Memorandum of
Disapproval on a Bill Concerning Post-Employment Restrictions
Public
service is a public trust. It requires a high and exacting standard of conduct,
and we should go forward with more clear, far-reaching restrictions to ensure
that this standard of conduct is always met. But the final provisions of this
bill were poorly drafted, would have applied unevenly, and would discourage
from Government service
The
100th Congress cobbled together the final version of H.R. 5043 in its closing
moments. Post-employment restrictions are needed if the Nation is to govern
itself effectively. They deserve careful and thoughtful consideration, but this
bill reflected the political and other pressures that mount in the closing days
of a Congress. In December, we will have the recommendations of the nonpartisan
Quadrennial Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries, which
is currently considering Federal salaries and related issues. The
President-elect also has indicated that he will have his own initiative next
year, and I have encouraged him to do so. This bill would not have taken effect
until August of next year, and this interval should be used to craft balanced
and comprehensible post-employment legislation.
Fair
and impartial governance is the hallmark of our constitutional democracy. Current
laws concerning the conduct of current and former Federal employees were
designed to secure that fairness and impartiality. They prohibit conduct that
produces conflicts of interest between Federal employees' official duties and
their personal interests. Specifically, current law is designed to prevent two
primary abuses -- the misuse of confidential information or the exercise of
improper influence over Government action by former Federal employees and
less-than-faithful performance of official functions by current Federal
employees to favor a future employer.
While
there are some positive aspects of the bill, the Post-Employment Restrictions
Act would have prohibited conduct of former Federal employees unrelated to
genuine ethical concerns. In effect it would have punished them for their
service to the Nation. For example, in certain circumstances, the bill would
have prohibited a senior former employee of an agency from communicating with a
senior current employee of a different agency with whom he is not personally
acquainted to seek assistance his employer or client needs on a matter with
which the former employee had absolutely nothing to do while in Federal
employment. The bill would make that communication a Federal crime punishable
by imprisonment and fines.
The
law already precludes a former Federal official from representing private
parties in specific matters in which that official was involved while in
Government and also imposes a 1-year cooling-off period during which a former
official generally cannot contact his agency on any matter. It is excessive and
unjustifiable also to insist, as this bill would, that former officials not
represent any client before any senior Executive official wherever located and
no matter how unrelated to the former officials' Government service.
That
kind of unnecessary and drastic criminal prohibition is unfair to those who
have served their country. It is already difficult to recruit talented people
into the senior ranks of Government. This bill would have begun to make former
senior Federal employees unemployable in the private sector after their
Government service. Many of the most talented might never sign up to serve
their country, and the country would be the worse for it.
The
bill also unreasonably favors the Congress with restrictions lighter than those
that would apply to the Executive branch. Under the bill, all Executive branch
employees would have been subject to certain prohibitions, but most
congressional employees would have been subject to none. Even for senior
congressional personnel, the restrictions would have been substantially less
rigorous than the restrictions placed on Executive branch employees of
equivalent responsibility. Members of Congress and senior staff would be subject
only to 1-year cooling-off periods of very modest scope and would not be
subject to the lifetime and 2-year particular matter bans currently imposed on
all Executive branch officials. The Congress' relatively favorable treatment of
itself in imposing restrictions in comparison with its treatment of the
Executive branch may indicate some congressional recognition that a number of
the bill's restrictions are overbroad and, to the extent of that overbreadth, unfair. In future consideration of
post-employment restrictions legislation, the Congress should determine what
restrictions are reasonable and necessary to protect the integrity of
Government and then apply them equally to both the Congress and the Executive
branch.
The
limitations of offenses under H.R. 5043 to acts done for
compensation also is of concern. There may be circumstances in which a
current employee who misuses official authority or a former employee who
misuses influence should be subject to penalties even though no compensation is
involved. In that respect, the provisions of H.R. 5043 would have failed to
reach conduct that should be prohibited and thus would have significantly
weakened current law. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of
Government Ethics find this provision to be particularly objectionable.
I
support several positive aspects of H.R. 5043 that would substantially improve
the effectiveness of Federal post-employment restriction laws. The bill would
have granted the Attorney General the power to seek civil penalties for
violations of the post-employment restrictions and to obtain injunctions from
Federal courts to prevent impending violations. The bill also would have
permitted the Attorney General to distinguish between misdemeanor and felony
violations of the restrictions in charging individuals. The bill also would
have adjusted the 1-year ban on certain contacts with a former employee's
former agency to make clear that it applies to matters in which the
Above
all, in considering future post-employment restrictions legislation, the
Congress should focus on drafting legislation that will be clear and
understandable to current, former, and future Federal employees. The bill would
create a confusing patchwork of different requirements for seven categories of
covered officials: ``senior'', ``other senior'', ``very senior'', all Executive
branch, Members of Congress, congressional employees, and former Presidents and
Vice Presidents. The law should be clear so that employees joining the
Government will understand what will be expected of them when they leave,
former employees will know reliably the limits on their conduct, and Federal
officials charged with enforcing the law and providing advice can discharge
their duties effectively.
In
withholding my approval of H.R. 5043, I am well aware that there will be
criticisms. But I must act on this bill according to my judgment of what is
best for the country. While this bill would not have affected me or my
Administration, it is fundamentally flawed and would have made securing good
government for
Ronald
Reagan
The
White House,