# data[].attributes.body
1. Lawmakers need to compromise otherwise everyone will disagree or people will be against each other and lose reason
2. The functionality of the government will not survive if lawmakers do not compromise so the government will run smoothly.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If they cant come to an agreement they cant pass a law or bill

2. The government will start to break and nothing will be organized or in order, because no one can agree on what to do and what to allow to happen.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important so that the congress agrees so there is no corruption and also that the judicial branch does not have to involve with the problem that the other two branches have.
2. Then the government will be corrupt. Each person out of the congress will have to let something down to pass a bill. Just like consent of the government. The people in the government have to rely and trust on the other people to have an agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
1. So a good laws can be passed with everyone in legislative and executive and the people are happy with changes the they make.
2. All power will go into the hands of 1 person and will go to their head shutting down everything else.
( If anything doesn't work just bride them or threaten) Sorce down below and lets just face it its real. -https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) For the purpose of this section-

the term " public official " means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

the term " official act" means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty-

being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;

directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 87-849, § 1(a), , 76 Stat. 1119; amended Pub. L. 91-405, title II, § 204(d)(1), , 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(a)-( l), , 100 Stat. 3601-3604; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, §§ 330011(b), 330016(2)(D), , 108 Stat. 2144, 2148.)

Prior Provisions

A prior section 201, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 691, prescribed penalties for anyone who offered or gave anything of value to an officer or other person to influence his decisions, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 87-849, and is substantially covered by revised section 201.

Amendments

1994-Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103-322, § 330016(2)(D), which directed the amendment of "section 201" by inserting "under this title or" after "be fined" and "whichever is greater," before "or imprisoned", was executed by making the insertions in text of last par. of subsec. (b), and not in last par. of subsec. (c), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 103-322, § 330011(b)(A), amended Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(b)(1). See 1986 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103-322, § 330011(b), amended Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(b). See 1986 Amendment note below.

1986- Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(l), provided for alignment of margins of each subsection, paragraph, and subparagraph of this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(a), substituted "section-" for "section:", designated provision defining "public official" as par. (1), inserted "the term" after "(1)", and substituted "Delegate" for "Delegate from the District of Columbia", "after such official has qualified" for "after he has qualified", and "juror;" for "juror; and"; designated provision defining "person who has been selected to be a public official" as par. (2), inserted "the term" after "(2)", and substituted "such person" for "he"; and designated provision defining "official act" as par. (3), inserted "the term" after "(3)", and substituted "in such official's official capacity, or in such official's" for "in his official capacity, or in his".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(b)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 103-322, § 330011(b)(A), substituted "Whoever-" for "Whoever," and inserted "(1)" before "directly".

Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(e)(5), redesignated the undesignated par. which followed former subsec. (e) as concluding par. of subsec. (b) and substituted "shall be fined not more than" for "Shall be fined not more than $20,000 or" and "thing of value," for "thing of value, whichever is greater,".

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(b), as amended by Pub. L. 103-322, § 330011(b), redesignated former subsec. (b) as par. (1), redesignated former pars. (1) to (3) as subpars. (A) to (C), respectively, and realigned their margins, and in subpar. (C) substituted "the lawful duty of such official or person;" for "his lawful duty, or".

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(c), redesignated former subsec. (c) as par. (2), struck out "Whoever," before "being", substituted "corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally" for "corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for himself", redesignated former pars. (1) to (3) as subpars. (A) to (C), respectively, and realigned their margins, in subpar. (A) substituted "the performance" for "his performance" and struck out "or" after "act;", and in subpar. (C) substituted "the official duty of such official or person;" for "his official duty; or".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(d), redesignated former subsec. (d) as par. (3) and substituted "directly" for "Whoever, directly" and "therefrom;" for "therefrom; or".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(e), redesignated former subsec. (e) as par. (4), substituted "directly" for "Whoever, directly", "demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally" for "asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for himself", "in testimony" for "in his testimony", and "therefrom;" for "therefrom-".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(f), (g)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1), redesignated former subsecs. (f) to (i) as subsec. (c)(1)(A), (B), (2), and (3), respectively. Former subsec. (c) redesignated (b)(2).

Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(i)(6), redesignated the undesignated par. which followed former subsec. (i) as concluding par. of subsec. (c) and substituted "shall be fined under this title" for "Shall be fined not more than $10,000".

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(f), (g), redesignated former subsec. (f) as par. (1) and substituted "(1) otherwise" for ", otherwise" and "(A) directly" for ", directly", redesignated former subsec. (g) as subpar. (B) and substituted "being" for "Whoever, being", "indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally" for "indirectly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for himself", and "by such official or person;" for "by him; or".

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(h), redesignated former subsec. (h) as par. (2) and substituted "directly" for "Whoever, directly" and "such person's absence therefrom;" for "his absence therefrom; or".

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(i), redesignated former subsec. (i) as par. (3) and substituted "directly" for "Whoever, directly", "demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept" for "asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive", "personally" for "for himself", "by such person" for "by him", and "such person's absence therefrom;" for "his absence therefrom-".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(j), redesignated former subsec. (j) as (d), substituted "Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c)" for "Subsections (d), (e), (h), and (i)" and struck out "involving a technical or professional opinion," after "expert witnesses,". Former subsec. (d) redesignated (b)(3).

Subsecs. (e) to (k). Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(f) -(k), redesignated former subsecs. (e) to (k) as (b)(4), (c)(1)(A), (B), (2), (3), (d), and (e), respectively.

1970-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91-405 included Delegate from District of Columbia in definition of "public official".

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99-646, § 46(m), , 100 Stat. 3604, provided that:

"The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act []."

