The Conservative Caucus,Inc. National Headquartars ^50 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180 (703) 393-15: HOWARD PHILLIPS' REMARKS AT THE HAYDEN-FONDA PRESS CONFERENCE, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, iVlAY 24, 1982. Good morning. My name is Howard Phillips. I am National Director of The Conservative Caucus, which is a non-partisan, grass roots lobbying organization, with roughly 400,000 supporters throughout the United States. We have been involved over the years in a number of issues. For example, in 1977 and 1978, we helped organize the nationwide campaign against ratification of the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Surrender Treaty. In 1979 and 1980 we led the nationwide, fifty state campaign against ratification of Salt II. Currently, we are focusing considerable emphasis on a campaign which we call "Defunding the Left." We agree with Thomas Jefferson that it is sinful and tyrannical to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors. We believe that the principle incorporated in the First Amendment which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and which has been interpreted to mean that religious faiths ought not be subsidized, carries with it the implicit understanding that political faiths, likewise, ought not be subsidized. But, the fact of the matter is that, since the early 1960s, when many programs of the Great Society were instituted, literally billions of dollars in Federal funds have been used to underwrite the activities of organizations which have political axes to grind. In his State of the Union message earlier this year. President Reagan pointed out that, whereas in 1960 some $7 billion from the Federal treasury went to subsidize categorical grant programs, that number was in the neighborhood of $100 billion by the time he took office. In 1960 you had something under 200 different types of categorical grant programs, but today you have more than 500 such programs. We are here in Santa Monica today because some of the groups which have, over the years, received funding from the Federal treasury, at taxpayer expense, and which fall into this category of political activism, are groups which have been allied with Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda: groups like the Laurel Springs Institute, groups like the Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition and a number of others. Board of Directors Executive Director Director of Research Publications Howard Philhos Cdair.-ran F .Andy fdessirg. Jr and Publications Senate Issues Yearaook Peter J. Thomas, Secretary 3uS3" E, Prri ijtps Senaie Reoon Lawrence J. Straw. Jr. Treasurer Administrative Vice Chairman 3rass Roots Richard Derham Charles Orndor'f National Security Task Force Member s Reocrt J A.an ivtacKay 3rig Sen A'bion Knight. JSA Re' Ar.njat Reoort Field Coordinator Co'iser.'dtr.'e Manifesto National Director Monroe Thomas HO'/rard Philips Page 2 We believe that it is wrong for groups of this kind, whether or not they are associated with Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, to receive funding. We think it is wrong for politically active groups, whether they are liberal or conservative, to receive political funding. We object to the fact, for example, that the Department of Education, in 1981, extended an additional several hundred thousand dollars worth of funding to the Rev. Jesse Jackson through Operation PUSH-EXCEL. We would be just as critical if it were the case, which it is not, that Federal funds were going to underwrite the Rev. Jerry Falwell or his Moral Majority. At a time when President Reagan has proposed the largest budget deficits in the history of our republic, deficits which, in the opinion of Rudolph Penner of the American Enterprise Institute could, over the next four years, reach some $875 billion, it is important to rally the American people in support of cuts in non-defense spending so that they do not reach the flawed conclusion that the only way to balance the budget is by raising taxes. President Reagan will be in Los Angeles tomorrow evening, as you know, and I hope that he will, while he is here, perhaps from your accounts, perhaps from the accounts of other Californians upset about the ways in which Federal funds have been used, determine to make a change in the policy of his Administration. Just this past Friday I met briefly with David Stockman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to express my concern about a memorandum which David Stockman issued for heads of Federal departments and agencies on April 26, 1982. A copy of that memorandum is attached to the press release which is in the press kit. If you read the fine print in that memorandum, while it includes some language which we support, the bottom line is, "political advocacy groups may continue to receive grant and contract awards." We think this is an outrage. We think that President Reagan should personally intervene to do something about it and we think that there are some specific steps which any Administration ought to be called upon to take by the American public to deal with this problem. The first very simple step is for the President to require each department head and cabinet secretary to name a key person in each department and agency who has final responsibility for sign-off on discretionery grants and contracts. Second, a training program should be instituted so that people in the Reagan Administration are able to deal with the procedures and regulations that have been developed and locked-in over a period, in some cases, of 18 or 20 years. We Page 3 believe it is important for tbe communications officials of each department and agency to bring to public attention the facts about how this money is being used. We think the President should encourage men like Senator Orrin Hatch, the Chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee in the U.S. Senate, and Senator William Roth of Delaware, the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee, to hold oversight hearings, calling attention to the inappropriate uses of public funds. We think that the Freedom of Information Act should be extended so that non-profit organizations which receive Federal grants and/or contracts are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, which in many cases, is not now the case. We think that, wherever possible. Federal dollars, so long as categorical programs of this kind remain, should be issued by contract rather than by grant. We think there should be standardized government grant and contract procedures government-wide and we think there should be cross-referencing, so that people in the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, will know when a particular grant recipient is also applying for money from the Department of Education or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We think as a matter of course, members of Congress should be given detailed information about the grants and contracts going into their Congressional Districts. We want to avoid the kind of situation which has occurred in the past where grants going to one organization have been laundered through to other organizations. One example of this is the Youth Project, which during the reign of Miss Marge Tabankin at the ACTION agency, received funds, some of which were delegated to the Institute for Policy Studies. So, that is basically our message this morning. While we have a concern for and a strong disagreement with the many organizations that receive Federal funds, we also have a disagreement with the Reagan Administration which has failed to take the actions available to it to correct the situation, which is an outrage and a national disgrace. I'd be pleased to answer your questions. QUESTION; Would you please tell me what your group thinks should be subsidized, outside of defense spending - military spending? HOWARD PHILLIPS: Well, you can make a case for subsidizing a whole variety of Page 4 things. I think it is easier to narrow the issue by saying that there is a distinction to be drawn, as the Supreme Court has done, with respect to aid to parochial schools in the area of education, between funding hardware on the one hand and, on the other hand, funding the propagation of ideas. There is something very wrong when you cannot control political decision making in a free society, either through the market place of ideas or at the ballot box. When members of Congress delegate policy setting functions to people in the judiciary and the bureaucracy, they are denying the rights of citizens who expect to be able to hold those members of Congress accountable for their votes. QUESTION; Could you give me examples of what your group would be in favor of subsidizing, outside of military spending? HOWARD PHILLIPS: Well, for example, we believe that the Federal government does have a responsibility, as set forth in the Constitution, to provide for the common defense, promote domestic tranquility, provide for the general welfare, etc. By and large, the purpose of the Federal government is limited to those functions specifically assigned to it, with the rest remaining to the states. We think welfare is not a proper Federal function. We think that defense is. We think that in some cases, in terms of Federal enclaves, there are certain types of construction expenditures which would be appropriate. But, by and large, we would say that the burden of proof would be on the Federal government to argue that an area of expenditure is appropriate, rather than on the citizenry to argue that it is not. QUESTION: Do you feel that all the groups listed in this magazine, the 30 liberal groups, and those others that do probably receive Federal funding are inappropriate for such? HOWARD PHILLIPS; Indeed, we do, because they have a politically activist character.