[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 169 (Monday, October 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11433-H11440]
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 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I am here to speak tonight on an issue 
that is continuing to be debated in the House and in the Senate, and 
that is our efforts to end welfare for lobbyists. As many of you know, 
last summer this House of Representatives passed a landmark piece of 
legislation that was added to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, that 
said from now on anybody who receives a Federal grant has to make a 
choice. They can either continue to receive the Government funds or 
they can give up the funds and then continue to be lobbyists. But they 
cannot do both as long as they are receiving a Federal subsidy.
  That bill, I think, strikes an important blow on behalf of taxpayers 
everywhere who no longer wish to be seeing their taxes used to finance 
some of the biggest, most powerful and influential lobbying 
organizations right here in Washington, DC, organizations who have 
continually over the last 40 years lobbied this Congress for more and 
more and more spending so that we have runaway deficits and the largest 
national debt in history.
  This legislation, legislation that we referred to as ending welfare 
for lobbyists, I think is very important and strikes a blow on behalf 
of taxpayers everywhere for responsible Government. Tonight I wanted to 
discuss with you and several of my colleagues the nature of this 
problem and what our solution is and how we plan to go forward in 
implementing that reform on behalf of the taxpayers.
  First, I have a chart here that gives you an idea of what is 
happening. We discovered that currently there are $39 billion that the 
Federal Government says it gives out in grants each year. Now, some of 
that money goes to very worthwhile causes and to groups who are not 
lobbyists, but the large percentage of that money goes to groups who 
turn around and lobby the Government for more spending and for various 
social programs. That subsidy for the lobbying activities here in 
Washington is exactly the area that we are targeting with this 
legislation.
  Again, I want to emphasize what we will be doing is saying to the 
groups, ``If you want to be a charity and do good works, that you are 
entitled to do, and we will support you under the various Federal 
programs. But if you want to be a lobbyist, you need to do it on your 
own time and on your own dime, because the taxpayer is not going to 
subsidize lobbying any longer.''

  Madam Speaker, at this point I yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], who is here to join us in support of this 
bill.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for again 
introducing and really being the catalyst for this important 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I think perhaps you were also in the Chamber the night 
this particular measure was first debated. I can recall, after all, 
this is known as the people's House, and as my good friend from Indiana 
joined me here on the floor, I guess it is safe to say that there was a 
particularly raucous response from one of our friends on the minority 
from California. Indeed, to read his comments the following day in the 
Wall Street Journal, I found it to be somewhat incredible; quoting him 
now, ``It is a glorious day if you are a fascist; if you are a fascist, 
it is a glorious day.''
  My friend from California took great unbrage at the fact that through 
the efforts of my friend from Indiana this new majority was moving not 
to extinguish advocacy, but to say, as my colleague from Indiana did so 
quite eloquently, if you are engaged in lobbying, do it on your own 
time with your own dime. Would that it were just a dime being spent.
  But as my friend from Indiana, in concert with my good friend from 
Maryland and our more senior colleague from Oklahoma have detailed, 
this is not penny ante here. This is $39 billion in money from the 
taxpayers of America, Madam Speaker, from you and I and other taxpayers 
out there working hard to feed their families and to provide a future 
for their children, or as seniors on a fixed income, to make ends meet.
  Their money is going into a process that I think is fair to describe, 
and I am not exaggerating here, it can only be described as somewhat 
incestuous, where people come to the Hill and lobby for funds and, 
indeed, many of their endeavors are worthwhile, and 

[[Page H 11434]]

yet even in receiving the taxpayers' largesse, they return, courtesy of 
those same funds, to again ask for more and more of the taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Good people can disagree. I have often made that observation in the 
Chamber. And while I would never impugn the motives of my friend from 
California who on that particular raucous occasion perhaps it can be 
said chose to impugn our motives, could it be that as the Wall Street 
Journal editorialized, that in moving to correct this abuse we had 
tapped into a power source for those so willing to take the taxpayers' 
money in the advocacy of a certain social agenda?
  Madam speaker, in the preceding special order I paraphrased the 
comments of Abraham Lincoln, and the message still applies here: The 
American people, once fully informed of the facts, will make the 
correct decision. There has been a widespread cry across this Nation 
for reform.
  On the first day of this new Congress, this new majority passed the 
Shays Act, a simple but powerful notion that those who serve in this 
Chamber should live under the same laws as every other American. Now, 
indeed, if we are called to a higher standard, then a reexamination of 
where the hard-earned money of the American people goes is also in 
order, and I salute my friend from Indiana and, indeed, my good friend 
from Maryland who joins us here tonight in their efforts to fully 
inform the American people, because there is no place for the 
relentless assault on the pocketbooks of hard-working taxpaying 
Americans for continued subsidizing of big Government-orchestrated 
charities. We must make a change, and we, the new Members of this 
institution, stand united to make sure that change is realized.

