This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------25BD33931451
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
0--------------Better Living Thru Better Living!--------------0
0  GABRIELLI WINERY: Mendocino County, California -- Yummy!   0
0     Zinfandel Reserve, ASCENZA (white-blend), Pinot-Noir    0
0------------ http://www.***.com/ ~rugosa ---------------0

--------------25BD33931451
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

        by york.interport.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA21823


Received: from mail by RTK.NET with SMTP (5.65/1.2 1997062701-las)
        id AA07634; Wed, 16 Jul 97 19:24:56 GMT
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 19:24:56 GMT





Precedence: bulk


Subject: Son of Istook Amendment to be Offered
X-Listprocessor-Version-Rtk: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

X-Mailer: Chameleon 4.6, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.

                        MEMORANDUM

Date:           July 16, 1997

From:           Alliance for Justice, Independent Sector,
                 and OMB Watch

To:             Members of Let America Speak

Subject:        Son of Istook Amendment to be Offered;
                 Action Needed ASAP

Last night we obtained a copy of an amendment that Rep. Ernest
Istook (R-OK) intends to attach to the Labor, HHS, Education
Appropriations bill to limit the advocacy voice of local
charities.  This new amendment, which we are calling Son of
Istook, would cause serious and significant harm to the
nonprofit community.  It is likely to be offered next Tuesday
morning, July 22, at a full Appropriations Committee mark-up.

Federal grantees are already prohibited from using federal
funds to lobby Congress or state legislatures.  Lobbying at the
local level with federal funds is only permissible under
certain circumstances -- when the activity is necessary,
reasonable, and related to the purposes of the grant.  The Let
America Speak coalition supports these restrictions.

The Son of Istook amendment would change this to prohibit "any
activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations
pending before the Congress, any State legislature, or a
legislative body of any political subdivision of a State."  
(emphasis added)  No exceptions.  Because less clarity exists
about the distinctions between executive and legislative
functions at the local level (e.g., are school board decisions
legislative or executive decisions), the Son of Istook
amendment would either prohibit or chill virtually all policy
communications with local governmental entities.

The Son of Istook amendment must be stopped.  This provision is
unnecessary, burdensome, and would impede communications
between nonprofits and local officials.  If Istook is
successful in attaching his amendment to the Labor, HHS
Appropriations bill, nothing would stop him from attaching such
language to all spending bills.

WE NEED YOU TO FAX AND TELEPHONE MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ASAP. We also need you to get others to make calls
and faxes.  We don't have much time, but we believe we can stop
this amendment with your help.

Below are two documents.  The first is "talking points" on why
the Son of Istook amendment is a problem.  The second is a list
of Appropriations Committee members that need to be contacted.
We have identified the highest priority targets as a starting
point.  But all Members need to be contacted.

As a separate e-mail, we are sending an analysis of the Son of
Istook amendment.  

Once again, we expect Rep. David Skaggs (D-CO) to help lead the
fight to oppose these anti-advocacy amendments.

Any questions, call Patrick Lemmon at OMB Watch (202) 234-8494

-----------------------------------------------------------
TALKING POINTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE SON OF ISTOOK AMENDMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------

Son of Istook Anti-Advocacy Amendment Should Be Opposed

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) plans to offer an amendment within
the next week to the Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations bill to limit the rights of charities
that receive federal grants from advocating on local issues.  

This Son of Istook amendment would prohibit the use of federal
grant funds to influence legislation and appropriations of "any
political subdivision of a State."  The amendment would mean
that nonprofits receiving federal grant funds could not
communicate with local officials on matters concerning many
public policies using grant funds -- even if it is required by
the grant.  

Today, lobbying with federal funds at the local level is
allowed only under certain conditions: when the activity is
necessary, reasonable, and related to the purposes of the
grant.  If a grantee does not properly abide by these
restrictions, it can be forced to reimburse the federal
government or be suspended or barred from receiving federal
grants.  The Let America Speak coalition supports current
restrictions.

