Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my follow Oklahoman, Paul Harvey, for correctly pointing out that the theory of global warming is not supported by the facts. The scare mongers would have us shut down our domestic energy production based upon falsehoods. The scare mongers are receiving grants from taxpayers to attack taxpayers' livelihoods. I thank Paul for letting America know the truth. [From the Climatology, Oct. 17, 1995] The Sky is Not Falling Many scholars and institutions secure grant money for research by scaring people--by producing bad news about population, about resources, about environment. One recent-years bogey has been the claim by some academics that ``the sky is falling.'' Specifically, these scaremongers argue that our use of fossil fuels is figuratively burning a hole in the sky, letter in too much sun, threatening global warming. This year's Nobel Prize was awarded to three disciples of that theory--that chemical actions are breaking down atmospheric ozone. Robert Balling, Junior is director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. He says those peddling this pessimistic prognosis are false--alarmists. And, he notes, the New York Times is parroting this apocalyptic view of the future, giving its front page to the theory of planetary temperature increases over the past 40 years, retreating glaciers, increasing sea levels and the increase in both drought and heavy rain. In rebuttal this climatologist responds with satellite measurements. Rather than global warming, this most accurate of all ways of measuring the Earth's temperature shows a slight ``global cooling'' since 1979. The Arctic area, where most warming should be expected, has warmed not at all over the past sixteen years according to our satellite observations. According to the measurement of standard weather stations there has been no measurable warming over the past 50 years. And, says, this climatologist, while some glaciers have retreated--others have advanced--including large ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. Organizations within the United Nations, anticipating the inevitability of budget cuts, are desperately seeking to justify their existence. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PCC) is composed of 2,500 scientists around the world. Its recent book-length report, clearly labeled, ``FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE''. . . was nonetheless distributed. It was intended to be circulated among contributors for their further evaluation and further contributions. Instead it was ``leaked'' to media people who focused on the summary section and sounded an alarm which has embarrassed many of the scientists who contributed to the study. There is just enough ``Chicken Little'' in all of us so that the tabloids with the most gross headlines are the ones which sell best. I promise, before the sky falls, to let you know.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution, of course, is important to enable the Government to remain in business with the things that means to many people, but I am glad to say it does not mean business as usual; that the language in the legislation that is compromise language between proponents in the House and the Senate is in the bill to try to stop the problem of those who have an iron grip on what they believe is their vested right to take the taxpayers' money and use it for their own political lobbying activities. The provisions in this bill have been much talked about; and, frankly, most of the things that I have heard from those opposing it are outlandish and outrageous and simply not true. No one, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made this explicit, no one has a vested right to get gifts and handouts and subsidies from the taxpayers so that they can use that to assist them in lobbying activities. In fact, in a case in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court said, ``Congress is not required by the first amendment to subsidize lobbying.'' It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Groups that choose, that make a voluntary decision to come to Washington with their hands out asking for millions and millions and millions of dollars in grants from the Federal Government should expect that they should not have their money either directly or indirectly applied to lobbying or political advocacy activities. Ninety percent of the charities in this country, Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of them, are exempted from this provision because they are not engaged in heavy-duty lobbying activity. But for those which are, still this does not prevent them from speaking out. It does not prevent them from voicing their concerns. It merely says if they want taxpayer subsidies, then there is a limitation on the amount that they can spend for lobbying activities. That is it. That is all. It is straightforward. It is direct. It is what the U.S. Supreme Court has said. Congress is not required by the first amendment to subsidize lobbying. If groups want to operate without taxpayer money, there is no restriction on them whatsoever. But the moment that they come asking for a grant, for a handout from the Federal Government, then we merely ask them to comply with some commonsense limitations on what they do with it. I certainly encourage support for this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have within this legislation what is now being referred to as the Simpson-Istook amendment. Trying to correct the difficulty that we have with some $39 to $40 billion each year in taxpayers' money that is being used for taxpayer-subsidized grants to groups that unfortunately too often use that to help them come to Congress and ask for more money lobbying at the expense of the public. I am sorry that the gentlewoman from Colorado has fallen prey to misrepresentations that many people have made. For example, someone who has the audacity to call this a gag rule because you see, they do not want to have to use their own money without Federal subsidies. They want the freedom to dip into the taxpayer's pocket and extract money from the taxpayer to promote their activity, to promote their political agenda, to help them with lobbying political advocacy. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is something that they should expect to do without expecting a subsidy from the taxpayer. We have, for example, one group, the National Council of Senior Citizens. Mr. Speaker, they get $73 million each year from Uncle Sam, from the taxpayers of the United States. That is 96 percent of their budget. Yet it is this very same group that is currently bragging to its members saying, we are engaging in a multimillion-dollar TV campaign trying to affect what is going on in Congress, saying that we are getting hundreds of thousands of people to contact Congress and contact the White House and promote the political agenda of the National Council of Senior Citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is a group that gets 96 percent of its budget from the taxpayers. And yet they are a major lobbying group in Washington, DC. This legislation does not prohibit anybody from petitioning the Government for redress of grievances or from carrying on a political agenda. But it says, if they expect to receive taxpayer subsidies, which they have chosen to ask for, which they have chosen to accept, then they should limit the scope of their political activity. We have applied an existing Internal Revenue Service formula that has been used for nonprofits called the 501(h) rule that gives them a $1 million cap. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what group that is dependent upon the taxpayers thinks that they need to spend more than $1 million a year in lobbying? In addition, Mr. Speaker, for groups that are heavily dependent upon the taxpayers that receive more than a third of their budget from the taxpayers, we have a lower cap. I realize there are groups which are dependent upon taxpayers' money that have been trying to whip into a frenzy charities across America. But, Mr. Speaker, we have an exemption in this bill that exempts 96 percent of the charities in this country from any limitation. That is the provision which states that only if they expend more than $25,000 in political advocacy do they come within any of these percentage limitations whatsoever. Niney-six percent of the 501(c)(3)'s in the United States, according to their submissions to the IRS, do not spend that much. It is a smaller number that has been abusive, and we are trying to target that abuse. Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one will believe the ridiculous lies and accusations that have surrounded this issue because so many groups are so desperate to retain their hold on the taxpayers' wallet. I, therefore, urge Members to support the rule and, of course, to support the underlying resolution.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says the Congress of the United States has the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia. In fact, when the home rule charter was passed for the District of Columbia, that authority was expressly retained because we cannot give it away. Even if we wanted to, we have responsibility for the laws of the District of Columbia, and if they are out of tune with what they should be, with what should be the laws in the United States of America, we as Members of Congress have the obligation, we have the duty, we have taken an oath that says we will act. Three years straight, the House of Representatives and the Senate in bills that have passed and been signed into law by the President, 3 years straight we have said the law that is now at issue will not be effective, will not be enforced. We have had votes in 1994, in 1993, in 1992, and now in 1995. It is time that we say we make this a permanent restriction. We do not believe in redefining the family. I heard a speaker say, after all, this measure says that people ought to be treated with the same advantages as if they were married if they are heterosexual and living together. He thought that made the bill better. I say it makes it worse. If you are saying that without benefit of marriage you want to encourage people to live together and redefine the definition of family to include that, the same as a husband and wife, then you are twisting what a family is. You are twisting what marriage is. You are undercutting families in the United States of America. We have enough problems already. Family decline is at the root of problems in schools, problems in drug use, of too many teenage pregnancies. Marriages might have occurred and now people say, ``We don't need to have them because we can have an alternative to family. We can undercut the basic building block of our society.'' That is wrong. That is wrong to do so. The country will collapse if families collapse, and the are teetering and tottering already. We do not need the Nation's Capital to say we are going to undercut family values. In fact, we are going to kidnap the very definition of what constitutes a family. We are going to redefine it as though we can improve upon what has given stability and strength to this country for its two centuries plus. Mr. Chairman, I encourage people to vote in favor of the amendment. Say permanently the Congress of the United States is not going to redefine family and is not going to undercut marriage.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the rule and in support of this legislation. Five times my wife and I have been blessed to give birth to a child, five times the opportunity to hold a brand new, newborn baby. Mr. Speaker, it sickens me to think that some people believe it is a proper practice to delivery all of a baby, save only the head, and then before birth occurs, to jam a set of scissors into the back of the skull of that child and scramble its brains. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. Should that be legal in a civilized society? We are talking about civilization versus barbarism. Some people may not want to recognize the practice that we seek to prohibit. Some people did not want to look when Hitler was slaughtering the Jews or Stalin was slaughtering his countrymen. I am sure they did not want to look when Pharaoh went after the newborns or King Herod went after the newborn children, either. It was slaughter, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker. If we do not look, if we do not understand what is being done, and instead of barbarity, they call it a choice. We have got to get away from that kind of language. We have got to get where someone speaks for the child, speaks for the newborn, speaks for a society that cares about life. Words cannot convey the horror of this procedure. I would hope that no Member of this Chamber would endorse barbarism by voting against this legislation.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. What we have said, and the gentleman is aware, of course, from being a conferee with me on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, what we have said, I have said it to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], I have said it to Members of the Senate and the House, and conveyed it to White House representatives, that anyone who has constructive recommendations to make sure that this legislation is put in its best possible form so that it does not have unintended consequences, we want to listen to and we want to work with. We do have a problem sometimes with some groups, rather than trying to make constructive recommendations, they make a knee-jerk reaction just opposing it, and, frequently, that comes from organizations that are heavily dependent on Federal funds and there is, as the gentleman knows, a lot of discussion about it and a lot of representations made to people about what is or is not in the bill. We want to work with all persons that are concerned, and that will be reflected in the final product.

