, specifical-
ly with regard to people who would
work for the U.S. Trade Representa-
tive or elsewhere in trade, to prevent
that kind of side-switching to the det-
riment of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that our bill is
enacted. I am going to yield to other
Members. I do at this point want to
mention the excellent work done by a
couple of people. The gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. GLICKMAN] who preceded
me as chairman, who had a very im-
portant set of hearings on this and
really began grappling with this enor-
mously difficult issue where it is possi-
ble to do great harm under the guise
of reform. I think we avoid that. The
gentleman from Kansas is the one
who began confronting that issue.
I am enormously grateful to that
very helpful legacy that he left me.
I also want to pay tribute to the
chairman of the committee, the gen-
tleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Ronmo]. I know this is not his favor-
ite -bill. He is a man who has served
himself here for 40 years as an abso-
lute model of integrity and I can un-
derstand his concern to make sure
that no one thinks that in passing this
bill we are pointing fingers at people.
Because, a man who like himself has
brought honor to this body for 40
years is entitled, in his last days, to
emphasize that this is a place for hon-
orable people who -do honorable
things.
I appreciate the guidance and con-
cern he has been willing to show. I
thought it would be especially relevant
for me to pay him this tribute on what
he knows is really Columbus Day, no
matter what the law says. I am de-
lighted to be able to pay that tribute
to the gentleman from New Jersey
today.
Finally, on the 'minority side, my
former ranking Member who de-
camped for rarified precincts over at
the Committee on Ways and Means,
but who participated with his staff in
a very helpful way in drafting the bill
that I think we can be proud of, and
his successor. And one other of our
colleagues, let me mention the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. &mu) who
cannot be with us today, because he
was legitimately called away by a long-
standing engagement that he made
when he thought we were going to be
adjourned.
He has made an enormous contribu-
tion to this bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will pass the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
11 10085
Mr. COBLE. -Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Administra-
tive Law and Governmental Relations
wherein this bill was initially consid-
ered in the House, I rise in support of
this legislation. Postemployment re-
strictions on Federal Government em-
ployees, Mr. Speaker, is not a new con-
cept to this Government. Some form
of postemployment restriction has ex-
isted on our executive branch for close
to a hundred years. The law under
which we are currently operating?
title 18, section 207 was enacted in
1978 as part of the "Ethics in Govern-
ment Act." The 1978 act created ethi-
cal safeguards which covered all three
branches of our Government and
broadened postemployment restric-
tions on our executive branch person-
nel.
As we have observed over the last
several years, Congress has enjoyed
the ability to point fingers at execu-
tive branch personnel who have violat-
ed postemployment restrictions im-
posed upon them by us, however, we
have no such laws restricting our abili-
ty to earn a living after we leave the
legislative branch even if it includes
lobbying Congress. Two former execu-
tive branch employees have been in-
dicted based indirectly and directly on
violations of postemployment laws.
Now it is our turn to show that we
don't agree with the double standard
which imposes laws on others and ex-
cludes us. H.R. 5043 provides us that
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by imposing
postemployment restrictions on Mem-
bers of Congress and our staff here in
the legislation branch and I think it is
high time we did so. -
I think it is important to note here,
Mr. Speaker, that approximately 1
year ago, during this body's delibera-
tions on legislation to reauthorize the
Independent counsel statute, an
amendment was offered to include
Members of Congress within the group
of executive branch personnel who
live under the shadow of that law. I
supported that amendment to include
Members of Congress, explicitly under
the independent counsel statute. That
amendment, however, failed directly
down party lines. Ironically, although
many of my colleagues chose to ex-
clude themselves from the independ-
ent counsel provision of the Ethics in
Government Act just 1 year ago, we
find ourselves here today, less than 30
days away from a Presidential elec-
tion, seemingly ecstatic to include our-
selves in other provisions of the Ethics
in Government Act. Mr. Speaker, I
supported equal treatment then, and I
support equal treatment today.
It is further important to note, Mr.
Speaker, that several amendments
were offered during the Judiciary
Committee's deliberations on this bill
which would have strengthened this
bill,-but which were defeated. I offered
an amendment, Mr. Speaker, which
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
1110086
CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD ?HOUSE .0ctober 12, 1988
would preclude employees of the -Fed-
eral Government who had access to
classified U.S. Government informa-
tion from working for any foreign gov-
ernment for 18 months after they
leave their employ. I believe that was
an important amendment Mr. Speak-
er, because, in my opinion, if a conflict
of interest exists within the private
sector of this country for people who
formerly worked for our Government,
I think such a conflict certainly exists
with regard to former Government
employees working for a foreign gov-
ernment especially if they had access
to classified information. Unfortunate-
ly, that amendment was defeated
along party lines, with all Republicans
in support.
My Republican colleague from Penn-
sylvania, Mr. GEKAS, with whom I
serve on the Judiciary Committee, of-
fered an amendment to this bill during
committee debate to include the judi-
cial branch under the restrictions
which we impose on the executive
branch. That amendment would have
done away with the double standard
which exists in our ethics laws today.
We sit here proudly today, claiming to
rid our laws of a double standard
which exists in our ethics laws because
we are acting to include ourselves
under the same rules -which we have
applied to the executive branch, how-
ever, we refuse to apply it to all three
branches of our Government. Unfortu-
nately, this double standard will con-
tinue to exist until we apply the same
rules to all three branches of our Gov-
ernment. Mr. Speaker,- that amend-
ment was also defeated along party
lines with Republicans in support. It
appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that while
we have the opportunity today to ad-
dress a serious discrepancy that exists
in our Federal ethics laws, we are will-
ing to only solve half the problem, be-
cause it is the more politically ripe
hail of the problem.
Despite its shortcomings. Mr. Speak-
er, I support this bill today and I com-
mend this body for moving this legisla-
tion forward. It is my hope that the
next time this body addresses the
issue -of ethics, that it will not be
during a Presidential election year, so
that we will be able to address the
issue from a legislative perspective,
not a Political one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
, my time.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. GLICKMAN].
(Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.) -
0 1700
Mr. GLICKNIAN. Mr. Speaker, this
is an important _bill. It does many sig-
nificant things to improve our ethics
and the appearance that we are oper-
ating within the highest standards of
ethics possible.
No. 1, it applies postemployment re-
strictions to Members of Congress, and
It prohibits us as House Members,
once :we leave this place, from lobby-
ing our -colleagues for 1 year, and it
prohibits Senators, once they leave
the Senate, from lobbying their col-
leagues for I year.
It is important to protect the integri-
ty and appearance of integrity of the
legislative process that we do this. The
public perception is that the revolving
door unfairly benefits high-level gov-
ernment employees like Members of
Congress. The public perception is also
that we often treat ourselves different-
ly than the executive branch or pri-
vate sector. This bill assures that we
are subject to the same and similar re-
strictions in connection with the re-
volving door that high-level govern-
ment employees are currently subject
to.
Second of all, Mr. Speaker, in the
enforcement area of our -ethics law
this bill does something very signifi-
cant. It establishes civil penalties and
Injunctive relief to insure effective en-
forcement of the law.
The point of this is that under cur-
rent law we essentially have to show a
criminal violation with that standard
of burden of proof, and we -must basi-
cally get a conviction in order to
punish people for violating ethics laws.
Under this bill we have that remedy as
well, but we also have civil damages
and, more importantly, injunctive
relief to stop offenders' actions as it is
about ready to begin.
For example, in the trade area we all
know that there is serious damage
that can be done to this country if
people go to work and relate national
secrets or trade secrets to foreign gov-
ernments or to foreign companies.
This injunctive action will be very,
very helpful in making sure that our
ethics laws work, and the civil and in-
junctive penalties together will form a
tremendous complement with our
criminal penalties to make sure that
these laws work very, very well.
So I think this is an important bill.
It is not the be-all and end-all to ethics
issues, but it is a good start.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay spe-
cial tribute to the chairman of our full
committee, the gentleman from New
Jersey Mfr. Room)), not only because
his point of view in this legislation has
helped to get It to the floor, but the
fact that he is in my judgment one of
the most distinguished Members of
this body that I have ever met. I have
had the opportunity to serve with him
for about? of my 12 years since I have
been in this Congress. He has had a
great personal impact on me, and to
this body and to this country general-
ly. I know that he-will get lots of 'atti-
tudes and all sorts of special orders on
this -particular legislation, one that is
very important to the future integrity
of the House, and the Senate, and the
legislative branch and our Govern-
ment as a whole: Mr. Speaker, I think
that he deserves special credit. .
-COBLE. 'Mr. Speaker, I yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. SHAW).
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given per-
mission -to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as the gen-
tleman from Kansas [Mr. GLICKPdAP]
rightfully pointed out, we deal with
perceptions. I think at all levels of pol-
itics people deal with perceptions. The
perceptions out there, my colleagues,
are not too bright. We are not at all
times held in great esteem by the
American people, and that is despite
the fact that the majority of the men
and women who labor in this hall are
fine, outstanding people who are here
for the sole purpose of trying to make
a better country. But, nevertheless,
there is another perception out there
that is emit:a, and that perception is
that this House of Representatives
does exclude itself from many bills
that it passes that affect the ethics
and conduct of the executive branch,
that affects the ethics and conduct of
the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, this is a giant step that
we are taking today. We are applying
the same standard of conduct for post-
employment here in theHouse of Rep-
resentatives and in the U.S. Senate as
we have substantially applied upon
the executive branch. And these are a
very serious, serious set of laws that
we are talking about because in some
Instances it is going to limit what
former staff members and former
Members of this House can and cannot
do once they leave employment here
In the House of Representatives.
But in doing so, Mr. Speaker, we are
substantially duplicating what we
have placed upon the executive
branch, which incidentally is also
made up of very fine, dedicated, hard-
working men and women who want
nothing more than to make this a
better country.
Not long ago I tried to do the same
thing with Special counsel, and I still
believe that it is very important that
this body apply the laws applying to
special counsel to itself that it has ap-
plied to the executive branch.
But anyway I think that it is impor-
tant to recognize today that this is a
landmark day, and this is a landmark
piece of legislation. I sincerely hope
that the chairman and the ranking
member can work their will and go
through conference in order to have
this bill passed into final Jaw before
this Congress comes to an end, and in
doing so, as a former ranking member
on the Subcommittee on Administra-
tive Law and Governmental Relations,
I would like to compliment my former
chairman, the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts, who has labored long and
hard to get this bill through, and the
new ranking member, the gentleman
from North Carolina, for all the good
work that they have done in bringing
this bill along this far. ,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
October 12, 1R88 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. Speaker, this has not been the
most. popular bill to ever come to the
Committee on the Judiciary, but it is
one of the best, and I would say that
this is a red-letter day for the Con-
gress and the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
Mr. Speaker, as the former ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law.
and Governmental Relations, t had the oppor-
tunity it participate in. the hearings an and- sub-
committee consideration of H.R. 5043. Based
on. my observations of. the testimony and
amendments which were favorably considered
at sutoommittee on this bill, I rise in support
of H.R_ 5043.
As hes been stated, here today, postemploy-
ment restrictions on our executive branch
have existed tor many years. However, no
such restrictions have existed on members of
this Wench regarding the same postemploy-
ment conflicts of interest. This body's partisan
attacks on the Reagan administration over the
last several years regarding ethical and al-
leged ethical violations by -members of the ex-
ecutive branch have highlighted the double
standard to which- we hold -ourselves and-
members of our executive- -branch. -I. don't
think the discrepancy which exists between
our postempioyment laws with regard to exec-
utive and legislative branch coverage is fair. I
do not think it is right, and I think it is appro-
priate that we cure that double standard by
passing HR 5043 here today.
