[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14528-14533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       A STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. My conscience has compelled me to come to the floor today 
to voice concerns I have with the influence Grover Norquist, the 
president of Americans for Tax Reform, has on the political process in 
Washington. My issue is not with ATR's goal of keeping taxes low. Like 
Ronald Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that the people 
are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.''
  I want to be perfectly clear: I do not support raising taxes on the 
American people. My concern is with the other individuals, groups and 
causes with whom Mr. Norquist is associated that have nothing to do 
with keeping taxes low.
  Among them:
  One, Mr. Norquist's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff 
essentially laundered money through ATR and Mr. Norquist knew it.
  Two, his association and representation of terrorist financier and 
vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also is associated with 
terrorist financier Sami al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to 
conspiring to provide services to Palestinian Islamic jihad.
  Three, Mr. Norquist's lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae.
  Fourth, Mr. Norquist's representation of the Internet gambling 
industry.
  Fifth, Mr. Norquist's advocacy of moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to 
the United States, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
  Simply put, I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited 
from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream. I 
also believe that Mr. Norquist has used the ATR ``pledge'' as leverage 
to advance other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate 
and, when taken as a whole, should give people pause.
  I raise these concerns today in the context of dealing with the 
future of our country. America is in trouble. Unemployment is over 9 
percent. Housing values continue to decline. Retirement accounts are 
threatened. The American people are worried. Yet Washington is 
tragically shackled in ideological gridlock. Some are dead set against 
any change to entitlement programs, while others insist that any 
discussion of tax policy is off the table.
  We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands 
that every piece of the budget be scrutinized, and that means more than 
just cutting waste, fraud and abuse and discretionary programs. The 
real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement 
costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our Tax 
Code. Until we reach an agreement that addresses those two drivers of 
our deficit and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state. 
Everything must be on the table, and I believe how the ``pledge'' is 
interpreted and enforced by Mr. Norquist is a roadblock to 
realistically reforming our Tax Code.
  When Senator Tom Coburn recently called for eliminating the special 
interest ethanol tax subsidy, who led the opposition? Mr. Norquist. 
Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? 
Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, tax 
earmarks are far worse because, once enacted, they typically exist in 
perpetuity. Have we really reached a point where one person's demand 
for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a 
discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?
  I understand that some may not agree with what I say. I know many are 
not aware of Mr. Norquist's associations. But my conscience compels me 
to speak out today. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of 
pledges--and I respect those differences--but the issue is with the 
interpreter and the

[[Page 14529]]

enforcer of a pledge. William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian 
and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues: ``Having heard all of 
this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say 
you did not know.''
  I urge my colleagues to read my full statement in the Record, which 
will also be posted on my Web page, going into greater detail on the 
issues I have raised.


                       A STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE

  Mr. Speaker, every day, brave men and women in our armed forces and 
their families are sacrificing for our country--many making the 
ultimate sacrifice. Despite the danger, they rise to the occasion. At 
this time of political and economic crisis, will the Congress and the 
president match their courage? Will we rise to the occasion?
  Every member of Congress and the president know the dire economic 
situation facing our country. A debt load well over $14.5 trillion. 
Annual deficits over $1 trillion.
  A separate but some believe even more important challenge is 
addressing the over $62 trillion in unfunded obligations and 
liabilities on the books for entitlements including Social Security, 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  We always say we want to leave our country better than we found it 
and to give our children and grandchildren hope for the future. But if 
we do not change course, the debt burden will crush future generations. 
Every penny of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and 
entitlement spending by 2028. Every penny. That means no money for our 
national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix our 
nation's crumbling infrastructure. No money for cancer research.
  The uncertainty about our nation's economic future is undermining 
employer and consumer confidence, preventing the recovery we so 
desperately need to get Americans back to work.
  According to the most recent jobs data, the economy failed to add a 
single net job during August 2011. Not one. The nation's unemployment 
rate continues to hover above 9 percent.
  We hear from our constituents every day that they are worried about 
their jobs. They are worried about the value of their houses. They are 
worried about their investments and retirement plans.
  Furthermore, we face these challenges not in a vacuum, but in an 
increasingly competitive and dangerous world filled with those who 
would stand to benefit from an America in decline. Among our biggest 
``bankers'' are China--which is spying on us, where human rights are an 
afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan 
monks are jailed for practicing their faith--and oil-exporting 
countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on 
the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al 
Qaeda.
  At a time when strong leadership is needed to address this fiscal 
crisis, it is unfortunate that President Obama has continually failed 
to lead by example. He even walked away from the recommendations of his 
own fiscal commission.
  And just last month, on September 16, the Washington Post reported 
that President Obama is once again walking away from any serious effort 
to address the deficit and debt by removing any discussion of Social 
Security from the debt negotiations. Once again, the president is not 
only failing to lead, but obstructing the process to find a bipartisan 
agreement on deficit reduction.
  The president and some on the other side of the aisle say that this 
debt crisis is because Americans are undertaxed. In fact, the president 
just proposed paying for another round of temporary stimulus spending 
by permanently limiting charitable tax deductions. He knows that even 
members of his own party would never support this. I don't support this 
either.
  Like President Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that 
people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too 
much.'' There is no question that the real problem is overspending, 
especially on runaway entitlement costs and through hundreds of 
billions of so-called tax expenditures.
  It is no secret that our inefficient and burdensome tax code is 
undermining consumer and business confidence further weakening our 
fragile economic recovery. Comprehensive tax reform is needed now more 
than ever to rid our tax code of earmarks and loopholes that promote 
crony capitalism and let Washington pick winners and losers.
  Yet we sit here today shackled in ideological gridlock. Some insist 
that any discussion of tax policy is off the table. Others reject any 
change in entitlement programs.
  On the Democrat side, MoveOn.org and other liberal interests tie the 
hands of Democrat members, threatening them should they break ranks on 
any deficit reduction plan that touches social programs.
  On the Republican side, Grover Norquist holds up the Americans for 
Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge to block even the mention of 
putting tax reform on the table for discussion as part of a deficit 
reduction agreement.
  For over five years I have pushed bipartisan legislation to set up an 
independent commission to develop a comprehensive deficit reduction 
package that would require an up-or-down vote by the Congress. I have 
said that the enormity of the crisis we face demands that everything 
must be on the table for discussion--all entitlement spending, all 
domestic discretionary spending, and tax policy; not tax increases, but 
reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer and free from special 
interest earmarks.
  I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis: the 
Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort, and the 
``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill--including the Balanced Budget Amendment. 
None of these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps 
necessary to rebuild and protect our economy.
  Powerful special interests continue to hold this institution hostage 
and undermine every good faith effort to change course.


