[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     SPEAKING FEES AND JOURNALISTS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the May 1994 issue of the American 
Journalism Review, [AJR], contains an article of great importance to 
the public, and to the journalism profession.
  The article is written by Alicia C. Shepard, and it is entitled 
``Talk Is Expensive.'' It raises critical questions about the propriety 
of journalists taking speaking fees and trips from those whom they 
potentially or actually write about.
  At issue is whether the acceptance of such fees constitutes a 
conflict of interest, or even the appearance of a conflict. If a 
reporter accepts money from an industry that he or she covers, how 
credible should we view their reporting?
  I am speaking about this issue today because I believe a debate 
within the journalism community, and some appropriate steps, would help 
restore the credibility reporters seem to have lost with the public. As 
a Member of Congress, I believe I know a lot about credibility problems 
with the public.
  Such steps are important if the Fourth Estate is to continue its role 
as an effective check-and-balance on our system of government.
  Those who accept such fees deny that they are influenced; those who 
reject the fees say those who take them are helping to compromise the 
credibility of the journalism profession.
  What is more, they say, it seems hypocritical for reporters to take 
money from the same sources they criticize for buying influence with 
and access to Members of Congress.
  Mr. President, I intend, at the conclusion of my remarks, to ask that 
the article by Alicia Shepard be printed into the Record. But first, I 
would like to highlight the main points of the article. And then I will 
indicate where I am headed with this.
  According to the article, journalists sometimes receive speaking fees 
from trade associations and other organizations. The fees range from a 
few hundred dollars, on up to $30,000, depending on the journalist's 
public profile; sometimes they are paid for free-lance articles in an 
organization's newsletter; sometimes they go on trips or cruises in 
exchange for a lecture.
  The percentage of the journalism community that partakes of these 
offerings is small. But it is growing. And it has taken hold especially 
in the power centers of our country--Washington and New York. The 
recipients tend to be those we often recognize as the media elite--
those with a high profile, usually on TV news shows and the like.
  It is difficult--in fact, it is almost impossible--to tell which 
journalists make how much money. There is no requirement that such 
information be disclosed, and it usually is not, except when it is done 
selectively and voluntarily. According to the article, those who 
receive fees say it is none of the public's business.
  Included in the article are several examples of potential conflict 
situations. I will not get into those specific cases because my 
colleagues can read about them tomorrow in the Record.
  Also included are the arguments of dozens of prominent and not-so-
prominent reporters, both pro and con. The debate resembles, to a great 
degree, those we have had on this very floor regarding the recent gift 
ban bill, the honoraria ban, and so on.
  Critics charge that taking fees and other gratuities raises questions 
of a reporter's objectivity. And it is not just the taking of money 
that is questioned. It is the amount of money that some take that 
raises questions of possible influence and access-buying. Again, this 
is reminiscent of our debate on honoraria and campaign finance reform.
  The article asserts that if some of the high-paid, big-name 
journalists made less on the side, perhaps there would be less 
criticism. Even one of the most prominent reporters, ABC's Sam 
Donaldson, who commands fees at the top end of the scale, admits 
speaking fees can be excessive.
  Speaking of excessive, there is the case of White House staffer David 
Gergen. Before working in the White House, Mr. Gergen was required by 
law to disclose his speaking fees to the Office of Government Ethics. 
In 1992 alone, while working for U.S. News & Work Report, he gave 121 
speeches. He reaped a total, for those 121 speeches, of $466,625.
  As Ms. Shepard notes, that is a speech every 3 days.
  Then again, the question is raised: To what extent is this debate 
driven by those who resent the fact that they cannot share in the same 
largess? One reporter interviewed seems to suggest jealousy as a motive 
of some critics. He said, ``It's wonderful to have these standards. But 
the ones who have them don't seem to have to apply them.''
  The issue of public disclosure is cited as a possible first step 
toward a solution. There are no requirements for disclosure by 
journalists, such as Congress has had for honoraria, trips, and gifts. 
Yet some news organizations have their own internal policies regarding 
fees and disclosure.
  For example, ABC News just issued a memorandum banning its on-camera 
journalists from taking speaking fees from trade associations or other 
for-profit organizations.
  Finally, the article describes a specific instance in which efforts 
by some journalists to partially disclose became a casualty to 
resistence.
  Not too long ago, members of the Periodical Press Gallery, right here 
in Congress, tried to address the issue of disclosure. Let me describe 
what happened.
  First, by way of background: If you are a reporter for a periodical 
covering Congress, you have to get your credentials approved by a 
standing committee of the Periodical Press Gallery. The committee is 
comprised of seven reporters who are members of the Gallery. They 
decide who gets credentials and who doesn't.
  Until 1988, disclosure requirements for members of the gallery were 
simply to list the speakers' bureau that pays them. They were not 
required to list the group spoken to or the amount of the fee.
  But in 1988, the seven-member committee decided to reform itself. It 
still did not require disclosure of the amount of the speaking fee. But 
it did require disclosure of the group spoken to, and the date of the 
speech.
  Now, what was the reaction by the members of the gallery to this 
reform?
  Four of the seven were defeated for reelection. They were replaced by 
four new members. And the newly comprised committee than reverted to 
the pre-1988 requirements.
  This is sort of the way bureaucracies in Washington respond to 
whistleblowers pushing reform. They reorganize them out of a job. They 
put them somewhere where they cannot cause any harm to the system.
