On January 7, 1997, the first day of the 105th
Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Truth in
Testimony rule, which requires witnesses appearing before House
committees to disclose federal grants and contracts received during
the present and previous two fiscal years. Early results from
implementation of Truth in Testimony demonstrate relatively high
overall compliance: Approximately 77 percent of witnesses covered
by the new rule filed disclosure statements, and only 9 percent of
the witnesses who failed to comply actually received federal grant
funds in FY 1996. Despite these positive results, however, over
$140 million in FY 1995 and FY 1996 federal grant funds awarded to
witnesses went unreported.
A
few minor reforms, including clarification of the rule and more
uniform implementation, could yield more thorough results.
Additionally, compilation of witness disclosure data in committee
reports, which could be made available over the Internet, would
allow the public greater access to this information.
TRUTH IN
TESTIMONY ANALYSIS
Methodology
The
following scorecard was created using a sample that includes
relevant witnesses2 testifying between
January and May 1997 before nearly half of the standing committees
(9 of 20) and nearly one-third of the standing subcommittees (28 of
86) of the House of Representatives. Witness disclosure (or lack
thereof) was measured against federal grants distributed in FY 1995
and FY 1996, as reported in the Federal Assistance Award Data
System (FAADS) database.3 Committee
grades are not based solely on the percentage of witnesses
complying; they also take into account the procedures utilized by
each committee and the results of non-compliance by individual
witnesses.
The
Scorecard
Overall
Score: C+
Of the 971 witnesses testifying before the
surveyed House committees, 743 (77 percent) filed disclosure
statements pursuant to the Truth in Testimony rule. Of these 743
witnesses, 296 (30 percent of the total of 971) revealed federal
funding. However, the evidence indicates that 16 witnesses failed
to reveal receipt of federal funds in their statements and that 21
other witnesses received federal funds yet violated the Truth in
Testimony rule by failing to make any disclosure.
These 37 witnesses representing 29
organizations account for $140,156,313 in unreported FY 1995 and FY
1996 federal funds.4 By far the largest
portion of this money is traceable to witnesses appearing before
the Appropriations and Agriculture Committees. All told, 336
witnesses, or 35 percent of those testifying before the sampled
House committees, received federal funds.
Grades by
Committee
A+ Banking and
Financial Services
The Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, along with its Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit and Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, has set the standard for other committees to follow,
reporting disclosure by all 82 witnesses. This success is the
result of the committee's systematic application of the Truth in
Testimony rule. Before potential witnesses testify before the
Banking Committee or its subcommittees, they are informed, in
writing, of the Truth in Testimony rule and are provided a
standardized form to assist them in their disclosure
preparation.
B
Agriculture
The Agriculture Committee and its
subcommittees received disclosure statements from 83 percent of the
82 witnesses testifying. Despite this generally good compliance
record, however, the few witnesses who did not comply (or who did
not properly disclose) received enough funds to make Agriculture
second only to Appropriations in undisclosed federal funds. Of the
14 witnesses who did not disclose, two received federal
funding:
| Witness |
Federal Funds Received |
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters |
$33,611 |
| American Soybean Association |
$12,245,000 |
In addition, Price Waterhouse claimed in
its disclosure statement that it had received no federal funds, yet
it received $5,449,932 in FY 1995 and FY 1996.
B-
Appropriations--Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education
Of the 163 witness testifying before the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 92
percent provided the required information. Five witnesses, however,
claimed they had no money to disclose even though the evidence
indicated they had received a total of $41.6 million. Some
witnesses cited their understanding that they were bound to report
only relevant funding; others failed to disclose large sums
received by company subdivisions. Clarification of the Truth in
Testimony rule by the Rules Committee could help eliminate such
problems.
C+
Appropriations--Subcommittee on Interior
The Subcommittee on Interior achieved a
very respectable 88 percent disclosure among its 104 witnesses.
However, five recipients of federal funds failed to file disclosure
statements:
| Witness |
Federal Funds Received |
| The Wildlife Society |
$25,000 |
| Passaic River Coalition |
$24,000 |
| Allison Engine Co. |
$7,613,142 |
| National Assoc. for State Cmty. Services Prog. |
$718,273 |
| Westinghouse |
$60,904,144 |
In addition, one witness reported
receiving no federal funding even though a subdivision had received
federal support:
| Witness |
Federal Funds Received |
| American Dental Association 5 |
$3,592,256 |
Together, these six organizations received
over $70 million in federal grants. The Interior Subcommittee is a
case study of why careful compliance with Truth in Testimony is
necessary. Any single witness can represent a company receiving
millions of dollars from congressionally appropriated federal
programs.
