SEC. 921. POST-GOVERNMENT-SERVICE EMPLOYMENT BARS ON SENIOR DE-
FENSE OFFICIALS

Whoever being a Presidential appointee in Federal employment acts as a primary government representative in the negotiation of a government contract or the settlement thereof with a defense contractor shall not within two years after the termination of said activities with such contractor accept employment from that contractor and upon a knowing violation of this provision the employee shall be punished, upon conviction, with a prison term of up to one year and a fine of up to $5,000 and said defense contractor shall forfeit up to $50,000 in liquidated damages to the Federal Govern ment which shall be provided for in the contract. The Secretary of Defense shall implement this provision by appropriate regulations.

SECTION 921, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1986

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you for your direct comments.

I want to get precisely the difference between your amendment, or your original bill, and what came out of the Armed Services Committee. I want to know exactly what problems you have with the reported bill. I think that we have to do more than just say that they passed a watered down version of the bill. Specifically, what don't you like about their bill?

Mr. BENNETT. The most specific and important thing of all, they eliminate the top flight people. In other words, the people at the very top that make most of the basic decisions on this are eliminated entirely. In other words, they look at it as a measure which, in the version you have before you today, high level officials are excluded by section (g) and section (g)(4).

Mr. GLICKMAN. Now, sections (g) and (g)(4) are the waiver provisions. There is a waiver provision in (g)(4) of the committee bill which says the Secretary can waive people if he so finds. You don't want to see a waiver provision at all?

Mr. BENNETT. Not at all. Actually, I am wedded to the language that passed the House by an overwhelming vote. Why try to improve upon perfection? It has already passed. That would make it much, much easier if you go to the floor. There may be something you want to change here and there, you don't have to be wedded to every comma and period, but it was done thoughtfully, and it was overwhelmingly passed. I would think that if you don't change it much it is likely to pass again.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Yes; it may. On the other hand, this is an issue that a lot of Members don't know very much about, and when you mention the words "ethics" or "Defense Department revolving door," a lot of Members come in and vote aye without knowing the specifics about it. Our responsibility here is to go through the specifics because, you know, justice is blind, and the language of a statute affects the good and the bad the same way. So we have to make sure that we know specifically what you don't like about the committee bill because then we have to make the judgment, you know, what the rationale is.

Now, as I understand it, you do not like the waiver provisions? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, I do not like the waiver provisions. Mr. GLICKMAN. OK. What else is there in the committee bill that you do not want to see?

Mr. BENNETT. At page 7 of the committee bill, the covered positions, that is (4)(g)—not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register these regulations which allow the

Secretary of Defense to cozy up to the same situation and make exceptions.

Mr. GLICKMAN. So as I understand it, the committee bill has covered positions which they say are subject to the 2-year prohibitions. But what you are saying is it gives them great discretion in defining who shall be in and who shall not be in, so therefore, a lot of people may not ultimately be in.

Mr. BENNETT. That's right.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Whereas, in your basic bill you have the words, basically anybody who has had a significant contract responsibility is covered.

Mr. BENNETT. I want to make the point to you, it is not just because of the title he has, it is because of what he does. In other words, why is it anymore proper for a person to do it because of a title? The bill which the House passed gets at what he does which in fact is being a part of the procurement process. Why should people be exempt just because they have a title?

Mr. GLICKMAN. But your bill doesn't define what significant contract responsibility does. Whereas, the committee bill may not do any better of that job, but does specifically define what covered positions are, on page 7 and 8, development, production, funding, operational, and developmental testing.

One of the things our committee is going to want to do is be precise on defining this, because I think if you are talking about criminal penalties, we need to know specifically what is a significant contractual responsibility. People can go to jail for violating this law, both the people in the Defense Department and the contractor. So I want to make sure that we know who really is covered. I think that is a very key point. Otherwise, the courts are going to be inundated with these cases. I am not sure I want a Federal judge making those decisions all the time.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I have got the Congressional Record.

Mr. BENNETT. The bill says, covered procurement function—it says that the Secretary of Defense shall make these definitions. So he is allowed to make definitions about the functions covered, but not with the looseness of the bill that passed the House committee. It is a tighter situation. Anything can be improved upon.

I would like to point out that the greatest problem with regard to this is in the Department of Defense-it involves billions of dollars. I would have liked to have had it broader in scope, but I just thought I would be legislated to death if I had gone broader, and now you are taking it up. If you have general improvements that you want to put into a general law, that is fine. But the dollars are going to come out of the Department of Defense, and we did pass this on the floor. Therefore, I would strongly urge that unless you feel like you have a very great improvement, that you try not to change it too much because you will give a handle to those that are not in favor of this bill at all, including a lot of very fine people. A lot of very fine people think we are micromanaging the Department of Defense already, and there are a lot of people that will just use the changes you make as a method of killing, by debate and by controversy, the enactment of legislation.

