[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13123-H13138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2564.


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2564). To provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities 
to influence the Federal Government, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Kolbe in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] had 
been disposed of.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by ms. kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur: Page 39, redesignate 
     sections 22 through 24 as sections 23 through 25, 
     respectively, and insert after line 10 on page 39 the 
     following:

     SEC. 22. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTING OR ADVISING CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN ENTITIES.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 207(f) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Restrictions Relating to Foreign Entities.--
       ``(1) Permanent restriction.--Any person who is an officer 
     or employee described in paragraph (3) and who, after the 
     termination of his or her service or employment as such 
     officer or employee, knowingly acts as an agent or attorney 
     for or otherwise represents or advises, for compensation, a 
     government of a foreign country or a foreign political party, 
     if the representation or advice relates directly to a matter 
     in which the United States is a party or has a direct and 
     substantial interest, shall be punished as provided in 
     section 316 of this title.
       ``(2) Five-year restriction.--Any person who is an officer 
     or employee described in paragraph (3) and who, within 5 
     years after the termination of his or her service or 
     employment as such officer or employee, knowingly acts as 
     an agent or attorney for or otherwise represents or 
     advises, for compensation--
       ``(A) a person outside of the United States, unless such 
     person--
       ``(i) if an individual, is a citizen of and domiciled 
     within the United States, or
       ``(ii) if not an individual, is organized under or created 
     by the laws of the United States or of any State or other 
     place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and 
     has its principal place of business within the United States, 
     or
       ``(B) a partnership, association, corporation, 
     organization, or other combination of persons organized under 
     the laws of or having its principal place of business in a 
     foreign country,

     if the representation or advice relates directly to a matter 
     in which the United States is a party or has a direct and 
     substantial interest, shall be punished as provided in 
     section 216 of this title.
       ``(3) Persons to whom restrictions apply.--The officers and 
     employees referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) to whom the 
     restrictions contained in such paragraphs apply are--
       ``(A) the President of the United States; and
       ``(B) any person subject to the restrictions contained in 
     subsection (c), (d), or (e).
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `compensation' means any payment, gift, 
     benefit, rewards, favor, or gratuity which is provided, 
     directly or indirectly, for services rendered;
       ``(B) the term `government of a foreign country' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended;
       ``(C) the term `foreign political party' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1(f) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended;
       ``(D) the term `United States' means the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, and 

[[Page H 13124]]
     any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and
       ``(E) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendment 
     made by subsection (a) take effect on January 1, 1996.
       (2) Effect on employment.--
       (A) The amendment made by subsection (a) do not, except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), apply to a person whose service 
     as an officer or employee to which such amendment apply 
     terminated before the effective date of such amendment.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) does not preclude the application of 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) to a person with respect 
     to service as an officer or employee by that person on or 
     after the effective date of such amendment.

  Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2230

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be recognized for 15 minutes, 
and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assistance of our esteemed colleagues, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] in allowing us to talk about this amendment 
this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is one that has been introduced in bill 
form in this Congress since the year 1985. There have been extensive 
hearings held on the content of this bill in several Congresses. For 
various reasons, because of its content and because of the pace of the 
legislative process, we have never been able to move this language on 
to a bill that was headed for presidential signature.
  The acronym for this bill is FACEIT, the Foreign Agents Compulsory 
Ethics In Trade Act, and its purpose is to close the revolving door 
between government service and lobbying on behalf of foreign interests.
   Mr. Chairman, our bill introduced with bipartisan support over the 
last decade, has two parts. The first is to impose a permanent 
restriction on high-level government officials from representing, 
aiding, or advising foreign governments and foreign political parties 
once they leave the employment of the United States and attempt to go 
back and lobby, advise, the very same clients before the very same 
agencies that they had worked for.
  The second part of this bill would impose a 5-year prohibition on 
high-level officials against representing, aiding, or advising what we 
term ``foreign interests,'' and these are defined in the bill as well.
  Let me say that in March of 1992, the General Accounting Office 
published a report which we requested entitled ``Former Federal 
Officials Representing Foreign Interests Before the U.S. Government.'' 
That report identified dozens of former high-level Federal officials, 
those who had served on the White House staff, those who had served at 
the highest level of Cabinet-level agencies, congressional staff, even 
some Members of Congress, executive agency officials in various 
administrations, who left the employment of the people of the United 
States, and then attempted and are representing foreign interests 
before the very agencies that they had served in years past.
  We, in earlier years, thought it would be sufficient to merely ask 
for disclosure. In other words, the current law says to people, ``If 
you are conducting this type of activity, all you need to do is 
register.'' Well, lo and behold, the GAO found that numerous foreign 
agents simply do not register at all.

  Mr. Chairman, the current law operates much like a sieve with very 
large holes in it. There is absolutely no enforcement and the 
disclosure process itself is extremely flawed. Our bill would ensure 
that our Federal officials are working on behalf of the people of this 
country and that they serve the government of the United States.
  In my own personal experience here, I have seen too many officials of 
this country use their positions to seek post-employment opportunities. 
I might just say for the record, and I have said it in public hearings 
and I have said it here on the floor before, I have experience in my 
own district.
  Mr. Chairman, the way I got into this was a businessman from my own 
district had come here to Washington, had gone on trade missions around 
the world with high-level government officials, and divulged certain 
aspects of his production, the products that he sold, what his 
competition was, to the government officials that accompanied him on 
these trade missions.
  He came back to Washington 2 years later and he found that the people 
that he had spoken with were now working for his competition. Mr. 
Chairman, his question to me, when I met him as a fairly new Member of 
Congress, he said to me, ``Why should I tell you anything?'' I said, 
``Well, I am very interested in what problems you are facing as a 
businessman trying to move your product into international markets.'' 
He had lost complete trust in the government of the United States 
because of what he had experienced. This is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason it has been so hard to get this bill passed 
is because the people conducting these activities make lots and lots of 
money. Just think about the trade arena. The average person who is 
serving our government in trade negotiating capacity has a tenure today 
of less than a year and a half. We are beaten consistently in trade 
negotiations around the world because we have people who do not have 
the tenure, experience, and breadth of people negotiating for other 
countries.
  Mr. Chairman, it is possible to work in a position in this government 
and maybe earn a salary of $100,000 a year, which sounds like big money 
in Toledo, Ohio, but then those same people can be offered four times 
as much as that the day after they leave the government to represent 
the very same clients before the agency that they just left.
  Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely wrong. We need to plug the hole in 
that dike completely and restore integrity to the trademarking and 
other functions of this government.
  The other aspect, what happens inside these agencies where we have 
people with integrity working very hard, when they see their compadres 
and compatriots in these agencies merely milking it for what they can 
get for themselves, it is totally demoralizing to serve in these 
various agencies and capacities in our government.
  So, our purpose in this is to close the revolving door permanently 
for those who have such high-level knowledge that they can literally 
compromise the interests of this country, and it is to set a standard 
of integrity for those who would serve our people, and then try to cash 
in on it.
  We have a cooling off period that we think is realistic in this bill. 
I think it will restore confidence among people like the businessman 
from my community who lost his respect for the government of the United 
States and the people who serve it here in our Nation's Capital.

  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for favorable consideration by the 
committee and express a complete willingness to work with the gentleman 
from Florida to attach this legislation to this bill, or to work with 
the gentleman in any manner that could make an idea that is now a 
decade old a reality for the people of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman from Ohio, I believe that 
her amendment addresses a very important issue. Earlier this evening, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] was on the floor discussing an 
amendment that addresses a similar issue. Actually, the same issue in a 
somewhat different way.

[[Page H 13125]]

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is an issue which deserves 
attention. I believe it should have been addressed before, and it would 
certainly be my commitment to the gentlewoman from Ohio to do 
everything I can to see that this issue is addressed, because I believe 
that there are abuses, and I believe that people are utilizing the 
knowledge they have gained to disadvantage the Government of the United 
States. That, I think, is unfortunate. They are using it to benefit 
foreign interests in a way that certainly is abusive.
  So, I would support an effort to address this, and I would tell the 
gentlewoman that I will do everything I can to hold hearings on this 
subject. I am opposing all amendments to this bill, because we believe 
that the time for lobbying disclosure reform is here. We have an 
historic opportunity to move forward with legislation in the House, and 
pass a bill which we can send directly to the President for him to 
sign.
  My concern is if we add any amendments, we will derail that effort 
and, therefore, even amendments that address important issues such as 
this I must oppose. But, I would certainly tell the gentlewoman I will 
work with her in any way to see that this issue is addressed in the 
future.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do remember and I was 
chair of the Administrative Law Subcommittee, which then had 
jurisdiction over this. I remember we began working on it and as we 
were dealing with some of the difficult issues like appropriately 
defining foreign entities at the time with international conglomerates, 
I then left that subcommittee chairmanship.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I believed then, and believe now, that the 
gentlewoman is absolutely right. The gentleman from Michigan had a 
related issue that dealt specifically with former Members of Congress 
and he wants to deal with their representation of foreign governments.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has had some concerns there. 
My view is, now that we have a consolidated jurisdiction here, is that 
one of the bills we should be dealing with as soon as we are through 
with this, is the notion of bringing out some legislation in the next 
session that would be a look at this whole question of foreign 
representation, and particularly the leveraging that people might get 
in working for our government and using it against them.
  I was glad to hear the gentleman from Florida say that. I would be 
glad to be a participant in that effort. I think the gentlewoman is 
absolutely right.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. 
I have to say, I recall my testimony before the subcommittee chaired by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I was always welcomed. Some of 
the thinking that we refined in those years has helped us move to this 
point.
  I thank the gentleman for working with us and being so open to us, 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida for offering to hold hearings on 
this matter and bringing in other Members who may have related 
measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I think as the audience and American people are 
listening to us tonight, this is on the minds of a lot of the public. 
They have questioned why we as a Congress cannot move a measure through 
here. I think with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Florida 
and the support of the gentleman from Massachusetts and other Members 
in this institution, we can really do something and give the 21st 
century the kind of service here in Washington that our people deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at 
this point, and ask that we be one of the first witnesses that the 
gentleman welcomes to his committee when he holds that set of hearings.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


            amendment offered by mr. english of pennsylvania

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. English of Pennsylvania: Page 39, 
     line 9, strike ``REPRESENTATIVE'' and insert ``OFFICIAL''.
       Page 39, line 13, strike ``or'' and insert a comma and in 
     line 14 insert before the close quotation marks a comma and 
     the following: ``Secretary of Commerce, or Commissioner of 
     the International Trade Commission''.
       Page 39, line 18, strike ``Appointment'' through 
     ``Representative'' in line 20 and insert ``Appointments.''
       Page 40, line 4, strike ``or as a'' and insert a comma and 
     insert before the first period in line 5 a comma and the 
     following: ``Secretary of Commerce, or Commissioner of the 
     International Trade Commission''.
       Page 40, line 8, strike ``or as a'' and insert a comma and 
     in line 9 insert before ``on'' a comma and the following: 
     ``Secretary of Commerce, or Commissioner of the International 
     Trade Commission''.

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] will be recognized for 15 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and claim the 15 minutes in opposition. I yield 7\1/2\ 
minutes of that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], 
and ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of 
time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will 
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment on my own behalf and on 
behalf of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] a strong supporter of 
American workers and a strong advocate of a strong trade policy for 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill, and I 
want to say at the outset that I think we need to extend a great deal 
of credit to the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who are speaking here tonight. I believe the bill before 
us is a strong one, and I believe on several key points it needs to be 
strengthened even further.
  One of the areas where I believe that this bill strongly merits 
support is its inclusion of a lifetime ban on the employment of the 
U.S. Trade Representative or deputy trade representative subsequent to 
leaving public service by foreign entities. This prohibition is coupled 
by a prohibition on the appointment of individuals who have aided or 
advised foreign companies or foreign interests to the position of trade 
representative or deputy trade representative.
  My amendment builds on and amplifies that provision, addressing a 
significant oversight by extending this ban to the position of 
Secretary of Commerce and the position of member of the International 
Trade Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, in my view this restriction is very, very important 
because it addresses a fundamental conflict of interest that exists 
within our trade hierarchy. Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in a trade war 
and we cannot allow our generals to trade allegiances on their 
retirement. If we do so, we compromise the interests of American 
workers, American farmers, American companies, when we allow trade 
officials to switch sides of the negotiating table.

[[Page H 13126]]

  In my view, this House has an obligation to block the revolving door 
that allows the trade talent that we have nurtured to cash in on their 
expertise at the expense of American workers. My amendment offered here 
today sends a clear message to the political class in Washington that 
we will no longer tolerate trade quislings or economic Benedict 
Arnolds.