The Son of Istook amendment would change this.  In doing so, it
would cause serious and significant harm to charities across
the country that are involved in the delivery of services and
work in partnership with local officials.

Major Problems with the Son of Istook Amendment
-----------------------------------------------

   o    CHARITIES NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS ON
ISSUES CENTRAL TO THE PURPOSES OF THEIR GRANTS.  For example,
in finding sites for Boys and Girls Clubs, it will be necessary
for the nonprofit to communicate with officials at city hall or
the zoning commission.  A nonprofit with a drug prevention
federal grant (even passed through the state or local
government) most likely would want to discuss findings with the
school board in order to encourage the school board to take
action.  The Son of Istook amendment would prohibit such
communications, and would, in general, seriously impair the
ability of nonprofits to carry out their grant requirements.

        Moreover, as the federal government asks state and
local governments to handle responsibilities previously
undertaken by the federal government, state and local
governments ask more of nonprofits.  The Son of Istook
amendment will unnecessarily impede such cooperation.

   o    NEARLY 15 YEARS AGO, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
ESTABLISHED THE STANDARD TO PERMIT LOBBYING WITH FEDERAL FUNDS
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. In 1983, the
Reagan White House Office of Management and Budget proposed
revisions to Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit
Organizations.  A part of that far-reaching proposal was a plan
to make unallowable for federal reimbur{*filter*}t all costs of
"political advocacy" at any level of government -- in essence,
the same proposal that Istook is now proposing.   OMB found
this an unworkable proposal and concluded:  "Since there is no
rigorous separation between legislative and executive authority
at the local level, it would be difficult to construct or
enforce a rule regarding lobbying at that level"   (49 Federal
Register 18260, 18268 (April 27, 1984)).

    o   THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE SON OF ISTOOK AMENDMENT. OMB
Circular A-122 and enforcement provisions work very
effectively.  After several years of congressional hearings,
there is still no evidence of systemic patterns of abuse by
nonprofits.  The Son of Istook amendment is nothing more than a
thinly veiled attack on charities across the country and the
services they provide.

    o   THE PROVISION WOULD CAUSE THE LABOR, HHS APPROPRIATIONS
BILL TO IMPLODE.  House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston
(R-LA) has repeatedly indicated that extraneous amendments
should not be handled through appropriations bills.  The Son of
Istook amendment is quite controversial and should not be done
through a spending bill.  There is no need to bog down the
appropriations bill in controversial and unnecessary
amendments.

*** THE SON OF ISTOOK ANTI-ADVOCACY RIDER SHOULD BE OPPOSED ***

--------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL TARGET LIST: SON OF ISTOOK AMENDMENT
--------------------------------------------------