                           POLITICAL PLEDGES

  Some may ask: what's the big deal in signing a pledge by a special 
interest group to articulate a candidate's position on a political 
issue?
  Pledges are not new to politics, but conservatives have long 
recognized their danger. In 1774 during an address to the electors of 
Bristol, the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, refused to bind 
himself to a pledge during the campaign and renounced their ``coercive 
authority.''
  Burke said that an elected representative's ``unbiased opinion, his 
mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice 
to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. . . . They are a trust 
from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your 
representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and 
he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your 
opinion.''
  More recently, preeminent American conservative academic Russell Kirk 
identified the principal qualities of a conservative leader. Kirk urged 
conservatives to follow Burke's example and to be prudent. According to 
Kirk, ``to be `prudent' means to be judicious, cautious, sagacious. 
Plato, and later Burke, instruct us that in the statesman, prudence is 
the first of the virtues. A prudent statesman is one who looks before 
he leaps; who takes long views; who knows that politics is the art of 
the possible.''
  Conservatives of all people should not be locked into any ideological 
position. We are bearers of a conservative tradition. Conservatism is 
not an ideology; it's not doctrine or dogma. It is a way of seeing 
life. It draws on the wisdom of the past to view events of the present. 
We all stand on the shoulders of the great people who have gone before 
us. That is why G. K. Chesterton described our experiment as 
``democracy of the dead'' because we care about the foundation laid by 
our forefathers.
  Burke's wisdom was succinctly summarized by Governor Jeb Bush, who 
told the Washington Post's Michael Gerson in July, ``I never raised 
taxes. I'm pro-life. But I don't recall signing any of those pledges. 
You don't hide your beliefs. You persuade people. You win or lose. And 
if you win, you are not beholden to anyone or anything other than your 
own beliefs.''
  I don't sign or support political pledges. Reasonable people can 
disagree about the philosophical merits of signing pledges--and I 
respect those differences. But even for those who do, I think everyone 
can recognize that the real danger of pledges lies with the ideologues 
who claim ownership of the interpretation and enforcement of the 
pledge.
  Since 1986, Grover Norquist has asked every candidate for office to 
sign the ``Taxpayer Protection Pledge.'' He is the owner of the pledge, 
which he says binds the signer in perpetuity to oppose any and all tax 
increases, as determined solely by Norquist. He even locks the pledges 
in a safe. He has become the self-anointed protector and if anyone 
dares challenge him, be prepared for retribution.
  Jason Horowitz, in a July 12 Washington Post article reported: ``The 
sacred texts from which Grover Norquist draws his political power are 
hidden in a secret fireproof safe.''
  He quotes Norquist: ``I keep the originals in a vault, in case D.C. 
burns down. When someone takes the pledge, you don't want it tampered 
with; you don't want it destroyed.''
  In his own words in the October 2011 edition of The American 
Spectator, Norquist says,

[[Page 14530]]

``Take the Pledge, win the primary. Take the Pledge, win the general. 
Break the Pledge, lose the next election.''
  Columnist Robert Samuelson, in a July 10 Washington Post piece 
pointed out, ``just in case you hadn't noticed, no one has elected 
Grover Norquist to anything. Still, he looms as a major obstacle to 
Congress reaching a deficit-reduction agreement. . . .''
  Samuelson continued: ``[B]ut what's revealing about Norquist's 
passionate advocacy is that it virtually ignores the main causes of 
bigger government: Social Security and Medicare.''
  I agree that entitlement spending is the 800-pound gorilla in the 
room. The hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our tax code 
also must be dealt with. Until we reach an agreement that addresses 
these two drivers of our deficits and debt, we cannot right our fiscal 
ship of state.
  We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands 
that every slice of the budget be scrutinized. As I said before, 
everything must be on the table.
  Have we really reached a point where one person's demand for 
ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a 
discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?
  It is curious that Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, 
yet his purist pledge has no mention of working to reform the tax code 
to make it simpler and fairer to average American taxpayers.