                              {time}  2245

  In my view, it is appropriate that we extend this restriction to the 
Secretary of Commerce and to the International Trade Commission, 
because they play a seminal role in overseeing and administering trade 
policy in America.
  The Secretary of Commerce has responsibility for leading key trade 
missions. The Secretary is familiar with trade policy and helps shape 
it. The Secretary of Commerce is familiar with the trade objectives of 
key American companies and overseas the Eximbank and other key trade 
programs that we depend on as part of our trade policy. The Secretary 
of Commerce also plays a significant role in the enforcement of our 
trade laws.
  Similarly, the International Trade Commission provides advice on 
trade negotiations. The Commission rules on import relief for domestic 
industries. The Commission also provides for investigations of 
predatory dumping practices by our competitors.
  The Commission advises the president on the domestic consequences of 
our trade policy and assesses the injury to American workers from 
imports. Overall, the ITC plays a fundamental role in shaping and 
administering our trade policy.
  I urge my colleagues, recognizing that many of my colleagues would 
like to keep this bill free of amendment, to consider supporting this 
amendment to stop U.S. trade officials from using their position from 
cashing in on their expertise and insider knowledge at the expense of 
U.S. workers, farmers, companies and jobs.
  I urge support of this amendment to stop former government officials 
from using their specialized knowledge of U.S. trade laws and 
regulations from benefiting by aiding our competitors. We should insist 
the employment restrictions in this bill apply to all of our trade 
officials.
  So I urge support for the English-Traficant amendment. And I also 
urge this House to ultimately support this important piece of lobbying 
reform legislation which does us great credit.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
brought forward an amendment that has considerable merit. Again, my 
opposition to this amendment does not relate to the substance of the 
amendment but to the potential impact that this amendment can have on 
our effort to move forward with reforming lobbyist disclosure in the 
bill that is before us.
  In the bill that is before us, in section 21, there is a ban on the 
U.S. Trade Representative and the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative from 
representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity on matters before any 
officer or employee of any Department or agency of the United States. 
That is a lifetime ban in the bill.
  Under existing law, there is a 3-year ban on the U.S. Trade 
Representative and a one-year ban on the U.S. Deputy Trade 
Representative.
  The bill that is before the House now also places a limitation on 
appointments to the post of U.S. Trade Representative and Deputy U.S. 
Trade Representative by providing that anyone who has represented, 
aided or advised a foreign entity in any trade negotiation or trade 
dispute with the United States may not be appointed as U.S. Trade 
Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. So it is a two-way 
sort of prohibition. We are trying to stop the revolving door from 
going in either direction. That is in the bill.
  Those prohibitions which improve and expand on the prohibitions in 
existing law are applied to the U.S. Trade Representative and Deputy 
U.S. Trade Representative.
  I understand that a strong case can be made for applying similar 
prohibitions to others, such as the Secretary of Commerce and to 
Commissioners of the International Trade Commission. I would simply 
suggest that in this instance, though, what may be a perfect solution 
to this conflict of interest situation that exists is the enemy of a 
good solution and a good bill. I understand that that is not the 
intention of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I will say that I have had conversations with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, as we started to move this legislation forward. He has, 
throughout the process, expressed his support for the legislation. And 
I know that he is a firm supporter of lobbying disclosure reform.

  But I believe that by adopting his amendment, this House would 
threaten the success of that effort. And after 40 years, I simply think 
it is time that we move on, we pass a bill and send it to the 
President. We have that opportunity. Now is the time to act. I do not 
believe that we need to delay.
  For that reason, I must oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, although I recognize his good intentions and the 
validity of the point behind the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, I again agree with my friend from Florida. 
I would make note here, I think this is very much an area where we 
should be legislating. We had our colleague from Michigan [Mr. Upton] 
offer an amendment that has some overlap here. Our colleague from Ohio, 
to be honest, I think if we were going to move now, I would have a 
problem because we have not had hearings on this yet. We have a lot of 
hearings. let me say, at no point will I criticize my friend from 
Florida for not having had a hearing. Because he has too many hearings. 
So I will not object to that.
  I would say that I would hope and I think it has been very clear here 
that we set aside a day for hearing and a markup in subcommittee of 
this whole question of how do you deal with restrictions on 
representing foreign entity. One of the problems I remember from when 
we had the hearings was the gentlewoman from Ohio. It is a problem 
these days to get a good definition of a foreign entity, with the 
internationally owned conglomerates. That is something which I believe 
we can do but takes some doing.
  We have had three different amendments, all of which I support in 
concept but have a different angle on this. I would hope that we could 
defer on this because I know the chairman plans to move on this.
  I think one other bill we would probably be dealing with would be a 
regulation of foreign representation within the United States. We are 
going to talk some more about the coauthor, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] about the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
  I would say to my colleagues, this is of some complexity. I honestly 
do not think we could adopt all of these amendments now with the 
assurance that we had not created some problems, some overlap, et 
cetera. I would hope we could agree that we would have a day, a few 
days where we would have hearings and then a markup and come out 
sometime early next spring with a comprehensive billing dealing with 
the regulation of representation of foreign interests in the United 
States.
  In that spirit, I would vote against this amendment if it comes to a 
vote now, but I hope I will see it and the gentleman from Michigan and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio, the other gentleman from Ohio, that we will 
be able to put together a very comprehensive package of which we can 
all be proud.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier in some comments I had made, I 
commended the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for their leadership in bringing this 
bill to the House floor. But I failed also to give credit to some 
Members that made sure that today's action occurred. That is the 
leadership of this House.

[[Page H 13127]]

  There are some who called into question whether or not we would have 
time to deal with gift and lobbying reform this year because of this 
House's commitment to balancing the budget, which is of course our No. 
1 priority to live within our means. But we set aside time to deal with 
the need for gift and lobbying reform. I particularly want to thank the 
House Republican leadership for keeping their word.
  Now, some have said that, if we do not keep this bill pristine as it 
came out of the Senate, pristine as it came out of the House Committee 
on the Judiciary that we may not have lobbying reform. We have a 
commitment from the House leadership that we are going to have lobbying 
reform. Should the House decide as a result of some of these good ideas 
that are being offered in these amendments to improve the bill, I 
believe that fairly soon we will have a lobbying bill sent to the 
President. We have to take a couple extra weeks. It could be a better 
bill and do a better job.
  The English-Traficant amendment improves the bill. These are good 
ideas and, frankly, in an area that needs to be addressed.
  The issue that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] is 
trying to address is to eliminate the abuse by former U.S. trade 
officials using the contacts that they made while they were supposedly 
representing the United States of America for personal enrichment at 
the expense of the American worker, whether in Erie, PA or Joliet, IL. 
The present bill focuses on this problem by expanding existing 
restrictions on employing former U.S. Trade Representatives and their 
deputies and foreign entity lobbyists.
  Now the bill of course expands the current law. But also I want to 
point out that the English amendment broadens the bill to include the 
Secretary of Commerce and Commissioners from the International Trade 
Commission, people who make extensive contact with foreign interests, 
and we certainly want to avoid any conflict of interest.
  My colleagues, I urge adoption of the English amendment. It just 
makes sense, if you care about American workers. If you care about 
American jobs, let us vote for the English amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] a very distinguished voice of 
reform, my colleague.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to also applaud the 
efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and as well 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for their outstanding efforts 
in making sure that lobbying disclosure reform will be a reality this 
year for the first time in a number of years. But I also am 
particularly proud to join with the effort for what Mr. English and Mr. 
Traficant are doing here today as well. That is to make a good bill 
better by the adoption of the English-Traficant amendment. Mr. English 
has been working with a number of other leaders here in Congress to 
make sure that business opportunities are enhanced and that ethics are 
protected.
  In that spirit, I come to Members tonight to support H.R. 2564, the 
Lobbying Disclosure Reform Act. As written, the bill makes crucial 
steps toward eliminating the abuse by former U.S. trade officials using 
their contacts for personal enrichment at the expense of the American 
worker. We applaud the bill's overall improvement of current law. 
Presently, U.S. Trade Representatives have a 3-year restriction before 
they can aid or advise a foreign entity on matters before any U.S. 
official.
  This bill does toughen current law by extending the 3-year 
restriction to a lifetime ban and including the Deputy Trade 
Representative and preventing the appointment to either position of 
anyone who has previously aided or advised a foreign entity on trade 
issues.
  But we believe the bill needs to go further. It is more or less a 
loophole because the Traficant-English amendment will make sure that 
other officials are included as well. The Secretary of Commerce and the 
Commissioners of the International Trade Commission are all crucially 
involved in America's trade. The English-Traficant amendment would 
include these positions with the bill's restrictions on the U.S. Trade 
Representative and the Deputy Trade Representative.
  The time has come to stop former government trade officials from 
using their beltway contacts to ride the revolving door from public 
service to personal profit at the expense of the American people. I 
would ask my colleagues to strongly support the English-Traficant 
amendment to the lobbying disclosure reform to make a good bill even 
better.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have made the case here very strongly for 
this amendment. I think it is very difficult to argue with. I think it 
is a matter of equity for American workers. It is a matter of sound 
trade policy.
  I think it is something that we need to provide as a fundamental 
protection to our institutions and to American companies. Let me say 
that I acknowledge the concerns of the advocates of reform, lobbying 
reform, who are here today. I want to join with them. I want to push 
for a good bill, a strong bill.
  My sense is that, since we are operating under an open rule, there 
will be changes in this underlying bill. On that basis, I offer this 
amendment because I think it is an authentic improvement on this bill 
and an enhancement of a very important provision that I think is 
central to any lobbying reform.
  The gentlemen who are here tonight have long been pushing lobbying 
reform, and that has proven to be a Sisyphean task. In Greek mythology, 
Sisyphus was a figure who was consigned throughout eternity to roll a 
boulder up a hill only to reach the peak of the hill and have the 
boulder roll down the other side and be forced to restart the process.

                              {time}  2300

  I recognize that lobbying reform is an initiative that has been out 
there a long time, has moved forward and always at the peak. There has 
been a failure to get it done. I believe that we need to move forward 
on this Sisyphean task, and I believe that during this session, with 
the support of this leadership in the House of Representatives, and on 
a bipartisan basis, we will be able to achieve fundamental lobbying 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
on his interest in this issue. I am very interested in this issue. I 
believe that the subject of this amendment and other amendments that 
have been brought forward tonight on the subject of the revolving door 
and the representation of foreign interests demands the attention of 
the Congress, and, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, I certainly intend to do everything I can to see that 
this issue is addressed. I believe that we need to hold hearings, I 
believe that we need to have input from a wide range of witnesses on 
this issue and other related issues, and I believe that we need to act 
on it. I believe that we should move forward with the legislation on 
this subject. I cannot tell my colleagues what the exact contours of 
that should be and exactly how it should be structured, but I believe 
that in this Congress we should move forward with an initiative on this 
general subject.
  Having said that, I must again make this point, however, that I do 
not believe that the bill before us in the House tonight is the 
appropriate vehicle for amendments such as this. There are already 
provisions in the bill that address this general subject. I think we 
are taking a step forward in the provisions of the bill by placing a 
lifetime ban on the U.S. Trade Representative and Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative that will prevent them from representing any foreign 
entity on matters before agencies of the United States. Those 
individuals play a key role in our policy, our trade policy, and I 
believe that imposing a lifetime ban on them is a big step forward.
  I do not think that we should risk derailing this bill by accepting 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in expanding 
on the prohibition. I believe that his amendment, the substance of his 
amendment, should be considered in the regular legislative process. I 
give my commitment 

[[Page H 13128]]
that I will do that, but I must oppose this amendment, as I oppose all 
other amendments to this bill, because we are at the peak of the 
mountain now. We are just there, and this is not something that we have 
been working on in the Congress for a few years. We have been working 
on this issue in this Congress for 40 years, actually more than 40 
years. As long as I have been alive, Congress has been struggling with 
this issue, acting a little here, a little there, but never bringing 
anything to completion, never passing a law to address this important 
need for lobbying disclosure reform. It is time we did that. We should 
not let some good ideas get in the way of accomplishing this important 
task.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of the House to defeat the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. English] will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. weller

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weller: Page 21, line 9, strike 
     ``and'', in line 14 strike the period and insert ``; and'', 
     and after line 14 insert the following:
       (5) a report of honoraria (as defined in section 505(3) of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978) paid to a media 
     organization or a media organization employee, including when 
     it was provided, to whom it was provided, and its value.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and a Member opposed to the 
amendment will each be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and claim 
the 15 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes of that time to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will 
be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to a bill that I stand 
in strong support of, H.R. 2564, the Lobby Reform Act of 1995. It is a 
good bill, and I offer an amendment which I believe will make a better 
bill.
  According to poll data taken early this spring, the public's trust of 
the media fared even worse than Congress'. That is why I feel it is 
imperative that this legislation include disclosure requirements that 
take into account the role the media plays in political debate and 
legislative outcomes.
  Because a journalists's acceptance of honoraria could influence the 
type of information he or she will include in his or her report, I am 
introducing an amendment that will place the burden on lobbyists to 
disclose all honoraria that are paid to a member of the press, 
including when it was provided, to whom it was provided and its value. 
This is a matter of giving the public access to all the information 
that helps to shape the final outcome of a legislative product.

  If I might also note, I am extremely pleased to see our Chamber 
taking the necessary steps to once and for all prove to the American 
people that we are dead serious about cleaning house and keeping 
business on the up and up.
  Today, the House will vote and prove to the public that not only is 
Congress cleaning up its act, but that is requiring the people it does 
its business with to also clean up their act. I believe that my 
amendment strengthens H.R. 2564 by providing the public with 
information regarding what special interest money has been paid to the 
public's main source of information--the media.
  I realize that members of the media may take issue with my amendment. 
Therefore, I would like to take a moment to address some potential 
points of contention:
  First off, members of the media may argue that this amendment strips 
members of the process corps of their amendment right. I disagree. To 
the contrary, what this provides to those members of the media that do 
not accept honoraria, is a potential endorsement of their objectivity 
in their reporting of the people's business. This amendment places the 
burden of disclosure on the lobbying community not the press. The 
public has the right to know who is receiving special interest money 
whether it is a Member of Congress or a member of the media. I also 
want to point out that Members of Congress are prohibited from 
accepting honoraria.
  Also, some may argue that this amendment is not necessary because 
members of the media should not be held to the same accountability as a 
Member of Congress. Again, I disagree. The influence that the media 
holds over the public is insurmountable. As the main link between 
Washington and the average citizen, every media, every reporter--
whether it be written, visual or audio--has an immediate impact on the 
public's perception of what is going on. The public deserves to know if 
the information they are receiving is potentially tainted by an 
honoraria fee of perhaps even the $35,000 paid to the conveyor of the 
information.
  I know what some may be thinking--$35,000--do they really earn that 
much for a speaking engagement? Yes, in one well publicized instance it 
caused the American Broadcast Corporation [ABC] to incorporate a tough 
new office policy in regard to speaking fees. According to Robert 
Friedman with the St. Petersburg Times, ABC prohibits ``staff from 
accepting a speaking fee from `any group which you cover or might 
reasonably expect to cover.' '' Obviously some of the media see 
nondisclosure of honoraria as opening itself up to the potential 
perception of impropriety.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following articles into the Record at this 
time.

