Jack R. Van Der Slik. One for All and All for Illinois: Representing the Land of Lincoln in Congress. Institute for Public Affairs, Sangamon State University, Springfield, Ill., 1995. Pp. 151 with appendix, bibliography, index. $15 (paper).

Political scientist Jack R. Van Der Slik takes a look at the inner workings of the Illinois congressional delegation.

The analysis — which includes a foreword by Illinois' senior U.S. senator, Paul Simon —focuses on the state's once-a-month delegation meetings. Those meetings were organised in the early 1980s by former U.S. Sen. Alan Dixon. The Belleville Democrat was joined by the GOP's delegation leader, former Peoria Rep. Robert Michel, in setting the ground rules on what would become a bipartisan clearinghouse for the "loaves and fishes" end of state congressional politics. The members-only get-togethers, aimed at negotiating unity on such tangible issues as highways and airports, have been nearly invisible to the press and the public.

Van Der Slik interviewed current and former delegation members between February 1990 and December 1993. He and other observers believe the bipartisan cooperation will continue. Excerpts of the newly published study follow.

When Alan Dixon came to Congress in 1981 as Illinois' junior senator, there was little fanfare for him. The headlines focused on Ronald Reagan, a new kind of Republican, who was organizing his administration.

There was great excitement in the Senate, not because of Dixon's arrival, but for the first time since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration. Republicans were in control and organizing the committees. Democrats in the House had lost 43 seats, and Speaker Tip O'Neill was preparing to cope with a functional majority in the hands of the "conservative coalition" made up of Republicans and conservatives, mostly southern Democrats.

The new House Republican leader was Robert Michel from Illinois, a talented and decent man known for his ability to find consensus in budget and tax issues. After Speaker O'Neill passed over another Illinois power broker, Dan Rostenkowski, for House Democratic whip, Rostenkowski succeeded to the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the top spots for fiscal and social policy-making.

Illinois, along with other rustbelt states, was suffering stagflation in 1981; manufacturing jobs were drying up. Dixon

32/June 1995/Illinois Issues

came to the Senate favoring a tax cut and tax incentives for business investment. He supported military development and increased trade, especially to benefit agriculture. He brought to Washington 30 years of experience in Illinois public office. Twenty were spent in the legislature where he learned to wheel and deal for the projects and perquisites of governmental spending. While sometimes in the majority party and sometimes in the minority, Dixon knew how to play along with the people in power, whichever their party. His pragmatic approach to the issues quickly revealed he was as close to Illinois House Republicans as he was to the Democrats.

Early on he made it his business to bring together the entire Illinois congressional delegation for the purpose of coordinating congressional activity that would encourage economic development and bring more government and industry contracts to Illinois. Whatever would benefit jobs and capital accumulation would be fair game.

Dixon believed that the key to congressional coordination was information exchange. The delegation, by drawing on the strength of power brokers in both parties, could facilitate economic activity in the state if members clearly understood their shared interests and worked together knowledgeably to achieve them.

The political context was right for such a move. Senior senator Charles Percy was headed for public preeminence as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and did not oppose Dixon's interest in the conventional loaves and fishes of politics. In addition to senior House members with valuable committee positions, 13 in the delegation were veterans of the Illinois General Assembly where Dixon had served for 20 years. Both Democrats and Republicans had regularly worked with Dixon during a decade of his service as a statewide elected executive (as state treasurer, then secretary of state).

The bipartisan delegation

There is general agreement among members that the 70 percent to 80 percent attendance record would decline if the group were not for members only.

There also is a rule, with few exceptions, about attendance by outsiders. According to Terry Bruce, the rule evolved from many group discussions. "We got into a big flap on what is meant to have a delegation meeting. We discussed it at about four meetings, like a bunch of kids trying to figure out what the rules are. We have requests all the time from people that want to come and address the delegation."

Several members felt strongly that the usefulness of the meetings would break down if access were easily granted. Says Richard Durbin, "The biggest problems we have are demands on time. Everybody wants to meet with the Illinois delegation, and we have really kind of clamped down and said we'd only allow special meetings, other than the monthly meetings, for a few exceptional cases, the governor [Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar], the mayor of Chicago [Harold Washington and Richard M. Daley], and the major research universities. Those are the only three [exceptions] I can think of that could get in the door. Now a hundred different groups will try to bring the delegation together unsuccessfully. But those three exceptions are the only

ones where we kind of work together to show up."

Others who wish to speak to the delegation are encouraged to host their own events and invite members, but these invitational events are not referred to as "delegation meetings." ...

