[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13663-H13664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              DEFEAT ISTOOK AMENDMENT TO LOBBY REFORM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage with the 
Istook amendment we will be voting on that will impede with the 
fundamental right of Americans--particularly nonprofit organizations to 
advocate with their Government--their Representatives.
  Let me first make it clear that I find this whole censorship effort 
reprehensible. But what makes it truly despicable is that it is 
specifically crafted to deal only with certain kinds of grants from the 
Government--the kind that go to people they do not like. People who 
might dare to oppose their extremist agenda.
  What I mean is this: Mr. Istook's own testimony on behalf of his 
original amendment cited two Supreme Court decisions in which the court 
specifically stated that there are two kinds of Federal benefits that 
put taxpayer dollars in an organization's pocket: Grants, and tax 
exemptions and deductions. The Supreme Court came right out and said it 
point blank. Both Mr. Istook's original and more controversial 
amendment and the one he offers here today allegedly rely on these 
decisions. But when it came time to put this amendment down on paper, 
he decided he was only interested in one kind of benefit--the grants--
completely ignoring the court's specific finding that tax-exemptions 
are a form of subsidy which have much the same effect as a cash grant. 
What a curious oversight. The court names just two 

[[Page H 13664]]
things--just two--but when Republicans wrote the bill, they managed to 
forget half of that short list.
  What is the effect of this oversight? The American Heart Association 
is restricted. The American Red Cross is restricted. The Girl Scouts 
are restricted. They are restricted because they get grants. But the 
Speaker's network of think tanks and pet projects--such as the Progress 
and Freedom Foundation, Earning by Learning, National Empowerment 
Television and the like--can take tax-deductible donations and keep 
their money tax-free. And do they take money? Yes, millions from the 
Speaker's political supporters. And what do they do with it? They 
videotape Mr. Gingrich's speeches and sell them. They use the money to 
produce a weekly television show starring the Speaker. In short, the 
Speaker uses their activities to promote his political agenda--and it 
is all done on the taxpayer dollar. All tax-exempt.
  What did the Supreme Court say about that? Mr. Istook has told us 
that they said tax-exemptions were the same as cash grants. If so, then 
why is there no mention of tax-exemptions in this amendment? The 
Progress and Freedom Foundation gets no grants, so this amendment will 
not stop them from sending every Member a so-called ``briefing'' on why 
the telecommunications industry needs reform, and coincidentally that 
it should be reformed in precisely the way Speaker Gingrich 
suggests. But the Supreme Court, and more importantly Mr. Istook, said 
their money is just as much ``welfare for lobbyists'' as a grant is.

  All of you have received numerous briefings from the National Center 
for Policy Analysis supporting Medical Savings Accounts, an idea which 
actually wormed its way into the bill which cut Medicare by $270 
billion. Has anyone figured out why? The Republicans said they were 
impressed by the savings these accounts could achieve. But the CBO says 
these accounts will actually cost the Government $3.5 billion. Of 
course, the savings were based on numbers produced by the think tank 
itself, and were then used to lobby Members. This think tank, by the 
way, is a tax-exempt organization. Distribution of their briefings was 
essentially lobbying. That means that the National Center for Policy 
Analysis lobbied Members with taxpayer dollars.
  But what does this amendment do about it? Nothing. Why? Does it have 
anything to do with the fact that the National Center for Policy 
Analysis is heavily funded by a major backer of the Speaker's Progress 
and Freedom Foundation, the shadowy GOPAC organization, and others of 
the Speaker's funds?
  Consider also that this big-time financial backer is also the CEO of 
the Golden Rule Insurance Co., the country's biggest marketer of 
medical savings accounts. In other words, a big financial backer of the 
Speaker's has used his tax-deductible contributions to fund a tax-
exempt lobbying campaign designed to result in legislation that would 
bring huge profits to his company. Later this week, they will try to 
rake in still more by including medical savings accounts in the Federal 
employee health benefits plan. Ironically, the hearing on the subject 
will be before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee--the very 
committee which has written and promoted the Istook language. Does this 
bother anyone?
  It bothers me, but it apparently does not bother the supporters of 
the Istook amendment. They do not protest while big money buys out 
American politics, piece by piece. In fact, they now offer legislation 
designed to facilitate the process.
  This Istook amendment is a sham. It deserves defeat. Let us not stop 
the Association for Retarded Citizens, the YMCA, and other voices of 
the little guy from advocating with their Government while we let fat 
cat special interests lobby to maintain huge profits, and then write 
off the expenses as tax deductions.

                          ____________________