Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], which, because its people have twice voted not to fund abortions except in the case of life of the mother, may have to lose $700 million a year in Federal funding unless we defeat this motion and keep this language in the bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a very respected Member of this House.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to hear the statements of Bill Clinton and Al Gore attacked as extremist. For when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he sent this letter in which he said he supported a constitutional amendment for the people of Arkansas to say abortion should not be funded with public money unless the life of the mother were at risk, and he wrote in the letter, ``I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions.'' Al Gore voted repeatedly for the same type of amendment that is in the bill that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] seeks to strike. When he was a Senator in 1987, he wrote, ``During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed Federal funding for abortion.'' Why is this now being attacked as extremist? We have had this vote before. We voted on this identical issue, this identical language, in August. Some people are not willing to abide by that decision and they are out here to try again. But 36 States have had their State laws overturned by a Clinton administration directive misinterpreting what Congress has done, and there is no other remedy to uphold the States which have provisions in their statutes and their constitutions against using public money for abortion except to save the life of the mother. The language which we desire to keep in the bill is the language that simply says if they wish to fund those rape and incest abortions, they may do so. If they do not wish to do so, they are not compelled to do so. I ask a ``no'' vote on the motion to strike.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we are not here to talk about whether someone, no matter where they live, will have the ability to obtain an abortion under any circumstances. We are here solely on the question of whether taxpayers in different States will be compelled to use taxpayers' money to pay for abortions or whether the States can decide for themselves in a case of rape or incest if taxpayer money is to be used. Thirty-six States, through their people, many through public votes, have made the decision they do not wish taxpayer money to be used in those circumstances. I stand here on behalf of the people of those 36 States that do not want to be dictated to from Washington, that want to be able to make those decisions. So, Mr. Chairman, the people in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, say they should not be dictated to from Washington. If you are from one of those States and you vote for this motion to strike, you have voted to overturn the decision of your State. You have voted against the decision made by your people. If you are from any other State, it does not matter; this amendment does not affect you. But Members from those States should vote against the amendment, against the motion to strike, and uphold the authority of their people to determine where their tax money will be spent.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the great gentleman from, Illinois [Mr. Hyde], well known and esteemed in this body. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my fellow colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent], from the First Congressional District.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], a freshman Member.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly invite anyone that has been misled that somehow this is some sort of regulatory scheme, frankly, to read the bill. The only thing it requires is a listing of a good faith estimate of the total amount they spent on lobbying that year. I think it is kind of silly if somebody is thinking that this is a regulatory scheme. It is very plain and simple disclosure. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 \1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, there are always people that do not want to reveal to the public how Washington works or how much people spend on trying to lobby in Washington or anyplace else, especially groups that are dependent upon the taxpayers for their money. Contrary to what several speakers have claimed, there is no distinction made in this simple disclosure legislation between a business and a charity, none whatsoever. It says any organization that receives a Federal grant will make the disclosure. The only exceptions are for individuals and for entities of State, local and tribal government. There is no exemption for big business. There is no exemption for big charity. There is no exemption for big anybody except for government itself. Any group whatsoever, what are they afraid of? What is it they are trying to conceal when they come to us and say, We want the taxpayers' money but we just do not want to tell you how much we spent on lobbying?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to remaining time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. J.D. Hayworth.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what may have been represented to the gentlewoman from New York, many nonprofit groups are major lobbyists. They are required to make a disclosure of that through an IRS regulation, which is adopted here. Many of their disclosures reveal that they spend substantial funds. But this is talking about Federal grantees, what they spend on lobbying. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we have had debate previously in this Chamber about the activity of different groups that receive Federal taxpayer's money, sometimes in hundreds of millions or tens of millions of dollars, and their lobbying activity. Previously this body voted, on two different occasions, passing legislation that would put some commonsense limitations on the scope of lobbying by groups dependent upon the taxpayer's money. The Senate also had a similar vote, adopting that in principle as well. This amendment, however, Mr. Chairman, does not go that far. It simply says that groups that are recipients of taxpayers' money will make a disclosure of the total amount once a year that they have spent on lobbying. That will certainly help both sides in that debate, Mr. Chairman. Some have said oh, they are not doing big time lobbying. Others have said, yes, they are. But the problem is we have never required them to report that, along with the other information grant recipients report. This will give us the information so that both sides may consider this issue based upon the facts. I urge its adoption.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is at the desk is a very simple disclosure amendment. It specifies that recipients of grants from the taxpayers, groups that have asked for and received taxpayers' money in the form of grants, should simply make an annual disclosure of the total amount that they have spent in that year on lobbying. It is not a detailed disclosure, it is not a restriction of any sort on how their money is spent, it is not a restriction of any sort on eligibility. It simply says that once a year they shall disclose the total amount they have spent on lobbying.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It is plain vanilla. It affects one group of organizations and only one: groups that have made up their mind that they want financing from the taxpayers. If they do not want taxpayers' money, this amendment does not affect anyone. If they want taxpayers' money, it simply says give us the bottom line. The details are not even covered here. Just give us the bottom line once a year, how much did you spend on lobbying? Mr. Chairman, they are already required to keep records of this. If they were, for example, a 501(c)(3), they are already required by the IRS to keep records of it. They are already subject to auditing. They do not want people to know. There are groups that receive tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers, that are some of the major lobbying groups in Washington, and they try to claim we are letting the big boys off. If the group is a big boy, it does not matter if it is a charity or business. This amendment treats it the same. It says, If you want taxpayers' money, tell us one simple thing: How much are you spending on lobbying? Then if the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] thinks the results show that it is not a problem, he can use that as his evidence. If it shows more things with problems, that too can be evidence. Let us get simple and to the facts.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, if a group does not ask for taxpayers' money, this legislation does not mean beans to them. It is only groups that ask to get in the taxpayers' pocket.