Application of Anti-Lobbying Restrictions to HUD Report Losing Ground

B-284226.2 Aug 17, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Congressman was concerned that HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo had. The report stated that the "cuts would have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide" and purported to detail the consequences on HUD's programs if the funding cuts were enacted. Would have been visited on communities nationwide. Accompanying the report was a letter dated September 3. The Secretary noted that the Losing Ground report provided "important and timely information about the impact of the reductions to HUD's programs that are currently being proposed in the House of Representatives.". HUD's total printing and mailing cost for the report (excluding the unknown cost of the in-house printing) was $20. View Decision Subject: Application of Anti-Lobbying Restrictions to HUD Report Losing Ground File: B-284226.2 Date: August 17, 2000 The Honorable Susan Gaffney Inspector General Department of Housing and Urban Development Dear Ms. Gaffney: By letter of March 27, 2000, you requested that we reconsider our informal views which we provided to the staff of Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., regarding the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) publication of Losing Ground: The Impact of Proposed HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities. The Congressman was concerned that HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo had, through the issuance of the Losing Ground report, violated anti-lobbying laws. After careful consideration of the analysis contained in your letter, we continue to believe that neither the Losing Ground report itself, nor the Secretary in issuing it, violated applicable anti-lobbying laws. BACKGROUND The Losing Ground report, dated August 1999, criticized the "deep cuts" in HUD programs proposed by the House Appropriations Committee in the fiscal year 2000 HUD appropriations bill. The report stated that the "cuts would have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide" and purported to detail the consequences on HUD's programs if the funding cuts were enacted. Two appendices to the report gave further details on the funding reductions, as well as the consequences of the reductions that, according to HUD, would have been visited on communities nationwide. Accompanying the report was a letter dated September 3, 1999, with the salutation "Dear Colleague," and signed by Secretary Cuomo. In the letter, the Secretary noted that the Losing Ground report provided "important and timely information about the impact of the reductions to HUD's programs that are currently being proposed in the House of Representatives." A HUD official informed us that the Government Printing Office printed 30,000 copies of the Losing Ground report at a cost of $13,282. HUD produced an additional 2,300 copies in-house. The official did not know the specific printing cost of the in-house copies. HUD mailed 27,000 copies of the report at a cost of $7,352. Thus, HUD's total printing and mailing cost for the report (excluding the unknown cost of the in-house printing) was $20,634. /1/ We were also informed that HUD used its main distribution list in mailing the report. The main distribution list is used by HUD to distribute reports of general interest to its main constituencies, including grantees, public interest groups, churches, mayors, National Urban League affiliates, tribal leaders, public housing agencies, various business groups, historically black colleges, academics, as well as newspapers and news organizations. The HUD official informed us that no additional press representatives were added to the main distribution list of the Losing Ground report. /2/ After gathering the above facts, we determined that three anti-lobbying provisions were applicable to Secretary Cuomo's issuance of the Losing Ground report--the criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1913, and two civil provisions, sections 637 and 642 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-480 (1998). In our briefing, we told Congressman Sensenbrenner's staff that we did not believe that the Secretary had violated these three anti-lobbying restrictions by issuing the report. You dispute this conclusion and offer a number of arguments. We first provide our analysis and we then address your arguments. ANALYSIS Anti-Lobbying Provisions--Criminal Statute Over the years, the Congress has imposed two types of restrictions on lobbying activities by Executive Branch agencies and their officers and employees. The first is a criminal provision enacted in 1919, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for some forms of lobbying. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1913 (1994). /3/ Since section 1913 is a criminal provision, its enforcement is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and the courts, and we do not decide whether a given set of facts constitutes a violation of section 1913.