Lowery Winds Down After 12 Years in Washington : Politics: Six-term Republican congressman has a lot to say as he reflects on his downfall and the troubles facing this country.

Bill Lowery is quietly job-hunting these days.

The six-term Republican congressman from San Diego, who brought his political career to a halt in April when he pulled out of a tough primary battle, is still tending to his legislative duties as the 102nd Congress plows through its election-year round of compromises and deal-making. But he’s also contemplating his return to private life in January.

A Pete Wilson protege, first as councilman and then as deputy mayor, Lowery has been highly visible on the San Diego political scene since the 1970s. He has used his seat on the Appropriations Committee to steer federal money to local projects, including the San Diego Trolley and the city’s sewage treatment plant.

And he has been a leader in maintaining the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling and has ensured a steady flow of federal funds to build housing for military families.

His reelection campaigns were near cakewalks--until 1990 when a strong anti-incumbent fervor struck San Diego just as Lowery was hit by reports labeling him the No. 1 recipient of savings-and-loan political campaign contributions in the 1980s.

He squeaked by with 49% of the vote and was regarded as vulnerable in ’92.

Freshman Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego), who knocked out Rep. Jim Bates from his Democratic district, was looking for more friendly Republican turf, sensed Lowery’s political weakness and challenged him in the new 51st District.

Then came the House Bank scandal. The Ethics Committee list showed Lowery with 300 overdrafts, totaling nearly $104,000.

Cunningham attacked and Lowery never mounted a strong response. In mid-April he chose to withdraw rather than drag his family through what promised to be a nasty campaign.

The following are excerpts from a recent interview with Lowery in his Capitol Hill office. Questions and answers have been edited for space and clarity.

Question: Congress is in election-year gridlock, and you’re working through your 12th year as a congressman. Is it easier or harder fighting the same legislative battles knowing that it’s your final engagement?

Answer: I was a little nostalgic (recently) on the House floor as I managed the military construction appropriations bill for the last time, but I’m ready to have a private life. I’m ready to move on after 15 years in public office.

Q: Much has been made about the House reforms brought about by the Watergate class of ‘74, but a lot of experts think that the power structure was diluted to the point that the institution has been paralyzed. Do you agree with that?

A: Yes. I think you have three problems. Two of them deal with what’s happening internally to the Congress and one deals with the institutional gridlock we have with the executive branch. The Republicans for three decades have had a virtual lock on the presidency--Jimmy Carter was an aberration. The Democrats have had a virtual lock on Congress going back, with few exceptions, about five decades. That has caused tremendous tension because of the differences in philosophies and priorities and approaches. The second problem relates to Congress and the fact that 136 subcommittee chairmen--over half of the Democratic caucus--have their own little fiefdoms. There has been a diffusion of power, to the point where it’s very, very difficult to govern. The other internal problem is the short shrift given to the minority. I’ve been able to transcend a lot of that being on Appropriations, where we are far less partisan. I don’t think I would have lasted this long if I didn’t serve on the Appropriations Committee. Look at the Rules Committee--nine Democratic members and only four Republican members, virtually a never-win situation. The deck is stacked before we even begin to discuss an issue. Unfair minority ratios on committees, coupled with the diffusion of power among the majority, has been a prescription for disaster. And you add that on top of this war that’s been going on with the executive branch, and it’s no wonder that the American public is getting frustrated, because there’s not a whole lot getting done here.

Q: If you could change three things to make the House work better, what would you do?

A: Well, after seeing the process up close for 12 years, it is essential that, if we’re going to restrain spending, that we put institutional impediments (caps) in place, with teeth. It’s not going to happen on good intentions because of the difference in priorities where the money is spent. It’s no accident that during conservative Republican presidencies, a couple of trillion dollars in debt have been added. The message from the American public is spend more money on the good programs, i.e. the ones that constituents themselves are interested in or would benefit from personally. Eliminate spending on the bad programs, i.e. the ones that they’re not particularly interested in. And, while we’re at it, gee, don’t raise my taxes. In fact, they’re probably too high now, so lower them, and, while you’re at it, balance the budget. That is the consistent message that has been coming through, certainly in the town hall meetings that I have held. So I could make the case that Congress responds logically based upon the input. More spending on what constituencies consider priority programs, but no new revenue. But you don’t balance the budget like that. A balanced-budget amendment would go a long way. Giving the executive authority for line-item veto would help. Even doing something as simple as an enhanced rescission, so that Congress does not have to go on record accepting a presidential rescission, but that the savings proposed by the President would be automatic unless Congress overruled them. Beyond that, we’ve got to stop looking at the bottom line from a quarterly statement standpoint and start projecting long term and have a tax structure that reflects where we want to be long term. We have some of the highest capital costs of any of the industrialized nations on the planet. That’s going to have to be restructured if we’re going to be quite competitive in the future.