  With that, as I continue the dialog, I see our good friend from 
Maryland, and perhaps I should yield back to the gentleman who controls 
the time, my friend from Indiana, for the purposes of recognizing our 
friend from nearby Maryland.
  Mr. McINTOSH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. 
Thank you for that very eloquent endorsement of what you have pointed 
out is, in fact, one of the leading reforms that our freshman class is 
really insisting that we include in this budget process as we send 
forward these spending bills to the President.
  Let me now yield to one of the coauthors of this provision, who along 
with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and now Senator Simpson 
and Senator Craig in the Senate, is the lead sponsor of this bill, and 
I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
  Mr. EHRLICH. I thank the gentleman.
  I wish I could be as eloquent as our friend from Arizona, our 
freshman colleague. We appreciate your support very much on this very 
important initiative.
  The only thing I can say to you, my friend, is I am sorry that you 
have been attacked at a personal level. That is a political culture I 
am not used to, and hopefully the American people will not get used to 
it either.
  I bring some words tonight from across the hallway, from our friend, 
Senator Simpson.
  We have not had an opportunity to talk about this, but as you know 
and the American people should know, he has been a wonderful friend 
during this entire process. His leadership in the other body has been 
unmatched, I am sure you would agree.
  Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I thought his words on the floor of the Senate last week 
were just profound, and I would like to recite them for a minute or 
two. I see we have been joined by our friend, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate], as well.
  Senator Simpson, in taking the floor to rebut some of the more 
ridiculous charges our piece of legislation has had to undergo, made 
these statements.

                              {time}  2200

       Hell hath no fury like an individual whose access to 
     Federal bucks has been conditioned in any way. Because that 
     is not what this issue is all about, access to the Federal 
     Treasury. It is not about free speech or the First Amendment, 
     or anything of the sort. Those are merely the terms which are 
     being applied during the argument by those who wish to 
     continue to ensure themselves of continued delivery of 
     Federal money.

  I have four statements, with the gentleman's indulgence, because they 
are so profound, they are so on point.
  The second statement from Senator Simpson:

       I know that is a strange and even bizarre thing in this day 
     and age, to talk about ``responsibility,'' instead purely of 
     ``rights'' or purely of ``victims.'' We are all experts in 
     our own rights, but rarely do we acknowledge that these 
     rights confer responsibilities. And that is what this issue 
     is about, the responsibility of those who receive Federal 
     money.

  The third statement by our colleague from the Senate, and this is a 
point we have discussed on this floor many times.

       Already in the law there are restrictions on the amount of 
     lobbying that can be done by 501-C-3 organizations which take 
     the 501-H election to identify themselves as charities.

  These are the facts, the facts for the American people.

       In return for the benefit of tax deductible contributions, 
     these organizations agree to limit their lobbying expense. 
     They may spend 20 percent of the first $500,000 in lobbying, 
     15 percent of their next $500,000, 10 percent of their next 
     $500,000, and 5 percent after that, up to a global cap of $1 
     million on lobbying.

  The same point we have made on this floor time after time, that the 
gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McIntosh, 
has made time and time again during the course of his public hearings.
  Finally, Mr. Simpson's last statement, he made all sorts of wonderful 
statements in the course of his speech in the Senate,

       I personally will have my old bald dome battered, because I 
     have stated all along that I would seek to protect true 
     charities from the scope of any legislation, the 501-C-3 
     organizations which we all care so much about and should. 
     Well, the amendment which hopefully will shortly be presented 
     as the Istook-Simpson compromise, will indeed protect them. 
     We will protect them not by creating a blanket exception for 
     all charitable groups, but by leaving in place and spending 
     restrictions formulas that already apply to charitable 
     organizations.

  I would ask my friend and colleague from Indiana, has not our friend 
Senator Simpson hit the proverbial nail on the head?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I believe that is exactly correct. I see our colleague 
from Indiana, a good friend of mine is here is here, with some 
questions he had.
  Let me take a moment to recite some of the provisions in the bill. In 
the debate, those are often lost, the facts people do not focus on. I 
think it is important to let the American people know what we are 
doing.
  As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, the core of this bill is 
to use the current IRS provision for 501-C-3 charitable groups and say 
that is going to be the limit of how much any group that receives a 
Federal grant can spend in lobbying activities. It is a small amount of 
their overall funding, starting out at I think 20 percent, going down 
to 5 percent totally with a cap. That is what they can do with their 
private funds.
  With any government funds that the taxpayer is giving those groups, 
what we are saying is no taxpayer dime can be used for lobbying 
whatsoever. We are going to make that very clear. More importantly, we 
are going to put some real teeth into that provision and say first of 
all, it is a violation of the law to do so. Second, the taxpayer is 
empowered to be a watchdog, and if the taxpayer sees that a group is 
spending taxpayer dollars to lobby and engage in political campaigns, 
they have a right to bring a suit to stop that from happening.
  Then, finally, we are going to force disclosure, because one of the 
things we discovered was that these groups will often hide behind 
various forms of organization, where the group that does the lobbying 
does not get the dollars directly, but there is an intermediate group 
that receives a taxpayer grant, and then they give another grant to the 
lobbyist organization.
  So we are going to force everyone to disclose where the money comes 
from and where it is spent when they have Federal dollars at stake, and 
we are going to force disclosure of all lobbying activities by these 
groups to ensure that the taxpayer can have a full accountability for 
how the funds are spent.

  Let me real quickly address two things we thought were very 
important. One was, as Senator Simpson mentioned, to exempt true 
charities 

