SUPPORT FOR FREE SPEECH (House - May 02, 1995) [Page: H4448] (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Oklahoma City tragedy has spread some connective tissue among Americans. It has compelled us not only to recognize our fragile vulnerability, but to reaffirm our basic unity. I am bemused by the new crop of civil libertarians the crisis has awakened. They are a welcome sight, especially those who regularly vilified others who defended unpopular speech on the left and right. Talk show hosts and Members of Congress now often sound like card-carrying members of the ACLU. I hope that the new found zeal for civil liberties carrier forward when the next bill to curtail them comes to the floor, or when the militia come at us from the left instead of the right. As a young constitutional lawyer, I was put to the first amendment test when I was called on to defend racists and neo-Nazis. I really had no choice. Surely now we know that none of us do. Free speech is unequivocal, unpolitical, and indivisible. _________________________________________________________________ POLITICAL ADVOCACY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS -- HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR. (Extension of Remarks - June 30, 1995) [Page: E1389] We have already heard testimony today about the Nature Conservancy's use of Federal taxpayer dollars to crush local opposition to a nature sanctuary. This action, even if it were authorized by Congress, violates the rights of the citizens of that county in Florida. The Nature Conservancy, from what we know in this case, used at least $44,000 from the Department of Commerce to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), plus $75,000 (most likely Federal funds) from other organizations' subgrants. In the Nature Conservancy's `NOAA Performance Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 1993,' they discuss 21 items, 19 of which are clearly political advocacy under the definition I expect to outline in my proposed legislation. Items included preparing testimony for people to testify before Congress and ad campaigns. Please notice their item 17, which states that they spent money for this effort: Developed and directed plan to counter opposition's push for a county-wide referendum against the establishment of the Sanctuary. Recruited local residents to speak out against referendum at two Board of County Commissioners hearings. Organized planning conference call with members of the Center for Marine Conservation, the Wilderness Society, and the Nature Conservancy to discuss plan. Plan was successful in blocking referendum (a 3-2 vote), and generated many positive articles and editorials using many of the messages discussed in plan. They blocked a public vote on their plan. This is raw political activity. It does not deserve a subsidy from the voters who they sought to silence. The issue is not which organization was bigger, more organized, etc. I would be just as disturbed with any other group Federal grant dollars and using those dollars to crush local opposition to their members' goals. We have the right to freely associate with those who espouse principles that we endorse. The key word here is `freely.' When tax dollars are used for political advocacy , this is not, by any definition, a free speech or free association. Some opponents have a general misconception that it is unconstitutional to prevent organizations, especially non-profit organizations, from engaging in political advocacy with taxpayer dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, unconstitutional to permit recipients of federal funds from engaging in political advocacy with those dollars. In the case of Rob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court noted that, `When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions, all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or the deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious `donors'.' In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that it was unconstitutional to require teachers to contribute to a union where the dues were used to support ideological causes the teacher opposed. The court said that taxpayers should not be required, either directly or indirectly, `to contribute to the support of an ideological cause [they] may oppose.' Where recipient organizations receive both a tax exemption and government funding and then use government funds to engage in political advocacy , it is clear the government, and hence the taxpayers, are both supporting the political views advocated by the recipient organization. The Supreme Court noted several years ago in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that where governmental action `suggests an attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing the views to the people, the First Amendment is painfully offended.' Thus the right of free speech also includes the right not to speak. It includes the right not to support causes or ideologies with tax dollars. No taxpayers should be compelled to support ideological causes or political points of view with which the taxpayer disagrees. This is very important because taxes compulsory, not voluntary. Thus the federal government has a special duty to protect free speech and prevent, whenever possible, the infringement of the free speech of all taxpayers. _________________________________________________________________ POLITICAL ADVOCACY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS -- HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR. (Extension of Remarks - June 30, 1995) Rep. ISTOOK Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, please include the following remarks in the Record regarding `Political Advocacy with Taxpayer Dollars.' POLITICAL ADVOCACY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF ALL TAXPAYERS (Testimony of Representative Ernest J. Istook, Jr., June 29, 1995, before the House National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee) It is time to end taxpayer funded political advocacy ! Over 40,000 organizations receive over $39 billion in Federal grant funds directly. Preliminary examination of the problem makes it apparent that grant abuse is rampant and needs to be addressed with systemic reform. Systemic reform must not be targeted at any particular group nor any particular political philosophy but must allow the U.S. Congress to perform its fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer. That responsibility requires the Congress to track Federal Budget dollars to their usage point. I feel strongly that these Federal dollars represent the hard work of many Americans who deserve the assurance that when they are compelled to pay taxes, that these tax dollars are being used appropriately. Using tax dollars for political advocacy not only violates the principles of free speech and free association. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1977) that compulsory union dues cannot be used to fund political activity, so, too, compulsory taxes should not be used for this purpose. The legislation several of us are working on is but one step, though a major step, in stopping some of the fraud, waste and abuse that plagues the Federal Budget. The various attempts at addressing taxpayer-funded political advocacy problem have proven to be inadequate. Were this not the case the problem would not continue to be a significant problem. The IRS Code restrictions on many of the non-profit organizations and the Byrd amendment in 1990 have all proven to be inadequate. Though it is technically illegal to use taxpayer funds for lobbying, schemes have been created to circumvent the law. These include automatically sending a certain percentage of grant money to cover overhead for the lobbying arm, and subgranting funds to other organizations, in which case the audit trail ends. Sometimes the laws that exist are so vague and unenforceable that they are not satisfactory. An example of this is the lobby registration and reporting requirement for Congress. Lobbying is not defined in the law, so lobbyists only report time and expenses for time on Capitol Hill, not time spent in the office studying the issues, making phone calls to prepare for visits, etc. The Byrd amendment never defined appropriated funds, so funds are no longer considered appropriated after they've been deposited into the organization's checking account. The goal is not and never should be to restrict free speech . Instead, the goal is to avoid the use of tax dollars to subsidize the private speech of those who have political connections or who rely on taxpayers' money to advocate their political views. Upon examination of this problem, I feel the following principles must be put into law regarding the usage of Federal funds by Federal grantees: a. The term `lobbying' is too narrow to be useful for this purpose. The broader term `political advocacy ' should be used and defined under the law. This definition would extend to Federal grantees engaging in political campaigns, lobbying the legislative or executive branch agencies from the Federal to the state and local level, and engaging in efforts to influence general and specific public policy through confirmations, referendums or judicial action. b. No federal funds should be used for political advocacy . c. No grant funds should be used to provide support to other organizations who, in turn, conduct political advocacy . d. No organization that receives a federal grant should, in turn, grant those funds to others, except as provided in the authorizing law that created the organization (i.e. the Institute of Peace, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc.) Such _________________________________________________________________ POLITICAL ADVOCACY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS -- HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR. (Extension of Remarks - June 30, 1995) This position is clearly supported by the Supreme Court. On May 23, 1983, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right of the Federal government not to subsidize the lobbying activities of private, nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations. In the case of Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 51 U.S.L.W. 1588 (1983), Taxation with Representation of Washington (TWR), a nonprofit corporation organized to promote what it conceived to be the `public interest' in the area of federal taxation, applied for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS denied the application because a substantial part of the organization's activities consisted of lobbying activity. TWR sued based on First amendment and equal protection under the fifth amendment. The court rejected TWR's contention that the government may not deny their application for tax-exempt status. The Supreme Court stated: Both tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. . . . Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity but has simply not chosen to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. . . . A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe on that right and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny. It was not irrational for Congress to decide that tax-exempt organizations such as TWR should not further benefit at the expense of taxpayers at large by obtaining a further subsidy for lobbying. . . . We have held in several contexts that a legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right. . . . It is also not irrational for Congress to decide that, even though it will not subsidize substantial lobbying by charities generally, it will subsidize lobbying by veterans' organizations. . . . Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. . . . Congress--not TWR or this Court--has the authority to determine whether the advantage the public would receive from additional lobbying by charities is worth the money the public would pay to subsidize that lobbying, and other disadvantages that might accompany that lobbying.' (Regan v. TWR) 461 U.S. 540 (1983) There is no attempt in our proposed legislation to suppress or limit the First Amendment rights of recipient organizations. There is no ideological classification to apply this to some groups while exempting others. That would not be right. The same standards must apply to all organizations, regardless of their place on the political spectrum. Potential federal grantees would remain free to engage or not to engage in political advocacy as they see fit. I repeat, potential federal grantees would remain free to engage or not to engage in political advocacy as they see fit. They are simply prevented from receiving a tax-paid subsidy for their political advocacy . Our legislation also should not be compared to the anti-lobbying bill in the 103rd Congress. There is no attempt in this bill to curb or restrict grass-roots lobbying organizations. Nor is there a focus on lobbying as a whole. The touchstone, the trigger for this act, and its provisions, would specifically apply to federal grantees engaging in political advocacy , directly or indirectly, with those funds, thus violating the free association rights of U.S. taxpayers. To be sure, many individuals, organizations and businesses in this country spend some of their funds on political advocacy . This is a normal activity and should not be suppressed. After all, we live in a civil society that depends upon democratic participation in the political process. Thus, the fact that an entity engages in political advocacy should not automatically bar the receipt of federal grant money. However, government oversteps the bounds of neutrality when it begins to award grants to selected entities that have as one primary purpose the conduct of political advocacy . _________________________________________________________________ POLITICAL ADVOCACY WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS -- HON. ERNEST J. ISTOOK, JR. (Extension of Remarks - June 30, 1995) The First amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. But it does not require the government to pay you for it. After careful review, I have found that a reasonable threshold is when organizations spend 5% or more of their annual expenditures to conduct political advocacy . This provision is similar to the IRS 501(h) safe-harbor provisions of the IRS Code for non-profit organizations. This code provision prohibits a wide variety of political activity over $1,000,000 in expenditures. While the 5% threshold is seemingly small, such a percentage is, in fact, quite significant: First, in this modern information age, with cheap and high-speed means of communication, a little money can go a long way; and second, because of the fungibility of cash, each federal dollar received by a grantee frees up more private dollars for political advocacy , thereby leading to a growing amount of indirect government support for political advocacy . Provisions of the legislation we are proposing is designed to protect the First amendment rights of all Americans and, at the same time, fulfill the trust that voters in this Nation have given members of Congress. As the Supreme Court has stated, `Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. . . . Congress--not TWR or this Court--has the authority to determine whether the advantage the public would receive from additional lobbying by charities is worth the money the public would pay to subsidize that lobbying, and other disadvantages that might accompany that lobbying.' (Regan v. TWR) Congress is charged with insuring taxpayer funds are spent properly, for the public good. The legislation we are crafting has been carefully designed to keep the compliance burden as low as possible, while insuring that the rights of all Americans are protected. I invite public comment on the ideas presented in my testimony and regarding our proposed legislation. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) [Page: S10540] The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Wyoming leaves the floor, I listened carefully to the explanation of his amendment, and I wanted to commend him for what I think is an outstanding amendment, a very important contribution to the underlying legislation. I fully intend to support him and encourage this effort. I wish to thank him for his leadership in this area. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. No one has been more vitally involved in these issues than my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. And those are powerfully reliable words. I appreciate it very much. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Currently the Simpson amendment No. 1839 is pending. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is not my intention to preclude further debate on the Simpson amendment. Obviously, I join him in the hopes that it will pass and be accepted. But would the Senator be comfortable if I temporarily set it aside and move back to the Brown amendment? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the Simpson amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1838 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, are we now considering the Brown amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Brown amendment is now the pending business. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer three amendments for consideration of the body. The first one, as we have spelled out, is the reporting categories; that they are meaningful in reporting the value and, as we have already discussed, a current limitation of closing the valuation at $1 million could be very misleading. The second amendment I hope to offer is one that deals with qualified blind trusts. Currently, the statutes under which we operate provide that a recipient or beneficiary of a qualified blind trust is allowed under a qualified blind trust to be advised of the total cash value on a periodic basis. Our amendment, the second amendment we will offer, simply would make it clear that if one is advised of their total cash value, under the statutes, of a qualified blind trust, that total cash value--not the value of the assets underneath but the total cash value--is disclosed. The third amendment is one that will deal with personal residences that exceed $1 million. While there may be very few of these--at least I do not anticipate there would be very many--there is a tax implication which was passed by previous Congresses in regard to valuation of a residence. That tax rule that Members are familiar with involves financing of a personal residence in excess of $1 million and imposes limitations or, to be more precise, limits the deductibility for tax purposes. Inasmuch as that tax provision exists and raises potential conflict of interest for Members voting who might come under that provision, the third amendment would provide for the reporting of personal residences in excess of $1 million. Mr. President, as I understand it, Members are now considering the first amendment, which would expand our reporting categories, and it would be my intention to allow this to proceed under a voice vote, if that is the wish of Members of the Senate, so that we could maximize the use of our time. I yield the floor, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. [Page: S10541] Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. BROWN Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it will be my intention to lay down the other amendments that I have referred to. So I rise at this point for the purpose of offering an amendment. First, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Brown amendment be temporarily set aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1840 (Purpose: To amend title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require the disclosure of the value of any personal residence in excess of $1,000,000) Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment numbered 1840. At the appropriate place, insert the following: (a) In General.--Section 102(a) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: `(8) The category of value of any property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the spouse of the individual which exceeds $1,000,000.'. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by striking `and (5)' and inserting `(5), and (8)'. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this second amendment is quite straightforward, and it was the reason I thought it appropriate to allow it to be read in full. What it does is fill a gap in our reporting requirements. Since we have specific legislation that provides separate tax treatment if someone borrows more than $1 million on a personal residence, there is currently an issue before Congress in terms of a tax policy where the ownership of a residence in excess of $1 million in value presents a potential conflict of interest. Thus, this amendment would fill the gap in our current reporting requirements. It would allow disclosure of personal residences that are in excess of $1 million or, I should say more precisely, it provides for that disclosure and would provide information with regard to potential conflict of interest when voting on tax issues of that kind. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second Brown amendment be temporarily set aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1841 (Purpose: To amend title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require an individual filing a financial disclosure form to disclose the total cash value of the interest of the individual in a qualified blind trust) Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment numbered 1841. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place insert the following: (a) In General: Section 102(a) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: `(8) The category of the total cash value of any interest of the reporting individual in a qualified blind trust, unless the trust investment was executed prior to July 24, 1995 and precludes the beneficiary from receiving information on the total cash value of any interest in the qualified blind trust.' (b) Conforming Amendment: Section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by striking `and (5)' and inserting `(5), and (8)'. (c) Effective Date: (1) In general: Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to reports filed under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 for calendar year 1996 and thereafter. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. BROWN Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Brown amendment No. 1841 deals specifically with qualified blind trust. Under the current statutes, we provide an exception or an exemption from reporting, and it is done only in an area where a trust is involved and where it meets the standards of qualified blind trust under law. Under the statutes of a qualified blind trust, the beneficiary of that trust is allowed to receive certain information. The beneficiary is allowed to be advised of the earnings of that trust, which is obviously necessary for tax purposes, and also under the law is allowed to receive information of the total cash value of that trust and can be reported to the beneficiary as often as four times a year under the current statute. Ironically, though, we have exempted the beneficiary from disclosing that information which they are allowed to receive under the terms of the qualified blind trust. This amendment merely provides that the total cash value be reported, along with the other information in someone's disclosure. It does not require disclosure of the assets in which the trust is invested. But it does provide that the beneficiary of that trust report the information that they receive from the trust; that is, the total cash value. Mr. President, there is a specific exemption included in the third Brown amendment, that is amendment No. 1841. That exemption is this: If someone is the beneficiary of a qualified blind trust and that trust was executed prior to today and the terms of that trust precludes the beneficiary from receiving information on the total cash value, then one need not report it. So while the statute allows people to receive information on the total cash value, it is certainly possible that some Members operate or receive benefits under a trust that does not advise them of that total cash value. It would be our intention to not push those Members into a difficult bind under these circumstances and, thus, we have provided this exception; that is, if the terms of the trust do not allow the beneficiary to be advised of its total cash value, then the Member would be exempt from having to report that information; that is, it would not have to report the information that they do not have and cannot get under the terms of the qualified trust. The change, though, is this: If someone has a qualified blind trust and is advised under the terms of that trust the total cash value, then they would no longer be exempt from reporting that. It, in effect, puts Members on equal footing. It seems to me this fills a very important loophole in our current disclosure provisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside amendment No. 1841 and return to the Brown amendment No. 1838. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just briefly, I want to commend the Senator from Colorado for three excellent amendments that I think fit the spirit of the underlying legislation, and I want to commend him for presenting them. I fully intend to support them and hope the Senate will as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator the Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question on amendment No. 1841? Mr. BROWN. Sure. Mr. LEVIN. As I understand the amendment, the categories of total cash value of any interest of the reporting individual would be the same categories as are provided by law for other assets; is that correct? [Page: S10542] Mr. BROWN. That is correct. Mr. LEVIN. So if Brown amendment No. 1838 were adopted, it would be the new categories as provided in Brown amendment No. 1838 that would be applied to the blind trust situation. Mr. BROWN. That is correct. Mr. LEVIN. On Brown amendment No. 1840, the one relating to the value of a house, is it my understanding that the valuation of the home would be done in accordance with one of the various methods of valuation which are currently allowed for other assets? _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN Mr. BROWN. That is correct, in my understanding. The Senator, I know, is well versed in this and may be willing to straighten me out on this, but my understanding is you can report historic costs if you do not have a firm fix on what the current valuation is. Mr. LEVIN. My recollection is, and I am not sure I do have any greater knowledge than my friend from Colorado, but my recollection is that there are at least three methods of valuation which are allowed for real estate. You can take cost--I think there is a depreciation factor--historic valuation, there is a tax assessment valuation and there are a number of other ways, perhaps. But whatever it is that is allowed for real estate under the current requirements would be allowed when it comes to the valuation of a home under Brown amendment No. 1840; is that correct? Mr. BROWN. That is correct. I might say that it certainly would not be my intention to require in any way an annual appraisal or something like that. I think the alternatives that exist in law, at least in my view, are more than satisfactory for reasonable disclosure. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are attempting to determine whether or not there are Senators that wish to debate any of the three Brown amendments, and pending that determination, I ask that the amendments either be laid aside so that we can return to some other business, or if anybody else wishes to come to the floor to debate the bill or any of the amendments which have already been laid aside, that they do so. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, for clarification purposes, I wanted to mention for the Record what I think is an important aspect of this. Amendment No. 1841, which deals with the qualified blind trust, uses the term `total cash value.' The reason that we use that term is that it is the precise language that the current statute uses; that is, the current statutes provide that you can have a trust that qualifies as a qualified blind trust and still report to the beneficiary the total cash value. So that is the origin of that. In contacting the Ethics Committee, we sought to learn what was meant by the term `total cash value.' We are advised that they do not have an independent legal opinion on the use of that term, even though they have questions about its usage in filing. But we are also advised that they believe that it means and relates to, in effect, the value of the trust, market value of the trust, the value it would have if the trust were converted to cash on the current market. It seems to me that is a reasonable definition, and it is certainly with that understanding in mind that we have used that term; that is, to give full disclosure to what is the current value under the current market conditions of the value of that trust, those trust assets. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for an additional question which relates to line 1 on page 2. It says there, `the category of the total cash value of any interest of the reporting individual.' I want to see if my understanding is correct. Is the cash value of interest related purely to the value of the asset? And is my understanding correct that this amendment does not require the disclosure of income from that asset? Or is that already required under law? Mr. BROWN. It is my understanding that the law already requires the reporting of income accruing to the beneficiary of the trust, but in the past has not required the disclosure of the total cash value of the underlying assets. Mr. LEVIN. So whatever the current law is relative to disclosure of income from the qualified blind trust, it is not affected by this amendment? Mr. BROWN. That is correct. Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1839 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation on this floor to deal with the very topic that the Senator from Wyoming came to the floor earlier this afternoon to introduce, an amendment to the lobby reform bill that is now pending before the Senate. The issue is the Federal Advocacy Reform Act of 1995, and to be able to deal with it in the amendment form tied to this is most appropriate. For a few moments this afternoon I would like to talk briefly about the scope of this amendment and why I think it is so important for us to consider in the context of Federal lobbying. People are correctly focused on lobbyists and gifts to legislators as the Senate convenes today to debate these important topics. But I think we also need to worry about Government's gifts to lobbyists. Some of my colleagues would say, `Senator, what are you talking about?' But the Senator from Wyoming, Al Simpson, this afternoon very clearly laid out the growing phenomenon in this country of more and more Federal tax dollars going in the form of contracts and grants, and in some instances outright gifts, to advocacy groups which then allows them to use the tax base, the tax dollars of this country, to argue their maybe very narrow point of view. The question is, is this in the best interests of our country? Should we allow these kinds of things to go on? It is not a new question that we ask. Mr. President, 75 years ago Senators stood on this floor and clearly argued that Federal tax dollars should not be used for the purpose of advocacy for a narrow or single purpose. But Federal tax dollars should at least be spread for the common good and they should be cautiously used, but in all cases the common good or the broad base of the American public's interests ought to be at mind. Over the last good number of years, we have watched grow to a point now where over $70 billion annually in the form of grants go out to a broad cross-section of interests across this country, and in many instances, then, we find those tax dollars right back here on the doorstep of the U.S. Capitol, being advocacy dollars for sometimes a very narrow, specific point of view. I think it is now time for this Senate, as we debate the broader question of lobbying, to argue, is that the right thing to do? With nearly a $5 trillion debt, a $200 billion deficit, and the very real concern that this year for the first time this Congress is going to establish increasingly narrow and tighter public priorities as to where our dollars get spent, is it not time we do the same in this area and with these categories? Our associates and friends in the House are approaching it from a different point of view. Amendments will be offered before the appropriations process over there that will deal with more than the 501(c)(4) category inside the Internal Revenue Code that the Senator from Wyoming and I are discussing this afternoon. They will talk about the `not for profits' and `for profits,' the 501(c)(3)'s and all of those that fall under the broad category of section 501 of the IRS Code. But, today, our amendment is very clear and it is narrow. It says that, for those not-for-profit advocacy groups, who choose to be, for their purpose, advocating a point of view, that they should be disallowed from receiving Federal dollars. It is very straightforward and very simple in its approach. When I introduced S. 1056 last week, Senator Simpson worked with me in the cosponsorship of that, along with my colleague from Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, and Senator Coverdell, Senator Gregg, Senator Nickles, Senator Lott, Senator Kyl, Senator Grams, and Senator Faircloth, and it was only but for a few moments on Friday that I worked that issue. Obviously it is one of great concern and I think very popular, and it ought to be debated here on the floor and tied to this important legislation we are dealing with this afternoon. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. CRAIG Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a position paper developed by the Heritage Foundation be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [Page: S10543] >From the Heritage Foundation Restoring Integrity to Government: Ending Taxpayer-Subsidized Lobbying Activities To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical: Thomas Jefferson. INTRODUCTION The federal government subsidizes lobbying by tax-exempt and other organizations through grants and contracts to advocacy groups. Each year, the American taxpayers provide more than $39 billion in grants to organizations which may use the money to advance their political agendas. Federal funding of private advocacy is not limited by ideological scope. Organizations to the left and right of the political center use taxpayers' funds to promote their ideas and positions. Almost every interest in America--from agriculture to zoology--has one or more organizations receiving government funding. Recipients range from the American Association of Retired Persons, which received over $73 million in a one-year period, to the American Bar Association, which received $2.2 million. Over the past forty years, Congress has helped create a vast patronage network or organizations that enjoy tax-preferred status, receive federal funds, and engage in legislative or political advocacy . The days of big city political machines disbursing patronage may be coming to an end, but the disbursement of financial dividends to political friends is a prominent feature of the federal budget. As Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Marshall Breger has written: `Lacking the imprimatur of democratic consent, government subsidy of private advocacy can be seen for what it is--the public patronage of selected political beliefs. That these advocacy subsidies are rarely made openly but are often disguised through grants and contracts for legitimate public functions merely underscore the dangers inherent in a system of expansive government subsidy.' 1 Footnotes at the end of article. Clearly, the right to petition government to redress grievances should not be infringed. Individuals and organizations using funds from the private sector should be encouraged to engage in the legislative and political process. It is an entirely different matter, however, to employ the coercive power of the federal government to force taxpayers to finance organizations which lobby Congress or other government entities. It is every bit as unjust to force liberal taxpayers to fund organizations on the right as it is to force conservative taxpayers to finance organizations on the left. The fundamental principle is that it should be anathema to force taxpayers to underwrite advocacy with which they disagree. Taxpayer funding of advocacy organizations is wrong--fiscally, morally, and logically. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend federal revenues on activities that provide no meaningful return to the American people. It is morally wrong for the government to take sides in any public policy debate by assisting the advocacy activities of an elite few. And it is logically wrong for the government to fund activities that often result in lobbying for increased federal expenditures. The reasons are summarized aptly by George Mason University professor James T. Bennett and Loyola College professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo in their comprehensive study, Destroying Democracy. `A large number of individuals with strong views can express their preferences by contributing funds to a group that promotes that issue. With tax-funded politics , however, a small number of zealots with access to the public purse can obtain resources from government to advance its views even though few individuals in society share the group's philosophy. Whenever government funds any political advocacy group, it effectively penalizes those groups that advocate opposing public policies and provides a distinct advantage to the group or groups that it favors in the clash of ideas.' 2 _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) THE FUNDING OF FACTION The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of factions in a republic. James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 10 that `Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.' Madison defined faction as `a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some impulse of passion, or of interest, adverce to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.' What the Founding Fathers referred to as factions we now call special interests. Instead of restraining factions, however, the federal government today subsidizes them. This distorts the political process by favoring one faction over another and by nourishing a network of special interests--a welfare-industrial complex--with a direct self-interest in a growth of the welfare state. The financial cost to the taxpayer is far higher than the amount funneled to these organizations. Each one not only lobbies for its contract or grant, but also advocates for bigger, more expensive social welfare programs, further complicating efforts to put the nation's fiscal house in order. Moreover, while these organizations often claim that the money they receive helps the less fortunate, the reality is that it bolsters their own political power, perks, and prestige. The advocacy network and its leaders contribute to what author James Payne has referred to as a `culture of spending' in Washington which makes it extremely difficult to trim government programs: `Leaders of such federally dependent interest groups should not be seen as representing independent citizen opinion. They are quasi-governmental officials with a vested interest in the spending programs that benefit their organizations.' 3 Not every dollar given to an advocacy group goes directly to political advocacy activities. However, federal dollars are fungible. Every federal dollar frees private resources to be spent on political , lobbying, and other advocacy activities. Moreover, federal funds make the organization appear to be a larger force in the political arena than it would if it were totally reliant upon private contributions. For example, the National Council of Senior Citizens receives 96 percent of its funding from the federal government. The NCSC is but one of many advocacy organizations receiving federal funds. Here are just a few other examples: The AFL-CIO benefited from more than $2,000,000 between July 1993 and June 1994. According to the AFL-CIO News Online, the AFL-CIO used the Memorial Day recess to increase pressure on Members of Congress with its `Stand UP' campaign: `In those [5 targeted] districts, the AFL-CIO provided radio ads and coordinators to work with local union officials and legislative action committees. Other activity included direct mail, jobsite leafleting, phone call drives using the AFL-CIO's toll-free hotline, petition drives, town meeting attendance, and letters and columns submitted to local newspapers.' 4 Recently, the Service Employees International Union produced a newspaper advertisement opposing tax cuts and efforts in Congress to slow the growth of welfare and Medicare. SEIU claims Congress is attempting to `loot' welfare programs and `steal' from low-income home-energy assistance to help finance `corporate special interests.' The ad lamented the impact on Fannie Johnson and her family in Ohio. 5 This labor special interest benefited from $137,000 in taxpayer funding in 1993 (for an `anti-discrimination public education campaign'). Terminating it would eliminate the tax burden of nearly 30 families just like Ms. Johnson's in Ohio. Families USA--a driving force behind the Clinton big-government health care plan, including the failed last-ditch attempt to revive it last summer through a nationwide bus tour 6 --received $250,000 from the taxpayers between July 1993 and June 1994. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) The Child Welfare League of America received more than $250,000 in federal funding, then turned around and launched an ad campaign to increase welfare spending. The League ran an advertisement opposing the Contract With America's welfare reform bill which charged that `More children will be killed. More children will be raped.' 7 The National Trust for Historic Preservation received approximately $7 million from the federal government in FY 1994--22 percent of its budget. In the same year, the Trust `launched a lobbying campaign against the Disney project' in Northern Virginia. 8 In 1993, it `lobbi[ed] Congress to expand the historic rehabilitation tax credit.' 9 The group's president, Walter Mondale's former chief of staff Richard Moe, said the full credit would cost `$1.4 billion over five years.' 10 The American Nurses Association received nearly $1 million between July 1993 and June 1994 from the U.S. taxpayers. In 1994, the ANA endorsed the Gephardt health care plan and actively lobbied for it. According to the union's own press release announcing this endorsement, `The American Nurses Association is the only full-service professional organization representing the nation's 2.2 million Registered Nurses through its 53 constituent associations. ANA advances the nursing profession by . . . lobbying Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the public.' 11 The Political Finance and Lobby Reporter revealed on May 12, 1995, that two new ANA lobbyists had registered. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which received nearly $150,000 in the most recent grant reporting period, denounced the House welfare plan, saying it `will drive more families into poverty and turns its back on hardworking Americans who fall on bad times. This is the small print in their evil Contract on America.' AFSCME President Gerald McEntee went on to say that `AFSCME will continue to fight for real welfare reform that includes jobs at decent wages, child care, health care and education and training.' 12 Actually, however, government funding of advocacy organizations can hurt their cause. Well-grounded public policy institutions prosper from strong grassroots support backed by individual financial contributions. Much like a profitable company, they can measure support by looking at how many people were willing to open their checkbooks for the cause: The plain fact is that political advocacy groups will not flourish on the basis of government subsidy. Rather they will prosper only insofar as they develop financial roots in the polity . Reliance on the government trough is no sign of the commitment of your adherents to your cause. 13 [Page: S10544] NOT A NEW PROBLEM Federally funded advocacy is not a new problem. Congress recognized the potential for abuse more than 75 years ago when it passed a law prohibiting the use of federal funds for political advocacy . Unfortunately, the prohibition was too vague, too lenient, and too weakly enforced. Put simply, auditing of federal grants by the government does not provide the level of scrutiny needed to root out abuse. The scope of the problem can be seen by examining the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published every six months by the federal government. It details nearly every federal program from which eligible individuals, organizations, and governments can receive tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding. For years, congressional offices have worked with constituents to help them find federal grants, in the process becoming very familiar with the Catalog as a guide to sources. But very few congressional staff employees have been aware of abuses in the grants process. These abuses are long-standing. In testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations in 1983, Joseph Wright of the Office of Management and Budget noted that the General Accounting Office had found problems as far back as 1948. 14 _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) In the early years of the Reagan Administration, the OMB attempted to revise OMB Circular A-122 (originally issued in the final year of the Carter Administration) to redefine limits on `allowable costs' by federal grantees. The revision, first released in January 1983, was widely criticized as overly broad, excessively burdensome, and unenforceable. One of the focal points of the initial debates was the fact that the original OMB proposal apparently would have disallowed the use of any equipment, personnel, or office space for both federal grant and political advocacy purposes if at least 5 percent of the organization's resources was used for lobbying. For example, a copy machine could not be used to produce flyers for a rally on Capitol Hill if it was paid for--in whole or in part--by taxpayer funds. Many nonprofits objected to such clear separation between federal funding and political advocacy . Months later, OMB Director David Stockman and General Counsel Michael Horowitz withdrew the original proposal and released a new draft with a more narrow definition of prohibited activities. This watered-down version no longer drew a clear line between allowable and unallowable costs. Instead, it specified a few examples of prohibited behavior, including a prohibition on reimbursement for conferences used in `substantial' part to promote lobbying activities. Unfortunately, this effort to appease federally funded nonprofits and quell opposition in Congress was futile. Because Congress signaled its clear opposition to working with the Reagan Administration to curb federally funded lobbying activities, despite the fact that all parties acknowledged such behavior was inappropriate, A-122 failed to improve substantially the restrictions on lobbyists billing Uncle Sam for their activities. EXISTING PROHIBITIONS ARE NOT WORKING Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for lobbying (18 U.S.C. Section 1913). However, there is no clear set of guidelines as to specific prohibited practices. In addition, numerous appropriations riders have been offered and approved in the past in an effort to curb federally subsidized lobbying. The purpose of the Reagan Administration's attempt to create a more stringent version of OMB Circular A-122 was to tighten the gaping loopholes in existing law and to implement Congress's intent in passing lobbying prohibitions. Circular A-122 drew on several distinct concepts to frame the new guidelines. Taxpayers are not obliged to fund advocacy they oppose. The Supreme Court in 1977 ruled that taxpayers are not required, directly or indirectly, `to contribute to the support of an ideological cause [they] may oppose.' (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) Freedom of speech does not depend on federal funding. In 1983, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government `is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. . . . We again reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.' (Reagan v. Taxation with Representation) The Internal Revenue Code does not alleviate the problem. The notice of the request for public comment on the second revision of A-122 notes that current IRS rules threaten tax-preferred organizations only if they exceed defined limits on lobbying. However, the limits are not tied in any way to the receipt of federal funds, leading to many of the same problems from which the 1919 law prohibiting federally funded lobbying suffers. Unfortunately, the firestorm created by the first proposed revision of A-122 led to a second draft that watered down the tough initial provisions and failed to solve the problems outlined by the Administration in presenting its proposals. The notice of public comment on the second proposal stated that its `purpose [was] assuring compliance with a myriad of statutory provisions mandating that no federal funds used for lobbying purposes, and to comply, in balanced fashion, with fundamental First Amendment imperatives.' Despite the best of intentions, the revised A-122 did not meet these goals. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) A particularly serious provision of the second revision was its enforcement mechanism. A popular maxim in the 1980s was `trust but verify.' OMB Circular A-122 relied on trust alone: `[T]he federal government will rely upon [the nonprofit employee's] good faith certification of lobbying time below 25%. . . . Under the proposal, the absence of time logs or similar records not kept pursuant to grantee or contractor discretion will no longer serve as a basis of contesting or disallowing claims for indirect cost employees.' In essence, this lack of verification of time spent on lobbying activities permits the individual to state that he is complying with the law even if that is not the case. This is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. If a nonprofit is willing to violate the restrictions on advocacy , surely it will have no qualms about certifying it is in compliance with the law. TOUGHER RESTRICTIONS NEEDED Tougher laws are needed to prevent the abuse of taxpayers' funds by federal grantees. There is no excuse for compelling John Q. Public to support political advocacy that he opposes. It is fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible. The following should be essential parts of any congressional efforts to curb current abuses: Truth in Testimony. Witnesses testifying before Congress should be required to divulge in their oral and written testimonies whether they receive federal funds and, if so, for what purpose and in what amount. This will permit committees to view the testimony in an appropriate light. No Federal Funding for Advocacy . No organization that receives federal funds should be permitted engage in any thing but incidental lobbying activities, except on issues directly related to its tax status. No Bureaucratic Shell Games. No recipient of federal funds should be permitted to maintain organizational ties to any entity that engages in lobbying activity. All subgrantees should be treated as it they received the funds directly from the federal government. Independent Sector, an organization representing hundreds of nonprofit advocacy groups, unwittingly indicated the need for this in a recent report: `Although the non-profit organization received a check from the local government, the local government may have received some or all of its funding for this project from a Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).' 15 Meaningful Auditing. The Inspectors General of the various federal departments and agencies must investigate more thoroughly any abuses of current law, as well as new laws passed by the Congress. Tough Penalties. The consequences for violating the prohibition on federally subsidized lobbying must be sufficient to discourage organizations from violating the standards. Under no circumstances should any organization that willingly and knowingly violates the prohibitions receive further federal funding. Representative Robert K. Dornan (R-CA) has introduced H.R. 1130, the Integrity in Government Act, which would prohibit a recipient or paid representative of any federal award, grant, or contract from lobbying in the following circumstances: In favor of continuing the award, grant, or contract; In favor of the actual program under which the funds were disbursed; In favor of any other program within the broad department or agency; and In favor of continued department or agency funding. The Dornan legislation also prohibits tax-exempt lobbying organizations from receiving federal funds. Representatives Bob Ehrlich (R-MD), Ernset Istook (R-OK), and David McIntosh (R-IN) also are working on legislation to remedy this problem. It is difficult to craft legislation that satisfactorily defines prohibited activities. More-over, any bill designed to redress these abuses must prevent organizations from simply establishing separate bank accounts and separate names. To be effective, there must be a definite and complete physical separation between all federally and privately funded resources. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) CONCLUSION Taxpayer-subsidized political advocacy represents pure fiscal folly and moral injustice. No hard-working American should be compelled to finance lobbying activities with which he disagrees. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at current federal grant making. Thirteen years ago, The Washington Post editorialized: `[W]e agree that there is something disturbing about organizations that strongly advocate positions many sensible people find politically or morally repugnant, acting at the same time as administrators of government programs. It is easy to believe that the advocacy groups' employees will sometimes proselytize the program's beneficiaries in ways we would consider inappropriate (though not unheard of) for a civil servant. Advocacy organizations might also want to ask themselves whether they risk compromising their own purposes by accepting government money, and whether they want to assume the inevitable risk that it might be withdrawn suddenly for legitimate political reasons.'1A 16 Abuse of federal grant funds must be stopped. Tougher restrictions are needed to prevent lobbying organizations from obtaining some or most of their revenue from the American taxpayers. Auditing and investigation of federal grantees by the Executive Branch must be strengthened. However, a danger always exists that as long as government funds go to advocacy organizations, the `wall of separation' will be porous. Moreover, the less fortunate would be assisted more directly by eliminating the middleman who `does well by doing good.' Without restoring integrity to government by ending federally funded lobbying, Congress and the President will continue to squander millions of taxpayer dollars each year. Political patronage should have no place in the federal budget. Marshall Wittmann, Senior Fellow in Congressional Affairs. Charles P. Griffin, Deputy House Liaison. [Page: S10545] FOOTNOTES APPENDIX The following case studies demonstrate the need to reform the federal grants process. The organizations analyzed were selected for illustrative purposes and do not represent the entire universe of the problem. 1 1 The dollar amounts provided are approximate, based on information provided by congressional offices from searches in the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS) database. All financial data cover the period from June 1993 to July 1994, unless otherwise specified. Numbers in parentheses are referenced numbers for programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. AARP receives funding for approximately one-quarter of its annual expenditures from the federal government. Sources range from programs for the elderly to millions of dollars annually to provide clerical support to the EPA. Senior Environmental Employment Program (EPA: 66.508) Tax Counseling for the Elderly (IRS: 21.006) Sr. Community Service Employment Program (DOL:17.235) Breast/Cervical Cancer Detection Program (HHS: 93.919) The American Bar Association received $2.2 million in federal grants between July 1993 and June 1994. Missing Children's Assistance (DOJ: 16.543) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Studies (NSF: 47.075) `Resistance and Rebellion in Black South Africa: 1830-1920' Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DOJ: 16.541) Nat'l Institute for Juv. Justice and Delinquency Prev. (DOJ: 16.542) Justice Research, Development and Evaluation (DOJ: 16.560) Drug Control and System Improvement (DOJ: 16.580) Title IV--Aging Programs (HHS: 93.048) Child Welfare Research and Demonstration (HHS: 93.608) Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities (HHS: 93.670) Disaster Assistance (FEMA: 83.516) The AFL-CIO (and its affiliates) received $10.7 million in federal funding between July 1993 and June 1994. Following is an overview of this organization's federal funding: Tripartite Construction Training Tech. Xfer (DOL 17.AAA) _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Section 8 Rehabilitation (HUD: 14.856) Occupational Safety and Health (DOL: 17.500) Targeted Training Program--Logging In addition, the following contracts were awarded to the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council: DOL/ETA: Vocational-Technical Training DOL/ETA: Other Ed/Training Services The Child Welfare League of America received the following grants between July 1993 and June 1994: Intergenerational Grants (Corporation for National Service: 72.014) Adoption Opportunities (HHS: 93.652) Special Programs for the Aging (HHS: 93.048) The Consumer Federation of America received more than $600,000 from the EPA. The code assigned to the award was not found in the Catalog. Radon Projects (EPA: 66.AAC) The Environmental Defense Fund benefited from more than $500,000 in taxpayer funding. Drainage Management System (DOI: 15.BBZ) Tradable Discharge Permits (EPA: 66.AAC) Air Pollution Control Research (EPA: 66.501) National Recycling Campaign (EPA: 66.AAC) Families USA received at least $250,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services. Special Programs for the Aging (HHS: 93.048) The League of Women Voters benefited primarily from EPA funding for various environmental research projects. Clean Air Act Policy Development (EPA: 66.AAC) UV Index (EPA: 66.AAC) Managing Solid Waste Training (EPA: 66.951) Community Ground-Water Education Project (EPA: 66.AAC Nuclear Waste Primer (DOE: 81.065) The NCSC receives 96 percent of its funding from the federal government. Dislocated Worker Assistance (DOL: 17.246) Senior Environmental Employment Program (EPA: 66.508) Section 8 Housing Rehabilitation (HUD: 14.856) Sr. Community Service Employment Program (DOL: 17.235) The World Wildlife Fund received $2.6 million in federal funding between July 1993 and June 1994. Following is an overview: Undesignated EPA Grants Global Marine Contamination Project (EPA: 66.501) [Page: S10546] In addition, 31 federal contracts were awarded to `Resolve, World Wildlife Fund' during this same period. These contracts were from the EPA for `Other Management Support Services' and totaled $1.5 million. Mr. CRAIG. This paper spells out a broad cross-section of groups in this country that receive as much as $2 and $3 million a year in tax dollars, under grants, directly to them, to fund a variety of activities. Many of those interests engage in direct lobbying here, in paid advertising, in every method possible under their right of free speech to cause the Congress of the United States to vote in a certain way. It is time, I believe, that we make it very clear to those groups that they have every right to exist and that their right to free speech is not infringed upon. But let me suggest that the right of free speech is not tied directly to the right to receive a Federal grant so you can have free speech . While some may argue that they have the right to do certain things--and I would not dispute that--we, as legislators, without question have the right to determine where the tax dollar goes. That is what I am asking that the Senate decide this afternoon and I think that is what the Senator from Wyoming is asking in the amendment he has offered, in a very narrow section of the IRS Code, that we say that the not-for-profit advocacy groups not be allowed to receive money in the Federal form of grant or contract or loan that in any way they can use for the purpose of advocacy or for the purpose of lobbying. I hope my colleagues will join with the Senator from Wyoming and myself and others in the support of this amendment as we incorporate it in this important legislation, as we work to clarify the whole concern about lobbying in our country, so that the American taxpayer clearly understands our relationship with special interests and the right of all special interests to come to the Congress of the United States to argue their point of view. I strongly support that. But I do believe it is important that in every way we make it clear and simple to understand how we are approached through the public process. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. CRAIG Mr. President, let me close with this quote from Thomas Jefferson. To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Even then Thomas Jefferson was recognizing that no person's dollar should be used to argue a point of view that he or she disagreed with. Mr. President, in closing, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Simpson-Craig amendment. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not before us at this time, the Chair informs the Senator. The absence of a quorum having been suggested---- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I withhold that. Is there a vote now which has been ordered on the Simpson amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is not before us. Mr. LEVIN. Is it the intention of the Senator from Idaho to ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Simpson amendment. Mr. CRAIG. It is, and I would so do. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LEVIN. Now I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Simpson amendment be in order for the purpose of a second-degree amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1842 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1839 (Purpose: To prohibit certain exempt organizations from receiving Federal grants) Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I so send that second-degree amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment numbered 1842 to amendment No. 1839. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Strike all after the word `Sec.', and insert the following: An organization described in section 501(c)(4) which engages in lobbying of the Internal Revenue Code of 1996 shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the purpose of the second-degree amendment is to make clear what, by some people's concern, was not clear, and that is what is the intent of the Simpson amendment. We are addressing section 501 of the IRS Code and, in particular, the 501(c)(4) not-for-profit advocacy groups who receive Federal grant money. What we are saying and what the second-degree amendment clarifies is the difference between their options under this amendment; that is, they could continue to hold their 501(c)(4) status and lobby, but they could not receive Federal moneys under that status. If they chose to want to continue to receive Federal grants, they would have the election, under the 501 section of the IRS Code, to become a 501(c)(3), and in that category, not only is the definition of `lobbying' very clear, but the method by which they must handle and account for their Federal dollars. The IRS is very strict and very clear as to the accounting and the management of those dollars so that they are not commingled, so they are kept separate, so that the organization, without question, divides the use of those dollars, so there is not the intent or the ability to use Federal dollars for the purpose of lobbying. That is, without question, the intent of the Simpson amendment. We thought it was important that it be clarified. I believe the second-degree amendment so clarifies. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. CRAIG Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a question? Mr. CRAIG. I will be more than happy to yield for the purpose of a question. Mr. McCONNELL. So the Senator from Kentucky is correct in assuming that the purpose of the Craig second-degree amendment to the Simpson amendment is to make it clear that a group currently qualifying under 501(c)(4) can continue to be a 501(c)(4)---- Mr. CRAIG. A not-for-profit advocacy group. Mr. McCONNELL. And receive Federal grants, but if Federal grants are received, that organization will no longer be allowed to lobby. Mr. CRAIG. That is correct. Mr. McCONNELL. And is the Senator from Kentucky further correct in inquiring as follows: If a group currently a 501(c)(4) after the adoption of the Simpson amendment, as amended by the Craig amendment, concluded that receiving Federal grants was critical to its mission, then a logical response to the adoption of this amendment would be to consider qualifying as a 501(c)(3); is that correct? Mr. CRAIG. That would be correct. Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Idaho. I think his amendment is very useful. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank very much Senator McConnell for his precise inquiry here, and particularly Senator Larry Craig, my colleague from Idaho. There is no intent here to injure the groups that are listed under what I use as a pretty active resource, the GAO report on selected tax-exempt organizations. It gives a list of 501(c)(4) organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that list be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Assets, Revenues and Expenses of the Tax-Exempt Organizations Included in This Study [In thousands of dollars] Name of organization Assets Revenues Expenses Social welfare organizations: American Association of Retired Persons * 330,638 * 292,264 * 310,763 AVMED, Inc * 98,346 * 310,256 * 288,561 Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation * 284,429 * 20,988 * 14,371 Blue Care Network of Southeast Michigan * 132,446 * 173,845 * 158,686 Blue Care Network-Great Lakes * 54,598 * 172,034 * 169,729 Blue Cross Blue Shield Association * 134,320 * 133,381 * 131,159 California Vision Service * 143,754 * 304,224 * 299,865 Capital District Physician's Health Plan, Inc. * 69,372 * 164,166 * 151,289 City of Mesa-Municipal Development Corporation * 50,152 * 3,101 * 2,339 City of Scottsdale Municipal Property Corporation * 203,588 * 41,913 * 15,178 Columbus Multi-School Building Corporation * 57,291 * 1,653 * 3,316 Connecticare * 60,906 * 190,645 * 187,197 County of Riverside Asset Leasing Corporation * 580,280 * 34,651 * 29,879 CSDA Finance Corporation * 274,390 * 19,787 * 19,730 Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc * 148,660 * 401,729 * 399,206 Delta Dental Plan of New Jersey, Inc * 67,113 * 130,564 * 122,605 Disabled American Veterans * 144,832 * 70,995 * 68,854 Firemen's Association of the State of New York * 66,710 * 9,549 * 5,610 Firemen's Relief Association of Minnesota * 52,968 * 3,403 * 1,419 Group Health Association * 82,704 * 251,817 * 248,624 Henry Ford Health Care Corporation Liability Fund * 55,565 * 23,345 * 21,712 Higher Education Assistance Foundation * 216,210 * 172,588 * 62,703 Higher Education Loan Program of Kansas, Inc * 235,523 * 14,972 _____________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. SIMPSON 10,969 Independent Health Association, Inc. 83,935 252,288 244,398 International Olympic Committee 127,121 18,122 22,696 JADER Trust 101,133 6,194 4,060 Luso-American Development Foundation 130,327 24,890 15,188 Marine Spill Response Corporation 264,818 84,610 72,888 Medcenters Health Care, Inc 102,899 352,189 349,834 Merrillville Multi-School Building Corporation 117,269 3,304 5,773 Midwest Foundation Independent Physicians Association 110,063 225,844 213,056 Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association 165,395 15,777 11,714 Minneapolis Police Relief Association 264,282 41,230 967 Minnesota School Boards Association Insurance Trust 67,554 42,090 42,056 Mohawk Valley Physician's Health Plan 66,183 178,909 175,637 Municipal Improvement Corporation/Los Angeles 69,061 151,037, 158,579 Mutual of America Life Insurance Company 5,521,940 746,637 718,746 National Rifle Association of America 111,019 101,781 139,022 New Albany-Floyed County School Building Corporation 57,932 1,242 51 Physicians Health Plan, Inc 56,639 178,754 178,352 Regional Airports Improvement Corporation 489,656 38,936 38,936 Sisters of Providence Good Health Plan of Oregon 58,863 117,663 111,068 The Buffalo Enterprise Development Corporation 78,897 2,192 2,926 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund 327,579 37,746 57,633 Tufts Associated Health Maintenance Organization 88,902 311,821 300,897 Washington Dental Service 73,670 191,874 188,824 Labor and agricultural organizations: AFL-CIO 77,991 69,037 61,736 Air Line Pilots Association 97,057 82,143 69,723 Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union-Rochester Joint Board 25,273 3,589 2,053 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 26,862 77,326 74,497 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO 51,073 69,280 63,279 Atlantic Coast District ILA 26,130 3,275 2,726 Bakery Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International 24,178 11,875 12,056 Carrier-ILA Container Freight Station Trust Fund 33,375 14,544 2,330 Dakota's Areawide IBEW-NECA Pension Fund 35,770 3,447 1,295 [Page: S10547] Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if each of those groups or members of those groups contacted their elected representatives, I am sure that they would be in shock, indicating that they were going to lose something. So what has occurred in this colloquy and with the second-degree amendment is a very important reiteration of points I made when I spoke during the offering of the amendment as to why the amendment is important. I think it has been clarified, but let us just do it one more time and, perhaps, if there are any further questions, I hope those who resist the amendment will enter the debate so that we can assure them that this amendment, now as second degreed by Senator Craig, does not prevent any 501(c)(4) organization from refiling as a 501(c)(3) and then accepting that category's limits on lobbying. The only circumstance in which they would be cut off from Federal funds would be if they chose then to remain entirely under 501(c)(4), in effect choosing the unlimited lobbying over the Federal grants. Under the second-degree amendment, they now have an additional option to stay in 501(c)(4) status without lobbying. So there is no attempt to restrict anyone. The 501(c)(4)'s have the ability--I hope you hear this--they have the ability to spend millions and millions of dollars without restriction. They have no restriction whatsoever. All we are saying is that in the language now of the amendment, as amended by the second-degree amendment--I am going to read it so it will be right in context in this debate, it will now read: _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. SIMPSON An organization described in section 501(c)(4) which engages in lobbying . . . shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan or any other form. That is the intent. It is, I hope, clarified now. And if there are those who are not in accord with the amendment, those in opposition, Senator Craig and I and others-- Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, indeed. Mr. CRAIG. I want to take this brief moment to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this area. As I mentioned in my comments, this is an issue we have debated now for over 75 years in one form or another, on one occasion or another, and the fundamental concern of Senators long before us was that Federal tax dollars should never be used for the purpose of lobbying; that we should never restrict the right of the citizen, or the group, or the organization to be an advocate before their Government, but that the Government should not be promoting, by the use of those dollars, their right, or their role, or their activity as an advocacy group, that they could under another category receive Federal dollars and perform services so defined by the grant of, or the use of, the Federal dollar or contract. But they could not use those or turn those dollars for the purpose of advocating what might be a very narrow position and not a majority position or a mainstream position of the American people. The Senator from Wyoming has, in the last good many months, been a strong and outspoken leader on this issue; I think rightfully so. I think the fact he has brought before the American public that literally billions of dollars are now being used for these purposes--and they should not be--has been well taken. I am pleased that he came forth with the amendment. It helps us clarify the use of these dollars, and I think the American taxpayer will applaud his effort. I thank him for it. [Page: S10548] Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that indeed. That is a reason. There is another reason, as I have observed it over the past many months. Oftentimes, these groups that obtain Federal funding and support will use that money to then lobby the Federal Government for more Federal support for their members. In other words, whatever the issue is--it may be health care, or whatever it may be--they are using the Federal support to then lobby for more Federal support, to get more money from the Federal Treasury for whatever issue is paramount on their screen. I think that is wrong. I add that. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, who has the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. SIMPSON. Indeed, I yield to my friend from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. As I understand the amendment, as amended by the Senator from Idaho, it would prevent an organization, such as the Disabled American Veterans, that I see on the list here, from receiving any kind of a grant from the Federal Government, if they also want to use even funds that are from a totally unrelated source for lobby; is that correct? In other words, the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, as amended, is not simply restricting the 501(c)(4) organization, such as the DAV, from both lobbying and receiving a grant. But what the Senator is doing in his amendment, as I understand it, is now telling these organizations that if you get a grant from the Federal Government for one purpose, even though you are using money from a totally different source for lobbying, you may not do both; is that correct? Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Michigan, if I understand the question, what we are saying here is if they get anything from the Federal Government in the form of an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form, they can file as a 501(c)(3) corporation, nonprofit, or they can stay and continue their work as a 501(c)(4) corporation, but they cannot lobby. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. SIMPSON Mr. LEVIN. Now, we have asked the members of the Finance Committee, or the staff of the Finance Committee that are more familiar with (c)(3) and (c)(4) than this Senator--I have not had any dealings with this--I am simply trying to obtain information while we are getting a reaction from committee members and the staff. I believe there was a hearing on this issue, and I think it was in the Judiciary Committee or Finance, in the last few months on this issue. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we have had a hearing on the issue of 501(c)(4)'s that receive money from the Federal Government. In this case, it was in the form of grants and awards. We have held a hearing. Mr. LEVIN. In the Judiciary Committee? Mr. SIMPSON. In the Finance Committee. Mr. LEVIN. So we are hoping that the Finance Committee members have some feelings about the Simpson amendment, as amended, and that they would make those feelings known, because this Senator is not able to comment on some of the intricacies--or implications, I should say--of the amendment. I want to be real clear on one thing. If a 501(c)(4) organization--and I see on this list that they include the Disabled American Veterans, International Olympic Committee--if they receive a grant from the Federal Government for some purpose totally unrelated to lobby, they then may not use funds from some different source, other than the Federal Government, to lobby and continue to have their 501(c)(4) status, is that correct? Mr. SIMPSON. That is correct, Mr. President. Mr. LEVIN. What all the implications are of that on these organizations, I do not know. I assume that an organization that has a (c)(4) status, which is allowed to lobby, presumably not using Government funds to do so, because I think that would be prohibited under current law; nonetheless, that organization would then have to make a choice, and I presume one of the choices would be to form another (c)(4) organization for the purpose of lobbying--which would be allowed to lobby; put it that way--using sources other than nongovernmental sources. That would always be a choice. Let me ask my friend from Wyoming, who is much more knowledgeable about this, under current law, can a 501(c)(4) organization use a Federal grant or award for lobbying purposes? Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, a 501(c)(4) corporation cannot, in that sense, use a Federal grant or award for `lobbying" purposes. Mr. LEVIN. That is under current law, is that correct? Mr. SIMPSON. Under current law, yes. Mr. LEVIN. Well, Mr. President, again, I am not as familiar with the implications of this. It would seem to me, however, that if one of these organizations wanted to create two 501(c)(4)'s, they could do so under the Simpson amendment, as amended, and have one organization accept Federal grants for the purposes that the grants are awarded for, and its other (c)(4) organization be in business for whatever the current business is, including permission to lobby, providing it does not use Federal funds for that purpose, as the current law is. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I just add that the problem is this: The Government in this situation, then, is subsidizing the activities, the benefits provided by the largest of lobbyists, who have this extraordinary advantage over all other lobbyists. And there are 25 different section (c) corporate tax exempts; there are 25 of them--the (c)(3)'s, which are familiar to most of us, and the (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7), et cetera. It is the subsidization of the activities, the benefits provided, because they have the ability to spend as much as they wish. They have unlimited ability to inject as much money--if I might have the attention of my friend from Michigan, who I have the deepest affection and respect for. If we are really going to do something about big, big lobbyists, then it seems to me that we should direct it at the biggest ones of all, the ones who have unlimited ability to lobby. There is not a single restriction on a 501(c)(4). They can spend themselves into oblivion. I say, let them do that if they are going to raise their money from contributions and dues and the things that supposedly guide an organization's efforts and objectives, _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. SIMPSON but not in grants, and on and on, from the Federal Government. That is the pitch. I am not directing it at any single institution. In my research, I came across these extraordinary things. There are some organizations listed on here that you and I probably have never heard of, that have millions and millions of dollars involved in lobbying. All we are saying is, Look, lobby to your little old heart's content. You just keep right on doing it. But if you are going to get Government support, then you are going to have to go to 501(c)(3), which is truly charitable, for religious, charitable, veterans, education, compassion, whatever you have to list. Let them do that. Let them go to 501(c)(3). You mentioned DAV. There is not a single group here listed in the 501(c) that could not qualify as having a charitable purpose and meet every test of a 501(c)(3). Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Would it also not be true an organization such as the DAV could create an additional 501(c)(4) which would have as its purpose whatever the purposes are of the current 501(c)(4), and be allowed to lobby, providing it did not receive Federal grants? In other words, there is an additional option. It is not just a 501(c)(4). The Senator from Wyoming has opened the option to create another 501(c)(4) which will receive Federal grants, and the original 501(c)(4) could continue to lobby. That is an additional option which the Senator does not preclude, is that not correct? Mr. SIMPSON. As I understand the question--I am a bit preoccupied. You might ask it again. Mr. LEVIN. The Senator does not preclude an opening of an organization such as the DAV, creating an additional 501(c)(4) to receive those Federal grants, providing that additional organization does not engage in lobbying activities? [Page: S10549] Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that would be my understanding. If they decided to split into two separate 501(c)(4)'s, they could have one organization which could both receive grants and lobby without limit. Mr. LEVIN. And the Senator does not in his amendment remove the provision in the current law that exempts 501(c)(4)'s from paying taxes, even if they engaged in lobbying activities, providing, then, they are not eligible for Federal grants or awards? Mr. SIMPSON. We are not, Mr. President, involved in anything more than the singular amendment, saying that they shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. We are not changing the tax-exempt status in that sense, although there have been many suggestions in both the hearing and on the floor and in discussion as to what to do with these groups. It is felt that this would be the most appropriate and understandable approach. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I just point out to my dear friend from Wyoming that his amendment leaves open many possibilities to these organizations. His remarks suggest that somehow or another if they are going to engage in lobbying, we will remove the subsidy under this amendment. In fact, this amendment does not touch their tax-exempt status, if they continue to engage in lobbying. And, in fact, this amendment does not preclude, as the Senator from Wyoming phrased it, the splitting of an organization and the creation of another organization which could do the lobbying effort while organization No. 1 receives the Federal grants. So offhand I do not see that this precludes 501(c)(4) from a number of options which it currently has, and therefore I am not in a position where I can say that I oppose it, because it seems to me it leaves open many options for 501(c)(4). Again, I want members of the appropriate committee to take a look at this. I would not be able to accept it at this time. As one Senator, I have no objection to it, but I do want to weigh the views and members of the Finance Committee on this issue. I yield the floor. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. AMENDMENT NO. 1842, AS MODIFIED Mr. CRAIG. As the maker of the second-degree, let me send a correction of that amendment to the desk. It is a clerical correction. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the clerk would read now the amendment, with the second-degree amendment as modified. I think it is still relatively short, and I think it would clarify things for everybody if we would read the entire amendment, assuming the second degree were adopted as modified. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: Strike all after the word `Sec.', and insert the following: An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the insert was in the previous sentence and it is now correct where it appears, appropriately on the second line. That is the intent. It is what I read into the Record a moment ago. Let me just say to my friend from Michigan, ask my friends from Kentucky and Idaho, what we are finding is that there are groups in America who have tax-exempt status who, in effect, really skirt very closely to just truly big business. They are involved in big business. I hope that maybe my friend would help in making inquiry of the tax-exempt status of some of these organizations--not now, but in the future--because I intend to propose additional reform, especially in this area of unrelated business income tax, called the UBIT legislation, taxing sources, income, royalties, and I plan to look at whether we should tax royalties, tax commercial insurance income. That is tax legislation. That needs to go through finance. Here, I am dealing only with grants to lobbyists. That is what this is singularly to. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I know there are a number of Members that have questions about the amendment. Again, I am not able to accept the amendment at this time. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Kentucky has something, I would like to speak to this amendment. Mr. McCONNELL. If I may briefly indicate that Senator Levin and I have reached an agreement on the underlying bill. It is our hope to offer that amendment and have it voted on at 6 o'clock. I would like to have a chance to explain the compromise well before 6 o'clock, but I have no problem giving up the floor at this point. Mr. KYL. I plan to take about 3 minutes to speak in favor of this amendment. If the Senator would prefer to speak now, or I can go ahead. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL. I, too, hope this amendment can be agreed to. It has been pointed out there are ways around it, and that is certainly a possibility, should the amendment be adopted. But it seems to me that, if we adopt this amendment, we will have made a statement that we want people to divide their operations if, in fact, that is what they choose to do. They cannot be using the same operation, in effect, for both purposes. It is their right to divide the operation, to do lobbying with one and to have the 501(c)(3) with the other, and that is a possibility. But we would at least be on record as expressing our desire that Federal funds should not be used for lobbying. That is why I support the amendment, and I want to just express a couple of other reasons why. It has been pointed out that there is a great deal of grant money that has been going to these taxpayer subsidized lobbying organizations, or I should say special interest organizations who also lobby. Mr. President, at least $39 billion in Federal grant money was distributed to more than 40,000 organizations in 1990 alone, the last year for which I have figures. That is money that Congress supposedly appropriated to help address important national needs. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. KYL Some of the organizations are ones that I have had an affiliation with. The American Bar Association, for example, received $2.2 million in Federal grants between July 1993 and June 1994 for such activities as missing children's assistance; aging programs; justice research; development and evaluation; and child welfare research and demonstration. The American Association of Retired Persons received about $84.7 million over the same period for the senior environmental employment program and the senior community service employment program. The AFL-CIO received $2 million. The National Council of Senior Citizens received $71.5 million or about 96 percent of its entire budget from the Federal Government. The problem, as has been noted, Mr. President, is that once a Federal grant reaches the organizations' bank account, it simply frees up additional dollars for the groups to spend on lobbying activities. Many of the organizations are on Capitol Hill every day, often lobbying for more taxpayer money on one program or another. Congress has not only been filling the trough, but paying these groups to feed there. AARP, for example, has been lobbying strenuously against Medicare reform. The American Bar Association staged a protest on Flag Day against the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the flag. CARE, another organization that receives Federal funds, has been lobbying against cuts in foreign aid. That is all fine. It is their right. Each one of those groups is entitled to its views, but none has the right to use taxpayer dollars to underwrite its lobbying activities. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Regan versus Taxation with Representation, ruled unanimously in 1983 that the Federal Government `is not required by the first amendment to subsidize lobbying.' The Court went on to say, `we again reject the notion that first amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.' Thomas Jefferson said it best 200 years ago: `to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.' The amendment directly prohibits any recipient of a Federal grant from spending those grant funds on political advocacy . I think we can all agree that is appropriate. And because money is fungible, it also sets limits on the amount of political advocacy that a grantee can perform with nongrant funds. This amendment is not about free speech , or the right of any organization to petition the Government. Everyone is free to say what he wants. Every group is entitled to express its views to Government officials. What these groups are not entitled to is a subsidy from taxpayers to do that. No American should be taxed to advance the political agenda of an organization that he or she may have no wish to support or one that advocates an agenda he strongly opposes. Subsidies for political advocacy are wrong. There is another issue besides lobbying at stake here. When a group asks for Federal funds to conduct a certain activity--whether it is the YMCA to serve the needs of our Nation's youth, the World Wildlife Fund to protect the environment, or the National Council of Senior Citizens to help older Americans--we should expect that the group puts the funds to the intended use. When dollars are commingled and spent in lobbying, it is the every people we want to help that are hurt most. Every dollar that an organization pays a lobbyist is a dollar that could have been used to help a hungry child, someone who is homeless, or in need. If an organization would rather lobby the Government than serve the needs of the people, it should be frank about, it, refuse Federal funds, and go on about its business. We can find another organization that will devote the resources toward the intended purpose. Mr. President, cutting aid to lobbyists should be the easiest cut we make in Federal spending. We should certainly eliminate it before considering any reductions in aid to the people these lobbyists purport to represent--children, the elderly, the needy, and the environment, to name just a few. It is time to cut off Federal funding for political advocacy by select groups. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. KYL It's time to let special interests raise their own funds to promote their points of view. This amendment will do that, if not totally, 100 percent, at least in a way that sends the message that Congress wants to send on this important issue. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. [Page: S10550] Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to indicate that Senator Levin and I have reached an agreement on the underlying bill which he will be sending to the desk shortly. We had hoped to have a vote on this Levin-McConnell compromise at 6 o'clock, but there are some problems on this side with regard to getting a vote at 6. But we thought we would go ahead and describe for our colleagues the agreement that has been reached and at the earliest opportunity, it would be the intention of Senator Levin and my intention to get a rollcall vote on this compromise. Let me say first, in the category of the definition of a lobbyist, the original bill by my friend from Michigan required that 10 percent of the time spent lobbying made one a lobbyist for purposes of the legislation. The alternative that I had earlier offered said that you must spend 25 percent of your time in order to meet that threshold. The compromise that we have reached is 20 percent. I think it is a reasonable compromise, and allows us to sign off in the definition of lobbyist section. And the rationale is clear, that to qualify as a lobbyist, the individual is to have to spend more than just a casual amount of time lobbying. Second, in the area of thresholds which would trigger registration requirements, the original Levin bill said that $2,500 in income received by a lobbying firm or $5,000 spent by an organization which lobbies--$2,500 for a firm; $5,000 for an organization--would trigger the requirements. What the Senator from Michigan and I have agreed to is that, with regard to lobbying firms, $5,000 would trigger coverage; and with regard to organizations, $20,000 in expenditures by an organization which lobbies. Here again, the rationale is that those who do not have a regular, ongoing presence in Washington should not be required to register. My hope here, which my friend from Michigan has agreed to in this compromise, is to not bring under the bill those folks back home who may come up here occasionally but who are not in any real sense lobbyists. Third, in the grassroots area, the issue that bogged us down last fall in passing this legislation last year, the original bill of my friend from Michigan contained a reference to grassroots activity. The compromise deletes all references to grassroots activity and no longer makes any suggestion that any grassroots testimony would trigger registration. This bill will not require any reporting or disclosure whatsoever of grassroots activity. Obviously, the goal here that the Senator from Michigan and I have is not to discourage genuine grassroots activism out in America to convey to us the opinions of those groups on any legislation that we may be considering. Fourth, in the area of administration and enforcement, Senator Levin's original bill created a new Federal agency with the responsibility of enforcement. This bill now will create no new Government agency. The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House would receive reporting and disclosure forms. I think clearly that is a step in the right direction. I want to thank my friend from Michigan for that compromise. We do not believe creating additional Government agencies is a good idea, particularly in this atmosphere of $5 trillion in cumulative Federal debt. Finally, with regard to coverage of the executive branch lobbying, the compromise of the Senator from Michigan and myself will cover those contacts within the executive branch but only contacts made by political appointees; that is, schedule C's and above; Presidential appointees which require confirmation by the Senate and schedule C's. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) So we have had a very good effort here to reach this agreement. I want to thank my friend from Michigan for his willingness to come together here in a proposal that I think, clearly, Senators on both sides of the aisle ought to feel comfortable in supporting. And it is my hope that at some point, preferably early this evening, we might be able to get a vote on this. I see my friend from Michigan on his feet. I will be glad to yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while both the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Kentucky are here, let me first say that the changes that we are going to be sending to the desk are important ones but not as significant as the changes in the original Levin-Cohen bill which we have before us. I am going to try to see if I cannot state what the differences are so that there is no confusion when people come to vote. For instance, in the bill before us, the so-called Levin-Cohen, et cetera, bill, there is no new agency created. That point which Senator McConnell just made reference to was already addressed in the underlying bill. So there is no change in that regard in terms of the amendment which I will be sending to the desk, which will be called the Levin-McConnell amendment. There was no new agency created in Levin-Cohen. There is no change in that in terms of the so-called Levin-McConnell amendment. One of the areas of contention here is whether or not the executive branch should be covered. It was the determination of Senator Cohen and me and others that lobbying activities include the executive branch. We have had hearings in our subcommittee relative to the executive branch. We had hearings into Wedtech, for instance, where the executive branch was lobbied heavily by outsiders and contracts were obtained for a company that never should have gotten contracts and which cost the Treasury millions of dollars. That lobbying activity was never disclosed because executive branch lobbying was not covered by the existing law. Executive branch lobbying is covered in the Levin-Cohen bill. It is going to continue to be covered if the so-called Levin-McConnell amendment to Levin-Cohen is adopted. But what will not be covered, however, will be lobbying activities of employees of the executive branch below the political appointee level. We are not going to get to lower level employee lobbying. We are going to focus on where the lobbying really has an impact, which is at the higher levels of the executive branch, including the schedule C's. So the key issue, however, is that the principle that we are going to include executive branch lobbying for the first time has been preserved. That principle was embedded in the underlying Levin-Cohen bill. It is retained even if we adopt the so-called Levin-McConnell amendment to Levin-Cohen, but we will just be excluding lobbying activities with certain lower level executive branch employees. Next, we tried to make clear in Levin-Cohen that there was no intent to cover the lobbying activities of people at the grassroots. The only reference to grassroots in Levin-Cohen was where a registered lobbyist hired somebody else to stimulate grassroots activity. But then those expenses would have to be included in the expenses that would be disclosed by the person who is already required to register. That was the sole reference. There was objection to even that. It did not tell us much, in any event, because it was not identified as being a separate expenditure to stimulate grassroots lobbying. And we decided to avoid any suggestion, even though there was none, to make sure that none could even be made that there is any coverage of grassroots lobbying. We have removed that provision that would have told us very, very little, in any event, since it would not identify that the expenditure was to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but simply would have included that amount in the total expenditure of somebody who is already required to register. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN But again, I think we wanted to make sure that nobody could argue, rightly or wrongly, that we were covering grassroots lobbying. So we have agreed to delete even the inclusion of that expenditure that someone who is already required to register would have had to have included in their disclosure form. So that is a minor change. But it is one that we gladly accepted. As far as the threshold is concerned, we have retained the threshold for firms that lobby, and at $5,000. That threshold that is in Levin-Cohen is retained at $5,000. The change that has been made is for the small organizations that lobby themselves, not by hiring a firm but that lobby themselves. In Levin-Cohen, the threshold for that was $10,000. In the McConnell substitute, the threshold was $50,000. And the agreement that we have reached is to go from $10,000 to $20,000 for those organizations that lobby themselves. So just for clarification, Levin-Cohen said the threshold was $10,000. McConnell was $50,000, and we have gone to $20,000. I think that the Senator from Kentucky has covered a number of the other questions. I will not add to that except that I think he has covered this. But in case he has not, we are simplifying disclosure requirements by eliminating the requirement to disclose the specific committees that are contacted, and we are clarifying the requirement to disclose lobbying on specific executive branch actions. We also are making clear that the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate will handle all administrative tasks, including providing guidance for the public. I think it was our intention that the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate do that. But there apparently was some ambiguity about it. And the Senator from Kentucky and I have agreed that we would make that very clear explicitly in this amendment that we will be sending shortly to the desk to the underlying Levin-Cohen bill. So I want to thank again my friends from Maine and Kentucky for working on the underlying bill and working for the amendment to that underlying bill. I think we have a very strong lobbying disclosure bill that closes the loophole--no more lawyers' loopholes--which allowed lawyers to be exempted from lobbying disclosure requirements. No more loopholes for those who did not spend all of their time lobbying Members of Congress since just about nobody spends all their time personally lobbying Members personally. They spend a lot of time with staff and a lot of time in preparation. We have eliminated every loophole we could get our hands on, and it is a strong lobbying bill that has also streamlined and simplified this process. I hope we can keep this bill in its strong form and that it will not be diluted in any way, because, finally, we will be doing what 50 years ago Congress thought they were doing, which is to require that professional lobbyists, persons who were paid to lobby, disclose to the public who is paying them, how much, on what issue. And the important add on to that original intent is that now we are going to cover the executive branch. And that is a critically important addition because so much lobbying activity in this town is both aimed at the executive branch and aimed at Congress urging Members of Congress to weigh in with the executive branch. One of the difficulties with the original McConnell substitute is that it had language in it which suggested that it was not covering lobbying activities which were aimed at getting us in the Congress to lobby Members for the executive branch. The underlying Levin-Cohen bill and the Levin-McConnell substitute to Levin-Cohen are absolutely clear that lobbying activities of both the executive branch and of Congress to get us to weigh in with the executive branch are covered lobbying activities. Again, let me close with thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have had tremendous support here from Senator Daschle, and Senator Glenn, as ranking member of Governmental Affairs, has been absolutely steadfast in his support for these reforms, as have so many other of my colleagues on Governmental Affairs. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN But I particularly want to take off my hat to Senator Cohen who, whether he was the ranking member of the subcommittee we are on or the chairman of that subcommittee, has been constant in his determination that we are going to finally close the loopholes and get paid lobbyists to tell us and tell the public who is paying them how much to lobby Congress and the executive branch and on what issues. With that, I yield the floor. [Page: S10551] Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, let me take just a moment to thank my colleague from Michigan and also my colleague from Kentucky. I think the substitute language they have agreed to will make an improvement on the underlying amendment we offered to the legislation earlier today. For simplicity's sake, we might call it the Levin-McCohen bill. That would perhaps clarify the fact that Levin-McConnell is amending the Levin-Cohen amendment and perhaps eliminate some of the confusion surrounding that. The changes which have been agreed upon I think do improve the amendment in the sense that it makes it clearer; that it also will achieve what I believe to be an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote for the measure. It has been a long time in the making. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Levin for his steadfastness in pursuing lobby disclosure reform over the years we have worked together. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues, there is now a great likelihood we will be able to have a vote at 6 on the Levin-McConnell compromise, and even though I do not have the unanimous-consent agreement in front of me to read yet, there is an excellent chance we will have a recorded vote very shortly. Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield---- Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT. Just so that I might comment? I know there are a number of issues pending out there, a lot of discussion is still underway on the McCain amendment with regard to Ramspeck. I understand they are very close to some agreement on that, so we hope maybe we can dispense with that on a voice vote. We are continuing to work on both sides on the language in the Brown amendments and hopefully something will be worked out on two of those. We would like to have a vote--I believe we already have the yeas and nays ordered--on the Craig substitute to the Simpson amendment. So I believe we could have a vote on that at 6 o'clock. And then the agreement on Levin-McConnell. So we would be able to move forward with a recorded vote on two at 6 o'clock, and I believe we can work out several of these other issues on a voice vote. If we find out later we cannot, we can always have a recorded vote on those if negotiations do not work out. So I believe we would be ready to ask for unanimous consent shortly with the idea of getting a vote at 6. [Page: S10552] Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that question. Mr. LOTT. I will be happy to yield. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the yeas and nays have been ordered on the underlying Simpson amendment. Mr. LOTT. I believe that is the amendment offered by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig]. Mr. LEVIN. My understanding was it was on the Simpson amendment, but that does not make any difference. I do not know that the yeas and nays are needed on the second-degree amendment. I think they may be needed, however, on the underlying amendment. Mr. LOTT. Right. That is what we would hope to get in our unanimous-consent agreement. Mr. LEVIN. Then I hope this amendment, the Levin-McConnell amendment, the rollcall on that, if necessary, will come immediately following. Is that the intention of the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. LOTT. I believe that would be appropriate. We could do it either way. But I think in view of the fact---- Mr. LEVIN. May I suggest that the vote on the Levin-McConnell amendment come first, to give people a little more opportunity to focus on what is in the underlying Simpson amendment, and I think we are ready to have a vote on the Levin-McConnell amendment, which, by the way, has not been sent to the desk. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN If the Senator will yield further, I wonder if he would permit me now to send the so-called Levin-McConnell amendment to the desk. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would yield for that purpose so that the Levin-McConnell amendment can be sent to the desk. Just very briefly, I want to emphasize that this once again is evidence of the substantial progress that has been made by the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. A lot of details have been worked out. I hope the Members will have an opportunity to take a look at this agreement. I believe it is the basis for concluding this lobby reform legislation very shortly. AMENDMENT NO. 1843 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1836 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are set aside. The clerk will report the amendment submitted by the Senator from Michigan. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 1843 to amendment No. 1836. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: Strike the text of the amendment and insert the following in lieu thereof: On page 3, line 20, strike paragraph (E) and redesignate the following paragraphs accordingly. On page 5, line 9, strike paragraphs (5) and renumber accordingly. On page 6, line 5, strike `Lobbying activities also include efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph. On page 7, line 10, strike line 10 through 21 and insert in lieu thereof `cense); or' On page 8, line 11, strike `that is widely distributed to the public' and insert `that is distributed and made available to the public'. On page 9, line 11, strike `a written request' and insert `an oral or written request'. On page 13, line 15, strike `1 or more lobbying contacts' and insert `more than one lobbying contact'. On page 13, line 17 and 18, strike `10 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client' and insert `20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six month period'. On page 16, line 3, strike `30 days' and insert `45 days'. On page 16, line 8, strike `the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure' and insert `the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives'. On page 16, line 23, strike `$2,500' and insert `$5,000'. On page 17, line 2, strike `$5,000' and insert `$20,000'. On page 17, line 22, strike `shall be in such form as the Director shall prescribe by regulation and'. On page 18, line 10, strike `$5,000' and insert `$10,000'. On page 18, line 14, strike paragraph (B) and insert in lieu thereof the following: `(B) in whole or in major part plans, supervises, or controls such lobbying activities.' On page 18, line 19, strike `$5,000' and insert `$10,000'. On page 20, line 18, strike `the Director' and insert `the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives'. On page 20, line 21, strike `30 days' and insert `45 days'. On page 21, line 1, strike `the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure' and insert `the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives'. On page 21, line 5, strike paragraph (2). On page 22, line 5, strike `shall be in such form as the Director shall prescribe by regulation and'. On page 22, line 18, strike `regulatory actions' and all that follows through the end of line 20 and insert in lieu thereof `executive branch actions'. On page 22, line 21, strike `and committees'. On page 23, line 20, strike subsection (c) and insert in lieu thereof the following: `(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses.--For purposes of this section, estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows: _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN `(1) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000. `(2) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period. `(3) A registrant that reports lobbying expenditures pursuant to section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may satisfy the requirement to report income or expenses by filing with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the form filed in accordance with section 6033(b)(8).' On page 24, line 23, strike subsection (d). On page 25, line 24, strike subsection (e). On page 31, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 17 on page 47, and insert in lieu thereof the following: `The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall-- `(1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; `(2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registration and reports; `(3) develop filing, coding, and cross-indexing systems to carry out the purpose of this Act, including-- `(A) a publicly available list of all registered lobbyists and their clients; and `(B) computerized systems designed to minimize the burden of filing and minimize public access to materials filed under this Act; `(4) make available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times the registrations and reports filed under this Act; `(5) retain registrations for a period of at least 6 years after they are terminated and reports for a period of at least 6 years after they are filed; `(6) compile and summarize, with respect to each semiannual period, the information contained in registrations and reports filed with respect to such period in a clear and complete manner; `(7) notify any lobbyist or lobbying firm in writing that may be in noncompliance with this Act; and `(8) notify the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia that a lobbyist or lobbying firm may be in noncompliance with this Act, if the registrant has been notified in writing and has failed to provide an appropriate response within 60 days after notice was given under paragraph (6). `Whoever knowingly fails to-- `(1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives; or `(2) comply with any other provision of this Act; shall, upon proof of such knowing violation by a preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine of not more than $50,000, depending on the extent and gravity of the violation.' On page 48, line, strike `the Director or'. On page 48, line 9, strike `the Director' and insert `the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives'. On page 54, line 9, strike Section 18 and renumber accordingly. On page 55, line 23, strike Section 20 and renumber accordingly. On page 58, line 5, strike `the Director' and insert `the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives'. On page 59, strike line 3 and all that follows through the end of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof the following: [Page: S10553] `(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on January 1, 1996. `(b) The repeals and amendments made under sections 13, 14, 15, and 16 shall take effect as provided under subsection (a), except that such repeals and amendments-- `(1) shall not affect any proceeding or suit commenced before the effective date under subsection (a), and in all such proceedings or suits, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been enacted; and _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) `(2) shall not affect the requirements of Federal agencies to compile, publish, and retain information filed or received before the effective date of such repeals and amendments.' Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be recognized to offer an amendment to the Levin-Cohen amendment No. 1836, and a vote occur on the amendment at 6 p.m. this evening; and that no amendments be in order to the Levin amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the Levin-McConnell amendment, the Senate proceed to the adoption of the Levin-Cohen amendment, as amended, if amended, without any intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1842, AS FURTHER MODIFIED Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1842 for further modification of the second-degree amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the pending business. Mr. CRAIG. I send the modification to the desk and ask that it be so modified. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the amendment. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the President. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I suggest the clerk read the amendment now as it is modified again. It is a short amendment and it does make a difference, and if there is a change in it, everybody should hear what that change is. This is an additional modification. I ask that the clerk read this amendment. This is an amendment to the Craig substitute, as I understand. Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I changed and added the word `activities' to `lobbying.' I think the Senator has made an important point, and I wish the full amendment, as modified, to be read into the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment, as modified. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Strike all after the word `Sec.', and insert the following: An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Michigan for making that clarifying point. Recognizing that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1843 to amendment No. 1836. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the pending business to go to Brown No. 3 amendment, No. 1841. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1841 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is the amendment that deals with qualified blind trust and provides for reporting of the total cash value of that if, indeed, the trust provides that the beneficiary of the trust is notified under the terms of the trust. My understanding is both sides have reviewed this and do not have objection to it. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. BROWN Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am unaware of any objection to the Brown amendment just outlined on this side. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I know of no objections to this amendment on this side. To be clear, this is the so-called Brown amendment No. 3 earlier in the afternoon. Mr. BROWN. It is. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 1841? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1841) was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Levin McConnell amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Levin McConnell amendment No. 1843 be considered a substitute for amendment No. 1836. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is a technical change. We see no problem with it. There is no objection on this side. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1843 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, No. 1843, of the Senator from Michigan. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] are necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows: Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg. [Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.] YEAS--98 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Biden Bingaman Bond Boxer Bradley Breaux Brown Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Conrad Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle DeWine Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Exon Faircloth Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Glenn Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Harkin Hatch Hatfield Heflin Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnston Kassebaum Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Kohl Kyl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lott Mack McCain McConnell Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Murray Nickles Nunn Packwood Pell Pressler Pryor Reid Robb Rockefeller Roth Santorum Sarbanes Shelby Simon Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner Wellstone NOT VOTING--2 Bennett Lugar So the amendment (No. 1843) was agreed to. [Page: S10554] Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the Levin-McConnell amendment, No. 1843, was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. FORD. May we have order, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold for a moment. Regular order requires us to vote on the underlying amendment. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1836, AS AMENDED The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now occurs on amendment No. 1836, as amended. The amendment (No. 1836), as amended, was agreed to. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) AMENDMENT NO. 1837 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call for regular order with regard to the McCain amendment No. 1837. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to call for regular order and that is now the pending question. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. Senators will cease conversation. The Senator from Arizona. AMENDMENT NO. 1837, AS MODIFIED Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment (No. 1837), as modified, is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: (a) Repeal: Subsection (c) of section 3304 of title 5, United States Code, is repealed. (b) Redesignation: Subsection (d) of section 3304 of title 5, United States Code, is redesignated as subsection (c). (c) Effective Date: The repeal and amendment made by this section shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. Add the following new section: (a) In General: Section 3304 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by section 2 of this Act) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: `(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall promulgate regulations on the manner and extent that experience of an individual in a position other than the competitive service such as the excepted service (as defined under section 2103) in the legislative or judicial branch, or in any private or nonprofit enterprise, may be considered in making appointments to a position in the competitive service (as defined under section 2102).' In promulgating such regulations OPM shall not grant any preference based on the fact of service in the legislative or judicial branch. The regulations shall be consistent with the principles of equitable competition and merit-based appointments. (b) Effective Date: The amendment made by this section shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, except the Office of Personnel Management shall-- (1) conduct a study on excepted service considerations for competitive service appointments relating to such amendment; and (2) take all necessary actions for the regulations described under such amendment to take effect as final regulations on the effective date of this section. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this has been agreed to by Chairman Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and with the consent of Senator Stevens, including language Senator Stevens added when he reported the legislation out of the Civil Service Subcommittee in May regarding OPM and judicial regulations, to consider the experience of individuals who served in the legislative branch as well as private sector; preference will not be given in these regulations. I thank Senator Roth and Senator Stevens for their assistance on this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further amendment or further discussion on amendment No. 1837, as modified? The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not like to ask this question. I realize we are in the Dracula stage of legislation. The Dracula rule appears, over the last several months, where we do not vote during daylight hours but only in the evening. Otherwise, we might be wasting our time with our families, our wives, our husbands, our children, whatever else. As one who would like to spend some time with his family, I wonder if the leader might be able to give us some idea whether this will be one of those 2 or 3 evenings a month that we are allowed time with our families. I realize the commitment of everybody here to family values. I just ask that question. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEAHY The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a great deal of progress has been made today. That last vote was an indication of how much progress has been made in working out an agreement on this legislation. There is now an agreement on the McCain amendment. There are other amendments being discussed that we could hopefully reach agreement on. There are some that still may require some recorded votes tonight. The leader has indicated he would like for us to push on and see if we can work out as many amendments as possible and get votes on others and get to final passage on lobby reform tonight. The reason for that is we do still have to take up, under the unanimous-consent agreement, gift reform later on tonight or tomorrow, without votes on gift reform tonight. We do have the Bosnia resolution pending for consideration tomorrow afternoon, and many other bills that we need to complete before we get to our August recess period. But the answer to the question of the Senator from Vermont is, we do want to go forward. We think we can complete this legislation at a reasonable hour tonight. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Mississippi has said. I do compliment the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Michigan. I know from various phone calls that went back and forth they have done yeomen's service here today in reaching this area of agreement. Obviously, had they not, we could be here much, much longer than we have. The question I have again, for some of us who have families, is there going to be either a window or shall we tell them to all go to bed and get up at 1 tomorrow morning to see us? I do not mean to question facetiously, but we are falling into this trend of almost Dracula voting--we only vote when the Sun goes down. But some of us do have families and would like to see them. I ask the question in all seriousness, will there be a window? Will there be time? Shall we make any plans to see our families? Mr. LOTT. To respond further, it is very difficult to say right now that could be done because we have three or four negotiations going on simultaneously. We may get those worked out shortly, and then there would not be a necessity for votes again in the next hour. But right now, we could not indicate that there will be a window. We want to try to complete this before it is late tonight. That would be the best way so that we all could go home at 8 or 8:30. Mr. LEAHY. Is there a possibility of setting the votes in the morning? Mr. LOTT. There is. We would have to check to see where the negotiations are. There is a possibility we could have stacked votes later on tonight, or perhaps even in the morning. Right now the leader wants us to push this forward so we can get an agreement. I believe we can accomplish that. I yield the floor. [Page: S10555] Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator not leave for a moment? I wonder. Whoever is putting this together, have you considered a sliding scale, sort of a means testing on the gifts? The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Senate will be in order. The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. DOMENICI. I want to repeat my question. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Mississippi took it far too seriously. Let me repeat it again with a big smile. Some of us are wondering whether you have considered a sliding scale on the gifts, a means testing for some of us who are in different conditions of finances than others. There are some who are in such great finances that they ought to be willing to have no gifts of any type under any circumstances. Have you ever considered a means testing for gifts? Mr. LOTT. If I might respond, Mr. President, the gift rule issue will not come up until later on tonight with votes not occurring on that today but tomorrow. Speaking for myself, I think that is a great idea. [Laughter.] _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LOTT Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to bring that to a vote. Thank you very much. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment 1837, as modified? If there is no further debate on the amendment No. 1837, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1837), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, may we have order? The Senate is still not in order, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Those participating in conversations will please retire to the cloakrooms. The Senate is not in order. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the majority whip indicated, we believe we are down to a relatively few amendments. There is an excellent chance of finishing the bill tonight. Mr. President, I see my friend from Michigan seeking recognition. So I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. VOTE VITIATED ON AMENDMENT NO. 1841 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after consulting with the Presiding Officer, whose amendment I am referring to, I would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the vote on the so-called Brown No. 3 amendment, which was voice voted in the last 20 minutes. There was a problem with it that this Senator was not aware of. I indicated that I had no objection. In fact, there was some objection. I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the vote approving Brown 3 with the right of the Senator from Colorado, of course, to offer that amendment at any time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, can I inquire as to whether or not we reached the point where maybe we could get an agreement to dispose of the Craig-Simpson modified amendment by voice vote? I understood maybe that was now possible. That would rid us of the necessity for another recorded vote. I am told that perhaps the other side is willing to agree to that now. I do have a unanimous consent request, if that is possible. Mr. LEVIN. I do not know of a request for a rollcall vote on the Simpson amendment on this side. However, I would like all Members to understand that this is a very significant amendment which is going to affect 501(c)(4) organizations and would state that a 501(c)(4) organization, which includes Blue Cross, AARP, Disabled American Veterans, International Olympic Committee, and a whole host of other organizations that currently are allowed, although they have a tax exemption, to lobby, that under the Simpson-Craig amendment, they no longer would be allowed to receive a grant or an award from the Federal Government at the same time that they are allowed to lobby. I think this creates a whole host of new issues. I am not on the Finance Committee. Unless someone from the Finance Committee wishes to get into this in some detail, I do not know of any indication on this side for a rollcall vote. Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, frankly, this is one Senator who may want a vote. I am uneasy, I say, Mr. President. This raises a question, I say to my colleague. I am very uneasy about this list. I am not sure it is a complete list of 501(c)(4)'s. Some of them may very well be deserving of grants. I do not have any difficulty being lobbied by some of these organizations. It sounds to me like you have a few here that are being targeted for some specific purpose. I think we ought to think more carefully before we take a rather significant step in deciding that a whole group of very legitimate organizations, that may very well qualify for grants of one kind or another, all of a sudden are being precluded from either doing that or lobbying Members of the U.S. Senate. I, for one, would prefer to have a rollcall vote on this and have a voice vote, and I do not know frankly what the implications are. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. DODD The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if I can draw the attention of my colleagues back to the issue here, we had the debate which was not participated in by everyone. And I understand that. I have been here for several years. Let me tell you what this is. This is not an attempt to get anybody. The amendment is very clear. I am going to read it. Here is the amendment with regard to 501(c)(4) corporations. There are a lot of them. This does not have anything to do with 501(c)(3) corporations, charitable corporations, the kind we think of most often. It has nothing to do with universities. It has nothing to do with 501(c)(5) corporations or 501(c)(6) corporations. Remember, a 501(c)(4) corporation is tax-exempt and has unlimited ability to lobby with unlimited sums of money. They can lobby with $20 or $30 million, if they wish. There is no limitation whatsoever on lobbying activities. That is a 501(c)(4). The 501(c)(3)'s are limited to a certain amount, a million bucks. You cannot go over that--501(c)(5)'s and (c)(6)'s have limitations. Here is what the amendment says: An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. Meaning that if a 501(c)(4) decided that they wanted to continue to lobby and were receiving Federal funds, they could no longer continue to lobby. However, if they wished to continue to receive Federal funds, then they would limit their lobbying activities. They can also go into splits, if they wish to split a 501(c)(4) organization. At least that would be an improvement over present law, which simply says that these groups can lobby. And if you are doing something with lobbying reform, it would seem to me you would want to do something with the one tax-exempt organization that can lobby with unlimited funding and still receive grants from the Federal Government to do so. Mr. DODD. I apologize for not being here earlier today. Like most Members, I was not here in town for the debate. I am looking down the list here of some of these numbers. I am told--correct me if I am wrong--there are 140,000 501(c)(4) organizations in the United States. Now, I am looking at a list of 20 or 30 here. Obviously, it may be a list put together to cause someone like me to raise the issue, but I look at the Fireman's Association, State of New York, Group Health Association--a lot of groups that may very well qualify for grants, and I certainly, as a Member, do not have any objection if they want to come and lobby me in the office for some particular purpose. I do not know why we are singling out that particular group in this particular environment. Now, to me, to disqualify 140,000 organizations in the United States seems to go a little too far. [Page: S10556] Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we are not disqualifying 140,000 organizations of the United States. We are disqualifying those that receive funding from the Federal Government, and very few of these do. Some receive minuscule amounts, most receive none. Here is the Mutual of America Life Insurance Co. with assets of $5.5 billion. I doubt that they receive anything from the Federal Government for lobbying activities. Mr. DODD. I ask my colleague, what is the point of the amendment then? If none of them is getting grants, why do we need an amendment? Mr. SIMPSON. The point of the amendment is there are many tax-exempt 501(c)(4) corporations that receive grants, awards, contracts, or loans, or any other form from the Federal Government and use it to lobby the Federal Government for more Federal money for themselves. Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? I do not know who has the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor. Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield on that point? _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN Mr. SIMPSON. Certainly. Mr. LEVIN. The Senator just said that they could use the grant for lobbying purposes. I think that he misspoke when he said that because there is a law which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for lobbying activities. What the amendment does is something different, because we already have a ban on using appropriated funds for lobbying. What the amendment says is that if an organization gets funds from some other source, if a 501(c)(4) gets funds from some other source and uses those other funds to lobby, it may not then get a grant or an award from the Federal Government to do some social function that is within the scope of the grant. I do not think the Senator from Wyoming is suggesting--at least I hope he is not--that currently a 501(c)(4) can get a grant or an award from the Federal Government and use that money to pay for lobbying. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, under the present law of the United States, when we are talking about a tax-exempt corporation, we are seeing happening in the country--this is something we have had one hearing on; there will be many more--where the Government is subsidizing the programs and activities of huge lobbying organizations that are engaged in things on the direct edge of UBIT, which is the unrelated business income Tax, that are involved in profitmaking activities and that receive a tax-exempt status. What we are saying is those organizations which lobby without limit--and this is the only one in the whole panoply that lobbies without limit, without any kind of limitation on the amount of money they can spend. So if you are going to do a lobbying reform bill, it would seem to me that you would want to deal with the one subsection (c) corporation that can spend itself into oblivion and even use Federal money in the process of receiving grants, awards, notes, whatever it may be, bonuses, contracts, and we are saying you make a choice here. If you are going to lobby, then you are not going to receive Federal grants. If you want to receive Federal grants, you do not lobby. Take your pick. Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield further, I appreciate his point. Mr. SIMPSON. I will yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG. All money is fungible, and if there is not a clear, tight bookkeeping system, as there is in a 501(c)(3), which the IRS says very clearly how much of its assets or what percentage of it it can spend in lobbying up to a universal cap of $1 million, then we went over and created a 501(c)(4) which said you can be tax-exempt and you can have unlimited advocacy . What we have seen over the years is not only do they have unlimited advocacy , and, yes, there is a rather open bookkeeping system and, yes, there is a prohibition against using Federal dollars, tax dollars for the purpose of lobbying, all of the money moves inside the organization and it is extremely fungible. We are saying, if you want to retain your 501(c)(4) for lobbying, you can and you should and you are tax-exempt. But if you want to do the grant business, go create something else for that purpose so there is a clear line so the taxpayers of this country can know and know very well that there is not the fungibility that is going on here, not in the hundreds of thousands of those organizations but in a substantial number that have taken advantage of a tax-exempt status. I do not think the Senator and I, in granting that tax-exempt status, want to allow them to take advantage. Now, we do not want to deny them the opportunity to serve their public and their membership, and they can do that by shifting their status for certain purposes. Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. If my colleague will yield further, I will seek time or whatever. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I might inquire of a couple things. One, I am told there are some 140,000 of these organizations. I do not know. And maybe there have been hearings on this by the Finance Committee. This is a pretty significant step we are taking. Could I inquire of my colleague from Wyoming whether or not there have been any hearings on what the implications of this are? I presume it is a Finance Committee matter since it is a 501(c)(4). And what are the tax implications of it? I do not know if that has been done. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. DODD Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we did have a hearing in the Finance Committee on these issues of tax exempts, and we will have many more. We did, indeed. The `little guys' that people have been talking about protecting, grassroots and so on, they are going to be well protected because they are, most of them, 501(c)(3). We are talking about a singular group of maybe 140,000--that is exactly correct--and we are talking about big time, big time lobbying. One group spends $26 million a year on unlimited lobbying and receives grants from the Federal Government. We are saying if you do that, then you are no longer going to receive the grants. You can lobby to oblivion; you can continue to do whatever you wish to do. Or if you wish not to receive grants or receive grants, you take your choice. Or you can split into two 501(c)(4)'s, one lobbying with all sorts of money and dues, it is perfectly appropriate, without limit; or, if you are going to receive Federal funds, you do not lobby. You take your pick. Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for his response, Mr. President. I just say again, I do not hold myself as any expert in this area, but it seems to me we are taking, in my view, I do say with all due respect to my good friend, a rather draconian step; with 140,000 organizations in this country, admittedly, by one of the authors of the amendment, out of the 140,000 we are talking a handful that really stick in the craw of my colleague from Wyoming. In doing so, my own view is I do not know why we ought to take 139,900 and ask them to pay an awful price here because of what 100 organizations may be doing that is offensive. My view is we are changing a pretty significant piece of tax law when it comes to these organizations. And to step forward and single out 140,000 organizations, most of which are pretty small operators here that have set up under those guidelines, I think goes too far. Now, clearly, there may be some here that, because of their income status or whatever, maybe we ought to come back with another amendment that deals with some of those in some specific way. But to pick on groups here that literally are tiny--the Henry Ford Health Care Corp., the Higher Education Foundation, they are on the list of organizations here that do not seem to me to be any great threat to anyone. So, Mr. President, with great respect to the authors of the amendment, I think this just goes too far. I think we are stepping way over a line here. If we are going to change entirely the nature of 501(c)(4) corporations, I think we ought to have some specific hearings, there ought to be specific legislation that comes up and not have an amendment offered on the floor that wipes out 140,000 organizations from what has been up to this very moment a legitimate tax status. I say to my colleague from Idaho, money is fungible, but the fact of the matter is the law is the law. And you are not allowed to use taxpayer money for lobbying purposes. That is the law. If someone does, they are in violation of the law and there are penalties associated with that. But to suggest because there is some grant money there that somehow all of that leaches into the rest of this money and ends up being used for lobbying purposes I think, frankly, is to suggest that somehow people are out there violating the law right and left, and I do not see it. Come back if you want to on this one, but I do not know why you want to take 140,000 organizations and relegate them to a very unique status--all of them in this country--because of the complaints of a few. [Page: S10557] Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has yielded for a question. Mr. DODD. Certainly. Mr. CRAIG. I think it is important to cite here that we are not amending the Tax Code. We are using the Tax Code to identify the group in lobbying, and that clarification is how I read what we are doing. I think it is also fair to say that any 501(c)(4) that chooses not to get a grant and feed at the Federal trough is exempt. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. CRAIG Mr. DODD. May I ask my colleague, for instance, why are we not including 50l(c)(6)? Those are trade associations. They are tax exempt. They get Federal contracts and grants and they lobby. Mr. CRAIG. Because there is an entirely different qualifying mechanism under the IRS Code for them, and they are watched very closely and their audits are held very tightly. Mr. DODD. Will my colleague not agree they meet all the standards the Senator applies to this amendment? Mr. CRAIG. Absolutely. Mr. DODD. They are trade associations. They get grants and they lobby. Why is there any reason to suspect they are going to be any different in terms of their tax dollars---- Mr. CRAIG. The term is unlimited versus the percentages of total revenue base. The IRS Code already established that. 501(c)(4) is an unlimited category. Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question? Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has yielded to the Senator from Michigan for a question. Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me the Senator from Connecticut is pointing out something which is very significant, which is that the proponents of the amendment are basically using the amendment which will ban a 501(c)(4) organization from doing something it currently does, which is to both lobby with its own funds and to receive a grant for a public purpose somewhere else. The purpose of this amendment, as I understand it, is an accounting purpose. The argument is made that money is fungible and, therefore, we have to make sure they do not use public funds for lobbying purposes and that we need an accounting mechanism in order to be sure that that is not done. In 18 United States Code section 1913, it already says that: No part of the money appropriated by Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress to favor or oppose by vote or otherwise any legislation or appropriation by Congress whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation. So we already have a ban on the use of public funds for lobbying. It seems to me what this comes down to then is to say we are going to change the rules currently lived by 140,000 organizations in order to make sure that the few organizations, relatively, that lobby keep good books. Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague---- Mr. LEVIN. I am wondering whether the Senator from Connecticut will agree. Mr. DODD. I agree. It sounds like the `Lawyers and Accountants Relief Act.' You hire accountants and lawyers and create two organizations and you have met the standard. I suppose you can get around the law that way. I am not sure that is what we want to be doing necessarily, except that a lot of smaller organizations that do not have the resources are going to have to go out and hire people to do it. For the life of me, I do not understand the value, particularly when the law is clear when you use those resources. Mr. LEVIN. My question to the Senator is this: Will the Senator agree that an amendment might be in order that might require 501(c)(4)'s to maintain clear books as to how they use Federal funds for Federal purposes and do not use those funds for lobbying purposes? Will the Senator agree that that kind of an amendment might be appropriate in order to address the fungibility issue of the Senator from Idaho? Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague from Michigan, that would at least--I understand the heart of the argument in a sense, that the fungibility question is one that people are worried about. I suggest if we are going to do it, we might apply it to the 501(c)(6) organizations as well. That at least addresses a potential problem, although to me that may be solved by means other than through the amendment process. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. DODD Nonetheless, that would at least make some sense to me. But to wipe out 140,000 organizations--as I say, I do not hold myself out--I just happened to walk on the floor and heard this amendment was coming up, and it seemed to go too far. I do not have a particular brief; no one talked about it. I looked at the list and said, `Why are we taking 140,000 organizations in this country that are 501(c)(4) organizations and all of a sudden applying a standard that I think goes beyond the pale?' That is all I feel about it. I do not have a particular brief for it. It just seems to go too far for me. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, after 16 years of legislating on the floor, I remember one incident distinctly. We went for 5 days of debate--I was managing the bill--and suddenly in the door came one of our colleagues. He happened to be on our side of the aisle and had paid no particular interest in the measure, and suddenly just went for it tooth and fang. I thought, well, that is interesting. Mr. DODD. Did he win or lose? Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, he lost. Mr. DODD. I had a feeling that was the answer. [Laughter.] Mr. SIMPSON. Directing my remarks to the Chair, of course, rather than my colleague from Connecticut, let me just say we are not wiping out anybody. We are not in the business of wiping out 501(c)(4)'s, and if you want to go to 501 (c)(6)'s and (c)(5)'s, I am ready to go there, too. But I did not want to bite off too big a chunk because I did not want to get into it with the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO. Mr. DODD. The AFL-CIO is a 501(c)(4). Mr. SIMPSON. No, they are not. Mr. DODD. I am told they are---- Mr. SIMPSON. They are a (c)(5); the AFL-CIO is a (c)(5). Mr. DODD. Right; (c)(5). Mr. SIMPSON. So is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. DODD. I apologize to my colleague. Mr. SIMPSON. What we are saying is if anyone gets stung here in this process, they can go become a 501(c)(3) if they are really into big-time charity, doing things that you would like to see charities do. They can be a 501(c)(3). That is a charitable corporation; that is $1 million limiting activity of lobbying. They can give up lobbying or they can go into a separate split-off. They can split into two, a lobbying organization or a grant organization. That is what we are saying. We are seeing abuses of the system. This is not about tax exemption. This is about lobbying. I thought that is what this is about. Why in the world should we allow a group to have unlimited ability to spend their members' dues and then use Federal money to offset what they ordinarily would have paid? They would have had to pay for this somewhere but, no, they get it from the Feds. I think that is wrong if you are doing lobbying reform. [Page: S10558] Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I frequently come to the floor on the spur of the moment like my friend from Connecticut--and we see eye to eye--but I think he is wrong on this one. I think the Senator from Wyoming is right. Frankly, I did not know this was legal. I could not imagine that you would have a tax-exempt corporation--meaning they do not pay any tax on all the money they take in--going out and lobbying the Federal Government, because that is permissive, and then going out and seeking grants from the Federal Government. I could not imagine a situation with more potential for conflict of interest than putting in a corporation that gets all these benefits and can lobby the Federal Government and then saying, `On the other hand, you can go get all the money you can scratch out of these grants'--and do what with it? Spend it for the same entity, the same corporation. If I were to have had this before me at the beginning when it was passed, I would have voted against it. I think it is an exciting idea that when you are reforming the lobbying laws of the Nation that you give the corporations a clear opportunity. If you want to lobby, you choose another tax-exempt status. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. DOMENICI If you want to choose this one, then do not go to the Federal Government against whom you are lobbying to get money. It seems to me pretty clear that the Senator from Wyoming is on the right track. I hope we will vote soon and get rid of this opportunity that we should never have given to these kinds of nonprofit corporations. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that we are down to six amendments, most of which I think are going to be accepted. There is an excellent chance of finishing this bill very soon. I do not want to interrupt the debate going on. But we can get through here pretty quickly if we will have the cooperation of Senators. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know that some Members are waiting to see if we are going to have a vote momentarily, or whether we are going to do this on a voice vote or not. I believe that the yeas and nays have already been ordered on the underlying Simpson amendment. So I believe we are ready to go to a vote. Does the Senator want to dispose of this on a voice vote? Mr. DODD. I would like a recorded vote. Has there been a request for a recorded vote? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the underlying amendment. There is a second-degree amendment that the yeas and nays have not been ordered on. Mr. DODD. Which is the second-degree amendment? Mr. LOTT. Let me see if I can clarify a request here. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Craig amendment, as further modified, that no amendments be in order to the Craig amendment No. 1843, and that following the disposition of the Craig amendment, the Senate proceed to the adoption of the Simpson amendment No. 1839, as amended, if amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me inquire further of the Senator from Mississippi as to what he expects for a schedule tonight. Some of us would like to know, if we have a recorded vote now, when will we have the next recorded vote? Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are down to half a dozen amendments. We believe we can work out agreements on some of those. Some we believe we can voice vote. We think we are down to maybe a couple more votes tonight, and we would like to go ahead and move toward getting a conclusion on those amendments. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would observe that much of the day was spent in quorum calls and now, as we reach the dinner hour, we seem to be more interested in debate. Mr. LOTT. Let me respond to the Senator, if I could. Let us go ahead and go to this recorded vote, and during that vote we will see if we can get a further clarification on exactly when the final votes would occur. We will work on that and tell the Members after this vote. Mr. DORGAN. That is fine with me. I hope that the majority will consider rolling votes tomorrow morning. I hope he will consider doing this on a routine basis. If we have a couple more votes, rather than people coming back at 9 or 10 p.m. to cast votes, why not stack them for the first thing in the morning? Mr. LOTT. We will have to check with the majority leader on that. The important thing is that we need to finish lobby reform, so that we can go to gift reform first thing in the morning. Perhaps we can work something out along the lines of what he is suggesting. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the underlying Simpson amendment No. 1839. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. I believe we are ready to vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1842, as further modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LOTT The bill clerk called the roll. Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows: Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg. [Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bond Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Johnston Kassebaum Kempthorne Kerrey Kerry Kyl Lott Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--39 Akaka Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Dorgan Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Heflin Inouye Jeffords Kennedy Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone NOT VOTING--2 Bennett Lugar So the amendment (No. 1842), as further modified, was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the underlying amendment, as amended. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may we have order, please? Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The motion to reconsider the previous vote has been made. Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a motion to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. AMENDMENT NO. 1839, AS AMENDED Mr. EXON. Mr. President, what is the matter currently before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1839, as amended. Mr. EXON. Further debate has been ordered, then, before we proceed to consider the matter for final approval, is that right? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, it provided for an immediate vote upon the disposition of the second-degree amendment. [Page: S10559] Mr. EXON. There was a unanimous-consent agreement to that effect? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The question is on the underlying first-degree amendment, as amended. Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? This is the same amendment as just voted on. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. EXON. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second. Mr. EXON. I know that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not sufficient second. Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. LOTT. There was a good deal of discussion when the Senator from Nebraska was making his motion. Is he asking for a recorded vote on the Simpson amendment? Mr. FORD. As amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding. Mr. LOTT. I thought we had vitiated that in an earlier unanimous-consent request? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. LOTT. So that has been disposed of. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. EXON. May I make further inquiry of the Chair? If I understand what the situation is at the present time, there was a unanimous consent agreement earlier, after we had voted on the second-degree amendment, that the underlying amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming would then be approved on a voice vote? Was that the unanimous-consent agreement? _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. EXON The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be voted on immediately following. Mr. EXON. Immediately following. I have asked for a rollcall vote. I did not receive a sufficient second? Is that the ruling of the Chair? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. EXON. I make one further request for a rollcall vote on the Simpson amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are requested. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum. Mr. FORD. Regular order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for the Chair to determine. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, parliamentary inquiry, I think we need to try to understand exactly where we are and what we are trying to accomplish here. I believe, in framing my parliamentary inquiry, the amendment now before us is identical to the language we just voted on. And, therefore, this would be a second recorded vote on the same issue we just voted on now, under the Craig amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is correct. The yeas and nays have been requested. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just one further parliamentary inquiry. We were to the point, if we were able to complete that vote and dispose of it, hopefully, to enter a unanimous-consent agreement that would allow us to complete action tonight and perhaps have final passage on this issue, a final vote in the morning at 9 o'clock. So I was in hopes that we could complete this final vote that we just had and move on to the unanimous consent agreement without additional recorded votes tonight. I just wanted to make that point before we proceed further. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Did I understand just now that the order is that since this rollcall vote has been requested by the Senator from Nebraska, we vote on that and that the only pending business left before final will be voted on at 9 o'clock in the morning? Is that correct? Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from Arkansas, no. It was our hope that we could then enter into a unanimous-consent agreement that would, if we get all the details agreed to, say that any further recorded votes would occur in the morning at 9 o'clock on any amendments thereto and final passage if any amendments are requested for recorded vote. Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just ask the distinguished assistant majority leader if he can tell us how many amendments we are working on. What is the potential for more votes? Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond, there are about three amendments that are still pending. We think maybe a recorded vote would be necessary on one of those amendments. But we need to work through the unanimous-consent agreement first. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question? Can we identify those amendments? Mr. LOTT. They have been identified. We have discussed those with the distinguished Democratic leader and with the managers of the bill. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to know who the author is and what the nature of these amendments are before agreeing to closing out the amendment tree and leaving only final passage to be considered. Mr. LOTT. That would be the hope of the managers of the bill as soon as we move to that. In fact, I think we are ready to go to the unanimous-consent request here momentarily. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The yeas and nays have been requested. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LOTT Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] are necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desired to vote? The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 37, as follows: Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg. [Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg.] YEAS--59 Abraham Ashcroft Baucus Bond Breaux Brown Burns Campbell Chafee Coats Cochran Cohen Coverdell Craig D'Amato DeWine Dole Domenici Faircloth Feinstein Frist Gorton Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Hatch Hatfield Helms Hollings Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Kassebaum Kempthorne Kerrey Kerry Kyl Lott Mack McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Reid Roth Santorum Shelby Simpson Smith Snowe Specter Stevens Thomas Thompson Thurmond Warner NAYS--37 Akaka Biden Bingaman Boxer Bradley Bryan Bumpers Byrd Conrad Daschle Dodd Exon Feingold Ford Glenn Graham Harkin Heflin Inouye Kennedy Kohl Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Mikulski Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray Nunn Pell Pryor Robb Rockefeller Sarbanes Simon Wellstone NOT VOTING--4 Bennett Dorgan Johnston Lugar So, the amendment (No. 1839), as amended, was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. [Page: S10560] Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1838, AS MODIFIED Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] and I have been working on amendment No. 1838. We now have arrived at an agreement. I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 1838. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified. The amendment, as modified, is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: (a) Income.--Section 102(a)(1)(B) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended-- (1) in clause (vii) by striking `or'; and (2) by striking clause (viii) and inserting the following: `(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000, or `(ix) greater than $5,000,000; `(x) greater than $1,000,000.' (b) Assets and Liabilities.--Section 102(d)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (F) by striking `and'; and (2) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting the following: `(G) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000; `(H) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than $25,000,000; `(I) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than $50,000,000; and `(J) greater than $50,000,000; `(K) greater than $1,000,000.' (C) Exception.--Section 102(e)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by inserting after 102(e)(1)(E) the following: `(F) For purposes of this section, categories with amounts or values greater than $1,000,000 shall apply to spouses and dependent children only if the income, asset or liability is held jointly with the reporting individual; all other income and/or liabilities of a spouse or dependent children greater than $1,000,000 shall be categorized as greater than $1,000,000.' _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. FORD Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 6 be stricken from S. 1060, and when the Senate considers S. 1061, section 6 be inserted at the appropriate place. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1838, AS MODIFIED Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, with the assistance of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I believe amendment No. 1838 is modified in a way that meets the approval of Members. To refresh Members' memories, this amendment deals solely with reporting categories, not the more controversial areas of residence or the area of blind trust. This amendment deals solely with reporting categories. The modification makes it clear that it does not apply the new categories to the assets, income or liabilities of dependents or spouses, but only to those of the reporting individuals. Mr. President, I believe the amendment is at a point where both sides have agreed to it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1838), as modified, was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. AMENDMENT NO. 1840 WITHDRAWN Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, my second amendment is amendment No. 1840. It deals with reporting of residences. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity in the last several hours to hear from, I believe, close to a majority of my colleagues. It is quite clear from those who have spoken to me that there is not support in the Chamber for this amendment. While I continue to believe that assets of this kind that exceed $1 million should be reported, it is quite clear--or so it appears--that we do not have the votes for this. Therefore, I withdraw amendment No. 1840. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The amendment is withdrawn. So the amendment (No. 1840) was withdrawn. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will be set aside. AMENDMENT NO. 1844 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Dole and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 1844. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: AMENDMENT TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (P.L. 75-583) Strike section 11 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, and insert in lieu thereof the following: The Attorney General shall every six months report to the Congress concerning administration of this Act, including registrations filed pursuant to the Act, and the nature, sources and content of political propaganda disseminated and distributed. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1844) was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1845 (Purpose: To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit any person serving as the U.S. Trade Representative and the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative from representing or advising a foreign entity at any time after termination of that person's service and to disqualify such a person from serving as a U.S. Trade Representative and the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative) Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Dole and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 1845. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: (a) Representing After Service: Section 207(f)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by-- (1) inserting `or Deputy United States Trade Representative' after `is the United States Trade Representative'; and (2) striking `within 3 years' and inserting `at any time'. `(b) Limitation on Appointment as United States Trade Representative and Deputy United States Trade Representative: Section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)) is amended by adding at the end following new paragraph: `(3) Limitation on appointments: A person who has directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity (as defined by section 207(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code) in any trade negotiation, or trade dispute, with the United States may not be appointed as United States Trade Representative or as a Deputy United States Trade Representative.'. (c) Effective Date: The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to an individual appointed as United States Trade Representative or as a Deputy United States Trade Representative on or after the date of enactment of this Act. [Page: S10561] Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is the Dole amendment related to the U.S. Trade Representative. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been modified. It is no longer retroactive; it is prospective only, is that correct? Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct. Mr. LEVIN. With that modification, I have no objection. I think it might be wise to state, perhaps, what that amendment does provide, because it does make a change in terms of the USTR, who can be appointed to USTR. I think it would be wise, because it makes a change in the revolving door law, that this be stated, albeit briefly. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the first provision says that no one shall be appointed to the important post of U.S. Trade Representative, or a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, if that person had in the past directly represented a foreign government at a trade dispute or negotiation with the United States. The second provision says that nobody who served as U.S. Trade Representative, or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, may, after his or her employment has ended, represent, aid, or advise any foreign government, foreign political party, or foreign business entity with the intent to influence a decision of any officer or employee of any executive agency. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LEVIN I do not know whether the Senator from Michigan would like me to go on. I think that basically explains the amendment. Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this amendment has two provisions: The first provision says that no one shall be appointed to the important posts of U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative if that person had, in the past, directly represented a foreign government in a trade dispute or negotiation with the United States. The second provision says that no one who has served as U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative may, after his or her employment has ended, represent, aid, or advise any foreign government, foreign political party, or foreign business entity with the intent to influence a decision of any officer or employee of any executive agency; 18 U.S.C. section 207(f)(2) currently prohibits the U.S. Trade Representative from aiding and advising a foreign entity for a period of 3 years after his service has ended. My amendment transforms this 3-year ban into a lifetime ban and applies the ban to the Deputy Trade Representative as well. Of course, there are many fine men and women who have served America as our trade representatives. My amendment should not be misconstrued as an effort to impugn their integrity in any way whatsoever. The real problem here is one of appearance--the appearance of a revolving door between Government service and private-sector enrichment. This appearance problem becomes all the more acute when former high Government officials work on behalf of foreign interests. That is why my amendment insists that if you have represented the United States as one of its most senior trade officials in sensitive trade negotiations, you should not now--not 3 years from now, not ever--represent a foreign government or foreign business before the Government of the United States. Service as a high Government officials is a privilege, not a right. This amendment may discourage some individuals from accepting the U.S.T.R. job, but in may view, this is a small price to pay when the confidence of the American people is at stake. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to. So the amendment (No. 1845) was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. AMENDMENT NO. 1841 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 1841 is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is disagreement by Members on this amendment. To refresh the memory of others, this is the amendment that would allow for the total assets of a trust to be reported on the disclosure form, in the event that the Member is advised under the trust instrument of what the total cash value of those assets are. Right now, Members do report income from their blind trust. They do not, however, report the total cash value of that blind trust, even though our form of a qualified blind trust does report that to the Member. So this amendment removes a loophole. It would provide for reporting of the total cash value. That clearly does not include the underlying assets, but it includes the total cash value of all the assets, only in the case that the trust instrument provides for that to be reported to the individual. Mr. President, there is disagreement on this. I, therefore, ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator from Colorado, and I have expressed some reservation about it, because what we are doing here is really amending the structure of the blind trust--understanding that it has been in existence here--that permits Members to disassociate the management of assets from their activities here and thereby not involving any opportunity for conflict. It serves a purpose. It has been on the books for some time now as part of the responsibilities of disclosure of Senators. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. LAUTENBERG Frankly, I think this is a rather back-door attempt to place this now in front of the public without full consideration. I think there ought to have been hearings about this to see what the Finance Committee or the Judiciary Committee has to say about the value of this instrument as an opportunity to serve, without having to look back over one's shoulder, about whether or not they are making a decision that may in fact present a conflict. I heard very clearly what the Senator said. All this does is talk about the value. Well, right now, that value may or may not be known but, likely, in an accountant's report, it is to be known for the value of doing one's estate planning, financial planning, children, other beneficiaries, in terms of where one would like to see the assets perhaps testamentally go. But now what we are saying is, OK, whether you obtain your assets through inheritance, hard work under the opportunities afforded in our country, the accumulation of assets now begins to look like it is somehow or other a stigma on one's ability. What we are going to do is continue to denigrate the interest in serving by exposing families to public review, by encouraging those who seek to gain other people's assets, by either criminal or illegal means--and that is the purpose of having some protection. I assume that the Senator says that `OK, what we ought to do is make sure that anybody who has acquired assets, no matter how hard they worked for it, no matter how ingenious they have been in creating it, they ought to present it willy-nilly out there for public scrutiny.' We now, Mr. President, have categories of assets. I understand that one of those, if I am correct, and I ask the Chair to be sure that what I am saying is accurate, one of those has just been modified so that we now have new levels of reporting assets that we did not have before. Is that true, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot comment on the substance of the amendment. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? [Page: S10562] Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator. Mr. BROWN. The Senator is correct, the amendment just accepted adds categories to the existing law, which stops at greater than $1 million. The additional categories apply only to a Member's personal or joint assets. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator further modify it to say, `Let's put your checkbook on the table, put your bank account out there so the public can see,' and see what your bill paying process has been to make sure that the assets you choose to acquire are subject to public scrutiny. This is a subterfuge of some kind. I cannot quite figure it out. Obviously, it is designed to either embarrass or stigmatize that which has been a legitimate practice here, and that is to say there are categories of assets that indicate in general terms what it is that these assets represent. Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty and perhaps we will eventually ask for weekly income or such things. The Senate has accepted it, Mr. President. I am sorry to see that we are, as we discuss lobbying reform, now into this kind of amendment. I wish it had been offered. I might very well support it. I object to it as I hear it, because I have not had a chance to see it examined fully, to see whether it is an appropriate process, one that we adopted some time ago, and have been following fairly scrupulously. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will be defeated so it can be deferred and discussed at length in the appropriate committees, as opposed to tacking this on to the lobbying reform bill. I also have an amendment, Mr. President, which I believe is listed in the category of amendments to be considered. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the measure before the Senate does not change the underlying statute. Under the statute, a beneficiary can receive certain information. In subparagraph 5: _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) Sen. BROWN Interested parties shall not receive any report on the holding and sources of income of the trust except a report at the end of each calendar quarter with respect to the total cash value of each of the interested parties in trust, or the net income or loss of the trust or any reports necessary to enable interested parties to complete individual tax returns. It goes on. My amendment does not change what makes up a blind trust. What it does do is close a loophole. In the past, Members with a qualified blind trust received a report on their income and reported that income. But Members who have a qualified blind trust and receive a report on the total cash value do not have to report the total cash value. My amendment does not change the qualified blind trust, but it does change what we report. It provides for the closing of the loophole. It does not require the disclosure of the individual assets in the blind trust. Obviously, those are not supposed to be disclosed to the people involved. It does however, require the disclosure of what is reported to the beneficiaries; that is, their total cash value. This has been on the books for some time. Let me deal with another aspect. In my view, my amendment in no way is meant to cast a stigma about the abilities of anyone associated with the blind trust. I think people who work hard and save the money have a right to be proud of that. It is an achievement. It is not something that casts any stigma on them. This amendment is not offered in that light. It is offered in a belief that disclosure should be consistent and there should not be loopholes to shelter very large assets, and full disclosure for those with lesser assets. The fact that you can afford an independent trustee should not be used as a measure for exempting you from disclosure. Disclosure ought to be applied both to those who cannot afford an independent trustee and those who can afford an independent trustee. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT NO. 1841 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I understand the leaders have reached an agreement on the Brown amendment, 1841. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a record vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 1841) was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. AMENDMENT NO. 1845 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor of the Dole U.S. Trade Representative amendment approved earlier tonight. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we will have a unanimous-consent agreement shortly. It is being typed. So, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday the Senate resume consideration of S. 1060, and at that time Senator Lautenberg be recognized to offer a relevant amendment; further, that the amendment be limited to a 60-minute time limitation to be equally divided in the usual form, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to amendment. _________________________________________________________________ LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 (Senate - July 24, 1995) I further ask that the only other amendment in order to S. 1060 be a managers' amendment to be offered following the disposition of the Lautenberg amendment; that it be considered under a 5-minute time limitation equally divided in the usual form; and, that immediately following the disposition of the managers' amendment S. 1060 be advanced to third reading and final passage occur all without any intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of S. 1061 at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 25 for the purpose of debate only. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are not quite ready to do the closing comments. But I would like to announce to the Members who might be watching or waiting that, since we have been able to reach the unanimous-consent agreement, there will be no further votes tonight. We will begin the session at 9 a.m. in the morning on the gift reform issue. And the votes will occur beginning at 12 o'clock. But there will be no further votes tonight. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) [Page: E1531] - HON. WES COOLEY OF OREGON in the House of Representatives Thursday, July 27, 1995 Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exhaustive and very professional research done by my constituents Bob and Sharon Beck and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association regarding how environmental groups receiving Federal funding engage in political advocacy which threatens the survival of ranchers and other public land users. Oregon ranchers are painfully aware that certain environmental groups have an agenda which includes putting them out of business. Unfortunately, Pacific Rivers Council and Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc: two of the more radical and litigious of these groups--have received substantial Federal grants from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [NFWF]. Although NFWF maintains it places restrictions against grantees using Federal funds for lobbying and litigation, at the very least these Federal funds free up other resources for these environmental groups to use for political advocacy . As my colleagues are well aware, this problem has extended far beyond the NFWF to many other nonprofit groups that receive Federal funds. Representatives McIntosh, Istook, and Ehrlich have documented many horror stories in this regard and intend to offer an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to limit this abuse of taxpayers dollars. I strongly support their efforts and hope similar amendments are adopted to all appropriations bills. Although I believe the NFWF should have its Federal funding terminated, the Interior appropriations bill--H.R. 1977--contained $4 million for the NFWF for fiscal year 1996. However, I am encouraged that the committee report--House Report 104-173--accompanying this bill clearly states that fiscal year 1996 is the last year for Federal funding of NFWF. It is imperative to ranchers like Bob and Sharon Beck that this Federal funding be terminated as the committee report promises. I would urge my colleagues to read the following articles from Beef Today, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Times on how Federal funds from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are used for lobbying and litigation by environmental groups. WEST SIDE STORY (By Patricia Peak Klintberg) In the high country above Oregon's Grande Ronde Valley, an occasional spray of daffodils or crocuses is all that remains of homesteads now long gone. It is in the valley below that one finds ranchers like Bob and Sharon Beck, offspring of the hardiest pioneers. Though they thrive in this emerald valley, criss-crossed with creeks brim-full in spring, the battle they fight today is just as dangerous, and infinitely more complex, than their ancestors' struggles against the elements. `The agenda of some environmental groups in this state is to put us out of business,' says a no-nonsense Sharon Beck. The groups deny this charge. But the cumulative effects of the litigation they bring--and even of their well-meaning projects--is to raise the cost of doing business for public-lands ranchers. This is a story about how environmental groups prosper by tapping into endless sources of funding--some of it straight from taxpayers. Consider the Eugene-based Pacific Rivers Council (PRC). This is the group behind last July's injunction halting all ongoing activities that could affect salmon in Oregon's Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman national forests, where the Becks are permittees. `We were out of town and read about it in the newspaper,' recalls Sharon Beck. `We were stunned. Our cattle were in the forest.' Ultimately, the Forest Service ordered cattle removed from some allotments. The experience burned the Becks and others as permanently as a brand. `We realized just how precarious our position is,' says Beck. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) Rep. COOLEY Bob Doppelt, PRC's general counsel, defends the suit: `We were only trying to get the Forest Service to do a good job. They were allowing timber sales without consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS].' PRC's suit charged that the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with NMFS on its overall 1990 forest plan. Instead, the Forest Service checked with NMFS before approving individual projects--logging, road repairs or whatever. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with PRC that the Endangered Species Act requires more than a project-by-project consultation. The Forest Service, meantime, has completed the consultation in question--but under the Endangered Species Act, which requires the loser to pay the costs of lawsuits, it must reimburse the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund for the costs of its legal fight on behalf of PRC. To say the Forest Service must foot the bill, of course, is another way of saying that the taxpayer must. Though the amount for this case is not established, the group has received `about $2 million' in attorneys' fees from the federal government in the past two years, says Buck Parker, a defense fund vice president. The fight cost Oregon public-lands ranchers $39,000 in legal fees. Since the Forest Service completed the consultation sought by PRC before the lawsuit was even decided, `All it did was cost the government and us a lot of money,' says Beck. Sharon and Bob Beck have a stake in what happens here. Their cow-calf operation lies in this nearly flat 150,000-acre valley, which is planted to grass and crops as diverse as coriander and sugar beets. The whole is surrounded by mountains. While water is abundant in spring, this is high country some 2,500 above sea level. Pastures can become parched in summer, so cattle are moved to the forest in May. `To us the land is everything. It is our connection with our history and our connection with our future,' Sharon Beck says. Bob's great-grandfather led a wagon train to western Oregon. Sharon was born here, surrounded by reminders of her ancestors. The front door is Carolina poplar, the tree Sharon's grandmother nurtured with left-over wash water. With their two daughters grown and gone and son Rob farming 14 crops on hundreds of acres of arable land, Bob handles the cattle while Sharon delves ever deeper into the tangled web of local environmental group financing. Teamed with Oregon Cattlemen's Association attorney Lindsay Slater, she discovered that PRC was receiving grant money from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Indeed, 75% of PRC's funding in 1994 came not from individuals but foundations. What's unique about NFWF among foundations, though, is that a third of its funding--millions of dollars--comes from taxpayers (see sidebar). Slater lays out the irony neatly: `Here was a foundation giving taxpayer dollars to a group that then turned around and sued the federal government.' Slater obtained a list of all NFWF grants made to groups in Oregon since 1988--$9.3 million worth. While NFWF staff prepared to come to Oregon to meet with the cattlemen, Sharon Beck spotted two troublesome grants. The first was a $180,000 grant to PRC for a project dubbed `Salmon Safe.' Though this grant had nothing to do with the earlier lawsuit, it was not lost on Beck and Slater that such funding keeps PRC flush, enabling it to pursue litigation. Just as bad, the Salmon Safe project seemed unnecessary. The idea was to create a green label for ranches that participate in PRC projects to improve riparian habitat. But the Oregon Cattlemen's Association routinely conducts watershed workshops with university scientists who bring cattlemen the latest in riparian and range management. `NFWF just throws the money out there and never looks back,' says Beck. At the meeting with NFWF staff in January, the cattlemen convinced them the project couldn't fly. `The Pacific Rivers lawsuit took us by surprise,' admits NFWF's Krishna Roy. `It is not something where we would necessarily have turned down the grant if we'd known they were suing someone else, but we have to keep it in mind in determining whether a project can be successful.' The federal portion of the grant, $60,000, has been frozen. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) Rep. COOLEY `We contacted PRC,' Roy says, `and said, Look, we are not going to dispense any federal funds until we are satisfied that private landowners are willing to participate in this program and that it can work.' PRC isn't worried. Doppelt says, `Whether NFWF gives us money or not, it won't stop us.' Cattlemen need `to get real. It's a sad thing to see them spin their wheels and look for scapegoats. The world has fundamentally changed and they don't like it.' The second grant that caught Sharon Beck's eye was to another local group suing ranchers: Water Watch of Oregon, Inc. In 1992, NFWF gave the group $201,674, $62,903 of it federal funds. The money `supported' an effort to remove the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River. The turn-of-the-century dam supplies irrigation water and recreation and recharges wells. Sharon Beck initially thought the grant might be a positive example of NFWF's work--but then she talked to local people like Jack Waldon, who runs a small newspaper, The Little Company. `This isn't about saving the salmon, it's about who controls the water,' says Waldon. `Taking the dam out will affect people's water rights. If they were worried about the salmon, the town would stop using the Rogue River for sewage treated with chlorine.' Attorney later checked out Water Watch and confirmed that it has objected to every proposed water right in Oregon. Fighting these objections costs farmers and ranchers time and money. NFWF's Whit Fosburgh argues the grant is justified: `The dam's a big fish killer and it's going to be a tremendous expense to bring it up to specifications,' he says. But spring chinook salmon runs on the Rogue are 25% larger than they were a year ago, according to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. `I went back 30 years, and I couldn't find a higher count at this time,' says district biologist Mike Evenson. As for the argument that fixing the dam would be hugely expensive--the federal government says it would cost millions--Emerson Roller, a contractor for 45 years who lives in the area, says the fish ladders on the dam could be repaired for $100,000. `It needs maintenance. If they use common sense they can probably fix it for less. `Why not use NFWF's money to fix the ladders?' asked Waldon, who by now believes the effort to take down the dam is tinged with conspiracy. `NFWF never came to Oregon before making the grant,' says Sharon Beck. `They never talked to anyone in the community. They just gave them the money to take out the dam. There is no accountability.' Well, there wasn't--but now there is. As a result of Slater's deft work and some pressure from the district's Rep. Wes Cooley (R-Ore.) and Idaho's Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R), NFWF has been responsive indeed. It will now ask grant applicants if they are parties to litigation, and allow the Oregon Cattlemen's Association to review grant applications for projects in the state. Other states can make the same request. Nevertheless, Chenoweth wants all federal funding for NFWF ended. Other members of Congress are reluctant to go that far, but with pressure to cut the deficit building, the President's request for NFWF federal funding of $7.5 million may be in jeopardy. It certainly wouldn't break the environmental movement: In 1992, 379 foundations gave $356 million to environmental and animal causes. Because of the federal funding it receives, NFWF is not included in this count. It is considered a `public' charity. [Page: E1532] NON-PROFIT GROUPS' FUNDS UNDER FIRE (By Patricia Peak Klintberg) Cove, Ore.--What really galled Sharon Beck was when she learned that her tax dollars were hard at work. Against her. She and her husband, Bob, raised cattle in the Grande Ronde Valley. While their cattle graze at the ranch in spring, they are moved to public forest land during the summer's dry months. A year ago, a local environmental group went to court to protect endangered salmon, and that action almost forced the Becks' cattle off the forest land. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) What the Becks didn't find out until later was that their own tax dollars partly funded the group. Their experience is not unique. Thousands of non-profit groups that receive taxpayer funds lobby and participate in litigation. So common is the practice that freshman Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.) held a congressional hearing this week to investigate. Some 600,000 non-profits or charities, ranging from hospitals to cultural centers, received $159 billion in federal funds in 1992, according to Independent Sector, a coalition of 800 non-profits. McIntosh says he is interested in all non-profits that use taxpayer dollars to lobby and litigate on the local or national level. `Whether it's the Nature Conservancy on the left or local Chambers of Commerce on the right, if special interest are using taxpayer money to lobby for more money, it's just plain wrong,' said McIntosh, chairman of the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) accused McIntosh of engaging in a `systematic effort to silence voices that disagree with the new Republican majority.' McIntosh replied: `We are not trying to silence them. We are just not going to give them taxpayer money to exercise their free-speech rights.' Among his targets is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the group the Becks discovered was helping fund local environmental groups in Oregon. Congress created the foundation in 1984 to finance public and private partnerships for conservation projects. It is authorized to receive $25 million a year in federal funds, although appropriations have never exceeded $10 million in a year. The federal money is given as a `challenge' grant, which means private contributions must match the federal portion of the grant. The foundation is barred by law from lobbying. Yet in a letter last March, its deputy director, Barbara Cairns, asked board members to contact certain members of Congress to save the National Biological Service from budget cuts. It also is barred from litigating. But according to Lindsay Slater, an attorney for the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, it has given grants to groups that do. While environmental groups are a particular target of congressional budget cutters, they are not the only non-profits that lobby and litigate while receiving taxpayer dollars. The American Bar Association received $9.5 million in federal funds in 1992. Local Chambers of Commerce received $2 million over the past two years. The lawsuit that threatened to disrupt the Becks' cattle operation was brought by the Eugene-based Pacific Rivers Council, which received a $160,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $60,000 of that from taxpayer money. The suit charged that the Forest Service violated the law because it failed to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on its overall forest management plan. Instead, the Forest Service had been checking with the agency before approving individual projects, such as logging or road repair. In May, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of a lower court, agreeing that the Endangered Species Act requires more of the Forest Service than a project-by-project consultation. In the end, the Becks' cattle were able to remain in the forest. But the Becks and other Oregon ranchers whose cattle graze on public land had to lay out $39,000 in legal fees to fight the injunction. The Becks are further angered that, as taxpayers they must also help foot the legal bills of the Pacific River Council: The council's legal team will be reimbursed by taxpayers because the Endangered Species Act requires losers--in this case, the Forest Service--to pay. Said Slater: `Here was a foundation giving taxpayer dollars to a group that then turned around and sued the federal government.' The foundation grant to the Pacific Rivers Council was for a project that was unrelated to the lawsuit. But it helped keep the council `flush' so it could pursue litigation, Slater said. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) `The PRC lawsuit took us by surprise,' admitted Krishna Roy of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It is not something where we would necessarily have turned down the grant if we'd known they were suing someone, but we have to keep it in mind in determining whether a project can be successful.' The foundation has since agreed to ask grant applicants if they are parties to litigation, and it will allow the Oregon Cattlemen's Association to review grant applications for projects in the state. But the Interior Department appropriations bill approved by a House panel Tuesday cuts the foundation's funds to $4 million in fiscal 1996 and recommends eliminating it altogether in 1997. House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) said he has supported the Fish and Wildlife Foundation in the past, `but they ought to be spending their money on wildlife projects, not funding our adversaries.' [Page: E1533] WHY ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING IS FOREVER (By Alston Chase) If you've wondered why it's so hard to reduce government spending, consider this: The whole country is on the dole. The poor have welfare. The middle class has college loans and National Public Radio. And the truly affluent enjoys handouts too. These are called `environmental,' but you can think of them as pork. This is worth keeping in mind as we watch Republicans try to reform preservation policy. GOP bean-counters promise to make welfare mothers and Sesame Streeters work for a living. Federal monies to both should be scrapped, they insist, because welfare doesn't work and public broadcasting does. One wastes public money, and the other can do without it. But while many preservation programs are both wasteful and redundant, congressional cheese-parers have left them alone. And the reason isn't hard to find: The bureaucrats who run preservation agencies are smarter than their Hill adversaries. They know that merely speaking the magic words `private enterprise' reduces the most frugal GOP lawmaking to an oozing puddle of acquiescence. Ever since the November Republican landslide, Beltway empire builders have been heavily playing this card. Quicker than you can say `Enola Gay,' they have switched political sides, magically remaking their images from collectivist ecosystem groupies into staunch free -market libertarians. And conservatives are falling for it. Such, for example, is the tactic of an upper-class entitlement called the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This organization is authorized to spend up to $25 million in federal funds a year, which it funnels to environmental advocacy groups and upscale hunting and fishing organizations. But its executive director, Amos Eno, a former National Audubon Society staffer, has convinced conservatives that this effort is a bastion of the free market. Last month, Forbes magazine praised the Foundation, urging that `other environmental groups would do well to adopt a down-to-earth, Eno-like approach.' To be sure, other conservation organizations, such as the Sierra Club, that are experiencing financial problems, would do better on the public dole, too. The Foundation reveals why public subsidies are forever. Established by Congress during the heyday of trickle-down economics in 1984, its purpose was to raise private monies for federal and private preservation causes. Orgininally, it was expected to become self-supporting. Government, Congress then supposed, would only provide the seed money to get it started. To this end, it promised to match, one for one, each dollar the Foundation raised from private sources, up to $1 million. This federal commitment of course, was entirely unnecessary. America has plenty of philanthropies and doesn't need another. By 1993, according to the Environmental Data Institute, there were more than 1,800 environmental grantmakers, which since 1988 made more than 22,000 grants. Just the top 417 of these givers have combined assets totaling more than $110 billion and collectively award more than $340 million to recipients each year. _________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONABLE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANTS AWARDED IN OREGON -- HON. WES COOLEY (Extension of Remarks - July 27, 1995) Nevertheless, the foundation's `private fund-raising' idea jerked the right chains of congresspeople infatuated with free enterprise. In 1987, the cap on federal matching funds was raised to $5 million and, in 1994, lifted again to $25 million annually for the next five years. In 1993, 31 percent of the Foundation's $17.9 million in revenues came from taxpayers. Meanwhile, the foundation befriended the power elite. It put, on its Board of Directors and Advisory Committee, people like Caroline Getty, James A. Baker IV, Marshall Field and Nancy N. Weyerhaeuser. It made grants to the favorite environmental and sporting causes of the rich, such as the National Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited. It bestowed stipends on individuals, too. In 1992, according to the Environmental Data Institute, it awarded one Rick Weyerhaeuser $80,000 to write a book on the environment. And according to insiders, such disbursements escape adequate oversight. Taking place in the noman's land between public and private sectors, they are not subject to the same accountability other federal programs are. Complaining of a lack of sufficient `scrutiny' of grants awarded, in 1992, one board member noted, `staff review . . . seems to tend toward advocacy rather than critical review.' Despite these concerns, the Foundation, with friends in high places, remains insulated from budget cutters. A former Foundation staffer now works for the House Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations. And when the subcommittee staff recently discusses possible cuts to the Foundation budget, word reportedly got back to Mr. Eno, who, according to sources, then visited the Hill to convince lawmakers of the Foundation's conservative bona fides. Thus, while Republicans pick on `Masterpiece Theatre,' they leave rarefied precincts of preservation alone. This is too bad. If public broadcasting should be weaned from the federal teat because it can survive without aid, so should silver-spooned enclaves like the Foundation. But this probably won't happen. Like all bad environmentalism, its support is bipartisan. _________________________________________________________________ RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY MISGUIDED AND MISPLACED (House - July 31, 1995) [Page: H8004] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will take up consideration of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. I want to call my colleagues' attention to the fact that not included in this appropriations bill are some 13 pages of legislation, something we are not supposed to do on appropriations bills. The topic of this 13-page legislative provision is `Political Advocacy .' It flies directly in the face of the first amendment to the Constitution which says that this body, the Congress, shall make no law concerning free speech , freedom of association, or the right to petition the Government. But that is precisely what this 13-page piece of legislation, buried in this appropriations bill, will do. Mr. Speaker, the subtitle of this title says, `Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds for Political Advocacy .' As it happens, of course, that is already illegal. The real sweep of this legislative proposal has very little to do with Federal funds. What it does have to do with is your use of your own funds. Every single American citizen, nonprofit organization, recipient of a Federal research grant likely is going to be swept into the impact of this incredible and chilling piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the definition of `political advocacy ,' which is one of the principal operative concepts in this bill, it includes virtually everything that you might have thought was protected speech under the first amendment to the Constitution. Even an inkind contribution to a political campaign; even the purchase of something that has nothing to do with politics , if the person or the organization you are purchasing it from happens to have used more than 15 percent of its resources on political advocacy . Again, political advocacy includes just about anything having to do with trying to affect the political debate in this country not just at the Federal level, but at the State and local levels as well. Mr. Speaker, the other principal concept that makes this such an overarching and intrusive provision has to do with the definition of grant, because it is only grantees, recipients of grants, that are swept into this new regime of accounting for political speech . But again, if you look at the definition of grant, it is not just what you might think in a commonsensical way; that is, the provision of funds to somebody directly from the Federal Government. No, it is much broader than that. It includes anything of value provided, not given, but provided, to any person or organization. So if you consider, as absurd as it may seem, that this political advocacy restriction applies to anyone who gets a grant, it will impact, for instance, the following kinds of people: Disaster victims getting emergency housing assistance grants; nurses who may have received a national research service award; low-income tenants receiving section 8 housing grants; researchers receiving money from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation; and, Indian tribes. Now, State and local governments are excluded, but not Indian tribes, for instance, getting grants for economic development activities. So it is incredibly far reaching and intrusive, and it not only affects what you can do with public money, but it affects what you can do with your own money. If you fall into this trap, and almost all of us will, you could not spend more than 5 percent of your own money on any of these political advocacy activities, State, Federal, local, anything at all, or you would be disqualified from getting any kind of Federal grant, again broadly defined, over a period of 5 years. Mr. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for taking his time in pointing out what is an incredible amendment to the bill that we will be asked to vote on. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman from Colorado a question. As the gentleman just described it, as I understand it, if you are a big farmer in the central valley of California and you are receiving a water subsidy, or you are a timber company and you are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in road building or water subsidies, or if you are a mining company and you have received land under a grant from the Federal Government, or if you are an oil company and you are receiving royalty subsidies or tax subsidies, you can come here and lobby all you want to increase those subsidies, to reduce them or to change the law. But if you are a public interest group and you have received any Federal money, you then have a limitation on money that you have privately raised or the private sector has participated with you; is that correct? Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, actually, this goes even farther and includes some of the groups that the gentleman from California mentioned. Now, it would not affect defense contractors, for instance, but the way I read it, somebody getting Burec water at a subsidized rate would indeed be swept under the provisions of this proposal. _________________________________________________________________ RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY MISGUIDED AND MISPLACED (House - July 31, 1995) [Page: H8004] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will take up consideration of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. I want to call my colleagues' attention to the fact that not included in this appropriations bill are some 13 pages of legislation, something we are not supposed to do on appropriations bills. The topic of this 13-page legislative provision is `Political Advocacy .' It flies directly in the face of the first amendment to the Constitution which says that this body, the Congress, shall make no law concerning free speech , freedom of association, or the right to petition the Government. But that is precisely what this 13-page piece of legislation, buried in this appropriations bill, will do. Mr. Speaker, the subtitle of this title says, `Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds for Political Advocacy .' As it happens, of course, that is already illegal. The real sweep of this legislative proposal has very little to do with Federal funds. What it does have to do with is your use of your own funds. Every single American citizen, nonprofit organization, recipient of a Federal research grant likely is going to be swept into the impact of this incredible and chilling piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the definition of `political advocacy ,' which is one of the principal operative concepts in this bill, it includes virtually everything that you might have thought was protected speech under the first amendment to the Constitution. Even an inkind contribution to a political campaign; even the purchase of something that has nothing to do with politics , if the person or the organization you are purchasing it from happens to have used more than 15 percent of its resources on political advocacy . Again, political advocacy includes just about anything having to do with trying to affect the political debate in this country not just at the Federal level, but at the State and local levels as well. Mr. Speaker, the other principal concept that makes this such an overarching and intrusive provision has to do with the definition of grant, because it is only grantees, recipients of grants, that are swept into this new regime of accounting for political speech . But again, if you look at the definition of grant, it is not just what you might think in a commonsensical way; that is, the provision of funds to somebody directly from the Federal Government. No, it is much broader than that. It includes anything of value provided, not given, but provided, to any person or organization. So if you consider, as absurd as it may seem, that this political advocacy restriction applies to anyone who gets a grant, it will impact, for instance, the following kinds of people: Disaster victims getting emergency housing assistance grants; nurses who may have received a national research service award; low-income tenants receiving section 8 housing grants; researchers receiving money from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation; and, Indian tribes. Now, State and local governments are excluded, but not Indian tribes, for instance, getting grants for economic development activities. So it is incredibly far reaching and intrusive, and it not only affects what you can do with public money, but it affects what you can do with your own money. If you fall into this trap, and almost all of us will, you could not spend more than 5 percent of your own money on any of these political advocacy activities, State, Federal, local, anything at all, or you would be disqualified from getting any kind of Federal grant, again broadly defined, over a period of 5 years. Mr. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for taking his time in pointing out what is an incredible amendment to the bill that we will be asked to vote on. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman from Colorado a question. As the gentleman just described it, as I understand it, if you are a big farmer in the central valley of California and you are receiving a water subsidy, or you are a timber company and you are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in road building or water subsidies, or if you are a mining company and you have received land under a grant from the Federal Government, or if you are an oil company and you are receiving royalty subsidies or tax subsidies, you can come here and lobby all you want to increase those subsidies, to reduce them or to change the law. But if you are a public interest group and you have received any Federal money, you then have a limitation on money that you have privately raised or the private sector has participated with you; is that correct? Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, actually, this goes even farther and includes some of the groups that the gentleman from California mentioned. Now, it would not affect defense contractors, for instance, but the way I read it, somebody getting Burec water at a subsidized rate would indeed be swept under the provisions of this proposal. _________________________________________________________________ POLITICAL ADVOCACY REPORTING (House - August 01, 1995) [Page: H8135] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to return for a few minutes to this 13-page piece of legislation that is buried in the Labor, Health, and Education appropriation bill that the House will be taking up shortly. It is labeled political advocacy , and it is really an incredible effort at speech control and reporting, all at the hands of this new majority that made such a big deal out of wanting a less intrusive Government. Well, let me just ask my colleagues to go through the painful exercise of actually reading this legislative provision in an appropriations bill. It is an absolutely chilling experience when you realize that this Rube Goldberg contraption that has been invented in order to get at the question of Federal funds being used to persuade Congress about public policy, how vast and really incredibly intrusive into civil liberties a proposal this is. I spent some time yesterday explaining some of the people who would be covered as, quote, grantees under this legislative provision in the appropriations bill. I hope you will pay some attention to this; your constituents are absolutely going to hate this bill if it were to become law. For instance, disaster victims getting emergency aid from FEMA would be a grantee, and I will tell you in a minute what grantees have to go through, researchers getting NSF research grants, probably because the definitions are so broad including anything of value coming from the Federal Government, a farmer getting emergency livestock feed in a major snowstorm, irrigators receiving subsidized Bureau of Reclamation water, and it probably even includes intangibles, so a broadcaster getting an FCC license would probably be a grantee under the provisions of this proposal, as, for instance, would many organizations, maybe your local church or YMCA, YWCA, if you are running a low-income child care program. With a Federal grant you would be brought into the provisions of this incredible proposal. Now what happens to those who are covered? Let me just take a minute to walk you through what would happen to one very typical, if hypothetical, example, namely a pregnant woman or nursing woman getting food vouchers under the Women, Infants and Children's program. Let us just consider the example: We will call her Sally. She will be required to follow `generally accepted accounting principles in keeping books and records,' about the number and the value of the assistance that she is receiving under the WIC program. She would be required to file with the Department of Agriculture by the end of each calendar year a certified report on a standard form provided by your friendly Federal Government with her name and her ID number, description of the purposes that she put her WIC grant to, a list of all the Federal, State or local government agencies involved in administering the WIC program, and here is the real hooker in this, a description of her acts of, `political advocacy ,' which is defined all encompassingly to include, for instance, any attempt to influence any Federal, State, or local government action, including any attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any part of the public about any government action. This would include, for instance, Sally's coming to one of your town meetings and talking with her congressman or congresswoman, writing a letter to the editor about some issue of public policy pending in her community. This political advocacy activity would also include `participating in any political campaign of any candidate for public office,' Federal, State, or local. So, marching in a candidate's parade, for instance, would be a political advocacy activity that a WIC grantee would have to report to the Department of Agriculture. [TIME: 1715] It goes on and on and on. This would create, in some computer in Washington, DC, a master list of all political advocacy activities carried on by all Federal grantees around the country. Each Department would have to get these reports annually certified, subject to audit, subject to challenge, from all of their grantees, bring them together, and every year send their reports to the Bureau of the Census, which would then, in turn, pull all of these together to constitute a national database of political activities maintained under the force of Federal law by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, why anyone that is interested in a smaller Government, much less in civil liberties, much less in the protections of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, would consider for a second endorsing this chilling Orwellian notion is beyond me, but it was stuck, buried, in the end of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill that will be before the House shortly. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will take just a few minutes to read through this provision and understand exactly what it is going to mean. It is going to mean a lot in the lives of most Americans. It is an appalling exercise of overreach by the Federal Government. We should support the amendment that I will offer on the floor to strike it from the bill. _________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996 [Page: E1640] --- HON. KEN BENTSEN in the House of Representatives WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1995 The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2127) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes: * Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, with this legislation before us today we have been asked to make difficult choices. We have been asked to choose between funding for medical research and education, cancer research, and the right to choose. The committee has included regressive legislative language on choice, freedom of speech , and labor law, while decimating preschool, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. And that is what is wrong with the 1996 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill. * I applaud and support efforts by the committee to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] by 6 percent. It is no secret that I have long advocated such funding levels, particularly in light of the fact that a majority of this same Congress voted to cut NIH in the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution which I opposed. * Biomedical research is an important, cost-effective investment in our Nation's health. Less funding for NIH would have dramatic effects on all Americans, including threatening the health of our citizens, reducing thousands of research projects, reducing potential cost savings from future treatments, and jeopardizing U.S. competitiveness in the biomedical industry. * Over 80 percent of NIH's budget goes to universities, institutes, and medical schools, and to their researchers who are on the verge of significant breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. These funds will continue research which could save millions of lives. I am proud to say that I have fought all efforts to cut NIH, including the levels contained in this bill. I strenuously opposed the Blute amendment which would have cut NIH by $235 million. * I am also pleased that this House voted to restore funding for family planning programs. For over 25 years, title X funding has served as a cost effective and vital source of essential health care and family planning services for low-income women. At a time when we are working to reduce unintended pregnancy in America, we should be making birth control more accessible, not less. In addition, we should not penalize community health centers that help these women combat low-birth weights and inadequate nutrition. The reality is that this cut was aimed directly at Planned Parenthood, which the radical right has targeted. * I also approve of increases in breast and cervical cancer screening programs under the Centers for Disease Control, the Jobs Corps, special education programs and vocational rehabilitation services. In fact, I am an original cosponsor of legislation to meet this goal. * However, this legislation contains too many provisions which I believe are terribly misguided and completely unacceptable. For example, the summer jobs program, which provides 6,000 Houston area youngsters with jobs this past summer is eliminated under the Republican proposal. Texas will lose $66 million in funds for this * program next year, and as a result, thousands more young people will be on the streets next summer. More importantly, these teens will lose an opportunity to receive valuable on-the-job training. Texas will also lose 22 percent in vital funds for school-to-work programs to help provide the transition from high school to high wage, highly skilled jobs. This program, which many community colleges in the 25th district utilize, helps train an able work force for the future. * Other programs slated for severe cuts include adult and youth job training programs which are cut 20 percent and the dislocated workers assistance programs which are cut by 30 percent. Any American who loses their job can expect to receive 30 percent less assistance than they may have otherwise anticipated. In southeast Texas, thousands of people in the oil and gas industry have lost their jobs and rely on this safety net to help them back on their feet. * The National Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are significantly cut that they will face serious difficulties in protecting American workers. For example, the National Institutes of Occupational and Safety Health is cut by $32 million--this cut eliminates all training assistance, including safety training for hundreds of nurses and doctors at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Texas Medical Center in the 25th district. * The bill would repeal the Executive order banning the permanent replacement of striking workers. Under this provision, workers would lose a fundamental right to collective bargaining. Additionally, the legislation would alter the functions of the NLRB heretofore without precedent by requiring unanimous decisions. The cumulative effect of these initiatives is to deny American workers with equal rights under job security and safety laws. * I am deeply opposed to one provision which is part of a stealth campaign to take away a woman's right to choose. While this bill allows the use of State Medicaid funds for an abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, it prohibits the use of such funds to pay for an abortion for women who are victims of rape and incest. * I am also opposed to a provision in the bill which allows institutions to bypass the accreditation process if the standards include training in abortion procedures. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] is a private medical accreditation body responsible for establishing medical standards for more than 7,400 residency programs in this Nation. Under ACGME requirements, no institution or individual is required to participate in abortion training. Any program or resident with a moral or religious objection is exempted. * Congress has never before sought to override private education standards, let alone standards for training in medicine. Those who would take away a woman's right to choose have now turned their assault on both medical schools and doctors. * Some of the most egregious cuts in this bill, however, come in the area of education. Even Republicans would agree that * education is the key to opportunity and success in our growing world economy. This bill cuts education programs in the billions of dollars. That is wrong. * In addition to cutting Head Start for our Nation's youngest children by $3.4 billion, this bill dramatically reduces funding for elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. Title I compensatory education grants in the bill are cut 17 percent by $1.2 billion. Harris and Fort Bend counties, which I represent, would lose close to $15 million in funding to help children improve their reading and math skills, especially in disadvantaged communities. * The bill also proposes the elimination of Goals 2000, which is a voluntary program to help students improve their academic performance. Goals 2000 provides school districts with funds to bring technology like computers to the classroom, to increase teacher training, and to encourage parents to be actively involved in their children's education. Only yesterday, Texas received over $29 million in Goals 2000 grants to assist in the implementation of our State's education reform initiative which passed the State legislature earlier this year. Without this funding, we will lose an opportunity to build on the progress we have already made in Texas. * For college students, the Republicans have cut student loans and aid by $9.5 billion. They have eliminated the in-school interest subsidy for Perkins loans, which help millions of Americans attend college. On average, a Texas college student can expect to pay $5,000 more for college--and they'll start paying before they have even attended a class or moved into their dorm room. At Rice University, which is located in my district, 82 percent of all undergraduates receive student aid--that's 2,170 students who will most likely have to pay more for their education. * One other irresponsible provision in this bill prohibits any recipient of a Federal grant from spending grant funds on political advocacy . This provision is not about lobbying Congress as the Republicans would have us believe, it is about giving nonprofit organizations and individuals the right to express their opinions. This would gag such institutions as AARP, the Red Cross, and the Presbyterian Church, of which I am a member. At the same time, any Government contractor would still be free to subsidize their lobbying activities with Federal funds. This provision is a threat to free speech . * In the final analysis, while this bill would sufficiently fund programs which are of great national importance, in particular, the national Institutes of Health, when weighed against all of the egregious provisions affecting education, job training, choice, student loans, and free speech , I cannot support it as currently drafted. I urge its defeat while looking forward to preserving what is right about this bill and correcting what is wrong. That is our charge. [Page: E1641] _________________________________________________________________ THE ISTOOK-M [Page: H8181] (Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious wrongs imposed on taxpayers during the past 40 years has been a policy which gives tax money to various lobby groups that advocate special programs for particular groups. The Istook-McIntosh Federal grant reform amendment to the Labor Appropriation bill would put a halt to taxpayers' money going to support political advocacy groups they may not want to support. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, `To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.' The Government should not use taxpayers' money to strengthen special interest groups which do not reflect the views of most Americans. This is wrong, and I urge support of the Istook-McIntosh Federal grant reform amendment to the Labor-Education appropriation bill. C INTOSH AMENDMENT WILL HALT TAXPAYERS' MONEY GOING TO POLITICAL ADVOCACY GROUPS (House of Representatives - August 02, 1995) ___________________________________________________ TIME TO END WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - August 03, 1995) [Page: H8311] (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich grant reform amendment. This amendment in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill would put a stop to the Federal Government subsidizing political advocacy groups. We want to stop the welfare for lobbyists. These are the groups that feed at the Government trough, complaining that if we take away their funds, we take away their first amendment rights. They call this the `nonprofit gag order.' They say, `Without our advocacy voice, nonprofits will no longer be able to share their insights with policymakers.' I tell my colleagues, there are plenty of advocacy groups and nonprofit educational research institutes who share insights without using taxpayers ' dollars and without using your money. Besides that, constituents are free to visit or can come and call on me, or any of my fellow Congressmen, and share their thoughts; they just cannot send the phone bill or the airline bill to us and our neighbors. Madam Speaker, that is exactly what happens when we have welfare for lobbyists. I encourage my colleagues to pass the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich Federal grant reform amendment. It is the right thing to do. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) [Page: H9419] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ehlers). Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage two freshmen colleagues personal friends and people I have high regard for, in a colloquy concerning grant reform. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the chairman of the subcommittee, for their wonderful leadership on this issue. Let me begin the colloquy by making an observation. It seems as though there are a lot of people paying attention to what we have done in the House so far, with respect to grant reform, Mr. Speaker. Every major newspaper in the country has editorialized with respect to grant reform over the last few weeks, and we certainly hit a nerve with the American people. Now I direct my first question to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the chairman of the committee and one of the leaders along with our friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], in our effort, and, of course, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], being one of the more recent victims of the opposition with regard to this issue. [TIME: 1615] My question to you, my friend, is a lot of people thought we would never get this far. And here we are. We had a resounding victory on the House floor. We are now in the Senate conference committee. I see the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] putting up a piece of demonstrative evidence we have used on this floor in the past. I know my chairman of the subcommittee wants to make a few remarks at the beginning here, and I will yield to him. Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for taking the lead in making the American people aware of what, quite frankly, has been a dirty little secret in this town, that Federal taxpayer money has been going to lobbying groups in the form of grants. The chart that our colleague [Mr. Tate] has shown how this welfare for lobbyists works. The taxpayers paying $39 billion, some people estimate it would be as many as four or five times that amount in grants to many special interests. Now, some of them are very worthy charities who are doing the right things in their communities, but there are a lot of those groups who are really lobbying and political front groups who are taking taxpayer dollars and using them to engage in political tactics. Now, let me say I think everyone has a right to speak out in this country, but they do not have a right to speak out with somebody else's money and to be funded by the taxpayer. One of the things that our committee is committed to doing is holding a series of hearings on this, looking into these groups and finding out some answers to some basic questions. Those groups that are lobbyist groups, we want to know, is it true that you are segregating the grant money you are receiving from political activities? Is it true that you have safeguards in place to make sure that you do not violate the current law that prohibits that direct funding? And then we also want to know what plans that group has been engaged in to encourage lobbying by other groups. Mr. EHRLICH. Of course, that is the problem. That is really the problem. Mr. McINTOSH. Exactly. And it is a continuous cycle that has led to huge deficit spending in this country. Then there is another group who say, we are not lobbying groups, but we do not like this reform. And what I want to know from those groups is, what do they do to ensure that their donors have accurately been informed of what lobbying they do do? _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) There are some very highly regarded groups in this country. I am thinking of groups like the United Way, the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, who also receive Federal grants, and they engage in very worthy and noble activities. Some of them tell us they also want to be lobbyists, not extensively, but part-time. And I think we need to tell their donors, did you know that they also want to lobby with some of the money that you have given them? How much of that money is spent on lobbying? Is there a problem with the Washington groups lobbying, whereas the groups in the States and the communities do not do that but are, in fact, engaged in charitable activities? We are going to try to develop a record in our committee on those issues. Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman would yield, really is that not the threshold fundamental problem here? It seems as though we have addressed this both here on the floor and at various times we have had to discuss this issue off the floor, and it seems for some reason, and the reason appears to be Federal money, to have developed over the years a distinction between acting as an advocate and fulfilling the mission of the particular organization. I believe it is fair to characterize our piece of legislation as an attempt to return these groups. And we are not talking about, by the way, many groups out of thousands, tens of thousands of groups, only a few hundred who, in our view, have violated both the letter and the spirit of the law, by trying to get rid of that distinction, trying to limit that distinction to return these groups to their fundamental mission, which is to provide service for the less fortunate in our society. Mr. McINTOSH. The gentleman is exactly correct. We heard testimony in one of our hearings in July from Mrs. Arianna Huffington who told us that there was a serious problem in the charitable community that, rather than doing good works, helping the elderly, helping clean up the environment, helping the young people, and you may remember she talked about Mrs. Hannah Hawkins here in Washington who had used her own money to set up a home for children after school in the inner city neighborhoods. They are moving away from those charitable missions into becoming lobbyists and advocates that the Federal Government take over those programs, and she thought that was, in fact, corrupting the spirit of charity in this country and that our bill would do a lot in this country to restore the true sense and purpose of charity. So I think you are exactly correct on that point. [Page: H9420] Mr. EHRLICH. Now, I know we have a lot to say about some of the misinformation our opposition has used, but I think probably the best Member to talk about that is our colleague, Mr. Tate, and I yield to Mr. Tate. You have been a victim. What happened? Mr. TATE. Well, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen, along with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], have done a phenomenal job of bringing this issue to the forefront. Some of the arguments, and I will get into some of the attacks that are occurring at home by some of those organizations that are receiving public grants, mind you. Some of the opposition, for example, is: Well, you are violating free speech if you are limiting at some capacity what they can do with their private dollars. The point is, how can it be free ? Once again, how can it be free if the taxpayers are subsidizing it? The taxpayers are paying for this so-called free speech . I am not here to tell an organization what they can do and cannot do with their own money. The point is, they are being subsidized by the taxpayers. So we have an obligation to watch out for what is going on. The other point is that somehow it is intrusive in some other capacity, that somehow it is Orwellian to tell these organizations what to do. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) I can think of nothing more intrusive to me or the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Washington State than to reach into my pocket and take my hard-earned money, to give it to some organization or to the Government that gives it to some organization that turns around and lobbies for things I do not believe in. I mean, we have some great examples, if I may. The American Bar Association, for example, just this year as we were working on the flag amendment. We can argue whether we should have an amendment to protect the flag or not to protect the flag. That is part of our political system. What I find very offensive is when organizations like the American Bar Association receive millions of dollars in public grants and then turn around and lobby against legislation. That is wrong. It hit close to home the last couple of weeks, I can tell you, in my particular district; and the Washington Times has done a good job of chronicling what has been going on. Basically what is going on is taxpayer funding of the big lie. They are attacking me back in my district. The attacks have ranged from anywhere that there would be a greater chance of workers maybe being killed by the legislation being passed to somehow Medicare is being cut. Two lies. Two lies. And they are being subsidized by the taxpayers. I can give you a couple of examples of the organizations and how much money they have received in public grants. For example, in my particular district, the AFL-CIO, under the guise of Stand Up For America, spent over $80,000. These on are ads back in my district. Another organization called Save America's Families spent over $85,000 on television and radio ads, not counting the amount of money they spent on Medicare events, spreading the big lie at taxpayer expense. For example, the AFL-CIO, which is the umbrella group for these organizations, received in grants last year, 1994, $1.2 million; and so far this year that we can document, they have spent $1.4 million in attack ads spreading the big lie across the country. So, basically, what we are doing is, once again, hard-working people send their money to Washington, DC. They turn around, the Government turns around and gives it out to organizations that spend it attacking people trying to change the status quo. So those are the kinds of changes that we are trying to make back here. I guess we should be judged by our enemies. Those organizations that are the defenders of the status quo do not like what is going on back here, and it is a sign that we are doing our job. If you are not making some enemies in Washington, DC, you are not doing your job. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. Mr. McINTOSH. You mentioned that this advertising was going on in Washington State in your home area, and that in many cases they were, in fact, misinforming the public about what was happening and doing so from groups who have been receiving a lot of grant money. I had received some information that there are a list of eight different groups who have received nearly $100 million in grants, who have spent over $6 million in lobbying and political activities, giving people bad information about what is happening. One of the groups that is not listed there is 60 Plus, and they commended us for our effort to try to end the subsidy for these groups that are engaged in this type of political activity. The 60 Plus Association represents senior citizens in this country. They felt seniors were being mislead by a lot of this. Was the National Council of Senior Citizens one of the groups that was involved in this type of political advocacy ? Mr. TATE. It is my understanding that they have been involved. In fact, the Save America's Families Coalition, which includes Citizen Action, the National Conference of Senior Citizens, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees Union, and others, are the ones that are paying for the millions of dollars of ads across this country. And the thing to keep in mind with that organization is that they receive over $70 million every year, which makes up 96 percent of their entire budget, and then they turn around, and they are spending money with advertising. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) Mr. McINTOSH. Do you mean to tell me that they receive over $70 million of taxpayer funding? Mr. TATE. Absolutely. Taxpayer money, $750 million every year in taxpayer money, 96 percent of their entire budget, and then they are turning around and using money to lobby against reforms that preserve and protect Medicare. Taxpayer funding of the big lie. Mr. McINTOSH. So this group has been receiving all of this taxpayer money, and yet they are spending it on commercials that are not even truthful to senior citizens? Mr. TATE. You are exactly right. Mr. McINTOSH. That is incredible. Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman would yield, I think I speak for all three of the sponsors of this rider when I say we have a great deal of confidence that your constituents will see through all of these misrepresentations, because facts are dangerous to demagogues. Mr. TATE. If the gentleman would yield, we have received, I think as of mid-yesterday, about 660 calls on this particular commercial that is running back in our district, and over 640 of the calls were saying, Randy, stick to your guns; do not give up; we elected you to go back there and make real change. What they are outraged about is the outrageousness of the lines and the fact that the opposition has no plan and that it is all being paid for, these ads, or at least subsidized, by their own tax dollars. Mr. EHRLICH. The moral here is that these people are smarter than these organizations give them credit for. Mr. TATE. Exactly. Mr. EHRLICH. I see we have been joined by our colleague and friend, Mr. Istook from Oklahoma, and I know he has a lot to say on this subject. And I know I join my colleague, Mr. McIntosh from Indiana, in congratulating him on his great leadership on this bill, and I would like to recognize him. As a lead-in to his comments, I would just like to point out the fact that I sat next to Mr. Istook on the floor when we had our debate here a few weeks back, and we were frustrated. Obviously, we had a time limitation with respect to how we could respond to some of the charges from other side. I believe we were termed as fascists, one of the more interesting adjectives used to describe us on the floor that day. I know it has been very, very frustrating for all of us involved in this issue to have to respond to simple representations about what this rider is about. We have heard that it stops all advocacy , that Pell grants are affected, that specific groups are affected, that entitlements are affected, that the courts are affected, that States and local governments are affected, educational grants. Is there any end to the misrepresentations we have heard on this floor? I direct the question to our colleague from Oklahoma. [Page: H9421] Mr. ISTOOK. Well, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate people standing firm on this effort, because you hear outrageous things. You hear people saying, well, if you receive some sort of farm assistance or if you receive a student loan or if you receive welfare benefits. And yet the legislation clearly states that we are not talking about government assistance payments to any sort of individual. We are merely talking about government grants which go to organizations. The situation is such that we have had what I feel is a perversion of the true reason for the existence of charities in this country, and Chairman McIntosh and his subcommittee has had hearings that has helped develop this. People talking about, you know, we were part of a group that was formed to be a nonprofit charity. We raised money trying to help people, trying to do good. Then we found people trying to take it over and saying, the way we can really do good is to spend all of our time and effort, or most of it, anyway, and our resources lobbying government for more government programs, more resources, higher taxes to pay for it, and they call that charity. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) [TIME: 1630] That is not charity. We need to help the private charities in this country to fulfill their true mission by helping separate them from those that are masquerading as charities, but are really extensions of the Federal Government and extensions of lobbying groups and political advocacy groups. We need to draw a clear distinction between them. If someone says we want Federal money, now they are not forced to ask for Federal money, they are not forced to take Federal money, they voluntarily say they want Federal grants to further a purpose, which is different from so many other charitable groups. Yet at the same time, they want the Federal handouts, but they say nevertheless we want to continue to be political advocates rather than true charities. There is a difference. There is a crucial difference in who we ought to be providing assistance to, and it really scares me that there have been some reports that say that the typical nonprofit group today receives a third of its money from the government. Now, that frightens me. We do not want people to be saying they are charities when actually they are extensions of government agencies. If they are an extension of the government, they should accept the same type of safeguards which would control a Federal agency if it were carrying out a particular program. They would never be allowed to engage in the type of advocacy that is involved there. So if they are carrying out a private function, that is great. They ought to be satisfied with the private dollars. If they want public dollars, then they ought to accept the types of limitations that accompany public dollars. It is wrong to ask taxpayers to subsidize political viewpoints through this. Thomas Jefferson had a statement on this, and he said to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. I have no desire, and I know you do not either, to try to limit the ability of people to exercise their free speech rights with their own resources and their own money. But if they want to be dependent upon Federal funds instead, then they need to decide they should not be political advocacy groups. That is the key distinction that we are trying to address in the legislation. I thank the gentleman for the chance to speak to that and want to yield back the floor to him. Mr. SKAGGS. May I ask the gentleman one question. I do not want to waste a lot of time. If it is the gentleman's intention not to yield at all, I will leave the floor. Mr. EHRLICH. It is our intention not to yield. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not want to defend any of this with anybody with another point of view? Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman trekked over from his office, we will yield. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I think the point that the gentleman from Oklahoma was just making is very, very revealing of the fundamental distortions that are going on in this debate. Does the gentleman believe that the efforts made, for instance, by the American Red Cross to work with local and State governments on emergency planning is political advocacy that is somehow a problem in this country? Does he believe that the efforts of the American Red Cross to work with all levels of government to ensure that regulations are in place to make the blood supply safe, is that somehow political advocacy that warrants restrictions? That is what the legislation will do. Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague from Colorado makes a very good point there. There has been a lot of misinformation about the content of the bill. No, I do not think those activities of helping to plan for emergency preparedness and working with government agencies to implement a safe and effective blood supply in this country are political activities that are a problem. I do not think they should be defined as political activities. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, but that is what the legislation does. Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman would let me finish, Mr. Speaker. No, we have carefully, carefully crafted this bill to make it very clear that those activities are not covered. We have worked with the Red Cross and their attorneys in letting them know that it is our understanding that that would be the case. What we are worried about are groups that would take Federal grants for those activities and then would begin running television advertisements or running media campaigns where they are advocating a particular point of view. So let me assure the gentleman we do not intend to cover those types of activities. We have worked with language that we think does not apply to them and have offered with the Red Cross to specify that very clearly. Interestingly enough, even when we did that, they said, no, we still could not support this bill because we are concerned about the ability to be advocates. Then my question is, have they let their donors know that that is one of the things they have in their mission statement? Have they done a good job when they have done fundraising for these other activities of protecting the blood supply, working on emergency preparedness, of telling people, well, we also think it might be important that we could preserve the right to be a lobbyist? If they have done that disclosure, then they have acted in good faith with their donors. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield. Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, I will yield for a question. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ehlers). It is the gentleman from Maryland's time. Does the gentleman yield? Mr. EHRLICH. The gentleman will yield for a short followup. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman not understand that very facile shift from advocacy to lobbying? Now, advocacy presumably does include the work of an organization like the Red Cross to make sure that we are prepared for an emergency or we have a safe blood supply. But with the nice easy elision to lobbying, we are suddenly into a whole different range of activity. Why is it that we should restrict the ability of an organization like the Red Cross to advocate, not to lobby the Federal Government with Federal funds, that is against the law already, but to advocate for good emergency preparedness at the State and Federal and local level, what is wrong with that? Is that not absolutely consistent with what their donors expect them to be doing? [Page: H9422] Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, of course the key is to understand, as we were careful to point out in the legislation, despite many misrepresentations that different people have made, is that we did not put in the legislation an absolute prohibition recognizing that some people may say, well, there is a gray line between things that are giving information back to government, and so forth. Some people may see some gray area between that and being an advocate, not an advocate for safety, not an advocate for emergency preparedness, but a political advocate. So we specified in the legislation that we were not saying there is an absolute prohibition. We simply said that you should not be expending more than 5 percent of your non-federal funds, which is a threshold that has previously been adopted through courts and through the IRS as a key and reasonable threshold. So we never said that a group could not engage in any type of political advocacy . We just wanted to make sure they were not engaging to any significant degree in that, and that very well takes in any type of gray area with which anyone may have a concern. So the opponents of this bill unfortunately have grossly misrepresented and overstated it, calling it, for example, a gag rule, which is totally absurd. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) We have tried to take a common sense approach to it and understand that reasonable people may differ. Yet, I think that just about every American taxpayer who studies the issue would agree, it is wrong for taxpayers' money to be used for lobbying. It is wrong for taxpayers' money being used to prop up and be the difference between success and failure for an organization. With that in mind, I would like to refer to an audit report which was part of the audit report, and I understand it was an internal audit report for the National Council of Senior Citizens which receives 95 or 96 percent of its budget from the taxpayers. Their own internal audit said the heavy reliance on governmental grants poses a potential danger to the long-term structure of NCSC. Absent such grants, the council would be unable to continue its current level of operations. This is a group that is heavily engaged in lobbying in this country, and yet without government grants, they would not be able to sustain themselves. They do not have enough private sector support. They depend upon taxpayers' money, and I think that is wrong. Mr. EHRLICH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to our friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the clarifying things about this aspect is what type of lobbying, and I understand our colleague from Colorado picking an easily discussed case, the Red Cross. To my knowledge, the Red Cross has never put PAC money for or against any Republican or Democrat in either Chamber on this Hill. There are groups sustained 95 percent by taxpayers' money that give not only 100 percent money to Democrats, but they have to be of a liberal ideological bent. They are not just lobbying for a cause like Red Cross earthquake assistance. They are lobbying to fatten their own coffers, particularly whiplashing senior citizens. If we cannot reform that in this Congress, then there are going to be people coming up here with torches as though this were Dr. Frankenstein's castle to burn this place down in about 4 to 6 years. Mr. EHRLICH. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I have a question for our colleague from the State of Washington. He has earlier described some of the ads being run against him. This has really hit him in a very personal way, and the good news being that of the, I believe, 660 phone calls he received? Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, there were 640 positive saying, stick to yur position. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the negative calls, the 20 or 30, did they actually buy what the commercials were trying to sell them? Was the staff able to articulate what these organizations were about and who was funding these organizations? Mr. TATE. We are getting that message out as each call comes in. Mr. Speaker, our phones light up each time the commercials run. Like I said, 99 percent of the calls are positive. When we do get someone who is misled by what I call the big lie at taxpayers' expense, we spend the time to talk to them and let them know that they are being subsidized basically by their own tax dollars, and that alone is enough to outrage them. But when they find out that the advertisements are a complete misrepresentation of what the truth is, they are even more outraged. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, The short follow-up question, the gentleman is one freshman. Mr. TATE. Right. Mr. EHRLICH. How much money with regard to the gentleman's best estimate at this time has been spent by all of these organizations just in his district within the last month? Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, within the last month, we estimate about $165,000. That is the estimate that comes out of the newspaper by these particular organizations in their press conferences; $80,000 by Stand Up For American Families, which once again is an umbrella group for the AFL-CIO, which received millions of dollars in ads. The other one was for the Saving America's Families Coalition, another organization made up of the national seniors, the Council on Senior Citizens, the organization that receives over 95 percent of their money from the Federal Government. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) So, to answer the gentleman's question, $165,000 that we can identify just from newspaper reports, not counting the countless Medicaravans and other misrepresentation of the truth that are subsidized once again by the taxpayers, $39 billion every year is being spent on lobbying, welfare for lobbyists. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I believe the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], has a comment as well. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, after that I would like my friend from Maryland to yield. Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, if I could point out one thing that I think is undermining a lot of the public confidence of charitable groups, that is when they see activities like we are describing where groups who are supposed to be engaged in charity in fact turn themselves into political groups and engage in that type of activity. That comes on the heels of a few years ago tremendous scandals with the United Way and groups where they were misappropriating funds. By the way, they have cleaned up their act. I certainly hope they end up supporting our effort to end welfare for lobbyists to reassure people that they have changed and do not want to see the continued practice where a charity says they are doing one thing and then in fact does something else with the money they have raised. In this case it is engaging in political tactics that are totally unacceptable because they are misleading the public about very key and critical issues. So there is a question of confidence about what can citizens expect from charitable groups. We heard from a lot of the charities who are very active in a day-to-day basis in helping people, saying they want to see this bill passed because they want to restore that confidence. They want us to go forward in this area and clearly separate lobbying and political activities from charitable activities. So I think we can do them a tremendous favor in this country by helping to restore that confidence. I also appreciate the gentleman from Washington being willing to share with us his experience in his State as an example of what has been happening there. Mr. EHRLICH. Although this is highly unusual, out of an overabundance of friendship for my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], I will yield to him for a brief question. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my friend from Maryland yielding. We are pleased to have him as a member of our delegation, even though from time to time we may disagree. I ask my friend from Maryland, I have a letter here addressed: Dear Steny. It makes some comments, but it concludes with this: `To unduly restrict our ability to work with governmental representatives and agencies through the additional regulation envisioned by the Istook amendment would not be in the best interest of millions of people who rely on the Red Cross when help cannot wait. Sincerely, Elizabeth.' [Page: H9423] [TIME: 1645] All of us know that Elizabeth Dole, the wife of majority leader of the Senate, is head of the Red Cross. Throughout this letter, as the gentleman may know, she is very concerned about the Istook amendment's proscription on the ability of the Red Cross to advocate positions which it believes to be in the best interest of the people of this country. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland for asking a very legitimate question and I know my colleague from Oklahoma, who has had very, very recent communications with the Red Cross, as well as my colleague from Indiana, wants to answer my friend's question. Mr. ISTOOK. Surely. Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen is there has been a vast disinformation campaign that has been stimulated by groups receiving Federal funds. They have made contracts, they have made some, frankly, scurrilous statements to all sorts of organizations, trying to use scare tactics, and certainly they have prompted concern to be expressed by those groups. What we have certainly done, in working on this legislation, is to have an open door policy, whether a _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) group is for us or against us or in between, for an explanation. We have certainly been working with the Red Cross both to explain to them the difference between what was told to them prompting their communications and what is really being pursued, and to make sure, of course, that the final form of the legislation is a form that does not put any undo restrictions on any sort of legitimate charitable organizations. What we have to do is make sure that the legislation has the appropriate filter to separate the good from the bad from the ugly. Mr. Speaker, just because a group is organized with a so-called nonprofit structure does not mean that it has the reputation of the good deeds that the Red Cross, of course, is noted for. So we are working with the Red Cross and other organizations to address all legitimate concerns that are brought to our attention, and I think that is going to be reflected in the final product. Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield so I can enter into this colloquy? Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, I would yield to the gentleman. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman has said. Presumably, Mrs. Dole, who has an ability to find out about the substantive legislation, in her letter to me of September 11 understood the legislation as it was then crafted; is that what the gentleman says? And if that is the case, have there been changes made since September 11 to the Istook amendment? Mr. ISTOOK. What we have said, and the gentleman is aware, of course, from being a conferee with me on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, what we have said, I have said it to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], I have said it to Members of the Senate and the House, and conveyed it to White House representatives, that anyone who has constructive recommendations to make sure that this legislation is put in its best possible form so that it does not have unintended consequences, we want to listen to and we want to work with. We do have a problem sometimes with some groups, rather than trying to make constructive recommendations, they make a knee-jerk reaction just opposing it, and, frequently, that comes from organizations that are heavily dependent on Federal funds and there is, as the gentleman knows, a lot of discussion about it and a lot of representations made to people about what is or is not in the bill. We want to work with all persons that are concerned, and that will be reflected in the final product. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, in further answer to my colleague from Maryland's inquiry, I recognize my friend, Mr. McIntosh. Mr. McINTOSH. And let me say, Mr. Speaker, in the effort of being constructive in this, our subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will be having hearings further into the application of this bill. One of the hearings will be taking place next Thursday. We have invited Mrs. Dole to come and talk with us about areas where she thinks she might be hindered in her legitimate charitable activities so that we can address that problem. We will also be asking if there are areas where she wants to cross over into the lobbying area, and is that more than 5 percent of their budget or would they be protected with that provision. I think that will allow us to build a record there of exactly how this bill would work, and, hopefully, reassure her of that. I am looking forward to next Thursday and, hopefully, Mrs. Dole will be able to join us at that hearing. Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to further yield to my colleague from Washington, but I think my colleague from Maryland raises a very legitimate point. I want to enlarge it, however, because one of the prime criticisms of our initiative has been, quote-unquote, defunding the left. If anything has occurred over the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that groups from the right, the middle, and the left have problems with this legislation. I was driven by no particular philosophical orientation in becoming a cosponsor, along with these two gentleman, of this bill, other than my philosophical orientation to give the American taxpayers a break. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) We have groups, I know, on the right who have opposed this bill; now we have groups on the left and in the center. I believe the `defunding the left charge' is now an empty charge. And certainly if we look at the groups actively lobbying against this bill, it just does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleagues from the State of Washington. Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions in response to the comments from across the aisle to the chairman of the committee. What is the threshold, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McINTOSH. The key threshold is that for groups who take no Federal money at all, they are not covered by this provision. They can lobby. They can do whatever they would like to with their money. For those groups who do take a Federal grant, are subsidized by the taxpayer in their activities, they can spend up to 5 percent of their own funds, no money from the taxpayer but 5 percent of their own funds, to lobby, and we are allowing that so they can be advocates at the local and Federal level. But when they start becoming predominantly a lobbying group and go over that 5-percent threshold, we are asking them to give up that taxpayer subsidy. They make a choice, Mr. Speaker, they can be a lobbying group or they can be a charity, but we are not going to let them lobby with taxpayer dollars. Mr. TATE. One last question, I guess a two-part question. One is, the 5 percent, up to the first $20 million. That would work out to be a million dollars in lobbying, is what we are talking about. Not exactly shutting down lobbying, as we know it. They would still be able to lobby. They should be able to get the job done on a million dollars. And after that first $20 million, as I understand it, it is 1 percent after that. So we are talking about a significant amount of money. We have not ended it all together. We are not limiting free speech , but we are putting some limits so they cannot abuse the process, if I am not mistaken. Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct, and if the gentleman will continue yielding. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. McINTOSH. Let me also point out another key feature of the legislation. If a group decides to spend up to a million dollars in lobbying, they have to disclose that to their donors, so that we cannot have this secret effort on lobbying on the one hand with a group that is posing as one that is doing good works in charities when they go out to solicit money from the public. I think the donors have a right to know about that activity when they are making contributions as well. [Page: H9424] Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman just analyzed the various categories of recipients, and it is true, is it not, that category A, those groups who do not take any Federal grants, account for 9 percent of all the groups we are talking about; is that correct? Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct, although, as the gentleman from Oklahoma pointed out earlier, those small percentage who do receive Federal funds receive enormous amounts of Federal funds, and yield a disproportionate influence. Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. Would the gentleman yield on that point about who is covered? Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from Maryland. Mr. HOYER. I thank my good friend from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich, who makes a point that this legislation was originally perceived as defunding, trying to defund the left. He points out correctly that those in the middle and those on the right have now raised similar concerns to those on the so-called left. As a matter of fact, I have in my hand another letter from Fred Kammer, Father Kammer, who is president of Catholic Charities of the United States of America. I do not know whether the gentleman from Maryland puts them on the left or on the right or in the middle. I would suggest they probably have a number of views which fall into maybe all of those categories at any given time. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) Mr. EHRLICH. Depending on the issue, I guess. Mr. HOYER. Depending on the issue. That is the point I make. I would suggest this is a very serious issue, and we are discussing it seriously, and I think that is important for the American public. I have read a number of legal opinions, or CRS reports, including Professor Cole from Georgetown University Law Center, the law center from which I graduated. I have not seen a case that justifies or condones or holds constitutional the proscription of private dollars, nonpublic dollars, on lobbying or contact of government or trying to impact on policy activities of nonpublic groups. Furthermore, let me suggest not only is that why it is a serious issue, because whether it is left, right or middle, we believe this is violative of the constitutional right to free speech and the right to petition one's government, but, in addition to that, I say to my friends, who I know feel very strongly about this, that the issue here is the reason so many of these groups have public funds is because we have decided as a Congress and as a people that it is better to give to the American Red Cross or the Catholic Charities or some other group funds to solve certain problems. They are not necessarily doing us a favor. We are not doing them a favor by giving them these resources. In fact, we have judged that Catholic Charities does good work, and we want to give them resources because we believe they will more effectively distribute those funds than will the government. So I say to my friend, as he can see, it is not just that, yes, they have Federal funds, because we have decided that we believe they can apply those funds effectively. As a matter of fact, I think that is consistent with some of the philosophy that Members on the other side of the aisle have discussed recently. Mr. EHRLICH. Reclaiming my time, I intend to yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is chomping at the bit over there, but, first, two points. First of all, the gentleman raises a very legitimate point, again, with respect to the mission of these nonprofits and for-profits we are talking about, because that also has been lost in this dialog, the fact that we also cover under our version of this initiative for-profits. Mr. SKAGGS. And individuals, too. Mr. EHRLICH. No, no. Mr. McINTOSH. Actually, they are expressly exempt. Mr. SKAGGS. Wrong. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. Over the years, there has built up a momentum so that certain organizations have not only assumed a responsibility for their original mission but also a dual responsibility to advocate on behalf of their mission. That is the bottom line philosophical question here when we get down to it, where that line really should be drawn. We believe that line has gone out too far, and I think we have some evidence presented with respect to Members of the freshman class, particularly concerning advocacy efforts around the country today in support of that point. Also, the gentleman from Maryland, being a learned lawyer of good reputation, I will have delivered to his office tomorrow a memorandum from Professor Harrison, I believe from Virginia concerning the constitutionality of the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich initiative, which the bottom line is that it is constitutional. In fact, government does this all the time, attaches specific requirements, and I will yield in a moment to the gentleman from Indiana, but I will be glad to engage my friend from Maryland in a colloquy after he has an opportunity to read that memorandum as well. I will at this time yield to my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook. [TIME: 1700] Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to address the two points that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned, one regarding court decisions. In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Regan versus Taxation With Representation, addressed that point when a group wanted to engage in lobbying and wanted to have Federal subsidies for that through the Tax Code. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) The Court noted that Congress does not have to subsidize lobbying. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court specified that `The Federal Government is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. We reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.' The notion that the government has to buy you a microphone or buy you a newspaper or give you funds with which to carry on your lobbying activities, I think is blatantly absurd. The taxpayers are not required to subsidize lobbying. If a group wants to lobby, that is fine. That is their constitutional prerogative, but it is not free speech if they say, `We want the taxpayers' money.' That is a clear delineation and distinction. The gentleman also mentioned, of course, Mr. Speaker, something from someone at Catholic Charities, U.S.A. He may not be aware, Catholic Charities, U.S.A. annually receives from the taxpayers, from the government, almost $1.3 billion. It is two-thirds of their operating budget. I think there is a bona fide question, anytime an organization has that level of funding, whether they are really an organization separate and apart from the government, or themselves have become an extension of the government. If we have that kind of money flowing through the Department of Health and Human Services or HUD or the EPA or the Labor Department or Education or anything else, we would insist upon safeguards to limit its use, to assure it is not used for lobbying or political advocacy . When any group has that level of its funding, $1.3 billion, just a little under that, two-thirds of its budget coming from the U.S. Government, we have a serious question at what point do they cease to be a private group and become an extension of the government. We are talking about safeguards with taxpayers' money. We are trying to be very reasonable and prudent in the approach. We are open-minded, we are listening to that, but this is a severe problem that does need to be addressed. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EHRLICH. I yield again, for the third time, to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. HOYER. I want to thank profusely my colleague from Maryland, because I know this is their special order, but this is an important issue. We need to discuss it back and forth. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for whom I have a great deal of respect, because he is one of the hardest working Members of this House, he has a good intellect and is industrious in applying that intellect, but I would say to my friend in this instance, he does reference language, but that language refers, as the gentleman knows, specifically and exclusively to taxpayers' money. The gentleman's amendment relates to nontaxpayers money, because it would not be necessary, because under present law, taxpayers' money is already legally precluded from being spent on lobbying activities. The gentleman seeks to get at non-Federal taxpayers' money. That is the very significant and important distinction that the Court draws. It drew it in Russell versus Sullivan, it drew it in the Regan case that you referred to, and it has drawn it in every case that I have reviewed. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, I thank him for yielding, and look forward to reading the memorandum that he is going to provide me with, but that is the nub of this issue. We are not talking about taxpayers' funds, we are talking about private funds. [Page: H9425] Mr. EHRLICH. There is also a question here with regard to fungibility, and I know my colleague is going to address it. If you read the Regan case, it was not a question of whether the subsidy would be received in the form of a check. The question was whether the organization would enjoy the tax-exempt status which, as the U.S. Supreme Court said, is a form of subsidy, just as a Federal check, a direct payment, would also be a form of subsidy. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, speaking both in terms of money received from private sources but protected by the Tax Code, private money but therefore, a form of Federal subsidy, or direct payments from the Government and therefore also a Federal subsidy, the Court applied the same standard in the language of the Regan case to both of them when it mentioned and held that taxpayers are not required to subsidize political activity or lobbying activity, whether that subsidy came in the form of a direct payment from the Government or whether it came in the form of favorable treatment through the Tax Code, even though you were talking about the use of privately earned money. So I would submit to the gentleman that the Court was addressing funds from a private source as well as funds directly from a public source. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland, I am happy to have had his part of the colloquy. This is a very important issue. He has raised some very important questions. I know you disassociate yourself from some of the terms that were used to describe the three of us during the debate on this floor a few weeks ago. That is why I specifically recognized both the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. They are both well respected and we appreciate their input. Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is really in response to the question from our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland. One of the things we heard in our subcommittee over the summer when we had hearings on this was that there are groups out there who receive Federal funds and actually violate the provisions of their grants, and end up using those funds to, in the case that came before us, to conduct a symposium on how to lobby local governments. When the agency was notified of this, they did nothing to prevent that and did not ask that the grant be repaid and, in fact, were implicitly condoning that type of activity. Therefore, I think some of the bill's provisions we have are aimed at, first, forcing disclosure on how both the private and the public sector funds are spent; and second, making it a very, very clear demarcation that if you are receiving a Federal taxpayer subsidy, you should not be lobbying. That, I think, is a very simple formula that underlies all of this effort, and one that I am very convinced the American people want to see. Some of the editorial boards in my district have been commenting on this. By the way, they do not agree with a lot of the things I have been trying to do as a freshman Republican in reforming this, but in this area they do think we are on the right track, because, quite frankly, they did not know this lobbying was going on and they do not think it is appropriate to be doing it under the subsidy of a Federal taxpayer grant. Mr. EHRLICH. It is certainly a new issue, and I think, quite frankly, that has been part of the problem. I know the gentleman from Indiana would agree with me, that certainly has been part of the problem. People were not ready to interpret this issue, to hear the terms of the debate. They really did not know what the status quo was. You may have received some opposition from your local editorial boards, but it is nice to know. Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, in this case the editorial boards are strongly in favor of it. Mr. EHRLICH. That is nice to know, as well. Mr. McINTOSH. I will submit for the Record some of the editorials they have written. In this case, fairly liberal folks are saying, `You are on the right track, we need to clean up the outfit in Washington and end this government subsidy of lobbying.' Mr. EHRLICH. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) In addition to your local editorial boards, it is nice to know that groups, highly respected groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Association of Wholesale Distributors, the Eagle Forum, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the 60-Plus Association--in fact, we have two senior citizens organizations supporting this initiative--the National Association of Manufacturers, and the list goes on and on, a lot of these groups appreciate the importance of this particular initiative. That is why they have come forward to support us. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I realize our time is running low. I just want to say that I applaud my colleagues for working on this effort, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. I think this is an extremely important issue. Again, the heart of the matter I think was summed up, I am told, and I did not witness it, but I am told by a colleague that the President was good enough to appear on a local talk show recently while he was visiting another State. The first question asked him was how he felt about groups that are lobbying receiving Federal grants, taxpayers' money being used to subsidize that. His response was to say, `Well, I am in favor of free speech ,' and then changed the subject. The essence of this point is it is not free speech . If you have organizations sometimes receiving a half a million dollars, $1 million, $10 million, $76 million, $100 million, over $1 billion, in one case, that is not what we categorize as free speech . We are talking about public money which has to have public protection. If there were a Federal agency engaging in these matters with taxpayers' money, everyone in this body, I would hope, would be outraged. When Federal money is being used to more or less have extensions of Federal agencies or extensions of a political party to do their bidding, that money deserves to have the same safeguards as if it were being spent directly through a Federal agency, and we are trying to honor that principle. Mr. EHRLICH. What we are really talking about, at a very bottom line, fundamentally, is the Federal taxpayer's dollar being spent on direct service, actually helping the American people. I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] for his great leadership on this bill as well. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. McINTOSH. The gentleman is exactly right. We are talking about using this Federal money for real services that help people, in contrast to what our colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] pointed out, where they are funding the big lie and misleading the public about very important issues. Mr. EHRLICH. What better lead-in to close our colloquy than to yield to our friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate]. Mr. TATE. Batting clean-up on this, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] for their leadership on this particular issue, and once again to reiterate $39 billion every single year is spent on lobbying. It comes in many forms, whether it is lobbying against the flag amendment, which we recently had on the floor, or right back in my own district where they are funding $165,000 in radio and television commercials spreading the big lie. And once again, that is taxpayer-funded, if not directly, indirectly, subsidizing the spreading of the big lie. What we are trying to do, as the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], has said, is bring trust back in Government. People will know that when money is sent to the Government, it is being spent as it is designed, not for partisan politics . It should be spent to help the people of the United States and spent wisely. What we are trying to do is bring trust and responsibility back to Government, and this really puts faith back in Government. I am excited by what you folks are doing, and I just want to commend your work on this issue. _________________________________________________________________ GRANT REFORM (House of Representatives - September 21, 1995) [Page: H9426] Mr. EHRLICH. Directed to the gentleman from the State of Washington, you have helped me to regain some of my faith; not that I have lost much, it has been a great 8 months here, but your constituents can still discern the difference between the truth on one hand and a lie on the other, and I think you will be all the better for it. I thank my colleagues very much. _________________________________________________________________ WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS AND A BALANCED BUDGET (House of Representatives - September 29, 1995) [Page: H9720] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, once again on the issue of welfare for lobbyists, the facts remain, the President of the United States does not want to balance the budget. My good friends across the aisle are not serious about wanting go balance the budget. The fact is the Republicans have shown a proposal to want to balance the budget. What I do not understand is when we are $4.9 trillion in debt, and if my daughter Madeleine continues to live to 72, which she will live probably to 172, she will have to pay in her lifetime $187,150 just to balance the budget. So why in the world would we subsidize lobbying, when we have all of these other needs out there? Why would we provide taxpayer funds for lobbyists? Basically in my district, as you can see, they are running advertising, $85,000 in television ads and Medicare ads and telephone calling. But it is the National Council of Senior Citizens that shows up again as one of those groups that receives over $70,000. Mr. McINTOSH. If the gentleman will yield, are you telling me this group who receives 96 percent of its funds from the Federal Government has bought television campaign ads in your district? Mr. TATE. That is absolutely correct. Mr. McINTOSH. That is incredible. No wonder it is difficult to get to a balanced budget when you have all these federally subsidized lobbyists out there fighting us tooth and nail. Mr. TATE. The point to keep in mind is we are sending out tax dollars to groups to lobby for more of our tax dollars . There is something wrong there. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, also a member of the subcommittee that held the hearing yesterday. Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a little bit about some of the testimony we have heard. I do not remember the exact number, Chairman McIntosh, of hours of hearings we have had about this issue, but there are several things that surprise me, and frankly just shock me, in the testimony we have heard. First of all, there are, in fact, groups out there receiving over 96 percent of their entire budget in Federal grants and then turning around and engaging almost exclusively in what I would describe as political activity. That is shocking enough. But I will tell you what surprises me even more, and that is that some groups have come to Washington and have lobbied against this bill, and some good groups that do good things that we all know the names of, the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, that they would come to Washington and in effect defend this kind of activity. This is an affront I think to every taxpayer . It is in an affront to every democratic loving American, that groups can literally use and abuse the taxpayers ' money to advance their political agenda. It is almost as big an offense to me to see groups coming and defending this kind of activity. Now, I will be the first to admit that the legislation that is being advanced may not be perfect, but it is hard for me to imagine anybody saying that there is not a serious problem. This is a serious problem. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg. As the gentleman indicated, we are talking about $39 billion that is being disbursed. Much it is being funneled back into political activity. This may only be the tip of the iceberg. I think the taxpayers of the United States would be outraged if they knew this was going on. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] has had the courage to bring this bill forward with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]. As I say, I think this is something that has been simmering beneath the surface for too long, and I am glad we brought it forward. [Page: H9721] Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman for his comments. One of the things we found out in our hearing yesterday is that many of the groups like the Red Cross and the United Way and the YMCA who were testifying before us yesterday, would, in fact, not be affected in the amount of advocacy that they could engage in. Because we have a 5-percent de minimis rule, they do not spend that much in lobbying. My point essentially is that these groups would not be affected in their political advocacy because they are not big lobbying groups. But it is somewhat surprising that they are opposing this. I asked the YMCA do they disclose to their donors that they do a lot of advocacy and that they want to protect the ability of charitable groups to be lobbyists, and they did not really tell me how much they disclose that to their donors. They said they do a lot of mailings, but it was not quite clear when they asked them to give a donation if they tell somebody, `You know, we might spend up to 5 percent of that to be a lobbying group.' I think some people would want to know that when they are giving money to these groups. _________________________________________________________________ REGULATION OF POLITICAL EXPRESSION (House of Representatives - September 29, 1995) [Page: H9716] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned first thing this morning, there was a very interesting hearing yesterday before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on investigations having to do with the so-called Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich proposal that masquerades as if it were doing some kind of completely unobjectionable thing, namely making sure that Federal moneys that go to organizations that receive Federal moneys that go to organizations that receive Federal grants cannot use those funds for lobbying. That is already against the law; make no bones about that. But this hearing showed, I think, one of the many, many reasons why in fact this is a proposal that would grossly interfere with the free exercise of political expression, and free speech , and freedom of association, all profoundly important rights under the Constitution of the United States as protected in the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, one of the more instructive witnesses yesterday was the director of political affairs for the YMCA of America, a lady named C.J. Van Pelt, and she gave a very, very interesting presentation about exactly how burdensome, intrusive, and chilling for the involvement of the YMCA, hardly a radical organization, in the political life of this country, and we should understand that we are not talking about lobbying Congress. This bill goes way beyond that to deal with any, quote, political advocacy activities of any individual or organization in this country that may happen to receive anything of benefit or any grant money from the Federal Government. The restriction on any such organization, in this case the YMCA, and I say to the gentleman, `Mr. McIntosh, I have only 5 minutes so I'm not going to have time to yield. I apologize.' Mr. Speaker, let me just take this moment. I would love it if perhaps the sponsors of this legislation would agree to a full hour of special orders sometime and we could really engage on this. [Page: H9717] Mr. McINTOSH. I think that would be beneficial. Mr. SKAGGS. Terrific; I thank the gentleman. Ms. Van Pelt made the following point: Under this proposed legislation the YMCA would be prohibited because it happens to engage in such things as provision of day care, dealing with prevention of crime, drug-aversion education, any number of other things for which it receives some Federal grant funding. Under this legislation it would be prohibited from spending more than 5 percent, probably significantly less than that in the case of the Y, more than 5 percent of its privately raised funds, on being involved in the political life of this country, appearing before a board of county commissioners to, for instance, argue with them about a drug-prevention program in their county or also appearing before Congress to talk about legislation that we may be considering. But Ms. Van Pelt explained that under their proposal, in order for her, as she would be required or as the YMCA would be required to certify every year adherence to this 5-percent limit, the YMCA of America would have to make inquiry of 140,000 vendors with which they do business around the country. Why in the world would they have to do that? Well, because one of the little known, but most perverse, aspects of this legislation would count anything that the YMCA spends with anybody else that happens to have exceeded another limit on political advocacy buried in this bill, and anything that the YMCA spends with anybody else that happens to have exceeded another limit on political advocacy buried in this bill, and anything they spent with somebody that violated this other limit would count against their 5-percent limit, and the only way they could certify that they complied was to find out from all 140,000 others with whom they do business to make sure that those 140,000 organizations and businesses had not exceeded their limit on political advocacy . My colleagues can imagine the kind of incredible paperwork burden, not to mention the intimidating and chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech in this country that comes out of just this small part of this ill-advised and perverse legislation. The extent to which some who advocate this legislation are willing to go was also demonstrated at the hearing yesterday in which unfortunately it came to light that the staff of this committee had engaged in an act of forgery, of concocting what was going to be a poster that was put out on the press table that misrepresented on facsimile letterhead vital information about one of the organizations that was to testify, did it with official funds in violation of any standard of decency. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. HILLEARY addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.) _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - September 29, 1995) [Page: H9717] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to some of the statements that were made by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] prior to this and also amplify for my colleagues and the American people what our hearing yesterday discovered about welfare for lobbyists, the lobbying organizations who take and receive grants from the taxpayer in order to subsidize their efforts to lobbyists to spend more money. One of the things we discovered was that it is unknown how many grants there are that are being given. The internal Revenue Service has a data base that says there are $39 billion of grants, the one with the thermometer, that are given each year to different groups, many of whom turn around and lobby Congress. Well, yesterday we found out that in fact $39 billion is much too low a number. It is really more like $224 billion in Federal grants that go to groups who are eligible to turn around and lobby Congress. The taxpayer will not stand for that, but it has been one of the most well kept secrets here in Washington. Now many of those groups, the YMCA and other groups, perform very important and legitimate charitable services, but even under our proposal that will limit welfare for lobbyists they can continue to speak out in the city councils and at their local community levels. Mr. Speaker, we have a chart here that shows how much many of the important charities would be able to continue to spend on advocacy issues. This chart shows exactly how much various groups would be able to spend. The American Red Cross could continue to spend 5 percent of its funds, or $17 million. The YMCA that we were discussing earlier could spend $1.2 million. Now Ms. Van Pelt told us that that actually is slightly more than what they are allowed to spend under current IRS regulations. So we have not asked any of the legitimate charities to silence their voice. What we have done is said, Restrict what you do so you don't become a federally subsidized lobbying organization, but continue to be a charity that helps build communities, offer programs for children, for elderly, for those people who need assistance. It is very critical in this debate that we not get lost in the rhetoric and focus on the fact that taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize lobbying efforts here in Washington. Just today one of the most heavily subsidized groups, the National Council on Senior Citizens, was in Washington lobbying against our efforts to balance the budget. Now they receive $72 million a year from taxpayers ; 95 percent of their entire budget is from the taxpayer . They are virtually an entity like a Federal agency. But they also have a political action committee. They also take out political ads on TV, and today they are lobbying Congress against the balanced budget initiative. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McINTOSH. I do not have time to yield at this point. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has suggested an hour discussion, and I think that would be a great idea. I think it is very important that the American taxpayers know that their funds are going to groups who then turn around and use other moneys to lobby Congress. But we all know that money is fungible and that one of the things that our subcommittee is going to do is track down how that money, in the case of the National Council on Senior Citizens, 95 percent of their funds is actually spent. Does any of it spill over, and is it used for lobbying activities? Does it indirectly subsidize those lobbying activities? Is there an inherent conflict of interest when somebody lobbies for spending, that they turn around and apply to receive as a grant recipient? I think the taxpayer has a right to know, and our committee is committed to getting to the bottom of this issue, making sure that we get through all of the distractions and red herrings and honestly tell the American taxpayers the truth about welfare for lobbyists so that we can put an end to that in this Congress, and we are committed to not doing business as usual, but doing the taxpayers ' work and ending welfare for lobbyists once and for all. [Page: H9718] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized for 5 minutes. [Mr. OWENS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] _________________________________________________________________ A DANGEROUS PROPOSAL (House of Representatives - October 10, 1995) [Page: H9766] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the discussions that we have been having here for some weeks now about the so-called Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich proposal, an un-American, unfair effort to clamp down on political expression and political advocacy activities through a broad swathe of America, individuals and nonprofits and for-profits and partnerships. You name it, just about everybody is going to be covered by this effort to restrict the ability of Americans to enjoy their first amendment rights to participate in the public affairs of this country. One of the things that is buried in this voluminous proposal has to do with the compliance provisions to make sure that no one and no organization was too active politically if they happened to get anything of value or a grant from the Federal Government. Remember that anything of value encompasses a multitude of possibilities, including, for instance, such things as irrigation water going to a western rancher or farmer from the Bureau of Reclamation. In any case, anybody that is subject to the Istook limits on political advocacy and expression could be called to task, not in order to defend against a government allegation of a violation but, if challenged, would have to prove their innocence under this legislation. Again, it is not a case where the Government has to prove a violation. If you are challenged for having done too much political activity in a year, you have to prove your innocence. You not only have to prove your innocence by what would be the normal standard in our courts of a preponderance of the evidence, more than 50 percent, you have to establish compliance by clear and convincing evidence. Now we are talking, remember, about exercising our first amendment rights and being able to show that we have not overexercised, if you will, and having to show that on meeting our own burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Not only could a government agent come in to challenge a citizen or a nonprofit or a for-profit organization about this in this land of the free , but this bill invites, by incorporating what is called the False Claims Act, invites rampant vigilantism throughout this country because under the False Claims Act any citizen can sue anybody that they think may have violated these restrictions and any citizen can put an organization or their neighbor to the task of defending, of proving innocence under the absolutely warped scheme that would be imposed on this country under the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich bill. Under the False Claims Act, if you are put to this proof that you have not overdone your political expression this year, you are doing so at the risk of treble damages and fines imposed under the False Claims Act. Again, an invitation to the opponents of anyone who is taking a position that may not be particularly popular in their community or in their neighborhood, an invitation to this kind of gratuitous activity by badly motivated vigilantes. One of the other things about this proposal that, again, has not gotten the kind of attention it deserves is the reporting requirement. Every organization in this country that gets any grant or thing of value from the Federal Government, and that may be, for instance, a reduced postage mailing permit for publications and newspapers, but anyone that gets such a thing of value from the Federal Government is going to have to file every year a certification with regard to their compliance that enumerates their political activities for the preceding Federal fiscal year and gives an estimate of how much was spent on political activity. All of these individual reports will be collated by every Federal agency that dispenses anything of value or any grant money and sent over to the Census Bureau, which every year will be required under this crazy legislation to pull together a national registry of political activity in this country and make it available on the Internet. Can you imagine anything as inconsistent, as contradictory to the fundamental principles of this democracy, of the free exercise of speech and communication and freedom of assembly, having to do with the political life of our democracy? Rumor two, although, this masquerades as having to do only with lobbyists and the Federal Government, these restrictions apply across the board to anything anybody does having the slightest bearing on any public decision at the local level, the State level, the Federal level, the county level; anything imaginable would be swept under these mindless restrictions. It is the most dangerous Orwellian, McCarthyite proposal we have seen in a long time. [Page: H9767] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is recognized for 5 minutes. [Ms. KAPTUR addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] _________________________________________________________________ SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY AND FREE SPEECH (House of Representatives - October 17, 1995) [Page: H10085] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address for just a few minutes a proposal that is pending in the House that is generally referred to as the Istook amendment or the Istook-McIntosh proposal. What, one may ask, is that about? Well, this is an effort to set up a very, very complicated system for regulating, if one can believe this, regulating and really suppressing political speech and political advocacy in this democracy, which is based, of course, on freedom of political speech and association. There are many, many aspects to this proposal, but it is often masqueraded, anyway, under the guise of ending welfare for lobbyists. And that may sound like a catchy and compelling concept until we realize who it is that we are talking about. This proposal is intended to get at such organizations as the American Red Cross, the United Church of Christ, the YMCA, the Girl Scouts, a whole range of mainstream American charitable and philanthropic organizations that happen, in addition to their regular activities in our communities, to be involved in some fashion or other in the debate and consideration in America of good public policy. Many of these organizations, as are well known, are involved in a whole range of philanthropic and charitable activities in their communities in their States. They learn about the problems in our society from those activities, and, understandably, they exercise their first amendment rights to communicate those concerns to State and local and Federal policymakers and legislators. This proposal would put limits on what they can do to help us in the Congress or in the State capitals do a better job. Why? Well, I cannot really answer that question. The proponents of this proposal seem to think that we should go back to a kind of 19th century view of charity, in which the only thing that is legitimate is to feed the poor, house the homeless, do the fundamental good works, which are clearly very, very important. But if they learn something from that, that might help inform Government to do its job better, well, that is out of line. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich's, comments about wanting to go back to a kind of 19th century orphanage way of dealing with children who do not have the advantages of having both parents at home. Now, this is being called, this effort to get at the political activities of nonprofits and, for that matter, individuals and businesses that happen to be involved in the political life of this country, going after one of Washington's dirty little secrets; that is that somehow the idea that the YMCA or the Girl Scouts or the American Red Cross might be involved in political advocacy is an anathema. Mr. Speaker, I think it may also have something to do with wanting to divert attention from one of the real dirty little secrets in town right now, which is the avoidance of dealing with real lobbying reform and real gift reform around this place. We are preoccupied in this proposal, again with, I think, a real diversionary tactic. When I am home, I at least do not have a lot of people coming up to me saying, `Congressman, I wish you would rein in the Girl Scouts from being quite so active politically. It is just an outrage.' Or commenting about how dangerous it is to American society to have the YMCA involved in the debate about child care. [Page: H10086] [TIME: 1315] But while we are off on this tangent, people are being distracted from the fundamental inaction in the House of Representatives on real, central, political reform here in the House; namely, getting to the activities of real lobbyists and their inappropriate ways of trying to influence decisions here through a whole range of extracurricular activities, whether it is gifts or meals or junkets or what have you. Mr. Speaker, why haven't we taken up that legislation which most Members of the House arrived in January saying ought to be central to our reform agenda around here? Why are we not doing that, rather than messing around with this very, very trivializing and, I think, insulting diversion about wanting to make sure that the Girl Scouts do not have too much say in the political life of this country. _________________________________________________________________ THE ISTOOK AMENDMENT (Senate - October 24, 1995) [Page: S15513] Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Saturday New York Times over the weekend reported that a group of freshman Republicans in the House were threatening to basically bring the Federal Government to a halt unless a provision that they support is adopted in the conference report on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The provision at issue is commonly referred to as the Istook amendment after its author, Congressman Ernest Istook of Oklahoma. It would put massive new restrictions on all Federal grant recipients with respect to their participation in matters of public policy. This is how the New York Times described it: `As this week began, the freshmen were threatening an even wider uprising, with nearly half vowing to hold up all the upcoming spending bills and the reconciliation bill unless the leadership holds fast' on the Istook amendment. Congressman Roger Wicker of Mississippi is quoted in the article as saying, `It is something the conferees will ignore at their peril.' One headline recently referred to the amendment here, as `lobby reform.' Proponents of the amendment say it will `end welfare for lobbyists.' Well, I have been working on lobbying reform for over 5 years, now, and I can tell you, this is not lobbying reform. It is repression of the rights of people to lobby. The Istook amendment is a rather blatant attempt to silence dissent and to muffle the diversity of opinion in the forum of public policy debate. The amendment is one of the most poorly thought out I have ever come across. Senate conferees have been holding fast against it, although there is supposed to be a meeting of the conferees sometime tomorrow and we will have to see what happens. But again, the Senate has served as a firewall against an extreme proposal emanating from the House. The Istook amendment provides that any Federal grant recipient is not allowed to use more than a small percentage of their own money--non-Federal dollars--for political advocacy and still receive a Federal grant for totally unrelated activities. There is already a longstanding law on the books that prohibits the use of appropriated funds for lobbying--no ifs, and, or buts. Appropriated funds under current law cannot be used for lobbying and there are provisions that ensure that even indirect costs of an organization cannot be used to subsidize lobbying activities. Current law applies to all appropriated funds regardless of who the recipient is--for profit contractors as well as nonprofit grant recipients. The penalties for violating this provision are severe, including debarment from all future Federal funding. So this is not restriction that is easily overlooked or dismissed. The argument that current law allows welfare for lobbyists is factually incorrect. Under current law, no federally appropriated money, no Federal tax dollars can be spent by any recipient to lobby, period. Well, then, what is the Istook amendment getting at? It is getting at the non-Federal money. It is trying to control what private organizations can do with the money they raise solely from private sources. What does the amendment say? First, it applies to all grant recipients. Any entity that receives a Federal grant, either directly or indirectly would be subject to the provisions and requirements of the Istook amendment. So, yes it covers organizations like AARP which receives grants to conduct various programs for senior citizens, a favorite target of the Istook supporters. But it also covers grants to persons who do research in small laboratories for the NIH. It covers grants to major medical centers that may be studying the effects of chemotherapy for cancer treatment. It covers grants to religious organizations that may be conducting latchkey programs for the forgotten kids in neighborhoods across this country, and it covers groups like the Red Cross. It applies to any organization or entity that receives, directly or indirectly, Federal grant money or, indeed, that may apply for Federal grant money. _________________________________________________________________ THE ISTOOK AMENDMENT (Senate - October 24, 1995) It does not apply to Federal contractors. Federal contractors receive hundreds of billions of Federal tax dollars, and they have a tremendous incentive to lobby. Continuation of the B-2 bomber readily comes to mind as a program that producers of the B-2 might have an interest in lobbying on, but the Istook amendment does not try to limit the amount of lobbying that contractors can conduct with their private money, even when they are lobbying for Federal funds. The amendment does not try to limit the volume of lobbying these companies can conduct despite the hundreds of millions, and in some cases the billions of dollars, they receive from the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers. And if the Istook supporters can call private money used by Federal grant recipients welfare for lobbyists, the same would have to hold true for private moneys used by Federal contractors. There is no difference. The whole approach is based on a disturbing and a flimsy distinction. You can buy B-2's from a company that makes a profit and not worry about how it lobbies with its own money, but if you buy research into a cure for cancer from a nonprofit university, then you need to restrict that university's lobbying efforts with its own money. The B-2 contractor can lobby all it wants with its own money, but the university working on a cure for cancer cannot. So the amendment at the outset targets only one type of recipient of Federal funds, and that is the grant recipients that are largely nonprofit organizations, leaving the contract recipients that are largely for-profit companies completely untouched. What are the restrictions that the amendment then places on all Federal grant recipients? An organization cannot get a Federal grant if it spent more than--and I am shorthanding the formula here--if it spent more than 5 percent of its total expenditures on political advocacy in any one of the preceding 5 years. So let me repeat that. An organization cannot get a Federal grant if it spent more than 5 percent of its total expenditures on political advocacy --that is the term the amendment uses--in any one of the preceding 5 years. And then, of course, once an organization is a grantee, it is held to that same 5-percent limit as a condition of continuing to receive the grant. So first of all, this is not a limitation on what a grant applicant must be bound by once it gets a grant. This is much more than that. This is a limitation on what an applicant for a grant can do in the 5 years prior to applying for a grant. An organization may not even know that it wants to apply for a grant, let us say, in 1995, but should it this year spend more than 5 percent of its money on what the Istook amendment calls political advocacy , then it is precluded 5 years from now from applying for a grant, even though it engaged in no political advocacy this year, next year, the year after, or the year after that. This amendment is not only applicable to the period of time during which the grantee is carrying out a grant, it applies for all practical purposes for all years whether or not an organization has a grant if it thinks that it might some year, 5 years down the road, want to apply for a grant. What is `political advocacy '? The definition is so extreme that it is almost laughable if the stakes, namely, basic democratic principles, were not so high. Political advocacy includes carrying on `propaganda'--that is the term that is used in the amendment--or otherwise attempting to influence legislation or agency action. This, the amendment says, includes but is not limited to contributions, endorsements, publicity, or similar activities. So if the Food and Drug Administration were considering restricting the availability of cigarettes for young people, the American Medical Association, which may have a grant or may even want to apply for a grant in the next 5 years, could be precluded from using non-Government funds, its own funds, to endorse that agency action. At a minimum, if it thought it might want to apply for grant in the next 5 years, if it did not have one at the time, it would have to keep records of how much it spent if it made such endorsements and then regularly measure that amount against its other political advocacy activity, assuming you could figure out what political advocacy meant, and it would have to do that to make sure its total expenditures do not go over the 5-percent limit. _________________________________________________________________ THE ISTOOK AMENDMENT (Senate - October 24, 1995) Political advocacy also includes participating in any judicial litigation-- I do not know what litigation is other than in a judicial setting, but that is the term the amendment uses--in any judicial litigation or agency proceeding including as a friend of the court in which any Federal, State, or local government is involved. The exceptions to this sweeping provision are if the grantee is a defendant, so you are allowed to defend yourself, or if the grantee is challenging a Government decision or action directed specifically at the powers, rights, or duties of the grantee or grant recipient. OK, so now let us say you are the Mayo Clinic, and you receive a large Federal grant to conduct cancer or diabetes research. The city of Rochester has developed a new master plan to rezone the entire city including the area around the clinic. You as the clinic are affected by that plan and you want to challenge it, but it is not directed specifically at the powers, rights, or duties of the Mayo Clinic. It is a plan for the entire city of Rochester, so now you would be forced to choose between continuing with the research grant or participating in the debate over the master plan. Political advocacy also includes--and this is where the amendment takes another major leap in its extremism and its absurdity--allocating, disbursing, or contributing any money or in-kind support to any person or entity whose expenditure for political advocacy in the previous fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures for that year. What does that mean? Presumably that every Federal grant recipient or potential applicant has to determine whether or not the business from which its purchasing services or products meets the 15-percent test. So now if a Federal grantee or a potential grantee purchases a computer from IBM, that Federal grantee had better be sure that IBM is within the 15-percent limit, because otherwise that is an expenditure for political advocacy and the grantee has to count the amount of the purchase toward its 5-percent limit. Let us take another example. A child care facility which receives a Federal grant for a breakfast program uses its own non-Federal private funds and hires an individual to do graphics for a campaign to promote healthy breakfasts. The person they happen to pick is a part-time lobbyist at the State legislature for other persons and other interests. The child care facility did not pick that person for that skill. They picked him for his ability to put together an attractive presentation for little children and for families. Under the Istook amendment, we are going to hold that child care facility responsible for determining whether or not that graphics person spends more than 15 percent of his expenditures on political advocacy . And if it does, the child-care center has to include in its total of its expenditures that amount of money. Now, Mr. President, this is getting absolutely absurd. A potential grantee, an applicant for a Federal grant, who thinks that it may apply even in the next 5 years, has to keep a record of every single purchase it makes from every company during that 5 years and make sure that no company from which it buys a computer or anything else has exceeded a 15-percent expenditure limit using its own funds. If you buy food for a clinic, you better make sure that the wholesaler from which you bought that food did not spend more than 15 percent of its own funds on political advocacy . This is Government gone mad. This is Government gone haywire. Nobody can keep these kinds of records and get certification from every person from whom they buy anything that that person did not spend more than 15 percent of its money on political advocacy . This amendment does exactly what the opponents of lobbying and gift reform in the last Congress correctly said would be unacceptable: interfering with the right of an organization to communicate information to its members. The Istook amendment would treat as political advocacy , and therefore reportable and subject to its limits, all communications between a grantee organization and any bona fide member of that organization that encourages the member to communicate with any government official on legislation or agency action. _________________________________________________________________ THE ISTOOK AMENDMENT (Senate - October 24, 1995) Let me repeat that. The Istook amendment requires grantees to report on an annual basis all of their expenditures--again, we are talking about non-Federal funds--incurred in communicating to their members to encourage them to contact Government officials on legislation or agency policy action. Isn't that what killed lobbying reform last Congress and is not that exactly the issue the very proponents of this Istook amendment said would be so offensive? We struck any reference to grassroots lobbying from the lobbying reform bill this year in order to make progress, and here, some Congressmen are threatening to shut down the entire Federal Government in order to pass a provision that requires organizations to publicly account for just how much they spend to do grassroots lobbying on their own members, not only on persons outside their organization but with their own members. Last year's provision did not go nearly that far and many of these same House Members railed against that. This is Alice in Wonderland material, made real by the fact that the sponsors have threatened to shut down Government, if they don't get their way. We are talking here about making the Red Cross report each year how much it spends of non-Federal funds should it ask its members to urge Congress to pass stronger legislation to protect the country's blood supply. We are talking about making the Girl Scouts of America report each year how much they spend when they ask their members to write to the FCC on violence in television shows. We are talking about requiring Mothers Against Drunk Driving to keep a record of all the expenses they incur in communicating with their members to fight for tougher drinking laws in their states. And these organizations would have to keep these records and report these amounts even though they do not even meet the definition of a lobbying organization under the Senate-passed lobbying disclosure bill. Promoting and supporting this amendment is, alone, an unfortunate, unwise, and I believe deleterious position to take with respect to our basic democratic principles. But elevating the passage of this amendment to the position of importance that puts the entire Federal Government at risk is incomprehensible. One day we will weary of threats to shut Government down--and as a body rise up to defeat proposals supported by such threats. This proposal should also be defeated despite the threats, Mr. President, because the laws are already in place to protect any misuse of taxpayer moneys with respect to lobbying by tax-exempt organizations. The Senate should not give in to this thoroughly misguided piece of legislation; our conferees should hold fast. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] is recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes. [Page: S15515] Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) [Page: H11433] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized for 60 minutes. Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I am here to speak tonight on an issue that is continuing to be debated in the House and in the Senate, and that is our efforts to end welfare for lobbyists. As many of you know, last summer this House of Representatives passed a landmark piece of legislation that was added to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, that said from now on anybody who receives a Federal grant has to make a choice. They can either continue to receive the Government funds or they can give up the funds and then continue to be lobbyists. But they cannot do both as long as they are receiving a Federal subsidy. That bill, I think, strikes an important blow on behalf of taxpayers everywhere who no longer wish to be seeing their taxes used to finance some of the biggest, most powerful and influential lobbying organizations right here in Washington, DC, organizations who have continually over the last 40 years lobbied this Congress for more and more and more spending so that we have runaway deficits and the largest national debt in history. This legislation, legislation that we referred to as ending welfare for lobbyists, I think is very important and strikes a blow on behalf of taxpayers everywhere for responsible Government. Tonight I wanted to discuss with you and several of my colleagues the nature of this problem and what our solution is and how we plan to go forward in implementing that reform on behalf of the taxpayers. First, I have a chart here that gives you an idea of what is happening. We discovered that currently there are $39 billion that the Federal Government says it gives out in grants each year. Now, some of that money goes to very worthwhile causes and to groups who are not lobbyists, but the large percentage of that money goes to groups who turn around and lobby the Government for more spending and for various social programs. That subsidy for the lobbying activities here in Washington is exactly the area that we are targeting with this legislation. Again, I want to emphasize what we will be doing is saying to the groups, `If you want to be a charity and do good works, that you are entitled to do, and we will support you under the various Federal programs. But if you want to be a lobbyist, you need to do it on your own time and on your own dime, because the taxpayer is not going to subsidize lobbying any longer.' Madam Speaker, at this point I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], who is here to join us in support of this bill. Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for again introducing and really being the catalyst for this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I think perhaps you were also in the Chamber the night this particular measure was first debated. I can recall, after all, this is known as the people's House, and as my good friend from Indiana joined me here on the floor, I guess it is safe to say that there was a particularly raucous response from one of our friends on the minority from California. Indeed, to read his comments the following day in the Wall Street Journal, I found it to be somewhat incredible; quoting him now, `It is a glorious day if you are a fascist; if you are a fascist, it is a glorious day.' My friend from California took great unbrage at the fact that through the efforts of my friend from Indiana this new majority was moving not to extinguish advocacy , but to say, as my colleague from Indiana did so quite eloquently, if you are engaged in lobbying, do it on your own time with your own dime. Would that it were just a dime being spent. But as my friend from Indiana, in concert with my good friend from Maryland and our more senior colleague from Oklahoma have detailed, this is not penny ante here. This is $39 billion in money from the taxpayers of America, Madam Speaker, from you and I and other taxpayers out there working hard to feed their families and to provide a future for their children, or as seniors on a fixed income, to make ends meet. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) Their money is going into a process that I think is fair to describe, and I am not exaggerating here, it can only be described as somewhat incestuous, where people come to the Hill and lobby for funds and, indeed, many of their endeavors are worthwhile, and yet even in receiving the taxpayers' largesse, they return, courtesy of those same funds, to again ask for more and more of the taxpayers' dollars. Good people can disagree. I have often made that observation in the Chamber. And while I would never impugn the motives of my friend from California who on that particular raucous occasion perhaps it can be said chose to impugn our motives, could it be that as the Wall Street Journal editorialized, that in moving to correct this abuse we had tapped into a power source for those so willing to take the taxpayers' money in the advocacy of a certain social agenda? Madam speaker, in the preceding special order I paraphrased the comments of Abraham Lincoln, and the message still applies here: The American people, once fully informed of the facts, will make the correct decision. There has been a widespread cry across this Nation for reform. On the first day of this new Congress, this new majority passed the Shays Act, a simple but powerful notion that those who serve in this Chamber should live under the same laws as every other American. Now, indeed, if we are called to a higher standard, then a reexamination of where the hard-earned money of the American people goes is also in order, and I salute my friend from Indiana and, indeed, my good friend from Maryland who joins us here tonight in their efforts to fully inform the American people, because there is no place for the relentless assault on the pocketbooks of hard-working taxpaying Americans for continued subsidizing of big Government-orchestrated charities. We must make a change, and we, the new Members of this institution, stand united to make sure that change is realized. With that, as I continue the dialog, I see our good friend from Maryland, and perhaps I should yield back to the gentleman who controls the time, my friend from Indiana, for the purposes of recognizing our friend from nearby Maryland. [Page: H11434] Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Thank you for that very eloquent endorsement of what you have pointed out is, in fact, one of the leading reforms that our freshman class is really insisting that we include in this budget process as we send forward these spending bills to the President. Let me now yield to one of the coauthors of this provision, who along with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and now Senator Simpson and Senator Craig in the Senate, is the lead sponsor of this bill, and I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich]. Mr. EHRLICH. I thank the gentleman. I wish I could be as eloquent as our friend from Arizona, our freshman colleague. We appreciate your support very much on this very important initiative. The only thing I can say to you, my friend, is I am sorry that you have been attacked at a personal level. That is a political culture I am not used to, and hopefully the American people will not get used to it either. I bring some words tonight from across the hallway, from our friend, Senator Simpson. We have not had an opportunity to talk about this, but as you know and the American people should know, he has been a wonderful friend during this entire process. His leadership in the other body has been unmatched, I am sure you would agree. Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct. Mr. EHRLICH. I thought his words on the floor of the Senate last week were just profound, and I would like to recite them for a minute or two. I see we have been joined by our friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], as well. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) Senator Simpson, in taking the floor to rebut some of the more ridiculous charges our piece of legislation has had to undergo, made these statements. [TIME: 2200] Hell hath no fury like an individual whose access to Federal bucks has been conditioned in any way. Because that is not what this issue is all about, access to the Federal Treasury. It is not about free speech or the First Amendment, or anything of the sort. Those are merely the terms which are being applied during the argument by those who wish to continue to ensure themselves of continued delivery of Federal money. I have four statements, with the gentleman's indulgence, because they are so profound, they are so on point. The second statement from Senator Simpson: I know that is a strange and even bizarre thing in this day and age, to talk about `responsibility,' instead purely of `rights' or purely of `victims.' We are all experts in our own rights, but rarely do we acknowledge that these rights confer responsibilities. And that is what this issue is about, the responsibility of those who receive Federal money. The third statement by our colleague from the Senate, and this is a point we have discussed on this floor many times. Already in the law there are restrictions on the amount of lobbying that can be done by 501-C-3 organizations which take the 501-H election to identify themselves as charities. These are the facts, the facts for the American people. In return for the benefit of tax deductible contributions, these organizations agree to limit their lobbying expense. They may spend 20 percent of the first $500,000 in lobbying, 15 percent of their next $500,000, 10 percent of their next $500,000, and 5 percent after that, up to a global cap of $1 million on lobbying. The same point we have made on this floor time after time, that the gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McIntosh, has made time and time again during the course of his public hearings. Finally, Mr. Simpson's last statement, he made all sorts of wonderful statements in the course of his speech in the Senate, I personally will have my old bald dome battered, because I have stated all along that I would seek to protect true charities from the scope of any legislation, the 501-C-3 organizations which we all care so much about and should. Well, the amendment which hopefully will shortly be presented as the Istook-Simpson compromise, will indeed protect them. We will protect them not by creating a blanket exception for all charitable groups, but by leaving in place and spending restrictions formulas that already apply to charitable organizations. I would ask my friend and colleague from Indiana, has not our friend Senator Simpson hit the proverbial nail on the head? Mr. McINTOSH. I believe that is exactly correct. I see our colleague from Indiana, a good friend of mine is here is here, with some questions he had. Let me take a moment to recite some of the provisions in the bill. In the debate, those are often lost, the facts people do not focus on. I think it is important to let the American people know what we are doing. As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, the core of this bill is to use the current IRS provision for 501-C-3 charitable groups and say that is going to be the limit of how much any group that receives a Federal grant can spend in lobbying activities. It is a small amount of their overall funding, starting out at I think 20 percent, going down to 5 percent totally with a cap. That is what they can do with their private funds. With any government funds that the taxpayer is giving those groups, what we are saying is no taxpayer dime can be used for lobbying whatsoever. We are going to make that very clear. More importantly, we are going to put some real teeth into that provision and say first of all, it is a violation of the law to do so. Second, the taxpayer is empowered to be a watchdog, and if the taxpayer sees that a group is spending taxpayer dollars to lobby and engage in political campaigns, they have a right to bring a suit to stop that from happening. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) Then, finally, we are going to force disclosure, because one of the things we discovered was that these groups will often hide behind various forms of organization, where the group that does the lobbying does not get the dollars directly, but there is an intermediate group that receives a taxpayer grant, and then they give another grant to the lobbyist organization. So we are going to force everyone to disclose where the money comes from and where it is spent when they have Federal dollars at stake, and we are going to force disclosure of all lobbying activities by these groups to ensure that the taxpayer can have a full accountability for how the funds are spent. Let me real quickly address two things we thought were very important. One was, as Senator Simpson mentioned, to exempt true charities from coverage. They will be covered under the IRS rules, but it makes it clear they are not the targets of this legislation. It is the lobbying groups here in Washington who have lived off of the taxpayer dollars for so long who are going to be chiefly affected by this. [Page: H11435] Mr. EHRLICH. That point is so important. The true charities, and we have made this point time and time again as well, the charities actually interested in fulfilling their mission, rather than becoming lobbyists, the people actually out there doing good in the world and not interested in continually coming here and asking for additional moneys. Mr. McINTOSH. That is so true, Later in the hour I would like to talk about some of those groups who come to us and say we are doing the right thing, because we are preserving the true nature of these charities. One final point is it was pointed out to us that some of these groups might inadvertently be caught up in the legislation. What we did was made a very clear statement we would create a de minimis exception. If a group writes to their city council and says `We really think you ought to think of a new program to help clean up the inner-city,' we do not intend that to be caught up in this legislation. That is not a problem of lobbyists coming and asking us to spend more and more money each year. That type of thing will be covered by our de minimis exception that makes it very clear that all groups can spend a small amount, $25,000 each year, in stating their positions to the public. We thought that was fair as a way of preserving their first amendment rights, but not having them be corrupted and turned into lobbying organizations. Those are the key elements of this bill. I think it is very fair, very well drafted, and goes directly to the problem, that the taxpayers are not being protected right now from their funds going to subsidize these lobbying efforts. Let me now recognize my friend and colleague from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this and the beating the gentleman has been taking on behalf of all those who agree with him. Whenever he takes the lead, he becomes a target for personal smear and innuendo from people who do not want to debate the issue, but the side issue to distract from the main issue, with the gentleman's addressing some of the things that have come up to me in my district and many others. Let me see if I can clarify this question. Organizations that receive Federal funds, are they now restricted from any lobbying? For example, if it is a large organization and they spend some time advocating any kind of Federal policies, does that mean they can no longer do that if they get any money? Mr. McINTOSH. No, the bill is not as absolute as that. What it says is they are now restricted to a limited amount of advocacy , using the IRS formula that charitable groups right now are supposed to follow but which is not codified into law. Some groups, such as the National Council of Senior Citizens, are not covered by that limit, so they can go out and set up a political action committee, which they have done. They can go out and take out television ads, which they have done. This would put them under the same limit that the charities have if they are receiving those Federal dollars. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) Mr. SOUDER. One of the great honors I have had was to work with Focus on the Family over the years, and particularly as Dr. Dobson looked at developing and working with Gary Bowers to develop the Family Research Council, and I was working with them in some of the early years. One of the things that Dr. Dobson has to do in his radio addresses is balance how many times he talks about government issues and how many times he deals with political issues. Many 501-C-3's, all of them which deal with social issues, are already under these restrictions. Why is it so shocking to the other groups that they have to behave the way most of these groups have to do already in this country? What makes them special? Why were they exempt in this process in the first place? Mr. McINTOSH. I think the gentleman asks a very good question, why is there this double standard. I think what happened is over the years, certain groups almost became an extension of the government. The National Council of Senior Citizens receives 96 percent of its funds from the Federal Government. Like the government, they became arrogant and thought that they could be above the standard, there would not be anybody there to police them, and they did not have to be accountable to the taxpayer. So now that we are starting to hold them accountable to what is very accepted with groups, like Dr. Dobson and other groups, they are starting to scream about it, because they thought they had a free ride and a special privilege. What we are saying is now the taxpayer does not want to put up with that any longer. Mr. SOUDER. What is their defense for saying in the funds directly coming to them from the Federal Government for use for charitable work, whether it is seniors, or low income, or people who are handicapped, or people being abused, why do they feel that those dollars that are being given from the taxpayers for those purposes should be used directly for lobbying? Is there a reason that they say that they should be allowed to do that, other than self-fulfilling, they want more money for their group? Mr. McINTOSH. The only reason I have heard some of them say is, `Well, it is already not allowed.' But then my question to them is why do you oppose this bill, if you say it is already not allowed? I think the answer must be that they know that that is not being enforced. In fact, we have one example with where a government agency gave a grant to a group who held an entire conference teaching people how to go and lobby. When they were called on the carpet and the GAO investigated and said this is an abuse of this Federal grant, the agency sort of shrugged their shoulders and said, `Oh well, too bad.' Now what we are doing is putting teeth in it by letting the taxpayer be the enforcement mechanism for making sure that they have to live under the law as well. Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman will yield, I know our colleague from Indiana will appreciate this as well, because I think being part of the process, attending the subcommittee hearings, reading the testimony, listening to the testimony, another part of the answer really is when you get used to something, it is very human, and you think you are going to have it forever. You believe it is going to increase forever. You get very angry, and you tend to call people names when someone takes it away from you. We have had to endure the name calling. The gentleman from Indiana has provided wonderful leadership on this and has been attacked personally. We have all been attacked. I am tired of it. If they would just talk about the issues, we might get some progress made. But the fact is they are angry, and we have seen it played out time and time again. That is a very human element to this entire debate. Mr. EHRLICH. Is it not true also, which I think is a very good point, that some people argue this is a chilling effect on public debate? Is it not true that, for example, if there is an organization that would, say, favor the National Endowment for the Arts or the Institute for Museum Services, that what we are saying is the organization itself that receives the funds will now have a cap on how much they can spend in lobbying. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) But it does not keep an individual member of a Chicago Art Institute or the Fort Wayne Art Museum or a supporter of the philharmonic from writing us as Members of Congress or speaking out in public. It is just the group cannot use its funds for those purposes if they get Federal funds. It that not correct? Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct. Each of us as individuals would have our first amendment rights to speak out. In fact, one of the provisions that our colleague from Maryland put into the bill was an absolute exemption for individuals, so that any person, as compared to an organization, who wants to exercise their first amendment rights would be totally protected under this statute. Mr. EHRLICH. Most people I know who give money to a philharmonic or art museum expect that money to go to the philharmonic for music or for the art, not to lobbying Congress. I do not think that was the intent that they thought they would give it. [Page: H11436] Mr. McINTOSH. I think that is right. If the gentleman would let me share with you an example that a reporter called up the other day and asked me about, and apparently there is a group in Washington State that is Big Brother-Big Sister. They raise a lot of their money by having nightly bingo games. People come and they pay to play bingo, and it is a fund-raising technique. It is a very successful one for them. But they also spend a certain amount of their money lobbying the State legislature to make sure that bingo continues to be an eligible fund-raising tool. They are entitled to that, and it makes sense they would want to do that. But they apparently spend more than 15 percent of their funds lobbying the State legislature, because they do not receive a grant themselves. But they were worried they would no longer be able to take money from someone who does get a Federal grant. The rule we put in there is if you lobby more than 15 percent, you cannot receive the money indirectly. So my suggestion to the reporter was why do they not set up a separate organization as a lobbying group? One night a week they can have a bingo game and tell everybody, `We are raising money to lobby with this night's proceeds. The other 6 nights we are going to help people with the Big Brothers and Big Sisters.' Then you have disclosure, and the people who give the money will know what they are giving the money for. They will know whether or not this is for lobbying, or to help people with a charitable good. To me, I think that an ideal world. People know what their money is going for, and the groups have the freedom to enact their programs and proceed with those. If they want to lobby, they can set up another group that does not get taxpayer money, that they can set up for the lobbying purposes. Mr. EHRLICH. I know there are others who desire to speak, our good friend from Washington, but I have one other question I wanted to ask you, and that is we have talked about this, but a representative of ARC, it used to be the Association of Retarded Citizens, came to me and was concerned they would not be able to advocate for people that they were working with as they go, say, to a housing authority to talk to them, and go along with that citizen for housing, or if they had a job training program, as we have in our legislation, for those who have special needs. My understanding of this legislation is this is focused on lobbying to Congress, to legislatures, not for helping citizens who fall into their purview. Is that not correct? [TIME: 2215] Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct, and we have clarified the language to make certain that that is very clear. The ARC came and testified in our committee, they did not like the bill as it was drafted, and I thought they had a very telling and important comment in that area about a possible problem that could be created where they help citizens who really do need help going to a government agency and applying for assistance they are entitled to. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) So we went back and changed the legislation to reflect that concern and be able to make it very clear that they would still be able to engage in that activity. Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield. As my colleagues can tell, I am a little angry tonight because of the personal attacks against the gentleman personally. Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman, but let me just comment. One thing I have taken solace in is, a friend of mine reminded me of the saying President Reagan had, which is `It is dangerous any time you get between the hog and the bucket'. And I think our legislation may be doing exactly that. Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, I think our friend from Indiana asked a very good question, but the gentleman's answer tells the American people a lot about the process we have brought to this entire debate. I know myself and my staff, Representative Istook and his staff, the gentleman particularly and his entire staff have spent hundreds of hours meeting with groups actually trying to get input, to secure input relevant input to make the bill better. A very open process, which I am told around here was pretty rare before we got here. The gentleman deserves credit for that and yet the attacks continue. Mr. McINTOSH. I think I know what it is, Madam Speaker, I think they realize if the American people find out the truth of where their taxpayer dollars are being spent to subsidize lobbying they will not win. But if they make it a personal attack, they might distract enough people and actually end up winning in the ultimate vote. Fortunately, I think all of us freshmen here are committed to getting down to the truth and delivering on our promises to the American people and so we will not let them get us sidetracked with those. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize now a colleague from Washington State who has been very active in our subcommittee in helping to craft this bill, Mr. Tate. Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, for the sake of not trying to sound like a broken record, I want to thank the Member from Indiana for taking all the arrows on our behalf on this issue. We all came here, all of us, to make real changes in Washington, DC. I do not think that is a surprise. I think we all knew going into this, from the git-go, that there would be attacks. The opposition would use every tool that they possibly had to stop the agenda. The defenders of big government do not want to see things changed. That means less power in Washington, DC, and more power in Washington State. That means less power in Washington, DC, and more in Indiana. And less power in Washington, DC, and more in Maryland. That is what it is all about. But I never knew they would be using my own tax dollars to lobby against these changes. It is one thing to do it privately, it is another thing to do it publicly. That is what they are so-so concerned about. Recently in the Washington Times there was an editorial titled `Federally Funded GOP Bashing, talking about the case study of what has been going on out in my State, and this is what they said. In the past knew months a variety of groups have spent monies that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The problem is not that these activists are targeting Mr. Tate. That, after all, is politics . The problem is that many of these groups are engaged in very political , very partisan activities and receive big bucks from the Federal Government. The campaign they have mounted passes anyone's test of political activity. That is the point. I want people to get involved in politics . I think all of us, we ran for office because we wanted to make changes. Everyone should gutted involved in politics , even if they disagree with us. But the difference is they should not use the public trough, lay sideways in the public trough, literally, and take that money and spend it trying to defeat some of the things we are working on. That is the thing I find outrageous, using the taxpayers' dollars. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) Madam Speaker, the other attacks I have heard is this whole issue of free speech . I say this over and over. Free speech is not free if I have to pay for it. The taxpayer should not have to pay for this kind of lobbying. Imagine the outrage we would hear if the Christian Coalition was receiving money, or the National Rifle Association, or the National Right to Life. To me this is not an issue about left and right. I would be just as upset if it was the other side. That is the point, it is wrong no matter what ideology it happens to be. We should not be funding these sort of activities. Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a point. The gentleman may have missed the colloquy we engaged in on this floor, I believe three weeks ago, with the Representative from Colorado and the Representative from Maryland. They even admitted on the floor that day that it is not a defunding of the left. We have been attacked as defunding the left. They actually admitted that day it is not defunding the left. I wanted to gentleman to know that, because one of the principal charges against us, against this piece of legislation has been diffused by the main opponents. Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. This week it is the GOP. Maybe a couple of years from now it is the Democrat party. To me it does not matter. It is wrong no matter what party it is. It is wrong to use the taxpayers' money to fund these kinds of acts, no matter who or what organization it is. So, Madam Speaker, I guess what I would tell these organizations that are running attacks against the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and against other freshmen that are standing up against big government and their special interests and high paid lobbyists back here in Washington, DC, I would tell those organizations if they want to lobby, do it on their own dime, do it on their own time, not on the taxpayers' time. So I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana once again taking a lot of heat, and he should be judged by his enemies. He should be judged by the work he is doing. I can tell my colleagues when I was home for town meetings this weekend, I had more people come up to me and say, `You know what, Randy, don't give up. Keep on fighting. Because we know if these groups are attacking you, you must be doing something right; that you must really be making changes'. The louder they scream, the more effective we must be. So I just thank the gentleman for his work. [Page: H11437] Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. Let me tell my colleagues, however, it is more than me. It is the dedicated effort of all of us and our colleagues, and Senator Simpson and Senator Craig on the Senate side, who are working very hard to make sure we can win passage in that body and send it forward to the President. I want to give my colleagues a brief update about what is happening with this bill so that the American people can follow it in the next couple of weeks and see what happens. Our goal is to make sure that this provision, ending the welfare for lobbyists, is part of the spending bill that gets sent to the President that helps finance his White House staff, helps finance the IRS and the agents there, helps finance the Treasury Department and the law enforcement agents there. What we want to do is make sure that when the President signs a bill funding all of this operations over in the White House he has to also sign a bill on behalf of the taxpayer ending the welfare for lobbyists. So what we are doing is negotiating with our colleagues in the Senate to make sure that that provision is part of that very important spending bill. There is a core group of approximately 60 Members here in the House who have all signed a letter to the Speaker urging that that bill not go forward unless this very important provision is included in it. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) I do not want to take all the accolades. I think those 60 Members who have stood up and said, `We must do the right thing for taxpayers around the country before we take care of business here as usual and send the President a funding bill for all his White House staff,' they are the heroes that will make sure that this, in fact, remains intact. Now, Madam Speaker, there is some discussion that all these spending bills may get wrapped up into something called a continuing resolution that would allow the Government to continue business as usual. If that happens, I think the leadership is very determined to make it a bare-bones bill that does not include a lot of the fat that might otherwise be put in there. But, also, I think it is important that if we have that continuing resolution we say one thing that is business as usual, taxpayers' subsidized lobbying is going to end. We mean to make sure that happens in this body so that we can deliver on that promise to the American voters. Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly, I know the gentleman from Arizona wants to pitch in. Where would we be without the leadership? They have killed us about 10 times already, and we have come back every time stronger. The leadership in this House, the leadership in the Senate, Senator Lott, I think we have to mention Senator Lott as well, who has been a wonderful mainstay on our side with respect to this issue, our leadership, the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip have come and saved us time and time again because they know how important this provision is to the American people and their representatives here in Congress, particularly the freshman class so well represented here on the floor tonight. Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, that is absolutely correct. They have done a tremendous job of shepherding this bill. I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and I listened with great interest to my two colleagues from Indiana, my good friend from Maryland, and my friend from Washington State who preceded me here at this location. Madam Speaker, I thought our friend from Washington State made a very valid point that needs to be amplified. Disagreement over political philosophies is not the issue here; but, again, dipping into the pockets of American taxpayers to fund that disagreement is absolutely the issue we are talking about tonight. My friend from Washington State, lest he be accused of sour grapes, was far too modest to detail what has gone on against him in his home district. I just thought for the record it would be good to analyze where some of the attacks on our friend from Washington State, from whence they have come, groups financed, oft times in large measure by tax dollars from the American public against our friend Randy Tate in Washington State. A radio advertisement in March dealing with lawsuit limits, this suit brought by Citizen Action and Trial Lawyers. $15,000 goes into that anti-Randy Tate ad campaign. AFL-CIO radio ads in July dealing with OSHA regulation, $20,000. AFL-CIO TV ads in August dealing with OSHA regulation, $80,000. Save America's Families. Gee, I thought we were trying to do that, but I guess in this Orwellian newspeak one takes on a title that works. Save America's Families TV and radio ads in September dealing with Medicare or, in honor of tomorrow's holiday, we could daresay their attack as Mediscare, $85,000. A telephone campaign from the same aforementioned group, $10,000. A Medi-caravan, $10,000. $230,000 from these advocacy groups personally attacking a Member of Congress. Now, again, Madam Speaker, I will applaud anyone's right to come to the well of this House, anyone's right as one of our constituents, anyone's right through the first amendment to the courage of their convictions; but it is a far cry to talk about the _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) courage of one's convictions and the convenience of taxpayer dollars. To those again who would try to misdirect this debate, to those again who would cry that it is an effort to silence a particular political philosophy, I would just simply say once again the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, the efforts of my colleagues here in drafting this legislation, to take into account not only the legitimate concerns of charity but also another angle. If I daresay, on first amendment rights, to make sure that Congress does not absolutely prohibit or proscribe entreaties with elected officials on behalf of charities or on the parts of these organizations, the gentleman has included that in the legislation. [TIME: 2230] So, indeed this is to silence no one. But let the American people understand something that has been made painfully clear to those of us assembled here on the floor and, indeed to you, Madam Speaker, that in the midst of an historic shift to change this institution, sadly, arguments that come from those opposed to our changes have nothing to do with policy and have everything to do with power. Who has the majority in this Chamber? Who has the opportunity to advocate certain policies? And, again, I say that political conviction is one thing, but political convenience is quite another. And in the case of our good friend from Washington State, and in indeed in the case of several others, again we draw this distinction. It is fine to have disagreements. It is fine to have at times what might be characterized as bare-knuckled comparisons and contracts in the political arena. But even rhetorically as you make your points, realistically do not pick the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. America to do that. Have the courage of your convictions, rather than the convenience of taxpayer largesse. Let me close with this comment. Those who would say we are silencing a certain philosophy, I think, perhaps so championed that philosophy that they are the same type of folks who believe that electricity emanates from the light switch, that milk is found in a container, and that this money originates with the Government here. The money does not originate with the Government here, Madam Speaker. It is in the pockets of every American who is working hard. And if those Americans choose to voluntarily give to an organization to advocate a point of view, that is their right. But involuntary servitude to a political philosophy must be stopped. That is what we are trying to do with this piece of legislation. [Page: H11438] Mr. McINTOSH. Here, here. Let me commend the gentleman. As the gentleman was speaking, I realized that this is part of the large, titanic struggle that we are engaged in in this Congress. Because each of those issues that they were advertising against in our colleague's district in Washington State was a part of the Contract With America. There was the effort to reform the legal system so that the lawyers do not continue to become richer and richer at the expense of the populace. There was the issue of regulatory reform to hold back the bureaucrats that are strangling our businesses and farmers in this country. And, finally, there is the issue that we considered last week of getting to a balanced budget and a tax cut in this country. In each case, the opponents of our Contract With America were saying, `We want your taxpayer dollars to pay for our lobbyists, and we are going to insist that you give us funds to pay for our lobbyists out of the taxpayer's pockets in this country, and once again we are going to put that money to use to try to stop you from what you were sent here to do on behalf of the taxpayers; to once again give the Government back to the American people so that it is their government and not the government of the bureaucracies and the large lobbying groups who are resided here in Washington, DC.' So, the gentleman has inspired me in a way that I have not thought of being on this issue. That it is a part of this larger, overall struggle that this Congress is engaged in returning power to the people. I commend the gentleman for that. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) I recognize my colleague from Indiana. Mr. SOUDER. First off, I want to say that $230,000 is really an impressive endorsement of my colleague from Washington. It shows how committed he is to change. The people back in his home State, when they hear that, they ought to say, `Boy, Randy is really out here doing things. They really want him out.' The problem is that we do not like it that they are doing it with our money or our tax deductions. If people want the tax deductions, they should follow the 5-percent rule. If people want to do it with our money, then they should not be doing it to defeat Randy Tate. They have all the opportunity in the world. In fact, every $10,000 that goes against Randy Tate in his campaign should be considered a badge of honor that he is here reforming things. He should say, `Go get some more and come after me, because every dollar you are spending does it.' But do not do it with the taxpayers' money and do not do it with our deductions. Which really gets to a bigger question, which as somebody who boosts increasing the charitable deduction and who has made it a major part of what I came here to do, it has been frustrating to have some disagreements with the friends of mine in the charitable areas over this issue. At the same time, the plain truth of the matter is that this is one of the things that we are fighting and what we are trying to deal with in this bill, and that is the corrupting influence that Government funds can have on the people who are caring for people who really need it. The people in Catholic social services and Lutheran social services and the tons of volunteer organizations dealing with people in prisons and child abuse, domestic violence, the terrible problems that we have in this society, feel the problem that we have in this country is a lot that many of us are ignoring those who are hurting and have not been taking an involvement. They are struggling and they see these terrible problems and think, Boy, if we could just dip into the Federal dollars to solve this. But you start chasing your tail. First, you have to start compromising and start filling out paperwork and changing the nature of your organization. All the sudden there are religious restrictions and many of the most powerful groups have a very strong moral component that they cannot do with tax dollars. They start chasing the Federal dollars and then they start to convert themselves and instead of spending their money on helping the people, the ones they could help, they are now trying to chase and get the Government involved. And the Government, who has been completely ineffective, tends to corrupt the influence of those groups in the first place. So, there is a deeper question here, and that is not only are we trying to talk about the political ends and whether or not some of these groups have been using their funds to damage people in Congress who are trying to cause changes, but there is the core question of what this is doing to the organizations themselves and their mission and this society. We need organizations in this country dedicated to values without the big hand of Government steering them and trying to control what they can and cannot say. Part of this is to say, If you want the Federal funds, then stay out of the lobbying. And if you want to be completely independent and raise your money, then you can follow and get the 501(c)(3) restrictions on the 5 percent, but do not go over that, because your primary mission is to be independent and to help those who are hurting. Your primary mission is not to lobby Congress and to turn into mini-politicians. We are in danger in this country of watching our charitable end turn into another quasi-government and become corrupted and as ineffective as what we have seen. As one pastor in Detroit who was told that he had to do it the Government's way, otherwise he could not get government funds. He could not talk about religion. He was an African-American pastor. He said, `From what I have seen what the Government has done, every housing project you have touched is crumbling; every juvenile delinquency program you have does not work; every drug abuse program does not have good return. Everything my church has done in the community has worked. Our housing, our juvenile delinquency, our drugs, our child care. Yet, you tell me unless I do it your way, I cannot have the money.' _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) It is a sad day when our charitable organizations start to get into this web of Government. This is a great way, and really the undergirding of much of what you are doing, not the political . I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership. Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you. Let me share testimony from one young man who came to our subcommittee, because it reinforces everything that the gentleman just said. Isaac Randolph is a former firefighter from Indianapolis, a black gentleman who is very dedicated to his community and that city. He wants to help black youths who are in danger are being caught up in the gang violence and drugs and ruining their lives. He quit his job, a very good job with the city, and started a group called the St. Florian Society, named after the patron saint of firefighters. He has been dedicating his life to trying to teach leadership skills and encourage young people from the inner-city to respect themselves, learn leadership, and make something of their lives. He receives a little bit of Federal grant money through the city, although most of it he collects really from the private sector. He came and testified saying that he thought our bill was incredibly important, because he thought that the nature of the charitable activity that he was engaged in would be corrupted if it continued to be the goal of those groups to lobby and advocate for government programs, rather than getting in there and helping the inner-city youths in his neighborhood, helping the elderly, helping communities around the country. It was very moving testimony from a gentleman who has dedicated his life to helping those around him. I think it is something we should take to heart very deeply as we move forward in this area. So, the testimony in the subcommittee has been very supportive of exactly the point the gentleman is making about preserving and strengthening the true charitable activities that work in our country. [Page: H11439] Mr. EHRLICH. Just a quick follow-up, I know the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] has some very important information to share, but we get so bogged down from time to time with the opposition to this initiative, with the organized way in which they have gone about attacking us across the country, particularly on the Internet. That is a subject for another day and hopefully we will have a colloquy on that as well. But I think we get so bogged down with respect to the opposition that we lose sight of all the grassroots groups out there, the individuals, the organizations that have supported this legislation from day one. Just to name a few, because I have the letters right here and I know the chairman of the subcommittee has seen the letters: National Taxpayers Union; Citizens for a Sound Economy; the Association of Concerned Taxpayers; The 60-Plus Association, a seniors group; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Seniors Coalition, another seniors group; the Association of Concerned Taxpayers; Americans for Tax Reform; the National Association of Manufacturers, and on and on and on and on. Through the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], we have been able to put together this coalition of people who know we need to change the law because it is broken. I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana. I am proud to serve on his subcommittee. Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you so much. It is a great subcommittee because of the members, more than everything. Yes, Mr. Hayworth? Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. We detailed a few figures concerning taxpayer-funded opposition or taxpayer-funded advocacy in the political arena involving our friend from Washington State. Others, Madam Speaker, may be joining us tonight saying, Well, you are not giving us the entire picture. We need some more evidence, if you will. What else can you show us? you talk about abuses of the taxpayers' money. What else can you show us? _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) I think it is instructive to go back to Federal funding as it existed from July 1993 through June 1994, and take a look at what has gone on. And I dare say, given the fact that this Congress was controlled by those with another philosophy, perhaps these appropriations even increased in the last fiscal year. But that fact notwithstanding, the AFL-CIO, July 1993 to June 1994, over $2 million in taxpayers' money. And, of course, big labor is operating a program called Standup designed to defeat the new agenda in Congress. But, again, it is not the disagreement, but the fact that over $2 million of taxpayers' money went into that endeavor. AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, $148,000 of taxpayers' money going into political advocacy . Perhaps most egregiously, the National Council of Senior Citizens, a whopping $68 million. I had to take a look at this to make sure I had this right. $68 million. Over 90 percent, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, 96 percent of this charitable organization's funding comes from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. Yet, the same organization, taking over $68 million in taxpayers' money contributed $405,000 to 134 candidates for Congress. Again, if people want to contribute to political campaigns, that is their right. But 96 percent of that $68 million and over $400,000 going into those endeavors? Madam Speaker, it appears it was charitable only to the candidates involved. It was charitable only to those ceaseless proponents of a welfare state where big government is the answer to every question and where they would will a veil of secrecy descend. And when that veil is lifted, the most amazing and, yes, the most vile epithets are employed. As we began in special orders tonight, I invoked the words of outrage from our friend from California who said as we passed this bill, quote, `It's a glorious day if you are a Fascist. If you are a Fascist, it's a glorious day.' Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a glorious day for the American taxpayers when we are willing to stand up and say no more of this abuse. Let us lift this veil of secrecy and more importantly, let us terminate this egregious action. [TIME: 2245] Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, was the gentleman in the subcommittee public hearing day, when we were referred to as McCarthyites? Was the gentleman in the room? Mr. HAYWORTH. Unfortunately, I was not there, but I have been treated as every Member of this institution. Every Member of this new majority has been treated to a ceaseless parade of epithets from those who see the gravy train about to come to an end. And it is a measure of their desperation, as has been noted here, that they will make any comparison, no matter how vile, no matter how reprehensible. I have to say, with great confusion, I am surprised the fourth estate that so assiduously covers matters here does not respond on its editorial pages with outrage about these statements, but then again I guess we are new to this town and we have a lot to learn from those groups. But it is amazing to see those comments bandied about. Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, one of the things that we hear is, why are you guys picking on these groups? Why are you just doing this? The plain truth of the matter is that, if there is any doubt about this freshman class and those of us who are here today, we are not picking on just this group. We are picking on everybody. We are going after this entire system, and we are not going to exempt any different groups. We are looking at term limits. We finally got a commitment that we are going to do gift reform. We got a commitment finally that we are going to do lobby reform. We have a commitment that the freshmen are going to work on a week or at least a couple days or at least a number of initiatives this coming year on finance reform. For 40 years, the other party was in control, and they did not do it. We have Members of this body, former Members of this body going to prison. We have others resigning in disgrace, getting long pensions and all sorts of things. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (House of Representatives - October 30, 1995) We came here to reform the whole system. We are not going to exempt one group because they look to be charitable corporations. If they are abusing taxpayer funds, they are going to get hit, too. If Members are abusing it, they are going to get hit. If PAC's are abusing it, they are going to get hit. We were sent here to Washington to change this system. I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I commend the gentleman on other things and the other freshmen. It is not that we are just picking on this. We are, as I said, going to pick on everybody who is abusing the taxpayers' dollars and abusing this wonderful House and trying to return it back to the people. I am proud to be here with my fellow freshmen here tonight and those who came here really committed to reform. Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic. I think the opponents of this measure are trying to make any argument to any group to try to stop us from going forward and protecting the taxpayer. The most recent ones that I read in the mail today was that they were arguing that this bill that we have would be bad because it would limit businesses in their lobbying effort if they receive a Federal grant for research or other activities. So how ironic that people who have been attacking businesses all of their lives are now worried that we might be limiting the ability of businesses to lobby to a million dollars per business and that this could be a grave threat. My answer is, it is not business, it is not charity. It is anybody who lives off of the Federal Government and the taxpayer funds who needs to realize we are serious. This is real lobbying reform. We are not going to subsidize your lobbyists anymore. We are going to put an end to it so that we end welfare for lobbyists. [Page: H11440] Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is, if they do not realize we are serious by now, they will never realize it. As the gentleman well knows, because he has been the target particularly, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], they know we are serious. That is why they are so scared because they know we have the facts and we have the votes and we have the leadership, your leadership. Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it has been referenced many times about the freshmen coming to this town. We brought fresh ideas. But it is amazing from the folks across the aisle, they want to do things the way they have always done it. We can understand the mentality a little better when I think, well, why are you worried about this? This is $40 billion, billion with a B. This is a lot of money. I am not sure how much was spent on political campaigns last year, but I think those pale in comparison to $40 billion, to me if we can really reform the way things are done around here. The other argument, as we are closing, is, how can we do this? How can we change this? How can they look into the taxpayers' eyes in my district, as they are working and struggling to get by to put food on the table, to buy shoes for the kids, to save money for education, to put a little money aside for health care, to maybe even save money to go on vacation and to find out that their own money is being sent to Washington, DC, to lobby for more of their hard earned money. Basically, the taxpayer works hard, sends his money to Washington, DC, then some nameless bureaucrat writes a check to some group that turns around and lobbies for more of that hard earned taxpayers' money, which is what it really comes down to. So I would challenge those across the aisle that oppose this to talk to the constituents in my district that work hard for their taxpayer dollars. _________________________________________________________________ AGREE TO DISAGREE (House of Representatives - November 02, 1995) [Page: H11739] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about this Nation is the fact that we can come here and agree to disagree, the fact that we are free to have a variety of different opinions. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] who preceded me in the well has some very definite opinions that differ from mine, as is her right, and really, there is so much information that begs a response that I just think it is appropriate to point out a couple of things. No. I, with reference to first amendment rights of freedom of expression, this is what the Constitution says: `Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech .' Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that the Congress will subsidize with American tax dollars someone's right to politically organize. Mr. Speaker, it is not really free speech when you and I are required with our tax dollars to pay for it, point No. 1. Point No. 2, with reference to the comments of my friend from Indiana, I find it incredibly shocking that a public housing project would be involved in what amounts to a senior shakedown. The language needs to be repeated, because it needs to be amplified. All tenants are asked to become members of the National Council of Senior Citizens, NCSC. That in itself would not be so bad, a simple request. Of course, the American people need to know that over 95 percent of the funding for the NCSC comes from you and I and other taxpayers. But still, that money is not enough. There has to be more that comes from seniors. There are many reasons for joining NCSC. First of all, you have the privilege of living in these beautiful buildings protected with security and free from financial worries of high rent and big raises which people are forced to pay in privately owned apartments. The NCSC is a well-known and powerful national organization with political clout in Washington. To carry on, the organization needs money for these worthwhile projects, such as lobbying and letter writing which takes paper, stamps, envelopes, and hard work. Dues are payable the first of June. Now, certainly, Mr. Speaker, every organization has a right to ask for membership, but is it the role of the Federal Government of the United States to step in with taxpayer dollars and be a party to what in essence is a letter that I believe tries to intimidate seniors involved in the shakedown. It was interesting, too, to listen to some of the rhetoric that is brought forth to the well of this House. My good friend from Texas just talked about cuts. Again, my friends on the liberal side of this House fail to understand simple mathematics. When expenditures are increased, there are no cuts. Average spending for a Medicare recipient will rise from $4,800 this year to $6,700 in the year 2002. That is an increase of 45 percent per beneficiary. Yet, in the twisted mathematics of Washington, replete with Orwellian news speak, people come to the floor of this House time and time again to talk about cuts. The gentlewoman said we were holding the American people hostage with reference to making a decision to finally balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I submit, if we do not face economic facts, we will continue to hold future generations of Americans hostage. If we fail to answer this clarion call to action, we will be acting without any responsibility or regard for the real work at hand. Make no mistake, this talk of cut is absolute fiction. This is absolutely false. We are restraining the rate of growth in government; we are not making cuts. That is patently true. The fact is that we are moving now to save the very programs that folks claim are being sacrificed, to save the very programs that will work for this generation of seniors and to provide the framework to continue those programs on. That is the absolute fact in front of the American people. In this debate, let people of goodwill with disagreements come to this floor and indeed, write their Congress people, but let them do it without tax dollars, without the largesse of the hardworking men and women of America, because face it, friends, one of the big truths is this: Money does not emanate from the government, it comes from you and me, from working and paying our tax dollars. That supplies the money, and we should be held accountable for the way in which that is spent. Now, absolutely good people can disagree, and I would champion the right of my friend from Texas to disagree with me, as she often does. But let us level with the American people. Mr. Speaker, we will continue this at a later time. The debate goes on. _________________________________________________________________ ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS (Senate - November 03, 1995) [Page: S16637] Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on the heels of welfare and lobby reform, Congress is just beginning to address the issue of welfare for lobbyists. Both Houses of Congress have passed legislation aimed at curbing the abusive practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize lobbying activity. Even so, we are coming dangerously close to returning to business as usual in Washington. The Treasury-Postal appropriations conferees have been debating the welfare for lobbyists issue for weeks. The only agreement so far has been an agreement to disagree. Mr. President, each year, the American taxpayers give more than $39 billion--that is `billion,' with a `B'--to organizations which turn around and use those dollars to lobby Congress for more taxpayer dollars. Over the past several months, we have seen those 39 billion tax dollars hard at work here in Washington. During this summer's Medicare debate, one of the most vocal contributors to the Medi-Scare campaign of misinformation was AARP, an organization which received more than 70 million taxpayer dollars during a 1-year period between July 1993 and June 1994--70 million taxpayer dollars. Here are just a few other examples of American's hard-earned tax dollars at work: $250,000 went to the Child Welfare League of America, which turned around and launched a vicious ad campaign aimed at increasing welfare spending; its ad against the Contract With America's welfare reform proposal screamed, `More children will be killed. More children will be raped;' another $1 million went to the American Nurses Association, which proudly announces their mission to `lobby Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues;' $150,000 went to AFSCME, which denounced the recent welfare plan, claiming it `will drive more families into poverty and turn its back on hard-working Americans who fall on hard times;' $2 million went to the AFL-CIO, which, over the Memorial Day congressional recess, used that $2 million to pressure Members of Congress on labor issues. The union's `Stand Up' campaign included radio ads and direct mail. Now, Mr. President, I recognize that not all of the tax dollars used to subsidize these groups goes directly to political advocacy . And not all of these dollars go to organizations with a political agenda--many are directed to worthwhile charities that are doing the right thing in their communities. But many of these organizations are really lobbying and political front groups that are taking taxpayer dollars and spending them on political activities. All Americans are guaranteed the first amendment right to speak out, but they do not have the right to speak out at taxpayer's expense. Thomas Jefferson made this point nearly two centuries ago when he said, `To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.' Not only are we compelling taxpayers to pay for the propagation of ideas they do not believe in, we are doing it behind their back, and we are adding to the Nation's enormous deficit to do it. Mr. President, Americans work too hard for their money to see it spent for them promoting political causes they oppose. And they work too hard for their money to give it to lobbyists in the form of welfare. Now the evidence that this welfare for lobbyists really does exist was never more obvious than earlier this year, during the lobbying reform debate. When we came close to passing a strong provision in Treasury-Postal appropriations limiting taxpayer-financed lobbying--the compromise provision reached between Senator Simpson and our colleague in the House, Representative Istook--our offices came under siege from groups lobbying to protect their special interest. Now, this is not going to effect the efforts of many major groups such as the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the American Cancer Society, the United Way, and the hundreds of other organizations which still manage to lobby effectively without financial assistance from the taxpayers will attest. Mr. President, all the Simpson-Istook compromise does is require Federal grantees to act like true charities. It is important to understand that there is not an absolute prohibition on lobbying. The Simpson-Istook compromise recognizes that there are gray lines between activities such as providing information to Congress, and actually lobbying Congress. For this reason, no organization will be capped at less than $25,000 and many organizations will still be able to spend up to $1 million for their lobbying activities here in Washington. Yet even with these generous limits, opponents have cranked up a propaganda machine unequaled in any debate this year. They have even formed the so-called Let America Speak Coalition, whose members have been quoted as saying that, `If Istook passes, nonprofits will no longer draft [regulations]. * * *' Mr. President, why are nonprofits that receive taxpayer funding writing Federal regulations in the first place? These groups go even further by calling this legislation a gag rule that is unfair and un-American. But I would suggest to them that free speech is not free at all if Uncle Sam's taxpayers are footing the bill for it. The amount of disinformation being spread by these groups has been astounding. We have all heard how those who rely on Government assistance such as students, farmers, and welfare recipients will supposedly lose their right to lobby. The House language specifically exempts this type of Government assistance--yet the untruths continue. The Senate needs to pass strict reforms that will require full disclosure of all Federal money spent by grantees, reforms that will truly eliminate all Federal funding of political advocacy . We also need to stop the political games in which a grantee supports an affiliate who does the lobbying for them. And there needs to be tough penalties for organizations that knowingly violate the rules. Mr. President, I have no desire to limit the ability of people to exercise their right to free speech --as long as its with their own resources and their own money. But there is no place for taxpayer-subsidized political advocacy in a truly free society. The hard-earned tax dollars that we ask working Americans to send to Washington should be reserved for those who truly need them, and not to provide welfare for these lobbying groups. I urge my colleagues to end the tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned against and support real reform that will put money in the pockets of taxpayers and keep those taxpayer dollars basically out of the pockets of lobbyists. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. [Page: S16638] Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Alaska is recognized to speak up to 20 minutes. _________________________________________________________________