Effective Date

Pub. L. 87-849, § 4, , 76 Stat. 1126, provided that:

"This Act [enacting this section and sections 202 to 209 and 218 of this title, redesignating sections 214, 215, 217 to 222 as 210, 211, 212 to 217 of this title respectively, repealing sections 223, 282, 284, 434, and 1914 of this title, and section 99 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 281 and 282 of this title] shall take effect ninety days after the date of its enactment []".

Short Title of 2003 Amendment

Pub. L. 108-198, § 1, , 117 Stat. 2899, provided that:

"This Act [enacting sections 212 and 213 of this title and repealing former sections 212 and 213 of this title] may be cited as the 'Preserving Independence of Financial Institution Examinations Act of 2003'."

Executive Order No. 11222

Ex. Ord. No. 11222, , 30 F.R. 6469, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11590, , 36 F.R. 7831; Ex. Ord. No. 12107, , 44 F.R. 1055; Ex. Ord. No. 12565, , 51 F.R. 34437, which established standards of ethical conduct for government officers and employees, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12674, , 54 F.R. 15159, as amended, set out as a note under section 7301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Executive Order No. 12565

Ex. Ord. No. 12565, , 51 F.R. 34437, which amended Ex. Ord. No. 11222, formerly set out above, and provided confidentiality for financial reports filed pursuant to Ex. Ord. No. 11222, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12674, , 54 F.R. 15159, as amended, set out as a note under section 7301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Memorandum of Attorney General Regarding Conflict of Interest Provisions of Public Law 87-849, , 28 F.R. 985

Public Law 87-849, "To strengthen the criminal laws relating to bribery, graft, and conflicts of interest, and for other purposes," came into force . A number of departments and agencies of the Government have suggested that the Department of Justice prepare and distribute a memorandum analyzing the conflict of interest provisions contained in the new act. I am therefore distributing the attached memorandum.

One of the main purposes of the new legislation merits specific mention. That purpose is to help the Government obtain the temporary or intermittent services of persons with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the Government. For the most part the conflict of interest statutes superseded by Public Law 87-849 imposed the same restraints on a person serving the Government temporarily or intermittently as on a full-time employee, and those statutes often had an unnecessarily severe impact on the former. As a result, they impeded the departments and agencies in the recruitment of experts for important work. Public Law 87-849 meets this difficulty by imposing a lesser array of prohibitions on temporary and intermittent employees than on regular employees. I believe that a widespread appreciation of this aspect of the new law will lead to a significant expansion of the pool of talent on which the departments and agencies can draw for their special needs.

Attorney General.

Introduction

Public Law 87-849, which came into force , affected seven statutes which applied to officers and employees of the Government and were generally spoken of as the "conflict of interest" laws. These included six sections of the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 216, 281, 283, 284, 434 and 1914, and a statute containing no penalties, section 190 of the Revised Statutes ( 5 U.S.C. 99). Public Law 87-849 (sometimes referred to hereinafter as "the Act") repealed section 190 and one of the criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 216, without replacing them. ¹ In addition it repealed and supplanted the other five criminal statutes. It is the purpose of this memorandum to summarize the new law and to describe the principal differences between it and the legislation it has replaced.

The Act accomplished its revisions by enacting new sections 203, 205, 207, 208 and 209 of title 18 of the United States Code and providing that they supplant the above-mentioned sections 281, 283, 284, 434 and 1914 of title 18 respectively. ² It will be convenient, therefore, after summarizing the principal provisions of the new sections, to examine each section separately, comparing it with its precursor before passing to the next. First of all, however, it is necessary to describe the background and provisions of the new 18 U.S.C. 202(a), which has no counterpart among the statutes formerly in effect.

Special Government Employees [New 18 U.S.C. 202(a)]

In the main the prior conflict of interest laws imposed the same restrictions on individuals who serve the Government intermittently or for a short period of time as on those who serve full-time. The consequences of this generalized treatment were pointed out in the following paragraph of the Senate Judiciary Committee report on the bill which became Public Law 87-849:  ³

In considering the application of present law in relation to the Government's utilization of temporary or intermittent consultants and advisers, it must be emphasized that most of the existing conflict-of-interest statutes were enacted in the 19th century-that is, at a time when persons outside the Government rarely served it in this way. The laws were therefore directed at activities of regular Government employees, and their present impact on the occasionally needed experts-those whose main work is performed outside the Government-is unduly severe. This harsh impact constitutes an appreciable deterrent to the Government's obtaining needed part-time services.

The recruiting problem noted by the Committee generated a major part of the impetus for the enactment of Public Law 87-849. The Act dealt with the problem by creating a category of Government employees termed "special Government employees" and by excepting persons in this category from certain of the prohibitions imposed on ordinary employees. The new 18 U.S.C. 202(a) defines the term "special Government employee" to include, among others, officers and employees of the departments and agencies who are appointed or employed to serve, with or without compensation, for not more than 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days either on a full-time or intermittent basis.

Summary of the Main Conflict of Interest Provisions of Public Law 87-849

A regular officer or employee of the Government-that is, one appointed or employed to serve more than 130 days in any period of 365 days-is in general subject to the following major prohibitions (the citations are to the new sections of Title 18):

1. He may not, except in the discharge of his official duties, represent anyone else before a court or Government agency in a matter in which the United States is a party or has an interest. This prohibition applies both to paid and unpaid representation of another ( 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205).

2. He may not participate in his governmental capacity in any matter in which he, his spouse, minor child, outside business associate or person with whom he is negotiating for employment has a financial interest ( 18 U.S.C. 208).