Mr. GLICKMAN. OK.

Let me get to some specific problems. Maybe this is my lawyer instinct coming out at me, but let's say I was a procurement official in the Department of Defense, and I had significant responsibilities, whatever that means, and I am working with IBM on a major Defense contract on the star wars program. I decide to leave, and IBM wants me to go to work for their typewriter division in Jacksonville, FL as regional manager.

Is that a violation of this?

Mr. BENNETT. It certainly should be, and it is, under my bill. It should, why? Because what is your problem? Your problem is with the possibility that there is a person dealing with the corporation favorably, or unfavorably, making decisions, but ultimately a bribe, if it is going to be favorable.

It isn't going to make any difference to that person who gets bribed-if I may use gruff words-whether he is paid off by being head of a typewriter division in Jacksonville, FL, or whether he is vice president of the corporation. It is the money he is interested in, assuming he is that venal. Of course, most of the people in this situation are not that venal, most of them are people that don't even see that they have made a mistake, they don't understand they made a mistake, because this in a way puts up a prophylactic cover over the situation. A lot of people don't see the morality to it. Mr. GLICKMAN. This is, of course, under both the committee bill and your bill. But what happens if he goes to work for a company that has a very significant contract with IBM but is not actually employed?

Mr. BENNETT. It is not covered by my bill.

Mr. GLICKMAN. It may be, because it says that

Mr. BENNETT. I hope it is but I don't think it is.

Mr. GLICKMAN. If that is the case, Charlie, the person would never find a job anywhere because the world is too interrelated. Mr. BENNETT. I don't know which side you come up on in this matter. I mean, this picks the men from the boys.

Mr. GLICKMAN. That is not necessarily true.

Mr. BENNETT. I didn't say that what you say was in my bill. My staff tells me it is not. I am just sharing my prejudice. If you want to argue with my prejudice, all right, but it is not the law I have urged you to pass.

Mr. GLICKMAN. It may be fun talking about separating the men from the boys. But we are talking about criminal penalties here and this committee has the responsibility of being very precise when it comes to criminal law.

Mr. BENNETT. It clearly is not in the bill so we are talking about something else that I might have done that was too righteous, not what my proposal says.

Mr. GLICKMAN. As I read the definitions, it says the term compensation includes anything in excess of $100 at prevailing market price provided directly, indirectly, or through a third party. I have had some lawyers come to me and say that could mean that people who had business with a Defense contractor may be covered if somebody wants to go to work for them. That concerns me. I am not sure that is what we are trying to get at.

Mr. BENNETT. That is intended to cover consultants, not subcontractors.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Then we should be precise with that and say it, don't you think?

Mr. BENNETT. I have no objection to your improving anything. I am saying what I intended when I got the law and the House did overwhelmingly approve this language.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I realize that, but I don't want to get stuck on what the vote was on the floor. As I said before, first of all, I think there was an initial vote in which there was about a 2-to-1 vote, as I recall, which was substituting your amendment for the base language, and then there was an overwhelming vote of 19 votes on the base thing. Am I not correct with that?

Mr. BENNETT. There was a vote-the first vote that came up, there was a preliminary vote, but it gathered steam. As it went to the end of the thing it was only 19 votes against it.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Yes, I realize that, but steam is one thing, law is another, and I want to make sure that the steam and the law mesh with each other.

Mr. BENNETT. I don't want to fall out with the person I am pleading to pass the bill.

Mr. GLICKMAN. All right.

Mr. BENNETT. If your conscience tells you that the bill that passed the House is too strict-you are chairman of the committee. But I have to say what I think. What I think is that this sort of thing is hurting the national defense of our country because it is just so full of money going out-and it is not just thousands, not just millions, it is probably billions that has been siphoned off this way, and it ought to stop.

If you have a better way of stopping it, a fair way of stopping it, fine. I really didn't have very many people come to me after the passage of this bill and say this bill was too extreme.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I don't quarrel with your goals and I am not going to get in an argument with you. I am just telling you that I have had enough experience when I worked in the federal system to know that we just need to be precise and it is this committee's responsibility to be precise.

Mr. BENNETT. I don't object to your clarifying it.

Mr. GLICKMAN. When your subcommittee held hearings on this bill, did you have figures on the number of procurement personnel who left Government service, and on the percentage of those personnel who go to work for contractors with whom they have previously dealt?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes; we did. I don't have them here because I didn't think I was going to make that kind of a testimony. This is years ago, you understand, it isn't yesterday.

Mr. GLICKMAN. It would be really useful for us to have those numbers.

Mr. BENNETT. You asked the question and I will get them for you.

Mr. GLICKMAN. OK, perhaps your staff will.

Mr. BENNETT. I don't have them on top of my head at this moment.

Mr. GLICKMAN. OK. I guess what I am trying to get at is to what extent has this problem been proven by numbers to what extent