Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate].

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, of course, only groups which ask for and get Federal handouts are covered. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, there is an exemption for individuals. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the language which the gentleman from Colorado wishes to take out of this bill was placed there by an open and public vote after much debate by the Committee on Appropriations. It also relates to hearings that have been held on three occasions in recent weeks by committees of this body. Mr. Chairman, the reason is in the United States, taxpayers' money from the Federal Government, approximately $40 billion, with a B, each year goes to tens of thousands of organizations; not for a contract, not for services rendered or an exchange of goods for cash, but as grants, as gifts from the Federal Government to promote certain purposes. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty is these groups are heavily engaged in lobbying activity and political advocacy in trying to advance a political agenda. The [[Page H 8389]] language which the gentleman seeks to take out says basically two things: Those who receive these gifts of taxpayers' dollars, first, cannot use any of the taxpayers' money for lobbying; and, second, if they want these handouts from the Federal Government, then they should not use any more than 5 percent of their other money for any type of lobbying activity. That 5 percent parallels restrictions already placed on nonprofit organizations through the IRS code. They are not prohibited from activity. Their free speech rights are reserved, but no longer will taxpayers' money be used for welfare for lobbyists, Mr. Chairman. Public money should not be used to try to promote bigger Government, bigger taxes, greater expenditures, and more feeding at the Federal trough. That is what the language seeks to do, which we desire to preserve by defeating the Skaggs amendment. Mr. Chairman, organizations that are on the public dole should not claim it as free speech. It is taxpayer subsidized speech. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we will later have the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to address the constitutional issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay], the majority whip.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out what often seems to be forgotten. We are not talking about free speech. We are talking about people who expect the taxpayers to buy them a microphone or a broadcasting studio or a printing press. We are talking about groups that ask for and receive billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Certainly we would not wish to visit that upon the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire whether the extra time consumed by the last speaker would not be charged against the time of the other side?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, many horrible things happen in life. We try to remedy them. Not all of them can be remedied from Washington, DC. We have a system of government with 50 States that have obligations to their people. Mr. Chairman, we are covering victims of rape and incest under the amendment that is now in the bill. Everyone lives in a State that is eligible for Federal funds to pay for an abortion procedure for a victim of rape and incest under Medicaid funding, every single State in the country. It is then the choice of the State whether to do so. Thirty-six States, far and away the majority of the States in this country, have declared through their people the public policy that says, ``We are not going to use our funds to do that.'' If these people have a complaint, let them take it to their home States. They uphold, I am sure, their State governments and their State legislatures. If they have a gripe with them, take it to them. They do not want to do that. Our constitutional system says they should, but they do not wish to follow it. They intend for Washington to be in charge of everything, and as difficult as it may be sometimes, we must let the States make tough choices, not say that they are all the responsibility to be made in Washington. When he was Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton wrote, ``I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions.'' That was in 1986. He said he opposed what these people now proposes, and then in 1993, as President, he had a directive issued telling States they must do so. Just because he flip-flopped does not mean we should. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Kolbe amendment and ask the vote accordingly.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who has been the sponsor of that, and we have heard about the language of the amendment, to explain the true situation.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, despite what some people may claim, the law of 36 States are in jeopardy if we do not defeat the Kolbe motion, including the laws of the gentleman's own State. Mr. Chairman, these are the States whose laws are being overturned by the Clinton administration directive: 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to uphold the laws of those States against the people who are trying to say that Washington will overrule them and Washington will control all the important issues. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLAY].