  While Press Galleries may not be well-suited to compel disclosure, it 
could be done by individual news organizations. I will have more to say 
about this momentarily. But it does lead me, Mr. President, into my own 
views on the issues covered in this article.
  Polls have shown that the American people do not think very much of 
politicians or journalists. We are right down there together, just 
about slick ``used car'' salesmen.
  Both of our professions have suffered credibility problems. The 
public attitude toward us is one of great cynicism.
  And perhaps justifiably.
  In the case of politicians, we are perceived as always saying one 
thing, and doing another. Congress is still the last plantation; it is 
the only place where one-plus-one can equal eleven. It is the place 
where manana is the busiest day of the week. It is the place where a 
lack of common sense is not a handicap.
  As for journalists, there is a fast-growing perception that they are 
part of the system instead of being impartial observers. The saying 
goes, ``If you believe everything you read, better not read.'' Readers 
are becoming more and more of what journalists are becoming less and 
less of--skeptical.
  Perhaps just like us in Congress, the journalism community needs to 
rebuild its credibility. In recent years, Congress has taken small 
steps toward outlawing most honoraria and banning gifts and travel. We 
have taken small steps toward subjecting ourselves to the laws we pass 
for the country. This is, in fact, an issue that I have taken the lead 
on. And, we have a lot more to do before we regain the trust of the 
people.
  For journalists, the issue of taking speaking fees is best put by 
Walter Cronkite in the piece by Alicia Shepard. He said:

       ``I absolutely agree with those defending the practice by 
     saying they are not influenced. I believe that. I believe 
     good journalists, the ones who are admired any way, have 
     nothing to fear from internal introspection as to what 
     they've done or are doing. It's solely a matter of 
     perception, and important to our integrity.

  Mr. President, I share Mr. Cronkite's opinion. I do not intend for my 
remarks on the floor here today to be misconstrued as press-bashing. I 
do this out of respect for the profession. Just as we are servants of 
the people and keepers of the public trust, so, too, are journalists.
  And I am not suggesting that fees and gifts should not be taken. We 
in Congress have banned honoraria for ourselves, now, except when we 
give our fees to charity. And our gift ban bill is now in conference. 
Let me make clear: Regardless of these changes, no Member of Congress 
has the credibility, in my view, to moralize to others about accepting 
fees or gifts or other gratuities.

  But if I could make a suggestion for a place to start, it would be 
public disclosure. Disclosing pertinent information, such as who paid 
how much to whom, is the essence of what I am suggesting. Not rejecting 
fees.
  I also want to be up front about the fact that I have taken honoraria 
myself. But I have been required by law to disclose how much I received 
and from whom. My constituents could then judge for themselves whether 
there was a conflict of interest or an appearance thereof. The same 
standard should obtain for journalists, with public disclosure.
  My favorite saying in public life is: ``Mold doesn't grow where the 
sun shines in.'' In fact, that is primarily the job of journalists--to 
shine a light throughout our Government, and throughout our country. 
Disclosure would be consistent with that principle.
  Members of Congress are indeed held to a higher standard than 
journalists. This is because we are elected officials of the 
Government. As such, our actions are governed by statutes, like 
conflict of interest laws. And we are held accountable by the votes.
  Members of the media, not being elected officials, are not subject to 
the same high standards and, consequently, are not subject to conflict 
laws.
  However, the media has always enjoyed a special niche in our society 
because of its relevance to the public interest. It enjoys protections 
under the first amendment, which presupposes a public trust.
  After all, the parable ``Let he who is without sin cast the first 
stone'' best fits the journalism profession. And so every effort should 
be made to maintain the image of being pure as the driven snow.
  Because of this important role in our democracy, and since the media 
is not subject to conflict laws, it must therefore discipline itself. 
It must hold itself accountable. It is obliged to do so.
  Like politicians, journalists must accept and fulfill their role in 
the public trust if they are to re-establish credibility with the 
public.
  Public disclosure of fees by journalists would be a step toward 
restoring that credibility.
  Journalists could take a lesson learned from our debate here on the 
Senate floor. As the reform winds swept through this body, many of my 
colleagues rejected the contention that they could be influenced by 
honoraria--regardless of the amounts. And I agreed with them.
  But the press and the public didn't buy those arguments. And that's 
because the issue was not our integrity. It was the public's perception 
of our institution that was the problem.

  As one political consultant might say, ``It's the perception, 
stupid!''
  And so the arguments made by my colleagues were true in most cases, 
but the public and the press didn't buy them. So if these arguments 
never played with the press, why should they play among the press.
  Regarding that perception, here's what a spokewoman for Ted Koppel of 
ABC ``Nightline'' had to say about Mr. Koppel's views:

       He doesn't feel there's a conflict in every case. But he 
     feels uncomfortable explaining to the people in his audience, 
     who depend on his credibility, why he was doing it.

  Mr. Koppel stopped speechmaking for fees 5 years ago.
  And journalism professor Steven Knowlton of Pennsylvania State 
university echoed the rationale:

       If you can convince an auto mechanic or a barber that the 
     money you took wouldn't buy any influence, that would be OK. 
     But my tailor wouldn't believe that, if I took $30,000 from 
     an individual, I wouldn't be influenced.

  Mr. President, I understand the point of view of Mr. Koppel and Dr. 
Knowlton because it is the same rationale I used in supporting the gift 
ban here on this floor. It is a matter of our credibility--the way we 
are perceived by the public.