[[Page H 11435]]
from coverage. They will be covered under the IRS rules, but it makes 
it clear they are not the targets of this legislation. It is the 
lobbying groups here in Washington who have lived off of the taxpayer 
dollars for so long who are going to be chiefly affected by this.
  Mr. EHRLICH. That point is so important. The true charities, and we 
have made this point time and time again as well, the charities 
actually interested in fulfilling their mission, rather than becoming 
lobbyists, the people actually out there doing good in the world and 
not interested in continually coming here and asking for additional 
moneys.
  Mr. McINTOSH. That is so true, Later in the hour I would like to talk 
about some of those groups who come to us and say we are doing the 
right thing, because we are preserving the true nature of these 
charities.
  One final point is it was pointed out to us that some of these groups 
might inadvertently be caught up in the legislation. What we did was 
made a very clear statement we would create a de minimis exception. If 
a group writes to their city council and says ``We really think you 
ought to think of a new program to help clean up the inner-city,'' we 
do not intend that to be caught up in this legislation. That is not a 
problem of lobbyists coming and asking us to spend more and more money 
each year. That type of thing will be covered by our de minimis 
exception that makes it very clear that all groups can spend a small 
amount, $25,000 each year, in stating their positions to the public. We 
thought that was fair as a way of preserving their first amendment 
rights, but not having them be corrupted and turned into lobbying 
organizations.
  Those are the key elements of this bill. I think it is very fair, 
very well drafted, and goes directly to the problem, that the taxpayers 
are not being protected right now from their funds going to subsidize 
these lobbying efforts.
  Let me now recognize my friend and colleague from Indiana [Mr. 
Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on 
this and the beating the gentleman has been taking on behalf of all 
those who agree with him. Whenever he takes the lead, he becomes a 
target for personal smear and innuendo from people who do not want to 
debate the issue, but the side issue to distract from the main issue, 
with the gentleman's addressing some of the things that have come up to 
me in my district and many others. Let me see if I can clarify this 
question.

  Organizations that receive Federal funds, are they now restricted 
from any lobbying? For example, if it is a large organization and they 
spend some time advocating any kind of Federal policies, does that mean 
they can no longer do that if they get any money?
  Mr. McINTOSH. No, the bill is not as absolute as that. What it says 
is they are now restricted to a limited amount of advocacy, using the 
IRS formula that charitable groups right now are supposed to follow but 
which is not codified into law. Some groups, such as the National 
Council of Senior Citizens, are not covered by that limit, so they can 
go out and set up a political action committee, which they have done. 
They can go out and take out television ads, which they have done. This 
would put them under the same limit that the charities have if they are 
receiving those Federal dollars.
  Mr. SOUDER. One of the great honors I have had was to work with Focus 
on the Family over the years, and particularly as Dr. Dobson looked at 
developing and working with Gary Bowers to develop the Family Research 
Council, and I was working with them in some of the early years. One of 
the things that Dr. Dobson has to do in his radio addresses is balance 
how many times he talks about government issues and how many times he 
deals with political issues. Many 501-C-3's, all of them which deal 
with social issues, are already under these restrictions.
  Why is it so shocking to the other groups that they have to behave 
the way most of these groups have to do already in this country? What 
makes them special? Why were they exempt in this process in the first 
place?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I think the gentleman asks a very good question, why is 
there this double standard. I think what  happened  is  over  the  
years, certain groups almost became an extension of the government. The 
National Council of Senior Citizens receives 96 percent of its funds 
from the Federal Government. Like the government, they became arrogant 
and thought that they could be above the standard, there would not be 
anybody there to police them, and they did not have to be accountable 
to the taxpayer. So now that we are starting to hold them accountable 
to what is very accepted with groups, like Dr. Dobson and other groups, 
they are starting to scream about it, because they thought they had a 
free ride and a special privilege. What we are saying is now the 
taxpayer does not want to put up with that any longer.

  Mr. SOUDER. What is their defense for saying in the funds directly 
coming to them from the Federal Government for use for charitable work, 
whether it is seniors, or low income, or people who are handicapped, or 
people being abused, why do they feel that those dollars that are being 
given from the taxpayers for those purposes should be used directly for 
lobbying? Is there a reason that they say that they should be allowed 
to do that, other than self-fulfilling, they want more money for their 
group?
  Mr. McINTOSH. The only reason I have heard some of them say is, 
``Well, it is already not allowed.'' But then my question to them is 
why do you oppose this bill, if you say it is already not allowed? I 
think the answer must be that they know that that is not being 
enforced. In fact, we have one example with where a government agency 
gave a grant to a group who held an entire conference teaching people 
how to go and lobby. When they were called on the carpet and the GAO 
investigated and said this is an abuse of this Federal grant, the 
agency sort of shrugged their shoulders and said, ``Oh well, too bad.''
  Now what we are doing is putting teeth in it by letting the taxpayer 
be the enforcement mechanism for making sure that they have to live 
under the law as well.
  Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentleman will yield, I know our colleague from 
Indiana will appreciate this as well, because I think being part of the 
process, attending the subcommittee hearings, reading the testimony, 
listening to the testimony, another part of the answer really is when 
you get used to something, it is very human, and you think you are 
going to have it forever. You believe it is going to increase forever. 
You get very angry, and you tend to call people names when someone 
takes it away from you.
  We have had to endure the name calling. The gentleman from Indiana 
has provided wonderful leadership on this and has been attacked 
personally. We have all been attacked. I am tired of it. If they would 
just talk about the issues, we might get some progress made. But the 
fact is they are angry, and we have seen it played out time and time 
again. That is a very human element to this entire debate.