C
Veterans' Affairs
The Veterans' Affairs Committee and its
subcommittees received disclosure statements from 70 percent of 53
witnesses. Of particular note is the American Legion, which
appeared before the committee and its subcommittees seven times:
once disclosing funds because of relevance, five times disclosing
receipt of no federal funds, and once failing to disclose. More
uniform application of the Truth in Testimony rule could help avoid
this kind of inconsistency.
D
Resources
With 121 of 128 witnesses (95 percent)
providing disclosure statements, the Resources Committee and its
subcommittees might seem to be models of how to apply Truth in
Testimony. But a thorough analysis of the results shows that the
Resources Committee actually is an example of how not to apply the
rule.
The Resources Committee and its
subcommittees assert that the only funds that must be disclosed
under Truth in Testimony are those that are relevant to the
specific issue of a hearing. But testimony on federal programs from
witnesses who benefit from those programs is exactly the sort of
self-serving exercise that Truth in Testimony is intended to
expose; the committee's narrow reading of the rule's application
therefore lessens the rule's impact. Under this watered-down
interpretation, witnesses conceivably could receive their entire
operating budgets from the federal government while, on grounds of
a claimed lack of relevancy, avoiding any disclosure of federal
funding. By allowing witnesses to determine whether their funding
is relevant to their testimony, the committee undermines the rule
and often leaves the witnesses in a state of confusion. The chaos
created by the committee's interpretation is most apparent in the
cases of the Sierra Club and Safari Club. Representatives of both
organizations issued conflicting claims--one witness declaring that
his organization had received federal funds and another witness
from the same organization declaring that it had not--when
testifying before the same subcommittee. Witnesses should be
required to disclose all federal funds received, and the relevant
committees and the public should determine for themselves whether
the information disclosed is relevant.
F
Appropriations--Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies
The Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and other Independent Agencies failed to
receive disclosure statements from 27 witnesses, or 43 percent of
the 63 witnesses who testified. Nearly a third of those witnesses
who failed to file the required information benefited from a
cumulative total of $7,080,490 in FY 1995 and FY 1996. 6
F Education and
the Workforce
The Committee on Education and the
Workforce and its subcommittees received disclosure statements from
only 51 percent of 189 witnesses. A total of 92 witnesses did not
file statements. Three of these non-reporting witnesses shared a
total of $4,329,225 in federal funds in FY 1995 and FY 1996. (It
should be noted that a few months after the Truth and Testimony
rule was applied, toward the end of our survey sample, the
committee implemented a more rigorous policy, including a
standardized form for all witnesses, thereby contributing to
considerably better results.)
I
Budget
The Budget Committee earns an incomplete
for its policy on releasing Truth in Testimony compliance
information. The committee would not release files, claiming that
all witnesses testifying before it were concerned citizens who had
no funds to disclose. Internet research, however, revealed that
four institutions testified. One of these groups, the Brookings
Institution, received $447,451 in federal funds in FY 1995 and FY
1996. The Budget Committee's minimum-disclosure policy points to
the need for greater public access to these records. One feasible
remedy would be to make Truth in Testimony compliance part of
committee reports, which could be made available over the
Internet.
I Ways
and Means
The Committee on Ways and Means likewise
would not grant access to Truth in Testimony records, and therefore
receives an incomplete.
WHEN TRUTH IN
TESTIMONY IS NOT ENFORCED
A
few examples demonstrate the need for effective enforcement of the
Truth in Testimony rule.
NAHB Research Center,
Inc., testified before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, requesting an
increase in HUD research funding. NAHB, which failed to provide
Truth in Testimony disclosure, received $1,248,609 in HUD research
grants in FY 1995 and FY 1996. Thus, it appeared to be supporting
increased funding for a program from which it receives support.
This is the sort of obvious self-interest that Truth in Testimony
is intended to expose.
Allison Engine Company
testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
requesting that Congress continue to fund the Advanced Turbine
Systems (ATS) Program at the level of $35 million for FY 1998 and
recommending the appropriation of funds for fuel cell gas turbine
combined systems. Allison received a $1,963,142 federal grant for
"advanced materials for small turbine engines" in FY 1995 and
$5,650,000 in cooperative agreement grants for industrial turbine
system development in FY 1996. Although the witness did refer to
Allison's Advanced Turbine Systems Program--thereby implying the
possible receipt of cooperative grants--he did not explicitly
disclose the existence and amount of government cooperative grants
received by Allison Engine as required by the Truth in Testimony
rule.
