[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9842-H9844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              TRIBUTE TO FORMER CONGRESSMAN JOEL PRITCHARD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has lost a man who 
should be an example to all of us, and I just wanted to spend a few 
minutes today talking about him.
  Joel Pritchard, who served in this House from 1972 to 1984, died 
earlier this month in Seattle. There was a memorial service here last 
night over in the Cannon Office Building that many of us attended. 
There was a funeral service in Seattle several weeks ago. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I will never be able to match the 
observations that were made at those two proceedings about what a 
wonderful person Joel was, but I would like to make just a few 
observations of my own.
  First of all, I think that for those of us in the House it would be 
good for us to recognize that Joel was everything that we so often are 
not. Joel was always cheerful. He was always positive. He never said an 
unkind word about anybody. Nobody could remember one in all of his long 
years here in the House of Representatives.
  Joel was the sort of person who believed that one could accomplish 
anything they wanted to accomplish if they did not care who got the 
credit. And I think those are all things that we can could stand to 
remember today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record two things: First, 
a column that appeared in the Seattle papers just a week or two after 
Joel died by Adele Ferguson that makes the comment at the end of the 
article that, ``Joel Pritchard is an argument for human cloning.''
  I think that is something that those of us who knew him would agree 
with.
  Include the following for the Record.

     A Man of His Word, Joel Pritchard Gave Politicians a Good Name

                          (By Adele Ferguson)

       Few, in my nearly 40 years of covering the doings of 
     politicians, had what I called HIGI, for honesty, 
     intelligence, guts and integrity, and Joel Pritchard was one 
     of them.
       If anybody remembers that classic television series about a 
     congressman called ``Slattery's People,'' the former Seattle 
     congressman and lieutenant governor who died of lymphoma at 
     age 72, was Slattery. He was walking integrity.
       He was also fun. He used to come charging up out of his 
     seat in the state House like a seltzer fizz, and the foam 
     just got all over everybody. Everybody liked him and 
     everybody listened to him because he only talked when he had 
     something to say. When Pritchard

[[Page H9843]]

     said something came ``slithering'' over from the Senate, 
     everybody else had to say it too, over and over again.
       It was Pritchard who told me that when he shared a house 
     with then-fellow Reps. Dan Evans, Slade Gorton and Chuck 
     Moriarty, Evans was the only one who made his bed before they 
     left each morning. He shared with me his disgust as fellow 
     legislators who, during the morning prayer, shuffled and read 
     papers on their desks instead of concentrating on the 
     message.
       Once, when rumors were hot about something the Republicans 
     were up to, I asked him about it, and he looked sad. 
     ``Adele,'' he said, ``I know exactly what you want to know, 
     but I am part of it and I am sworn to secrecy.'' When he was 
     not sworn to secrecy, however, he was candid and trusting 
     that I would not misuse his confidences. I knew a lot I 
     couldn't write.
       Pritchard had been in the Legislature for 12 years when he 
     decided it was time to move on, and he'd always said he 
     wasn't going to grow old in the office just listening to the 
     lobbyists tell him what a good guy he was.
       One of his neighbors at his summer place on Bainbridge 
     Island was U.S. Rep. Tom Pelly, who had served in Congress 
     for 18 years. Two long, Pritchard said. It was time for new 
     blood, new ideas. He never said a bad word about Pelly, who 
     survived the primary challenge, but who got the message and 
     retired the next time around, leaving the field to Pritchard.
       God and the voters willing, Pritchard said, he would limit 
     his time in Congress to 12 years, which he did, despite a 
     burgeoning tide of encouragement, including mine, to accept a 
     draft to stay on.
       In 1988, Lt. Gov. John Cherberg retired and Pritchard 
     decided to run for the open seat. He would never have 
     challenged Cherberg, who not only was a good friend but his 
     football coach at Cleveland High School.
       Pritchard told me that during World War II, when he was an 
     Army private slogging through the jungles of Bougainville, a 
     fellow soldier gasped, ``How are we ever going to get use to 
     this awful heat and being thirsty all the time?''
       ``You should have played for my high school football 
     coach,'' Pritchard gasped back. ``You would have gotten use 
     to it.'' Cherberg never let his players go to the drinking 
     fountain during practice. ``He though it was bad for you,'' 
     Pritchard said.
       He promised, on his election to succeed Cherberg, that he 
     would only serve two terms and not run for governor. He kept 
     that promise too.
       Three bouts of cancer never diminished his spirit, although 
     he was saddened by two failed marriages. He was a devoted 
     brother and father. A voracious reader, he wanted everybody 
     to enjoy reading as much as he did and spent much of his 
     spare time as a tutor.
       Joel Pritchard was one of the finest public officials and 
     human beings I ever met. Joel Pritchard made being a 
     politician respectable. Joel Pritchard is an argument for 
     human cloning.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter in the Record the last 
public writing that Joel had. It appeared less than 2 months ago in one 
of the Seattle papers. It is a subject that I think all of us could 
benefit from in this House. It is entitled ``The 10 Habits of Highly 
Effective Legislators.'' If I could take just a minute or two to point 
out a couple of things that Joel was talking about in here.
  He said that among the 10 habits of highly effective legislators was 
the fact that, No. 1, they keep their egos under control. Another thing 
that he mentioned was that highly effective legislators refuse to take 
themselves too seriously. He also said that highly effective 
legislators demonstrate their integrity by admitting their 
imperfections, and he has several other things here that I think we 
could learn from here. I will include this article as well for the 
Record.

