[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 148 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9406-H9407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ISTOOK AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Istook amendment to restrict 
political activities by people and organizations getting any kind of 
funding or thing of value from the Federal Government seems to be 
having more lives than the proverbial cat.
  The House, of course, passed it as a rider to the Labor-Health 
appropriations bill. Now it is hanging up the House-Senate conference 
committee as a proposed rider to the Treasury-Postal Service 
appropriations.
  Let me just say to the members of the conference committee, please, 
read the text of this dog. Do not believe the descriptions of the 
amendment by its supporters. It does not just apply, as they would have 
you believe, to lobbyists or to nonprofits or, for that matter, to the 
so-called special interests. With only a very few exceptions, it 
regulates every person and every organization in this country that gets 
not only funds but anything of value from the Federal Government.
  Let us just look at one small set of people and organizations that 
would be caught up in this Orwellian net of political regulation, and 
they are the people receiving water from just one Federal water 
project, the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado Big Thompson water 
project.
  To begin with, those of us in the West know full well irrigation 
water is a thing of value. We can assure you of that. Looking at the 
text of the Istook amendment, the legal counsel for the water 
conservancy district, which distributes this water, has concluded that 
everybody getting water from the Colorado Big Thompson water project 
would be regulated under the Istook amendment.
  Here is a partial list of all the people that would be affected by 
the Istook amendment and their political activities in one part of the 
State of Colorado, 2,000 individuals and organizations, mostly farmers 
and ranchers, individuals from Larry Accord to Henry Zimmerman, some 
companies, Anderson Farms, Boulder Valley Farms, Montford of Colorado, 
Reynolds Cattle Co. Besides farmers and ranchers, others would be 
regulated, too, because they receive water from this project: Ames 
Junior College, the Archdiocese of Denver, Boulder Country Club, 
Eastman Kodak, First Christian Church, IBM, Hewlett-Packard all get 
irrigation water from this Bureau of Rec project, and because of the 
Istook amendment, would all have their so-called political advocacy 
activities regulated according to the bill.
  In addition, we could go on into other categories of persons affected 
that the sponsors of this incredible provision do not want you to know 
about, whether it is pregnant and nursing mothers getting WIC vouchers, 
disaster victims getting emergency assistance, students getting 
subsidized school lunches, whatever. What happens to all of these 
people? They face several major restrictions on how they can 
participate in the public life of their Nation and of their 
communities. So-called political advocacy activities would be 
regulated, restricted and, in many cases, prohibited including, 
depending upon how this kicks in, writing to your State legislator, 
school board member, applying for a building permit, because you are 
trying to influence a government decision, appealing the tax assessment 
on your home, writing a letter to the editor of your local paper, 
running for office or supporting someone who does. And beyond those 
things, it also attempts to regulate essentially derivative political 
activities, doing business with anybody or making a contribution to 
anybody who has exceeded the limits on political advocacy in this 
awfully ill-conceived proposal.

  This might be described as a kind of secondary boycott requirement.
  For example, hiring somebody who has been especially politically 
active would be prohibited to these people getting irrigation water. 
Can you believe that? Or buying something from a company that has just 
spent over 15 percent of its budget on ``political advocacy,'' as might 
well happen in a year and which they had to get a new building permit 
and go through a zoning change. These are the kind of restrictions that 
would be applied not only to individuals but to family farms like the 
Leister family farm that gets their irrigation water, or to big 
companies like IBM.
  What happens to them? Chilling, chilling requirements. They are 
barred from getting any kind of Federal Government support or 
assistance if in any of the previous 5 years they have spent more than 
5 percent of their own private funds engaging in an incredibly 

[[Page H 9407]]
broad range of public advocacy activities at the State, local or 
Federal level. They cannot spend any of what they received by way of 
assistance in dealing with anybody that has violated these political 
advocacy limits, and on and on and on.
  This amendment has nothing to do with ending welfare for lobbyists, 
as its supporters claim. It has everything to do with shutting down 
free and open political discussion in this country.

                          ____________________