  Again, I decided to speak about this issue today in the hope that 
this issue will spark a public debate within the journalism community. 
The introspection and the open debate would be good therapy, as it has 
been for Congress.
  Addressing the issue would help restore credibility to the 
profession. The media cannot serve as an effective check-and-balance on 
the system of government without it.
  My interest in this issue, Mr. President, is similar to my interest 
in the area of congressional coverage. It is important that Congress 
reestablish its credibility. It is important that journalists do 
likewise.
  We in Congress, as well as journalists, are theoretically closest to 
the people. Yet our credibility with them has suffered precisely 
because we have withdrawn from them. We've become part of the system. 
And so if we can resume our proper roles in this democracy and thereby 
restore our credibility, much of the current cynicism in the public can 
be rooted out. Clearly, this is our paramount goal.

  As for what steps to take, again it must be voluntary, and up to each 
organization. If the objective is to restore credibility, corrections 
must come from within the community itself.
  So I am not talking about any kind of law, or some kind of rule 
change from the Rules Committee to our press galleries, or anything 
like that. That would amount to censorship and interference.
  Rather, each news organization must decide for itself what its 
policies should be. ABC decided to ban speaking fees from all trade 
associations and all for-profit companies. ABC should be commended, in 
my view, for taking this giant step forward.
  As for smaller steps, such as disclosure, I would toss out an idea 
for discussion. I realize there are drawbacks to this approach, but 
perhaps organizations like the National Press Club, or other press 
clubs, could be helpful.
  When journalists, who are required by their companies to disclose, 
would give a speech for a fee, the relevant information could be 
deposited with the press club's library, and could be accessible to the 
public. Or, perhaps the information could be made available from the 
news organization itself. Either way, the public would have access to 
information needed to judge possible conflicts of interest.
  Mr. President, this concludes my observations about the issue of 
speaking fees and journalists. They are meant as constructive remarks, 
and I hope they are received that way.
  I wish to commend the author of the piece--Alicia Shepard--for her 
contribution to the debate. As noted earlier, Mr. President, I now ask 
unanimous consent that Ms. Shepard's article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Talk Is Expensive

                         (By Alicia C. Shepard)

       They don't come cheap. Diane Sawyer and Sam Donaldson are 
     said to command up to $30,000 for a speech, Cokie Roberts up 
     to $20,000, and David Brinkley $18,000. The going rate is 
     believed to be as high as $12,500 for George Will and $10,000 
     for Tim Russert. William Safire says he's gotten $20,000. 
     Anna Quindlen has received $15,000, CNN's Judy Woodruff and 
     NBC's Lisa Myers say they've each pulled in $7,500, and 
     Newsweek's Howard Fineman has earned $5,000.
       That's according to brochures put out by speakers' bureaus, 
     people who deal with the bureaus, published reports and, in 
     some cases, the speakers themselves. Exact figures are often 
     hard to pin down, since many celebrity journalists are 
     extremely reluctant to reveal specific numbers. And often 
     these same highly paid journalists speak for free, or charge 
     much less than published rates.
       What these journalists and a few hundred others have that 
     the rest of us don't is ``podium talent.'' And many have 
     turned it into a lucrative sideline, giving one- to two-hour 
     speeches to trade groups, colleges, corporations and 
     conventions in return for what many other journalists may 
     earn in a month or even a year.
       Not every journalist can dip into the honoraria trough. The 
     pool is limited to those with big names, wit and something 
     pithy or insightful to say about politics or the media. Most 
     of those commanding large speaking fees are the media elite 
     of Washington. The rest come largely from the New York City 
     media establishment. But those who collect fees are 
     increasingly making those who don't uncomfortable. They say 
     receiving large sums for speaking before groups with a vested 
     interest in news coverage can give the appearance of a 
     conflict. And it seems hypocritical for reporters to stuff 
     their pockets with money from the same organizations they 
     criticize for trying to buy influence on Capitol Hill.
       To some, such impressive fees suggest those willing to pay 
     want something in return. Of course, journalists who take 
     honoraria say that isn't so. High-profile journalists say 
     they are perceived as celebrities and entitled to capitalize 
     on the years of work that led to stardom. And echoing members 
     of Congress--who have been banned from taking honoraria since 
     1991--they insist they're not tainted by the money.
       But those who decline invitations say the credibility of 
     journalist speechmakers is compromised. As in politics, the 
     appearance of a conflict, they say, is just as harmful as a 
     real one. Although evidence of a quid pro quo has never 
     surfaced, there have been instances where it's caused 
     embarrassment to a journalist or his or her employer.
       ``I think we ought not to be doing this,'' former CBS and 
     NBC correspondent Roger Mudd told AJR. ``It poses so many 
     difficulties. Journalists as a breed hold the politicians to 
     a certain standard of conduct and a certain standard of the 
     appearance of conduct. When it applies to us we frequently 
     fail our own test.''
       ``It's not a black-and-white situation,'' adds Walter 
     Cronkite, who took money for speeches while at CBS, ``but I 
     would have to agree with the critics that it probably is 
     better avoided.''
       Some journalists receive honoraria for services other than 
     speeches. Beat reporters write freelance articles for 
     organizations that have political or social agendas that 
     benefit from news coverage. Others give lectures in exchange 
     for junkets aboard cruise ships.
