[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13662-H13663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       REJECT ISTOOK AND McINTOSH ON LOBBYING REFORM LEGISLATION

  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, as the gentleman from Florida mentioned a 
few minutes ago, we will be resuming debate later today on the lobbying 
reform legislation. And, as he put it so well, I hope this House will 
reject all of the many amendments that are pending on this bill. Some 
have merit, but as the gentleman indicated, they will doom this bill. 
We do not need to risk that, and we should not.
  As we resume consideration later today, it is especially important, I 
think, to understand what the amendments to be offered by my colleagues 
from Indiana and Oklahoma would do. I think once those amendments 
noticed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] are understood, they will be rejected. 
However, we need to read them as they were once proposed, as a single 
legislative proposal. We can now not unscramble that egg.
  Let me refer my colleagues to a statement made by that noted 
conservative columnist George Will about this proposal. He said, ``It 
would make lawyers happy; it would erect a litigation-breeding 
regulatory regime of baroque complexity regarding political 
expression.''
  Now, why in the world would George Will say that about a proposal 
like this? Let me just give you a few examples of the terribly 
burdensome effect, the red-tape-breeding provisions of this legislation 
as it would affect what private organizations in America can do with 
their private money.
  For example, the University of Georgia would be limited in how much 
contact it could have with Georgia's State government. That is because 
State colleges and universities that receive Federal grants would be 
regulated under this proposal and could only spend a limited amount on 
any kind of contacts with other governmental entities. The definition 
of governmental contact is very broad and includes State and local 
governments.

                              {time}  1300

  Another example. If the National Association of Counties has any 
contact with a Federal official about legislative or policy matters, 
then no county that is a member of NACO could receive Federal funds. 
Why is that? Well, under the McIntosh language, if a 501(c)(4) 
nonprofit like NACO engages in any lobbying, then it and all 
organizations that are affiliated with it are prohibited from receiving 
any kind of Federal grants, loans, or contracts.
  Another example. A zealous, vigilante-type person could bring 
harassing lawsuits against State and local governments under this 
provision, as well as against universities, nonprofits, you name it. A 
cut of treble damage verdicts would be available to anybody that might 
wish to pursue such a lawsuit for violation of the McIntosh-Istook 
provisions under the False Claims Act. That is what would be put into 
the law by the McIntosh private citizen enforcement amendment.

[[Page H 13663]]

  A Federal grantee like General Motors, obviously a private company, 
would have to account to the Federal Government for every time any of 
its thousands of employees had any contact with a Federal, State, or 
local government official about virtually any issue, whether it is 
local zoning or fuel efficiency standards.
  Looking at another well-known and worthy nonprofit organization, 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving would not be able to carry out its 
mission if this were to become law, because under the amendment's 
formula for the maximum allowable government relations expenditures, 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving could spend only 3 percent of its entire 
budget on contacts with all levels of government. It would simply 
cripple MADD's efforts to get stricter Federal, State, and local laws 
and enforcement against drunk driving.
  But do not take my word for this. Let me read to my colleagues from a 
letter sent out yesterday in behalf of the presidents of 34 major 
research universities in this country from the Association of American 
Universities. And I quote:

       The Istook-McIntosh-Erlich legislation would impose a 
     burdensome, new recordkeeping mandate on our universities, 
     some of which receive thousands of Federal grants for diverse 
     purposes. For each grant, this legislation would require 
     detailed and duplicative reports on political advocacy--even 
     if the amount of advocacy did not exceed the prohibited 
     threshold.

  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, including a recent communication 
from the Red Cross about this. Let me just conclude by pointing out 
what our former colleague Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma had to say about 
this recently: ``This is big brother with a vengeance.'' My colleagues, 
we should defeat these amendments.

                          ____________________