  Mr. EHRLICH. Is it not true also, which I think is a very good point, 
that some people argue this is a chilling effect on public debate? Is 
it not true that, for example, if there is an organization that would, 
say, favor the National Endowment for the Arts or the Institute for 
Museum Services, that what we are saying is the organization itself 
that receives the funds will now have a cap on how much they can spend 
in lobbying. But it does not keep an individual member of a Chicago Art 
Institute or the Fort Wayne Art Museum or a supporter of the 
philharmonic from writing us as Members of Congress or speaking out in 
public. It is just the group cannot use its funds for those purposes if 
they get Federal funds. It that not correct?
  Mr. McINTOSH. That is correct. Each of us as individuals would have 
our first amendment rights to speak out. In fact, one of the provisions 
that our colleague from Maryland put into the bill was an absolute 
exemption for individuals, so that any person, as compared to an 
organization, who wants to exercise their first amendment rights would 
be totally protected under this statute.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Most people I know who give money to a philharmonic or 
art museum expect that money to go to the philharmonic for music or for 
the art, not to lobbying Congress. I do 

[[Page H 11436]]
not think that was the intent that they thought they would give it.
  Mr. McINTOSH. I think that is right. If the gentleman would let me 
share with you an example that a reporter called up the other day and 
asked me about, and apparently there is a group in Washington State 
that is Big Brother-Big Sister. They raise a lot of their money by 
having nightly bingo games. People come and they pay to play bingo, and 
it is a fund-raising technique. It is a very successful one for them. 
But they also spend a certain amount of their money lobbying the State 
legislature to make sure that bingo continues to be an eligible fund-
raising tool. They are entitled to that, and it makes sense they would 
want to do that. But they apparently spend more than 15 percent of 
their funds lobbying the State legislature, because they do not receive 
a grant themselves. But they were worried they would no longer be able 
to take money from someone who does get a Federal grant. The rule we 
put in there is if you lobby more than 15 percent, you cannot receive 
the money indirectly.

  So my suggestion to the reporter was why do they not set up a 
separate organization as a lobbying group? One night a week they can 
have a bingo game and tell everybody, ``We are raising money to lobby 
with this night's proceeds. The other 6 nights we are going to help 
people with the Big Brothers and Big Sisters.'' Then you have 
disclosure, and the people who give the money will know what they are 
giving the money for. They will know whether or not this is for 
lobbying, or to help people with a charitable good.
  To me, I think that an ideal world. People know what their money is 
going for, and the groups have the freedom to enact their programs and 
proceed with those. If they want to lobby, they can set up another 
group that does not get taxpayer money, that they can set up for the 
lobbying purposes.
  Mr. EHRLICH. I know there are others who desire to speak, our good 
friend from Washington, but I have one other question I wanted to ask 
you, and that is we have talked about this, but a representative of 
ARC, it used to be the Association of Retarded Citizens, came to me and 
was concerned they would not be able to advocate for people that they 
were working with as they go, say, to a housing authority to talk to 
them, and go along with that citizen for housing, or if they had a job 
training program, as we have in our legislation, for those who have 
special needs.
  My understanding of this legislation is this is focused on lobbying 
to Congress, to legislatures, not for helping citizens who fall into 
their purview. Is that not correct?

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct, and we 
have clarified the language to make certain that that is very clear. 
The ARC came and testified in our committee, they did not like the bill 
as it was drafted, and I thought they had a very telling and important 
comment in that area about a possible problem that could be created 
where they help citizens who really do need help going to a government 
agency and applying for assistance they are entitled to.
  So we went back and changed the legislation to reflect that concern 
and be able to make it very clear that they would still be able to 
engage in that activity.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield. As my 
colleagues can tell, I am a little angry tonight because of the 
personal attacks against the gentleman personally.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman, but let me 
just comment. One thing I have taken solace in is, a friend of mine 
reminded me of the saying President Reagan had, which is ``It is 
dangerous any time you get between the hog and the bucket''. And I 
think our legislation may be doing exactly that.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, I think our friend from Indiana asked a 
very good question, but the gentleman's answer tells the American 
people a lot about the process we have brought to this entire debate. I 
know myself and my staff, Representative Istook and his staff, the 
gentleman particularly and his entire staff have spent hundreds of 
hours meeting with groups actually trying to get input, to secure input 
relevant input to make the bill better. A very open process, which I am 
told around here was pretty rare before we got here. The gentleman 
deserves credit for that and yet the attacks continue.
  Mr. McINTOSH. I think I know what it is, Madam Speaker, I think they 
realize if the American people find out the truth of where their 
taxpayer dollars are being spent to subsidize lobbying they will not 
win. But if they make it a personal attack, they might distract enough 
people and actually end up winning in the ultimate vote. Fortunately, I 
think all of us freshmen here are committed to getting down to the 
truth and delivering on our promises to the American people and so we 
will not let them get us sidetracked with those.

  Madam Speaker, I want to recognize now a colleague from Washington 
State who has been very active in our subcommittee in helping to craft 
this bill, Mr. Tate.
  Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, for the sake of not trying to sound like a 
broken record, I want to thank the Member from Indiana for taking all 
the arrows on our behalf on this issue. We all came here, all of us, to 
make real changes in Washington, DC. I do not think that is a surprise. 
I think we all knew going into this, from the git-go, that there would 
be attacks. The opposition would use every tool that they possibly had 
to stop the agenda.
  The defenders of big government do not want to see things changed. 
That means less power in Washington, DC, and more power in Washington 
State. That means less power in Washington, DC, and more in Indiana. 
And less power in Washington, DC, and more in Maryland. That is what it 
is all about. But I never knew they would be using my own tax dollars 
to lobby against these changes. It is one thing to do it privately, it 
is another thing to do it publicly. That is what they are so-so 
concerned about.
  Recently in the Washington Times there was an editorial titled 
``Federally Funded GOP Bashing, talking about the case study of what 
has been going on out in my State, and this is what they said.

       In the past knew months a variety of groups have spent 
     monies that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
     The problem is not that these activists are targeting Mr. 
     Tate. That, after all, is politics. The problem is that many 
     of these groups are engaged in very political, very partisan 
     activities and receive big bucks from the Federal Government. 
     The campaign they have mounted passes anyone's test of 
     political activity.