Typically the agenda is oriented toward projects and economic issues. Lane Evans said, "There may be some things that have spinoffs elsewhere, but it focuses on our efforts as a delegation to help Illinois business by and large." Phil Crane observed that "most of the issues that we mutually fight on behalf of are issues over allocations, say, of federal money." ... According to freshman John Cox, "The whole focus of those meetings is what is good for Illinois. ... It is not philosophical discussions. We are not debating the gag rule or a civil rights bill or anything like that. We are talking about tangible, clearly identifiable benefits to the state of Illinois: the ability of the state of Illinois to negotiate with health providers, or making sure that money goes to Argonne Lab rather than some other national laboratory. Those are the types of issues that we talk about." The issues are matters such as base closings, highway allocations, airports, Fermilab, the superconducting super collider, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Mercantile Mart, and research contracts for Illinois universities.

Both parties avoid issues that evoke partisan divisions. It would be a breach of etiquette for someone to address a partisan matter

The boundaries of the agenda are pretty clear. According to Dixon, "We tend to stay away from party-line issues. This is truly a bipartisan effort for the state, and we do not want to weaken the strength of our delegation by bringing issues into our meetings [that] would divide us rather than unite us." Says freshman Poshard, "I don't think we get into any intrinsic-type value on things. You have too many practically oriented people in that delegation, like Rostenkowski. Danny is not going to sit around and philosophize with you for an hour, you know? It's 'Here's the problems, this is the solution, this is the way to get it done, what do you think?'"

Lane Evans found the boundary at social issues. When the state changed the way it distributed food stamps, a constituent's problem led him to ask for a policy change. "I brought that up at the delegation. But food stamps is not necessarily the most popular issue among certain members of the delegation. ... Later someone told me that's just not the kind of issue to bring up at these delegation meetings. ... You don't go to the delegation for any special kind of help for that kind of social need. Basically at these meetings you go for help [for] local businesses. So I understand that, and if bringing social issues is not going to be an effective thing to do, you ought not to do it.

So I just go to the Democrats on those ... issues. And it taught me a lesson, you know. Not that Republicans are heartless, but that they are reluctant to sign on to things that might be viewed as critical either of the [former President Ronald] Reagan administration or the [former Gov. Jim] Thompson administration, or to sign on [to] things that they are reluctant to support in terms of funding in the first place. And I understand that, and it was a good learning experience."

Similarly, Republican conservative Harris Fawell was rapped by his colleagues for questioning spending by Congress. "Recently I spoke against appropriations bills in general. It was pure pork. I was told in no uncertain terms, 'We don't do that. '... In the delegation you don't talk about cuts or about the deficit problem. Talking about that would be off limits. ... If you want to get things for your district, you have to go along with the Appropriations Committee. If you object to anybody else's project in a supplemental appropriation, you are told. They threaten you. So it doesn't quite work as people think in the delegation. It doesn't quite work in a bipartisan way."

Both parties avoid issues that evoke partisan divisions. It would be considered a breach of etiquette for someone to get up and address a partisan matter, a criticism of the president, or to comment on matters such as the minimum wage. Hatch Act amendments, abortion policy or the like. Nor is there an attempt to reform Congress. The delegation does not address such issues. Even Dixon would not bring up his pet idea to propose a constitutional amendment providing line-item veto power to the president. Paul Simon would not advocate his balanced budget amendment. ...

The style of the delegation meetings

The meetings are structured — some would say unstructured — for personal interaction. A Democrat said, "You know, it is only an hour a month, and it is kind of nice because the meal, breaking bread together, brings you together. You get to know the people a little bit better. I have been doing it for eight years, so I know that Republicans don't have horns. I think it does break down barriers. It is funny. I have never felt the partisan or regional differences within our state."

A Republican said, "Everybody let their hair down there and there was no rancor. I might have hated ... [Democratic delegation member] for his positions on the floor, but I put that aside during the conversation while we discussed the problems we were trying to resolve, the issue we were trying to gain consensus on at that meeting. And everybody ... said what they thought. But they didn't talk about personalities. The undercurrent of personalities is always there, but you just leave it aside."

A Democrat adds, "In six years I have neverseen a disagreeable meeting. It just doesn't happen." *

Jack R. Van Der Slik is director of the Illinois Legislative Studies Center and professor of political studies at Sangamon State University in Springfield. He is the author of American Legislative Processes and the editor of the Almanac of Illinois Politics. Van Der Slik's current research is an examination of higher education reorganization in Illinois.

34/June 1995/Illinois Issues