3. He may not, after his Government employment has ended, represent anyone other than the United States in connection with a matter in which the United States is a party or has an interest and in which he participated personally and substantially for the Government ( 18 U.S.C. 207(a)).

4. He may not, for 1 year after his Government employment has ended, represent anyone other than the United States in connection with a matter in which the United States is a party or has an interest and which was within the boundaries of his official responsibilities  ⁴ during the last year of his Government service ( 18 U.S.C. 207(b)). This temporary restraint of course gives way to the permanent restraint described in paragraph 3 if the matter is one in which he participated personally and substantially.

5. He may not receive any salary, or supplementation of his Government salary, from a private source as compensation for his services to the Government ( 18 U.S.C. 209).

A special Government employee is in general subject only to the following major prohibitions:

1. (a) He may not, except in the discharge of his official duties, represent anyone else before a court or Government agency in a matter in which the United States is a party or has in interest and in which he has at any time participated personally and substantially for the Government ( 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205).

(b) He may not, except in the discharge of his official duties, represent anyone else in a matter pending before the agency he serves unless he has served there no more than 60 days during the past 365 ( 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205). He is bound by this restraint despite the fact that the matter is not one in which he has ever participated personally and substantially.

The restrictions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) apply to both paid and unpaid representation of another. These restrictions in combination are, of course, less extensive than the one described in the corresponding paragraph 1 in the list set forth above with regard to regular employees.

2. He may not participate in his governmental capacity in any matter in which he, his spouse, minor child, outside business associate or person with whom he is negotiating for employment has a financial interest ( 18 U.S.C. 208).

3. He may not, after his Government employment has ended, represent anyone other than the United States in connection with a matter in which the United States is a party or has an interest and in which he participated personally and substantially for the Government ( 18 U.S.C. 207(a)).

4. He may not, for 1 year after his Government employment has ended, represent anyone other than the United States in connection with a matter in which the United States is a party or has an interest and which was within the boundaries of his official responsibility during the last year of his Government service ( 18 U.S.C. 207(b)). This temporary restraint of course gives way to the permanent restriction described in paragraph 3 if the matter is one in which he participated personally and substantially.

It will be seen that paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 for special Government employees are the same as the corresponding paragraphs for regular employees. Paragraph 5 for the latter, describing the bar against the receipt of salary for Government work from a private source, does not apply to special Government employees.

As appears below, there are a number of exceptions to the prohibitions summarized in the two lists.

Comparison of Old and New Conflict of Interest Sections of Title 18, United States Code

New 18 U.S.C. 203. Subsection (a) of this section in general prohibits a Member of Congress and an officer or employee of the United States in any branch or agency of the Government from soliciting or receiving compensation for services rendered on behalf of another person before a Government department or agency in relation to any particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. The subsection does not preclude compensation for services rendered on behalf of another in court.

Subsection (a) is essentially a rewrite of the repealed portion of 18 U.S.C. 281. However, subsections (b) and (c) have no counterparts in the previous statutes.

Subsection (b) makes it unlawful for anyone to offer or pay compensation the solicitation or receipt of which is barred by subsection (a).

Subsection (c) narrows the application of subsection (a) in the case of a person serving as a special Government employee to two, and only two, situations. First, subsection (c) bars him from rendering services before the Government on behalf of others, for compensation, in relation to a matter involving a specific party or parties in which he has participated personally and substantially in the course of his Government duties. And second, it bars him from such activities in relation to a matter involving a specific party or parties, even though he has not participated in the matter personally and substantially, if it is pending in his department or agency and he has served therein more than 60 days in the immediately preceding period of a year.

New 18 U.S.C. 205. This section contains two major prohibitions. The first prevents an officer or employee of the United States in any branch or agency of the Government from acting as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim against the United States, including a claim in court, whether for compensation or not. It also prevents him from receiving a gratuity, or a share or interest in any such claim, for assistance in the prosecution thereof. This portion of section 205 is similar to the repealed portion of 18 U.S.C. 283, which dealt only with claims against the United States, but it omits a bar contained in the latter-i.e., a bar against rendering uncompensated aid or assistance in the prosecution or support of a claim against the United States.

The second main prohibition of section 205 is concerned with more than claims. It precludes an officer or employee of the Government from acting as agent or attorney for anyone else before a department, agency or court in connection with any particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

Section 205 provides for the same limited application to a special Government employee as section 203. In short, it precludes him from acting as agent or attorney only (1) in a matter involving a specific party or parties in which he has participated personally and substantially in his governmental capacity, and (2) in a matter involving a specific party or parties which is before his department or agency, if he has served therein more than 60 days in the year past.

Since new sections 203 and 205 extend to activities in the same range of matters, they overlap to a greater extent than did their predecessor sections 281 and 283. The following are the few important differences between sections 203 and 205:

1. Section 203 applies to Members of Congress as well as officers and employees of the Government; section 205 applies only to the latter.

2. Section 203 bars services rendered for compensation solicited or received, but not those rendered without such compensation; section 205 bars both kinds of services.

3. Section 203 bars services rendered before the departments and agencies but not services rendered in court; section 205 bars both.

It will be seen that while section 203 is controlling as to Members of Congress, for all practical purposes section 205 completely overshadows section 203 in respect of officers and employees of the Government.

Section 205 permits a Government officer or employee to represent another person, without compensation, in a disciplinary, loyalty or other personnel matter. Another provision declares that the section does not prevent an officer or employee from giving testimony under oath or making statements required to be made under penalty for perjury or contempt. ⁵

Finally, section 205 gives the head of a department or agency the power, notwithstanding any applicable restrictions in its provisions or those of section 203, to allow a special Government employee to represent his regular employer or other outside organization in the performance of work under a Government grant or contract. However, this action is open to the department or agency head only upon his certification, published in the Federal Register, that the national interest requires it.