       Whatever it is, as the number of possible conflicts 
     increases, those who may be most confused are viewers and 
     readers. ``Journalists are something like judges in 
     society,'' says ethics and public affairs professor Deni 
     Elliott of the University of Montana. ``I don't know the 
     individual journalist I'm asked to trust. Maybe they 
     absolutely can't be co-opted but I don't know that. I don't 
     know who to trust.''
       Journalists aren't the only ones collecting speech money. 
     They're marketed in the same brochures promoting Jimmy 
     Carter, Marilyn Tucker Quayle, F. Lee Bailey, Art Linkletter 
     and the Amazing Kreskin. Colin Powell, the recently retired 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has 60 speeches lined 
     up this year for $60,000 each, according to a source who has 
     worked with the Washington Speakers Bureau. While it's 
     unlikely that even big-name journalists rake in as much as 
     Powell, few journalists AJR spoke with would disclose their 
     earnings, saying it's not the public's business.
       While print journalists aren't often considered 
     celebrities, television has helped raise the profiles of many 
     newspaper and magazine journalists, like Al Hunt of the Wall 
     Street Journal. Hunt, the Los Angeles Times' Jack Nelson, 
     Newsweek's Fineman, the Washington Post's David Broder and 
     other print reporters became popular as public speakers by 
     sharing inside Washington tidbits on weekly public affairs 
     shows like ``Washington Week in Review,'' ``The McLaughlin 
     Group,'' ``This Week With David Brinkley'' or CNN's ``Inside 
     Politics.''
       ``The ones who write about politics are most popular,'' 
     says Lynn Choquette, a partner with the National Speakers 
     Forum, which represents about 50 print and electronic 
     journalists. She says her clients' fees range from $3,000 to 
     $60,000, with journalists getting between $3,000 and $30,000.
       The most popular? ``Eleanor Clift. Fred Barnes. Morton 
     Kondracke. George Will. David Broder,'' says Choquette. 
     ``People care intensely about domestic politics. That's one 
     reason. Many of these journalists have become TV stars in 
     their own right and that raises their level of celebrity. . . 
     . If they have a charming personality and are telegenic, that 
     really helps.''
       And that's where podium talent comes in. A moonlighting 
     journalist can't just know health care reform or Whitewater 
     inside out. ``Speaking is akin to show business,'' says Phil 
     Frankio, vice president of the Speakers Guild. ``So there's 
     not only the informational element, but somebody certainly 
     has to have a good rapport with the audience. That may 
     include humor or anecdotal type stories.''
       Leading Authorities, a speakers' group that lists a stable 
     of 50 journalists eager to talk, most for $5,000 or less, 
     prints this disclaimer in its booklet: ``Keep in mind that 
     speaking fees are a function of many variables, including: 
     how well-known the speaker is; the amount of time 
     (preparation, speaking and travel) required to perform the 
     speaking engagement; and the value each speaker places on his 
     or her time. Higher fees do not guarantee a more substantive 
     presentation or more polished performance.''
       Among those listed with Leading Authorities who speak for 
     $5,000 or less if no traveling is involved: Scripps Howard's 
     Peter Brown, CNN's Jill Dougherty, syndicated columnists Jack 
     Germond and Jules Witcover, ABC's Hal Bruno, NPR's Ray 
     Suarez, U.S. News & World Report's Ken Walsh and Time's 
     Michael Duffy.
       Whether it's $5,000 or $30,000, the fee still dazzles 
     journalists who can't command it. The rank and file are quick 
     to note a certain irony. ``The people who tend to get these 
     speaking gigs are the people who need it the least,'' says 
     Carl Cannon, White House correspondent for Baltimore's Sun. 
     Speechmaking journalists are not eager to publicize how much 
     they do make.
       Even Sam Donaldson, whose reported fee of $30,000 has been 
     widely cited in the press, won't confirm the amount, although 
     that's what one special interest group said it paid the 
     anchor. Donaldson advised AJR to call his speakers' 
     bureau, which won't disclose it either. ``I can tell you I 
     didn't receive $30,000 but I'm not playing games with 
     you,'' Donaldson says.
       ``I'm not going to disclose it,'' echoes the Wall Street 
     Journal's Al Hunt. ``I don't have a standard speech fee,'' 
     says the Washington Post's David Broder. ``I don't need to 
     discuss that,'' says ABC's Catherine Crier.
       PBS' Robert MacNeil says he speaks ``primarily to promote 
     the `MacNeil/Lehrer News-Hour,' public television and my 
     books'' and says most of his speaking engagements are unpaid. 
     Nonetheless, he says, ``I think my fees are a private matter 
     between me and my sponsors. But they range from honoraria of 
     a few hundred dollars to a few that are in the upper end of 
     current lecture scales.''
       Whatever the amounts, what happens when journalists speak 
     before groups that have been or could be the subject of one 
     of their stories? Take the case of Donaldson. On January 20, 
     ``PrimeTime Live'' aired an investigative piece by Chris 
     Wallace about a junket earlier that month sponsored by a 
     group of insurance organizations, including the American 
     Insurance Association, for about 30 congressional staffers. 
     It was vintage ``PrimeTime Live,'' with hidden cameras 
     catching the staffers on the beach in Key West, Florida, and 
     charges of influence peddling. The message was that once 
     again a trade organization was trying to buy votes on Capitol 
     Hill.
       Only this story had a small on-air asterisk. Donaldson, 
     too, had benefited from the industry's generosity and Wallace 
     disclosed that fact, but not the amount, during the piece. A 
     year before Wallace's story aired, a consortium of many of 
     the same insurance organizations that sponsored the Florida 
     junket flew Donaldson first-class to New York City and 
     chauffeured him by limousine to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. 
