Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, very often we have good bills that come to the floor and the chairman and the ranking members and many others have worked well to come forward with a bill that is a good bill. We have an amendment here which improves the bill, and frankly, my colleagues of the House, this is an amendment to protect Members of the House. [[Page H 13683]] We all know that there are those out there who want to set up and entrap Members of Congress and their staff. This amendment will protect Members of Congress and their staff from entrapment by our political enemies who solely want to file ethics charges for campaign purposes. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, I urge a ``yes'' vote. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is right on the mark.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the bill the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has brought forward. He is my friend. He has worked hard on this. I understand his intent. Let us make a good bill better. I believe the process works. We need to add good amendments. I also believe the American public has the right to know when those who are providing information and determining what information is shared with the American public on issues that are so important to American taxpayers that those who are the gatekeeper on information are receiving speaking fees or honoraria. Let us give the public the right to know. What this amendment does is require a registered lobbyist to disclose speaking fees and honoraria that they pay to journalists, when it was paid, how it was paid and how much, and let the public know. Otherwise, journalists can continue receiving these fees. It does not prevent them from being on the speaking circuit. It just gives the public the right to know journalists are receiving speaking fees up to $60,000.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate].

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is basically a pretty simple issue on this amendment, and that is: Do taxpayers have the right to know? Earlier this year there was a poll that was taken, and the national news media was actually held in lower esteem by the taxpayers than the Congress. I believe that the public deserves the right to know. This amendment gives the public the opportunity to know that journalists are being paid speaking fees and honoraria by special interests. The Senate has already made clear its intentions by urging members of the media to disclose it. Well, this amendment places the burden on the lobbyists when they disclose their paperwork every year. All they have to do is say what honoraria they pay to which journalists and when they pay it. It still allows journalists to collect the fees. It still allows journalists the right to go out and speak. It just gives the public the right to know. I ask for a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as one of the Republican freshmen, one of the new Members of this body, I came here with a commitment to change how Washington works. I now as a privilege of serving as a Member of the House carry a voting card, a piece of plastic with which to record my vote. For the last 26 years, Members of the House have used this card and made it the world's most expensive credit card, running up a $4.9 trillion debt. We think about our own families, when someone runs up a massive credit card debt, what that means and how it needs to be paid off. I have with me a bag full of play money, but this bag represents the $19,000 that every Illinois citizen, that very American citizen currently owes as their share of the national debt. If we had to pay off the national debt today, every American citizen would have to write a check for $19,000. It is time to change how Washington works, to balance the budget. The President has now agreed with the Congress that we should do it in 10 years. Republicans have a plan to balance the budget in 7 years by reforming welfare, strengthening Medicare and providing tax relief to working families, but the President has failed to show us his plan. Now he is going to leave the country for 6 days. All he issues is a press release saying he would like to do it in 7 years. Mr. President, I think it is time, before you leave the country for 6 days, when we need to provide a balanced budget by December 15, that you show us the specifics. Show us, Mr. President, if you do not like our plan to balance the budget, how you would do it. We need to see the fine print.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution. Frankly, as we all have to admit, this resolution is basically identical to what the House passed this past week with the votes of Republicans as well as 48 moderate and conservative Democrats who at that time were committed to balancing the budget over 7 years. As a result of an agreement which was announced yesterday, the President has now given his word that he shares our commitment to balance the budget over 7 years. As we all know, 7 years is not 8 years; 7 years is not 9 years; 7 years is not 10 years. The agreement that we are passing today is a contract that the President has made with the Congress, with the taxpayers that cannot and will not be broken. We have to remember that this contract is not a goal. It is a contract to produce a balanced budget to eliminate the deficit over 7 years. It is a contract for taxpayers to use honest numbers, not smoke and mirrors but honest numbers. This last few days, this House of Representatives and the Senate have passed a specific plan to balance the budget over 7 years. This Congress has a plan and a group of moderate and conservative Democrats have a plan. The Democratic leadership does not. And the President has yet to give us his specific plan on how he would balance the budget over 7 years. The Republican plan to balance the budget and live within our means over the next 7 years accomplishes that goal using honest numbers. So we meet criterion No. 1, which we are passing today. We also, in our balanced budget act, increase spending for Medicare and save Medicare from bankruptcy by spending over $355 billion more than we are spending today. Considering we are only spending $180 billion this year, that is a lot of money. That is a 50-percent increase in spending on Medicare over 7 years. We are reforming welfare to emphasize work and family responsibility. And we are also giving tax relief to working families. Congress has a plan. Where is the President's plan? I want to see the specifics of the President's plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today's headline in Washington Times, a major national newspaper, really says it all. It is back to work on Republican terms. Clinton accepts 7-year formula. That says a lot, ladies and gentlemen. The President has now