             [From the New Yorker magazine, Sept. 12, 1994]

                               Fee Speech

                            (By Ken Auletta)

       The initial hint of anger from twenty-five or so members of 
     the House Democratic leadership came on an hour-and-a-
     quarter-long bus ride from Washington to Airlie House, in 
     rural Virginia, one morning last January. They had been asked 
     by the Majority Leader, Richard A. Gephardt, of Missouri, to 
     attend a two-day retreat for the Democratic Message Group, 
     and as the bus rolled southwest the convivial smiles faded. 
     The members of the group began to complain that their message 
     was getting strangled, and they blamed the media. By that 
     afternoon, when the Democrats gathered for the first of five 
     panels composed of both partisans and what were advertised as 
     ``guest analysts, not partisan advisers,'' the complaints 
     were growing louder. The most prominent Democrats in the 
     House--Gephardt; the Majority Whip, David E. Bonior, of 
     Michigan; the current Appropriations Committee chairman, 
     David R. Obey, of Wisconsin; the Democratic Congressional 
     Campaign chairman, Vic Fazio, of California; Rosa L. DeLauro, 
     of Connecticut, who is a friend of President Clinton's; and 
     about twenty others--expressed a common grievance: public 
     figures are victims of a powerful and cynical press corps. A 
     few complained of what they saw as the ethical obtuseness of 
     Sam Donaldson, of ABC, angrily noting that, just four days 
     earlier, ``Prime Time Live,'' the program that Donaldson co-
     anchors, had attacked the Independent Insurance Agents of 
     America for treating congressional staff people to a Key West 
     junket. Yet several months earlier the same insurance group 
     had paid Donaldson a thirty-thousand-dollar lecture fee.
       By four-thirty, when the third panel, ostensibly devoted to 
     the changing role of the media, was set to begin, the 
     Democrats could no longer contain their rage, lumping the 
     press into a single, stereotypical category--you--the same 
     way they complained that the press lumped together all 
     members of Congress.

[[Page H 13129]]

       They kept returning to Donaldson's lecture fees and his 
     public defense that it was ethically acceptable for him to 
     receive fees because he was a private citizen, not an elected 
     official. The Airlie House meeting was off the record, but in 
     a later interview Representative Obey recalled having said of 
     journalists. ``What I find most offensive lately is that we 
     get the sanctimonious-Sam defense: `We're different because 
     we don't write the laws.' Well, they have a hell of a lot 
     more power than I do to affect the laws written.''
       Representative Robert G. Torricelli, of New Jersey, 
     recalled have said, ``What startles many people is to hear 
     television commentators make paid speeches to interest groups 
     and then see them on television commenting on those issues. 
     It's kind of a direct conflict of interest. If it happened in 
     government, it would not be permitted.'' Torricelli, who has 
     been criticized for realizing a sixty-nine-thousand-dollar 
     profit on a New Jersey savings-and-loan after its chairman 
     advised him to make a timely investment in its stock, says he 
     doesn't understand why journalists don't receive the same 
     scrutiny that people in Congress do. Torricelli brought up an 
     idea that had been discussed at the retreat and that he 
     wanted to explore: federal regulations requiring members of 
     the press to disclose outside income--and most particularly 
     television journalists whose stations are licensed by the 
     government. He said that he would like to see congressional 
     hearings on the matter, and added. ``You'd get the votes if 
     you did the hearings. I predict that in the next couple of 
     Congresses you'll get the hearings.''
       Gephardt is dubious about the legality of compelling press 
     disclosure of outside income, but one thing he is sure about 
     is the anger against the media which is rising within 
     Congress. ``Most of us work for more than money,'' he told 
     me. ``We work for self-image. And Congress's self-image has 
     suffered, because, members think, journalistic ethics and 
     standards are not as good as they used to be.''
       The press panel went on for nearly three hours, long past 
     the designated cocktail hour of six. The congressmen directed 
     their anger at both Brian Lamb, the C-SPAN chairman, and me--
     we were the two press representatives on the panel--and cited 
     a number of instances of what they considered reportorial 
     abuse. The question that recurred most often was this: Why 
     won't journalists disclose the income they receive from those 
     with special interests?
       It is a fair question to ask journalists, who often act as 
     judges of others' character. Over the summer, I asked it of 
     more than fifty prominent media people, or perhaps a fifth of 
     what can fairly be called the media elite--those journalists 
     who, largely on account of television appearances, have a 
     kind of fame similar to that of actors. Not surprisingly, 
     most responded to the question at least as defensively as any 
     politician would. Some of them had raised an eyebrow when 
     President Clinton said he couldn't recall ten- or fifteen-
     year-old details about Whitewater. Yet many of those I spoke 
     to could not remember where they had given a speech just 
     months ago. And many of them, while they were unequivocal in 
     their commentary on public figures and public issues, seemed 
     eager to dwell on the complexities and nuances of their own 
     outside speaking.
       Sam Donaldson, whose annual earnings at ABC are about two 
     million dollars, was forthcoming about his paid speeches: in 
     June, he said that he had given three paid speeches so far 
     this year and had two more scheduled. He would not confirm a 
     report that he gets a lecture fee of as much as thirty 
     thousand dollars. On being asked to identify the three groups 
     he had spoken to, Donaldson--who on the March 27th edition of 
     the Sunday-morning show ``This Week with David Brinkley'' had 
     ridiculed President Clinton for not remembering that he had 
     once lent twenty thousand dollars to his mother--said he 
     couldn't remember. Then he took a minute to call up the 
     information from his computer. He said that he had spoken at 
     an I.B.M. convention in Palm Springs, to a group of public-
     information officers, and to the National Association of 
     Retail Druggists. ``If I hadn't consulted my computerized 
     date book, I couldn't have told you that I spoke to the 
     National Association of Retail Druggists,'' he said. ``I 
     don't remember these things.''
       What would Donaldson say to members of Congress who suggest 
     that, like them, he is not strictly a private individual and 
     should make full disclosure of his income from groups that 
     seek to influence legislation?
       ``First, I don't make laws that govern an industry,'' he 
     said. ``Second, people hire me because they think of me as a 
     celebrity; they believe their members or the people in the 
     audience will be impressed.'' He went on, ``Can you say the 
     same thing about a member of Congress who doesn't even 
     speak--who is hired, in a sense, to go down and play tennis? 
     What is the motive of the group that pays for that?'' He 
     paused and then answered his own question: ``Their motive, 
     whether they are subtle about it or not, is to make friends 
     with you because they hope that you will be a friend of 
     theirs when it comes time to decide about millions of 
     dollars. Their motive in inviting me is not to make friends 
     with me.''
       Would he concede that there might be at least an appearance 
     of conflict when he takes money from groups with a stake in, 
     say, health issues?
       Donaldson said, ``At some point, the issue is: What is the 
     evidence? I believe it's not the appearance of impropriety 
     that's the problem. It's impropriety.'' Still, Donaldson did 
     concede that he was rethinking his position; and he was aware 
     that his bosses at ABC News were reconsidering their relaxed 
     policy.
       Indeed, one of Donaldson's bosses--Paul Friedman, the 
     executive vice-president for news--told me he agreed with the 
     notion that on-air correspondents are not private citizens. 
     ``People like Sam have influence that far exceeds that of 
     individual congressmen,'' Friedman said, echoing 
     Representative Obey's point. ``We always worry that lobbyists 
     get special `access' to members of government. We should also 
     worry that the public might get the idea that special-
     interest groups are paying for special `access' to 
     correspondents who talk to millions of Americans.''
       Unlike Donaldson, who does not duck questions, some 
     commentators chose to say nothing about their lecturing. The 
     syndicated columnist George Will, who appears weekly as a 
     commentator on the Brinkley show, said through an assistant, 
     ``We are just in the middle of book production here. Mr. Will 
     is not talking much to anyone.'' Will is paid twelve thousand 
     five hundred dollars a speech, Alicia C. Shepard reports in a 
     superb article in the May issue of the American Journalism 
     Review.
       ABC's Cokie Roberts, who, according to an ABC official, 
     earns between five and six hundred thousand dollars annually 
     as a Washington correspondent and is a regular commentator on 
     the Brinkley show in addition to her duties on National 
     Public Radio, also seems to have a third job, as a paid 
     speaker. Among ABC correspondents who regularly moonlight as 
     speakers, Roberts ranks No. 1. A person who is in a position 
     to know estimates that she earned more than three hundred 
     thousand dollars for speaking appearances in 1993. Last 
     winter, a couple of weeks after the Donaldson-``Prime Time'' 
     incident, she asked the Group Health Association of America, 
     before whom she was to speak in mid-February, to donate her 
     reported twenty-thousand-dollar fee to charity. Roberts did 
     not return three phone calls--which suggests that she expects 
     an openness from the Clinton Administration that she rejects 
     for herself. On that March 27th Brinkley show, she described 
     the Administration's behavior concerning Whitewater this way: 
     ``All of this now starts to look like they are covering 
     something up.''
       Brit Hume, the senior ABC White House correspondent, earns 
     about what Roberts does, and is said to trail only Roberts 
     and Donaldson at ABC in lecture earnings. This could not be 
     confirmed by Hume, for he did not return calls.
       At CNN, the principal anchor, Bernard Shaw, also declined 
     to be interviewed, and so did three of the loudest critics of 
     Congress and the Clinton Administration; the conservative 
     commentator John McLaughlin, who now takes his ``McLaughlin 
     Group'' on the road to do a rump version of the show live, 
     often before business groups; and the alternating 
     conservative co-hosts of ``Crossfire,'' Pat Buchanan and John 
     Sununu.
       David Brinkley did respond to questions, but not about his 
     speaking income. Like Donaldson and others, he rejected the 
     notion that he was a public figure. Asked what he would say 
     to the question posed by members of Congress at the retreat, 
     Brinkley replied, ``It's a specious argument. We are private 
     citizens. We work in the private marketplace. They do not.''
       And if a member of Congress asked about his speaking fee, 
     which is reported to be eighteen thousand dollars?
       ``I would tell him it's none of his business,'' Brinkley 
     said. ``I don't feel that I have the right to ask him 
     everything he does in his private life.''
       The syndicated columnist and television regular Robert 
     Novak, who speaks more frequently than Brinkley, also 
     considers himself a private citizen when it comes to the 
     matter of income disclosure. ``I'm not going to tell you how 
     many speeches I do and what my fee is,'' he said politely. 
     Novak, who has been writing a syndicated column for thirty-
     one years, is highly visible each weekend on CNN as the co-
     host of the ``Evans & Novak'' interview program and as a 
     regular on ``The Capital Gang.''
       What would Novak say to a member of Congress who maintained 
     that he was a quasi-public figure and should be willing to 
     disclose his income from speeches?
       ``I'm a totally private person,'' he said. ``Anyone who 
     doesn't like me doesn't have to read me. These people, in 
     exchange for power--I have none--they have sacrificed 
     privacy.''
       In fact, Novak does seem to view his privacy as less than 
     total; he won't accept fees from partisan political groups, 
     and, as a frequent critic of the Israeli government, he will 
     not take fees from Arab-American groups, for fear of creating 
     an appearance of a conflict of interest. Unlike most private 
     citizens, Novak, and most other journalists, will not sign 
     petitions, or donate money to political candidates, or join 
     protest marches.
       Colleagues have criticized Novak and Rowland Evans for 
     organizing twice-a-year forums--as they have since 1971--to 
     which they invite between seventy five and a hundred and 
     twenty-five subscribers to their newsletter, many of whom are 
     business and financial analysts. Those attending pay hundreds 
     of dollars--Novak refuses to say how much--for the privilege 
     of listening to public officials speak and answer questions 
     off the 