                          ATTACKS ON CONGRESS

  We recently witnessed Norquist's zealotry in action as he worked to 
stop Senator Tom Coburn's call for eliminating the ethanol tax subsidy. 
Senator Coburn signed Norquist's pledge, but he dared to call for a 
change in the tax code to eliminate spending through the tax code.
  In signing the pledge, a candidate promises to: ``one, oppose any and 
all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals 
and/or businesses; and two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of 
deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further 
reducing tax rates.''
  In Mr. Norquist's way of thinking, for Senator Coburn to pursue a 
change in the tax code to cut a tax earmark, he was breaking the 
pledge. Norquist accused this honorable member of Congress of lying his 
way into office.
  In his recent report, Back to Black, Senator Coburn identified nearly 
$1 trillion in annual spending through the types of tax earmarks that 
Grover Norquist defends. Many of these earmarks are designed to benefit 
special interests. NASCAR, dog and horse tracks, tackle box makers, 
railroads, mohair producers, hedge fund managers, ethanol producers, 
automakers, and video game developers--all receive tax breaks which 
subsidize their businesses.
  A September 10, 2011, New York Times article reported, ``the federal 
government gave $123 billion in tax incentives to corporations in 2010, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.'' The article highlighted 
one example of unnecessary and wasteful tax earmarks, stating that tax 
``breaks for the video game industry--whose domestic sales of $15 
billion a year now exceed those of the music business--are a vivid 
example of a tax system that defies common sense.''
  But, according to Mr. Norquist's pledge, anyone who opposes the 
myriad of tax subsidies that allowed General Electric to avoid paying 
taxes last year would violate ``the pledge.'' The average American 
family last year paid more in taxes than GE, which has aggressively 
offshored thousands of jobs to China and has been actively transferring 
American technology to the Chinese government, according to an August 
23, 2011, article in The Washington Post by Howard Schneider.
  Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? 
Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, these 
``tax earmarks'' are far worse because once enacted they exist in 
perpetuity. Tax earmarks last for multiple spending cycles--piling up 
as special interest lobbies succeed in getting more special treatment 
for their clients. At the end of the day, whether a spending earmark or 
a tax earmark, the federal government is picking winners and losers, 
and the losers are hard-working Americans who are looking to us to 
reduce their tax rates.
  I stand with Senator Coburn. I don't want to increase marginal tax 
rates on hard-working Americans; I want to lower them by ridding the 
tax code of the loopholes and special interest earmarks. If we can 
reform the code in that way, we can lower marginal tax rates.
  I would submit that Mr. Norquist has every interest in protecting 
these special interest tax earmarks because that is how he earns his 
living. A review of his lobbying disclosure forms demonstrate how many 
special interest issues he lobbies on and how little they have to do 
with reforming the tax code to lower tax rates on all Americans.
  I would also submit that Mr. Norquist's pledge--which candidates sign 
to indicate their opposition to tax increases--has morphed into a 
powerful mechanism for Mr. Norquist to ensure that favored tax earmarks 
to select industries remain untouched, thus preventing comprehensive 
tax reform.
  I believe it is fair to ask: just who is Grover Norquist and how has 
he amassed such perceived political power inside Washington?
  Numerous federal investigations, reports, and public documents point 
to Grover Norquist using his network of organizations--Americans for 
Tax Reform (ATR), his former and now defunct lobbying firm Janus-
Merritt Strategies, and the Islamic Free Market Institute--in 
questionable ways, raising money in business activities with people who 
have been in serious criminal trouble.
  A survey of Mr. Norquist's associates reveals that some of his 
closest business partners and clients have been convicted of crimes and 
have served time in prison or are currently serving, including Jack 
Abramoff, David Safavian, and Dickie Scruggs, as well as convicted 
terrorist supporters Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian.
  More recently, according to news reports, Mr. Norquist has been an 
outspoken advocate for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United 
States, including 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed to New York 
City. He also interjected himself into the debate about the proposed 
``Ground Zero Mosque'' last summer.
  I want to be clear: I raise these issues not just because Mr. 
Norquist's associates may be unsavory people. There are many lobbyists 
in Washington who represent clients of all stripes and backgrounds. But 
my concern arises when the appearances of impropriety are raised over 
and over again with a person who has such influence over public policy. 
That, I believe, should give any fair-minded person pause.