made a commitment to the American taxpayer to balance the budget and to balance it over 7 years, using honest economic figures and honest numbers. Now that is a big concession on the President's part, and I want to thank the President. I also want to thank the constituents, the hundreds of constituents that have called my office over the last few days, and in fact their calls were 9 to 1 in favor of the Republican plan to balance the budget over 7 years. I also want to thank the 48 conservative and moderate Democrats who backed the 7-year timetable that Republicans have called for. It is reasonable, and the President now concurs, 7 years, and no longer. We Republicans have laid on the table a reasonable commonsense plan which eliminates the deficit over 7 years. Our plan eliminates the deficit over 7 years using honest numbers. We save Medicare from bankruptcy, while increasing spending on Medicare by $355 billion over this period of 7 years. That is a 50-percent increase over what we currently spend. We reform welfare to emphasize work and family and responsibility. And yes, we provide tax relief for working families. What that means for my constituents, Illinois taxpayers, is that the President has agreed to spend $1 trillion less than he originally wanted to spend, and that means that America's children, particularly our Nation's children, will get to see a better economic future. Now it is time to see the specifics of the President's plan. What is the President's plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years? Of course we do not want to see any smoke and mirrors. We want to use honest numbers. We want to see the details. Two years ago, the President and the Democrats in this body, my friends over here on the left, gave us the biggest tax hike in the history of our country. What it meant to the people of the State of Illinois was a $1,100 per capita tax hike in its first year alone, $1,100 for every man, woman, and child in the first year. The Democrats gave us higher taxes on Social Security benefits on my seniors and higher taxes on the motor fuel that my working people use to go to work. That was their proposal to eliminate the deficit. Now we Republicans stood firm and every Republican opposed the Democrat tax hikes in 1993, and we continue to oppose Democratic tax hikes and want and insist on tax relief for working families. Republicans have laid on the table a plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years, contains no tax increases. In fact, it provides tax relief for working families. We reform welfare and we save Medicare. And the bottom line is by balancing the budget economists tell us that it is good for families because interest rates are coming down, lower mortgage rates, lower car loans, lower student loans. Frankly, that is what we are doing for the American people, is giving them a better future. Mr. President, it is time to show us your plan.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I stand in support of this rule, because this rule is exactly why we are here. We are here because the American people sent us to do what every American family does, and that is to live within our means and to balance the budget. Republicans and a growing number of moderate and conservative Democrats agree, it is time to balance the budget. Who stands in the way? The limousine liberals, the tax-and-spend Democrats oppose a plan to balance the budget. We have a plan to balance the budget in a responsible fashion over the next 7 years. By the way, we increase spending on Medicare by 54 percent, $355 billion over the next 7 years. We reform welfare and emphasize work; we provide tax relief to working families. Mr. Speaker, the telephone calls that I am receiving in my offices are nine-to-one in favor of balancing the budget and holding firm. Mike and Kay Shostic of Manhattan, IL, they say, hang tough. They have three kids who are counting on the Congress to balance the budget. I say to my colleagues, it is time to get the job done. Let us balance the budget; let us work together.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. Is this not why we are here? Is this not why we were sent to the Congress, to balance the budget, just like every American family? Republicans and moderate and conservative Democrats agree. Only the tax-and-spend liberals stand in the way. We have a plan to balance the budget in 7 years. We increase spending for Medicare 50 percent over the next 7 years, we reform welfare, we provide tax relief for working families, and the calls and letters that are coming in are overwhelmingly in favor of the Republican plan. My calls and my letters are 5 to 1 in favor of balancing the budget. Let me share the following: Bill Lincoln, Morris, IL, says ``There are many interest groups that will resist any changes. They speak for a select group but our decision must be based on what's best for America.'' Thirty-one employees of a shopping center, a retailer in Calumet City, River Oaks Shopping Center, point out that each of us now carries an $18,000 responsibility for the national debt and pay hundreds of dollars in additional taxes every year just to finance that interest. The people ask us to balance the budget. Let us do what our job is. We have a plan. Let us adopt it. Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from Mr. Lincoln for the Record: October 30, 1995. Hon. Jerry Weller, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Weller: I hope that Congress continues to pursue and is able to pass a balanced budget agreement. We cannot continue to take in more money each year and then increase the deficit by spending more than we take in. There are many expenses that must be investigated including foreign aid, farm subsidies, non-profit organizations, welfare etc. There are many interest groups that will resist any changes, they speak for a select group, but our decision must be based on what's best for America. I'm glad to see that Medicare reform is underway. Many seniors, including myself, recognize that something must be done. There is no way the program can support itself with the low premiums being paid into the system. There is nothing available anywhere with the coverage provided at these rates. You can't secure anything worthwhile for nothing, and those receiving the benefits can't expect someone else to pick up the tab. And that seems to be what is happening. The present Congress has or is in the process of passing much needed legislation and I hope will continue with the reform process and get things back where they belong. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. Yours truly, William P. Lincoln.

Mr. WELLER

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. 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?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.''