New 18 U.S.C. 207. Subsections (a) and (b) of this section contain post-employment prohibitions applicable to persons who have ended service as officers or employees of the executive branch, the independent agencies or the District of Columbia. ⁶ The prohibitions for persons who have served as special Government employees are the same as for persons who have performed regular duties.

The restraint of subsection (a) is against a former officer or employee's acting as agent or attorney for anyone other than the United States in connection with certain matters, whether pending in the courts or elsewhere. The matters are those involving a specific party or parties in which the United States is one of the parties or has a direct and substantial interest and in which the former officer or employee participated personally and substantially while holding a Government position.

Subsection (b) sets forth a 1-year postemployment prohibition in respect of those matters which were within the area of official responsibility of a former officer or employee at any time during the last year of his service but which do not come within subsection (a) because he did not participate in them personally and substantially. More particularly, the prohibition of subsection (b) prevents his personal appearance in such matters before a court or a department or agency of the Government as agent or attorney for anyone other than the United States. ⁷ Where, in the year prior to the end of his service, a former officer or employee has changed areas of responsibility by transferring from one agency to another, the period of his postemployment ineligibility as to matters in a particular area ends 1 year after his responsibility for that area ends. For example, if an individual transfers from a supervisory position in the Internal Revenue Service to a supervisory position in the Post Office Department and leaves that department for private employment 9 months later, he will be free of the restriction of subsection (b) in 3 months insofar as Internal Revenue matters are concerned. He will of course be bound by it for a year in respect of Post Office Department matters.

The proviso following subsections (a) and (b) authorizes an agency head, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in their provisions, to permit a former officer or employee with outstanding scientific qualifications to act as attorney or agent or appear personally before the agency for another in a matter in a scientific field. This authority may be exercised by the agency head upon a "national interest" certification published in the Federal Register.

Subsections (a) and (b) describe the activities they forbid as being in connection with "particular matter[s] involving a specific party or parties" in which the former officer or employee had participated. The quoted language does not include general rulemaking, the formulation of general policy or standards, or other similar matters. Thus, past participation in or official responsibility for a matter of this kind on behalf of the Government does not disqualify a former employee from representing another person in a proceeding which is governed by the rule or other result of such matter.

Subsection (a) bars permanently a greater variety of actions than subsection (b) bars temporarily. The conduct made unlawful by the former is any action as agent or attorney, while that made unlawful by the latter is a personal appearance as agent or attorney. However, neither subsection precludes postemployment activities which may fairly be characterized as no more than aiding or assisting another. ⁸ An individual who has left an agency to accept private employment may, for example, immediately perform technical work in his company's plant in relation to a contract for which he had official responsibility- or, for that matter, in relation to one he helped the agency negotiate. On the other hand, he is forbidden for a year, in the first case, to appear personally before the agency as the agent or attorney of his company in connection with a dispute over the terms of the contract. And he may at no time appear personally before the agency or otherwise act as agent or attorney for his company in such dispute if he helped negotiate the contract.

It will be seen that subsections (a) and (b) in combination are less restrictive in some respects, and more restrictive in others, than the combination of the prior 18 U.S.C. 284 and 5 U.S.C. 99. Thus, former officers or employees who were outside the Government when the Act came into force on , will in certain situations be enabled to carry on activities before the Government which were previously barred. For example, the repeal of 5 U.S.C. 99 permits an attorney who left an executive department for private practice a year before to take certain cases against the Government immediately which would be subject to the bar of 5 U.S.C. 99 for another year. On the other hand, former officers or employees became precluded on and after from engaging or continuing to engage in certain activities which were permissible until that date. This result follows from the replacement of the 2-year bar of 18 U.S.C. 284 with a lifetime bar of subsection (a) in comparable situations, from the increase in the variety of matters covered by subsection (a) as compared with 18 U.S.C. 284 and from the introduction of the 1-year bar of subsection (b).

The paragraph at the end of section 207 also pertains to individuals in a partnership but sets forth no prohibition. This paragraph, which is of importance mainly to lawyers in private practice, rules out the possibility that an individual will be deemed subject to section 203, 205, 207(a) or 207(b) solely because he has a partner who serves or has served in the Government either as a regular or a special Government employee.

New 18 U.S.C. 208. This section forbids certain actions by an officer or employee of the Government in his role as a servant or representative of the Government. Its thrust is therefore to be distinguished from that of sections 203 and 205 which forbid certain actions in his capacity as a representative of persons outside the Government.

Subsection (a) in substance requires an officer or employee of the executive branch, an independent agency or the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, to refrain from participating as such in any matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child or partner has a financial interest. He must also remove himself from a matter in which a business or nonprofit organization with which he is connected or is seeking employment has a financial interest.

Subsection (b) permits the agency of an officer or employee to grant him an ad hoc exemption from subsection (a) if the outside financial interest in a matter is deemed not substantial enough to have an effect on the integrity of his services. Financial interests of this kind may also be made nondisqualifying by a general regulation published in the Federal Register.

Section 208 is similar in purpose to the former 18 U.S.C. 434 but prohibits a greater variety of conduct than the "transaction of business with * * * [a] business entity" to which the prohibition of section 434 was limited. In addition, the provision in section 208 including the interests of a spouse and others is new, as is the provision authorizing exemptions for insignificant interest.

Subsection (b) specifically authorizes an officer or employee covered by subsection (a) to continue his participation in a bona fide pension plan or other employee welfare or benefit plan maintained by a former employer.