                [From the Seattle Times, Sept. 7, 1997]

             The 10 Habits of Highly Effective Legislators

       What does it take to become an effective lawmaker? State 
     and national political veteran Joel Pritchard has seen a lot 
     of promising candidates wither on the political vine. One 
     thing he has learned: A winning campaign style does not 
     translate into legislative competence. In this era of term 
     limits, he offers 10 characteristics of successful 
     politicians--attributes voters should consider when 
     evaluating candidates.

                          (By Joel Pritchard)

       Campaign season is a good time for voters to think about 
     what it takes to be an effective office-holder as compared to 
     what it takes to be an effective political candidate.
       The requirements not only are different, they often are 
     contradictory, and they are not always obvious. In 32 years 
     of political service, I witnessed numerous state legislators 
     and members of Congress who possessed the intellectual 
     capacity and energy to be effective public officials, but 
     somehow did not develop the habits that would make them so. 
     Still, some were very accomplished at winning elections back 
     home. Others simply self-destructed in politics as well as 
     statesmanship.
       Two come immediately to mind. One was a young Washington 
     state legislator who was smart and articulate; the kind to 
     whom the media attach the word ``promising.'' But he refused 
     to acquire understanding and competence in legislative 
     practices. Instead, he developed as his primary interest 
     finding opportunities to make public criticisms of minor 
     problems at state agencies. This approach interested few 
     constituents.
       The other was a Western state congressman who wasn't 
     effective in the House because of a quiet reputation for 
     being untrustworthy. His constituents probably didn't 
     distrust his word, because they didn't see him in action, 
     close up. But his colleagues learned that they could not 
     count on him, and, believe it or not, that is still an 
     important standard in legislative chambers. In addition, this 
     individual made it his custom to encourage voters in 
     neighboring congressional districts to criticize their own 
     representatives. That may not be immoral, but it certainly is 
     foolish if you want your colleagues to cooperate with you 
     later on matters that you care about.
       Neither of these individuals is still in office.
       Two other members of Congress that I encountered--one from 
     the Southwest and the other from the Midwest--never came 
     close to fulfilling their potential. Seeking publicity and 
     constant campaigning for the next election were always more 
     important to them than legislative work.
       They chased television cameras and ingratiated themselves 
     with reporters and commentators. They were masters of 
     taxpayer-financed newsletters and the art of perpetual fund 
     raising. Their re-election efforts were successes, all right, 
     and they were returned to office again and again.
       Most of the voters in their districts probably thought that 
     the blizzard of press releases signified that their 
     congressman was one of the most powerful leaders in the 
     country.
       The reality, however, was that electoral success was their 
     only success. For one, after eight years in office, not a 
     single amendment or other piece of legislation offered by him 
     in committee or on the floor of Congress was ever adopted, 
     even though he was a member of the majority party. The other 
     was a confrontational, bombastic speaker whose instinct for 
     controversy gave him high media notice and therefore high 
     name recognition. But, again, in the halls of Congress, even 
     the members with well-fed egos (which is most, of course) 
     looked down on him as a show-boater, and he was as 
     ineffectual as the first fellow in actually getting things 
     done.
       These were people who were in office not for what they 
     could do, but for what they could appear to do. Watch out for 
     politicians with big propellers and small rudders.
       Of course, there are a few members of legislative bodies 
     whose early years are marked by ineffectiveness who change 
     for the better over time.
       I served with two members of Congress who were completely 
     undistinguished in their first years on the Hill, but 
     eventually matured. One, from the East, was noted for what a 
     colleague termed ``self-righteous grandstanding.'' Colleagues 
     don't mind if you do that back home, but they hate it when 
     you try it on them! Worse, this fellow often hinted to fellow 
     members that they all lacked his intelligence and concern. 
     Instead of admiring him more, of course, his colleagues for 
     years went out of their way to ignore him. Fortunately, he 
     was smart enough to see in time what he was doing wrong.
       The other late-bloomer, from the upper Midwest, performed 
     as a narrow-minded ideologue, someone who didn't want to be 
     bothered with the lessons of experience, because he already 
     knew what was wrong with the country and had simplistic 
     slogans to meet every situation. After about a decade of such 
     posturing, he began to realize that though he was still in 
     office, he hadn't accomplished anything. Listening to others, 
     accepting a little less than perfection (by his lights) and 
     accepting responsibility for the legislative process, he, 
     like the other case above, grew into a respected leader in 
     his party.
       In truth, such late-bloomers are unusual. Most people--
     including politicians--find it hard to change. The personal 
     behavior and political techniques that a candidate brings to 
     office normally are the ones he or she will practice once 
     there. In an age of term-limit considerations, when many fear 
     the loss of legislative bodies seasoned by experience and 
     institutional memory, discovering these artibutes in 
     candidates is more important than ever, though no easier.
       My observation is that effective legislators posses 
     characteristics that, regardless of their years in office, 
     are primarily responsible for their success. Of course, 
     office-holders need to be ambitious, intelligent and 
     committed to hard work. But they also have to have cultivated 
     good political habits.
       Here are ten of them:
       (1) They keep their egos under control.
       Put it this way: They don't let the praise of their own 
     campaign brochures go to their head. They don't abuse staff 
     members and those who assist them, nor treat career public 
     servants or their fellow legislators with condescension. In 
     fact, the code of the gentleman (or ``gentlelady'' in 
     Congress) is what it always has been: Treat everyone in a 
     friendly, collegial way.
       (2) They are able to manage and lead their staff or those 
     who are chosen to assist them, and they seek advice from 
     competent and trustworthy sources.
       The ultimate effectiveness of legislators can be partially 
     judged by whom they employ, by their willingness to seek 
     information from many sources (whether or not on

