so substantial as to be likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from such officers or employee. Now, did you find any specific provisions there on that? Mr. GABRIEL. We interviewed the personnel officers in the General Counsel's section. I would have to go back to the working papers and specifically see exactly what we have. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Would you please do that. I get the distinct impression you found no such procedures inside the agency. Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, we will do that. [The information subsequently submitted follows:] The specific procedures implementing the conflict of interest provisions in title 18, with particular reference to sections 208 (a) and (b), have previously been described. We did not determine the extent to which these provisions were enforced, with regard to each of the cases reviewed under study, for the reasons previously explained. Mr. DINGELL. You know, over the years, I have had great respect and affection for the General Accounting Office. I thought you were the honest men in Government. I really looked with great approbation on anything you have done. You always find my public comments on the GAO have been of the highest. I must confess this morning, though, you gentlemen have done a great deal to shake that faith. Mr. KELLER. Well, I am sorry for that Mr. Chairman. I would just like to add a little bit to what Mr. Gabriel said. I think on the specific instructions you are talking about Mr. DINGELL. You found none. Mr. KELLER [continuing]. I think every agency of the Government has a specific instruction on how to handle conflicts and they are required to do so under the Presidential Executive order. I know we have it in the GAO in great detail. It is given to any new employee, consultant or otherwise. Mr. DINGELL. Did you find anything like that in the Presidential Executive Interchange program? Mr. KELLER. I can't answer that. Mr. DINGELL. All right. Would you give us an answer as to whether you did? Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir, we will. [The information subsequently submitted follows:] As previously stated, PEIP's manual prescribes certain specific procedures designed to avoid the possibility of conflict. Once the participant begins work he is subject to the general conflict of interest rules and regulations of the agency at which he is working. Mr. DINGELL. Now, I suppose I am going to have to write you a letter setting out specifically what I want you to tell me, because the Chair doesn't seem to be getting through to you. The Chair recognizes counsel. Mr. WARD. I think Congressman Krebs Mr. DINGELL. Yes, with appropriate apologies, the Chair recognizes my colleague from California, Mr. Krebs. Mr. KREBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may possibly have missed the reference, but I wonder what criteria were used to select these 15 cases? Mr. GABRIEL. We started with a request to review the Bridges case. There was 10 participants in the Department of Commerce and the 69-982 O-76-9 request also said to look at the broader aspects of the program. Commerce was the agency with the most participants. After clearing an initial access to the records problem on the one case, we determined we would also look at the other nine to get some coverage on the total program. That is how we selected the 10 in Commerce. Then, as we looked down the list, the remaining participants were dispersed throughout about 20 Federal agencies. There were only about four in one agency and four in another agency, and the others had less participants. We took that into consideration in selecting EPA. I believe that EPA had four, so we selected two. Our prior investigation had already covered one case in HEW. So that is how we primarily selected them. Also, there was some concern by Congressman Vanik's people as to what ones they thought were sensitive and which ones they felt we should look at. The selection was not on a random, systematic basis. We were specifically directed to look at specific cases, and then we chose a few on our own. Mr. KREBS. There has been repeated reference made to a booklet of some kind with guidelines or cautionary information as to possible conflict of interest, and that matter has been discussed between you and the chairman. Were there any other steps taken by the agencies in question to orally get the message across or to warn the participants of possible conflict of interest, or to describe the pitfalls of such possible conflict of interest? Mr. GABRIEL. We had some indication of that in the correspondence by the general counsels with respect to that point. And the general counsels also advised these people and Mr. KREBS. Before they ever went to the agencies? Mr. GABRIEL. This would be the general counsel at the agency. Mr. KREBS. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, are you familiar with Jack Anderson's column dated April 6, 1975, entitled "The Executive Swap"? Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, sir, I remember reading that. Mr. FISH. In it, he refers to this Interchange program as "Industry's Trojan Horse." He says this because it allows big corporations to "plant" their man in Government policy positions where they can influence decisions affecting their firms. Would either one of you care to comment on this "Trojan Horse" analogy? Mr. KELLER. I would just make the general comment, Mr. Fish. I think it is the type of program where you could reach that conclusion. If you want this type of program, which is an interchange program between Government and industry, I think the only way to overcome the potential problems is by careful assignment, close watchfulness over what the man is actually doing while he is there, and so forth. I guess, personally, I just have the problem of the Government today and industry today living in complete isolation and really not having much interchange between each other. And this program, as I understand it, is to break down those barriers. Mr. FISH. If I understand you correctly, then you are saying, by its very nature there is a potential in this program for Mr. KELLER. I don't have any doubt about that under the qualification that I think there are potentials in other areas too. Maybe this is more so than Mr. FISH. And if you are going to have a program, then policing it is the answer? Mr. KELLER. Yes, I think it is very important. Also, I would add it is very important to do an evaluation of any program, whether it is this one or someone else's as to whether it is worthwhile. Not just the conflicts though that is one thing-but the benefits coming out of it. That is a very hard thing to measure. You send a man away for a training course for 3 or 4 weeks and he comes back and you say "what did you get out of it" and he says "I learned a lot” but it is pretty hard to put it down one, two, three. Mr. FISH. In your judgment, is the policing adequate? Mr. KELLER. Well, as I understand it, they made some changes recently so I would have to qualify my answer. Certainly, you can't say as a whole that at the time we made our report the policing was completely adequate. Now whether the breakdown was with the commission or with the employing agency is a little hard to pin down. In the two cases that we are talking about, namely the Bowen case and the Western case, in my own mind, I can't help but feel that the Federal Energy Office wasn't paying much attention to this type