Ron Kind

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 2344, the Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act. But I do so with a word of caution. This legislation would allow certain farmers who have been hit hard by disastrous weather and crop disease to receive their 1999 Freedom to Farm market transition payments on October 1, 1998. It is important, however, that we not fool ourselves into thinking that this is a cure- all. While the farm economy desperately needs this money, all this bill really does is permit needy farmers to receive the payments they would normally use to pay for their Spring planting early. The real question is, what happens next Spring? While this bill is a first-step to help the depressed agriculture industry, this bill does not address the basic discrimination built into the 1996 Farm Bill. Instead it just postpones the inevitable. Unlike producers of most other commodities, dairy farmers did not receive seven-year transition payments. Like those other commodities, dairy is being asked to reform its outdated system and compete on the world market without the benefit of these payments. Dairy prices are very volatile and the industry is undergoing tremendous structural change. Unfortunately, while I am happy to help hard-pressed farmers of other regions, I am very disappointed that this Congress is incapable of helping the American dairy farmer. This bill is yet another instance which points out the inequity of this country's agriculture policy. Mr. Speaker, when considering farm emergency assistance, this Congress must not forget the plight of the American dairy farmer.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Freshman Finance Reform Task Force, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill. Madam Chairman, today we are finally given an opportunity to vote on meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. This vote is long overdue. For almost two years we have heard about the abuses in the campaign finance system. We have heard from our constituents that they feel their voice has been drowned out by the big money special interests who push their own agenda. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from leaders in Washington who say they want to clean up our elections yet have failed to allow a vote on changing the system until now, when it is too late to effect this year's elections. There are many members of this body who are committed to reform of our broken campaign finance system. I applaud the efforts of my friends Congressman Shays and Meehan for their courageous leadership on this issue. The Shays/Meehan substitute is a good bill and I will support it's passage. The Shays/Meehan substitute will take the biggest money out of the political process and finally bring some control to the independent expenditures that have come to dominate our elections. It is a good first step to fix a problem that has no simple solution. I have been working over the past year and a half with a bipartisan coalition of freshman members of Congress to craft our own campaign finance reform bill. That bill, H.R. 2183, is the base bill being considered today. I will support that bill when it is considered later this year. Our bill was crafted because many members remain concerned that parts of the Shays/Meehan substitute may be ruled unconstitutional. The freshman bill is more narrow in focus, but it still gets at the most common abuses in the campaign system without a constitutional threat. Both the Shays/Meehan substitute and the freshman base bill are honest, bipartisan attempts to fix our broken election process. I believe that this House works best when we work in a bipartisan manner, and that is how both these bills were created. For that reason, both bills will offer true reform to a system badly in need of reform. Ultimately this debate boils down to the belief that there is too much money in campaigns. If you support that idea, as I do and most constituents I talk to in western Wisconsin do, then you support campaign finance reform. If you believe that we need more money in the system than you will oppose Shays/Meehan. The majority of the public doesn't believe that Congress has the courage to actually change a system that appears to benefit our own interests. Tonight we have the opportunity to show the public that we can take the big money out of this system and put elections back into the hands of the people we are sworn to represent. I encourage my colleagues to support Shays/Meehan and begin the process of true reform of our political process.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I hate to disagree with the chairman of the subcommittee, but there have been two specific witnesses who have been called before us where the U.S. Attorney's Office was not consulted with, and they are very upset that they have been called and subject to our questioning who are part of the criminal investigation. There are other examples like that, Madam Speaker. That is the concern that I have.

