ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF HON. BELLA S. ABZUG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you to express my support for H.R. 3249, the Financial Disclosure Act.

I endorse this bill because it represents a real and effective effort to restore confidence in, and support for, our Government at a time when confidence and faith in our national leaders is rapidly deteriorating.

Passage of the legislation, requiring that the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, candidates for Federal office, and certain employees of the Federal Government file annual financial statements with the Comptroller General would be a most important signal to the American people that the Congress is determined to restore trust in the operations of Government. These reports would provide a real reflection of the outside activities and interests of public officials, since they would include information concerning income and financial transactions of the offiicals, and would be maintained as public records, available for public inspection. This confidence would be buttressed, since strong enforcement powers, resting with the Justice Department and the General Accounting Office-an office noted for its political independence are built into the legislation.

The "crisis of confidence" that has been occurring will not disappear until Members of Congress, and all other public officials, take positive action to demonstrate our genuine commitment to reforming and improving our national institutions.

H.R. 3249 would represent such an effort, calling as it does for extensive financial disclosure. It would bring to light potential or real conflicts of interest. On the other hand, it would also serve to demonstrate the lack of any such conflict. It may be said that any governmental action which does not advance the common interest may be viewed as evidence of a conflict of interest. But that simplified definition ignores many of the complexities and ambiguities which surround issues that decision-makers constantly face. Demands placed on officials to represent both his or her constituency and the overall interest of the nation often create conflicts and ethical dilemmas. Making clear to the public what our financial situations are will also make clear where unhealthy conflicts do exist; but it will also indicate the cases in which the only conflict is based on differing ethical obligations. The ultimate and beneficial impact would be a more open and forthright political process.

On the other hand, it is no secret that some of the accusations of dishonesty which have been made against public officials have been accurate. The role of private financial gain has for too long undermined the operation of effective government. The accountability of government officials to the public is essential if we are ever to remove the unhealthy impact of the well-financed influence peddlers. This is one of the major reasons that I have long advocated full public disclosure of all interests and decisions of public officials. The government in the Sunshine bill which I sponsored is a reflection of my views on this matter, and is an example of the type of legislation which could make public government truly public.

Codes of ethical conduct have essentially played no role in our government. We have left it up to each office holder to-in a sense-choose to be honest. Disclosure requirements, such as those mandated by H.R. 3249, would move us away from the practice of having to rely on the individual judgment of every public official as to what is right and wrong. General standards of appropriate conduct are required. Only through mandated periodic and detailed disclosures of personal finances can the citizenry determine what those standards should be, and whether each public official is placing himself in a position in which his actions are more for private than public benefit.

(185)

It is a simple fact that public disclosure requirements are now inadequate and vary greatly among the branches of government. Despite this inadequacy, an analysis done by Common Cause of the limited financial disclosures filed by House members in 1975 still revealed that eighty-six members had significant connections with banks, and forty-eight had financial interests in firms listed among the top 100 defense contractors. I do not wish to make a judgment here on the proprietary of such interests. I do wish to note, however, that these facts are of legitimate public concern. This data represents the type of information which the American people must know about their officials, if they are to make proper judgments about those officials, and it is this type of information which would be revealed if the financial disclosure bill is enacted.

Rapidly declining voter turnout has been attributed, correctly I believe, in large part to the low opinion which voters have developed for politicians and for the political process. Skepticism regarding the effectiveness of voting as a method for generating social change, particularly in light of Watergate and related incidents, has bred tremendous apathy toward national issues. I have seen this in my travels in all parts of the country. But I have also seen a willingness on the part of the American people to have their faith restored in government, if we give them reasons for having that faith. Frankly, neither voter confidence nor citizen participation can be expected to increase unless the accountability and objectivity of the public servant is assured. Perhaps the best method for regaining this confidence is to make clear to the public exactly what the financial interests of any public officials are in any decision he or she makes.

Opponents of financial disclosure argue that it is an infringement of individual rights to require the furnishing of information mandated by H.R. 3249. As chair of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, I would like to address this issue. The court decisions prohibiting state regulation that unnecessarily invades an individual's right to privacy have never declared that this right is absolute, particularly where it pertains to public officials. The responsibility of a public official differs substantially from that of other citizens. The courts must balance possibly conflicting societal rights to know, against the right of an individual to privacy in certain areas. to determine how best to insure the integrity of the governmental process. Those who choose public life must relinquish certain of their individual rights to privacy if our system is to remain sound.

Other opponents claim that excessive guidelines for disclosure would insult the integrity of well-qualified individuals and discourage them from seeking public office. Again, I must note that the pubic official, when he or she chooses to enter public life, must make a number of sacrifices. This would be one of them. I do not feel that it would prohibit truly dedicated individuals from serving. In fact, such financial disclosure is necessary, if we are to restore honor to the term "public official."

