[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                               FEE SPEECH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, today in the House of Representatives we 
passed a bill dealing with lobbying. There has been a lot of criticism 
of this bill, much of it justified. I voted for the bill because I 
believe it is necessary for us to remove any perception of wrongdoing 
on the part of the Congress in any dealings with lobbyists or with 
friends, others who may in some way give us gifts or assist us with 
travel.
  I think we have to have a squeaky clean operation in the Congress, 
and I support that. I rise tonight to speak briefly about something 
else that I believe is an important issue which must be addressed.
  Again, it may not involve any wrongdoing, but it certainly involves 
the perception of wrongdoing. It is an issue that I have struggled with 
for some time.
  It has come to focus in the last few weeks with an article in the 
September 12 issue of the New Yorker. I notice that Representative 
Miller circulated copies of that to our colleagues today. But I read 
the original and decided at that time to speak on it before this body.
  The title of the article is ``Fee Speech,'' not, free speech, but fee 
speech, ``free'' with the ``r'' removed.
   Mr. Speaker, this article talks about members of the media who are 
very critical of the Congress for any perks we have, real or imagined, 
and who are very critical of the honoraria that Members of Congress 
used to receive. In fact the bill we passed today not only prevents us 
from receiving honoraria, which was already prevented, but also 
prevents us from receiving honoraria designated to charitable 
institutions when we speak to a group. I think that is going too far, 
but that is a side issue.
  But in this case I am speaking about the honoraria or the fees that 
reporters receive for speaking to groups about Congress, and speaking 
about issues of national importance.
  This is an important issue. It is not negligible. I found it very 
interesting, as the article points out, that Sam Donaldson of ABC 
displayed a certain ethical obtuseness by noting that just 4 days 
earlier, before this reporter's writing, ``Prime Time Live,'' which Sam 
Donaldson coanchors, had attacked the Independent Insurance Agents of 
America for treating congressional staff people to a trip, this is not 
even congressmen, but congressional staff people, to a Key West trip.

                              {time}  2020

  Yet several months earlier the same insurance group had paid 
Donaldson a $30,000 lecture fee to speak to that group.
  I can go through the many other examples here, and I will take time 
at some later date to do that, but the point the article makes is that 
many reporters, not just Sam Donaldson, but many reporters, speak to 
the same groups that we deal with, lobbying organizations, associations 
of businesses. They speak to these organizations for exorbitant fees 
ranging from $7,000 per speech up to $35 or $40,000 per speech, and yet 
they are reporting on the activities of those very same groups, they 
are reporting on the issues that these groups are lobbying in the 
Congress about, and what is fascinating is that the reporters who 
receive these amazing fees for speaking to these groups think there is 
nothing wrong with it. Their defense is, as Donaldson says:

       I believe it's not the appearance of impropriety that's the 
     problem. It's impropriety.

  And yet this is the same profession that says we must not display any 
appearance of impropriety.
  There are others who, when asked about this practice of theirs, say, 
``It's none of your business,'' and when Fred Barnes, who appears in 
the McLauglin Group and other areas, was asked how he would respond to 
a question posed by Members of Congress, he said:

       They're elected officials. I'm not an elected official. I'm 
     not in government. I don't deal with taxpayers' money.

  And Wolf Blitzer, CNN senior White House correspondent, when asked 
what he would say to a Member of Congress who asked how much he made 
speaking and from which groups, said:

       I would tell a Congressman, ``It's none of your business.''

  Now frankly I think it is the people's business when we have people 
in the national media accepting very large speaking fees from 
organizations and then speaking to the American public through print, 
through the electronic media, about these various issues. Frankly, the 
Congress has very little power, and individual Congressmen have much 
less power, than a major network news person. They have a much greater 
impact on public policy and on shaping public opinion, and I believe it 
is time for us to recognize that and talk about possibly disclosing the 
fees that these figures receive.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the body, and I 
will amplify on these remarks at a later time and go into them in 
greater detail.

                          ____________________