Rep. Davis Linked to Consultant

Washington Post investigative reporters Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow were online Friday, July 28, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss their article on the link between a Rep. Thomas R. Davis III (R-Va.) and a consulting firm, whose clients say they had special access to the Congressman.

Read more: Wife, Friend Tie Congressman to Consulting Firm , ( Post, July 28, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Good morning. We're here to chat about our story today about Rep. Tom Davis and the consulting firm where his wife, a Virginia state senator, works part-time. We're looking forward to a lively conversation, so let's get going.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Comment:

Hoping for "some balance" to your story: For more than 15 years, I have ALWAYS received timely "access" and needed assistance from Rep. Davis' office as a VOLUNTEER CITIZEN ADVOCATE for issues related to Disabled military beneficiaries of TRICARE and for military widows.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: That's good to know. Rep. Davis and his staff have said they welcome visitors and input from constituents, companies and the like.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi there. Great article. One question: why was there no mention that the wife of convicted White House procurement official Michael Safavian works for Rep. Davis?

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Interesting question. It wasn't central to this article.

_______________________

Callao, Va.: I started this article thinking that there was some "smoking gun" related to Congressman Davis' conduct. Instead, it is simply a re-hashing of any number of articles The Post has published related to sons/daughters/spouses/relatives/friends of elected officials and their influence on the Member. I read the whole article and ended with a "so what?" Could you please help me understand what unique thing Congressman Davis did that merited the exhaustive time, hours, newsprint and pages the Post gave to this story? With everything else going on in Congress and the world, I feel like you owe me the twenty minutes I'll never get back from reading this piece.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Thanks for reading the piece and for taking the additional time to join us today. We posted the ethics committee letter on the newspaper's Web site today.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Scott & Rob:

Great piece, but you only scratched the surface. The trade press has well documented (although from a cheerleader perspective), Davis near total dismantlement of the procurement oversight and regulatory functions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at OMB. In addition, he was largely responsible for putting David Safavian in as Administrator of OFPP (Safavian's wife is Davis chief investigative counsel). There's just so much to choose from, why don't you expand your story?

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: That's an interesting prospect and a good idea.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Interest groups from the Girl Scouts to the Sierra Club and companies from start ups to the Washington Post Co. regularly "help" members with draft information. Why is this such a big issue to you all? You seem to be playing connect the dots, but all I see is a veiled attempt at smearing a public figure.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: We work hard at reporting how government does business. One of our tasks is telling our readers the particulars of relationships among lawmakers and business people. We do our best to be fair and to get news into the paper.

_______________________

Silver Springs, Md.: After reading your very lengthy story it seems that nothing improper was done here. Yes, everyone can complain that Davis' wife is paid a lot of money to work only 20 hours a week, but so are countless numbers of other people that are paid exorbitant amounts of cash because they are prominent members of the community, politics, industry etc. also, it seems as though you were unable to prove that Davis' wife had anything to do with the contract and issue central to the article. So, in the end, it seems as though no one has done anything wrong, everyone has followed the laws, the Congressional Ethics Committee said that although it could be perceived as improper, he still had done nothing wrong. It pretty much sounds like every other lobbying firm in the nation, so why the witch hunt?

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: That's an interesting perspective. We can only work on one story at a time. Any ideas for other stories down the road? We're all ears.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Word is that Davis also sponsored legislative drafting sessions with contractors. The price for admission was allegedly campaign contributions. Did you find any of this?

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: As you probably know, Washington works very hard at obscuring direct links between campaign contributions and official acts. Rep. Davis said in our interview with him that he welcomes, and often receives, advice and financial help from information technology executives.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: As a federal employee who lives in Northern Virginia I owe a lot to Rep. Davis and Rep. Moran. Additionally, both men are strong supporters of my particular agency.

Unfortunately, both have recently been "linked" to improper uses of their public offices and, by extension, do not appear to care about the voters who put both men in office.

It is really a shame.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Thanks for writing.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Hey, do you know how much money Rep. Davis has received from ICG??