[[Page H 13130]]
     record. ``You talk about conflicts of interest!'' exclaimed Jack 
     Nelson, the Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief. ``It 
     is wrong to have government officials come to speak to 
     businesses and you make money off of it.''
       Mark Shields, who writes a syndicated column and is the 
     moderator of ``The Capital Gang'' and a regular commentator 
     on ``The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,'' is a busy paid lecturer. 
     Asked how much he earned from speeches last year, he said, 
     ``I haven't even totalled it up.'' Shields said he probably 
     gives one paid speech a week, adding, ``I don't want, for 
     personal reasons, to get into specifics.''
       Michael Kinsley, who is the liberal co-host of 
     ``Crossfire,'' an essayist for The New Republic and Time, and 
     a contributor to The New Yorker, is also reluctant to be 
     specific. ``I'm in the worst of all possible positions,'' he 
     said. ``I do only a little of it. But I can't claim to be a 
     virgin.'' Kinsley said he appeared about once every two 
     months, but he wouldn't say what groups he spoke to or how 
     much he was paid. ``I'm going to do a bit more,'' he said. 
     ``I do staged debates--mini `Crossfire's'--before business 
     groups. If everyone disclosed, I would.''
       The New Republic's White House correspondent, Fred Barnes, 
     who is a regular on ``The McLaughlin Group'' and appears on 
     ``CBS This Morning'' as a political commentator, speaks more 
     often than Kinsley, giving thirty or forty paid speeches a 
     year, he said, including the ``McLaughlin'' road show. How 
     would Barnes respond to the question posed by members of 
     Congress?
       ``They're elected officials,'' he said. ``I'm not an 
     elected official. I'm not in government. I don't deal with 
     taxpayers' money.''
       Barnes's ``McLaughlin'' colleague Morton M. Kondracke is 
     the executive editor of Roll Call, which covers Congress. 
     Kondracke said that he gave about thirty-six paid speeches 
     annually, but he would not identify the sponsors or disclose 
     his fee. He believes that columnists have fewer constraints 
     on their speechmaking than so-called objective reporters, 
     since columnists freely expose their opinions.
       Gloria Borger, a U.S. News & World Report columnist and 
     frequent ``Washington Week in Review'' panelist, discloses 
     her income from speeches, but only to her employer. Borger 
     said she gave one or two paid speeches a month, but she 
     wouldn't reveal her fee. ``I'm not an elected official,'' she 
     said.
       Like Borger, Wolf Blitzer, CNN's senior White House 
     correspondent, said that he told his news organization about 
     any speeches he made. How many speeches did he make in the 
     last year?
       ``I would guess four or five,'' he said, and repeated that 
     each one was cleared through his bureau chief.
       What would Blitzer say to a member of Congress who asked 
     how much he made speaking and from which groups?
       ``I would tell him `None of your business,' '' Blitzer 
     said.
       Two other network chief White House correspondents NBC's 
     Andrea Mitchell and CBS's Rira Braver--also do little 
     speaking. ``I make few speeches,'' Mitchell said. ``Maybe ten 
     a year. Maybe six or seven a year. I'm very careful about not 
     speaking to groups that involve issues I cover.'' She 
     declined to say how much she earned. For Braver, the issue 
     was moot. I don't think I did any,'' she said, referring to 
     paid speeches in the past year.
       ABC's ``Prime Time Live'' correspondent Chris Wallace, who 
     has done several investigative pieces on corporate-sponsored 
     congressional junkets, said he made four or five paid 
     speeches last year. ``I don't know exactly,'' he said. Could 
     he remember his fee?
       ``I wouldn't say,'' he replied.
       Did he speak to business groups?
       ``I'm trying to remember the specific groups,'' he said, 
     and then went on. ``One was the Business Council of Canada. 
     Yes, I do speak to business groups.''
       So what is the difference between Chris Wallace and members 
     of Congress who accept paid junkets?
       ``I'm a private citizen,'' he said, ``I have no control 
     over public funds, I don't make public policy.''
       Why did Wallace think that he was invited to speak before 
     business groups?
       ``They book me because they feel somehow that it adds a 
     little excitement or luster to their event,'' he said. He has 
     been giving speeches since 1980, he said, and ``never once 
     has any group called me afterward and asked me any favor in 
     coverage.''
       But isn't that what public officials usually say when 
     Wallace corners them about a junket?
       Those who underwrite congressional junkets are seeking 
     ``access'' and ``influence,'' he said, but the people who 
     hire him to make a speech are seeking ``entertainment.'' When 
     I mentioned Wallace's remarks to Norman Pearlstine, the 
     former executive editor of the Wall Street Journal, he said, 
     ``By that argument, we ought not to distinguish between news 
     and entertainment, and we ought to merge news into 
     entertainment.''
       ABC's political and media analyst Jeff Greenfield makes a 
     ``rough guess'' that he gives fifteen paid speeches a year, 
     many in the form of panels he moderates before various media 
     groups--cable conventions, newspaper or magazine groups, 
     broadcasting and marketing associations--that are concerned 
     with subjects he regularly covers. ``It's like `Nightline,' 
     but it's not on the air,'' he said. He would not divulge his 
     fee, or how much he earned in the past twelve months from 
     speeches.
       Greenfield argued that nearly everything he did could be 
     deemed a potential conflict. ``I cover cable, but I cover it 
     for ABC, which is sometimes in conflict with that industry,'' 
     he said. Could he accept money to write a magazine piece or a 
     book when he might one day report on the magazine publisher 
     or the book industry? He is uneasy with the distinction that 
     newspapers like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington 
     Post make, which is to prohibit daily reporters from giving 
     paid speeches to corporations or trade associations that 
     lobby Congress and have agendas, yet allow paid college 
     speeches. (Even universities have legislative agendas, 
     Greenfield noted.) In trying to escape this ethical maze, 
     Greenfield concluded, ``I finally decided that I can't figure 
     out everything that constitutes a conflict.''
       Eleanor Clift, of Newsweek, who is cast as the beleaguered 
     liberal on ``The McLaughlin Group,'' said that she made 
     between six and eight appearances a year with the group. Her 
     fee for a speech on the West Coast was five thousand dollars, 
     she said, but she would accept less to appear in Washington. 
     She would not disclose her outside speaking income, and said 
     that if a member of Congress were to ask she would say, ``I 
     do disclose. I disclose to the people I work for. I don't 
     work for the taxpayers.''
       Christopher Matthews, a nationally syndicated columnist and 
     Washington bureau chief of the San Francisco Examiner, who is 
     a political commentator for ``Good Morning America'' and co-
     host of a nightly program on America's Talking, a new, NBC-
     owned cable network, told me last June that he gave between 
     forty and fifty speeches a year. He netted between five and 
     six thousand dollars a speech, he said, or between two and 
     three hundred thousand dollars a year. Like many others, he 
     is represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau, and he said 
     that he placed no limitations on corporate or other groups he 
     would appear before. ``To be honest, I don't spend a lot of 
     time thinking about it,'' he said. ``I give the same 
     speech.''
       David S. Broder, of the Washington Post, who has a contract 
     to appear regularly on CNN and on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' 
     said that he averaged between twelve and twenty-four paid 
     speeches a year, mostly to colleges, and that the speeches 
     are cleared with his editors at the Post. He did not discuss 
     his fee, but Howard Kurtz, the Post's media reporter, said in 
     his recent book ``Media Circus'' that Broder makes up to 
     seventy-five hundred dollars a speech. Broder said he would 
     support an idea advanced by Albert R. Hunt,the Wall Street 
     Journal's Washington editor, to require disclosure as a 
     condition of receiving a congressional press card. To receive 
     a press card now, David Holmes, the superintendent of the 
     House Press Gallery, told me, journalists are called upon to 
     disclose only if they receive more than five per cent of 
     their income from a single lobbying organization. Hunt said 
     he would like to see the four committees that oversee the 
     issuing of congressional press cards--made up of five to 
     seven journalists each--require full disclosure of any income 
     from groups that lobby Congress. He said he was aware of the 
     bitter battle that was waged in 1988, when one committee 
     issued new application forms for press passes which included 
     space for detailed disclosure of outside income. Irate 
     reporters demanded that the application form be rescinded, 
     and it was. Today, the Journal, along with the Washington 
     Post, is among the publications with the strictest 
     prohibitions on paid speeches. Most journalistic 
     organizations forbid reporters to accept money or invest in 
     the stocks of the industries they cover. But the Journal and 
     the Post have rules against reporters' accepting fees from 
     any groups that lobby Congress or from any for-profit groups.
       Hunt, who has television contracts with ``The Capital 
     Gang'' and ``Meet the Press,'' said that he averaged three or 
     four speeches a year, mostly to colleges and civic groups, 
     and never to corporations or groups that directly petition 
     Congress, and that he received five thousand dollars for most 
     speeches.
       William Safire, the Times columnist, who is a regular on 
     ``Meet the Press,'' was willing to disclose his lecture 
     income. ``I do about fifteen speeches a year for twenty 
     thousand dollars a crack,'' he said. ``A little more for 
     overseas and Hawaii.'' Where Safire parts company with Hunt 
     is that he sees nothing wrong with accepting fees from 
     corporations. He said that in recent months he had spoken to 
     A.T. & T., the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 
     America, and Jewish organizations. Safire said that because 
     he is a columnist his opinions are advertised, not hidden. 
     ``I believe firmly in Samuel Johnson's dictum `No man but a 
     blockhead ever wrote except for money,''' he went on. ``I 
     charge for my lectures. I charge for my books. I charge when 
     I go on television. I feel no compunction about it. It fits 
     nicely into my conservative, capitalist--with a capital `C'--
     philosophy.''
       Tim Russert, the host of ``Meet the Press,'' said that he 
     had given ``a handful'' of paid speeches in the past year, 
     including some to for-profit groups. He said that he had no 
     set fee, and that he was wary of arbitrary distinctions that 
     say lecturing is bad but income from stock dividends is fine. 
     Russert also raised the question of journalists' appearing on 
     shows like ``Meet the Press,'' which, of course, have 
     sponsors. ``Is that a conflict? You can drive yourself crazy 
     on this.'' 

[[Page H 13131]]

       Few journalists drive themselves crazy over whether to 
     accept speaking fees from the government they cover. They 
     simply don't. But enticements do come from unusual places. 
     One reporter, who asked to remain anonymous, said that he had 
     recently turned down a ten-thousand dollar speaking fee from 
     the Central Intelligence Agency. A spokesman for the C.I.A., 
     David Christian, explained to me, ``We have an Office of 
     Training and Education, and from time to time we invite 
     knowledgeable non-government experts to talk to our people as 
     part of our training program.'' Does the agency pay for these 
     speeches? ``Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't,'' he 
     said. Asked for the names of journalists who accepted such 
     fees, Christian said the he was sorry but ``the records are 
     scattered.''
       Time's Washington columnist, Margaret Carlson, who is a 
     regular on ``The Capital Gang,'' laughed when I asked about 
     her income from speeches and said, ``My view is that I just 
     got on the gravy train, so I don't want it to end.'' Carlson 
     said she gave six speeches last year, at an average of five 
     thousand dollars a speech, including a panel appearance in 
     San Francisco before the American Medical Association (with 
     Michael Kinsley, among others). She made a fair distinction 
     between what she did for a fee and what Treasury Secretary 
     Lloyd Bentsen tried to do in 1987, when, as Senate Finance 
     Committee chairman, he charged lobbyists ten thousand dollars 
     a head for the opportunity to join him for breakfast once a 
     month. ``We are like monkeys who get up onstage,'' Carlson 
     said, echoing Chris Wallace. ``It's mud wrestling for an hour 
     or an hour and a half, and it's over.''
       There are journalistic luminaries who make speeches but, 
     for the sake of appearances, do not accept fees. They include 
     the three network-news anchors--NBC's Tom Brokaw, ABC's Peter 
     Jennings and CBS' Dan Rather--all of whom say that they don't 
     charge to speak or they donate their fees to charity. ``We 
     don't need the money,'' Brokaw said. ``And we thought it 
     created an appearance of conflict.'' Others who do not accept 
     fees for speaking are Ted Koppel, of ABC's ``Nightline''; Jim 
     Lehrer, of ``The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour''; Bob Schieffer, 
     CBS' chief Washington correspondent and the host of ``Face 
     the Nation''; and C-SPAN's Brian Lamb.
       ABC's senior Washington correspondent, James Wooten, 
     explained how, in the mid-eighties, he decided to change his 
     ways after a last lucrative weekend: ``I had a good agent and 
     I got a day off on Friday and flew out Thursday after the 
     news and did Northwestern University Thursday night for six 
     thousand dollars. Then I got a rental car and drove to 
     Milwaukee, and in midmorning I did Marquette for five or six 
     thousand dollars. In the afternoon, I went to the University 
     of Chicago, to a small symposium, for which I got twenty-five 
     hundred to three thousand dollars. Then I got on a plane 
     Friday night and came home. I had made fifteen thousand 
     dollars, paid the agent three thousand, and had maybe two 
     thousand in expenses. So I made about ten thousand dollars 
     for thirty-six hours. I didn't have a set speech, I just 
     talked off the top of my head.'' But his conscience told him 
     it was wrong. ``It's easy money,'' Wooten said.
       As for me, The New Yorker paid my travel expenses to and 
     from the congressional retreat. In the past twelve months, 
     I've given two paid speeches; the first, at New York's 
     Harmonic Club, was to make an opening presentation and to 
     moderate a panel on the battle for control of Paramount 
     Communications, for which I was paid twelve hundred dollars; 
     the second was a speech on the future of the information 
     superhighway at a Manhattan luncheon sponsored by the 
     Baltimore-based investment firm of Alex, Brown & Sons, for 
     which my fee was seventy-five hundred dollars. I don't accept 
     lecture fees from communications organizations.
       Like the public figures we cover, journalists would benefit 
     from a system of checks and balances. Journalistic 
     institutions, including The New Yorker, too seldom have 
     rigorous rules requiring journalists to check with an editor 
     or an executive before agreeing to make a paid speech; the 
     rules at various institutions for columnists are often even 
     more permissive. Full disclosure provides a disinfectant--the 
     power of shame. A few journalistic institutions, recently 
     shamed, have been taking a second look at their policies. In 
     mid-June, ABC News issued new rules, which specifically 
     prohibit paid speeches to trade associations or to any ``for-
     profit business.'' ABC's ban--the same one that is in place 
     at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post--prompted 
     Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, Wallace, and several other ABC 
     correspondents to protest, and they met in early August with 
     senior news executives. They sought a lifting of the ban, 
     which would allow them to get permission on a case-by-case 
     basis. But a ranking ABC official says. ``We can agree to 
     discuss exceptions but not give any. Their basic argument is 
     greed, for Christ's sake!'' Andrew Lack, the president of NBC 
     News, said that he plans to convene a meeting of his 
     executives to shape an entirely new speaking policy. ``My 
     position is that the more we can discourage our people from 
     speaking for a fee, the better,'' he said. And CBS News now 
     stipulates that all speaking requests must be cleared with 
     the president or the vice-president of news. Al Vecchione, 
     the president of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, admitted in June 
     to having been embarrassed by the American Journalism Review 
     piece. ``We had a loose policy,'' he said. ``I just finished 
     rewriting our company policy.'' Henceforth, those associated 
     with the program will no longer accept fees to speak to 
     corporate groups or trade associations that directly lobby 
     the government. The New Yorker, according to its executive 
     editor, Hendrik Hertzberg, is in the process of reviewing its 
     policies.
       Those who frequently lecture make a solid point when they 
     say that lecture fees don't buy favorable coverage. But 
     corruption can take subtler forms than the quid pro quo, and 
     the fact that journalists see themselves as selling 
     entertainment rather than influence does not wipe the moral 
     slate clean. The real corruption of ``fee speech,'' perhaps, 
     is not that journalists will do favors for the associations 
     and businesses that pay them speaking fees but that the nexus 
     of television and speaking fees creates what Representative 
     Obey called ``an incentive to be even more flamboyant'' on 
     TV--and, to a lesser extent, on the printed page. The 
     television talk shows value vividness, pithiness, and 
     predictability. They prefer their panelists reliably pro or 
     con, ``liberal'' or ``conservative,'' Too much quirkiness can 
     make a show unbalanced; too much complexity can make it dull. 
     Time's Margaret Carlson told me, not entirely in jest, ``I 
     was a much more thoughtful person before I went on TV. But I 
     was offered speeches only after I went on TV.'' Her Time 
     colleague the columnist Hugh Sidey said that when he stopped 
     appearing regularly on television his lecture income 
     shrivelled. Obey wishes that it would shrivel for the rest of 
     the pundit class as well. An attitude of scorn often 
     substitutes for hard work or hard thought and it's difficult 
     to deny that the over-all result of this dynamic is a 
     coarsening of political discourse.
       Celebrity journalism and the appearance of conflicts 
     unavoidably erode journalism's claim to public trust. ``My 
     view is that you're going to start having character stories 
     about journalists,'' Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New 
     York University and the director of the Project on Public 
     Life and the Press, told me recently. ``It's inevitable. If I 
     were a big-name Washington journalist, I'd start getting my 
     accounts together. I don't think journalists are private 
     citizens.''
                                                                    ____