  That is the point. I want people to get involved in politics. I think 
all of us, we ran for office because we wanted to make changes. 
Everyone should gutted involved in politics, even if they disagree with 
us. But the difference is they should not use the public trough, lay 
sideways in the public trough, literally, and take that money and spend 
it trying to defeat some of the things we are working on. That is the 
thing I find outrageous, using the taxpayers' dollars.
  Madam Speaker, the other attacks I have heard is this whole issue of 
free speech. I say this over and over. Free speech is not free if I 
have to pay for it. The taxpayer should not have to pay for this kind 
of lobbying. Imagine the outrage we would hear if the Christian 
Coalition was receiving money, or the National Rifle Association, or 
the National Right to Life. To me this is not an issue about left and 
right. I would be just as upset if it was the other side.
  That is the point, it is wrong no matter what ideology it happens to 
be. We should not be funding these sort of activities.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a point. 
The gentleman may have missed the colloquy we engaged in on this floor, 
I believe three weeks ago, with the Representative from Colorado and 
the Representative from Maryland. They even admitted on the floor that 
day that it is not a defunding of the left. We have been attacked as 
defunding the left. They actually admitted that day it is not defunding 
the left.
  I wanted to gentleman to know that, because one of the principal 
charges against us, against this piece of legislation has been diffused 
by the main opponents.
  Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. This week it is 
the GOP. Maybe a couple of years from now it is the Democrat party. To 
me it 

[[Page H 11437]]
does not matter. It is wrong no matter what party it is. It is wrong to 
use the taxpayers' money to fund these kinds of acts, no matter who or 
what organization it is.
  So, Madam Speaker, I guess what I would tell these organizations that 
are running attacks against the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and against other 
freshmen that are standing up against big government and their special 
interests and high paid lobbyists back here in Washington, DC, I would 
tell those organizations if they want to lobby, do it on their own 
dime, do it on their own time, not on the taxpayers' time.
  So I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana once again taking a lot of 
heat, and he should be judged by his enemies. He should be judged by 
the work he is doing. I can tell my colleagues when I was home for town 
meetings this weekend, I had more people come up to me and say, ``You 
know what, Randy, don't give up. Keep on fighting. Because we know if 
these groups are attacking you, you must be doing something right; that 
you must really be making changes''.
  The louder they scream, the more effective we must be. So I just 
thank the gentleman for his work.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. Let me 
tell my colleagues, however, it is more than me. It is the dedicated 
effort of all of us and our colleagues, and Senator Simpson and Senator 
Craig on the Senate side, who are working very hard to make sure we can 
win passage in that body and send it forward to the President.
  I want to give my colleagues a brief update about what is happening 
with this bill so that the American people can follow it in the next 
couple of weeks and see what happens.
  Our goal is to make sure that this provision, ending the welfare for 
lobbyists, is part of the spending bill that gets sent to the President 
that helps finance his White House staff, helps finance the IRS and the 
agents there, helps finance the Treasury Department and the law 
enforcement agents there. What we want to do is make sure that when the 
President signs a bill funding all of this operations over in the White 
House he has to also sign a bill on behalf of the taxpayer ending the 
welfare for lobbyists.
  So what we are doing is negotiating with our colleagues in the Senate 
to make sure that that provision is part of that very important 
spending bill. There is a core group of approximately 60 Members here 
in the House who have all signed a letter to the Speaker urging that 
that bill not go forward unless this very important provision is 
included in it.
  I do not want to take all the accolades. I think those 60 Members who 
have stood up and said, ``We must do the right thing for taxpayers 
around the country before we take care of business here as usual and 
send the President a funding bill for all his White House staff,'' they 
are the heroes that will make sure that this, in fact, remains intact.
  Now, Madam Speaker, there is some discussion that all these spending 
bills may get wrapped up into something called a continuing resolution 
that would allow the Government to continue business as usual. If that 
happens, I think the leadership is very determined to make it a bare-
bones bill that does not include a lot of the fat that might otherwise 
be put in there. But, also, I think it is important that if we have 
that continuing resolution we say one thing that is business as usual, 
taxpayers' subsidized lobbying is going to end. We mean to make sure 
that happens in this body so that we can deliver on that promise to the 
American voters.

  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly, I 
know the gentleman from Arizona wants to pitch in.
  Where would we be without the leadership? They have killed us about 
10 times already, and we have come back every time stronger. The 
leadership in this House, the leadership in the Senate, Senator Lott, I 
think we have to mention Senator Lott as well, who has been a wonderful 
mainstay on our side with respect to this issue, our leadership, the 
Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip have come and saved us 
time and time again because they know how important this provision is 
to the American people and their representatives here in Congress, 
particularly the freshman class so well represented here on the floor 
tonight.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, that is absolutely correct. They have 
done a tremendous job of shepherding this bill.
  I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and 
I listened with great interest to my two colleagues from Indiana, my 
good friend from Maryland, and my friend from Washington State who 
preceded me here at this location.
  Madam Speaker, I thought our friend from Washington State made a very 
valid point that needs to be amplified. Disagreement over political 
philosophies is not the issue here; but, again, dipping into the 
pockets of American taxpayers to fund that disagreement is absolutely 
the issue we are talking about tonight.
  My friend from Washington State, lest he be accused of sour grapes, 
was far too modest to detail what has gone on against him in his home 
district. I just thought for the record it would be good to analyze 
where some of the attacks on our friend from Washington State, from 
whence they have come, groups financed, oft times in large measure by 
tax dollars from the American public against our friend Randy Tate in 
Washington State.
  A radio advertisement in March dealing with lawsuit limits, this suit 
brought by Citizen Action and Trial Lawyers. $15,000 goes into that 
anti-Randy Tate ad campaign.
  AFL-CIO radio ads in July dealing with OSHA regulation, $20,000.
  AFL-CIO TV ads in August dealing with OSHA regulation, $80,000.
  Save America's Families. Gee, I thought we were trying to do that, 
but I guess in this Orwellian newspeak one takes on a title that works.
  Save America's Families TV and radio ads in September dealing with 
Medicare or, in honor of tomorrow's holiday, we could daresay their 
attack as Mediscare, $85,000.
  A telephone campaign from the same aforementioned group, $10,000.
  A Medi-caravan, $10,000.
  $230,000 from these advocacy groups personally attacking a Member of 
Congress.
  Now, again, Madam Speaker, I will applaud anyone's right to come to 
the well of this House, anyone's right as one of our constituents, 
anyone's right through the first amendment to the courage of their 
convictions; but it is a far cry to talk about the courage of one's 
convictions and the convenience of taxpayer dollars.

