[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8943-H8944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    LEGISLATION RESTRICTING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR ALL AMERICANS

  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, on August 4 the majority party passed a 
provision in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill sponsored by the 
gentleman from 

[[Page H 8944]]
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] that was designed, if you can believe this, to 
restrict the first amendment rights of everyone in America if they 
receive anything of value from the Federal Government, restrict their 
employees and those with whom they do business.
  The Istook language, however, exempts those who contract with the 
Federal Government, as opposed to receiving a benefit or thing of 
value. I watched, therefore, with great interest during the 
consideration of the defense appropriations bill just a week ago today 
when there was a discussion between the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder] and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] about whether the political 
speech and activities of defense contractors should also be limited.
  As the Speaker will remember, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder] offered an amendment that was a watered down version of the 
political activities restriction the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] and the majority party had endorsed in August in the 
appropriations bill. The Schroeder amendment would have disqualified 
for Federal defense contracts any business that spent more than a small 
amount of its budget on State, local, and Federal political activity of 
almost any kind.
  As with the Istook language, I believed the Schroeder amendment was a 
bad idea and I voted against it; but I describe it as a watered down 
version of the Istook political speech restriction amendment, because 
the Schroeder amendment would not have required contractors to report 
their political activities to the Federal Government, whereas the 
Istook amendment, which applies to all other groups receiving anything 
from the Federal Government, does require political activities reports 
to be sent in to the Federal Government.
  I say it was a watered down version, because the Schroeder amendment 
would not have subjected contractors to harassing lawsuits from any 
citizens, whereas the Istook amendment does that, subjects all other 
groups to this sort of litigation. But, Mr. Speaker, even in this 
watered down state, most Republican Members of this body voted against 
any restriction on how much defense contractors can lobby the 
government. Those voting no included most of the leadership of the 
majority, folks who had previously voted, unabashedly, to restrict the 
ability of churches, nonprofits, individuals, and even many businesses, 
to speak to the public or to their elected officials at the State, 
Federal, or local level about important policy issues.
  The majority needs to explain to the American people why they feel it 
is OK to muzzle ordinary citizens and organizations, but at the same 
time let defense contractors who take billions of dollars in Federal 
contracts do so without any of the same restrictions.
  The inconsistency here, and that is a polite way of putting it, the 
inconsistency in the majority leadership and most of its members' 
position is made very clear by the comments of the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations who, after having voted for the Istook 
language, characterized the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder] last week as follows:

       * * * a denial of the privilege of the First Amendment, 
     which is the right of speech under the Constitution of the 
     United States, to exercise their opportunity to speak to 
     their government, to the representatives of their choice.

  Mr. Speaker, why are the first amendment rights of defense 
contractors to lobby the Government for more contracts and funds more 
protected under the Constitution than the YMCA's or the Catholic 
churches or the American Red Cross' first amendment rights to advise us 
on issues affecting kids or older Americans or the safety of the 
Nation's blood supply? Is it different because the YMCA receives funds 
to provide after school day care, instead of funds to build missiles 
and planes? What kind of Constitution does the majority think that we 
have?
  Mr. Speaker, when the Istook political speech restriction amendment 
comes before us again for another vote, and I expect it will, please 
remember those words of the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, his eloquent defense of the first amendment rights of 
defense contractors, and for the sake of fairness, let us support the 
same fundamental rights for the YMCA, the Catholic Church, and the rest 
of this Nation.


                          ____________________