            [From the American Journalism Review, June 1995]

                        Take the Money and Talk

                         (By Alicia C. Shepard)

       It's speech time and the Broward County Convention Center 
     in Fort Lauderdale.
       ABC News correspondent and NPR commentator Cokie Roberts 
     takes her brown handbag and notebook off of the ``reserved'' 
     table where she has been sitting, waiting to speak. She steps 
     up to the podium where she is gushingly introduced and 
     greeted with resounding applause.
       Framed by palm fronds, Roberts begins her speech to 1,600 
     South Florida businesswomen attending a Junior League-
     sponsored seminar. Having just flown in from Washington, 
     D.C., Roberts breaks the news of the hours-old arrest of a 
     suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. She talks of 
     suffragette Susan B. Anthony, of how she misses the late 
     House Speaker Tip O'Neill, of the Republican takeover on 
     Capitol Hill. Then she gives her listeners the inside scoop 
     on the new members of Congress.
       ``They are very young,'' says Roberts, 52. ``I'm constantly 
     getting it wrong, assuming they are pages. They're darling. 
     They're wildly adept with a blow dryer and I resent them 
     because they call me ma'am.'' The audience laughs.
       After talking for an hour on ``Women and Politics,'' 
     Roberts answers questions for 20 minutes. One woman asks the 
     veteran correspondent, who has covered Washington since 1978, 
     when there will be a female president.
       ``I think we'll have a woman president when a woman is 
     elected vice president and we do in the guy,'' Roberts quips.
       This crowd loves her. When Roberts finishes, they stand 
     clapping for several minutes. Roberts poses for a few 
     pictures and is whisked out and driven to the Miami airport 
     for her first-class flight back to Washington.
       For her trouble and her time, the Junior League of Greater 
     Fort Lauderdale gave Roberts a check for $35,000. ``She's 
     high, very high,'' says the League's Linda Carter, who lined 
     up the keynote speakers. The two other keynote speakers 
     received around $10,000 each.
       The organization sponsored the seminar to raise money for 
     its community projects, using Roberts as a draw. But shelling 
     out $35,000 wouldn't have left much money for, say, the 
     League's foster care or women's substance abuse programs or 
     its efforts to increase organ donors for transplants.
       Instead, Roberts tab was covered by a corporate sponsor. JM 
     Family Enterprises. The $4.2 billion firm is an umbrella 
     company for the largest independent American distributor of 
     Toyotas. The second-largest privately held company in 
     Florida, it provides Toyotas to 164 dealerships in five 
     southern states and runs 20 other auto-related companies.
       But Roberts doesn't want to talk about the company that 
     paid her fee. She doesn't like to answer the kind of 
     questions she asks politicians. She won't discuss what she's 
     paid, whom she speaks to, why she does it or how it might 
     affect journalism's credibility when she receives more money 
     in an hour-and-a-half from a large corporation than many 
     journalists earn in a year.

[[Page H 13132]]

       ``She feels strongly that it's not something that in any 
     way shape or form should be discussed in public.'' ABC 
     spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said in response to AJR's request 
     for an interview with Roberts.
       Roberts' ABC colleague Jeff Greenfield, who also speaks for 
     money, doesn't think it's a good idea to duck the issue. ``I 
     think we ought not not talk about it.'' he says. ``I mean 
     that's Cokie's right, obviously,'' he adds, but ``if we want 
     people to answer our questions, then up to a reasonable 
     point, we should answer their questions.''
       The phenomenon of journalists giving speeches for 
     staggering sums of money continues to dog the profession. 
     Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren has 
     created a cottage industry criticizing colleagues who speak 
     for fat fees. Washington Post columnist James K. Glassman 
     believes the practice is the ``next great American scandal.'' 
     Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has denounced it on the 
     Senate floor.
       A number of news organizations have drafted new policies to 
     regulate the practice since debate over the issue flared a 
     year ago (see ``Talk is Expensive,'' May 1994). Time magazine 
     is one of the latest to do so, issuing a flat-out ban on 
     honoraria in April. The Society for Professional Journalists, 
     in the process of revising its ethics code, is wrestling with 
     the divisive issue.
       The eye-popping sums star journalists receive for their 
     speeches, and the possibility that they may be influenced by 
     them, have drawn heightened attention to the practice, which 
     is largely the province of a relatively small roster of well-
     paid members of the media elite. Most work for the television 
     networks or the national news weeklies; newspaper reporters, 
     with less public visibility, aren't asked as often.
       While the crescendo of criticism has resulted in an 
     official crackdown at several news organizations--as well as 
     talk of new hardline policies at others--it's not clear how 
     effective the new policies are, since no public disclosure 
     system is in place.
       Some well-known journalists, columnists and ``Crossfire'' 
     host Michael Kinsley and U.S. News & World Report's Steven V. 
     Roberts among them, scoff at the criticism. They assert that 
     it's their right as private citizens to offer their services 
     for whatever the market will bear, that new policies won't 
     improve credibility and that the outcry has been blown out of 
     proportion.
       But the spectacle of journalists taking big bucks for 
     speeches has emerged as one of the high-profile ethical 
     issues in journalism today.
       ``Clearly some nerve has been touched,'' Warren says. ``A 
     nerve of pure, utter defensiveness on the part of a 
     journalist trying to rationalize taking [honoraria] for the 
     sake of their bank account because the money is so 
     alluring.''
       A common route to boarding the lecture gravy train is the 
     political talk show. National television exposure raises a 
     journalist's profile dramatically, enhancing the likelihood 
     of receiving lucrative speaking offers.
       The problem is that modulated, objective analysis is not 
     likely to make you a favorite on ``The Capital Gang'' or 
     ``The McLaughlin Group.'' Instead, reporters who strive for 
     objectivity in their day jobs are often far more opinionated 
     in the TV slugfests.
       Time Managing Editor James R. Gaines, who issued his 
     magazine's recent ban on accepting honoraria, sees this as 
     another problem for journalists' credibility, one he plans to 
     address in a future policy shift. ``Those journalists say 
     things we wouldn't let them say in the magazine. . . .'' says 
     Gaines, whose columnist Margaret Carlson appears frequently 
     on ``The Capital Gang.'' ``It's great promotion for the 
     magazine and the magazine's journalists. But I wonder about 
     it when the journalists get into that adversarial atmosphere 
     where provocation is the main currency.''
       Journalists have been ``buckraking'' for years, speaking to 
     trade associations, corporations, charities, academic 
     institutions and social groups. But what's changed is the 
     amount they're paid. In the mid-1970s, the fees peaked at 
     $10,000 to $15,000, say agents for speakers bureaus. Today, 
     ABC's Sam Donaldson can get $30,000, ABC's David Brinkley 
     pulls in $18,000 and the New York Times' William Safire can 
     command up to $20,000.
       When a $4.2 billion Toyota distributor pays $35,000 for 
     someone like Cokie Roberts, or a trade association pays a 
     high-profile journalist $10,000 or $20,000 for an hour's 
     work, it inevitably raises questions and forces news 
     executives to re-examine their policies.
       That's what happened last June at ABC. Richard Wald, senior 
     vice president of news, decided to ban paid speeches to trade 
     associations and for-profit corporations--much to the dismay 
     of some of ABC's best-paid correspondents. As at most news 
     organizations, speaking to colleges and nonprofits is 
     allowed.
       When Wald's policy was circulated to 109 employees at ABC, 
     some correspondents howled (see Free Press, September 1994). 
     Protests last August from Roberts, Donaldson, Brinkley, 
     Greenfield, Brit Hume and others succeeded only in delaying 
     implementation of the new guidelines. Wald agreed to 
     ``grandfather in'' speeches already scheduled through mid-
     January. After that, if a correspondent speaks to a forbidden 
     group, the money must go to charity.
       ``Why did we amend it? Fees for speeches are getting to be 
     very large,'' Wald says. ``When we report on matters of 
     national interest, we do not want it to appear that folks who 
     have received a fee are in any way beholden to anybody other 
     than our viewers. Even though I do not believe anybody was 
     every swayed by a speech fee. I do believe that it gives the 
     wrong impression. We deal in impressions.''
       The new policy has hurt, says ABC White House correspondent 
     Ann Compton. Almost a year in advance, Compton agreed to 
     speak to the American Cotton Council. But this spring, when 
     she spoke to the trade group, she had to turn an honorarium 
     of ``several thousand dollars'' over to charity. Since the 
     policy went into effect, Compton has turned down six 
     engagements that she previously would have accepted.
       ``The restrictions how have become so tight, it's closed 
     off some groups and industries that I don't feel I have a 
     conflict with,'' says Compton, who's been covering the White 
     House off and on since 1974. ``It's closed off, frankly, the 
     category of organizations that pay the kind of fees I get.'' 
     She declines to say what those fees are.
       And it has affect her bank account. ``I've got four kids 
     . . .'' Compton says. ``It's cut off a significant portion of 
     income for me.''
       Some speakers bureaus say ABC's new policy and criticism of 
     the practice have had an impact.
       ``It has affected us, definitely,'' says Lori Fish of 
     Keppler Associates in Arlington, Virginia, which represents 
     about two dozen journalists. ``More journalists are conscious 
     of the fact that they have to be very particular about which 
     groups they accept honoraria from. On our roster there's been 
     a decrease of some journalists accepting engagements of that 
     sort. It's mainly because of media criticism.''
       Other bureaus, such as the National Speakers Forum and the 
     William Morris Agency, say they haven't noticed a difference. 
     ``I can't say that the criticism has affected us,'' says Lynn 
     Choquette, a partner at the speakers forum.
       Compton, Donaldson and Greenfield still disagree with 
     Wald's policy but, as they say, he's the boss.
       ``I believe since all of us signed our contracts with the 
     expectation that the former ABC policy would prevail and took 
     that into account when we agreed to sign our contracts for X 
     amount,'' Donaldson says, ``it was not fair to change the 
     policy midstream.'' Donaldson says he has had to turn down 
     two speech offers.
       Greenfield believes the restrictions are unnecessary.
       ``When I go to speak to a group, the idea that it's like 
     renting a politician to get his ear is not correct,'' he 
     says. ``We are being asked to provide a mix of entertainment 
     and information and keep audiences in their seats at whatever 
     convention so they don't go home and say, `Jesus, what a 
     boring two-day whatever that was.' ''
       Most agree it's the size of the honoraria that is fueling 
     debate over the issue. ``If you took a decimal point or two 
     away, nobody would care,'' Greenfield says. ``A lot of us are 
     now offered what seems to many people a lot of money. They 
     are entertainment-size sums rather than journalistic sizes.''
       And Wald has decided ``entertainment-size sums'' look bad 
     for the network, which has at least a dozen correspondents 
     listed with speakers bureaus. It's not the speeches 
     themselves that trouble Wald. ``You can speak to the American 
     Society of Travel Agents or the Electrical Council.'' he 
     says, ``as long as you don't take money from them.''
       But are ABC officials enforcing the new policy? ``My 
     suspicion is they're not, that they are chickenshit and Cokie 
     Roberts will do whatever the hell she wants to do and they 
     don't have the balls to do anything,'' says the Chicago 
     Tribune's Warren, whose newspaper allows its staff to make 
     paid speeches only to educational institutions.
       There's obviously some elasticity in ABC's policy. In 
     April, Greenfield, who covers media and politics, pocketed 
     $12,000 from the National Association of Broadcasters for 
     speaking to 1.000 members and interviewing media giants 
     Rupert Murdoch and Barry Diller for the group. Wald says that 
     was acceptable.
       He also says it was fine for Roberts to speak to the Junior 
     League-sponsored business conference in Fort Lauderdale, even 
     though the for-profit JM Family Enterprises paid her fee.
       ``As long as the speech was arranged by a reasonable group 
     and it carried with it no tinct from anybody, it's okay,'' 
     says Wald. ``I don't care where they [the Junior League] get 
     their money.''
       Even with its loopholes, ABC has the strictest restrictions 
     among the networks. NBC, CBS and CNN allow correspondents to 
     speak for dollars on a case-by-case basis and require them to 
     check with a supervisor first. Last fall, Andrew Lack, 
     president of NBC News, said he planned to come up with a new 
     policy. NBC spokesperson Lynn Gardner says Lack has drafted 
     the guidelines and will issue them this summer. ``The bottom 
     line is that Andrew Lack is generally not in favor of getting 
     high speaking fees,'' she says.
       New Yorker Executive Editor Hendrik Hertzberg also said 
     last fall that his magazine would review its policy, under 
     which writers are supposed to consult with their editors in 
     ``questionable cases.'' The review is still in progress. 
     Hertzberg says it's likely the magazine will have a new 
     policy by the end of the year.