Effectively enforced financial disclosure requirements would certainly raise the stature of public officials in the mind of the public, while at the same time working to eliminate those whose unethical behavior threatens the continuation of a truly responsive government which meets the expectations of the electorate. It is a simple fact that the public is now unaware of all the considerations and outside interests which may affect the decisions of public officials. This must be corrected. As Justice Brandeis noted: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant: electric light the most effective policeman."

This idea underlies my sponsorship for the Sunshine bill. It also is the basis for my support of the financial disclosure act. Publicity is the only answer to public skepticism. Uniform, comprehensive and strict disclosure requirements must be enacted if we and other nublic officials are to face our constituents with more than the usual rhetoric about accountability and responsiveness. Rather, we should face them with substantial evidence of our commitment to their interests, not to ours. Enacting the financial disclosure act will be a major sten in offering that evidence. Therefore, I urge the committee to report this legislation favorably.

STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations. I thank you for this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the "Financial Disclosure Act."

I am a co-sponsor of this legislation and it is my belief that public financial disclosure by government officials is an idea whose time has come. We face a continuing crisis in our government at this time-it is a crisis of confidence.

It is my firm conviction that financial disclosure will increase the confidence of our people in their public officials and in the operations of their government. It is time that we act to dispel public suspicion and cynicism of our democratic institutions.

The legislation being considered by your subcommittee will not force a public official to relinquish any financial holdings-but it will serve to provide greater public scrutiny of decisions made by elected and appointed officials who have a potential conflict of interest on certain matters.

Public disclosure will allow the general public to view the facts and thus police and monitor the behavior and conduct of government officials who are chosen to protect the public interest-not the private interests. As a public official, I feel safe with the good and decent citizens of this country acting as the judge and jury of my conduct. I also believe that full public disclosure affords those of us in public service the opportunity to rebut false or misleading innuendos concerning our finances and interests.

The legislation before this subcommittee carefully balances the public's right to information with the legitimate rights of privacy for all citizens—including public officials.

I support this bill because it is equitable by requiring that high-ranking civil service employees and high-ranking members of the uniformed services, as well as Members of Congress and the President and Vice-President file personal financial disclosure statements. This bill also requires that all candidates for Federal office file a financial disclosure statement.

The bill represents equity in another way as well, by establishing a uniform, Government-wide means of disclosure. The financial disclosure report as outlined in this bill requires that the amount and source of each item of income, and each gift in excess of $100 be reported, as well as the identity of each asset over $1000, each security transaction over $1000, each commodity transaction in excess of $1000, and the purchase or sale of real property valued at more than $1000. Financial disclosure is an essential step toward open government and increased public awareness regarding those in whom the public trust is placed.

We all realize that there are tremendous responsibilities associated with the honor of public service. With this honor also comes obligations and sacrifices. We have willfully chosen public service as elected officials-others have chosen public service in an appointed capacity. Having chosen to serve, we are now presented with an opportunity to demonstrate to the American public that our decisions are not clouded by consideration of personal gain.

Over the years we have acted to open the process of decision-making in Government to the public. We have passed the Freedom of Information Act, we have opened our committee deliberations to the public, and the House is this week considering the "Government in the Sunshine Act" which opens meetings of federal regulatory and other agencies to the public. A logical extension of this new era of openness in government is the adoption of the Financial Disclosure Act.

I am optimistic as we consider this legislation. I am optimistic because I am confident that public disclosure will reveal the high level of integrity of most government officials. I believe we are seeing a healing in this country-a restoration of the faith of the American people in their Government. I urge you to report this bill to the full Committee and to the floor of the House as soon as possible, so that the restoration of confidence may continue.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN BALDUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am a cosponsor of the Financial Disclosure Act and I urge you to report it out of the committee so that the entire House may work its will before the 94th Congress adjourns.

A very large number of candidates for public office have already been voluntarily making such disclosures. I have done so myself. Disclosure is made voluntarily by candidates because it is a good idea and, to an extent, because the public has come to expect it.

The bills before you, however, also deal with disclosure by a much broader range of government officials. I sincerely believe that it is in the public interest

to assure that top level, nonelected government officials join with elected officials in making available detailed statements of taxes paid; sources of income, reimbursement, or gifts; the value of assets and liabilities; and all dealings in securities, commodities, or real estate.

The current low level of confidence in our government can in part be blamed on a feeling by the people that government officials are sitting in Washington using their offices to fatten their purses. I think we all agree that such conduct is illegal. Let's clear the air and make certain that such abuses are not taking place by requiring financial disclosure.

I feel that the sizeable number of cosponsors of Financial Disclosure legislation warrants favorable action by the Committee. I hope and I trust that the Committee will take such action.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure for me to appear before your subcommittee on the crucial matter of financial disclosure. I have long been an advocate of full financial disclosure for Members of Congress and have introduced bills for several years to provide for full disclosure. This year, I believe we have a golden opportunity to enact meaningful financial disclosure legislation and I have joined with more than one-third of the House membership to sponsor H.R. 3249 to require full dislosure by all top-ranking federal government officials.