  To those again who would try to misdirect this debate, to those again 
who would cry that it is an effort to silence a particular political 
philosophy, I would just simply say once again the facts speak for 
themselves. Indeed, the efforts of my colleagues here in drafting this 
legislation, to take into account not only the legitimate concerns of 
charity but also another angle. If I daresay, on first amendment 
rights, to make sure that Congress does not absolutely prohibit or 
proscribe entreaties with elected officials on behalf of charities or 
on the parts of these organizations, the gentleman has included that in 
the legislation.

                              {time}  2230

  So, indeed this is to silence no one. But let the American people 
understand something that has been made painfully clear to those of us 
assembled here on the floor and, indeed to you, Madam Speaker, that in 
the midst of an historic shift to change this institution, sadly, 
arguments that come from those opposed to our changes have nothing to 
do with policy and have everything to do with power.
  Who has the majority in this Chamber? Who has the opportunity to 
advocate certain policies? And, again, I say that political conviction 
is one thing, but political convenience is quite another. And in the 
case of our good friend from Washington State, and in indeed in the 
case of several others, again we draw this distinction. It is fine to 
have disagreements. It is fine to have at times what might be 
characterized as bare-knuckled comparisons and contracts in the 
political arena. But even rhetorically as you make your points, 
realistically do not pick the 

[[Page H 11438]]
pockets of Mr. and Mrs. America to do that. Have the courage of your 
convictions, rather than the convenience of taxpayer largesse.
  Let me close with this comment. Those who would say we are silencing 
a certain philosophy, I think, perhaps so championed that philosophy 
that they are the same type of folks who believe that electricity 
emanates from the light switch, that milk is found in a container, and 
that this money originates with the Government here.
  The money does not originate with the Government here, Madam Speaker. 
It is in the pockets of every American who is working hard. And if 
those Americans choose to voluntarily give to an organization to 
advocate a point of view, that is their right. But involuntary 
servitude to a political philosophy must be stopped. That is what we 
are trying to do with this piece of legislation.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Here, here. Let me commend the gentleman. As the 
gentleman was speaking, I realized that this is part of the large, 
titanic struggle that we are engaged in in this Congress. Because each 
of those issues that they were advertising against in our colleague's 
district in Washington State was a part of the Contract With America.
  There was the effort to reform the legal system so that the lawyers 
do not continue to become richer and richer at the expense of the 
populace. There was the issue of regulatory reform to hold back the 
bureaucrats that are strangling our businesses and farmers in this 
country. And, finally, there is the issue that we considered last week 
of getting to a balanced budget and a tax cut in this country.