[[Page H 13133]]

       ``There's something aesthetically offensive to my idea of 
     journalism for American journalists to be paid $5,000, 
     $10,000 or $20,000 for some canned remarks simply because of 
     his or her celebrity value,'' Hertzberg says.
       Rewriting a policy merely to make public the outside income 
     of media personalities guarantees resistance, if not outright 
     hostility. Just ask John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal's 
     Washington bureau. This year, Harwood was a candidate for a 
     slot on the committee that issues congressional press passes 
     to daily print journalists.
       His platform included a promise to have daily 
     correspondents list outside sources of income--not amounts--
     on their applications for press credentials. Harwood's goal 
     was fuller disclosure of outside income, including speaking 
     fees.
       ``I'm not trying to argue in all cases it's wrong,'' says 
     Harwood. ``But we make a big to-do about campaign money and 
     benefits lawmakers get from special interests and I'm struck 
     by how many people in our profession also get money from 
     players in the political process.''
       Harwood believes it's hypocritical that journalists used to 
     go after members of Congress for taking speech fees when 
     journalists do the same thing. (Members of Congress are no 
     longer permitted to accept honoraria.)
       ``By disclosing the people who pay us,'' says Harwood, ``we 
     let other people who may have a beef with us draw their own 
     conclusions. I don't see why reporters should be afraid of 
     that.''
       But apparently they are. Harwood lost the election.
       ``I'm quite certain that's why John lost,'' says Alan J. 
     Murray, the Journal's Washington bureau chief, who made many 
     phone calls on his reporter's behalf. ``There's clearly a lot 
     of resistance,'' adds Murray, whose newspaper forbids 
     speaking to for-profit companies, political action committees 
     and anyone who lobbies Congress. ``Everybody likes John. But 
     I couldn't believe how many people said--even people who I 
     suspect have very little if any speaking incomes--that it's 
     just nobody's business. I just don't buy that.''
       His sentiment is shared in the Periodical Press Gallery on 
     Capitol Hill, where magazine reporters applying for press 
     credentials must list sources of outside income. But in the 
     Radio-Television Correspondents Gallery, where the big-name 
     network reporters go for press credentials, the issue of 
     disclosing outside income has never come up, says Kenan 
     Block, a ``MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour'' producer.
       ``I've never heard anyone mention it here and I've been 
     here going on 11 years,'' says Block, who is also chairman of 
     the Radio-Television Correspondents Executive Committee. ``I 
     basically feel it's not our place to police the credentialed 
     reporters. If you're speaking on the college circuit or to 
     groups not terribly political in nature, I think, If 
     anything, people are impressed and a bit envious. It's like, 
     `More power to them.' ''
       But the issue of journalists' honoraria has been mentioned 
     at Block's program.
       Al Vecchione, president of McNeil/Lehrer Productions, says 
     he was ``embarrassed'' by AJR's story last year and 
     immediately wrote a new policy. The story reported that 
     Robert MacNeil accepted honoraria, although he often spoke 
     for free; partner Jim Lehrer said he had taken fees in the 
     past but had stopped after his children got out of college.
       ``We changed [our policy] because in reading the various 
     stories and examining our navel, we decided it was not 
     proper,'' Vecchione says. ``While others may do it, we don't 
     think it's proper. Whether in reality it's a violation or 
     not, the perception is there and the perception of it is bad 
     enough.''
       MacNeil/Lehrer's new policy is not as restrictive as ABC's, 
     however. It says correspondents ``should avoid accepting 
     money from individuals, companies, trade associations or 
     organizations that lobby the government or otherwise try to 
     influence issues the NewsHour or other special * * * programs 
     may cover.''
       As is the case with many of the new, stricter policies, 
     each request to speak is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 
     That's the policy at many newspapers and at U.S. News.
       Newsweek tightened its policy last June. Instead of simply 
     checking with an editor, staffers now have to fill out a form 
     if they want to speak or write freelance articles and submit 
     it to Ann McDaniel, the magazine's chief of correspondents.
       ``The only reason we formalized the process is because we 
     thought this was becoming more popular than it was 10 years 
     ago,'' McDaniel says, ``We want to make sure [our staff 
     members] are not involved in accepting compensation from 
     people they are very close to. Not because we suspect they 
     can be bought or that there will be any improper behavior but 
     because we want to protect our credibility.''
       Time, on the other hand, looked at all the media criticism 
     and decided to simply end the practice. In an April 14 memo. 
     Managing Editor Gaines told his staff, ``The policy is that 
     you may not do it.
       Gaines says the new policy was prompted by ``a bunch of 
     things that happened all at once.'' He adds that ``a lot of 
     people were doing cruise ships and appearances and have some 
     portion of their income from that, so their ox is gored.''
       The ban is not overwhelmingly popular with Time staffers. 
     Several, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, argue that 
     it's too tough and say they hope to change Gaines' mind. He 
     says that won't happen, although he will amend the policy to 
     allow paid speeches before civic groups, universities and 
     groups that are ``clearly not commercial.''
       ``Academic seminars are fine,'' he says. ``If some college 
     wants to pay expenses and a $150 honorarium, I really don't 
     have a problem with that.''
       Steve Roberts, a senior writer with U.S. News & World 
     Report and Cokie Roberts' husband, is annoyed that some media 
     organizations are being swayed by negative publicity. He says 
     there's been far too much criticism of what he believes is 
     basically an innocuous practice. Roberts says journalists 
     have a right to earn as much as they can by speaking, as long 
     as they are careful about appearances and live by high 
     ethical standards.
       ``This whole issue has been terribly over-blown by a few 
     cranks,'' Roberts says. ``As long as journalists behave 
     honorably and use good sense and don't take money from people 
     they cover, I think it's totally legitimate. In fact, my own 
     news organization encourages it.''
       U.S. News not only encourages it, but its public relations 
     staff helps its writers get speaking engagements.
       Roberts says U.S. News has not been intimidated by the 
     ``cranks,'' who he believes are in part motivated by 
     jealousy. ``I think a few people have appointed themselves 
     the critics and watchdogs of our profession. I, for one, 
     resent it.''
       His chief nemesis is Jim Warren, who came to Washington a 
     year-and-a-half ago to take charge of the Chicago Tribune's 
     bureau. Warren, once the Tribune's media writer, writes a 
     Sunday column that's often peppered with news flashes about 
     which journalist is speaking where and for how much. The 
     column includes a ``Cokie Watch.'' named for Steve Roberts' 
     wife of 28 years, a woman Warren has written reams about but 
     has never net.
       ``Jim Warren is a reprehensible individual who has attacked 
     me and my wife and other people to advance his own visibility 
     and his own reputation,'' Roberts asserts. ``He's on a 
     crusade to make his own reputation by tearing down others.''
       While Warren may work hard to boost his bureau's reputation 
     for Washington coverage, he is best known for his outspoken 
     criticism of fellow journalists. Some reporters cheer him on 
     and fax him tips for ``Cokie Watch.'' Others are highly 
     critical and ask who crowned Warren chief of the Washington 
     ethics police.
       Even Warren admits his relentless assault has turned him 
     into a caricature.
       ``I'm now in the Rolodex as inconoclast, badass Tribune 
     bureau chief who writes about Cokie Roberts all the time,'' 
     says Warren, who in fact doesn't. ``But I do get lots of 
     feedback from rank-and-file journalists saying, `Way to go. 
     You're dead right.' It obviously touches a nerve among 
     readers.''
       So Warren writes about Cokie and Steve Roberts getting 
     $45,000 from a Chicago bank for a speech and the traveling 
     team of television's ``The Capital Gang'' sharing $25,000 for 
     a show at Walt Disney World. He throws in parenthetically 
     that Capital Gang member Michael Kinsley ``should know 
     better.''
       Kinsley says he would have agreed a few years ago, but he's 
     changed his tune. He now believes there are no intrinsic 
     ethical problems with taking money for speaking. He does it, 
     he wrote in The New Republic in May, for the money, because 
     it's fun and it boosts his ego.
       ``Being paid more than you're worth is the American 
     dream,'' he wrote. ``I see a day when we'll all be paid more 
     than we're worth. Meanwhile, though, there's no requirement 
     for journalists, alone among humanity, to deny themselves the 
     occasional fortuitous tastes of this bliss.''
       To Kinsley, new rules restricting a reporter's right to 
     lecture for largesse don't accomplish much.
       ``Such rules merely replace the appearance of corruption 
     with the appearance of propriety,'' he wrote. ``What keeps 
     journalists on the straight and narrow most of the time is 
     not a lot of rules about potential conflicts of interest, but 
     the basic reality of our business that a journalist's product 
     it out there for all to see and evaluate.''
       The problem, critics say, is that without knowing who 
     besides the employer is paying a journalist, the situation 
     isn't quite that clear-cut.
       Jonathan Salant, president of the Washington chapter of the 
     Society of Professional Journalists, cites approvingly a 
     remark by former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee 
     in AJR's March issue: ``If the Insurance Institute of 
     America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a 
     speech, don't tell me you haven't been corrupted. You can say 
     you haven't and you can say you will attack insurance issues 
     in the same way, but you won't. You can't.''
       Salant thinks SPJ should adopt an absolute ban on speaking 
     fees as it revises its ethics code. Most critics want some 
     kind of public disclosure at the very least.
       Says the Wall Street Journal's Murray, ``You tell me what 
     is the difference between somebody who works full time for 
     the National Association of Realtors and somebody who takes 
     $40,000 a year in speaking fees from Realtor groups. It's not 
     clear to me there's a big distinction. I'm not saying that 
     because you take $40,000 a year from Realtors that you ought 
     to be thrown out of the profession. But at the very least, 
     you ought to disclose that.''
       And so Murray is implementing a disclosure policy. By the 
     end of the year, the 40 

[[Page H 13134]]
     journalists working in his bureau will be required to list outside 
     income in a report that will be available to the public.
       ``People are not just cynical about politicians,'' says 
     Murray. ``They are cynical about us. Anything we can do to 
     ease that cynicism is worth doing.''
       Sen. Grassley applauds the move. Twice he has taken to the 
     floor of the Senate to urge journalists to disclose what they 
     earn on the lecture circuit.
       ``It's both the amount and doing it,'' he says. ``I say the 
     pay's too much and we want to make sure the fee is disclosed. 
     The average worker in my state gets about $21,000 a year. 
     Imagine what he or she thinks when a journalist gets that 
     much for just one speech?''
       Public disclosure, says Grassley, would curtail the 
     practice.
       Disclosure is often touted as the answer. Many journalists, 
     such as Kinsley and Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt--a 
     television pundit and Murray's predecessor as bureau chief--
     have said they will disclose their engagements and fees only 
     if their colleagues do so as well.
       Other high-priced speakers have equally little enthusiasm 
     for making the information public. ``I don't like the idea,'' 
     says ABC's Greenfield. ``I don't like telling people how much 
     I get paid.''
       But one ABC correspondent says he has no problem with 
     public scrutiny. John Stossel, a reporter on ``20/20,'' 
     voluntarily agreed to disclose some of the ``absurd'' fees 
     he's earned. Last year and through March of this year Stossel 
     raked in $160,430 for speeches--$135,280 of which was donated 
     to hospital, scholarship and conservation programs.
       ``I just think secrecy in general is a bad thing,'' says 
     Stossel, who did not object to ABC's new policy. ``We [in the 
     media] do have some power. We do have some influence. That's 
     why I've come to conclude I should disclose, so people can 
     judge whether I can be bought.''
       (Stossel didn't always embrace this notion so 
     enthusiastically. Last year he told AJR he had received 
     between $2,000 and $10,000 for a luncheon speech, but 
     wouldn't be more precise.)
       Brian Lamb, founder and chairman of C-SPAN, has a simpler 
     solution, one that also has been adopted by ABC's Peter 
     Jennings, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Dan Rather and Connie 
     Chung. They speak, but not for money.
       ``I never have done it,'' Lamb says. ``It sends out one of 
     those messages that's been sent out of this town for the last 
     20 years: Everybody does everything for money. When I go out 
     to speak to somebody I want to have the freedom to say 
     exactly what I think. I don't want to have people suspect 
     that I'm here because I'm being paid for it.''
       On February 20, according to the printed program, Philip 
     Morris executives from around the world would have a chance 
     to listen to Cokie and Steve Roberts at 7 a.m. while enjoying 
     a continental breakfast. ``Change in Washington: A Media 
     Perspective with Cokie and Steve Roberts,'' was the schedule 
     event at the PGA resort in Palm Beach during Philip Morris' 
     three-day invitational golf tournament.
       A reporter who sent the program to AJR thought it odd that 
     Cokie Roberts would speak for Philip Morris in light of the 
     network's new policy. Even more surprising, he thought, was 
     that she would speak to a company that's suing ABC for libel 
     over a ``Day One'' segment that alleged Philip Morris adds 
     nicotine to cigarettes to keep smokers addicted. The case is 
     scheduled to go to trial in September.
       At the last minute, Cokie Roberts was a no-show, says one 
     of the organizers. ``Cokie was sick or something'' says Nancy 
     Schaub of Event Links, which put on the golf tournament for 
     Philip Morris. ``Only Steve Roberts came.''
       Cokie Roberts won't talk to AJR about why she changed her 
     plans. Perhaps she got Dick Wald's message.
       ``Of course, it's tempting and it's nice,'' Wald says of 
     hefty honoraria. ``Of course, they [ABC correspondents] have 
     rights as private citizens. It's not an easy road to go down. 
     But there are some things you just shouldn't do and that's 
     one of them.''
                                                                    ____