of thing. You can draw your own conclusions. I mean, where a man has to disqualify himself. Mr. FISH. I think that was the thrust of the Chairman's interrogation of you because I think you made a very fair statement, that is, where do we go from here? You have a document that sets forth a thorough exposition of the relevant conflict of interest laws, and it is read by the individual and he signs his name to it, but you know, that is when he gets hired. The policing process I referred to is during the time that they are on the job. Mr. KELLER. That, and even afterwards. After he leaves he is very difficult to police. A man goes back to his company and Mr. FISH. Sure. Mr. KELLER. *** and anybody can work in the backroom, and you would never know what was going on. Mr. FISH. I think I would urge you, as others have, to research what these changes or effects have been since your investigation started. You should give us an estimate, in your judgment, as to whether they are adequate or, alternatively, formulate some new guidelines. Mr. KELLER. We certainly could do that. Mr. FISII. Some new guidelines that could be utilized. Mr. KELLER. I think we can do that. I have a little difficulty on the guidelines, but we certainly will give it a try. [Information pertaining to above follows:] We have not performed any follow-up review of this program since the completion of our report and therefore, we have not evaluated any changes since that time. Mr. FISH. Now, in the same column by Mr. Anderson, he cites eight cases of conflict of interest. I would like to go through the names and, as I do so, would you tell me if the GAO investigated these participants for possible conflict of interest, and, if so, what the determination was? Mr. GABRIEL. Can you just wait until I get my list lined up? Mr. FISH. Sure. The first name is Whiley Custer who went from Exxon to the Treasury Department in 1971. My question is was he able to choose the position he went to as indicated in the column? Mr. GABRIEL. We didn't have that one under review, sir. We were involved with the 1974 participants. The 1971 participants were not included. Mr. KELLER. Could I ask a question? Mr. Anderson, is he saying these are Interchange people, or is he talking about people going into Government generally? Mr. FISH. Well, the column is concerning the Executive Interchange program so-let me hand this copy to you. If there is any problem with earlier dates, I will skip the ones prior to 1973 and go to 1974. The next is Robert Witter with Weyerhaeuser Paper. Mr. GABRIEL. He was not included in our cases. Mr. FISH. He was placed in the United States Forest Service. My question would be was he considered only for this one job? Mr. GABRIEL. We didn't have that case under review, sir. It is not one of our 15 cases. Mr. FISH. Mr. George Tapper, General Electric? Mr. GABRIEL. We don't have that one, sir. Mr. FISH. Well Mr. GABRIEL. They are probably from an earlier point of time. I believe the ones we made our selection from were Mr. FISH. Well, they are 1973 and 1974. They appear in the record of that column. That column is damaging to the program. Actually, one of the purposes of this record today in these hearings would be to clear up charges like this which give certainly the inference of an apparent conflict. Let me ask you on another point, and that is the question of political contributions. It is alleged in this column that "most of the appointments, it now turns out, have gone to big political contributors." My question is, did you find any evidence to substantiate that statement? Mr. GABRIEL. Not in the files, sir, that were made available to us. We found no evidence of that there. Mr. FISH. Well, I'm not surprised. Mr. GABRIEL. I am not either. Mr. FISH. Now, come on, I mean I think this is a legitimate area. I presume it was brought to the attention of the GAO that this area is one of the purposes of this hearing, was it not, Mr. Chairman? Mr. DINGELL. It was indeed. I would like to know whether you just looked at the files or whether you made an evaluation of the program. I get the impression you just looked at the files. I am not sure how much more you did. Mr. GABRIEL. We made a limited review. Our scope was limited to what we said in these 15 cases. We didn't get into the entire program in the time frame we were allowed to do this, and respond to Congressman Vanik's request. Mr. FISH. Your letter to Mr. Vanik, dated January 20, 1975, states: "We found no evidence in the files that political consideration existed in the selection of Interchange candidates." I think our point is that, yes, that is correct, I'm sure. But once again, we have this column here and you have it, I don't have it but it indicates that the majority of the companies that supply personnel for this program have people in the companies who were major contributors in those years to the Presidential campaign. I just think this is a statement out in the public that has not been responded to, has not been reviewed, has not been explained away. And this is damaging to the whole program. I have no further questions. Mr. DINGELL. Well, thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Krebs. Mr. KREBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following this line of questioning, you said repeatedly that you did not discover anything in the files which would indicate any political consideration by the participants and/or their employers as far as this program is concerned. Is that correct? Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, sir. Mr. KREBS. Did you actually make an effort of any kind to go beyond the files to determine whether there were any political considerations in connection with implementation of this program and participation in this program or did you feel that this was beyond the scope of the investigation. What, if anything, did you do? Mr. KELLER. I would qualify myself by saying I did not look at the files, but it was my understanding that an examination of the files at the Commission was made and that we did not find any evidence of political considerations in the selection. Mr. KREBS. I understand that. I think that has been brought out in an answer to a question raised by the gentleman from New York. But my question is, did you gentlemen, in the course of your investigation, go beyond the files or did you intentionally or otherwise restrict yourself to the consideration of the contents of these files in determining whether there was or was not any political impact or consideration in connection with this program? Mr. KELLER. I would take it, Mr. Krebs, that we confined ourselves to the files. Is that correct? Mr. GABRIEL. Yes, and the aspects primarily with the duties of the recipient in the job descriptions. We did not have the time or the resources to permit that kind of an indepth pursuit of this political type of question. Mr. KREBS. Am I correct in assuming, in light of what has been said here, and in light of what has been said previously in connection with this problem, that you had been aware of charges, even aside from those in the Anderson column, of political influence in connection with this program? Mr. KELLER. I wasn't aware of it. Maybe somebody else was. Mr. GABRIEL. Well, I think Congressman Vanik's memorandum brings that out. Mr. KREBS. Now, you mentioned that the reason you did not go beyond the files in trying to evaluate the political connection, if any, was that you did not have the facilities to do so? |