[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1651]
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. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             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. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skaggs amendment.
  This amendment would eliminate the overly broad, confusing, and 
unconstitutional provisions in the bill about limiting advocacy with 
private money.
  Don't make a mistake. This is not a debate about Federal funds. This 
is a debate about private groups and private speech.
  Federal grants already contain prohibitions on using Federal money 
for advocacy. This bill goes far beyond that and limits what private 
groups do with private money.
  The provisions are so broad that they would limit advocacy not just 
by groups that relieve money, but by groups that, within the next 5 
years, hope to receive money.
  So if you hope to get money for a soup kitchen, you better not talk 
about feeding the hungry for 5 years.
  And if you hope to get money for literacy, you better not talk about 
whether people should be able to read.
  And the provisions are so broad that they would limit a grantee from 
even buying things or employing a contractor who does political 
advocacy.
  So if you hope to buy soup from the Sisters of Charity, you better 
check to see if they advocate for the poor.
  If you want to contract with a visiting nurses association for a 
community health center, you have to see their political records for 
the last 5 years.
  And even groups that don't come anywhere close to the prohibitions of 
this bill will have to keep records and disclose records to prove it.
  If a church thinks that someday it might run a homeless shelter, it 
better start keeping records showing that the priest hasn't testified 
before a school board too much.
  If a synagogue is running a drug treatment program, it will have to 
show records of how much private money went for the rabbi's salary and 
whether the rabbi carried a banner in a peace march.
  This is ridiculous.
  You know and I know that for some in this body, this amendment is 
about pro-choice agencies getting Federal funds for family planning 
services and advocating with private funds for abortion rights.
  I support the right of these agencies to do anything they wish with 
their private funds.
  But this bill has gone so far that not only are the pro-choice groups 
opposed to this amendment but so is the Bishop's Conference on Pro-Life 
Activities. Cardinal Mahony himself has written to the Congress to ask 
that these provisions be deleted, saying that they will intrude into 
private activity that is unrelated to public funding.
  As Catholic Charities said to the Appropriations Committee: 
``Churches and charities have a moral responsibility to stand up for 
the poor and vulnerable, and this plan appears designed to `muzzle' the 
voices of these groups.
  Many other groups feel this same moral responsibility.
  I urge Members to vote for the amendment.
  

                          ____________________