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: No. We don't know of any direct payments. We know that his household benefited from his wife's employment at the firm.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: For me, the money quote in the Davis piece was the last one, from his chief of staff. I am working from memory, but I think it was "our business is access." This neatly sums up just how blinkered and corrupt Congress has become. I thought the House and Senate were supposed to oversee spending, pass (or not pass) legislation, approve appointees, etc. I did not know the body's principal work was "access" for business interests.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a job like the one Rep. Davis's wife has: nearly 80k a year for 10-20 hours of work a week done at home from her cell phone.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: We're glad you read the article so attentively.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Once again the press tries to make a high profile issue, "exposing" members of Congress for commonplace, legal activities. Members of congress writing letters on behalf of a company in their district, and having the company who is most knowledgeable of the problem do a draft... what's the problem? Davis represents a district filled with government contractors. In my opinion, he is just doing his job. The link to the wife- no crime there per the ethics letter. Meeting a spouse through your line of work is not uncommon.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Another interesting perspective -- one that's shared by other folks in this town. Thanks.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: I respect the right of public officials and their spouses to make an honest living. However, I think that there are so many other occupations out there, whether civil service, non-profit, or private, that don't involve influencing lawmakers. Ms. Devolites Davis would be an asset to any of these groups. While I support Rep. Davis' viewpoints, I am tired of hearing/reading about lawmakers putting themselves in positions where their integrity and ethics could be questioned.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Thanks. As the ethics letter underscores, lawmakers must take care when their spouses get involved in work that intersects with the government.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I was wondering if you could explain, in further detail, why there were no ethics violations found on the part of Congressman Davis? This appears peculiar when you have spent so much print space begging the inference that there was some sort of ethics violation. Perhaps you are advocating that certain ethics standard be revised? If so, why not go into detail about, that instead of spending all of your time waiving innuendo about Congressman Davis.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Thanks for your note. We don't advocate for anything. We believe that a close read of our story shows that we stay very close to the facts we have gathered and to put them into the proper context. It's up to others to judge whether the congressman and state senator crossed any ethical or legal lines.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: Where does someone get a $78,000 a year job for 5-10 hours a week work? Ramp that to full time status and you get $312,000 to $624,000 a year position!! I do not think anyone deserves that sort of hourly rate, certainly not a state senator who was a house mom before Tom recruited her to run for public office.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: Interesting perspective. Thanks for writing in. Keep the questions coming.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi, I was really interested in your article. I was curious that you focus a lot of your article on a small contractors using ICG to lobby government officials to encourage DISA to continue to use a contract that they were on. Is this common practice among the larger contractors as well?

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: We focused on one relatively small contract because it was a client of ICG and received assistance from the firm and a lobbyist. We're told that the larger companies with an interest in the contract were hustling to get a piece of it, using their own lobbyists.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Seriously--this is not to offend you, but what is the point of washingtonpost.com chats? To respond to questions? To flesh out stories squeezed into precious space? Because you are not really answering these questions.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: No offense taken. Our main job is to collect information and present it fairly. We're fascinated by the response to today's piece. It's important for us to keep an even hand, even at the risk of seeming a tad dry.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Were you able to interview Davis' wife? I'd be interested to hear how she describes the "work" she performs that justifies such a princely salary for so little time and effort.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: She granted us a substantial interview and covered a fair amount of ground. As we said in the article, she said her work mainly involves making phone calls. That includes making arrangements for business clients to meet with government officials to discuss their technology and services. She also calls government officials to arrange speaking engagements at ICG and other events. She said she arranged for former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge to speak at an ICG event shortly after he took on that post.

_______________________

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: We have received some very interesting and well informed questions that we have not posted. If you have any ideas or information that might help our work, please send e-mails to highams@washpost.com or oharrowr@washpost.com. We can also be contacted at 202-334-6000. Ask to be connected to one of us.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You indicated that you are fascinated by the response to your article. Why is that? It seems that most of the comments have been in defense of the congressman rather than in support of your claims.

Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow: As you can imagine, we've received numerous responses, many of them in support of Rep. Davis and his wife, and many of them critical. We want all the very interesting views reflected.

On that note, we'd like to thank you for joining us. Feel free to contact us.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.