                            ABRAMOFF SCANDAL

  Norquist's role in the Jack Abramoff scandal has been well documented 
by federal investigators, including the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs' 2006 report, Gimme Five--Investigation of Tribal Lobbying 
Matters. Investigators found that Messrs. Norquist and Abramoff 
developed a secretive relationship under which Mr. Abramoff directed 
the Choctaw tribe to make payments to Americans for Tax Reform, which, 
in turn, transferred the money to Ralph Reed's advocacy firm--after 
taking a ``management fee,'' which averaged $25,000 per transaction, 
for agreeing to serve as Abramoff's conduit, according to the 
committee's report.
  According to the same Senate report, ``Abramoff said that keeping the 
arrangement with Norquist and ATR a secret was important. After all, 
Abramoff wrote `[w]e do not want opponents to think we are trying to 
buy the tax payer [sic] movement.'''
  Again, according to the Senate report, ``On May 20, 1999, Norquist 
had asked Abramoff, `What is the status of the Choctaw stuff. I have a 
$75K hole in my budget from last year. Ouch [sic].' Thus in the fall of 
1999, Abramoff reminded himself to `call Ralph [Reed] re Grover doing 
pass through.' When Abramoff suggested the Choctaw start using ATR as a 
conduit, the Tribe agreed.''
  In February 2000, according to the Senate report, Mr. Abramoff 
contacted Mr. Reed in advance of a series of $300,000 payments to ATR 
to warn him that, ``I need to give Grover something for helping, so the 
first transfer will be a bit lighter.''
  The degree to which Mr. Norquist was financially benefiting by 
laundering Mr. Abramoff's money was detailed in the Senate report:
  ``On February 17, 2000 Abramoff advised Reed that `ATR will be 
sending a second $300K today.' This money, too, came from the Choctaw. 
Norquist kept another $25,000 from the second transfer, which 
apparently surprised Abramoff.
  ``On March 2, 2000, Abramoff told [Choctaw liaison] Rogers that he 
needed `more money asap' for Reed, and requested `a check for $300K for 
Americans for Tax Reform asap.'
  ``Abramoff's executive assistant Susan Ralston asked him, `Once ATR 
gets their check, should the entire $300k be sent to the Alabama 
Christian Coalition again?'
  ``Abramoff replied, `Yes, but last time they sent $275K, so I want to 
make sure that before we send it to ATR I speak with Grover to 
confirm.'''
  Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti wrote in his book, The K 
Street Gang, that ``between 1995 and 2002 the Mississippi

[[Page 14531]]

Choctaw donated about $1.5 million to Americans for Tax Reform.'' Mr. 
Abramoff also instructed his other clients to make regular donations to 
ATR, according to Continetti's book. However, the cumulative amount is 
unknown because Mr. Norquist refuses to identify ATR's clients, 
Continetti states.
  According to Continetti, during the same period, Mr. Norquist was 
intimately involved with the questionable activities surrounding other 
Abramoff clients, including the Marianas Islands, which is prominently 
featured in the documentary Casino Jack. As one participant in Mr. 
Norquist's Wednesday Group meetings--a weekly gathering of Mr. 
Norquist's invited guests--noted, following Mr. Norquist's 
collaboration with Mr. Abramoff, ``All of a sudden the Marianas shows 
up as one of [ATR's] number-one priority issues,'' Continetti writes.
  ``[The Norquist-Abramoff strategy] was about co-opting conservative 
journalists and intellectuals,'' wrote Continetti. ``As outlined in his 
retrospective memo, Abramoff knew from the start that a good lobbyist 
not only targeted lawmakers, he also targeted opinion makers. So 
representatives were dispatched to Norquist's Wednesday Meetings to 
preach the gospel . . . When [Abramoff's clients] visited the United 
States, Abramoff would not only make sure to shepherd them to Grover 
Norquist's Wednesday Meetings. He also billed them thousands of dollars 
for `discussions' with Norquist. He billed the Marianas for the airfare 
to send staff members of Americans for Tax Reform to Saipan. From 
National Journal: `According to sources familiar with ATR finances, the 
group sent Marianas officials a bill for $10,000 at least once in the 
mid-1990s for attendance at Norquist's tax policy dinners.' It paid to 
be a friend of Jack Abramoff.''


                           IGNORING SUBPOENAS

  It is also noteworthy that Mr. Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform 
repeatedly refused to comply with the congressional subpoenas for 
additional information regarding their role in the Abramoff affair, 
according to an April 21, 2005, article in Roll Call.
  Additionally, Mr. Norquist refused to comply with an earlier 
congressional subpoena according to a 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs 
report, which found Americans for Tax Reform in violation of its tax-
exempt status.
  Given Norquist's questionable role in the Abramoff scandal, his 
refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas is all the more 
troubling.


