is urged to consider this recommendation as it reviews the need for balance and internal consistency to meet the objectives of the Act.

In summary, the Academy panel agrees that there is a public perception of a "revolving door" problem which must be dealt with. Any effective solution must deal with the operational reality of that problem, which thus far seems to have escaped definition. The Committee is urged to proceed with an extensive study of the problem and then take appropriate action whether by legislation, oversight or both.

The Academy can bring its unique resources to bear on any aspect of this issue. The Academy includes among its membership some very distinguished individuals who have been directly involved with federal procurement throughout their careers in both the public and private sectors, in both defense and nondefense programs, and from both the executive and legislative perspectives. The membership also includes people deeply knowledgeable in the field of government ethics. The Academy stands ready to quickly assemble a round table of its members and others for this purpose. The subject is an important one, and we would like to be of assistance to you in any way we can.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you.

Basically what you are saying is that we don't have an information base that is substantial enough yet to make a judgment as to whether this law ought to be passed or whether existing laws ought to be modified?

Mr. KLINE. Yes, sir, that is our considered judgment. In looking over various GAO reports produced in response to congressional requests to take a look at this issue at different times, this has been their general finding-that they cannot come up with an endemic statement of the problem in the DOD that should be covered by something which is as comprehensive as this bill is.

Mr. GLICKMAN. What are you recommending specifically, that we hold a series of hearings, or that the GAO be entertained or asked to conduct a specific investigation of the variety of ethic statutes and make recommendations to the Congress?

Mr. KLINE. Specifically, what the panel recommends is that, there be some assessment on a broad-scale basis of the problem of revolving door in the DOD; and that the results of that assessment be presented to the committee. At the same time that the assessment give special attention to the administration of current law and regulation.

Based on my background before I took this job, I have some observations about the administration of current law and regulation already on the book. I am not entirely satisfied-and I say this

without any deep penetration of the DOD system-that there has not been effective comprehensive application of existing law and regulation. I think the committee would certainly want to understand how current law is being implemented prior to putting something else by way of legislative remedy on top of that which already exists.

Mr. GLICKMAN. What was your prior position in Government?

Mr. KLINE. Prior to this job, I ran the General Services Administration I have also had direct experience at the weapons system management level in the DOD in my earlier life.

Mr. GLICKMAN. The National Academy on Public Administration has done a number of studies on how to recruit and keep people in Government service.

Do you have any position on the impact of statutes such as the Ethics in Government Act, particularly the revolving door provisions, on how that has affected the ability of Government to recruit and retain quality personnel?

Mr. KLINE. Well, reacting both on the basis of what academy studies have said, plus my personal experiences in attracting senior executives to come into not only GSA but NASA, when I spent a third of my life, those laws and those regulations have a very direct impact in terms of people's willingness to come into the system-the personal divestitures they must undertake, the extensive disclosure forms they must fill out, and the concern about perception that there is no conflict of interest when they come in the door.

I would imagine that provisions such as those prepared in the bill would be additional encumbrances in terms of attracting the best to come into the Government and perform Government service.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Does the academy have a position on the existence and extent of conflicts of interest among Government employees?

Mr. KLINE. We have no position at the academy. But from my Government experience in terms of the administration of law and regulation-you may remember that about a decade ago, GSA was hit pretty hard with a national scandal of its own. Although there may be occasional problems that come up from time to time, the national nature of that problem has gone away, and it did not go away overnight. This is as a result of a concerted effort from the top of the agency including bringing in a senior ethics official to work directly with the administrator to a program of education. throughout the agency where people were briefed-tens of thousands of them-on a regular, coordinated basis throughout the country as to what law and regulation calls for, both in terms of the specifics of law but also in terms of the perceptions that attach to behavior.

The followups were quite direct and quite dramatic in terms of people being highly sensitive to the perception of wrongdoing, and to their relationships with contractors on the outside.

When the specific cases came up they were followed through with a vengeance. It was an unforgiving system to try and root out the problems where they did exist. That is what I mean by vigor of administration.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Of course, the problems in GSA were not as much related to revolving door issues, were they, as they were to direct fraud and

Mr. KLINE. That is correct. I am trying to address the part of your question having to do with the existence of conflict of interest in general, and the importance of effective administration of current law to avoid problems in this area.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I thank you for your testimony. I sometimes think that maybe some of these problems would be best dealt with by just giving the Pentagon maybe 10 percent less than they get now. And that you would find a heck of a lot better judgment made in the contracting process than maybe what happens is they have had just too much money over the last few years and there have been too many opportunities for some of the problems that have come up in the news media, certainly.

Mr. KLINE. A good example of understanding the real problem involved.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you for your testimony today.

Tomorrow we have testimony from the General Counsel's Office, Department of Defense, the Office of Government Ethics, their Director; Common Cause, and the Aerospace Industries Association of America.

We do have a March 15 deadline on our referral of this bill. I think the Committee on Post Office also has a deadline of the same date. I am confident that we are going to look at this bill very carefully and maybe make some modifications to it.

Thank you. The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

DEFENSE PROCUREMENT CONFLICT OF

INTEREST ACT

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1986

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room B-352, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Glickman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representative Glickman.

Staff present: William P. Shattuck, counsel; Janet Potts, counsel; Kevin Richardson, associate counsel; and Florence McGrady, legal assistant.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Good morning. I apologize for being late.

At the present time, there is no minority member here, but I am advised by their counsel that there is no objection to continuing the hearing this morning. So, we will go ahead and do that.

This is the second day of our hearings on the issue of the Defense Procurement Conflict of Interest Act, H.R. 2554. I would say that this is a matter that we have to act relatively expeditiously on because of a sequential referral date of March 15 that is given to us as well as to the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Interestingly, this morning learned that Congresswoman Schroeder also has jurisdiction in her committee. She is, of course, on the Judiciary Committee as well. I will have to talk to counsel later, but we may want to collaborate with that committee on this bill since there is some shared membership on the two committees.

We have four witnesses today. The Department of Defense will give their official testimony today. Yesterday's testimony by the inspector general was his testimony and not the Department's. The Office of Government Ethics, Common Cause, and Aerospace Industries Association of America are here.

Before you begin, I must tell you that I feel that, if we are going to pursue in this regard in terms of modifying our ethics laws and revolving door laws, that it probably ought to be done Governmentwide and not with respect to one agency. I just think that it is a mistake for us to begin a hodgepodge legislative modification to these laws. I am not saying that I am for or against the substance of H.R. 2554. I have a feeling that is going to go forward, and there appears to be enough movement in that on its own momentum. I do think that, in light of that, all of the witnesses ought to give (105)