- While there have been arguments made
that no evidence exists of abuse by former
Members of Congress or former congressional
staff regarding- postemployment .activities, It is
the perception here that I think we must ad-
dress. If there is a perception in. the public eye
that our Government; arid especially this body,
is not covering itself with laws prohibitingun-
ethical behavior, then I think -we do a great
disservice to the public by avoiding the issue.
By considering HR 5043 here today, we are
seizing an opportunity to cure that perception
or mispreception, as the case may be, and
show the American public .that we -wilt pass
laws to prohibit such activities.
You may recall, .Mr. :Speaker, that during
this body's deliberations last year on legisla-
tion to reauthorize the independent- counsel
law, I offered an amendment to specifically
cover members of this. body as well as mem--
tiers. of the executive branch under that 'law
The same double standard applied the as it
does here, and I've heard all the- specious
agruments about why that is- a different issue.
I don't agree. There exist ethical canons and
rules, covering lawyers and judges and con-
flicts of interest similar to what this -legislation
addresses. But we choose here- today to- expli-
cit/ include under a.criminal, statute Members
of Congress_ We. should have -done. the. same
-under the independent counsel law and for
the same .ressons.
Despite our stiortSightedriess irr the past, t
see much support here. today u the shadow--
of a Presidential election to -include Members
of Congress under additional provisions of the
-Ethics in Government Act I supported doing
-so last year and I support doing so again here
today_ t urge .my colleagues to support- HA
5043. it is much-needed legislation. ?
Mr., Speaker, yield._ back .the
bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, let me-
again thank the. gentleman. from Flori-
da Mir. &taw) for his cooperation.
Mr. _Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Ronnie].
Mr. Speaker, we use the word a lot,
but the gentleman from New -Jersey
[Mr.. Ronmol is the enormously diStin-
guished chairman of the lull commit-
tee who is drawing to a close one of
the most impressive congressional ca-
reers. I:believe, in our country's histo-
ry.
(Mr. RODIN() asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks}
Mr. RODIN?0. Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. FRABX], the chairman of
the subcommittee. I must commend
him for being sensitive to the concerns
that have been expressed by many of
us who did not want to overreach..
However, Mr. Speaker: I must say
that the measure has been dealt with,
as I described, sensitively and with
concern for the possibility that we
might overreach.
H.R. 5043, the Post-Employment Re-
strictions Act of 1988 strengthens and
clarifies the current criminal conflict-
of interest statutes -that. apply to the
post-employment activities of execu-
tive branch personnel; and establishes
new criminal conflict of interest prohi-
bitions to apply to the post-employ-
ment activities of legislative Inanch
Persotmel.
H.R. 5043 addresses loopholes in cur-
rent law. First, this legislation pre-
vents the compartmentalization of the
Executive Office a the President.
Under current law, the EOP has been
subdivided by the Director of the
Office of Government Ethics into nine
compartments. It is generally agreed
that this authority to compartmental-
ize the EOP is unnecessary and allows
the current statute to be avoided: by
White House personnel. In addition,
H.R. 5043 makes it clear that trade he-
g.otiations are covered by post-employ-
/Dent restrictions. There- is some ques-
tion whether, under current -law, -this
area is covered.
. When the Ethics in Government Act
was enacted in 1.9'18, it included post-
employrnerct restrictions. I supported
those restrictions, as I have always
supported ethics laws which address
demonstrated problems. and which are
designed to promote and protect the
integrity of the Government decision-
making process.
There is no doubt of the necessity
for -strong ethics laws. At the same
time, the balance which has, been
struck in the current statute preserves
the ability of the Federal Government
to attract and retain employees of the
highest caliber to carry out the di-
verse, far ranging, and essential June-
ttons of .the Government. Thus, the-
current statute balances several con-
siderations: the danger of .possibie in-
fluence peddling by -former Federal
employees; the right of former Federal
If 10087'
empboyees to earn a- living after fear--
lug Government service; and the, abili-
ty of the Government to 'attract quali-
fied individuals to Government serv-
ice.
While is is critical that actual loop-
holes in the current law be addressed
as is done by 'H.R. 5043, ft is ectuallY
Important that we not move in the di-
rection of overly severe Posternpltry-
ment restrictions which will hurt the
ability of the entire Goverrmient to re-
cruit new employees- and to retain its
current ones. When Congress passed
the Ethics in Government Act, in 1978,
there was a massive exodus Of career
and political' executive branch employ-
ees. This occurred because the law, or
originally enacted?and we were very
enthusiastic about the law at the
time?would have prevented' many in,
dividnals from earning a living after
leaving Government service. As. a.
result, it was necessary to amend the
law less than 1 year after its original
enactment?in fact, before it. even
became effective?in order to remove
those punitive and, overbroad restric,
tient. It was imperative- to the govern-
mental process that we not, lose some
valuable employees and the institution-
al and substantive knowledge- they pos-
sessed.
It is generally agreed that the ao-
called revolving door between private
life and Government Berrien is- a dis-
tinctly American institution that is
one of the real strengths of our Gov-
ernment. By attracting -top people-
from the private sector to serve the.
Nation, even - for limited. 'periods of
time, we infuse, new blood, and new
ideas into the bureaucracy. Therefore,
even the career civil service is net
made up -exclusively of permanent
office holders. Moreover, _as- testimony
during our committee hearings point-
ed out, 'the impartance, of recruiting
talented lcaders?frum 'the private
sector?for government. service has in-
creased .as both -the functions of gov-
ernment and the technological com-
plexity of governmental, decisions have
increased:" Thus, our System :of Gov-
ernment is-strengthened by making it
more vital .and by trying it more close-
ly to the people it serves.