                         TERRORIST CONNECTIONS

  Not only was Mr. Norquist entangled with the criminal dealings of 
Jack Abramoff, but documentation shows that he has deep ties to 
supporters of Hamas and other terrorist organizations that are sworn 
enemies of the United States and our ally Israel.
  According to Senate lobbying disclosure records of his now defunct 
lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies, around the years 2000 and 2001 
Mr. Norquist's firm represented Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted 
two years later for his role in a terrorist plot and who is presently 
serving a 23-year sentence in federal prison.
  Court documents and a October 15, 2004, Department of Justice press 
release reveal that Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim 
Council, was arrested at Dulles Airport in September 2003 upon 
returning to the U.S after participating in a Libyan plot to 
assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. ``Alamoudi participated in 
recruiting participants for this plot by introducing the Libyans to two 
Saudi dissidents in London and facilitating the transfer of hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of cash from the Libyans to those dissidents to 
finance the plot,'' the release said.
  According to the DOJ press release, Alamoudi, a naturalized citizen, 
pled guilty to three federal offenses: One count of violating the 
International Emergency Powers Act; One count of false statements made 
in his application for naturalization; A tax offense involving a long-
term scheme to conceal from the IRS his financial transactions with 
Libya and his foreign bank accounts and to omit material information 
from the tax returns filed by his charities.
  It is important to point out that Alamoudi's ties to terrorist groups 
were no secret prior to his arrest.
  Alamoudi spoke at an October 2000 rally in front of the White House 
in support of Hamas and Hezbollah during the period he was represented 
by Norquist's firm, according to Senate lobbying disclosure records. 
The ``Rally Against Israeli Aggression'' was sponsored by Norquist's 
Islamic Free Market Institute, according to a September 2000 ``Islamic 
Institute Friday Brief.'' The Islamic Free Market Institute was created 
by Grover Norquist and operated out of his Americans for Tax Reform 
office in Washington, thanks to sizable start-up contributions from 
Alamoudi, according to a March 11, 2003, article in the St. Petersburg 
Times by Mary Jacoby.
  I have seen video from the rally, where Alamoudi roared from the 
stage:
  ``I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of 
Hamas, anybody supports Hamas here?''
  [Crowd cheers, ``Yes!'']
  ``. . . Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas, 
Allahu Akbar.''
  ``I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody 
supports Hezbollah here?''
  [Crowd cheers, ``Yes!'']
  A few months after the Lafayette Park rally, Alamoudi was 
photographed in Beirut at a conference attended by representatives of 
the terror groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaida, also 
according to the March 2003 St. Petersburg Times article.
  In addition to Alamoudi's outspoken support for Hamas and Hezbollah, 
he expressed private support for the 1994 terrorist attack against a 
synagogue in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 85 people and 
injured hundreds, according to a December 17, 2003, article in The 
American Spectator by Shawn Macomber, who reported: ``In a wiretapped 
conversation made public in the recent criminal complaint, he 
(Alamoudi) praises a 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires. `The Jewish 
Community Center. It is a worthy operation,' Alamoudi tells an 
unidentified man, in Arabic. `I think that the attacks that are being 
executed by bin Laden and other Islamic groups are wrong, especially 
hitting the civilian targets. Many African Muslims have died and not a 
single American has died. I prefer to hit a Zionist target in America 
or Europe . . . I prefer honestly like what happened in Argentina.''
  According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by 
reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, around 1999 Alamoudi sent 
his deputy at the American Muslim Council, Khaled Saffuri, to work 
directly for Mr. Norquist to establish the Islamic Free Market 
Institute--one of the groups that sponsored the October 2000 rally in 
Lafayette Park. The institute, chaired by Norquist and led by Saffuri, 
operated out of the Americans for Tax Reform offices here in 
Washington, according to the March 2003 article in the St. Petersburg 
Times.
  The Senate Indian Affairs Committee report revealed that Saffuri was 
closely tied to Mr. Norquist and the Abramoff scandal and received 
money from Abramoff and a front group, the American International 
Center (AIC), to partner with Abramoff's firm Greenberg Traurig on his 
``Malaysian-related interests and issues.''
  Mr. Norquist also associated with terror financier Sami Al-Arian, 
according to Mary Jacoby's reporting in March 2003, in the St. 
Petersburg Times. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ``to a charge of 
conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), 
a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. 
law,'' and is under house arrests, according to a Department of Justice 
press release. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad's ``paramilitary wing--the 
al-Quds Brigades--has conducted numerous attacks, including large-scale 
suicide bombings,'' according to the National Counterterrorism Center,
  Who is Sami al-Arian? An October 2003 federal affidavit noted that 
Al-Arian had longstanding connections to associates of al Qaeda. 
According to the affidavit, ``Sheik Rahman (the ``Blind Sheik'') 
visited Al-Arian at his residence in Tampa and spoke at his mosque.'' 
Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in U.S. prison for his role 
in the 1993 World Trade Center attack and additional terror plots. The 
federal affidavit also disclosed Al-Arian's ties with Alamoudi.
  Al-Arian's relationship with Mr. Norquist appears to have spanned 
several years. Prior to his arrest in February 2003, Sami Al-Arian 
visited Norquist's office in Washington for a meeting, also reported in 
the June 11, 2003, article in the Wall Street Journal. According to 
Continetti, Mr. Al-Arian also ``cc'd Norquist on an e-mail he sent to 
the Wall Street Journal protesting an editorial that had pointed out 
his terrorist connections.''
  Mr. Norquist himself served as a key facilitator between Al-Arian, 
Alamoudi and the White House, according to Mary Jacoby's reporting in 
March 2003 in The St. Petersburg Times. She reported that ``In June 
2001, Al-Arian was among the members of the American Muslim Council 
invited to the White House complex. . . The next month, the National 
Coalition to Protect Political Freedom--a civil liberties group headed 
by Al-Arian--gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of 
secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases.''


