Ethics gun is turned at executive

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is planning to move legislation that would place strict ethics limits on executive-branch officials, going further than the ethics reforms the lower chamber adopted for itself last month.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is planning to move legislation that would place strict ethics limits on executive-branch officials, going further than the ethics reforms the lower chamber adopted for itself last month.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a close ally of Pelosi’s, is scheduled to hold a hearing on the legislation today and plans to mark it up in committee tomorrow.

Several of the proposed reforms in the measure appear to be in response to various controversies that have emerged during President Bush’s tenure, ranging from a dispute over a secret energy task force to criticism over paying pundits for favorable reviews.

One of the far-reaching reforms Waxman is considering would require executive-branch officials to report all significant contacts they have with any private interest related to an official government action.

Four times a year administration officials would be required to report with whom they have met during the previous three months, the subject matter of those meetings, and the name of any clients represented. Congress had considered adopting a similar measure for its own members, but later dropped it amid complaints that it would create too much paperwork for lobbyists.

Publicizing the identities of those meeting with high-ranking administration officials has been a point of contention between Waxman and the Bush White House. During Bush’s first term, Waxman supported the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) lawsuit to ascertain who met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force, which held extensive meetings with industry representatives before the administration unveiled its energy proposal.

There is little doubt that Cheney, who for the past six years has pushed to extend the bounds of executive privilege, would not be pleased if the legislation passed. But if enacted, he would face strong incentive to adhere to it. Executive-branch officials who failed to comply with the new ethics rules would be subject to a fine of up to $50,000.

The bill, the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007, would be nearly identical to similarly titled legislation that the Government Reform Committee passed unanimously last April. Karen Lightfoot, a spokeswoman for the committee, said the bills were "very similar."

The major difference between this year and last is that Democrats now control the House floor agenda. Last year Republican leaders did not allow the full House to vote on the legislation, but this year Pelosi has vowed a different outcome.

"This leadership is supportive of this bill and it will come to the floor," said a Democratic leadership aide. "Timing is not clear yet."

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) – who controlled the House floor schedule last year – said he did not know why it never received a final vote and offered to look into it.

The legislation would expand two reforms that the House adopted earlier this year. One would create a two-year cooling-off period during which persons leaving the administration would not be allowed to lobby their former colleagues. Waxman’s proposed reforms for the executive branch would go further than House reforms adopted earlier this year by also requiring similar restrictions for persons entering government from the private sector.

The second reform similar to new House rules would prohibit certain executive-branch officials from working on any matter impacting a prospective employer with whom they are in negotiations.

Officials could only continue working on something affecting a prospective employer if they receive a waiver because of "exceptional circumstances." The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) director would be required to review the circumstances before granting a waiver.

That reform would address the controversy that arose three years ago when Thomas Scully, then director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, received a waiver allowing him to negotiate for jobs while he was working on the 2003 Medicare bill. He subsequently landed a job with Alston and Bird LLP.

Soon after Scully’s departure, then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card directed government agencies to stop issuing such waivers, stipulating that only the White House could make those calls. 

In addition, the new version of the bill would use stronger language than the 2006 version to prohibit individuals entering the administration from making decisions that affected their former employers financially.

The bill would also eliminate loopholes allowing federal officials to accept compensation from contractors and would prohibit the unauthorized expenditure of funds for publicity or propaganda purposes. The Department of Health and Human Services drew scrutiny years ago when it became known that it had paid columnist Maggie Gallagher $21,500 to work on the president’s marriage initiative. Federal investigators also launched a probe into payments the Department of Education made to conservative pundit Armstrong Williams for his work on the No Child Left Behind law.

The pending bill would also overhaul the OGE. It would require the office to put out new reporting requirements for administration officials, and  verify the accuracy and timeliness of reports.

No single agency compiles ethics records, such as gift waivers, for administration officials, and there is no venue for public inspection of those documents. They must be requested by a Freedom of Information Act request, said a person familiar with the legislation. 

The Oversight panel’s bill would change that by requiring the OGE to "make available to public inspection and copying" filed reports. The government ethics office would also play the role of law enforcer by notifying the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia when an executive-branch official may be in violation of reporting rules.