1 am concerned about the. new provi-
sions relating to postemployment re-
strictions cm the legislative- branch for
several reasons: First, there is no- docu-
mentation of any. abuse. Not a single
instance of specific. evidence of abuse
is described in the extensive _hearings
In either the-House or Senate_
Second, the legislative responsibil-
ities require Members of Congress to
be informed about legislative propos-
als and- about currents cit opinion- con-
cerning that legislation. Our rights as
Members -to, inform ourselves; even
through unsolicited irdormation, are
protected by the speech of -debate
clause :of the ;.Constitution. By apply-
ing posteamloymentrestrittionsto the-
legislative branch,: we potentially de-
prive. ourselves of valuable- =dress- of
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R0014000300-10-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
11 10088
CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD ? HOUSE October 12, 1988
information simply because the com-
municator is a former legislative
branch officer or employee. And those
who seek "redress of grievance" also
have rights restricted by these bans?
the right to select the person they
want to present their grievance and to
represent them.
Finally, the legislative branch dif-
fers in operation from the executive
branch. Almost every legislative func-
tion is performed on the public record.
There are exceptions, but most deci-
sions by Congress are made in public?
committee hearings and markups, as
well as floor debate and votes. On the
other hand, because of its very nature,
executive branch decisionmaking is
often cloaked in secrecy, and it is,
therefore, difficult to hold people indi-
vidually accountable for their actions.
Also unlike the executive branch, the
legislative branch makes collective de-
cisions, not individual ones.
Several questions are raised concern-
ing coverage of former ? Members of
Congress by postemployment restric-
tions. How does contact by former
Members of Congress differ from con-
tacts by campaign contributors, politi-
cal parties, business corporations,
public interest groups, and even close
friends of -current officials? Does a
former elected official of one political
party really have the potential to
unduly influence a current elected of-
ficial of another political party?
In addition, Members of Congress
are already subject to a more stringent
? accountability. We must be reelected
and therefore, must answer to our con-
stituencies at each election?for those
of us in the House, this accountability
comes every 2 years. If our constitu-
ents think we have been, or are sub-
ject to being, unduly or improperly in-
fluenced, they can refuse to reelect us.
I think the real problem of ethics
concerning the Congress is not a post-
employment revolving door, but the
problem of honoraria and campaign
contributions given to current Mem-
bers of Congress. Being lobbied by a
former Member of Congress is less an
appearance of a conflict problem than
being lobbied by one who contributes
to a Member's political campaign or
who have paid him an honorarium.
This is where there is a genuine
danger of undue-influence.
? The proposed prohibitions on the
legislative branch raise questions
- about the first amendment rights both
of former Members and employees of
the legislative branch. The proposal to
cover elected Members of Congress
also treats the legislative branch more
harshly than the executive branch.
The legislative branch is covered by a
no -contact ban, while the executive
branch coverage has a nexus test for
most of the officers and employees
subject to restrictions.
Executive branch employees are cov-
ered by civil service job protections,
such as tenure and due process rights
to prevent arbitrary dismissal. Al-
though the House recently adopted
the fair labor resolution, legislative
branch employee protections are not
as potent as executive branch employ-
ee protections. For example, even with
passage of the fair labor resolution, a
legislative branch employee who is
fired has no recourse for reinstate-
ment. Executive branch employees
have individual authority to award
contracts, approve regulations, and
take other binding actions that may
mean millions of dollars to a private
Interest. Legislative branch personnel
must act through the institution and
publicly. Executive branch personnel
often make decisions behind closed
doors. Any legislative branch decision
that affects those outside of Congress
must be acted on publicly and by the
Members, not by staff.
The difficulty of enacting strong and
fair restrictions on postemployment
activity should not be underestimated.
It is important not to go too far and
create new criminal laws that are so
onerous as to unfairly punish many
valuable public servants. H.R. 5043 has
been finely tuned to address only
those issues where a problem has been
demonstrated or a real potential for a
problem exists.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentle-
woman from Ohio [Ms. KAPTIM).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. COBLE] for his kindness.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 5043, the Postemployment Re-
strictions Act of 1988.
It is time, high time, to stop former
public officials from taking advantage
of their privileged insider knowledge
gained at taxpayer expense. Integrity
in public service should never be called
into question.
Mr. Speaker, my interest in this leg-
islation stems from its provision to ban
former executive branch officials from
representing, aiding, or advising a
party about a trade negotiation_ which
was under the employee's responsibil-
ity while working for the Government.
Since 1985 the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. WOLPE] and I have pushed
this legislation to prohibit former top
U.S. Government ?Meals from repre-
senting a foreign interest on a matter
before the U.S. Government for a cool-
ing-off period after our officials leave
government service.
The need for this particular bill
became apparent to me in 1984 when a
businessman from my district ex-
pressed his complete loss of trust in
our Federal Government and our
public officials. After giving a senior
level Commerce Department official
confidential information about his
business during a trade mission to
Japan, he was dismayed to learn
during a subsequent visit to Washing-
ton that this same individual has left
Government service to lobby on behalf
of his Japanese competitors.
Mr. Speaker, America can do better
than that.
What I did not know when we first
introduced this bill was that history
was but the tip of the iceberg where so
many of our citizens unfortunately
put their own pocketbook interests
ahead of the interests of this Repub-
lic. People like Robert Watkins, who,
while he was involved in trade negotia-
tions on behalf of the United States,
was soliciting postemployment oppor-
tunities with the Japanese Govern-
ment in their auto firms, or Wally
Lenahan who divulged the United
States trade position on textiles at the
Geneva meeting, or Eric Garfinkle,
who, while in the employment of the
United States, when he was negotiat-
ing on machine tools, before the agree-
ment was even signed, went to work on
behalf of Japanese machine tool inter-
ests.
0 1715
I think that what makes it so attrac-
tive for these people to do this is that
they are paid five times more on aver-
age than their salaries with the U.S.
Government.