Mr. ISTOOK. Surely. Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen is there has been a vast disinformation campaign that has been stimulated by groups receiving Federal funds. They have made contracts, they have made some, frankly, scurrilous statements to all sorts of organizations, trying to use scare tactics, and certainly they have prompted concern to be expressed by those groups. What we have certainly done, in working on this legislation, is to have an open door policy, whether a group is for us or against us or in between, for an explanation. We have certainly been working with the Red Cross both to explain to them the difference between what was told to them prompting their communications and what is really being pursued, and to make sure, of course, that the final form of the legislation is a form that does not put any undo restrictions on any sort of legitimate charitable organizations. What we have to do is make sure that the legislation has the appropriate filter to separate the good from the bad from the ugly. Mr. Speaker, just because a group is organized with a so-called nonprofit structure does not mean that it has the reputation of the good deeds that the Red Cross, of course, is noted for. So we are working with the Red Cross and other organizations to address all legitimate concerns that are brought to our attention, and I think that is going to be reflected in the final product.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, of course the key is to understand, as we were careful to point out in the legislation, despite many misrepresentations that different people have made, is that we did not put in the legislation an absolute prohibition recognizing that some people may say, well, there is a gray line between things that are giving information back to government, and so forth. Some people may see some gray area between that and being an advocate, not an advocate for safety, not an advocate for emergency preparedness, but a political advocate. So we specified in the legislation that we were not saying there is an absolute prohibition. We simply said that you should not be expending more than 5 percent of your non-federal funds, which is a threshold that has previously been adopted through courts and through the IRS as a key and reasonable threshold. So we never said that a group could not engage in any type of political advocacy. We just wanted to make sure they were not engaging to any significant degree in that, and that very well takes in any type of gray area with which anyone may have a concern. So the opponents of this bill unfortunately have grossly misrepresented and overstated it, calling it, for example, a gag rule, which is totally absurd. We have tried to take a common sense approach to it and understand that reasonable people may differ. Yet, I think that just about every American taxpayer who studies the issue would agree, it is wrong for taxpayers' money to be used for lobbying. It is wrong for taxpayers' money being used to prop up and be the difference between success and failure for an organization. With that in mind, I would like to refer to an audit report which was part of the audit report, and I understand it was an internal audit report for the National Council of Senior Citizens which receives 95 or 96 percent of its budget from the taxpayers. Their own internal audit said the heavy reliance on governmental grants poses a potential danger to the long-term structure of NCSC. Absent such grants, the council would be unable to continue its current level of operations. This is a group that is heavily engaged in lobbying in this country, and yet without government grants, they would not be able to sustain themselves. They do not have enough private sector support. They depend upon taxpayers' money, and I think that is wrong.

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Well, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate people standing firm on this effort, because you hear outrageous things. You hear people saying, well, if you receive some sort of farm assistance or if you receive a student loan or if you receive welfare benefits. And yet the legislation clearly states that we are not talking about government assistance payments to any sort of individual. We are merely talking about government grants which go to organizations. The situation is such that we have had what I feel is a perversion of the true reason for the existence of charities in this country, and Chairman McIntosh and his subcommittee has had hearings that has helped develop this. People talking about, you know, we were part of a group that was formed to be a nonprofit charity. We raised money trying to help people, trying to do good. Then we found people trying to take it over and saying, the way we can really do good is to spend all of our time and effort, or most of it, anyway, and our resources lobbying government for more government programs, more resources, higher taxes to pay for it, and they call that charity. That is not charity. We need to help the private charities in this country to fulfill their true mission by helping separate them from those that are masquerading as charities, but are really extensions of the Federal Government and extensions of lobbying groups and political advocacy groups. We need to draw a clear distinction between them. If someone says we want Federal money, now they are not forced to ask for Federal money, they are not forced to take Federal money, they voluntarily say they want Federal grants to further a purpose, which is different from so many other charitable groups. Yet at the same time, they want the Federal handouts, but they say nevertheless we want to continue to be political advocates rather than true charities. There is a difference. There is a crucial difference in who we ought to be providing assistance to, and it really scares me that there have been some reports that say that the typical nonprofit group today receives a third of its money from the government. Now, that frightens me. We do not want people to be saying they are charities when actually they are extensions of government agencies. If they are an extension of the government, they should accept the same type of safeguards which would control a Federal agency if it were carrying out a particular program. They would never be allowed to engage in the type of advocacy that is involved there. So if they are carrying out a private function, that is great. They ought to be satisfied with the private dollars. If they want public dollars, then they ought to accept the types of limitations that accompany public dollars. It is wrong to ask taxpayers to subsidize political viewpoints through this. Thomas Jefferson had a statement on this, and he said to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. I have no desire, and I know you do not either, to try to limit the ability of people to exercise their free speech rights with their own resources and their own money. But if they want to be dependent upon Federal funds instead, then they need to decide they should not be political advocacy groups. That is the key distinction that we are trying to address in the legislation. I thank the gentleman for the chance to speak to that and want to yield back the floor to him.