[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                OBSERVATIONS ON THE LOBBYING PROFESSION

                                 ______


                           HON. LARRY LaROCCO

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives continues 
debate on the issue of lobbying reform, I call the attention of Members 
to the October 5, 1994, remarks of Mr. John Hunnicutt, chairman of the 
Bryce Harlow Foundation. I believe his observations on the lobbying 
profession, and his recollections of Bryce Harlow in particular, offer 
important insights for all of us to consider and reflect upon.

 Remarks of John Hunnicutt, Chairman, Bryce Harlow Foundation, Annual 
                  Harlow Award Dinner, October 5, 1994

       I want to take a few moments now to talk about a matter not 
     often discussed in polite company--namely, our profession, 
     corporate representation or lobbying.
       Attacks on lobbyists are nothing new. They date back to the 
     beginning of the Republic--the Roman Republic. It may have 
     been Cicero, not Fred Wertheimer, who first inveighed against 
     PACs and special interests.
       But the attacks seem to me to be far more intense now, and 
     far more reckless, than they have ever been before as I 
     recollect my time in Washington.
       One would never know from the nature of the discussion that 
     the right to lobby is rooted in the first amendment along 
     with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of 
     the press; ``Congress shall make no law respecting * * * the 
     right of the people * * * to petition the Government for a 
     redress of grievances.''
       For the past several years, in the context of legislative 
     efforts to control the sale of hand guns and assault weapons, 
     Congress has devoted many hours and much passionate debate to 
     considering whether such steps would offend the second 
     amendment's ``right of the people to keep and bear arms.'' 
     That issue has been discussed extensively on the nation's 
     editorial pages, on TV public affairs programs and on the 
     talk shows. Huge letter writing campaigns have been 
     generated--on both sides of the issue.
       Yet, while major changes have recently been made in the 
     definition of lobbying and in the tax treatment of expenses 
     for lobbying and associated activities, there has been no 
     real discussion of the Constitutional protection afforded 
     lobbying. Nor has there been any serious discussion of the 
     legitimate--indeed, I dare to say essential--role that 
     professional lobbyists play in the formulation of sound 
     public policy. To quote Bryce Harlow: ``Those who are 
     effective and principled advocates of the interests of their 
     companies and of the business community as a whole help 
     government arrive at better-informed and, therefore, 
     potentially better decisions. Good representatives of good 
     business contribute a great deal to good government.''
       The past Congress has also seen the introduction of 
     proposals to make other significant changes in the lobbying 
     laws. Not all those changes are bad, nor should they be 
     resisted by people who honorably practice our profession. The 
     registration and reporting requirements in the 1946 lobby law 
     are ineffective. We all know that. Definitions and scope of 
     coverage are certainly worthy of discussion. Are there 
     good reasons to include contacts with members but not with 
     staff? Are there good reasons for excluding contacts with 
     top Executive Branch officials?
       But while we may be willing to participate in a 
     reexamination of the lobby law, as government relations 
     professionals we have the right, we have the obligation to 
     insist that corporate representatives not be relegated to 
     second class citizenship in relation to so-called ``public 
     interest lobbyists,'' who are also paid to represent a cause. 
     We are not, again to quote Bryce Harlow, ``a malign 
     influence.'' ``Good government'' does not require isolation 
     from the expertise of the private sector. One could argue 
     persuasively that exactly the reverse is true.
       We have the right and the obligation to insist that the 
     Administration and Congress recognize that the public's right 
     to know includes our right to know, as representatives of an 
     essential segment of our society, how business will be 
     affected by proposed policies. We have the right and the 
     obligation to insist that the Administration and Congress 
     recognize that the public's right to free speech and to 
     petition for the redress of grievances includes our right and 
     the right of our employers or clients to speak our minds 
     regarding these proposals and to make our views known to 
     government officials at all levels.
       To be sure, we have the obligation to conduct our lobbying 
     activities ethically, to present our views clearly, to 
     support them with facts, and to tell policy makers the truth. 
     We have the obligation to remain faithful to the public 
     interest, to respect the views of others, to avoid cynicism 
     about process, to trust and to be trustworthy. But we cannot 
     allow ourselves to be marginalized in any policy debate by 
     attacks made on our integrity by those who disagree with us. 
     They certainly have the right to disagree with us. But they 
     do not have the right to deny us our right to disagree with 
     them, nor do they have the right to stigmatize our views as 
     illegitimate.
       Everyone who believes in the American system of government 
     ought to be worried these days about the increasing 
     incivility of political discussion in this country. We see it 
     in attacks on the President. We see it in attacks on 
     Congress. We see it across the aisles in Congress. We also 
     see it in attacks on lobbyists. There's a growing tendency 
     for people on one side of an issue to demonize people--and 
     especially interest groups--on the other side of that issue. 
     This incivility, these attacks on institutions and on people 
     on the other side of an argument, carry a cost, I believe, to 
     the very process of government.
       Now I know there are people who define politics as a blood 
     sport--and enjoy the spectacle. They also say it is part of 
     our political history and heritage. But I was taught and 
     continue to believe that today's opponent on a particular 
     issue may be tomorrow's ally on another issue. In the world 
     of hardball politics, that may be an antique view. But it's a 
     view worth preserving in my opinion. Indeed, the public 
     interest is perhaps better served by Marquis of Queensbury 
     rules than by the street alley brawling that too often 
     passes these days for political discourse.
       There's no one who more ennobled the honorable profession 
     of lobbying than Bryce Harlow. I underline the word 
     honorable. And no one practiced it with greater grace or 
     civility. And few had a higher batting average.
       Bryce moved back and forth from the private to the public 
     sector. And while that might in today's world have drawn a 
     load of brickbats alleging ``conflict of interest,'' the 
     fact, as anyone who knew Bryce Harlow would testify, is that 
     Bryce served the public when he was in government and his 
     employer when he was in the private sector--and he didn't 
     confuse his roles.
       What distinguished Bryce in both his public and private 
     lives was that he always sought to identify the underlying 
     public interest and to support policies that corresponded 
     with the public interest. You didn't have to agree with Bryce 
     but you always had to reckon with him. He could never be 
     dismissed as ``a lobbyist,'' dripping sarcasm as is too often 
     the fashion these days. Bryce Harlow was entirely capable of 
     telling his superiors in government or his employer that what 
     they were proposing to do was wrong or politically 
     unsaleable. His gift was that he profoundly understood the 
     essential relationship between business and government, and 
     he believed in its importance to the country.
       I'm proud to have known Bryce Harlow. And there are other 
     men and women in this room who also knew him and, I am quite 
     certain, would agree with what I've said about him. However, 
     it is not merely to honor Bryce Harlow but to honor what 
     Bryce Harlow stood for, the excellence and effectiveness of 
     his professional conduct, that we are here tonight.
       The Bryce Harlow Foundation, established is 1981, is 
     dedicated to: perpetuating a good government-business 
     dialogue; eliminating the combative, adversarial nature of 
     the relationship; promoting the professionalism of corporate 
     representation, fostering integrity; and educating people, 
     particularly students and new entrants into this profession.

                           *   *   *   *   *

     women in this room, as well as our colleagues in this city 
     (and in the state capitals) have a vested interest in the 
     work of the Foundation.
       Bryce Harlow's viewpoint on the affairs of government, is 
     too often missing from today's discussion of lobbying.
       My colleagues on the Board of the Bryce Harlow Foundation 
     thank you for being here tonight.

                          ____________________