At the Fall Meeting Awards Luncheon, the Section awarded the Mary C. Lawton Award for Government Service to Neil Eisner, Assistant General Counsel at the Department of Transportation and long-time active member of the Section. The presentation of the award to him noted in particular his initiative (from organizing brown bag lunches for agency counsels involved in regulatory reform to being one of the first to experiment with negotiated rulemaking), his training of those who work for him, and his work for the Vice President's Task Force on Reinventing Government. In receiving his award, Mr. Eisner made a short speech that those present found notable in its celebration of the rewards of being a government attorney, which was especially poignant in light of Justice Scalia's paean to career government lawyers the night before at the dinner celebrating the Office of Legal Counsel. Accordingly, the News is reproducing an edited version of that speech.

I am very honored by the award you are giving me today. I also am quite lucky to be receiving it.

Like so many before and after me, I came to the government expecting to stay for only a few years. But I soon realized that it is hard to leave a job that has so many challenges and rewards and is also so much fun. I consider myself lucky to be singled out for doing a job like mine.

I've gone to Beirut to take the depositions of an Arab guerrilla and to Canada to testify before the Canadian Parliament. Delegations from places like China and Peru, New Zealand and Korea, have come to talk to me about administrative law issues.

My responsibilities range from establishing time zones to regulating commercial space transportation, from aviation security to hazardous materials, from airport landing slots to automobile safety regulation.

I have worked on projects that have resulted in the saving of thousands of lives and tens of thousands of injuries and rules that have protected the environment. The issues have involved drug and alcohol testing and air bags, transportation access for the disabled and oil spill response planning.

In working on these projects, I have had to deal with very troubling issues. I particularly remember one public hearing on our proposed rulemaking to require automatic protection in automobiles. A mother testified about how her teenage son suffered serious brain damage in an accident and how his mental capacity would be limited to that of a four-year-old. She talked about such things as what it was like to have to "potty train" him all over again and asked us to please prevent this from happening in the future by requiring automatic belts or airbags. Responding to comments like this can be quite challenging.

Listening to this anecdote you may wonder how I can describe my job as fun. But there is another side to it. In the late 1970's, in response to a request from Juneau, Alaska officials, we proposed to move Juneau from the time zone that Seattle is in to the one an hour further west. It was in the middle of a fuel crisis, and one commentator wrote us saying, essentially: "You idiots in Washington. First you tell me I have to conserve fuel. Then you move my time zone an hour west of Seattle where I do a lot of business. Now, every time I drive there, I will need to buy a lot more gasoline, because it will take me an hour longer." Responding to a comment like this can also be challenging.

Throughout all this I have been lucky to have worked for a series of outstanding Secretaries and General Counsels. They have objectively approached their responsibilities and encouraged innovative approaches, allowing me to constantly try to find better ways to do business. And they have made it possible for me to effectively participate in organizations like the ABA.

As a result, I have had the wonderful opportunity to be at the forefront of some very important initiatives ranging from the use of phase-ins or tiered approaches to ease economic burdens; to the use of regulatory negotiation; and to the creation of an internet accessible, electronic rulemaking and adjudicatory docket.

Most importantly, I have worked for a Department that has allowed career employees to play an important role in the substantive decision making. There is nothing more rewarding than to be able to offer a solution to a Secretary that overcomes a problem he or she had and allows an important safety initiative to be implemented. You know that you have played a part in saving many lives.

It seems inappropriate to be given an award for doing a job that has so many of its own rewards. But I can't begin to tell you how important this award is to me.

I came to work for the Federal government shortly after one President called people to government service by describing it as an honorable profession. But I have also served under Presidents who have belittled government employees and helped give the term "bureaucrat" a very negative connotation.

Many members of the public blame numerous ills on government employees who often have little power to affect the decision that is disliked.

And, throughout the government, we have faced shutdowns, serious cut-backs, and questions about the need for entire agencies. There may be good reasons for this, but there are many, hard-working, dedicated people who are doing their very best and are dismayed at the lack of respect they receive. Many of us fear that it will be difficult to attract good people in the future, further exacerbating the problem.

For these reasons, the award you are giving me today is special. The ABA is an important and highly-regarded organization. Your commitment and effort to recognize outstanding government service is exceptional because of the significant message it sends. There are many who are deserving of this award. I am honored that you have selected me, and I hope that all government employees appreciate that they, too, are honored by the recognition that there is excellence in the government.

The award is also important to me because it comes from a group for whom I have tremendous respect. I have marveled at the time you spend on ABA projects and at the expertise and objectivity you bring to our discussions and debates. One that comes immediately to mind is our discussion last Spring on a recommendation on the Congressional review of rules. Another that comes to mind occurred at our meeting last year in San Antonio. Peter Strauss, Ernie Gellhorn, and I spent about an hour over lunch talking about Congressional review of rules. Then we spent another half hour on the walk back. Then we stood along the Riverwalk, outside our hotel talking for another half hour when, finally, a man obviously intoxicated by our discussion, leaned over the railing above us and said the equivalent of "Get a life." In all seriousness, though, you have mad me a better attorney and to be honored by you is special.