Although I do not believe this legis-
lation goes far enough to stop the
mass exodus that occurs yearly from
the U.S. Trade Representative's office
and the Department of Commerce and
other Government agencies where we
lose people where they go to work in
lobbying activities on the other side. I
believe the bill goes a long way and it
a positive step to restoring integrity to
the institutions we rely on to protect
America's economic interest in the
global marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I want to end by thank-
ing the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr., FRANK] for his legislative skill in
working with all -the various interests
on this bill and for his diligence and
sensitivity to all the Members.
Also I want to congratulate the gen-
tleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Ronprol, the chairman of the commit-
tee, for his always being Mr. Integrity
and whenever it was a question of pro-
tecting America's interests, that has
been the hallmark of his career.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gen-
tlewoman was on a roll and we did not
want to interrupt her.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Floarol.
(Mr. FLORIO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support
of H.R. 5043, a bill to strengthen the restric-
tions on postemployment lobbying by public
officials.
In the past year, the public has grown in-
creasingly alarmed at the abuses of former
high-level officials like Michael Deaver and
Lyn Nofziger who have used their connections
to influence the Government and at the same
time enrich themselves with large lobbying
fees.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
October 12, 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD..-1101.3SE ?
The convictions of these two men show
that Congress and the corns refuse to toler-
ate such anethical believer. But for too long
now we in Congress have lived by a double
standard. exempting outselves from measures
prohibiting the same type of behavior which
we condemn in others. The time has come for
that doable standard to end, and 1-1.11_ 5043
would do just that It would impose, for the
first time, restrictions on lobbying by former
Members of Congressand their top staff_
Some Members of this body have pointed
out that there are few, any, actual examples
of unethical behavior involving former Mem-
bers of Congress lobbying on Capitol HAL But
there is no denying that the present system
-with Is absolute lack of restrictions offers the
potential for abuse. We must not wait for such
abuse to occur. As elected representatives,
we need to set the highest standards of ex-
cellence in Government Those whom we
serve deserve to know that we will never
betray their trust for oar own personal profit.
H.R. 5043 is a carefully crafted, thoughtful
approach to ensuring that the opportunity for
abuse no longer exists. It provides for a 1-
year cooling off period during which Congress-
men and Senators would be prohibited from
lobbying in the Chamber in which they had
served, and legislative staff making- over
$72,500 would be prohibited from lobbying the-
Congressmen or Senator ker whom they had
worked,
H.R. 5043. takes a positive first step toward
creating higher ethical standards tiroughout
the Federal Government. Ifeel, - that even
stronger measures can and should be taken.
All former Members of Congress, for example.,
should be restricted for 1 year from lobbying
anywhere within the legislative branch. In ad-
dition, tougher pepetties should be imposed
upon those who do violate the public's trust
nPqflaa potential improvements -that could
be made. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
FIR 5043. and I. hope that my colleagues will
join me in supporting this measure.
Mr. FRANK.. Mr.. Speaker, I yield 1
minutes to the gentleman from brichi-
gan Watrei. ?
Mr. WOLFE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
strong support of ILR. 5043. the Post
Employment Restriction Act of 1988,
And I want to begin my remarks by
paying special tribute to Mr. PEANX
for his creative and sensitive leader-
ship in bringing this hill to the floor
- this year, and to Mr. Grammar for all
of his work on this issue in the last
session of Congress.
I recognize that there are many in
this House that would have preferred
to see this legiSlatirm buried for the in-
definite. future?feeling that. the inclu-
sion of Members of Congress within its.
coverage represents a solution in
Search of a problem. Yet Isubmit that
the- failure to include Members of Con-
gress would only deepen public cyni-
cism about the self-serving 'nature of
our national histitutionr..?
The fact of the matter is we do have
a problem. Watergate, ABSCAM,'Iran-
gate, Deaver-rate, and Pentagon -con-
tractor scandals have all taken 'their
toll in-an erosion of public trust and
confidence in our poiltkal institution.
A recent. public opinion survey. --re-
vealed -that no. mere than 40 percent
of the American .public -thought of
-their Government as honest. And poll
after poll attests to the sense of a
large number of Americans that aver-
age citizens count for very little nowa-
days and that public policy is con-
trolled by an array of powerful, vrell-f
named special interests.
? There is enormOus danger here. A
democracy cannot long function if its
citizens do not trust the integrity of
their political institutions and leaden,
or find them to. be unresponsive to the
popular will. And, indeed, the past
couple of decades have witnessed a
sharp falling away from political par-
ticipation. People, feeling increasingly
poweelees, have in effect become pow-
erless.
The erosion of public confidence in
our national institutions will not be re-
versed overnight. it will take time' to
restore trust, and it will take a Very
different kind of example than that
which has been set by tire Michael
Deavers and Rita Lavelles and Ed
Meese& of this administration.
But the legislation before us, the
Postemployment Restrictions Act of
1988, takes an important step by ad-
dressing one of the most egregious and
frequent violations of the public trust:
High-level public officials using the in-
skier information and special access
they have acquired through their
public service for their private gain.
Tinie and time again, we have seen key
officials leave their Government posts
to take ellen/no:nig lucrative positions
with the Very interests that fell within
their regulatory, administrative, or
legislative responsibilities. And in the
process, not only have -they compro-
mised the trust that had been placed
in -them, but they have also Compro-
mised the agencies -or institutions
within which they had operated. The
revolving door has been endemic, and
it is tithe the revolvirtg door be
slammed shut. And that is the purpose
of the tall before us '
I want to draw particular attention
to. -the bilf's fair trade negotiations sec-
tion. This section incorporates the
thrust of legislation Cirrogresswoman
Mance' " Kermit and I introduced 3
years ago. Our Foreign Agents- Claire
whiny Ethics in Trade ACT'-fr?was a
response to a series of jetir-
?sadistic exposes and the work of econ-
omist Pet Choate.'Tirese writings doc-
umented a number of high-ranking
Americus officials, particularly kr the
Office of- the U.S. Trade. Representa-
tive, leaving -their -Government em-
ployment and turning up, virtually the -
next- day, in the employment of for-
eign governments or oreign compa-
nies. Indeed, it seems as if the Federal
Gmeeniment has -become, for some,
little more than a finishing school for
the' highly paid lobbyists of foreign in-
terests. .