Q: Everyone likes the idea of cutting government spending, but your job is to get as much money as you can for the district. Isn’t that contradictory?

A: Members of Congress are in an absolute schizophrenic world, I don’t care if you’re the most liberal Democrat or the most conservative Republican. And here’s the dilemma: On a macro standpoint, Congress serves as the nation’s board of directors to set policy and spending levels. I think everyone sincerely wants to try to rein that deficit in. But we have differences as to what the spending priorities are--on (Social Security) transfer payments or on advanced technologies or on national security. But, on a micro standpoint, we’re expected to bring home the bacon to our own districts. If you’ve got 435 members scrapping for their own constituencies and 100 senators doing the same, it makes it very, very difficult to rein back spending. Which is why, I believe, you’ve got to have caps with teeth.

Q: As you face the prospect of private life, are you looking forward to it so you can speak your mind?

A: The one area that I believe it is essential to come to terms with as a nation is our whole entitlement situation, and that is very tough to deal with politically.

Q: You’re talking about means testing (putting limits on Social Security benefits for wealthy retirees)?

A: I think we should means-test entitlements--absolutely. No American begrudges assisting those less fortunate. I’m very sensitive to the plight of elderly Americans, and in past years they have not been properly cared for or looked after. But you have a situation today where (some of) those over age 65 have double the net worth and double the disposable income of the entire population. For those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, by all means (they should get) full cost-of-living adjustments. (But) I’ve got a tough time justifying a transfer payment--to charge by way of Social Security FICA tax somebody who may be 23 or 24 years old, someone in the trades, a carpenter, for instance, who may be earning $24,000 or $25,000 a year, has two or three kids, is trying to put together a nest egg for a down payment on a house--why that individual should be paying more in FICA so that someone on the other end, someone who may be past age 65, may be very well off, have a few hundred thousand in CDs or receive a full cost-of-living adjustment, where’s the fairness or equity in that process? And we as a nation have got to come to grips with that.

Q: Is it possible to change that, given the demographics of the country today?

A: One of the problems with democratic governments is the pandering to large, politically vested interests, and those who consistently vote in elections and who are well-organized and cohesive exercise a great deal of clout. One-issue groups in America today have a disproportionate influence on the issues. You take the gun question, pro or con, you can take the issue of abortion. They’re important issues, but are they the absolute most important for the future health of our country? I’m not quite sure that they are. We have a situation where more and more Americans are turned off by the governmental process. We see record low voter turnouts. In municipal elections in San Diego, only about 30% turn out--that’s of those who are registered--and only half of those eligible bother to register. If it’s a 30% turnout, it means that only 15% of the eligible voters are even bothering to go to the polls, and it means that you only need only half of that to win. So about 7.5% of the electorate are making the decisions. And those vested interests that are well-organized and have their message well-honed exercise a far greater influence with the American political process.

Q: Your last election was a close one against an opponent you had beaten handily before, and in March you withdrew from the June primary. Looking back, how do you explain this falloff in popularity, and what would you do differently?

A: I guess, if I wanted to be more of a politician, I would have kept my wetted finger more to the wind, but that’s not how I’m structured. I think I would have been more careful about appearances. I have a very trusting nature. Some individuals that have contributed haven’t done anything improper by anyone’s suggestion, but the guilt by association has not been helpful.

Q: Are you referring to the S&L; contributions?

A: Some of the largest savings and loans in America have been San Diego-based. The whole total (of savings-and-loan contributions) amounted to less than 2% of my total contribution base, probably close to $3 million in the 12 years that I’ve been a member of Congress. (The S&L; crisis was) a big issue that the regulators missed, the executive branch missed, the Treasury missed, the Congress missed. There’s plenty of blame to hand out, but somehow to suggest that there’s a grand conspiracy is ridiculous.

Q: In hindsight, do you see votes, do you see positions, do you see activities that you would change?