[[Page H9844]]

     his own side) and by whom they rely on for regular counsel. 
     Legislators who limit themselves to a narrow circle of 
     advisers from any part of the spectrum usually limit the 
     breadth of their knowledge and vision.
       (3) They do their legislative homework and develop 
     expertise on at least one issue.
       A legislator earns respect from his fellow lawmakers by 
     providing them with a superior understanding of certain types 
     of legislation, even if the subjects are not of greatest 
     importance to other members. Because legislators deal with so 
     many issues, each has the opportunity to become an expert. 
     It's an opportunity the showboaters pass up, but which pays 
     off at crucial times and becomes the source of mutual trust 
     and reliance in legislative bodies.
       (4) They are not obsessed with obtaining credit from the 
     media and the public for presumed legislative 
     accomplishments. Obviously, elected officials need to receive 
     some credit in order to be seen as effective back home. But 
     for that very reason, the legislator who shares credit builds 
     trust and respect among his colleagues. This kind of credit 
     in politics is like financial credit in a bank; it's there 
     when you really need it.
       Most legislators especially develop a distaste for fellow 
     members who continually seek praise when it is not deserved. 
     It may not count against them in the media, but it does count 
     against them in legislative negotiations.
       (5) They realize that changes often come in a series of 
     small steps.
       I'm talking about the art of compromise, of course. 
     Political and social principles are extremely important, but 
     of little benefit if they can't persuade people on their own. 
     Obtaining desired legislation by increments is usually more 
     realistic under the American system than it is, perhaps, in 
     systems without so many checks and balances and where laws 
     can be fundamentally changed all at once. Legislators who 
     insist on having everything their own way may look noble on 
     television, but they carry little weight with their 
     colleagues and generally get little of consequence done.
       (6) They know how to work in a bipartisan fashion on most 
     issues and respect the sincerity of those who oppose their 
     point of view.
       The effective legislator, like an effective person in any 
     field, is able to discuss issues without personal rancor, and 
     to realize that he or she may not possess the final truth in 
     all matters of public policy.
       Respect is the basis of civility. It lubricates the 
     legislative process and removes unnecessary friction.
       There's wisdom as well as kindness in this attitude of 
     humility. An honest legislator will admit that much 
     legislation, once it is implemented, may turn out to lack the 
     perfection its authors claimed for it and will have to be 
     modified or even repealed. Don't denounce your critic too 
     harshly. History may prove him right!
       (7) On issues where dramatic differences of opinion exist, 
     they are intellectually capable of understanding their 
     opponents' positions and arguments.
       This is hard to do, or at least to do well. The common 
     tendency is to parody the arguments of an opponent or put 
     words in his mouth. But even if the public cannot always see 
     it, other legislators know when a colleague is representing 
     an opponents' case fairly. When it happens, even though minds 
     may not change, attitudes are changed. An honest debater wins 
     points of respect. It adds to the credit in his bank!
       (8) They refuse to take themselves too seriously.
       Politics is a serious business, but keeping a sense of 
     humor is essential to keeping a realistic sense of 
     proportion, and that actually helps the serious business 
     proceed. For many elected officials, periodic re-election and 
     growing seniority make them imagine that they not only are 
     gaining in experience but in virtue. Arrogance and acute 
     self-centeredness hurt effectiveness. An ability to laugh at 
     yourself has the ``serious'' result that it disarms your 
     opponents!
       (9) They understand that you become more effective by 
     listening, questioning and learning, rather than just 