Westinghouse Electric
Corporation also appeared before the Subcommittee on
Interior, requesting that Congress increase funding for the
Advanced Turbine Systems Program from the Clinton Administration's
recommended level of $31,379,000 to Westinghouse's recommended
level of $46,400,000. It also requested that funding for Tubular
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) be increased from $12,288,000 to
$16,000,000. Westinghouse received $39,862,000 in federal
cooperative grants in FY 1995 and FY 1996 for ATS and SOFC, and
$21,042,144 for other projects. While Westinghouse declared in its
testimony that it participated with the Department of Energy in
these two programs--thereby implying that it received federal
grants--the witness did not explicitly disclose the existence and
amount of federal cooperative grants received by Westinghouse as
required by the Truth in Testimony rule.
The
Association of State Dam Officials, Inc.,
testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies in favor of a $2.5 million increase over
President Clinton's proposed funding for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to pay for the National Dam Safety
Program. The Association, which did not file a disclosure
statement, received $480,000 in FY 1995 and FY 1996 from FEMA for
dam inventory and dam safety public awareness. The Association of
State Dam Officials thus appears to be another example of an agency
seeking more money for a federal program upon which it relies for
support.
The
Association of American Medical Colleges testified
before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
arguing against FY 1998 budget cuts proposed by President Clinton
for the Department of Veterans Affairs medical research budget. The
Association did not provide Truth in Testimony disclosure, yet
received $269,110 in FY 1996 from Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Health Services Research and Development Grants and
represents 75 VA medical centers that would be affected by the
proposed budget cuts.
The
Aids Healthcare Foundation also testified before
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, seeking $1.5
million for an AIDS patient health-care demonstration project. The
Aids Healthcare Foundation did not file Truth in Testimony
disclosure, yet received HHS grants for AIDS patient care totaling
$1,643,224 in FY 1995 and FY 1996. Even though the Foundation's
testimony--a request for funds for its own program--eliminates any
question about whether it would benefit from the funding requested,
Truth in Testimony disclosure would have given Members of Congress
and the public valuable information about how much federal money it
already has received.
The
American Soybean Association (ASA) testified
before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Risk Management and
Specialty Crops on the need for greater risk management education.
ASA specified that it would like to participate as part of a
public-private-sector task force established by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the program. The advice to
increase education carries with it the unstated corollary that more
federal funds should be spent on this program. To that end, in a
press release dated April 9, 1997, Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman announced a multi-year $5 million initiative for
private-public risk management outreach and education. On February
10, 1998, the USDA and other related agencies placed a notice in
the Federal Register announcing $3 million in grants for risk
management education. Grant decisions were not complete as of this
writing, and the agencies will not reveal who applied for funding;
therefore, the public is not privy to whether ASA sought a grant
from the very program that it said should be expanded. ASA did not
file a disclosure statement, but received $12,245,000 in FY 1995
and FY 1996 from the USDA for other projects.
The
Medical Library Association appeared before the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, requesting that the National Library of Medicine
(NLM)--part of the National Institutes of Health--receive a 9
percent increase in FY 1998 funding, bringing the agency's budget
to $164.7 million. The Medical Library Association, which claimed
to receive no federal funds, received a total of $18,350 in FY 1995
and FY 1996 from NIH programs coordinated by the NLM.
The
American Dental Association did not receive funds
(and claimed none in its disclosure), but the American Dental
Association Health Foundation, a subdivision of the American Dental
Association, received $3,592,256 in FY 1995 and FY 1996 for
research from the Department of Health and Human Services. The
Association also testified before the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Subcommittee regarding funding levels in
the 1998 budget for HHS-funded dental programs, requesting a $2
million increase for the budget of the Division of Oral Health (an
HHS agency) for two projects, one of which was research, and
advocating a $212.5 million budget for the National Institute of
Dental Research (also an HHS agency).
It
should be noted that nothing is necessarily wrong with recipients
of federal funds testifying before Congress, even regarding
programs which help provide their financial support. Because of
their expertise, such witnesses may well be in a position to
provide valuable information. However, there is something wrong
when witnesses for such organizations do not disclose the receipt
of federal funds. The absence of disclosure by these witnesses
violates the Truth in Testimony rule and creates at least the
appearance that their testimony is designed to promote private
rather than public interests.