A: There were pockets of anti-incumbent feeling in the ’90 election. Certainly, San Diego was one of those pockets. We got the anti-incumbent wave that’s sweeping the country; we got it earlier and first. We analyzed the numbers after the ’90 election to try to find why people switched. My margins were off 17% from ’88 to ’90. Incumbents in San Diego were off anywhere from 10% to about 24%. Mine was on the upper end of the falloff. Should we have been more diligent in the campaign? Probably. As you point out, we comfortably put the opposition away by better than 2-to-1 margins, and we didn’t do a whole lot differently in ’90 as we did in ’88 or ’86. But an attitudinal change has definitely taken place in the electorate. We found that about half of that 17% was traced to the anti-incumbent factor. About 20% was my pro-life position while representing a very progressive, beach-oriented community. The fact that I was a Republican was 13%--frustration with the President on the no-tax pledge, being the only federal guy on the ballot--and 10% was the budget agreement. I think 3% was S&Ls.;

Q: One of the reasons that you dropped out of the primary, if not the main reason, was the overdraft issue. A lot of people think that the issue was blown out of proportion, not just by the press, but by the way Congress handled it. Looking back, what are your thoughts about the House Bank and your involvement in it?

A: It was pretty sloppily run, and the fact that there was overdraft protection, I don’t have a problem with that. It was more a misperception of what it was all about. Clearly, it should have been handled in a far more businesslike fashion. There should have been written notices to members, there should have been interest charges. The overdraft protection should have been handled like it is at other private financial institutions--credit unions, banks, S&Ls.; So I don’t quarrel with that part, just the misperceptions about what was going on. How it really got crystallized for me was at a town council meeting at Mira Mesa, a community that I had done very well in. Mira Mesa is not your big-bucks, silk-stocking area, but it’s a very middle-class, racially diverse, ethnically diverse community. And I’ve done very well in Mira Mesa. In fact, I do better in Mira Mesa than I do in La Jolla. There were about 80 people in the audience, and all the audience wanted to talk about was checks and the House Bank. And the first question was: When am I and the other members of Congress going to give back the money to the American taxpayers for all of our bad checks? Did they believe that I and the other members had a draw on the U.S. Treasury and somehow there was an outstanding balance that had not been paid back? I asked the audience, “How many of you agree with this gentleman?” Over half. Over half. How did that happen? I went to explain that the bank had been closed since last December, that it’s been operated for over 100 years, that not a dime was lost, that it had some problems, and there should have been a better communication with members and better monthly statements. Every statement I got showed a positive balance. They were holding checks and they didn’t inform us that was the case. In my own case, a check came in a day or two before a deposit was made or before the paycheck was there. I don’t see where that is one of the seven major sins. Somewhere between the reporting (about the bank) and the reality there was a disconnect. I don’t know how there could have been that bad a misperception to what this was all about.

Q: Did you think that the way the Ethics Committee and the House as a whole handled it made it worse?

A: That’s a good question. I think there needed to be a full airing. I’m not sure if the rush to judgment was necessary, probably. I voted for full disclosure at that point.

Q: Maybe one-fourth, maybe even one-third of the House will be new members next session. Is that a good thing?

A: I hope so. Change in and of itself does not always mean improvement. I hope that the new members in Congress will be vigilant about dealing with the issues that we face. I’m not sure that there’s any greater maturity that I can ascribe to those who are challengers than to those who have been there. Certainly, there’s a discontent with the status quo, as well there should be. But I’m not sure that all incumbent office-holders contributed equally to the problem. If you displace every incumbent of both parties, and yet . . . leave the ratios in place with the Democrats having a 100-vote majority in the House, are the policies going to appreciably change? I don’t think so. I mean, when you look at voting patterns of freshman and sophomore members of the two political parties to those who are veterans, you don’t see really much difference at all.

Q: Let’s turn to California. The state is stumbling through a bad recession, there is talk of dividing into three separate states, state employees are getting IOUs instead of paychecks. Are California’s glory years behind her?

A: I certainly hope not. But major sectors of our economy are in deep trouble. We’ve received a disproportionate share of defense dollars, so we’re going to be disproportionately hit with this military build-down. That, coupled with the impact upon construction and real estate, does not bode well. And you look at what’s happening with the in-migration. A study in San Diego County showed that 97% of the new arrivals in San Diego County were foreign-born--a fair percentage of those being undocumented. The state’s got some real challenges that it has to come to grips with.

Q: How about San Diego? The tide of undocumented workers, changes in defense-related jobs, the free-trade agreement--how do you see San Diego coping with these issues over the next 10 years?

A: It’s going to be tough and require a great deal of leadership. I believe that the free-trade agreement will be very beneficial to San Diego’s economy. What we want to do is promote legal commerce and trade and crossings. That’s good for both sides of the border. That would create jobs in San Diego County. It would create jobs in the United States. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be some dislocations along the way. Certainly there will be. But, on balance, it will be very good for our economy. We want to discourage the illegal activity in smuggling or immigration or drugs. Ignoring this problem really tears down respect for lawful institutions, and we have not come to grips with the issue.