                        OPPOSING THE PATRIOT ACT

  Mr. Norquist also has been an outspoken supporter of Al-Arian's 
effort to end the use of classified evidence in terror trials. In fact,

[[Page 14532]]

Norquist was scheduled to lead a delegation to the White House on 
September 11, 2001, that included a convicted felon and some who would 
later be identified by federal law enforcement as suspected terrorist 
financiers.
  According to a Arab American Institute 2002 report, ``Healing the 
Nation,'' ``[o]n the day of the terrorist attacks, Arab American and 
Muslim American leaders were already in Washington, D.C. for a 
previously scheduled meeting with President Bush to discuss the use of 
`secret evidence' in certain immigration proceedings and racial 
profiling of Arab Americans at the nation's airports and security 
checkpoints.''
  I have seen the list of attendees for the scheduled meeting. Among 
those listed:
  Madhi Bray, a convicted felon who was found guilty of drug and fraud 
charges in the 1980s. Bray appeared cheering on stage with Alamoudi at 
the October 2000 rally in Lafayette Park as Alamoudi declared his 
support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
  Omar Ahmed, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations 
(CAIR). According to an April 18, 2011, Politico article by Josh 
Gerstein, ``Federal prosecutors . . . have introduced evidence in court 
of Ahmad's attendance at a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia that the FBI 
contends was a gathering of Hamas supporters seeking to undermine the 
Middle East peace process. Prosecutors [in the Holy Land Foundation 
case] have also presented documents that appear to show CAIR as part of 
a network of Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.''
  The list provided to the White House by Norquist's Islamic Institute 
included representatives from each of Norquist's organizations, 
including a Janus-Merrit lobbyist. At the top of the list: Grover 
Norquist, representing Americans for Tax Reform.
  According to a June 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal article by 
reporters Tom Hamburger and Glenn Simpson, ``Mr. Norquist helped secure 
a promise from presidential candidate Bush to moderate federal policy 
on investigating suspected illegal immigrants. In a nationally 
televised debate on Oct. 11, 2000, Mr. Bush said: `Arab-Americans are 
racially profiled in what's called secret evidence . . . We've got to 
do something about that.' Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House 
has abandoned that promise, as the Justice Department has aggressively 
pursued prosecutions of Muslims allegedly supporting terrorism.''
  Mr. Norquist has also led efforts over the last decade to weaken and 
repeal the PATRIOT Act, working closely with liberal groups such as the 
American Civil Liberties Union, according to a February 20, 2008, 
profile on Norquist in the Washington Examiner, ``A former lobbyist 
with the American Civil Liberties Union said privately that Norquist 
won her over when they joined forces to oppose the Bush 
administration's Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. `I was 
initially skeptical,' she said, `but I knew there was common ground on 
this issue and that we would be most powerful if we united.'''


                        GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

  More recently, Mr. Norquist has become an outspoken advocate for 
moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States. According to a 
November 16, 2009, Huffington Post article by Sam Stein, Norquist led a 
public campaign to undermine Republican-led efforts to block the Obama 
Administration's transfer of 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed to 
New York City and other terrorist detainees to Thompson Prison in 
Illinois, the first time terrorists would be held indefinitely inside 
the United States.
  The article reported that Mr. Norquist wrote that, ``moving suspected 
terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, `makes good 
sense.' Taxpayers, [Norquist wrote], have already invested $145 million 
in the facility, which has been `little used.' The scaremongering about 
these issues should stop,' [Norquist wrote], noting that there is 
`absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released 
into their communities.''
  Why is Mr. Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, advocating for 
one of President Obama's top campaign promises? His efforts fly in the 
face of near-unanimous congressional opposition to providing al Qaeda 
terrorists with civilian trials in U.S. courts.


                           GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

  Mr. Norquist also interjected himself into the debate about the 
proposed ``Ground Zero Mosque'' last summer, calling legitimate 
concerns about the location a ``Monica Lewinsky ploy'' by Republicans, 
according to an August 18, 2010, report by Michael Scherer on Time 
magazine's Web site. Mr. Norquist further trivialized the concerns 
saying that Republicans were, ``distracted by shiny things.''
  Mr. Norquist even used Americans for Tax Reform to circulate a 
petition in support of the ``Ground Zero Mosque.'' Patrick Gleason, 
director of state affairs for Americans for Tax Reform, wrote an August 
17, 2010, letter to state affiliates urging them to share the petition 
with their coalition.
  Why would Americans for Tax Reform circulate a petition in support of 
the ``Ground Zero Mosque?'' For the families of those who lost loved 
ones on 9/11 or during operations in the War on Terror, concerns about 
the ``Ground Zero Mosque'' were neither a ploy nor a distraction, as 
Norquist described it.