This Is. wrong. Dead wrong. Amen-
tan taxpayers have a right to expect
that those :Who are negotiating on
America's behalf are doing so with
Aanerican interests' foreinest, and are
11 10689
not being dtvcrted or -tempted by the
prospect of incrative post-Government
employment with the foreign interest
that sits on the Opposite side of the
bargaining table.
The legislation before us would pro-
hibit American trade offireats from
representing, aiding or advising any
person other than the United States in
a trade negotiation for a period of I
Year following their departure from
the American Government Frankly, I
wish the prohibition could be substan-
tially longer. Our original face-it bill
called for a 10-year ban. And a more
recent version proposed a 4-year prohi-
bition. Our feeling has been that more
time Is needed for the advantages?of
insider knowledge and special access?
which a former Government official
brings to his or her foreign clients, to
dissipate. But even a f-year ban on
such pest-Government employment
will -help insulate Government agen-
cies and personnel from the kinds of
improper -influences and temptations
that may well compromise the integri-
ty of Federal agencies. This legislation
takes a small step, but it is an impor-
tant one. I hope it will receive the
overwhelming bipartisan support of
this' body.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Calif mina [Mr. Humana
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Speaker, I rise iri opposition to this
tell. Others before me have said that
this bill is a legislative solution-
search of a problem. I agree. Even the
dietinguished chairman of the Marin-
Istrative Law Subconmaittee and Door
manager of this bill has conceded that
there is no evidence of abuse in the
legislative branch. Congress may have
its share of ethics tended problems?
certainly the papers ?rave been full of
stories in recent weeks and months
that, if true, might give voters pause
about the scruples of their elected rep-
resentatives. But none of these stories,.
or the incidents they describe, are in
any way affected by this bal. -
-On the -contrary, this bill ionises
only on the postemployment activities
of former executive and legislative
branch officials and employees. Lately
there have been a couple of highly -
publicized incidents of postemplay-
trent abuses by two former members
of the Reagan administration. Those-
two individuals were indicted and con-
victed, if not for ethics violations; for
crimes arising directly out of ethical
abuses.
I suspect that Bitleb of the impetus-
for this bili steins from those two
cases. But I suggest that those cases
prove that the current laws- work, not
that we need -more or them.
Some have argued that thrise two
cases tevealed loopholes- in the-law
that need to be closed; others- ave
said that, sia matter of parity or fair-
ness, Congress ought to he covered' as
Well as the executive branch. Neither-
of those argulnerits tee Ca) us to turn.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
1110090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
a blind eye to the Constitution or to
act in haste. We have only to look at
what has been happening in both
Houses of Congress in recent days to
know that haste, particularly in an
election year, frequently spells disas-
ter?or at the very least, disregard for
the Constitution.
We may needs a new ethics bill; I
don't know. Nothing I've heard so far
? has convinced me that the current law
needs changing. But if there is going
to be a bill, and I suspect there is, then
why not have one that addresses the
serious constitutional concerns that
surround any effort to restrict first
amendment activity.
Let's be clear about that: lobbying
Congress and the executive branch is
activity protected by the first amend-
ment. Getting paid for it doesn't make
it any less protected.
The Supreme Court has laid down a
strict two part test against which to
measure Government efforts to regu-
late first amendment activity: first,
the regulation must serve a compelling
State interest and second, it must be
narrowly drawn to serve that purpose
and no more.
The bill's sponsors admit there is no
evidence of a compelling need and, as
the bill has moved forward, it has been
broadened not narrowed. The bill
flunks the test. I urge a "no" vote.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. NAGLE].
(Mr: NAGLE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. NAGLE. It is ironic, Mr. Speak-
er, to be here today and to think back
to the early 1970's and the mid-1970's
when we raced to watch a TV that was
installed in our office to watch the
proceedings of the Watergate hearings
and to realize that in the last week of
the tenure of the chairman of the Ju-
diciary Committee, the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Rournol, that I
have the opportunity to speak on our
bill that has been produced by his
committee. It is an honor to do so, an
honor particularly in light of his
record.
-Mr. Speaker, I come at this I think
perhaps from a different perception
than others. New to the body, I must
confess that I have been impressed by
It. I have been impressed by the integ-
rity of the Members. I have been im-
pressed by the effort to gather factual
information that goes into our process.
I have been impressed by the diversity
of our membership and I have been
impressed by the fact that the institu-
tion, despite all its flaws that it pro-
duces, does seem to work well.
I have been distressed, distressed by
the seeming willingness of Members to
attack the institution for their own
political gain or to somehow appear
superior to the rest of us.
The ethics bill that we debate today
as it pertains to Members really has
on it two fronts. One is to remove any
possible perception that somehow -the
Information Congress received is
biased, whether we acted in a special
or unevenhanded manner, to preserve
our integrity by preserving the pub-
lic's perception of the integrity of the
institution.
The second goes to the very process
of gathering the information itself, to
see that the information Congress
does consider is considered on the
basis of the merits of the idea that is
presented to us and not on the basis of
who presents it, not on the basis of
what form it comes in to us.
I think the bill is necessary and prof-
itable from a perception standpoint
and from the standpoint of insuring
that the integrity of the institution is
maintained. I support it. I support it
strongly, and I think it is a positive
step and I think it is a salute to the
chairman of our Judiciary Committee
that we undertake this legislation in
his last week.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the 1978
Ethics in Government Act's "revolving door'
restrictions apply only to former officials and
employees of the executive branch. The Post-
Employment Restrictions Act 01 1988 extends
this act's restrictions to the Congress despite
flaws. For this reason it deserves support.