          [From the Columbia Journalism Review, May-June 1995]

   Where the Sun Doesn't Shine--Financial Disclosure for Journalists 
                              Doesn't Fly

                           (By Jamie Stiehm)

       Journalists don't like to politick on their own behalf; 
     they'd much rather cover politics as a spectator sport. But 
     every so often a few souls in Washington are asked--if not 
     told--by their bureau chiefs to run for the prestigious 
     Standing Committee of Correspondents in one of the 
     congressional press galleries. In the case of the daily 
     newspaper gallery, this is an inner circle, democratically 
     elected, that makes important logistical decisions affecting 
     coverage of both Congress and the national political 
     conventions. Hence the tendency of the bigger newspapers and 
     wire services to exercise their clout to get their people in 
     there.
       So this year, chances are that if he had kept quiet, John 
     Harwood of the Wall Street Journal, the only candidate from 
     one of the ``Big Four'' national newspapers, would have won. 
     But instead, Harwood chose to ignite a controversial issue 
     that has divided the journalistic community ever since Ken 
     Auletta's September 12 New Yorker article made it the talk of 
     the town: whether journalists should disclose to their peers 
     and the public their ``outside income''--that is, income 
     earned from speeches and sources other than their day jobs.
       ``I think it's time we do a better job of disclosing the 
     sort of potential conflicts we so often expose in the case of 
     public officials,'' Harwood wrote to 2,000 colleagues in a 
     campaign letter. In an interview, he adds, ``Given the impact 
     the media have on public policy discussions, we should be 
     willing to subject ourselves to more scrutiny.''
       This philosophy did not play too well with the masses. As 
     they paid campaign calls around town, Harwood and the 
     Journal's Washington bureau chief, Alan Murray, could hardly 
     help noticing that the disclosure proposal did not excite 
     enthusiasm. ``I was surprised,'' Murray states flatly, ``to 
     find out so many of my colleagues oppose the right thing to 
     do.''
       Yet only a handful of daily gallery members, the so-called 
     celebrity journalists who make substantial money from 
     speaking engagements, would likely have serious outside 
     income to disclose. (Harwood himself says that he earned only 
     $300 last year from an outside source, for a speech he gave 
     to the World Affairs Council.) The vast majority of the 
     gallery members are beat reporters who might reasonably 
     resent what some see as an invasion of privacy. ``What 
     business of the gallery is it what my income is?'' says 
     Stephen Green, of Copley News Service, who also ran and lost. 
     ``People who are paying your salary should decide whether you 
     have a conflict or not.'' Alan Fram of The Associated Press, 
     the big winner, opposed disclosure partly on the ground that 
     reporters are private citizens, not public officials.
       Fram and Green see ``philosophical perils,'' as Green put 
     it, in ``licensing'' reporters by requiring them to reveal 
     certain facts and activities. ``That opens up a door we don't 
     want to walk through,'' says Fram. ``What's the next step? 
     Voting registration?''
       Of the three press galleries that accredit reporters on 
     Capitol Hill--the daily, periodical, and radio-TV galleries--
     only the periodical press gallery requires members to list 
     all sources of earned income. This rule has always applied to 
     the periodical gallery, largely because it receives more 
     applications from people who might be moonlighting as trade 
     association lobbyists, government consultants, or corporate 
     newsletter writers.
       Harwood argues that he only wants the daily gallery to do 
     what the periodical gallery already does: put the sources, 
     not the amounts, of outside income on record for any other 
     gallery member to look up. He would go one step further, 
     however, and make records available to the general public, 
     not just journalistic peers: ``Put the judgment out there.''
       Would writing these things down prevent anything impure 
     from taking place? Maybe: environmental lawyers, for example, 
     have found that the most effective laws are the ``sunshine'' 
     statutes that made certain polluting practices less common 
     simply by requiring companies to report them.
       Anyway, the results are in. Out of a field of five, Harwood 
     lost narrowly to the three winners: Fram of AP, Sue Kirchhoff 
     of Reuters, and Bill Welch of USA Today, none of whom share 
     his views. Is financial disclosure for journalists an idea 
     whose time has come? If Harwood's loss is a good sounding of 
     the current state of journalistic opinion, the answer is: not 
     yet.
                                                                    ____


             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 17, 1995]

   Media Morality: Journalists Who Play Loose With Rules Compromise 
                              Credibility

       Lots of people hate journalists, and who can blame them?
       We can be sanctimonious scolds and know-it-all nags.
       We're full of unsolicited advice for every politician, 
     police chief, pro athlete and parent, but when somebody turns 
     the spotlight on our own behavior, we can react like Richard 
     Nixon in bunker mode.
       We expect leaders of government and private industry to 
     live by rules that we sometimes don't apply to ourselves. We 
     also expect those same leaders to drop what they're doing and 
     talk to us whenever we have questions--often embarrassing 
     ones--for them. But nobody is more defensive or evasive than 
     a journalist who finds herself on the wrong end of the 
     microphone.
       Example: ABC News talking head Cokie Roberts recently 
     caught some well-deserved grief for her outrageous speaking 
     fees (such as $35,000 for a quick performance in Fort 
     Lauderdale earlier this year). She became so annoyed with 
     questions about her lucrative sideline that she quit talking 
     to the press about the subject. If Roberts were a politician, 
     she'd be badgered to a frazzle if she tried to get away with 
     such arrogance, but some big-time journalists go easy on 
     their peers.
       In recent weeks, though, the extravagant speaking fees 
     pulled down by such celebrity pundits as Roberts, David 
     Brinkley, Michael Kinsley and William Safire have finally 
     penetrated the public's consciousness. As a result, the 
     skittish bosses of some of the new punditocracy have been re-
     examining their rules.
       Roberts' boss at ABC handed down a new policy that 
     prohibits his staff from accepting a speaking fee from ``any 
     group which you cover or might reasonably expect to cover'' 
     in the future. If journalists could accurately predict what 
     next week's news is going to be, that rule might make some 
     sense. In real 

[[Page H 13135]]
     life, the rule has done little to curb ABC's speakers-for-hire.
       The simpler and more honest rule was the one set down by 
     James Gaines, managing editor of Time: ``To be sure that 
     everyone knows our policy on accepting fees and/or expenses 
     for outside speaking engagements . . . I want to make it 
     perfectly clear: The policy is that you may not do it.''
       This issue is not about forcing Cokie Roberts to get by on 
     the sad little salary that ABC pays her for what is supposed 
     to be her real job. Instead, it is about preserving the most 
     important commodity that she has to offer: credibility.
       When you're willing to rent yourself out for $35,000 a 
     night--and worse yet, when you're unwilling to reveal the 
     identities of the customers who have rented you--how can you 
     expect your audience to have any faith in the integrity of 
     your work?
       That's not the only way in which the new punditocracy 
     cashes in while compromising its credibility. Another 
     example; Roberts' ABC colleague, George Will, is similarly 
     mum about the various conflicts of interests that he and his 
     lobbyist wife have created for themselves.
       When Will writes about the businesses and foreign 
     governments his wife has been paid to represent, he doesn't 
     bother to disclose the connection to his readers. He also 
     didn't let readers in on the depth of his chummy connections 
     with the Reagans and their underlings during their years in 
     power.
       This isn't a partisan issue. How are we supposed to trust 
     the objectivity of the celebrity journalists who have spent 
     past Renaissance weekends palling around with Bill and 
     Hillary Clinton at an exclusive South Carolina retreat?
       This also isn't an issue limited to a handful of media fat 
     cats. many journalists have to worry about the potential for 
     similar conflict on a smaller scale.
       Only a very few of us have to worry about the morality of 
     huge speaking fees. Most of us are underpaid by the standards 
     of other professions and seldom get more than a chicken 
     dinner at the Kiwanis Club for our oratorical efforts.
       Even then, we're supposed to get an editor's approval 
     before agreeing to make such an appearance. Still, we humble 
     journalists who never get invited on Crossfire can be self-
     indulgent other ways:
       A few familiar TV faces such as Roberts and Will get all 
     the attention, but there is a glut of lazy, overcautious 
     Washington journalists who cut a symbiotic deal with the 
     city's public officials in which they agree to pretend to 
     take each other seriously.
       I once watched a Washington reporter spend two entire 
     workdays planning a dinner party--and he considered it real 
     work--because the party would give him a chance to 
     ``network'' with administration functionaries.
       We can be almost cavalier about ``downsizing'' at dozens of 
     Fortune 500 corporations, but when a newspaper folds, or when 
     the bloated Los Angeles Times lays off some newsroom 
     employees, we treat it like a national disaster. And we may 
     yawn when truckers or textile workers are involved in an 
     extended strike or lockout, but when members of Detroit's 
     newspaper guild find themselves on the picket lines, we can 
     get downright weepy.
       We trumpet our Pulitizers and the other prizes of our 
     industry, but we tend to relegate the major awards in other 
     professions to the back pages and tiny print--assuming 
     they're deemed worthy publishing at all.
       And more and more ``journalists'' are making a career out 
     of talking and writing about themselves; their kids, their 
     parents, their hobbies and illnesses and psychic complaints. 
     Journalism used to be about reporting on the lives of other 
     people, but that can take a lot of time and trouble. And 
     besides, our own lives are so fascinating.
       Despite this creed, most of the journalists I know are 
     honest and work pretty hard, and their egos are no more 
     insufferable than the average lawyer's, insurance agent's. 
     And journalism offers more creative satisfaction and 
     redeeming social value than most other professions when it's 
     done right. * * *

  Mr. Chairman, disclosure is only a solution to this problem, and I 
would never suggest that members of the press be prohibited from 
earning outside income. On the contrary, I want to suggest that the 
public deserves the right to know which members of the press special-
interest lobbies have paid money to. Lobbies are required to disclose 
which Members of Congress they have financial ties to, and they should 
be required to disclose which members of the press they have paid 
honoraria to.
  Please do not misunderstand, I am not suggesting that organizations 
such as the Kiwanis or the Lion's Club should have to disclose any 
honoraria that it pays to a member of the media. My amendment makes 
clear that only registered lobbyists are required to disclose any 
honoraria that it makes available to a member of the media.
  Further, I do not expect that my amendment will place an onerous 
burden on the lobby community. The disclosure of all honoraria to 
members of the media will be incorporated into a report that lobbyist 
will already be required to submit to the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.
  As for the Senate, that Chamber has already made clear its intentions 
toward this matter. This summer the Senate passed Senate Resolution 
162, recommending that each accredited member of the Senate Press 
Gallery file an annual public report with the Secretary of the Senate 
disclosing the member's primary employer and any additional sources and 
amounts of earned outside income. Well, I am not suggesting that our 
Chamber enact similar provisions tomorrow, but that we once again 
reinforce to the public that they are correct--they do have the right 
to know if there is even the slightest hint of impropriety--whether it 
be in the halls of Congress or in the newspaper article in their hand.
  This is lobbying reform, my colleagues. This amendment strengthens 
the bill, and I ask for bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this evening I have spoken in opposition to a number of 
amendments on the grounds that I believe that the amendments would 
interfere with our success in passing meaningful lobbyist disclosure 
reform. Some of those amendments are amendments that I would support. I 
have to say that this is an amendment about which I have some serious 
doubts. I believe that there are serious first amendment issues that 
are raised by this amendment, and I respect my colleague, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Weller], and I understand his motivation to address 
this, some abuses that may have occurred, in a responsible way, however 
I have a question about where would we stop if we require this sort of 
disclosure with respect to activities of people in the media? What 
would be the next sort of disclosure that we would require? Are we 
going to get involved in a process of policing the media to make 
certain who is influencing the media and who is not influencing the 
media?
  Mr. Chairman, I think that leads us down a path that is fraught with 
problems and could lead to a threat to the freedom of the press in this 
country.
  Now I tell my colleagues the truth. I do no like a lot of what the 
press has to say. I think the media is biased in many respects. But we 
have a Constitution in this country, and we have protected the freedom 
of the press that is inconvenient at times. It is inconvenient to those 
of us who are in public office when we feel that we have been unfairly 
attacked. But that is the system of government that our Founders gave 
us, and I believe that on balance that is a very good system, and I 
would much rather have a free press that is free from time to time to 
be irresponsible, that is free all the time to be biased, than to have 
a press that is policed by people sitting in a Chamber such as this, 
and I am opposed to any effort that would start us down that road.
  Now I am also puzzled by this amendment. In some ways it is extremely 
underinclusive in dealing with the issue that it apparently attempts to 
address.