                               FANNIE MAE

  Some also may not be aware of Mr. Norquist's lobbying for Fannie Mae. 
Lobbying disclosure records indicate that Norquist's lobbying firm, 
Janus-Merrit Strategies, also lobbied for the massive government 
sponsored enterprise that required a large federal bailout.
  According to a May 18, 2011, report by Erick Erickson on the 
conservative Web site, Red State, ``in 2000, Janus Meritt received 
$120,000 in lobbying fees from Fannie Mae. Mr. Norquist, along with 
[David] Safavian, was listed as one of the main lobbyists on the Fannie 
Mae account. In disclosure records, Janus-Meritt says its lobbying 
activities related to a `Home ownership tax.' It appears this lobbying 
work was designed to protect the homeownership tax credit, which 
[Fannie Mae executive] Franklin Raines described as key to `increase 
homeownership in urban and rural areas.' As many conservatives believe, 
this credit, which Mr. Norquist and Safavian apparently defended, was a 
major contributing factor in the housing bubble and mortgage crisis.''


                     INTERNET GAMBLING AND CASINOS

  Mr. Norquist also has a long history of lobbying to spread Internet 
gambling. According to public lobbying disclosure reports, Norquist's 
clients at Janus-Meritt included a variety of gambling organizations, 
including the Interactive Gaming Council, organized to oppose the 
Republican-led effort to pass the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. It 
is also worth noting that the Interactive Gaming Council was made up of 
online poker companies, including Full Tilt Poker, which was shut down 
by the FBI in April and is described by the Justice Department as a 
``massive Ponzi scheme.''
  As recently as January 2011, Senate lobby disclosure forms show that 
Mr. Norquist continues to lobby on expanding Internet poker issues in 
his capacity as president of Americans for Tax Reform. Why would Mr. 
Norquist and ATR have an interest in lobbying to overturn the Unlawful 
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act?
  The Washington Times reported on September 21, 2011, that ``critics 
of expanded gambling worry that legalizing online poker will increase 
gambling addiction and its fallout, such as divorces, bankruptcies and 
suicides. `People may not understand how highly addictive it is, when 
you're alone in your home,' said Jerry Prosapio, co-founder of Gambling 
Exposed and a self-confessed gambling addict who quit 28 years ago. 
`Online gambling is just another way you're going to create more 
addiction and then you're going to see more crime. It's just no good 
for America.'''
  Mr. Norquist also took money from other gambling interests, like the 
Venetian Casino Resort, according to a March 31, 2006, article by 
Michael Kranish in the Boston Globe.
  I think it is fair to ask: whose bidding is Grover Norquist doing? 
Why would Americans for Tax Reform take such a longstanding interest in 
proliferating gambling in the United States?


                             TRIAL LAWYERS

  That same 2006 Boston Globe article reported that, ``interviews and 
copies of Norquist's donor lists, obtained by the Globe, show that 
contributors include an array of special interests ranging from tobacco 
companies to Indian tribes to a Las Vegas casino. The biggest surprise 
is Norquist's largest individual donor: Richard `Dickie' Scruggs, a 
Democratic Mississippi trial lawyer, who contributed $4.3 million. 
Scruggs had received a $1 billion fee in the landmark tobacco case 
against the same tobacco companies that were also Norquist's donors.''
  The Globe reported that, ``Scruggs, like the tobacco companies and 
some other leading donors, was interested in more than lifting the 
burdens of the taxpayer. He said he had his own agenda: He wanted 
Norquist to work to defeat a congressional proposal that he feared 
would confiscate most of his $1 billion legal fee in the tobacco 
case.'' In 2008, Scruggs pled guilty to trying to bribe a judge and was 
sentenced to five years in prison.
  Why would Mr. Norquist, a self-proclaimed conservative leader, take 
so much money to represent a major Democrat party donor and advocate 
for trial lawyers? Mr. Scruggs himself provided one answer, describing 
Mr. Norquist in the Globe article, ``There is an expression, if you 
need a thief, take him from the gallows.''