  In each case, the opponents of our Contract With America were saying, 
``We want your taxpayer dollars to pay for our lobbyists, and we are 
going to insist that you give us funds to pay for our lobbyists out of 
the taxpayer's pockets in this country, and once again we are going to 
put that money to use to try to stop you from what you were sent here 
to do on behalf of the taxpayers; to once again give the Government 
back to the American people so that it is their government and not the 
government of the bureaucracies and the large lobbying groups who are 
resided here in Washington, DC.''
  So, the gentleman has inspired me in a way that I have not thought of 
being on this issue. That it is a part of this larger, overall struggle 
that this Congress is engaged in returning power to the people. I 
commend the gentleman for that.
  I recognize my colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. First off, I want to say that $230,000 is really an 
impressive endorsement of my colleague from Washington. It shows how 
committed he is to change. The people back in his home State, when they 
hear that, they ought to say, ``Boy, Randy is really out here doing 
things. They really want him out.''
  The problem is that we do not like it that they are doing it with our 
money or our tax deductions. If people want the tax deductions, they 
should follow the 5-percent rule. If people want to do it with our 
money, then they should not be doing it to defeat Randy Tate. They have 
all the opportunity in the world.
  In fact, every $10,000 that goes against Randy Tate in his campaign 
should be considered a badge of honor that he is here reforming things. 
He should say, ``Go get some more and come after me, because every 
dollar you are spending does it.'' But do not do it with the taxpayers' 
money and do not do it with our deductions.
  Which really gets to a bigger question, which as somebody who boosts 
increasing the charitable deduction and who has made it a major part of 
what I came here to do, it has been frustrating to have some 
disagreements with the friends of mine in the charitable areas over 
this issue.
  At the same time, the plain truth of the matter is that this is one 
of the things that we are fighting and what we are trying to deal with 
in this bill, and that is the corrupting influence that Government 
funds can have on the people who are caring for people who really need 
it. The people in Catholic social services and Lutheran social services 
and the tons of volunteer organizations dealing with people in prisons 
and child abuse, domestic violence, the terrible problems that we have 
in this society, feel the problem that we have in this country is a lot 
that many of us are ignoring those who are hurting and have not been 
taking an involvement.
  They are struggling and they see these terrible problems and think, 
Boy, if we could just dip into the Federal dollars to solve this. But 
you start chasing your tail. First, you have to start compromising and 
start filling out paperwork and changing the nature of your 
organization. All the sudden there are religious restrictions and many 
of the most powerful groups have a very strong moral component that 
they cannot do with tax dollars.
  They start chasing the Federal dollars and then they start to convert 
themselves and instead of spending their money on helping the people, 
the ones they could help, they are now trying to chase and get the 
Government involved. And the Government, who has been completely 
ineffective, tends to corrupt the influence of those groups in the 
first place.
  So, there is a deeper question here, and that is not only are we 
trying to talk about the political ends and whether or not some of 
these groups have been using their funds to damage people in Congress 
who are trying to cause changes, but there is the core question of what 
this is doing to the organizations themselves and their mission and 
this society.
  We need organizations in this country dedicated to values without the 
big hand of Government steering them and trying to control what they 
can and cannot say. Part of this is to say, If you want the Federal 
funds, then stay out of the lobbying. And if you want to be completely 
independent and raise your money, then you can follow and get the 
501(c)(3) restrictions on the 5 percent, but do not go over that, 
because your primary mission is to be independent and to help those who 
are hurting. Your primary mission is not to lobby Congress and to turn 
into mini-politicians.
  We are in danger in this country of watching our charitable end turn 
into another quasi-government and become corrupted and as ineffective 
as what we have seen. As one pastor in Detroit who was told that he had 
to do it the Government's way, otherwise he could not get government 
funds. He could not talk about religion. He was an African-American 
pastor. He said, ``From what I have seen what the Government has done, 
every housing project you have touched is crumbling; every juvenile 
delinquency program you have does not work; every drug abuse program 
does not have good return. Everything my church has done in the 
community has worked. Our housing, our juvenile delinquency, our drugs, 
our child care. Yet, you tell me unless I do it your way, I cannot have 
the money.''
  It is a sad day when our charitable organizations start to get into 
this web of Government. This is a great way, and really the 
undergirding of much of what you are doing, not the political. I thank 
the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you. Let me share testimony from one young man 
who came to our subcommittee, because it reinforces everything that the 
gentleman just said. Isaac Randolph is a former firefighter from 
Indianapolis, a black gentleman who is very dedicated to his community 
and that city.
  He wants to help black youths who are in danger are being caught up 
in the gang violence and drugs and ruining their lives. He quit his 
job, a very good job with the city, and started a group called the St. 
Florian Society, named after the patron saint of firefighters.
  He has been dedicating his life to trying to teach leadership skills 
and encourage young people from the inner-city to respect themselves, 
learn leadership, and make something of their lives. He receives a 
little bit of Federal grant money through the city, although most of it 
he collects really from the private sector.
  He came and testified saying that he thought our bill was incredibly 
important, because he thought that the nature of the charitable 
activity that he was engaged in would be corrupted if it continued to 
be the goal of those groups to lobby and advocate for government 
programs, rather than getting in there and helping the inner-city 
youths in his neighborhood, helping the elderly, helping communities 
around the country.

[[Page H 11439]]

  It was very moving testimony from a gentleman who has dedicated his 
life to helping those around him. I think it is something we should 
take to heart very deeply as we move forward in this area.
  So, the testimony in the subcommittee has been very supportive of 
exactly the point the gentleman is making about preserving and 
strengthening the true charitable activities that work in our country.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Just a quick follow-up, I know the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] has some very important information to share, 
but we get so bogged down from time to time with the opposition to this 
initiative, with the organized way in which they have gone about 
attacking us across the country, particularly on the Internet. That is 
a subject for another day and hopefully we will have a colloquy on that 
as well.
  But I think we get so bogged down with respect to the opposition that 
we lose sight of all the grassroots groups out there, the individuals, 
the organizations that have supported this legislation from day one. 
Just to name a few, because I have the letters right here and I know 
the chairman of the subcommittee has seen the letters: National 
Taxpayers Union; Citizens for a Sound Economy; the Association of 
Concerned Taxpayers; The 60-Plus Association, a seniors group; the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; the Seniors Coalition, another seniors group; the 
Association of Concerned Taxpayers; Americans for Tax Reform; the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and on and on and on and on.
  Through the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], we 
have been able to put together this coalition of people who know we 
need to change the law because it is broken.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana. I am proud to serve on his 
subcommittee.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Thank you so much. It is a great subcommittee because 
of the members, more than everything. Yes, Mr. Hayworth?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. We detailed a few 
figures concerning taxpayer-funded opposition or taxpayer-funded 
advocacy in the political arena involving our friend from Washington 
State. Others, Madam Speaker, may be joining us tonight saying, Well, 
you are not giving us the entire picture. We need some more evidence, 
if you will. What else can you show us? you talk about abuses of the 
taxpayers' money. What else can you show us?
  I think it is instructive to go back to Federal funding as it existed 
from July 1993 through June 1994, and take a look at what has gone on. 
And I dare say, given the fact that this Congress was controlled by 
those with another philosophy, perhaps these appropriations even 
increased in the last fiscal year.
  But that fact notwithstanding, the AFL-CIO, July 1993 to June 1994, 
over $2 million in taxpayers' money. And, of course, big labor is 
operating a program called Standup designed to defeat the new agenda in 
Congress. But, again, it is not the disagreement, but the fact that 
over $2 million of taxpayers' money went into that endeavor.
  AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, $148,000 of taxpayers' money going into political advocacy.
  Perhaps most egregiously, the National Council of Senior Citizens, a 
whopping $68 million. I had to take a look at this to make sure I had 
this right. $68 million. Over 90 percent, as the gentleman from Indiana 
pointed out, 96 percent of this charitable organization's funding comes 
from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. Yet, the same organization, 
taking over $68 million in taxpayers' money contributed $405,000 to 134 
candidates for Congress.