Better we seize the opportunity and pass
this bill than to allow Congress to continue to
exempt former Members and their staff from
the Ethics Act. Corrections must be left to fur-
ther legislative action and judicial review.
My concerns about the bill are twofold:
First, that certain provisions of the bill may un-
constitutionally interfere with the ability of
elected officials to receive information; and
second, that the inclusion of compensation as
a requirement for an act to be illegal is a seri-
ous loophole that will substantially weaken the
law.
Still, this bill provides an extraordinary legis-
lative opportunity to adopt a policy that makes
the revolving door laws applicable to the Con-
gress.
I wish to thank the chairman of the House
Administrative Law Subcommittee, Mr. FRANK,
for his commitment and leadership in guiding
this bill through the House.
I also wish to thank the subcommittee's
ranking minority member, Mr. COBLE, for his
support during consideration of this bill.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, the
Reagan-Bush administration has a remarkable
record of providing job opportunities?but
mostly by hiring sleazy characters to Govern-
ment jobs. Over 250 administration appoint-
ees have been charged with criminal wrong-
doing, abuse of power, and offensive behav-
ior. These individuals came to Washington on
the pledge of good government and instead,
as former Republican Congressman Caldwell
Butler said "put all tour feet and a snout in
the trough."
H.R. 5043 bars officials from jumping to lu-
crative positions by cashing in .on their Gov-
ernment relationships?the Deaver-Nofziger
syndrome. Immediately upon leaving his White
House job, Michael Deaver formed a lobbying
business and sold his contacts with high level
administration officials to foreign nations and
corporate giants with huge stakes in Federal
spending. Lyn Nofziger, also a former White
House aide and longtime adviser to President
Reagan, lobbied administration officials on
October 12, 1.988
behalf -of his clients. Mr. Nofziger even sug-
gested that President Reagan could help per-
suade the Army to give the Wedtech Corp. a
military contract.
By limiting high officials from -,trading on
their Government service, legislation will dis-
courage the even more brazen group of ad-
ministration rogues who start capitalizing on
their Government positions while still on the
public payroll.
Consider the following cases:
Hal Albert, while head of .the Defense Audio
Visual Agency in the Department of Defense,
supervised contract negotiations with Dynalec-
tron in May 1984, and in July joined the com-
pany to become manager of the $23 million
contract with the Pentagon.
Arthur P. Brill, Jr., while Director of Public
Affairs for the President's Commission on Or-
ganized Crime, allegedly used official station-
ary and mailed at-Government expense.an an-
nouncement to hundreds on his media list that
he was starting his own "media crisis man-
agement" business.
Guy W. Fiske, while Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Commerce, allegedly negotiat-
ed the sale of the weather satellites to
Comsat at the same_time he was negotiating
a high level job for himself with the same
company.
Michael Frost, while an official of the Office
of Personnel Management, took Government
paid trips to California during which he ar-
ranged to be appointed to a position by Gov-
ernor Deukmejian.
Mary Ann Gilleece, while Deputy Under
Secretary of the Department of Defense and
The Pentagon's top procurement regulator, so-
licited business from defense contractors for a
firm she intended to establish after leaving the
Government.
James E. Jenkins, while Deputy Counselor
to the President, allegedly was instrumental in
the Wedtech Corp.'s successful bid on a mili-
tary contract and later became the contrac-
tor's chief Washington representative.
Norman B. Ture, while Under Secretary for
Tax and Economic Affairs at the Department
of Treasury, urged the Department to pur-
chase an economic model from an accounting
firm that was in the process of buying the
rights to the model from him.
H.R. 5043 will send a loud signal to pro-
spective appointees that Government. service
is a rewarding pursuit in itself but not a ticket
to later gold.
Mr. FRENZEL Mr. Speaker, it is always
tough to vote against a so-called reform bill.
Many Members and constituents equate criti-
cism of the Congress with goodliness. I know,
because I have, early and often, taken that
position myself. It is normally a valid position.
But, messing *around with constitutional
issues is a risky adventure. We need to be
sure there is a real need and a responsible re-
action to the need. Unless -It has been pretty
clearly demonstrated that -the system is
broken, repairs are best not under taken. ?
- As has been noted here, there is no clear
evidence of abuse. The rationale here is that
two ex-administration members broke the law,
and the legislative is the same as the execu-
tive. Neither is a good excuse for this bill.
-In the first place, the law-breakers were al-
ready caught. In their case, ,the existing law
-was adequate -in the second place, ;the legis-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010.-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8
Octobei 12 1988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
lative branch is quite deferent from the execu-
tive branch. . -
Any reform law that grandfathers not only
past members and employees, but also grand-
fathers an exclusion for those now contem-
plating retirement, must be immediately sus-
pect. If we need to worry about last year's re-
tirees, and this year's, perhaps we .ought to
worry about next year's too. If we don't have
to worry, we don't need the bill.
I have not seen wrong-doing as the main
issue here. We have had ethics and conflict of
interest laws on our books for over 100 years.
I will conceed that improvement is always
possible. I am concerned that the revolving
door laws which already apply to the execu-
tive branch have slowed the movement of
able people into Government. Those who
made the sacrifice to get into Government,
ought to be able to return to their previous vo-
cations. America_ doesn't have so many able,
experienced people trying to do the public's
business that it can afford to discourage very
many of them.
The legislative branch is another problem. I
am not contemplating retirement I don't plan
to lobby when I do. Even so, when a person
subjects himself or herself to biannual ratifica-
tion, there ought not be a restriction on that
individual's right to work or speak when volun-
tarily or involuntarily retired.
We have lots of ex-colleagues lobbying us.