Q: There’s a common theme, not only in your remarks, but in so many commentators and political observers: this lack of political will or courage to tackle the big issues. Why can’t elected officials resolve some of these nagging problems?

A: It’s not just elected officials. I think on the (San Diego regional) airport question, we’ve come as close as what you’re going to find by way of consensus that is humanly possible in a county as diverse as San Diego, where about four-fifths of the local governments through Sandag (San Diego Assn. of Governments) designated Otay Mesa as a site. Is it ideal? No, but what realistic alternative is there within San Diego? But the problem is the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) syndrome. The opposition can be very well organized and can tie you in knots in the courts, or politically, by demanding ballot measures. And it’s not particular to San Diego, it’s true throughout communities in America. Everyone wants an airport where it’s convenient, but not too close where they are impacted by noise or traffic. And, depending upon the location, you’re offending a whole different set of constituents. That makes it very, very difficult. We’ve got to make a decision to move on.

Q: What do you think Ross Perot’s chances are in November, and who will be the next President?

A: (Laughter.) My crystal ball isn’t quite that clear. There’s a lot of time yet between now and when the American public has to make a decision. History has not been kind to American third-party candidates, even those with great stature, such as former President Theodore Roosevelt. When he challenged Taft and was not successful, he laid the groundwork for Woodrow Wilson to be elected, when Wilson, in a two-way race, probably wouldn’t have been competitive at all. Might Perot play the role of spoiler in ‘92? That’s one scenario. Will he fade, as has happened to previous third-party candidates, thinking back most recently to John Anderson in 1980? He started out in the spring and early summer with about 21% (of the vote), and by Election Day faded to less than half that and not a significant factor. The difference here is Ross Perot has a couple of billion dollars and is prepared to spend some of it. That certainly changes the equation.

Q: The unsettled electorate makes a difference, doesn’t it?

A: What’s the mood, yes, and that needs to be underscored. Back (in 1980) there was unhappiness with America’s political institutions, but Ronald Reagan was the recipient, and now what happens 12 years later, after the Reagan-Bush ticket? Does the American public want to make the decision within the traditional political structure, or are they prepared to do something more radical? My only caution is that we did that with Carter in ’76. Jimmy Carter is a very decent human being. He is a very good man, but how he was perceived as this Southern conservative was not quite what we got in foreign policy. Look at the disasters in Central America, particularly Nicaragua, and in Angola, Iran, and Afghanistan, traceable to his naivete and ineffectiveness in international policy, which we’re still paying the price for. A correction was made in the next election. But here we are, poised to maybe take another roll of the dice with someone the American public knows very little about in Mr. Perot. And he has not been forthcoming with his vision for America and how he wants to govern. How is he going to come to terms with tough issues such as government spending? So we haven’t heard much by way of programs and specifics. How is he going to deal with a Congress which will clearly not be of his party, Republican or Democrat?

Q: It sounds like you’re not sure that Perot will sustain this popularity that he has now. Are you pretty certain that Bush will be reelected?

A: If I had to handicap it today, (late in June), I’d give it slightly better than 50-50 that George Bush would be the next President. If he has another 60 days like the last 60, excepting the monumental arms control breakthrough with Boris Yeltsin, he may be at the point of no return. But it’s highly volatile.

Q: Would you encourage him to become more visible?

A: Absolutely. I think that the President needs to articulate to the American public his vision for his second term--the two or three key things that he wants to accomplish and lay those out to the American public.

Q: Have you been satisfied with the level of leadership that he has demonstrated in his first term?

A: I think the President gets outstanding marks--I don’t know how they could be any higher--in dealing with international policies. I mean, the changes that have taken place in this world that I didn’t think I would witness or that my children or grandchildren would witness, and the President has done a terrific job. Some of that’s just world conditions; the groundwork had been laid years before, but the Soviet Union liked the arms race a lot better when they were the only ones in it. But we got into it, and they found out they couldn’t compete, and it accelerated the crumbling of their own economic system. But I think that the President has handled it quite well. (And he did well with the) the Persian Gulf War, an impossible coalition first to put together and, secondly, keep coalesced.

Q: How about domestically?

A: The President needs to focus a bit more on the domestic agenda, particularly an economic policy. I think more diligence should have been given to restructuring the tax code and providing for a capital-gains differential.

Q: What are you going to be doing next January?

A: I’m talking to a lot of people in California, as well as in Washington, in government and out of government, and, at this point, I couldn’t tell you. I’m interested in talking to anyone who is interested in talking to me.

Q: Will you seek elective office again?

A: I don’t know; I want to spend more time with my family. It’s not on the immediate horizon but certainly not something that I would rule out.