Statutory Exemptions From Conflict of Interest Laws

Congress has in the past enacted statutes exempting persons in certain positions-usually advisory in nature-from the provisions of some or all of the former conflict of interest laws. Section 2 of the Act grants corresponding exemptions from the new laws with respect to legislative and judicial positions carrying such past exemptions. However, section 2 excludes positions in the executive branch, an independent agency and the District of Columbia from this grant. As a consequence, all statutory exemptions for persons serving in these sectors of the Government ended on .

Retired Officers of the Armed Forces

Public Law 87-849 enacted a new 18 U.S.C. 206 which provides in general that the new sections 203 and 205, replacing 18 U.S.C. 281 and 283, do not apply to retired officers of the armed forces and other uniformed services. However, 18 U.S.C. 281 and 283 contain special restrictions applicable to retired officers of the armed forces which are left in force by the partial repealer of those statutes set forth in section 2 of the Act.

The former 18 U.S.C. 284, which contained a 2-year disqualification against postemployment activities in connection with claims against the United States, applied by its terms to persons who had served as commissioned officers and whose active service had ceased either by reason of retirement or complete separation. Its replacement, the broader 18 U.S.C. 207, also applies to persons in those circumstances. Section 207, therefore applies to retired officers of the armed forces and overlaps the continuing provisions of 18 U.S.C. 281 and 283 applicable to such officers although to a different extent than did 18 U.S.C. 284.

Voiding Transactions in Violation of the Conflict of Interest or Bribery Laws

Public Law 87-849 enacted a new section, 18 U.S.C. 218, which did not supplant a pre-existing section of the criminal code. However, it was modeled on the last sentence of the former 18 U.S.C. 216 authorizing the President to declare a Government contract void which was entered into in violation of that section. It will be recalled that section 216 was one of the two statutes repealed without replacement.

The new 18 U.S.C. 218 grants the President and, under Presidential regulations, an agency head the power to void and rescind any transaction or matter in relation to which there has been a "final conviction" for a violation of the conflict of interest or bribery laws. The section also authorizes the Government's recovery, in addition to any penalty prescribed by law or in a contract, of the amount expended or thing transferred on behalf of the Government.

Section 218 specifically provides that the powers it grants are "in addition to any other remedies provided by law." Accordingly, it would not seem to override the decision in United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520 (1961), a case in which there was no "final conviction."

Bibliography

Set forth below are the citations to the legislative history of Public Law 87-849 and a list of recent material which is pertinent to a study of the act. The listed 1960 report of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York is particularly valuable. For a comprehensive bibliography of earlier material relating to the conflict of interest laws, see 13 Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 323 (May 1958).

Legislative History of Public Law 87-849 (H.R. 8140, 87th Cong.)

1. Hearings of June 1 and 2, 1961, before the Antitrust Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5) of the House Judiciary Committee, 87th Cong., 1st sess., ser. 3, on Federal Conflict of Interest Legislation.

2. H. Rept. 748, 87th Cong., 1st sess.

3. 107 Cong. Rec. 14774.

4. Hearing of before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 87th Cong., 2d sess., on Conflicts of Interest.

5. S. Rept. 2213, 87th Cong., 2d sess.

6. 108 Cong. Rec. 20805 and 21130 (daily ed., October 3 and 4, 1962) [Cong. Rec., vol. 108, pt. 16, pp. 21975, 22311, Oct. 3 and 4, 1962].

Other Material

1. President's special message to Congress, , and attached draft bill, 107 Cong. Rec. 6835.

2. President's Memorandum of , to the heads of executive departments and agencies entitled Preventing Conflicts of Interest on the Part of Advisers and Consultants to the Government, 27 F.R. 1341.

3. 42 Op. A.G. No. 6, .

4. Memorandum of for the Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel re conflict of interest statutes, Hearings before the Antitrust Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5) of House Judiciary Committee, 86th Cong., 2d sess., ser. 17, pt. 2, p. 619.

5. Staff report of Antitrust Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5) of House Judiciary Committee, 85th Cong., 2d sess., Federal Conflict of Interest Legislation (Comm. Print 1958).

6. Report of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Conflict of Interest and Federal Service (Harvard Univ. Press 1960).

¹ Section 190 of the Revised Statutes ( 5 U.S.C. 99), which was repealed by section 3 of Public Law 87-849, applied to a former officer or employee of the Government who had served in a department of the executive branch. It prohibited him, for a period of two years after his employment had ceased, from representing anyone in the prosecution of a claim against the United States which was pending in that or any other executive department during his period of employment. The subject of post-employment activities of former Government officers and employees was also dealt with in another statute which was repealed, 18 U.S.C. 284. Public Law 87-849 covers the subject in a single section enacted as the new 18 U.S.C. 207.

18 U.S.C. 216, which was repealed by section 1(c) of Public Law 87-849, prohibited the payment to or acceptance by a Member of Congress or officer or employee of the Government of any money or thing of value for giving or procuring a Government contract. Since this offense is within the scope of the newly enacted 18 U.S.C. 201 and 18 U.S.C. 203, relating to bribery and conflicts of interest, respectively, section 216 is no longer necessary.

² See section 2 of Public Law 87-849. 18 U.S.C. 281 and 18 U.S.C. 283 were not completely set aside by section 2 but remain in effect to the extent that they apply to retired officers of the Armed Forces (see "Retired Officers of the Armed Forces," infra).

³  S. Rept. 2213, 87th Cong., 2d sess., p. 6.

⁴ The term "official responsibility" is defined by the new 18 U.S.C. 202(b) to mean "the direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either exercisable alone or with others, and either personally or through subordinates, to approve, disapprove, or otherwise direct Government action."