CONCLUSION
The
failing grades of a few committees aside, early application of
Truth in Testimony was quite successful. The achievement of several
committees--such as the Banking and Financial Services
Committee--proves that the rule can be enforced with reasonable
effort and minimal hindrance to committee operations. That said,
however, a few changes could insure even better application of
Truth in Testimony in the future.
First, the disparity
between committees in their understanding and application of the
rule should prompt the Rules Committee to hold hearings on the
subject. The positive results achieved during the early application
of Truth in Testimony suggest that there is no need to create a new
rule, but hearings could promote clarity and uniformity in its
application.
Among the issues that should be clarified
is the question of relevancy. For the Truth in Testimony rule to
have the greatest effect, committees should require the disclosure
of all federal funding. Full disclosure will allow Members of
Congress, the press, and the public to determine relevance, rather
than leaving this determination to a witness who may or may not be
seeking to minimize the appearance of offering self-serving
testimony.
The
Rules Committee should also consider the question of funds received
by subdivisions of organizations. Several organizations disclosed
that they received no federal funding, yet the evidence indicates
that subdivisions of these same organizations received substantial
federal support. The Rules Committee should interpret the rule to
encompass federal funding received by closely held
subsidiaries.
Second, committees should
provide a standard form to witnesses. Standard forms like the one
used by the Banking and Financial Services Committee give witnesses
needed guidance and contribute to more uniform disclosure.
Third, committees should
make compliance data more accessible to the public. The collection
of disclosure data for this study required a substantial number of
hours. Even though several committees have begun to post their
testimony on the World Wide Web, none apparently posts Truth in
Testimony disclosure statements. By including Truth in Testimony
compliance data in their reports and posting those reports on the
Internet, House committees could subject self-serving witnesses to
the light of public scrutiny and ensure that the public has access
to the facts about how well Truth in Testimony is being
implemented.
Robert D. Alt is a former Research Analyst for
the Government Reform Project at The Heritage Foundation.
Appendix
Truth in Testimony Disclosure by Witnesses Who Received
Federal Funding in FY 1995 and FY 1996
Failed to File Disclosure
| Witness |
Committee(s) |
Federal Funds |
| Aids Healthcare Foundation |
Appropriations |
$1,643,224 |
| Allison Engine Co. |
Appropriations |
$7,613,142 |
| American Chemical Society 7 |
Appropriations |
$1,541,279 |
| American Legion |
Appropriations/VA |
$98,982 |
| American Psychiatric Association |
Appropriations |
$1,565,238 |
| American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Appropriations |
Agriculture |
$5,000 |
| American Soybean Association |
Agriculture |
$12,245,000 |
| Association of American Medical Colleges |
Appropriations |
$418,163 |
| Association of State Dam Safety Officials |
Appropriations |
$480,000 |
| Brookings Institution |
Judiciary/Budget |
$447,451 |
| Council of Chief State School Officers |
Education and Workforce |
$3,880,056 |
| Hudson Institute |
Education and Workforce |
$99,941 |
| International Assoc. of Machinists |
Education and Workforce |
$349,228 |
| NAHB Research Center |
Appropriations |
$1,328,604 |
| National Assoc. for State Cmty. Services Prog.
|
Appropriations |
$718,273 |
| Passaic River Coalition |
Appropriations |
$24,000 |
| Sabolich Prosthetic |
Appropriations |
$333,382 |
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters |
Agriculture |
$33,611 |
| Westinghouse |
Appropriations |
$60,904,144 |
| The Wildlife Society |
Appropriations |
$25,000 |
|
Total |
$93,753,718 |
Filed Disclosure Claiming No Federal
Funding
| Witness |
Committee(s) |
Federal Funds |
| American Dental Association 8 |
Appropriations |
$3,592,256 |
| American Legion |
Veterans' Affairs |
$98,982 9
|
| Defenders of Wildlife |
Resources |
$33,000 |
| Friends of the Everglades |
Resources |
$10,000 |
| Medical Library Association |
Appropriations |
$18,350 |
| Price Waterhouse |
Agriculture |
$5,449,932 |
| Sierra Club |
Resources |
$49,968 |
| U.S. Catholic Conference |
Appropriations |
$37,093,389 |
| Vietnam Veterans of America 10 |
Veterans' Affairs |
$155,700 |
|
Total |
$46,402,595 |
Endnotes