Some are said to be good; some are said to
be less so. I have yet to see action on their
part that would be improved by this legislation,
or, conversely, I have seen no good that
would have come from preventing them from
doing whatever they are doing. Nor does the
committee's record give any evidence of
wrong-doing that would have been prevented
by this bill.
-
A last point may be a familiar one. Again we
have been subjected to a limited debate, no
amendment process which is contrary to
democratic procedures, and surely is a source
of sloppy lawmaking. To handle a bill with
controversial constitutional questions is to
invite trouble. A good rule for me is that when
in doubt, vote against bills on the Suspension
Calendar.
Very few people will dare vote against th
bill. It's pretty hard to explain why a Member
voted against reform. I will cast my "no" vote
with reluctance, and with regret But until the
managers can show a need, and a good
result, it is not possible for me to vote "yes."
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, rise
in opposition to H.R. 5043 as brought before
the House today. While I have no problem
with the intent of the bill; namely, prohibiting
Members of Congress and senior Government
executives in both the legislative and execu-
tive branches from banking on "revolving
door" arrangements, I must oppose the bill
because I find its limitations to be unreason-
able in certain circumstances.
I agree that Members of Congress and
senior executives should not be able to spend
a few years in the Government's employ only
to turn around, go to the private, sector, and
cash in on connections made and information
gained through their Federal employment
However, for those who have chosen to
make a career of public -service or whose
service is terminated by circumstances
beyond their control, the provisions of the bill
are unduly onerous.
In all honesty, I do not see how we can ask
our professional staff to spend years develop-
ing their expertise for the low salaries that we
are able to pay them and then tell them that
they cannot go into private practice as profes-
sionals if they plan to deal with the Govern-
ment
Clearly, from my experience of almost 24
years in Congress, this bill attempts to solve a
problem that doesn't exist
Had this bill been considered under normal
procedures, I was prepared to offer an
amendment which would have exempted from
provisions of the bill Members of Congress
and congressional employees who retire from
their positions on an immediate annuity. I see
no reason why a retiree, someone who has
completed a career with the Federal Govern-
ment, shall be foreclosed from making use of
experience garnered over many years.
The amendment would have exempted from
the bill's restrictions Members of Congress
who lose their bids for reelection or whose
congressional seats are lost through redistrict-
ing. I think It unfair to restrict the employment
of these people whose .employment is termi-
nated through what can best be termed "in-
voluntary separation."
While I laud the intent of the sponsors of
the legislation and commend the subcommit-
tee chairman, -Mr. FRANK, for his expedience
in bringing this important matter before the
House, I am discouraged by the process
under which this legislation is being consid-
ered and must oppose its passage.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. FRANK] that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5043,
as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to clause 5 of rule I, . and the
Chair's prior announcement, further
proceedings of this motion will be
postponed.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 5043, the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
BERNE CONVENTION
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1988
Mr. KASTEN/VI:ELEM. Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and concur
In the Senate amendment to the bill
(H.R. 4262) to amend title 17, United
States Code, -to implemmt the Berne
Convention for the ProlAction of Lit-
erary and Artistic Works, as revised at
10091
Paris on Ally 24, 1971, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment Strike out all after Me
enacting clause and insert
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND REFERENCES TO
TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.
(a) Swum Mts.?This Act may be cited as
the "Berne Convention Implementation Act
of 1988".
(b) REFERENCES TO TITLE 17, UNITED STATES
CODE.?Whenever in this Act an amendment
or repeal is expressed in terms of an amend-
nient to or a repeal of a section or other pro-
vision, the reference shall be considered to
be made to a section or other provision of
title 17, United States Code
SEC I DECLARAT7ONS.
The Congress makes the following declara-
tions:
(1) The Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works, signed at
Berne, Switzerlarul, on September 9, 1886,
and all acts, protocols, and revisions thereto
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the
"Berne Convention") are not self-executing
under the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
(2) The obligations of the United States
under the Berne Convention may be Per-
formed only pursuant to appropriate domes-
tic lam
13) The amendments made by this Act, to-
gether with the law as it exists on the date of
the enactment of this Act, satisfy the obliga-
tions of the United States in adhering to the
Berne Convention and no further rights or
interests shall be recognized or created for
that purpose.
SEC 1.CONSTRUCTION OF THE BERNE CONVEN770N.
(a) RELATIONSIM. Wrrn DOMES77C LAW.?
The provisions of the Berne Convention?
(1) shall be given effect under title 17, as
amended by this Act, and any other relevant
provision of Federal or State law, including
the common law; and
. (2) shall not be enforceable in any action
brought pursuant to the provisions of the
Berne Convention itself.
(b) CERTAIN .RJCWITS NOT AFFECTED.?The
provisions of the Berne Convention, the ad-
herence of the United States thereto, and
satisfaction of United States obligations
thereunder, do not expand or reduce any
right of an author of a work, whether
claimed under Federal, State, or the
common law?
(1) to claim authorship of the work, or
(2) to object to any distortion, mutilation,
or other modification of, or other derogatory
action in relation to, the work, that Would
prejudice the author's honor or reputation.
SEC & SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE Of COPY-
RIGHTS
(a) Suzurcz AND SCOPE.?Chapter 1 is
amended?
(1) in section 101?
(A) in the definition of "Pictorial,- graphic,
and sculptural works" by striking out in .the
first sentence "technical drawings, dia-
grams, and models" and inserting in lieu
thereof "diagrams, models, and technical
drawings, including architectural plans";
(B) by inserting after the definition of
"Audiovisual works", the following: -
"The 'Berne Convention' is the Conven-
tion for the Protection of Literary and Artis-
tic Works, signed at Bente, Switzerland, on
September B, 1886, and all acts,. protocols,
and revisions thereto.
"A work is a 'Berne Convention work' if?
"(1) in the ease ,of an unpublished -work,
one or more of the authors is a national of a
nation adhering to the Berne Convention, or
in the case of a published work, one or more
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/26: CIA-RDP90M00005R001400030010-8