     There, he gave a one-hour speech for $30,000, according to a 
     spokesperson for the group--about what it cost the industry 
     to foot the bill for 30 in Florida.
       In its defense, Paul Equale, senior vice president for 
     government affairs of the Independent Insurance Agents of 
     America, asked Wallace on camera why it was OK for Donaldson 
     to accept money from them and not OK for the congressional 
     staffers.
       ``If Sam Donaldson can accept $30,000 from this industry 
     and still do this story on `PrimeTime Live,''' he asked, 
     ``why can't you understand that members of Congress and their 
     staffs can accept a trip worth far less and still be as tough 
     on my industry as Sam Donaldson? It's the same logic.'' 
     Wallace ignored the question and the exchange never aired.
       Rick Nelson, a producer with ``PrimeTime Live,'' says the 
     program didn't air Equale's question because ``I don't think 
     he made it [the point] very well,'' and Equale took too much 
     time in bringing up the issue.
       Donaldson argues that he's not writing laws for the 
     insurance industry ``that could cost them or make them 
     millions of dollars.''
       He may not be writing laws, says Equale, but Donaldson's 
     got more influence on the public agenda than many members of 
     Congress. (As an example of the media's power, consider the 
     libel suit Philip Morris filed in March against ABC over a 
     segment aired on ``Day One.'' The company says that when the 
     show alleged in February and March that Philip Morris adds 
     nicotine to cigarettes to keep smokers addicted, its stock 
     dropped in value by $2.4 billion.)
       Equale also notes that laws mandate that members of 
     Congress and their staffs disclose trips paid for by 
     lobbyists. ``Sam Donaldson is under no such requirement,'' he 
     says. ``That's a double standard.''
       Equale isn't the first to accuse Donaldson of wanting it 
     both ways. In spring 1993, ``PrimeTime Live'' broadcast a 
     piece on a trip to dozen members of Congress and their 
     spouses took to an island off the coast of Florida. It was 
     paid for by the Electronic Industries Association (EIA). At 
     the last minute ABC News President Roone Arledge insisted 
     that Donaldson reveal he too had taken money from EIA for a 
     speech in 1989--although the specific amount ($25,000, 
     according to EIA) wasn't mentioned.
       The show prompted a debate on the journalism bulletin board 
     of CompuServe last May. Marianne Lavelle, a reporter with the 
     National Law Journal who took part in the discussion, told 
     AJR, ``I may know as a journalist that he's unbiased, but 
     how does Jane Doe in Pennsylvania know that he's not 
     biased? The whole thing just increases your level of 
     cynicism.''
       Donaldson didn't do the reporting for either piece and says 
     his fees are being used by the two groups to deflect 
     criticism. ``If you or anyone else could provide evidence 
     that I'd spoken to the insurance [industry], collected a fee 
     and then somehow put the kibosh on the investigation or asked 
     Chris Wallace to pull back his punches, that would be a real 
     good story,'' Donaldson says.
       ``In fact, though, what the story appears to be, is pay 
     Donaldson to speak to you and get investigated by `Prime 
     Time.' It's hard for me to see how anyone can make out that I 
     have thus traduced the best traditions of our business.''
       Cokie Roberts, a reporter for NPR and ABC, was also 
     recently criticized when she gave a speech to the Group 
     Health Association of America, a group with a strong interest 
     in the outcome of President Clinton's health care reform 
     legislation. C-SPAN wanted to cover it but was turned down by 
     Roberts' agent, the Harry Walker Agency, which bars C-SPAN 
     cameras because they make it difficult for its clients to 
     command large fees.
       Roberts, who did not return repeated phone calls because 
     she was ``extraordinarily busy,'' has never publicly 
     disclosed her fee, but insiders say it's $20,000--minus the 
     agent's commission.
       In a March column, the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau 
     chief, James Warren, criticized Roberts and CBS' Lesley 
     Stahl. Stahl recently took money from Cigna Corp., an 
     insurance company with a major stake in the health care 
     debate. Warren speculated that Stahl was paid in the $10,000 
     to $20,000 range.
       ``Taking money from such a group shouldn't be a close call 
     for someone covering Congress' biggest issue of the year,'' 
     Warren wrote. ``But in Washington, the reporter-pundit class, 
     which craves both to be on TV and subsequent speaking gigs 
     that can bring hefty outside income, is expert at 
     rationalizing such conflicts with a mix of sophistry and 
     fervent self-righteousness. One line usually is, `Oh, there's 
     nobody who thinks that my opinions can be bought.' . . . 
     Baloney. When money changes hands, the relationship between 
     reporter and subject changes.''
       Roy Brunett, a spokesperson for ``60 minutes,'' says Stahl, 
     who moderated a discussion on health care issues sponsored by 
     the company, does not consider it a conflict or even the 
     appearance of one. She also will not disclose her fee, 
     Brunett says. ``That's between her and the company.''
       Warren says he took $200 from the American Bar Association 
     a few years ago to run a symposium, but now regrets it. ``If 
     I had to do it again,'' he says, ``I don't think I'd take the 
     money.''