  Again, if people want to contribute to political campaigns, that is 
their right. But 96 percent of that $68 million and over $400,000 going 
into those endeavors? Madam Speaker, it appears it was charitable only 
to the candidates involved. It was charitable only to those ceaseless 
proponents of a welfare state where big government is the answer to 
every question and where they would will a veil of secrecy descend. And 
when that veil is lifted, the most amazing and, yes, the most vile 
epithets are employed.
  As we began in special orders tonight, I invoked the words of outrage 
from our friend from California who said as we passed this bill, quote, 
``It's a glorious day if you are a Fascist. If you are a Fascist, it's 
a glorious day.''
  Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a 
glorious day for the American taxpayers when we are willing to stand up 
and say no more of this abuse. Let us lift this veil of secrecy and 
more importantly, let us terminate this egregious action.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, was the gentleman in the subcommittee 
public hearing day, when we were referred to as McCarthyites?
  Was the gentleman in the room?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Unfortunately, I was not there, but I have been treated 
as every Member of this institution. Every Member of this new majority 
has been treated to a ceaseless parade of epithets from those who see 
the gravy train about to come to an end. And it is a measure of their 
desperation, as has been noted here, that they will make any 
comparison, no matter how vile, no matter how reprehensible.
  I have to say, with great confusion, I am surprised the fourth estate 
that so assiduously covers matters here does not respond on its 
editorial pages with outrage about these statements, but then again I 
guess we are new to this town and we have a lot to learn from those 
groups. But it is amazing to see those comments bandied about.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, one of the things that we hear is, why are 
you guys picking on these groups? Why are you just doing this?
  The plain truth of the matter is that, if there is any doubt about 
this freshman class and those of us who are here today, we are not 
picking on just this group. We are picking on everybody. We are going 
after this entire system, and we are not going to exempt any different 
groups.

  We are looking at term limits. We finally got a commitment that we 
are going to do gift reform. We got a commitment finally that we are 
going to do lobby reform. We have a commitment that the freshmen are 
going to work on a week or at least a couple days or at least a number 
of initiatives this coming year on finance reform.
  For 40 years, the other party was in control, and they did not do it. 
We have Members of this body, former Members of this body going to 
prison. We have others resigning in disgrace, getting long pensions and 
all sorts of things.
  We came here to reform the whole system. We are not going to exempt 
one group because they look to be charitable corporations. If they are 
abusing taxpayer funds, they are going to get hit, too. If Members are 
abusing it, they are going to get hit. If PAC's are abusing it, they 
are going to get hit.
  We were sent here to Washington to change this system. I commend the 
gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I commend the gentleman on 
other things and the other freshmen. It is not that we are just picking 
on this. We are, as I said, going to pick on everybody who is abusing 
the taxpayers' dollars and abusing this wonderful House and trying to 
return it back to the people. I am proud to be here with my fellow 
freshmen here tonight and those who came here really committed to 
reform.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic. I think the opponents 
of this measure are trying to make any argument to any group to try to 
stop us from going forward and protecting the taxpayer.
  The most recent ones that I read in the mail today was that they were 
arguing that this bill that we have would be bad because it would limit 
businesses in their lobbying effort if they receive a Federal grant for 
research or other activities. So how ironic that people who have been 
attacking businesses all of their lives are now worried that we might 
be limiting the ability of businesses to lobby to a million dollars per 
business and that this could be a grave threat.
  My answer is, it is not business, it is not charity. It is anybody 
who lives off of the Federal Government and the taxpayer funds who 
needs to realize we are serious. This is real lobbying reform. We are 
not going to subsidize your lobbyists anymore. We are going to put an 
end to it so that we end welfare for lobbyists.

[[Page H 11440]]

  Mr. EHRLICH. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is, if they do not 
realize we are serious by now, they will never realize it. As the 
gentleman well knows, because he has been the target particularly, and 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], they know we are serious. 
That is why they are so scared because they know we have the facts and 
we have the votes and we have the leadership, your leadership.
  Mr. TATE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
has been referenced many times about the freshmen coming to this town. 
We brought fresh ideas. But it is amazing from the folks across the 
aisle, they want to do things the way they have always done it.
  We can understand the mentality a little better when I think, well, 
why are you worried about this? This is $40 billion, billion with a B. 
This is a lot of money. I am not sure how much was spent on political 
campaigns last year, but I think those pale in comparison to $40 
billion, to me if we can really reform the way things are done around 
here.

  The other argument, as we are closing, is, how can we do this? How 
can we change this? How can they look into the taxpayers' eyes in my 
district, as they are working and struggling to get by to put food on 
the table, to buy shoes for the kids, to save money for education, to 
put a little money aside for health care, to maybe even save money to 
go on vacation and to find out that their own money is being sent to 
Washington, DC, to lobby for more of their hard earned money.
  Basically, the taxpayer works hard, sends his money to Washington, 
DC, then some nameless bureaucrat writes a check to some group that 
turns around and lobbies for more of that hard earned taxpayers' money, 
which is what it really comes down to.
  So I would challenge those across the aisle that oppose this to talk 
to the constituents in my district that work hard for their taxpayer 
dollars.

                          ____________________