Executive Branch Reform Act
Encyclopedia
The Executive Branch Reform Act was a bill proposed in the 110th United States Congress
and would have required thousands of federal officials to report into a government database the names of persons who contact them attempting to "influence" government policies or actions.
The prime sponsor of the bill is Congressman Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. In the 110th Congress, the bill is designated H.R. 984. It was approved, without dissent, by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 14, 2007. The legislation has not yet been scheduled for action by the full House of Representatives. According to the Washington Post (March 6, 2007), "A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) says that she backs the measure . . . and that she expects it to get a vote in the House."
, including any employee serving in a position in level I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule
; any employee serving in a position of a "policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character;" and all military officers of one-star rank and above.
The only senior federal officials exempted under the bill are the president, the vice president, and their respective chiefs of staff.
Regarding the requirement to report contacts from any "private party," the bill states, "The term 'private party' means any person or entity, but does not include a Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, the bill requires the reporting of contacts from citizens, but does not require the reporting of contacts made by one government official to another.
The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." This definition covers all forms of oral or written communication, one way or two way, whether solicited by the official or not, including letters, faxes, e-mails, phone messages, and petitions.
The covered officials would be required to file quarterly reports listing "the name of each private party who had a significant contact with that official," and "a summary of the nature of the contact, including -- (A) the date of the contact; (B) the subject matter of the contact and the specific executive branch action to which the contact relates; and (C) if the contact was made on behalf of a client, the name of the client." The final provision is apparently meant to cover contacts from persons who are representing the views of others, such as lawyers, representatives of advocacy groups, and paid lobbyists, but the other information must be provided for contacts from every other "private party."
The bill contains certain exceptions, including comments from the public in response to publication of proposed agency rules in the Federal Register
, contacts which amount merely to requests for information from a government official or agency, and contacts made by journalists in the course of news gathering.
The bill provides penalties of "administrative sanctions, up to and including termination of employment," for any violation of its requirements. For any deliberate attempt "to conceal a significant contact," there would be an additional penalty of a civil fine of up to $50,000 per infraction.
H.R. 984 also contains unrelated provisions that would place new regulations on so-called "revolving door" practices -- that is, government officials moving into private-sector jobs that relate to their previous government employment. These provisions have so far excited far less controversy than the provisions discussed above.
by making it impermissible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues to government officials without those communications becoming a matter of public record.
Among the groups defending the thrust of the bill is Public Citizen
, an organization founded by activist Ralph Nader
. Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, told the Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill
"that his organization supports the goal of increasing transparency of federal officials’ interactions with private interests. Federal officials should have no reason to be 'ashamed' of their contacts with advocates for the issues they work on, he said....Holman conceded, however, that the officials, private parties and communications that would be covered under the bill might be too broad."
in February, 2007, which presented a case that such reporting requirements would discourage citizens from communicating their viewpoints to the officials who govern them. The NRLC analysts wrote, "One predictable effect of imposing this isolation on government officials will be to impede countless Americans from exercising their right to petition government officials on policy matters – a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. It would no longer be possible for a private citizen or representative of a group of private citizens to enjoy any degree of privacy when they send a communication on a policy matter to a government official, because the official will be required to report the contact. Once this is generally understood, many citizens will become more reluctant to exercise their constitutional right to petition as freely as they did before. The chilling effect will be especially severe for those Americans who privately advocate for causes disfavored by their own professional peers, social peers, family members, employers, or customers."
The U.S. Department of Justice has raised numerous objections to the bill, both constitutional and practical. In a letter to Congressman Waxman, a senior Justice Department official wrote, "Virtually every person or entity's contact with a Government employee is meant to 'influence' that employee's decision in some way. . . [the] language is extremely broad, requiring covered officials to record and report such communications as questions from the audience at speeches and presentations, calls from listeners on radio and television shows in which covered officials participated, discussions with the public at meetings, receptions, and other public and private events. Hundreds of officials in a department or agency may be covered."
The bill would give the Office of Government Ethics the responsibility of collecting the required reports and enforcing the act. However, the director of that agency sent the bill's author a letter expressing strong reservations about the workability of the legislation.
110th United States Congress
The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of...
and would have required thousands of federal officials to report into a government database the names of persons who contact them attempting to "influence" government policies or actions.
The prime sponsor of the bill is Congressman Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. In the 110th Congress, the bill is designated H.R. 984. It was approved, without dissent, by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 14, 2007. The legislation has not yet been scheduled for action by the full House of Representatives. According to the Washington Post (March 6, 2007), "A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi is the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives and served as the 60th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 2007 to 2011...
(D-Calif.) says that she backs the measure . . . and that she expects it to get a vote in the House."