⁵ These two provisions of section 205 refer to an "officer or employee" and not, as do certain of the other provisions of the Act, to an "officer or employee, including a special Government employee." However, it is plain from the definition in section 202(a) that a special Government employee is embraced within the comprehensive term "officer or employee." There would seem to be little doubt, therefore, that the instant provisions of section 205 apply to special Government employees even in the absence of an explicit reference to them.

⁶ The prohibitions of the two subsections apply to persons ending service in these areas whether they leave the Government entirely or move to the legislative or judicial branch. As a practical matter, however, the prohibitions would rarely be significant in the latter situation because officers and employees of the legislative and judicial branches are covered by sections 203 and 205.

⁷ Neither section 203 nor section 205 prevents a special Government employee, during his period of affiliation with the Government, from representing another person before the Government in a particular matter only because it is within his official responsibility. Therefore the inclusion of a former special Government employee within the 1-year postemployment ban of subsection (b) may subject him to a temporary restraint from which he was free prior to the end of his Government service. However, since special Government employees usually do not have "official responsibility, " as that term is defined in section 202(b), their inclusion within the 1-year ban will not have a widespread effect.

⁸ Subsection (a), as it first appeared in H.R. 8140, the bill which became Public Law 87-849, made it unlawful for a former officer or employee to act as agent or attorney for, or aid or assist, anyone in a matter in which he had participated. The House Judiciary Committee struck the underlined words, and the bill became law without them. It should be noted also that the repealed provisions of 18 U.S.C. 283 made the distinction between one's acting as agent or attorney for another and his aiding or assisting another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) For the purpose of this section- the term " public official " means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or

# data[].attributes.body
1. It would be important to compromise because then everyone can get what they want, and it keeps the law fair and constitutional.
2.  If the government can't function then  there will be many debates but then in the end either nothing is going to get passed or one of the branches may end up fighting for higher power they can have their law passed.

# data[].attributes.body
A. It's important to compromise so we actually get something done instead of the lawmakers not agreeing and getting nothing done.
B. The governments ability slows down because it'll take very long for laws to get passed because the executive and legislative branch don't agree on the laws and won't come up with something everybody wants

# data[].attributes.body
1. If the branches can not agree on a law, the law will not get passed and the government can not function
2. If law makers can make compromises on a law then everyone can be consent with the law.

# data[].attributes.body
1. someone will always be unhappy about something so if someone gets at least a little bit of what they want everyone can be a little bit pleased
2. the Gov will not function well if people don't compromise because then everyone will end up arguing and shooting down every law/bill nothing will get passed, this would make it so that our gov unsuccessful

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for lawmakers to compromise because the branches could communicate to each other and discuss if they like the laws or it changes need to be made .
2. The government would not be able to function correctly without compromising. It would make it hard for laws to be passed due to the lack or communication going on. They would be going against each other.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for lawmakers to compromise, because it helps make a decision/final decision easier to do as well as making it more agreeable if lawmakers can find better ways to create a law.

2. If lawmakers are unable to compromise then making laws would be more difficult as well as coming to more disagreements, and if lawmakers can't make laws because of other's decisions then we won't be able to have other decisions made by the people.

# data[].attributes.body
1.
I feel as thought it's important for lawmakers to compromise, because it may end up in a fight and it will split people up and also would give people to much power and there will be a lot of arguing and debate.
2.  The government will fall and the government would be break. The peaceful environment would be broken and people would be divided up against each other because they agree with something different.

# data[].attributes.body
1. if law makers don't compromise then it would make it so that no laws would get passed because they haven't agreed because their representing people with different opinions

2. the government will become bad and unreliable because no one would agree on what to do with the laws

# data[].attributes.body
1. Lawmakers need to compromise with each other, since they need the other lawmakers to agree if they want their law passed. It's not just one person who approves the laws, it's the branches, so they need to agree somewhere at some point.
2. No laws will be passed, if 2 branches don't agree with each other about a certain bill and won't compromise, it will never be passed since they require each other to agree. The government wouldn't be able to function and would fall to ruins,

# data[].attributes.body
1. it is important because they all have to agree on a law so it will be fair for everyone in the country.
2. then there will be a dictatorships and the power might get to there head and make laws that some people wont like.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important because you can get different peoples opinions on things and  can find solutions to things easier. And more people can agree on the same thing.

2. Then the government will be unstable because they won't have people to agree on things and won't have other peoples opinions or voice on things.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The importance for lawmakers to compromise because the executive and the judicial has to agree on each other if the law is approved or not. If both can't cooperate with each other, then the decision of making a law would be a struggle.

2. The laws that would have to be approved would be a hard decision for them. They would have to make a lot of decisions in order for the government to be more organized.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It's important for lawmakers to compromise otherwise people will be against each other, and or most people will disagree.
2. If leaders are unwilling to compromise, then the welfare of the government will not hold out.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for law makers to compromise because it allows the branches to communicate, and talk about whether a law would be constitutional or unconstitutional.
2. If government does not compromise, then the government would not be able to function. The government would not be able to function because they would not try to discuss the law, but instead they will only focus on their opinions, which would end up affecting the well-being of the country.

# data[].attributes.body
It is really important for lawmakers to compromise because everyone should have a chance to share their opinions. If the government and the people in the government cannot compromise, this can lead to dictatorship where one person makes all the decisions and nobody gets a fair say in anything.

# data[].attributes.body
Its important for lawmakers to compromise because if they don't then the whole situation can go haywire and things could get mixed up and it would not be good for anyone. Lawmakers have to work together to make a law as a group or the law probably wont be passed.