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

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Twice this year, Mr. [[Page H 8372]] Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has seen fit to include the language which is currently in the bill which the gentleman from Arizona seeks to strike. Mr. Chairman, this is not about access to abortion. This is about under what circumstances will the taxpayers of the United States and of the individual States be compelled to pay for individual's abortions. Under the language previously of this Congress, until the Clinton administration, States had the option, but were not compelled, to provide public funding for rape and incest abortions. However, a directive issued by the Clinton administration in December 1993 told the States that they must ignore their own laws and must provide State funds for those abortions. Mr. Chairman, this directive of the Clinton administration over turned the laws of 36 States. I rise in support of 36 of the United States of America, Mr. Chairman, who have seen fit to have a standard different than what the gentleman from Arizona seeks to impose. The language that is currently in the bill makes it clear that the ability of States to combine state money with Federal money to pay for abortions in case of rape and incest is an option. They may choose to exercise it, but they are not compelled to do it. The gentleman from Arizona would wish to have the states compelled, as the Clinton administration desires. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Oklahoman, Paul Harvey, recently gave this commentary on the budget debt and the cronic budget deficit. This reemphasizes the importance of our work on balancing the budget within the next 7 years and reversing the trend of Federal budgets of the past. It is important for Congress to continue working to restore fiscal integrity to the Federal Government. [Paul Harvey commentary follows:] Too Many Alarms There are too many alarms going off: Americans are refusing to heed any of them. Seismologists predict quakes which may or may not happen and about which we can't do anything anyway. Even the sky is falling, as ten thousand hunks of space junk wait their turn for re-entry. Daily headlines threaten us with invasions of killer ants, killer bees and killer diseases for which we have no cure. And so it is that it is that a time bomb more certain than any of these is mostly ignored. We are about to be buried alive under a national debt of 4.8 trillion dollars and it's growing 10 thousand dollars a second! But are not both the President and the Congress promising to defuse the bomb? They are. President Clinton says he can balance the budget in ten years; Congress talks of doing it in seven. But nobody is doing it! And history justifies anxiety. The President who promises to balance the budget in ten years told Larry King in June of 1992 that he'd accomplish that objective in five years. However, instead of presenting a balanced budget in 1993-- the year he took office--he increased our debt by $253 billion. Then, instead of presenting a balanced budget in 1994, he increased our debt another $203 billion. Then, instead of presenting a balanced budget for 1995, he proposed a budget that would increase our debt another $320 billion. Then, instead of promoting Congress' plan to balance the budget in seven years, he's threatening to veto it claiming that that's going too fast! Now, a full three years after Mr. Clinton promised to present a five-year plan to balance the budget, he is promising--oh, so promising--to balance the budget in ten. If the situation were less dire . . . if the time bomb were not so big and so unstable perhaps we could wait and see and hope and pray that this time--this time--something will be done. We must not wait. Even Newt Gingrich says it may take ten years. We may not have ten years. Every child born today will pay a lifetime tax rate of over 82%. Every child born tomorrow will pay $187,000 in taxes for the interest on what we owe. That's just the interest . . . $187,000 in Interest on our debt. Every American man, woman and child will owe $24,000 by the year 2000, and that, by the way, is just one presidential election away.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with Mr. Stump, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, regarding concerns raised by some veterans service organizations about the definition of grants in the provision of H.R. 2127 prohibiting use of Federal grants for political advocacy. They have long been furnished space and office facilities, if available, by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the free assistance and representation of veterans by veterans service organizations in making claims for their veterans benefits. The furnished space and facilities are specifically authorized by section 5902 of title 38. The VA is authorized under section 5902 to recognize the veterans representatives as well. Chairman Stump has informed me that the furnishing of space and office facilities for this purpose has never been considered a grant to veterans service organizations. The free assistance given to veterans by the service organizations is in fact of considerable benefit and value to the Government because the Government itself is legally obligated to assist veterans in making their claims. Furthermore, Chairman Stump has emphasized to me that the assistance and representation given to veterans by the veterans service organizations has not involved political advocacy in any way, shape, or form. The assistance has been solely for the purpose of helping individual veterans to make their claims for VA benefits. This free representation for veterans by veterans service organizations is unique. I know of nothing else like it and I want to see it continued. Therefore, I want to make it crystal clear that there is no intent for this measure to apply to section 5902 of title 38. It does not. I have assured the veterans service organization that I will make every effort to make the legislation more specific about this point during conference.