       Beat reporters who have developed an expertise in their 
     field also are often asked to speak to or write for groups 
     they cover. One potential conflict arose when the World 
     Resources Institute (WRI), an environmental think tank in 
     Washington, D.C., asked three reporters to write for ``The 
     1994 Information Please, Environmental Almanac,'' which was 
     compiled by WRI and published by Houghton Mifflin. Bob Wyss 
     of the Providence Journal-Bulletin, Russell Clemings of the 
     Fresno Bee and Mike Mansur of the Kansas City Star wrote 
     chapters and were paid. Says Mansur, who was paid $2,000 by 
     Houghton Mifflin for a 7,000-word chapter, ``None of the 
     information [I wrote about] was new. It was all part of my 
     coverage . . . for the Star.''
       Wyss, who wasn't required to check with an editor before 
     taking the assignment, says there's no conflict. ``It's 
     extremely remote that I would be covering World Resources 
     Inc. They're just not the sort of mainstream sort of 
     environmental group that I even deal with.'' Clemings says he 
     checked back to see what had been written about WRI before 
     accepting the assignment. His last story on the institute had 
     been about the almanac, but he says if something came up 
     again, he would turn it over to another reporter.
       Nevertheless, Bud Ward, editor of Environment Writer, a 
     newsletter read by 1,400 environmental journalists, says he 
     questions ``whether they should be writing for a group that's 
     subject to their own coverage. I'm concerned about the 
     public's attitude toward the press. This kind of thing gives 
     the public more reason to be skeptical of the media's 
     independence.''
       Another subject of criticism from some reporters has been 
     well-known journalists who give lectures in exchange for 
     fancy accommodations on cruises where the paying 
     passengers are lawyers, accountants, financial planners 
     and insurance underwriters. Last year, for example, the 
     L.A. Times' Jack Nelson and Paul Duke, the recently 
     retired host of ``Washington Week in Review,'' took two 
     all-expenses paid cruises on luxury liners for a 
     conference organized by a Florida travel agency. Some call 
     it journalist junketeering; Nelson says he's providing a 
     service.
       Critics say that taking money from groups falling under a 
     reporter's purview raises all sorts of potential conflicts of 
     interest or, at the least, the appearance of one. The money 
     also raises questions about a reporter's objectivity. ``It 
     seems to me the problem is because Sam and others take that 
     kind of money it precludes them from ever covering insurance 
     scandals,'' Roger Mudd, who now teaches journalism at 
     Princeton University, said on a recent radio talk show. ``It 
     puts them in an immediate conflict of interest.'' Mudd says 
     while he was with the networks, he took some small fees for 
     speeches to schools.
       James D. Squires, a former editor of the Chicago Tribune, 
     tells of the time the Tribune's movie reviewer, Gene Siskel, 
     wanted to do some side work for the Walt Disney Co. Squires 
     said no. ``If every time Gene Siskel came on TV and says `I'm 
     about to review a Disney movie and I'm paid by Disney but 
     I'll still be impartial,''' says Squires, ``look how silly 
     that would look.''
       Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the poynter 
     Institute, believes that, in their hearts, reporters who 
     speak for cash may be 100 percent certain of their 
     objectivity and fairness. But there's no way to prove that to 
     their audience. ``How do we know what didn't go into the 
     story?'' he asks. ``Or that a journalist would do a story and 
     be exceptionally hard on an organization to prove they were 
     neutral?''
       There's yet to be a case, however, in which there was a 
     proven quid pro quo. ``No one for a minute who knows Sam 
     would think he could be influenced,'' says Squires, who once 
     took $5,000 from the American Petroleum Institute while at 
     the Tribune and donated it to charity. ``But what it does is 
     put the credibility of brand name journalism at risk. The 
     same kind of damage is done by `Hard Copy' and little nitwit 
     reporters showing up on television making wild allegations.''
       Public figures also question the practice. At an April 
     meeting of the American Society of Newspapers Editors, former 
     Secretary of Defense nominee Bobby Ray Inman, who cited 
     criticism of the media when he withdrew his name from 
     consideration, chided columnists who take big fees for 
     speeches.
       Edward Pound, an investigative reporter for U.S. News & 
     World Report, recalls asking White House adviser James 
     Carville about speeches he gives to special interest groups. 
     Carville deflected the criticism. ``What he said to me was, 
     `What I find mostly when I go there is reporters giving 
     speeches. I usually find myself preceding and following a 
     reporter,''' says Pound. ``There's a lot of truth to that. I 
     don't want to sound high and mighty, but I just don't think 
     it's a good policy. When I came to Washington in 1977, it 
     wasn't nearly at the stage it is now. It's out of control.''
       Some critics say that while talking for dollars can be 
     questionable--depending on the group paying--it's the amount 
     that has people wondering if a group is trying to influence 
     or buy access to a journalist.
       ``Journalists need to ask, `What would reasonable people 
     think about me taking an honorarium for speaking before this 
     special interest group that has a vested interest in how they 
     are covered?''' says Ralph Barney, a communications professor 
     at Brigham Young University who specializes in ethics.
       What would reasonable people think about U.S. News & World 
     Reports' former editor at large, David Gergen? Before he 
     became counselor to President Clinton, Gergen collected 
     $466,625 for 121 speeches in 1992, according to a report he 
     filed with the Office of Government Ethics. That's a speech 
     every three days. In the month of October 1992 alone he gave 
     15 speeches--two on one day. In the first six months of 1993, 
     Gergen spoke 50 times to groups such as IBM, the Mexican 
     Stock Exchange and Dow Corning, earning $239,460--about the 
     same amount as 18 months of his annual salary. The majority 
     of organizations paid $5,000 or more. Gergen did not return 
     phone calls.