     talking.
       Almost all politicians, in or out of office, like to talk, 
     naturally.
       However, that does not mean that they have a lot of 
     patience for other politicians who abuse the privilege. They 
     do notice the person who studies carefully, gives evidence of 
     sincere intellectual curiosity and works hard.
       (10) They demonstrate their integrity by admitting their 
     imperfections.
       Nobody's perfect and little is more annoying than some 
     politician who pretends otherwise--especially with his 
     colleagues, who definitely know better. In fact, if you were 
     perfect, you'd be smart to hide it.
       Admitting your were wrong on an issue, not knowing the 
     answer to every question and even changing one's mind in the 
     face of facts are signs of personal security and strength, 
     not of weakness. Such occasional admissions (which obviously 
     should not be calculated) demonstrate to colleagues genuine 
     character and encourage trust. Any observer can tell you that 
     most legislators do not have all of these characteristics, 
     and I would be the first to confess that in my 24 years as a 
     legislator, not all of them were part of my own makeup.
       Effective legislators don't need to have them all, but they 
     do need to have a majority etched in their personality, and 
     usually long before their election.
       Other factors will help develop character, including 
     experience, analytical powers that improve personal judgment, 
     and the courage to stand up and be counted when the political 
     risks are high.
       Oddly, however, many of our most effective legislators have 
     great difficulty being elected to higher office. Why is this 
     so? Regrettably, just as a good ``show horse'' does not 
     necessarily result in a good ``work horse,'' the opposite is 
     also true. The very humility that makes for trust within a 
     legislative body, enabling quiet influence for good, is the 
     vulnerability a rival can exploit at campaign time. The 
     courage of one's conviction that the history books are likely 
     to praise is perceived as mere stubbornness in the eyes of an 
     offended interest group.
       That is why it is increasingly important for voters, and 
     the media that inform them, to consider the quiet, behind-
     the-scenes merits of effective legislators and other elected 
     officials. The character issue is really about the age-old 
     search for someone who would be ``good'' in office. The 
     implication is that character and effectiveness usually go 
     hand in hand. So don't just take the word of a campaign ad, 
     television sound bite, or even a news column, as to who is 
     likely to do the best job in office.
       Check with a legislator's colleagues and the people who 
     work with him or her. If we want effective people in office, 
     we need to learn how to do a better job of figuring out which 
     ones they are.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of personal 
observations about Joel Pritchard.
  When I ran for Congress, I had never run for any office before. I was 
not really all that involved in politics and I did not know Joel very 
well at the time, but I can remember when a reporter first asked me who 
I would like to be like in Congress and who was my hero, what sort of 
model would I like to follow, Joel Pritchard was the first person I 
thought of. He had that reputation throughout our State, even among 
people who did not know him.
  After I was elected, Joel took a personal interest in me and we saw a 
lot of him in our office in Washington, DC. He would come back and talk 
to me and talk to the staff. Every once in a while he would give me 
gentle advice on the right way to deal with things, and frankly he gave 
me an example of a really excellent way to conduct myself in the job 
that I have. I have the seat that he had for 12 years.
  I would like to say, Madam Speaker, in closing, that he set out a 
very admirable path for those of us who are in this business. It is a 
path that frankly will be harder for me to follow, and I think harder 
for all of us in this House to follow, now that Joel is no longer with 
us. We will miss him very much, perhaps more than we know. I just hope 
we can all be worthy of his example.

                          ____________________