[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1648-E1649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND 
       EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    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. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a terribly unjust 
piece of legislation that targets the most vulnerable members of our 
society. Many of the most onerous aspects of this bill--particularly 
cuts in programs that help working families--have been highlighted by 
my colleagues on the floor today.
  Unfortunately for all of us, the Devil is also in the details.
  The same Republican majority that promised to relieve us of 
burdensome Federal regulations is now advancing regulatory requirements 
that jeopardize academic freedom and freedom of expression.
  Contained in this bill is a provision that would radically limit the 
constitutionally protected free speech of Federal grant recipients.
  This ``Orwellian'' provision will have a chilling effect on political 
discourse, and prevent legitimate organizations--including universities 
and nonprofit groups--from participating in the democratic process.
  Unless we reject this language and repudiate this bill, these 
organizations will be unable to express their views on those Federal 
issues in which they have a vested interest.
  Instead, they would find themselves subject to substantial regulatory 
requirements and intrusive and burdensome restrictions--subject to the 
impossibly complex web of regulations necessary to enforce this 
provision.
  These requirements range from the reasonable to the outright 
ludicrous. For example, grant recipients, not the Federal Government, 
would be required to shoulder the burden of proof regarding compliance 
with the limits imposed by this bill.
  Innocent until proven guilty. Forget it. The bedrock principles of 
the Bill of Rights are thrown right out the window.
  The personal disclosure requirements are particularly grievous. 
Employees will be so busy calculating time spent on political 
activities, providing the names and i.d. numbers of those involved, and 
listing the types of activities undertaken, and reporting all this to 
the Census Bureau, that they won't possibly find the time to do 
anything else.
  Has the right of the individual to express his or her political 
beliefs and opinions become a danger rather than a privilege? Have we 
truly realized Orwell's dark, totalitarian vision? Do we have the 
courage to reject this disturbing, dangerous provision?
  This restriction raises a host of other, nettle-some questions 
related to financial liability, and it does not adequately guard 
against the potential harassment and intimidation of legitimate 
organizations.

[[Page E1649]]

  Let's go after the bad apples in the grant community, but reject the 
wholly invasive and suffocating approach presented in this bill. Let's 
demonstrate our good sense and reason and repeal this bold, beyond-the-
pale attempt to micromanage the grant community and inhibit our basic 
civil rights.
  Support the Skaggs amendment.
  

                          ____________________