[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10085-H10086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY AND FREE SPEECH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address for just a few 
minutes a proposal that is pending in the House that is generally 
referred to as the Istook amendment or the Istook-McIntosh proposal. 
What, one may ask, is that about? Well, this is an effort to set up a 
very, very complicated system for regulating, if one can believe this, 
regulating and really suppressing political speech and political 
advocacy in this democracy, which is based, of course, on freedom of 
political speech and association.
  There are many, many aspects to this proposal, but it is often 
masqueraded, anyway, under the guise of ending welfare for lobbyists. 
And that may sound like a catchy and compelling concept until we 
realize who it is that we are talking about. This proposal is intended 
to get at such organizations as the American Red Cross, the United 
Church of Christ, the YMCA, the Girl Scouts, a whole range of 
mainstream American charitable and philanthropic organizations that 
happen, in addition to their regular activities in our communities, to 
be involved in some fashion or other in the debate and consideration in 
America of good public policy.
  Many of these organizations, as are well known, are involved in a 
whole range of philanthropic and charitable activities in their 
communities in their States. They learn about the problems in our 
society from those activities, and, understandably, they exercise their 
first amendment rights to communicate those concerns to State and local 
and Federal policymakers and legislators. This proposal would put 
limits on what they can do to help us in the Congress or in the State 
capitals do a better job.
  Why? Well, I cannot really answer that question. The proponents of 
this proposal seem to think that we should go back to a kind of 19th 
century view of charity, in which the only thing that is legitimate is 
to feed the poor, house the homeless, do the fundamental good works, 
which are clearly very, very important. But if they learn something 
from that, that might help inform Government to do its job better, 
well, that is out of line.
  Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of our colleague from Georgia, Mr. 
Gingrich's, comments about wanting to go back to a kind of 19th century 
orphanage way of dealing with children who do not have the advantages 
of having both parents at home.
  Now, this is being called, this effort to get at the political 
activities of nonprofits and, for that matter, individuals and 
businesses that happen to be involved in the political life of this 
country, going after one of Washington's dirty little secrets; that is 
that somehow the idea that the YMCA or the Girl Scouts or the American 
Red Cross might be involved in political advocacy is an anathema.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it may also have something to do with wanting to 
divert attention from one of the real dirty little secrets in town 
right now, which is the avoidance of dealing with real lobbying reform 
and real gift reform around this place. We are preoccupied in this 
proposal, again with, I think, a real diversionary tactic.
  When I am home, I at least do not have a lot of people coming up to 
me saying, ``Congressman, I wish you 

[[Page H 10086]]
would rein in the Girl Scouts from being quite so active politically. 
It is just an outrage.'' Or commenting about how dangerous it is to 
American society to have the YMCA involved in the debate about child 
care.

                              {time}  1315

  But while we are off on this tangent, people are being distracted 
from the fundamental inaction in the House of Representatives on real, 
central, political reform here in the House; namely, getting to the 
activities of real lobbyists and their inappropriate ways of trying to 
influence decisions here through a whole range of extracurricular 
activities, whether it is gifts or meals or junkets or what have you.
  Mr. Speaker, why haven't we taken up that legislation which most 
Members of the House arrived in January saying ought to be central to 
our reform agenda around here? Why are we not doing that, rather than 
messing around with this very, very trivializing and, I think, 
insulting diversion about wanting to make sure that the Girl Scouts do 
not have too much say in the political life of this country.

                          ____________________