[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8142-H8143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   THE LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will consider the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I think Americans need to be aware of 
provisions that were inserted into the bill that would severely curtail 
advocacy by organizations that receive Federal grants.
  The bill currently sharply limits the amount of private money a 
Federal grantee may use to lobby elected officials, the reason being, 
ostensibly, that money is fungible. In other words, the award of 
Federal dollars makes it possible for an organization which gets a 
grant to use more of its own money for advocacy, instead of having to 
use it to provide services.
  However, Mr. Speaker, that argument is not enough to warrant placing 
unprecedented restrictions on what Americans may do with their own 
money, and certainly not enough to warrant fiddling with first 
amendment rights. Who would be subject to these limitations? Church 
groups that receive Federal funds through their city to run a homeless 
shelter, small businesses that receive loans from the SBA, low-income 
nursing mothers and infant children who use the WIC Program to 
supplement their diets, farmers who utilize federally funded irrigation 
projects, children who receive subsidized school lunches, students who 
receive a college loan. The list is endless, and the answers to the 
questions are unclear, because the bill is so ambiguous as to what 
qualifies a grant.
  In fact, the bill says that the term ``grant'' includes the provision 
of any Federal funds or other thing of value, something of value. Are 
not WIC benefits or food stamps things of value? Is not an irrigation 
system a thing of value? Is not a school lunch a thing of value? The 
sponsors of this language believe they are not, but the bill makes 
absolutely no distinction. It would be up to the courts to decide 
whether a thing of value is a grant or not under this confusing and 
wide-open definition. A person may be getting a so-called grant and not 
even know it, and if so, he will soon have to file reports to the IRS 
telling them now much he got and detailing how much money he spends 
writing to his Congressman to express his opinions. It is his right as 
an American, but he had better be prepared to report it to the 
Government.
  How ironic. How ironic it is, in an age when we are supposed to be 
shrinking the Federal bureaucracy, that the solution to the imaginary 
problem of federally subsidized advocacy is to require thousands and 
perhaps millions of people to file new forms with the IRS, reporting 
what they said to their elected representatives, and how frequently 
they said it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting an amendment to remove these 
provisions, because I do not believe they have been well thought out, 
and they certainly have not been examined thoroughly enough, given the 
sweeping changes the bill would make to the rights of Americans to 
petition their elected officials on issues of concern to them.
  Remember, we are not talking about using Federal money to lobby. That 
is already prohibited under the law. We are talking about the use of 
private money. We are talking about stopping advocacy by groups on 
behalf of, for example, the mentally or physically handicapped, if they 
receive a grant in 

[[Page H8143]]
their organization; by a college or university, if they receive a 
grant; by an antipoverty agency, if they receive a grant; by a woman's 
group if they receive a grant. The list is endless. I believe there is 
a conspiracy to silence voices in America that some do not want to hear 
from.
  However, Mr. Speaker, if the House wants to insist on going ahead 
with this ill-conceived plan and if we cannot strike the provision, 
then I intend to offer an amendment that will put more people on a 
level playing field. The bill seeks only to control lobbying or 
advocacy by groups which receive Federal grants. That ignores a whole 
host of other benefits which the Federal Government provides, all of 
which makes it possible for the recipients to spend more money on 
lobbying. All of these benefits are every bit as fungible as grant 
money, yet there is no attempt to address them.
  We have newspaper accounts of tax-exempt organizations paying for 
flying politicians around the country, paying for their television ads 
or distributing materials promoting a certain political agenda. They 
are more than abundant. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is allowing 
it to go on tax-free. That is a benefit that is not only fungible, it 
is worth more than all of the grants that this bill tries to deal with.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if my amendment is passed, any politician 
that accepts tax-exempt dollars to promote his or her political agenda 
loses their Federal salary. The group that provides the money has to 
pay taxes on it. That is lobbying reform with real teeth. If the issue 
is fungibility of money, let us not give the high and mighty who have 
certain access to nonprofit organizations an opportunity to have their 
voices heard, but have the voices of Americans across the country 
silenced.

                          ____________________