[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9766-H9767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          A DANGEROUS PROPOSAL

  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 

[[Page H 9767]]
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.

                          ____________________