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I realize our time is running low. I just want to say that I applaud my colleagues for working on this effort, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh]. I think this is an extremely important issue. Again, the heart of the matter I think was summed up, I am told, and I did not witness it, but I am told by a colleague that the President was good enough to appear on a local talk show recently while he was visiting another State. The first question asked him was how he felt about groups that are lobbying receiving Federal grants, taxpayers' money being used to subsidize that. His response was to say, ``Well, I am in favor of free speech,'' and then changed the subject. The essence of this point is it is not free speech. If you have organizations sometimes receiving a half a million dollars, $1 million, $10 million, $76 million, $100 million, over $1 billion, in one case, that is not what we categorize as free speech. We are talking about public money which has to have public protection. If there were a Federal agency engaging in these matters with taxpayers' money, everyone in this body, I would hope, would be outraged. When Federal money is being used to more or less have extensions of Federal agencies or extensions of a political party to do their bidding, that money deserves to have the same safeguards as if it were being spent directly through a Federal agency, and we are trying to honor that principle.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, speaking both in terms of money received from private sources but protected by the Tax Code, private money but therefore, a form of Federal subsidy, or direct payments from the Government and therefore also a Federal subsidy, the Court applied the same standard in the language of the Regan case to both of them when it mentioned and held that taxpayers are not required to subsidize political activity or lobbying activity, whether that subsidy came in the form of a direct payment from the Government or whether it came in the form of favorable treatment through the Tax Code, even though you were talking about the use of privately earned money. So I would submit to the gentleman that the Court was addressing funds from a private source as well as funds directly from a public source.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to address the two points that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned, one regarding court decisions. In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Regan versus Taxation With Representation, addressed that point when a group wanted to engage in lobbying and wanted to have Federal subsidies for that through the Tax Code. The Court noted that Congress does not have to subsidize lobbying. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court specified that ``The Federal Government is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. We reject the notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.'' The notion that the government has to buy you a microphone or buy you a newspaper or give you funds with which to carry on your lobbying activities, I think is blatantly absurd. The taxpayers are not required to subsidize lobbying. If a group wants to lobby, that is fine. That is their constitutional prerogative, but it is not free speech if they say, ``We want the taxpayers' money.'' That is a clear delineation and distinction. The gentleman also mentioned, of course, Mr. Speaker, something from someone at Catholic Charities, U.S.A. He may not be aware, Catholic Charities, U.S.A. annually receives from the taxpayers, from the government, almost $1.3 billion. It is two-thirds of their operating budget. I think there is a bona fide question, anytime an organization has that level of funding, whether they are really an organization separate and apart from the government, or themselves have become an extension of the government. If we have that kind of money flowing through the Department of Health and Human Services or HUD or the EPA or the Labor Department or Education or anything else, we would insist upon safeguards to limit its use, to assure it is not used for lobbying or political advocacy. When any group has that level of its funding, $1.3 billion, just a little under that, two-thirds of its budget coming from the U.S. Government, we have a serious question at what point do they cease to be a private group and become an extension of the government. We are talking about safeguards with taxpayers' money. We are trying to be very reasonable and prudent in the approach. We are open-minded, we are listening to that, but this is a severe problem that does need to be addressed.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was necessarily away from the Chamber during the last recorded vote. I believe the number was 677. Had I been present, I ask the Journal to reflect I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, as the lady from New York noted, 11 States have already taken the administration to court because their laws are being threatened. In addition, the Clinton administration has sent notices threatening to cut off funds to another seven States. This decision properly should be made by the States, not by Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman for Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. (Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the majority leader, the gentleman from the lone star State of Texas [Mr. Armey].

Mr. ISTOOK. The gentleman from Colorado has the excess time remaining, is that correct?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the other principal coauthor of this measure, who has had hearings in the subcommittee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share, since Members have mentioned the U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional issues, in 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a right does not infringe on that right. Congress has the authority to determine if the advantage the public receives is worth the money it pays to subsidize it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey]. (Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], one of the coauthors of this amendment which is now under scrutiny.