[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9717-H9718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ENDING WELFARE FOR LOBBYISTS

  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 

[[Page H 9718]]

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.

                          ____________________