The government will fail because people will say one thing another person will say another and no body would be able to agree on something. They have to work together for the government to work peacefully and successfully.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is essential for lawmakers to effectively communicate and compromise so that the government can be a strong federal establishment.
2. Leaders that are unwilling to compromise on crucial civic matters and issues jeopardizes the government's functionality because it causes unorganized government operations (leaves wounds).

# data[].attributes.body
There would be no laws passed down.
The governments ability to function gets worse.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important  for lawmakers to compromise because the law will be fair to everyone and they can be in agreement.

2. The government will break and it won't be a fair government.  The government won't be smooth.

# data[].attributes.body
Government lawmakers must compromise and listen to each others' ideas in order to resolve to a rational compromise, for it can lead to a stable government and competitivity can resolve. There is no moral rightness, but there is moral chaos.

If lawmakers are unable to compromise, there will be lawful chaos and the government may crumble.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to compromise because its almost impossible everyone will agree with the same thing so compromising in a way that has majority vote is needed

If no leaders are willing to compromise then i feel like the idea should be scrapped in general or hold a vote and the majority wins, and if it gets to the point where its a draw, let the people vote for it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. So that no one gets too powerful.
2. They wont get anything done because no one will agree on anything.

# data[].attributes.body
If both parties don't compromise then no laws will get past so its very important to compromise and both agree on doing something. That will cause a benefit for you and that person or group.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise because so many people are needed to pass a law. If an idea becomes a bill, it then needs to gain support from both the House of Representatives and Senate. Both sides aren't going to agree with everything. And no group of people has the exact same values. For a bill to become a law, everyone has to make a little sacrifice to get what they generally want to pass. For example, when playing the game, sometimes you would have to add a clause you didn't exactly agree with, just to make sure majority of people liked the bill. You had to compromise to get your idea passed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if there is no compromise then problems and issues never get solved.
2. The governments ability to function freezes because the power will be thrown off and we will have a worthless leader.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for leaders to collaborate so some one doesn't over abuse his power and problems will be solved easier if they work together like that if one person was making law orders law orders will be much more different and it will only be good for one or the small group of people

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if they didn't, nothing would get passed because everyone has different opinions on things. If government leaders don't compromise, then no new laws will get passed.

# data[].attributes.body
If they don't come to a compromise, then there won't be a law since some will be against the law and some will be with the law. The government will be weak if no one can come to an agreement as there will be less laws. This freezes the government's ability to problem solve.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise so that everyone gets a law that is ok for everyone. Not everyone will like it 100%, but at least everyone gets a part that they enjoy.

If leaders aren't willing to compromise, mostly likely, they are corrupted or don't belief in certain values. Like while I was playing the iCivics game, I completely forgot my values, so I had a hard time creating laws and getting them passed.

# data[].attributes.body
In the viewpoint in which you think the bill is okay and doesn't need any clauses, many people in Congress might not agree and you could argue and argue again back and forth like a moving standstill or the ball can be scrapped. There will be no progress and bad things can be rampant, as well as being a government freeze.

# data[].attributes.body
Lawmakers should compromise, because if they don't compromise then they will keep fighting on a the same issues and not move on to something else. Also, no laws will be create and no problems will be solved.

# data[].attributes.body
If leaders never compromise no laws will pass and everyone and they will stay stay arguing so no laws will get approved.

If leaders are unwilling to compromise some leaders will try and gain power over another and then the power will take over some of them and then nothing will pass because all they doo is argue.

# data[].attributes.body
Why is it important for lawmakers to compromise?
If the lawmakers don't compromise then the way of making laws would be unbalanced and the government won't be able to function.

What happens to the government's ability to function if leaders are unwilling to compromise?
If the leaders don't compromise then the government would be unbalanced and one branch would always be more or less than the other.

# data[].attributes.body
1.its important for law makers to compromise becuase if they dont no laws can get by. Nobody will come to an agreement to approve a law.
2.The government cannot function if the leaders dont compromise becuase no one will come to a sloution

# data[].attributes.body
1.Its important for law makers to compromise because if they don't no laws can get by. Nobody will come to an agreement to approve a law.
2.The government cannot function if the leaders don't compromise because no one will ever come to a solution.

# data[].attributes.body
Lawmakers need to be able to compromise because it is difficult if people disagree with each other all the time, they cannot come up with solutions so we need to compromise, we need to be able to ensure peace, because without compromises it is difficult to have a good government. If leaders don't have the will to compromise, the government cannot function, we don't all share the same values and opinions, so we need to be able to compromise with each other to make sure our government is running and functioning. If leaders don't compromise, nothing will get done.

# data[].attributes.body
If all politicians and lawmakers do is argue, they can't get anything done. They can't represent their branch if they just fight. Sometimes, they have to compromise to get things done.

# data[].attributes.body
Compromising is important because it is like a 50/50 deal. Compromising helps everyone get a bit of what they want. Everyone's opinions are different and it helps when people can agree on something each person wants and come to a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise so they can reach an even conclusion. If they don't and they're just competing, then tension and conflicts arise, resulting in further problem. The ability to function goes down in ruins, along with the government generally.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for lawmakers to compromise or else laws won't be passed, and there will be pending problems left for too long. By compromising they'll end up with a new law that is applicable to more people or won't pass a law that may be unfair.

The government's ability to function will lower if a leader doesn't compromise. This is because the leaders are in charge of making sure that things are operating the way they should and reaching out to the public. Without order in our government, nothing will get done.

# data[].attributes.body
It's Important to compromise because sometimes we may have some laws that we might not find something fair

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if they don't, nothing will ever get done. Not everyone has to same opinion so they'll have to compromise to get what they want.