     *indicates highest priority target

~~~ Republicans, House Appropriations Committee ~~~

Representative                  
Staff Member            
Phone  
Fax

*Bob Livingston (R-LA)
Paul Cambon
225-3015
225-0739

Joseph McDade (R-PA)
Teresa Baker
225-3731
225-9594

C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL)
Harry Glenn
225-5961
225-9764

*Ralph Regula (R-OH)
Barbara Wainmann        
225-3876
225-3059

Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Elizabeth Cavalich
225-5861
225-6498

*John Edward Porter (R-IL)
Julie DeBolt
225-4835

*Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Mary Miller
225-4601
225-0940

Joe Skeen (R-NM)
Mike Kozeliski
225-2365
225-9599

*Frank R. Wolf (R-VA)
David Whitestone
225-5136
225-0437

Tom DeLay (D-TX)
Monica Vegas-Kladakis
225-5951
225-5241

*Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)
Jason Isaak
225-2542
225-0378

Ron Packard (R-CA)
Eric Mondero
225-3906
225-0134

Sonny Callahan (R-AL)
Mike Sharpe
225-4931
225-0562

James T. Walsh (R-NY)
Ron Anderson
225-3701
225-4042

Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Kendra Turchiarolo
225-6401

David Hobson (R-OH)
Jennifer Cutcher/Kenny Kraft
225-4324
225-1984

Ernest Istook (R-OK)
Dr. Bill Duncan
225-2132
226-1463

Henry Bonilla (R-TX)
Christine Pellerin
225-4511
225-2237

Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI)
Derron Zepplin
225-5802
226-2356

Dan Miller (R-FL)
Dani Doane
225-5015
225-5015

Jay{*filter*}ey (R-AR)
Jennifer Hartman
225-3772
225-1314

Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Adam Sullivan
225-5831
226-2269

Mike Parker (R-MS)
Scott Malvaney
225-5865
225-5886

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Ed Krenik
225-5034
225-3186

Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Brett Loper
225-4306
225-3549

Michael Forbes (R-NY)
Mary Valentino
225-3826
225-3826

George Nethercutt (R-WA)
Amy Flachbart
225-2006
225-3392

Mark Neumann (R-WI)
Scott Heins
225-3031
225-3393

Randy Cunningham (R-CA)
Frank Purcell
225-5452
225-2558

Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
Jeff Kahrs
225-6216
225-3489

Zach Wamp (R-TN)
Claire McVay
225-3271
225-3271

Tom Latham (R-IA)
Paul Zurawski
225-5476
225-3301

*Anne M. Northrup (R-KY)
Kristi Craig
225-5401
225-5776

Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL)
Mark Busching
225-4876
225-4876

~~~ Democrats, House Appropriations Committee ~~~      

Representative  
Staff Member            
Phone  
Fax

*David R. Obey (D-WI)
Christina Hamilton
225-3365

Sidney R. Yates (D-IL)
Maura Reidy
225-2111
225-3493

*Louis Stokes (D-OH)
Fredette West
225-7032
225-1339

John Murtha (D-PA)
Mr. Carmen Scialabba
225-2065
225-5709

Norman D.{*filter*}s (D-WA)
Pete Modaff
225-5916
226-1176

Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN)
Marty Chester/Jessica Savran
225-4755
225-4886

Julian C. Dixon (D-CA)
Sally Johnson
225-7084
225-4091

Vic Fazio (D-CA)
Duncan McFetridge
225-5716
225-5141

W.G. "Bill" Hefner (D-NC)
Irene Schecter
225-3715
225-4036

*Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)
Lisa Levine
225-4131
225-4131

Alan B.Mollohan (D-WV)
Chris Lee
225-4172
225-4172

*Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Susan Role
225-4146
225-7711

David E. Skaggs(D-CO)
Mike Carr/Sue Hardesty
225-2161
226-3806

*Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Steve Morin
225-4965
225-5163

Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
Chris Saffert
225-2461
225-2493

Thomas Foglietta (D-PA)
Barbara Zylinski
225-4731
225-0088

Esteban Edward Torres (D-CA)
Elizabeth Kuffner
225-5256
225-9711

*Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Jenny Luray
225-6506
225-0546

Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Lucy Hand
225-4361
225-6001

*Rose DeLauro (D-CT)
James John
225-3661
225-4890

James P. Moran (D-VA)
Mike Brown
225-4376
225-0017

John W. Olver (D-MA)
Kelly Bovio
225-5335
226-1224

Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Blake Gable
225-4065
225-1655

Carrie Meek (D-FL)
Gwen Taylor
225-4506
226-0777

*David E. Price (D-NC)
Mark Harkins
225-1784
225-2014

Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Merideth Berger
225-6105
225-0350

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather B. Hamilton
Public Affairs Liaison

OMB Watch                        Phone: 202/234-5118
1742 Connecticut Ave, N.W.       Fax: 202/234-5150

Every great and commanding moment in the annals of the world is the product
of some enthusiasm.  - Emerson

Date: 7/16/97
Time: 2:57:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--------------25BD33931451--