GOP Lawmakers Alter Intelligence Reform Bill to Cloak
Financial Ties
Watchdog groups say the provision would make it harder
to detect
conflicts of interest.
By Lisa Getter
Times Staff Writer
November 16, 2004
WASHINGTON — Citing national security concerns, some Republican members
of Congress are trying to limit the personal financial information that
top federal officials must disclose.
Tucked within the House's 497-page version of the "9/11 Recommendations
Implementation Act" is a provision to repeal the requirement that
senior-level officials report their personal financial assets valued at
more than $2.5 million. It also would end the practice of disclosing
the dates of stock transactions.
The proposal to limit
financial disclosures initially covered only top-level intelligence
officials. It was recently expanded to include all executive branch
officials, according to a draft version of the bill.
"Something
like this shouldn't be done secretly," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los
Angeles, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.
"It should be done thoughtfully and after some hearings."
Both
the House and Senate have passed versions of legislation to overhaul
the nation's intelligence community, based on the recommendations of
the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks. A conference
committee is currently meeting to come up with a final draft of the
legislation.
The new disclosure provision was included during
the conference committee negotiations. "They're burying it in a large
bill that is very controversial on other issues, so no one is going to
pay any attention to this," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public
Citizen, a government watchdog group.
The new disclosure
policies would make it harder to detect when officials have personal
financial stakes in matters before them, watchdog groups say. The
current rules require officials to list the value of their assets in
categories, beginning at "none or less than $1,000" and ending at "more
than $50 million."
Claybrook said that after her group
complained about the special financial disclosure rules for
intelligence and national security officials, congressional negotiators
"amazingly went even further to limit reporting for all government
agency officials."
In praising passage of the House version
of the bill last month, Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-Va.) said that
streamlining the financial disclosure rules for top members of the
intelligence community would improve the presidential appointments
process and help attract candidates who might not otherwise apply.
"Financial disclosure requirements are supposed to protect against
conflict-of-interest concerns. But they have become proxy statements
for a nominee's net worth, with more detail than necessary," said
Davis, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
Last week, three nonprofit watchdog groups — Public Citizen, the
Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 — urged the conference committee
to get rid of the "ill-considered provisions." Keeping disclosure rules
in place is critical, the groups said.
The current law
"serves as an important check on potential conflicts of interest
without imposing unreasonable reporting burdens on officials," the
groups said, noting that the disclosure of stock sales, with dates,
"provides the greatest single safeguard against insider trading by
government officials. The timing of such transfers can serve as a red
flag for potential fraud, and disclosure of these transactions is
therefore a first-line defense against corruption."
Waxman also
wrote to the Republican leadership, urging that they reject any efforts
to use the legislation to undermine financial disclosure rules or
expand the limits on disclosure to Congress. He said Democratic members
had sought unsuccessfully to strike the provision from the House
proposal.
Financial disclosure forms have been used to shed
light on the private assets of public officials. In 2002, the Center
for Public Integrity revealed that 22 of the top 100 Bush
administration officials had "significant" holdings in companies that
had lobbied their departments, agencies or offices.