[[Page 14533]]




                      INSULTING FORMER PRESIDENTS

  My colleagues may also be surprised at the tenor and arrogance of Mr. 
Norquist's public attacks on fellow Republican leaders. In an October 
2011 piece he authored in the American Spectator, Norquist personally 
insults two former Republican presidents and a former Republican 
majority leader and presidential candidate.
  Writing about former President George H.W. Bush's decision to break 
the tax pledge during his term, Norquist lashed out at Bush saying, 
``Now, no person's life is a complete waste. Some serve as bad 
examples.''
  Former President George H.W. Bush is an honorable man who dedicated 
his life to public service as a congressman, ambassador, director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency, and vice president before being 
elected president. As president he oversaw the end of the Cold War and 
led the successful liberation of Kuwait. He is also an American hero 
who enlisted in the U.S. Navy after Pearl Harbor and nearly lost his 
life after being shot down by the Japanese.
  While acknowledging former President George W. Bush's adherence to 
the pledge, Norquist still makes an indecorous allusion about the 
president, writing, ``He may invade countries he cannot pronounce or 
find on a map, but he will not raise taxes.''
  Former President George W. Bush also is an honorable man who served 
two successful terms as governor of Texas before twice being elected 
president. He rallied our nation following 9/11 attacks and led 
sweeping efforts to secure our homeland and disrupt al Qaeda, 
preventing further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during his term.
  Norquist also boasts of sinking Bob Dole's 1988 presidential 
campaign, gloating, ``Delaware governor Pete du Pont explained that all 
the other [Republican primary] candidates had signed the pledge and 
challenged Dole to do so also, offering the pledge to Dole, who visibly 
recoiled, as if a vampire being tossed a cross. Dole subsequently lost 
New Hampshire.''
  Former Senator Dole, too, is an honorable man who served his country 
as a senator and Republican presidential candidate. Dole also is an 
American hero who fought in World War II and suffered serious injury 
from Axis gunfire, leaving his arm paralyzed.


                             MOVING FORWARD

  I believe many people were unaware of these troubling connections 
that I have spoken about. I was surprised when this information came to 
my attention. I also understand that some may not agree with what I 
have said in this speech.
  But as William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and 
abolitionist, famously told his colleagues, ``Having heard all of this, 
you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that 
you did not know.''
  I can no longer be silent. I believe the evidence is clear that 
Grover Norquist is connected with a number of unsavory people and 
groups out of the mainstream. I also believe he has exploited ``the 
pledge'' to the point of being elevated at times by the media as a 
spokesman for the Republican Party.
  How can we ever hope to move our country forward and solve our debt 
problem if we are paralyzed by a pledge and threats of political 
retribution for breaking it by someone whose dealings in Washington 
over several decades have raised serious questions of impropriety? No 
one should be able to singularly hold Congress hostage with veto power 
over candidates for public office; above all someone with such 
troubling associations.
  As former Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the Bowles-Simpson 
deficit reduction commission, said in an August 7, 2011, interview with 
Newsweek ``What can [Norquist] do to you? He's not gonna murder you. He 
won't burn your house. The only thing he can do is defeat you for 
reelection. If your reelection means more than doing something for the 
United States of America and getting out of this [debt] hole, then you 
shouldn't be in Congress.''
  Barbara Shelly, editorial writer for the Kansas City Star, wrote on 
July 11, 2011: ``Washington, we know, is a planet unto itself. But here 
in the heartland, it's surreal to watch an unelected guy with a broken 
ethical compass bring the capital to a standstill and thwart the spirit 
of compromise that the majority of Americans say they want. Who elected 
Grover Norquist? He did, that's who. And Washington's political class 
has not the shame, nor the spine, to send him packing.''
  As I observe the hardened ideological positions gripping Washington 
that threaten our nation's future, my conscience has compelled me to 
share these concerns and provide this information for all to consider.
  The American people want us to resolve this debt crisis and they have 
every right to expect us to follow through. Congress and the president 
must reach a solution that will bring confidence to the country. This 
place is dysfunctional and the American people see it. They want 
action.
  I believe we must: (A) reaffirm ourselves to free America of the 
incredible debt burden that saddles the coming generations; and (B) 
break loose of not only Mr. Norquist, but any other special interest 
holding us hostage.
  We also need to be honest with the American people and explain that 
we cannot just solve our nation's financial crisis by cutting waste, 
fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. The real runaway 
spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the 
hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our tax code. Until we 
reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficit and 
debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.
  Some are speculating that our country has gone too far to recover. I 
emphatically reject that notion. Americans have a spirit and sense of 
civic duty which was implanted in us from the beginning of this 
republic. It was this sense that Tocqueville most noticed. He called it 
the great republican virtue of America--ordinary citizens willing to do 
the hard work of citizenship, helping their neighbors, sacrificing for 
the common good, and building a better future for our kids. That's been 
the hallmark of America.
  Have we lost this? I don't think so. We may be tempted to veer off 
course at times, but America is the same nation filled with the same 
dedicated, patriotic, God-loving, God-fearing people who carved this 
nation out a wilderness, and have made it an extraordinary beacon of 
hope and light in the world like none before it.
  The problem in the country is not with the people. The problem in the 
country is Washington. The system is broken because we have fallen prey 
to ideologues that have put us in a straight jacket and threaten our 
futures. I believe we can and will break free because the seriousness 
of the times demands it.
  I am one who believes America's greatest days are still ahead. All we 
have to do is recover that sense of virtue and duty, and be bold and 
brave enough to stand up and speak the truth and be true to our 
conscience.

                          ____________________