       Another journalist who joined the Clinton administration, 
     Strobe Talbott, former editor at large for Time magazine, 
     collected a total of $20,000 for two speeches in 1992, 
     according to financial disclosure reports he filed when he 
     became deputy secretary of state.
       If Talbott, Gergen or Donaldson reaped $100 per speech, 
     fewer would question it. Most agree journalists' time is 
     valuable and they should be compensated. But $12,000--which 
     Gergen got in 1992 for a speech to the American Stock 
     Exchange--is another story.
       ``The group that hired you clearly thinks it's getting its 
     money's worth or they wouldn't do it,'' says Steven Knowlton, 
     a journalism professor at Pennsylvania State University who 
     wrote a book on ethics titled ``The Journalist's Moral 
     Compass.'' ``Is it for Sam Donaldson's brilliance or insight? 
     No, I don't think so. They think they're buying some 
     influence or else why would they do it?'' He believes a 
     reasonable fee would cover expenses or be a day or couple of 
     days' pay.
       Knowlton and the public might perceive it that way, but 
     Donaldson says since he first took $100 in 1969 no one ``in 
     any of these organizations has called me and asked me to do 
     something for them or to not do something against them.''
       Mark Rosenker, vice president of public affairs for the 
     Electronic Industries Association agrees that his 
     organization is not looking for favors but simply access. 
     ``My business is to get stories in the paper or TV,'' he 
     says. ``Would I call Sam? Yes. But I don't believe he'd do a 
     favorable story or kill a story no matter how much I paid him 
     for a speech.''
       Why then do trade groups and corporations--the ones that 
     generally pay big fees for big names--pay Sawyer, Roberts, 
     Donaldson and other well-known journalists outrageous sums?
       Representatives of these groups say the reason is much 
     simpler and much less conspiratorial: They pay big money 
     because that's what topflight journalists charge. Many 
     industry groups say they want a big-name journalist to talk 
     about Washington and to help attract members to their 
     conventions or meetings.
       ``At these big industry meetings, we fly in CEOs, their 
     wives and district managers,'' says the insurance industry's 
     Paul Equale. ``They want glitz. Television has turned these 
     people into celebrities.'' Adds EIA's Rosenker, ``We expect a 
     good speech. We expect to be entertained and enlightened.''
       Even Donaldson concedes that the fees border on the absurd. 
     He says he charges what he does because that's what the 
     market will bear and he wants to limit engagements--although 
     he's listed with at least six speakers' bureaus. Donaldson 
     says he doesn't even prepare for them: ``If you hire me 
     you're getting pretty much an off-the-cuff, let's-wing-it 
     version of what's going on in Washington.
       ``You and I can agree that maybe it's silly or a waste of 
     their money, but they actually pay me because they think I'm 
     a celebrity who will come to their convention, whose members 
     will be impressed that I'm on the program.''
       Knowlton won't argue with that. ``As a journalist, he's not 
     worth $30,000,''he says. ``But he is as a star.''
       Carl Cannon of Baltimore's Sun is not on the speaking 
     circuit. He and others acknowledge that some criticism may 
     come from that old green-eyed monster, jealousy. What would 
     the have-nots do, asked a journalist who didn't want to 
     publicly defend that practice, if they were offered a change 
     to speak for an hour for what they might earn in a month? 
     ``It's wonderful to have these standards,'' he says, ``but 
     the ones who have them don't seem to have to apply them.''
       Not all journalists, even those with podium potential, 
     speak for money. Jim Lehrer, host of PBS' ``MacNeil/Lehrer 
     NewsHour,'' used to do it. Unlike his partner, Robert 
     MacNeil, who speaks about 25 times a year but often for free, 
     Lehrer now turns down invitations because of the public 
     perceptions problem. He also says he doesn't need the cash 
     anymore.
       ``I quit doing it since I no longer had kids in college,'' 
     says Lehrer. ``I'm not comfortable with it, to tell you the 
     truth. I don't want to come over as being sanctimonious of 
     self-righteous about this. I think everybody has to make 
     their own decision. I'm just not doing it myself because of 
     the nature of the business I'm in.''
       Another reason Lehrer doesn't do it, he says, is because 
     taking cash on the circuit makes his colleagues occasionally 
     appear hypocritical. ``What I object to, to be straight about 
     it, is journalists who take the position that they are purer 
     than all other people,'' says Lehrer.
       Lehrer says if he took $30,000 from a group, he's sure he 
     wouldn't be influenced. ``But if a member of Congress does 
     that we automatically assume that it's not only unethical, 
     but the guy's on the take,'' says Lehrer. ``It's the self-
     righteousness that accompanies the taking of this money by 
     journalists that I think is just absolute bullshit. Take the 
     money, fine. Go make our speeches and be pure. But don't 
     assume that everybody else is less pure than you are.''
       NBC's Tom Brokaw airs his views but gives the money to a 
     foundation that distributes it to charity. Brokaw, like many 
     other well-known journalists, also speaks for free to 
     colleges, charities and civil groups.