Requirements of the Bill
According as to a letter from the director of the Office of Government Ethics, the bill would require over 8,000 executive branch officials to report into a public database certain details on nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." The coverage extends to essentially all executive branch appointees of any president of the United StatesPresident of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
, including any employee serving in a position in level I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule
Executive Schedule
Executive Schedule refers to the highest-ranked appointed positions in the executive branch of the U.S. government. The President of the United States, an elected official, appoints incumbents to these positions, most of them with the advice and consent of the Senate. They include members of the...
; any employee serving in a position of a "policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character;" and all military officers of one-star rank and above.
The only senior federal officials exempted under the bill are the president, the vice president, and their respective chiefs of staff.
Regarding the requirement to report contacts from any "private party," the bill states, "The term 'private party' means any person or entity, but does not include a Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official." Thus, the bill requires the reporting of contacts from citizens, but does not require the reporting of contacts made by one government official to another.
The bill defines "significant contact" to be any "oral or written communication (including electronic communication) . . . in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States." This definition covers all forms of oral or written communication, one way or two way, whether solicited by the official or not, including letters, faxes, e-mails, phone messages, and petitions.
The covered officials would be required to file quarterly reports listing "the name of each private party who had a significant contact with that official," and "a summary of the nature of the contact, including -- (A) the date of the contact; (B) the subject matter of the contact and the specific executive branch action to which the contact relates; and (C) if the contact was made on behalf of a client, the name of the client." The final provision is apparently meant to cover contacts from persons who are representing the views of others, such as lawyers, representatives of advocacy groups, and paid lobbyists, but the other information must be provided for contacts from every other "private party."
The bill contains certain exceptions, including comments from the public in response to publication of proposed agency rules in the Federal Register
Federal Register
The Federal Register , abbreviated FR, or sometimes Fed. Reg.) is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains most routine publications and public notices of government agencies...
, contacts which amount merely to requests for information from a government official or agency, and contacts made by journalists in the course of news gathering.
The bill provides penalties of "administrative sanctions, up to and including termination of employment," for any violation of its requirements. For any deliberate attempt "to conceal a significant contact," there would be an additional penalty of a civil fine of up to $50,000 per infraction.
H.R. 984 also contains unrelated provisions that would place new regulations on so-called "revolving door" practices -- that is, government officials moving into private-sector jobs that relate to their previous government employment. These provisions have so far excited far less controversy than the provisions discussed above.
Support
The "Executive Branch Reform Act" is supported by some advocacy organizations as an expansion of "transparency" or "government in the sunshine," but other groups oppose it as an infringing on the constitutionally protected right to petitionRight to petition
The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.-United States:...
by making it impermissible for citizens to communicate their views on controversial issues to government officials without those communications becoming a matter of public record.
Among the groups defending the thrust of the bill is Public Citizen
Public Citizen
Public Citizen is a non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., United States, with a branch in Austin, Texas. Public Citizen was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971, headed for 26 years by Joan Claybrook, and is now headed by Robert Weissman.-Lobbying Efforts:Public Citizen...
, an organization founded by activist Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government....
. Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, told the Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill
The Hill (newspaper)
The Hill, a subsidiary of News Communications Inc., is a newspaper published in Washington, D.C. since 1994.Its first editor was Martin Tolchin, a veteran correspondent in the Washington bureau of The New York Times....
"that his organization supports the goal of increasing transparency of federal officials’ interactions with private interests. Federal officials should have no reason to be 'ashamed' of their contacts with advocates for the issues they work on, he said....Holman conceded, however, that the officials, private parties and communications that would be covered under the bill might be too broad."
Opposition
The position of opponents was initially laid out in a widely circulated memorandum issued by the National Right to Life CommitteeNational Right to Life Committee
The National Right to Life Committee is the oldest and largest pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted...
in February, 2007, which presented a case that such reporting requirements would discourage citizens from communicating their viewpoints to the officials who govern them. The NRLC analysts wrote, "One predictable effect of imposing this isolation on government officials will be to impede countless Americans from exercising their right to petition government officials on policy matters – a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. It would no longer be possible for a private citizen or representative of a group of private citizens to enjoy any degree of privacy when they send a communication on a policy matter to a government official, because the official will be required to report the contact. Once this is generally understood, many citizens will become more reluctant to exercise their constitutional right to petition as freely as they did before. The chilling effect will be especially severe for those Americans who privately advocate for causes disfavored by their own professional peers, social peers, family members, employers, or customers."
The U.S. Department of Justice has raised numerous objections to the bill, both constitutional and practical. In a letter to Congressman Waxman, a senior Justice Department official wrote, "Virtually every person or entity's contact with a Government employee is meant to 'influence' that employee's decision in some way. . . [the] language is extremely broad, requiring covered officials to record and report such communications as questions from the audience at speeches and presentations, calls from listeners on radio and television shows in which covered officials participated, discussions with the public at meetings, receptions, and other public and private events. Hundreds of officials in a department or agency may be covered."
The bill would give the Office of Government Ethics the responsibility of collecting the required reports and enforcing the act. However, the director of that agency sent the bill's author a letter expressing strong reservations about the workability of the legislation.