2.  The government's ability to function will collapse if leaders are unwilling to compromise because they all have different believes.

# data[].attributes.body
If lawmakers can't compromise they won't get any problems fixed, or laws made. They should hold a vote or they should find somehting that makes them all happy.

# data[].attributes.body
Arguments can start, and if they still can't compromise, problems can't be solved. The government would start breaking down as nobody would be able to agree on anything, and no laws could be passed.

# data[].attributes.body
Lawmakers need to compromise to get bills and laws passed out. If Lawmakers didn't cooperate with one another, the government would not be able to function because they could never agree to make a new law, edit one or remove one.

# data[].attributes.body
The goverment may stop working or it may become croupt.

# data[].attributes.body
if they don't compromise the law has a chance it wont be passed. But if they do then there law has a better chance of getting passed. Because the clauses can either help one not the other, not either, or helping both to turn a bill into a law.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It's important because otherwise you will never get people to vote for your bill.
2. People will start making false accusations and will start calling each other evil and fascist and oh wait that's real life.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise they cannot exist without each other, and having multiple side's opinions is more efficient than having only one sides. If the leaders are unwilling to compromise it can lead to more major problems that would do more harm.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for lawmakers to compromise because most lawmakers are divided on their beliefs, so if there are no compromises, so decisions get made. The government's ability to function will basically go away if leaders are unwilling to compromise because compromises are needed for decisions to be made.

# data[].attributes.body
If they can not compromise it can not be an even balance into passing on a law legislative is thee hardest thing to get passed when making a law. You could have your law die or be sent back or it could need a petition to give to the congress or supreme court.

# data[].attributes.body
because you have to balance every thing out evenly and you have to get the favor of most opinions for it to go through even if they don't like it.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if no one wants to change to agree then no one will be able to pas a law. If the government does not compromise it will not be able to function because no new laws will be able to be made.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason it is important for lawmakers to compromise is because it is important to have public support and if leaders are unwilling to speak and there is no public support then the law cant be passed be representative government doesn't allow you to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
It is very important for the lawmakers to compromise, because if one person always gets their way then everyone else will be unhappy with the way the government is. If we can't function then the government won't be able to function together and it will fall apart.

# data[].attributes.body
If leaders don´t compromise laws can not be passed there could be a very helpful law and if they don't compromise the law will be forgotten and never serve its purpose. We need to compromise to express how to work together. Otherwise no more laws.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, it is important for lawmakers to compromise so that they don't keep just arguing about the same topic to just end up at the same conclusion again and again. The government loses the function to make laws if nobody agrees to make the law.

# data[].attributes.body
its important for them to compromise so that if someone disagree you can find something else they agree so we do get stuck on that and nothing will get done and then no public support.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important because if you don't then no laws will get pass. and to work together for the same goal.

# data[].attributes.body
When lawmakers come to a compromise, it means that they will agree to something if they get an action from their side. If they didn't come to compromises, people will always be life behind, bills will never be based in the legislative branch, and the fact that some people just think that they are being shunned out. If they come to a compromise then people will realize their side is also being heard. If they aren't able to come to a compromise, than the government wouldn't function. The whole government is based around compromising. Without it, the government could not exist.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise so they can work together and make things fair.

# data[].attributes.body
So everyone just keep arguing about the same thing so they don't waste time. Nobody is going to follow the law if they don´t like what is in it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is importaint for lawmakers to compromise because they can get people who have different belives to agree with one law because of the clauses that were comprimised.
2. If the lawmakers do not work together there is a lower chance that laws will not be passed.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for lawmakers to comprise because they can't just keep debating about the same topic so they have to bring something else up. If the government officials are unwilling to compromise it just wont end that good and an agreement wont be exchanged, or a law won't be passed (most of the time).

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is important for lawmakers to compromise because the lawmakers have different opinions on the law and they can decide on different things. If leaders are unwilling to compromise then the government might function less equal or worse.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise so that they can find a solution in which both lawmakers are in a win-win scenario. The government's ability to function will stop working because then people would start fighting all over the place because when they are deciding on something, something is not including or another lawmaker has not included something that the other lawmaker likes.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if not, laws wont be made. When leaders are unwilling to compromise then the bill cannot proceed to turn into a law. If the public cannot speak up and show that they dont want this law or disagree with what is stands for then laws that citizens dont want will be made. This is called representative government. Debates are important to show both sides and different opinions Debates sometimes even change others opinions and views which is needed when passing a bill and having hearings.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important for the lawmakers to compromise For new laws to be made that could help our country. If the governments leader are not willing to compromise laws wouldn't be passed and it would affect our country.

# data[].attributes.body
If the lawmakers do not compromise, the government will not be able to function because the country will not be organized enough to come close to for the government to pass or make laws

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important to compromise because everyone´s opinions and beliefs should be heard, and everyone should be satisfied with the laws being made. Compromising also will help for a greater amount of people to support your ideas, making it easier for a law to be passed.
2. If leaders are unwilling to compromise, then the Government wont be able to form different laws, and the Government will no longer have as much power to create laws if nobody is compromising to create constitutional and fair laws. Without laws society cannot run smoothly.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important for lawmakers to compromise because if they don´t no one will agree. People have opinions and think some things are fair and some things aren't so it´s important to be able make the law constitutional and everyone agrees on so that it will be more likely of people following and supporting it.
2. The ability to function will deteriorate because probably no one will agree on one thing making it hard for laws to get passed and the society function as smoothly as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important that lawmakers compromise when it comes to making laws so that not just the lawmakers, but the people are satisfied with laws wheather it contains equality, corporation, etc. and if we can't compromise on new laws, laws can't get passed.