       ABC's ``Nightline'' anchor Ted Koppel quit speechmaking 
     five years ago when he became dumbfounded by how much groups 
     would pay. ``He personally became uncomfortable with the 
     whole process of taking money for speeches,'' says ABC 
     spokesperson Eileen Murphy. ``He doesn't feel there's a 
     conflict in every case. But he feels uncomfortable explaining 
     to the people in his audience, who depend on his credibility, 
     why he was doing it.'' Some critics charge that Koppel and 
     Lehrer both stopped doing it when they reached points in 
     their career where their salaries were so high they could 
     easily afford to be more ethical.
       Koppel seems to have applied the same litmus test that 
     Knowlton thinks all journalists should use. ``If you can 
     convince an auto mechanic or a barber that the money you took 
     wouldn't buy any influence,'' says Knowlton, ``that would be 
     OK. But my tailor wouldn't believe that if I took $30,000 
     from an individual, I wouldn't be influenced.''
       Walter Cronkite says he ``never thought about'' the money 
     he accepted for speeches while at CBS. ``It never seemed to 
     be a problem.'' But in retrospect he also believes perception 
     problems are the most worrisome aspect of accepting 
     honoraria.
       ``I absolutely agree with those defending the practice by 
     saying they are not influenced. I believe that,'' he says. 
     ``I believe good journalists, the ones who are admired 
     anyway, have nothing to fear from internal introspection as 
     to what they've done or are doing. It's solely a matter of 
     perception, and important to our integrity.''
       Judi Hasson, a reporter for USA Today who covers health 
     reform, is one who refuses invitations from any group 
     involved in her beat. ``I just don't want to be taking money 
     from the people I write about,'' she says. ``I can use the 
     money. But it's not difficult to turn it down.''
       Others wrestle with each invitation. ``Every time someone 
     asks you to speak,'' says ABC's Catherine Crier, ``it's 
     important to look and see whether you would see any conflict 
     or problem. That inquiry is made every time I'm asked to 
     speak.''
       But deciding just what is a conflict is becoming harder to 
     determine. ``The murky area, the ones where I need to check 
     are the ones where I get an invitation from a business 
     group,'' says the Washington Post's David Broder. ``We don't 
     want to be involved with people who have too much of a stake 
     in anything. For example, I'm doing a lot of stuff on health 
     care so I would not speak to any group that's a major player 
     in the health care thing.''
       Maybe not now, but what, for the sake of argument, if 
     Broder had in the past? ``In my work, you never know,'' says 
     Broder, ``that's why it pays to bend over backwards.''
       Disclosure is often mentioned as a solution. If the public 
     sees Cokie Roberts on TV talking about health care and knows 
     she took $20,000 from a group concerned with the issue, then 
     it can decide what to believe.
       But disclosure isn't an easy solution. Unlike members of 
     Congress, who must disclose all sources of income annually 
     and are prohibited from accepting honoraria, no similar 
     mechanism exists for journalists. Many news organizations 
     have internal disclosure policies but they often relate more 
     to whom a reporter speaks.
       ``We don't want to treat our reporters like children,'' 
     says U.S. News & World Report's Kathy Bushkin, who is the 
     magazine's director of editorial administration. The 
     policy there, like at many news organizations, is 
     reporters can't speak to groups they cover; for other 
     speeches, the need to discuss the circumstances with their 
     editor.
       Many other news organizations are now addressing the issue 
     of honoraria. In light of the Donaldson disclosures, ABC is 
     reconsidering its policy, which currently doesn't 
     specifically cover the issue. So is NBC. So is Newsweek, 
     which now doesn't require correspondents to seek prior 
     permission to speak for money. The Wall Street Journal 
     decided a few years ago to forbid honoraria from any for-
     profit organization; the Washington Post forbids honoraria 
     that could be interpreted as ``disguised gratuities.''
       Magazine journalists who cover Capitol Hill had the 
     opportunity to disclose their honoraria earnings six years 
     ago, but few were eager to do so. To obtain congressional 
     press passes, magazine reporters must apply for credentials 
     from the Periodical Press Gallery. They gallery is run by 
     Congress, but a seven-member committee of journalists decides 
     who gets credentials. In 1988, the committee voted to revamp 
     its application and have reporters list the group and date--
     not the amount--for each speech.
       ``If they spoke the Tobacco Institute or some business 
     organization, that would have to have been disclosed,'' 
     recalls David Holmes, superintendent of the House Periodical 
     Press Gallery. Previously, they could just list the speakers' 
     bureaus that paid them and not name the groups they spoke to 
     or list the fee.
       Few liked the new idea. Later that year, when committee 
     members stood for reelection, four were thrown out. ``The 
     first thing they did was return to the old form,'' which only 
     requires listing the speakers' bureau, says Holmes.
       The issue came up again recently, but the new committee was 
     not so bold. While it brought it up at a March meeting, it 
     decided only to restate and clarify the existing policy. The 
     bottom line: It's still alright to list only the speakers' 
     bureau. Even so, some journalists continue to leave the line 
     blank or write only ``speeches.''
       Attempts to encourage disclosure or limit honoraria to 
     small, expenses-only fees are suggested by critics not to 
     strip a working journalist of income but to safeguard the 
     eroding credibility of the profession. In a 1991 AJR reader's 
     poll, 68 percent said they believed journalists should 
     disclose speaking fees. Other polls list journalists just 
     above used car salesmen and politicians when it comes to 
     public trust. Losing credibility will just make it more 
     difficult--if not impossible--to do the job, critics say.
       Says Lehrer, Anything that detracts from our credibility 
     detracts from our being. Because without our credibility, we 
     ain't got it. We're nowhere.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent 
agreement, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone], for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________