We are all aware of the public opinion polls which show that confidence in Congress has plummeted to new lows. Recent Congressional scandals no doubt have served to reduce public trust in Congress even further. With daily headlines of alleged Congressional wrongdoing, people tend to lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of Congressmen and Senators follow high ethical standards. Only a miniscule number of Members of Congress have brought this body into disrepute and dishonor. As a matter of fact, of the more than 10,000 men and women who have served in either the House or Senate since 1789, only 32 have been disciplined-and only nine since 1900.

We must work to restore public trust and confidence in the federal government in general and in the Congress in particular, and I believe that a full disclosure law would be a giant step in that direction. We need a full disclosure law not so much to put a penalty on anyone, but rather to give the voters a basis for intelligent judgment as to whether a candidate for federal office or an elected federal official is in a position to render the objective service that the public trust requires.

In terms of appointed officials and other high-ranking employees of the federal government, a full disclosure law would restore public confidence in government by giving the public a look at the various financial holdings that could influence a decision-maker's thinking. A full disclosure law would also help the Senate in confirmation hearings by providing that body with a list of the financial interests of a Presidential appointee. The Senate could then determine if such holdings could unduly influence the appointee in the execution of his duties.

While I believe that financial disclosure would provide for a cleaner and more open government, I certainly do not think that such a law would end all conflicts of interest. I believe we should go a step further. The best and most practical way to avoid conflict of interest between public and private business is to proscribe private interests for those elected officials whose charge is to serve the public. No Member of Congress, in my judgment, should be permitted to prac tice law or any other form of private business in which salaries or fees are paid. Congressional salaries are high enough and a Congressman should not have earned income outside his salary.

Financial disclosures is certainly a step in the right direction and H.R. 3249 is the best bill to provide for iron-clad disclosure. This bill requires uniform disclosure by high ranking officers and employees of all three branches of the federal government. The disclosure requirement extends to the President and VicePresident, Members of Congress, federal judges, and all officers and employees earning more than $25,000, including federal employees with a GS-16 rating and military officers with an 0-6 pay grade. In addition the bill requires a listing of the financial interests of spouses and dependents since such interests can also influence a decision-maker's thinking.

H.R. 3249 would also require full disclosure by candidates for federal office, and this would provide the voters with a detailed look at the various factors that could influence an elected official's conduct in office.

The disclosure idea, it has been said, comes as close as anything to being the all-purpose cleanser of American politics. It attaches no mroal overtones to the financial situation of a particular member or candidate. Rather, it recognizes that the final arbiter in any controversy is the public, who must have the knowledge of all such facts in order to express their opinions on the behavior of their elected officials. As public office is a public trust, so must public disclosure be the responsibility of every public official.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. BLANCHARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of H.R. 3249 and related bills which are concerned with financial disclosure.

My thesis is a simple one, and one that you will no doubt hear repeated many times, so I will be brief.

We are now at a point in our country's history where the public's faith in many of our institutions is very low. Obviously, this does not result entirely from the conduct of our government, and if there is one thing I am sure of, it is that neither this bill, nor any other, will solve that problem overnight.

The loss of credibility is something which has taken place over many years, and it will take time to restore it. But we must make the attempt.

I know that in the last few years, a number of members of Congress have voluntarily disclosed their finances. I did so as a candidate for Congress in 1974, and I found, in my discussions with citizens thereafter, that disclosure has a positive effect.

In my opinion, it is the kind of thing we are going to need to do more and more of in the future to keep the respect of the people we serve. If there ever was a time in this nation's history when it could be taken for granted that public officials acted always and only in the public interest, the time is past.

I urge the committee to give serious and favorable consideration to this legislation. It is in keeping with many of the other reforms we have recently enacted, and I believe it can only be beneficial for the people of this country to know how those who serve them are profiting from such service and from outside income.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

"Publicity," the late Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote, "is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most effective policeman."

These words are particularly relevant today when we are facing an unprecedented crisis of confidence in government. We have seen the unbelievable excesses of the Watergate era. We have seen the Vice President of the United States drummed out of office for taking money under the table . . . and we have seen the President, himself, forced to leave office in disgrace.

At the same time, we have seen case after case where our own colleagues in Congress have been accused of bribery, conflict of interest and misuse of public funds.

Congress has righteously passed laws to curb abuses in the Executive Branch and in private industry . . . but we have failed to apply that same standard to our own Houses.

I've said it before, Mr. Chairman . . . and I will say it again today. We must end this double standard! We must throw open the curtains and let the rays of sunshine penetrate the halls of Congress. We will not have true reform in Congress until we require the personal finances of Congressmen to be exposed to full public scrutiny. To require disclosure of campaign contributions and not to require personal financial disclosure is to tell only half the story-when the whole truth is desperately needed.

H.R. 3249 would require public financial disclosure by all elected Federal officials, candidates for federal office, federal employees paid $25,000 per year or more, and persons in policy making positions whose decisions could generate potential conflicts of interest.