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. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and all the Members that have invested so much time in this lobbying reform bill, which is so important to our effort to change how Washington works. Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] who is initiating the amendment that we are considering, this freshman class was elected to change how Washington works and brings a lot of new ideas to the Congress. I think that is what is really important about why I stand in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. This amendment prohibits lobbyists from offering gifts to Members of Congress. Think about this. We adopted pretty much a comprehensive gift ban. Nothing. No gifts that Members of Congress can accept, with a few exceptions such as birthdays from personal friends and families. A very limited number of exceptions. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to think about this. There may be lobbyists out there who may want to take advantage of that rule that we have imposed to set a Member up and somehow offer a gift to a Member of Congress, so they can turn around and initiate an ethics violation against that Member of Congress for campaign purposes. What this amendment does, this amendment essentially puts the onus, the burden, on the lobbyist and prohibits them from offering the gift in the first place. There are 435 Members of this body. I recognize that the only Members of this body that had input into this bill so far are members of the Committee on the Judiciary. That does not total 435 Members, and I think it is very important that the sponsors of all the amendments being offered have the full opportunity to offer them and of course the House, the 435 Members of the House have the opportunity to vote on them. [[Page H 13118]] When the vote comes up for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I plan to vote ``aye'' because I believe this is a good idea to prohibit a lobbyist from offering a gift to a Member of Congress. Let us not allow a Member to be put in a bad situation. We made a decision not to accept gifts today. Let us make sure the lobbyists do not offer them.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today's headline really says it all: ``Clinton, No to GOP Offer To Keep the Government Open.'' Mr. Speaker, last night 48 Democrats joined Republicans, broke ranks and resisted the strong-arm tactics of the left-wing liberal Democratic leadership by voting to keep the Government operating and open, and frankly, also voting to balance the budget. That is really what this issue is all about. Are the American people going to have a balanced budget? Are the American people going to have a government that lives within its means? Calls and letters that I am receiving from the folks back home are 4 to 1 in favor of balancing the budget and supporting the Republican Congress. Kathleen Platek from Manhattan, IL: ``You're doing a great job. Hang in there to balance the budget.'' Ardele Ommem from Bradley, IL: ``Support Republican budget. Keep the Government operating. Tell Bill Clinton to go to work.'' Jacqueline Jordan from Mokena: ``Balance the budget.'' Mr. Speaker, the folks back home are watching. They want the Government to balance the budget. That is what this issue is all about.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express great sadness. America, and the world is saddened by the tragic loss of a great leader, and a man of peace. Let no enemy of the peace process take comfort in the act of a madman. Yitzhak Rabin's legacy will live on as others step in [[Page E 2145]] and carry the banner to end what he recently, and so eloquently, referred to as bloodshed and tears in the heart of the land of milk and honey. I recently had the opportunity to visit Israel for the first time, and to meet with Prime Minister Rabin. We have lost a unique and valiant man, and our prayers and heartfelt condolences go the Rabin family and the people of Israel. To the people of Israel, and all who dream of peace in the Middle East, let me just say that we in America will not forsake your cause. We cannot and must not let the sacrifice that Prime Minister Rabin, his family, and you have paid this week to be in vain. We must all re- dedicate ourselves to the long and arduous journey begun by leaders of great vision, courage, and wisdom. We must continue to work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to bring Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims, Jews, and Christians together in peace. Prime Minister Rabin is indeed a martyr to peace. But his dream lives on. Please know that we will continue to support Israel and the peace process and one day, God willing, we will celebrate with you a secure, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the well today to speak in favor of the Republican plan to allow seniors to increase their earnings without being penalized. Senior citizens made this country strong with their long and arduous labors year in and year out. They taught me and my generation how to profit from a strong work ethic. Yet, we need to stop punishing them for their desire to remain active. We need to recognize that many seniors want to work longer. We need to reward those who continue to work or operate a business. We can no longer force them to choose between an active and productive life and Social Security benefits. Under current law, seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose $1 in benefits for every dollar they earn over $11,160. This earnings test amounts to an additional 33 percent marginal tax rate. This marginal rate is on top of the taxes they already pay on their earnings. This draconian test punishes seniors who want to work beyond the age of 64. It is unconscionable that in times of shrinking fiscal resources at the Federal level, that we would punish seniors who seek to remain financially independent. With so severe an earnings limit we essentially force them to become more reliant on Government spending and congressional action. Such an unhealthy reliance undermines the self esteem of seniors and makes the governing role of Congress more difficult. Our proposal today, would raise the earning potential of seniors to $30,000 over 5 years and more immediately they can earn $15,000 beginning on January 1, 1996. This change goes a long way to providing equity to the hard working seniors of this great country and I am proud to be associated with it.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership, the gentleman from Illinois, Denny Hastert, on one of the most popular aspects of the Contract With America, raising the earnings limit for seniors.