                              {time}  2310

  The fact of the matter is that people who work for newspapers and 
other media outlets are employed by persons and corporations that 
themselves lobby the Congress and have significant interests before the 
Congress. The people that are paying their salaries have interests in 
matters here, and many media outlets have lobbyists or hire lobbyists 
that come before the Congress. So to focus simply on this issue of 
honoraria given to Members of the press by people who lobby, by 
registered lobbyists, I do not think addresses the issue that even the 
gentleman would purport to address.
  However, if it did address it, I would still have the concerns that I 
expressed about the implications that this has for first amendment 
rights. Again, I understand the gentleman's motivation. I believe that 
he is motivated with pure motives, but I do not believe that this is 
the sort of step we should take.
  Furthermore, I will guarantee you that this is the sort of amendment 
that would have a great potential for derailing this bill. I believe 
that it is the sort 

[[Page H 13136]]
of baggage that would virtually guarantee an extended battle over this 
in a conference committee, and also provoke a Presidential veto of the 
bill.
  This is not an amendment that we need on this bill. I think that if 
there is any need to look at this issue, it should be looked at in the 
committee process, and as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, with responsibility for issues related to the first 
amendment, I would be happy to work with the gentleman and look at his 
concerns, but I believe we need to reject this amendment.
  I believe that if we adopted the amendment, we would not only act to 
impede our progress on this critical issue of lobbying disclosure 
reform, but we would start moving down a road that could lead to some 
serious infringements of first amendment rights in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee has done a very good 
job of pointing out the substantive problems with this amendment. Let 
me just add a little bit to his analysis.
  Mr. Chairman, we do regulate the relationship lobbyists have to us. 
In the Senate, they are seeking to regulate the relationship that 
journalists have to the Senate through getting a credential. This, 
unfortunately, goes, I think, a step too far in regulation, because it 
regulates the relationships of two wholly private entities to each 
other. That is, the gentleman said, should there not be as much 
accountability on the press as on us? No, not as much because they are 
private. I would like to be able to make changes there, and I reject 
those in the press who argue that there should not be any scrutiny of 
them, et cetera. But there cannot be an equivalent in the way we deal 
with them officially.
  Yes, we have a right to require lobbyists to report on what they do 
with us. The Senate has a right, I believe, to require some disclosure 
on their journalists who get credentials, although you may agree or 
disagree with the substance. However, this amendment is one in which 
lobbyists and the press are being regulated. Let us be very explicit, 
that compulsory disclosure is, of course, a form of regulation. We had 
the Burton amendment today. It did not pass but it got a lot of votes. 
What the gentleman from Indiana said was the best way to regulate this 
is to require disclosure.
  We do not have as a Government entity the right, in my judgment, to 
go to two purely private entities and say, ``You must tell us what you 
are paying that one.'' I would say, particularly to my friends on the 
other side who are advocates of more limited government, this would be 
a very significant expansion of Government regulatory power, to say 
that we will require the public disclosure of what A pays to B, when 
neither one of them is in that transaction directly affecting the 
Government.
  Would I like to know it? Sure. I think it would be embarrassing to 
many journalists if we got that information, and embarrassing 
journalists is one of my favorite things to do. I like to embarrass 
journalists. But I do think that we have to abide by the Constitution, 
and having a Federal regulatory scheme imposed on the relationships of 
lobbyists who are in the private sector and journalists in the private 
sector and their private interrelationship does, in my judgment, 
transgress the first amendment. Therefore, I think this would be a 
mistake, in addition to the other reasons.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues make reference to the first amendment 
rights of members of the media. This amendment respects those rights.
  To the contrary, this amendment provides to those Members of the 
media that do not accept honoraria, and of course, an endorsement of 
the fact that there be an objective in their not receiving fees.
  The fact is this amendment places the burden of disclosure not on the 
reporter but on the lobbying community, not the press. The public has a 
right to know if a reporter is receiving a $30,000 fee, speaking fee, 
from a lobbying organization, a registered lobbyist, and then does a 
story, reporting on that very issue important to special interest that 
the lobbyist represents, the public has the right to know.

                              {time}  2320

  This is simply disclosure. No one is stopping that reporter from 
collecting that speaking fee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts has a very 
keen mind and I think raises a good point. I am a lawyer, and I do not 
claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I do believe that the purpose 
of the amendment fits well within what we are trying to do here in 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to open up the political process so that 
people can understand how it works, who is involved, and exactly where 
everyone is coming from. I do believe that it is lawful to regulate 
lobbying activities in regard to how this body operates. I believe it 
is an appropriate thing to have lobbyists disclose many facets of their 
business enterprise, because their efforts are to affect public policy. 
They have registered. They have set themselves apart as their business, 
and as their business affects the Nation's business, I think we need to 
know.
  Now, we have come to a time to where the media has taken a very, I 
think, clear and appropriate role in our society in the political 
process, but I do not believe that their outside activities, who they 
associate with in terms of lobbying groups, is beyond disclosing as far 
as the lobbyists themselves.
  If journalists are going to cover the political process and are going 
to become a quasi-public figures, I know at least many of these people 
are, they probably do not meet the legal definition of a public figure, 
I think people in this country would appreciate as much knowledge they 
could gain about how laws are made and about how the political process 
is reported.
  Unfortunately, every American does not have the ability to hire a 
lobbyist to come up here and represent their interest in Washington. 
Many times, the only way to judge the political process and who is 
telling the truth and who is not and how effective it is is by picking 
up a newspaper and turning on the television and listening to the 
media.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is violating anyone's first 
amendment rights for a lobbyist, whose only role is to affect the 
political process, to tell us exactly who they are paying and where 
their money goes in terms of the public policy debate. Certainly, part 
of the public policy debate is the information we receive through the 
media, whether it be in print or the airwaves, and that helps the 
American public better understand the political process and who is 
involved and what bias may or may not exist.
  That is the role of the lobbyist, to come up and affect the 
legislation and if at the same time they are giving away money to 
groups that cover the political process, they do not tell the groups 
what to say or how to say it, but it does give the public information 
that I think is very vital to judge how effective the process is and 
exactly who to believe and who not to believe. No one is hurt here. No 
one is being affected by doing their job effectively. All we want to 
know is where money goes in the public policy debate.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina has helped clarify 
this issue. There are people in this society, obnoxious, irresponsible, 
biased people, who have a right to tell us, ``None of your business.''
  No, we do not have a right legally to compel two purely private 
actors to tell us how much money is changing hands between them when no 
statute is being violated and it is not a question of fraud or bribery. 
I am surprised that the gentleman does not see that distinction.
  Would the public like to know? Of course they would. The public would 


[[Page H 13137]]
like to know a lot. Some of what the public would like to know is very 
important. Some of what the public would like to know bothers me, and I 
think Bill Bennett was right to talk about some of the trash TV.
  But the fact that people would like to know what other people have a 
right to keep private does not justify legislating it. The gentleman 
from South Carolina said, one of the gentlemen said, this is going to 
protect the first amendment rights, maybe it was the gentleman from 
Illinois, of those reporters who do not take honoraria because it will 
show how they are being objective.

  Mr. Chairman, it is not the business of the government of the United 
States to stamp approved or disapproved on people. To say objective or 
not objective. Verbally, can we say that as Members? Of course we can. 
But to enact a statute into law that reaches out to the purely private 
relationships of two people, organization A, that happens to be a 
lobbyist and, journalist B, and says, ``You know, we would love to know 
how much money you people are paying each other,'' and compel its 
disclosures makes a mockery of the notion of limited government and of 
privacy rights.
  The fact is, having a Constitution, having limited government, means 
exactly that we do not find out things we would like to know. We do not 
need a Constitution to protect information that nobody cares about. We 
do not need a Constitution to protect the privacy of people in whom no 
one is interested. We need a Constitution to limit government, and the 
notion, the argument, ``Well, the media has gotten too big for its 
britches and is biased,'' yes, I will stipulate, the media is a pain in 
the place I should not say here, but that is absolutely irrelevant to 
whether or not we, by law, say, ``You must tell us these things.''
  It is not simply a first amendment right not to be thrown in prison 
or beaten or have your property confiscated. There is a right to say to 
the government, ``None of your business. I do not want to tell you. You 
do not have a right to know. You do not have a right to use the law to 
find out this information.''
  So, on this amendment, I hope we will vote it down, not simply 
because it is going to weight down this bill, but because it really is 
yielding to a temptation that we should not yield to. The gentleman 
talked about Sisyphus. Let me talk about Tantalus. Let us remember 
Tantalus was tied to the table and he could not reach the goodies.
  Constitution ties us down. We are Tantalus. The goodies is all this 
dirt on the press we would love to have, but the Constitution is what 
ties us down and I do not think we want to try to loosen those bonds.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the disclosure bill before us 
tonight is a great reform. And to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] and to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and those 
who are here tonight working to move this reform forward, the 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are joining together to make sure 
this bill does pass.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] has brought forward an 
amendment he believes will be an additional reform, and I have to tell 
my colleagues that the gentleman has been someone that as a freshman 
has been a reformer. He has supported the gift ban. He has worked to 
make sure the congressional staffs have been reduced and the cost of 
this institution has been reduced by $150 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is part and parcel of that entire effort, that is 
making sure we reform Congress. Here we are talking about an amendment 
which is common sense. It talks about the public's right to know when 
journalists are receiving honoraria from special interest groups and 
what effect that has on the objectivity of their position and what they 
print.
  The journalist's acceptance of honoraria could influence the type of 
information he or she may include in their report, or exclude. We only 
have to look at the Senate where they have made their intentions clear. 
The Weller amendment is consistent with the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution, which in fact would call for the annual reporting and 
disclosing of the member's primary employer and any additional sources 
of income.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe what has been said before must be 
underscored. This amendment only places the burden of disclosure on the 
lobbying community and not on the press. I ask for support of the 
Weller amendment.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 4 minutes 
remaining and has the right to close.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to start by thanking you 
for your fine delegation of responsibilities here. You have been an 
outstanding acting chairman.
  To weigh in on this issue, I consider this a very mischievous 
amendment because candidly I do not think it will accomplish what the 
gentleman wants, but I think if it were to be adopted, it would put in 
serious jeopardy passage of this lobby disclosure bill.
  Again, I want to point out to the Members here and for the record 
that the last time we had any lobby disclosure bill was in 1946. In the 
early 1950's, the Supreme Court basically gutted that. There was report 
language brought forward by the committee that points out that those 
who are listed in the Washington representatives listings of the 13,500 
individuals and organizations, 10,000 of them did not register as 
lobbyists.
  The individual who is offering this amendment, I know, is doing it in 
good faith. I am fed up with hearing Sam Donaldson go after honoraria 
when we know he accepts so much of it. And if he thinks it affects 
Members of Congress, of course, it does not affect him. I mean, the 
same logic should apply to him. I think of him and others, I would love 
to know how much they are paid.
  But it says in this amendment only lobbyists have to disclose. Well, 
that is a simple wrap to beat. You just simply have someone other than 
a lobbyist paid that honoraria.
  If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] was aware of how hard we 
have worked to get this on the floor and maybe was aware of how hard it 
has been to even get our own Republican leadership to schedule debate 
on this bill and if the gentleman were aware of the attempts to find 
any amendment to this bill so that it would, in fact, be sent back to 
the Senate, he might be more sympathetic to why we are finding it so 
difficult to accept this kind of amendment.
  It is true, and I have to agree with the gentleman, 435 Members 
ultimately have to decide whether this bill gets amended and ultimately 
killed in the Senate. But I just would try to encourage Members and 
particularly Mr. Weller, on this amendment, that this deserves a 
hearing. This deserves to have the kind of report language that the 
bill we have before us has, that documents the need and shows how it 
would in fact be effective or not effective, that documents that it 
would be, in fact, constitutional, that documents that it would achieve 
the results that the gentleman desires.
  On the basis of the motion, I, too, would like to know what media is 
paid what, but I do not think this amendment does it. I think it places 
in serious jeopardy passage of this bill in the Senate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] has 3\1/2\ 
half minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because I know the 
hour is late. I simply want to rise and commend the gentleman from 
Illinois, my good friend, Mr. Weller. I think he has shown great 
courage and leadership in bringing this amendment to the attention of 
his colleagues and to the attention of the American people.
  With all due respect to Mr. Weller, I doubt that this amendment can 
be passed, but that does not mean that it is a bad thing or it is not 
something that we should discuss. I think it is very limited in scope. 

[[Page H 13138]]

  I personally do not think that it violates freedom of press or the 
first amendment to the slightest degree. It does not regulate in any 
manner what someone can write or say, but I would approach this from a 
little different angle. I would say tonight that any respectable, any 
ethical journalist would voluntarily comply with this amendment. But so 
many journalists are quick to criticize but very slow to lead by 
example.
  The best example I know of this was a few years ago, some of us may 
remember, the Capitol Hill Press Club, their officers voted to require 
their membership to follow the same disclosure requirements that we as 
Members of Congress were required to follow. Their membership rose up 
in arms and by an 80 percent margin voted to impeach their leadership.
  There is a real double standard around here, and it is really time 
for it to end. Efforts like those of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Weller] will help bring that to an end.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the comments of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], there were a number of us that 
worked very hard to make sure that this bill came to law. I think a lot 
of us certainly voiced our concern and priority for bringing these 
bills to a vote quickly so that the Congress could address them.
  A lot of good ideas are being discussed and a lot of good Members 
have worked hard on lobbying reform. This proposal actually improves 
the bill. Frankly, it is pretty much a common sense question, Mr. 
Chairman. Does anyone believe that the public does not have the right 
to know who is on the payroll of special interests, particularly a 
registered lobbyist? I believe they do, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment respects the first amendment. Reporters can still be 
on the speaking circuit. Reporters can still collect speaking fees, 
some small, some as large as $30,000 or $40,000. And under this 
amendment, they are not required to disclose that publicly.
  The burden is registered lobbyists who disclose the honoraria they 
pay to members of the media. I think that if a reporter receives a 
speaker fee and then writes a story or does a story and covers an issue 
impacting the very issue that is so important to that particular 
lobbyist, the public has a right to know. This amendment improves the 
bill.
  I ask for bipartisan support.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for my colleague from 
Illinois. I understand that he is doing something that he believes is 
important and is the right thing to do. But I think this is a bad 
amendment. I think this is an amendment that targets the press in a way 
that is unacceptable.
  Again, I do not approve of everything the press does. I think there 
is obvious bias there. But I think we are going down a road here that 
is not a road we want to get on. It is a road that is inconsistent with 
the values that we hold under the first amendment, and I would urge all 
the Members of the House to reject this amendment, as well as other 
amendments, which are going to interfere with passing this legislation 
and reforming lobbyist disclosure after 40 years of gridlock.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, 
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The point of order is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fox 
of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2564) to 
provide for the disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the 
Federal Government, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________