[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          CONGRESS INSIDE OUT

                                 ______


                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 12, 1994

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to the attention of Members the 
following column by respected Congress watcher, Norm Ornstein, 
concerning the futility of efforts to appease Congress-bashers with 
lobbying reform legislation:

                     [From Roll Call, May 12, 1994]

                          Congress Inside Out

                        (By Norman J. Ornstein)


           Lobbying Reform: Gift Horse Looks Back at Members

       It is hard to look at Congress's long struggle with 
     lobbying and gift reform without relief being tempered by a 
     mixture of uneasiness and frustration.
       There is at this point no doubt that sweeping reform will 
     in fact sail through Congress (although it may not be 
     sweeping enough for some). There should be some satisfaction 
     in that accomplishment. There is a lot that's good in this 
     bill. Lobbying disclosure and registration reform is long 
     overdue, and the hard and constructive work done by lawmakers 
     like Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) is finally paying off on this 
     issue. Levin deserves particular kudos for persevering 
     despite vicious and outrageously unfair criticism last year 
     from Common Cause and the New York Times.
       But gift ``reform'' is no cause for rejoicing. No question, 
     Members are responding to the clamor for drastic change 
     pushed by Common Cause, the Times, and the Washington Post. 
     But there is also no doubt that passage of this new ethics 
     law will barely--if at all--mute the drumbeat of criticism 
     from public interest groups and editorial pages about the 
     influence of special interests on Congress.
       The direct mail appeals for funds from the public interest 
     groups and the fiery newspaper editorials and snide 
     television investigative reports will be back next year, all 
     harshly decrying the corruptness of lawmakers and their ties 
     to various and sundry lobbyists, companies, and moneyed 
     interests.
       That prediction was easy to make the last time we moved for 
     sweeping change--when the goal was elimination of all 
     honoraria paid to Members and staff for speeches--and it is 
     just as easy to make now.
       The recognition that Congress will be damned no matter what 
     it does should be no deterrent to action if reform would 
     genuinely clean up a corrupt system.
       But I do not believe that will happen--and neither, deep 
     down, do most Members. Chances are, if gift reform were 
     considered by a secret ballot vote, it would fail by a wide 
     margin--and not because most Members revel in their 
     outrageous perks, are addicted to gifts and trips, are 
     themselves corrupt, or are willfully casting a blind eye to 
     corruption.
       Instead, most lawmakers would truthfully answer the 
     following questions the same way I do.
       Are lawmakers bought by lunches and dinners paid for by 
     lobbyists? The answer is no. Do their votes change because of 
     gifts proffered by lobbyists, or golf and tennis junkets 
     underwritten by them? No again.
       Will the lobbyists' access, or the friendly relationships 
     they have with Members, change materially with the 
     elimination of gifts, trips, and other gratuities? No, yet 
     again.
       Members have not developed friendships with lobbyists so 
     that they can cadge free meals, receive lavish gifts, or take 
     trips to nice places. Friendships develop because of like-
     minded interests and workplace contacts, as they do in most 
     professions and areas of life. With few exceptions, that 
     won't change. Professional relationships develop because of 
     mutual needs; Members need lobbyists for information, 
     political intelligence, support, and muscle on issues they 
     care about, or coalition-building glue, as lobbyists need 
     Members for all of the above and for votes.
       There are, to be sure, cases of backscratching--or powerful 
     lawmakers doing favors for their lobbyist friends, through a 
     word here or an amendment there in a piece of legislation. It 
     has ever been so. Some of it is the inevitable byproduct of 
     the kind of logrolling often necessary to build coalitions. 
     Some of it is more insidious and invidious. But only the most 
     naive of reformers truly believe that either kind of back-
     scratching will be stopped or even slowed by eliminating 
     gifts and junkets.
       So if the problem is not real impropriety, what is it? It 
     is the appearance of impropriety and conflict. That 
     appearance has been dramatized in recent years by the hit-
     and-run journalism of ``Hard Copy,'' ``Inside Edition,'' and 
     especially ``Prime Time Live,'' with its hidden cameras 
