On the recordJune 16, 1997
I think the point my friend makes is a valid one. I don't think it was our intention to have this blanket exemption. As I understand the Senator's amendment--and, obviously, the chairman is checking this out himself for his position--from my perspective, it seems to make sense. I want to ask a question. Where there is the potential for a direct conflict--that is, if I were representing the employees on one side of the table, then I were to shift to a policy position or a management position that had jurisdiction over the very issues I was negotiating, I would still be precluded from taking that management position; but if I were to go off to be the economic counselor to the Embassy in Paris, or in Beijing, I would not be precluded, is that right?
Source
govinfo.gov




