Mike Thompson: “It seems the criticism of the amendment, first of all, is that there is no conflict anyway with regard to these…”

“It seems the criticism of the amendment, first of all, is that there is no conflict anyway with regard to these employees serving on this board. Of course, if that is the case, there was no reason for the exemption. So by having the exemption in there, it is an open admission there is an inherent and obvious conflict of interest. The question is whether we want to do something about it. Do we want to single out this particular individual and say, ``With regard to you--nobody else, but with regard to you--these conflict of interest provisions will not apply; we don't care if you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest''? Secondly, it is said that this is very, very narrow as far as the exemption is concerned, but the bill, as reported, exempts a union representative from four key ethic laws when the representative is acting on behalf of his or her union. Those four laws are a part of chapter 11, title 18, United States Code, entitled ``Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest.'' What are those provisions that we are exempting here? Generally speaking, title 18, section 203, makes it a crime to ``demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree to receive or accept'' any compensation as an agent or attorney for a third party when a person is working as an officer or employee of the Federal Government.”