     showing solons cavorting in the ocean or on the fairway, and 
     by the inflammatory rhetoric of outside reformist interest 
     groups.
       In a climate of widespread vilification of Congress, with 
     ``PrimeTime Live'' thriving on its junket-a-week lineup, 
     there is probably no way to counter the charge or the 
     impression, or to keep it from damaging still further the 
     reputation of the institution.
       The case for passing tough gift reform, then, is this: Even 
     if Members are doing nothing wrong, the image of them 
     cavorting in luxurious surroundings with those paid to 
     influence legislation is the wrong one to send to the nation.
       If only reform would erase that image . . . but it will 
     not. Does anybody really believe that Common Cause will 
     rejoice in the bill's passage--and then turn around and 
     change its direct mail to praise Congress and its Members? Or 
     that ``PrimeTime Live'' will turn its focus from its winning 
     formula of government-bashing and Congressional excess to 
     something less pseudo-populist?
       If this appearance of conflict is removed, these creative 
     people will find another one. Of course, what I am saying is 
     heresy. No Member in his or her right mind will make this 
     case. And in fact, it is just as easy to concede on this 
     issue. After all, the loss of meals, trinkets, and trips is 
     not some deep disaster. Members can afford to pick up their 
     own checks, buy their own presents, and take their own 
     vacations.
       So what's the big deal--why not just give in, and declare 
     victory?
       That is just what most lawmakers will do. But as they do, 
     some things need to be said and considered in the aftermath 
     of the votes. First, this act will be another in a long 
     series of steps that demean, rather than ennoble, public 
     service. Ironically, the very act of reform says, ``We're 
     guilty.'' Outlaw gifts, meals, and trips, and you say, ``We 
     have been bought by gifts, meals, and trips.''
       Beyond that, gift reform is simply another step in the 
     process of chipping away every positive element of 
     Congressional life, including every perquisite that is 
     commonplace among mid-level professionals in the private 
     sector. Of course, public service is different, and requires 
     different standards. But when do we realize that we have 
     passed the point where we are actually improving ethics, and 
     are simply creating more and more reasons for accomplished 
     individuals who have led interesting and variegated lives to 
     avoid public services, especially service in Congress?
       It also needs to be said that the overwhelming bulk of the 
     charges made about Congress in the junket and speech business 
     is hypocritical and unfair. Lawmakers do go to charity events 
     and to association or corporation meetings, which are often, 
     indeed usually, in nice places at beautiful resorts. They can 
     receive no honoraria for their speeches, but they do often 
     get a few days in the sun in return for their appearances and 
     talks.
       Big deal. So do I, and so do most of the journalists and 
     public interest representatives who condemn the practice. We 
     get something in return for giving up precious time taken 
     away from other important responsibilities. In fact, we get a 
     whole lot more than Members do. Having some incentive for a 
     busy person to spend time with a group giving a speech is 
     perfectly reasonable--for us and for them. If there is an 
     appearance of conflict for a Member of Congress, why is there 
     no appearance of conflict for others who make their living 
     writing about or interpreting policy or legislation?
       Members of Congress are in demand to speak to groups. They 
     should be--they know a lot about the key issues shaping 
     everyone's future, they are articulate, and their 
     perspectives are valuable to groups of all sorts. Spend a day 
     with a Member and you will learn what busy and overcommitted 
     means.
       But most commentators start automatically with the 
     assumption that the only reason any group would ask a Member 
     to speak to it would be to buy influence, and the only reason 
     a Member would speak to a group would be to sell his or her 
     influence. Honoraria were banned to avoid such corruption (or 
     the appearance of it); now, the charge is that Members are 
     eager to sell their influence not for some pieces of silver, 
     but for a little golf, sun, and leisure.
       They don't do so any more than the rest of us out on the 
     lecture circuit, including not just Diane Sawyer and Sam 
     Donaldson, but also Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh. After 
     reform, the appearances of lawmakers, and with them 
     appearance of conflict, will be gone--but so will the 
     enlightenment and exchange of views that come with it.

                          ____________________