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a member of the subcommittee not only to oppose this resolution but also to express my severe disappointment in the way this process has been conducted and also to indicate that I think that, by giving this unprecedented power to the subcommittee, we may end up doing more harm than good under the circumstances. I am a former prosecutor. I know a little bit about conducting investigations. Subpoena power can be extremely useful in getting at the truth and uncovering the facts in a particular matter, if it is necessary and if it is done right. But as member of the subcommittee, I do not see the necessity in it. I do not see this great conspiracy of obstruction and reluctance of Teamster members to appear before the committee. In fact, our subcommittee chair referenced Mr. Sever and stonewalling that he apparently was committing when, in fact, he had appeared before our committee May of this year, was subjected to our numerous questions from across both aisles, and unless there is other information that they are not sharing with us, I do not see the stonewalling tactic taking place. Also, if it is done right, Madam Speaker. Now, giving deposition power or authority to Members who do not have training on how to conduct a proper deposition is very dangerous. There is no easier thing to do if you are not trained than to muck up a deposition in a transcript, especially with witnesses who may be under some other criminal investigation, and that exactly was being proposed in this resolution: for nonattorneys to come in behind closed doors with witnesses and to subject them to an array of questioning when they do not know whether to ask a leading question or an open-ended question, when it is appropriate, they do not know how to give proper documents into evidence as part of the transcript, and this is just a recipe for disaster. But perhaps my greatest concern about this resolution today, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we may be impeding upon an ongoing criminal investigation in the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney's Office. This is an issue that I have repeatedly raised in committee. As a former prosecutor, there was no greater fear for me when I was conducting an investigation than for outside forces to come in and start messing around with the conduct and the process of the criminal investigation and to start interfering with what we are trying do accomplish. Madam Speaker, I just conclude by urging my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deepest sympathy to the families of Officer Jacob Joseph ``J.J.'' Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson. These fine men made the ultimate sacrifice for their government and their country. My wife, Tawni, and I will keep their loved ones in our prayers in this time of terrible pain and sadness. This is my first term in Congress. I have been impressed by how accessible the Capitol building, and all the buildings in the Capitol complex, are to the American public. I have also been impressed with the superb level of security provided to the Members of Congress, staff and the public by the Capitol police force. This senseless act of random violence will cause some people to call for closing the doors of the Capitol to the public--turning it into a fortress. This building has historically been the center of the People's government, housing the proceeding of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. The public has always been able to freely witness the proceedings under its roof. Millions visit the Capitol of the United States each year. They come from across the country and around the world for the chance to walk through the halls of what they know is the ultimate beacon of Democracy and freedom. Officers Chestnut and Gibson knew, as well as any of us, how important a visit to this Nation's Capitol is to so many people who pass through its doors. Their names have been added to the list of those who have died to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. Many of us forget all too often that freedom has a heavy price. Their astonishing bravery is becoming clearer as we learn the details of their struggle to stop the gunman last Friday. Their selfless instincts were to protect, at all cost, the innocent people working in and visiting the Capitol that day. Sealing off the Capitol to the public would sidestep the real issue that these Officers and police everywhere in America deal with every day--escalating gun violence. We should use this horrible incident to examine our society and consider what can be done to reduce this violence and keep guns out of the hands of those who would perpetrate such heinous crimes. When it comes to the point where children are shooting other children in our schools and a gunman shoots his way into the U.S. Capitol, we must recommit ourselves to finding real solutions to gun violence. We should honor the memory of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson by taking the steps necessary to reduce gun violence in our country. That is the challenge posed to us by their ultimate sacrifice. That is the legacy they deserve.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Camp amendment to end this black hole of fiscal irresponsibility known as the International Space Station, but I do so very sadly. Mr. Chairman, I do commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the courage that they are showing by offering this amendment. I would venture to guess if this issue was polled in the general and abstract around the country, there would be overwhelming support for the continuation of funding for the International Space Station. But I would also venture to guess if the American people knew the facts as far as the funding and cost overruns, a program that started off at $8 billion now estimated by the GAO this year to be around $100 billion, a 1,200 percent increase, people across the county would be saying, ``let's pull back and take another look at this and see if this is the right direction we need to go in.'' As a representative of western Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, who produced some outstanding astronauts for our national space program, Deke Slayton, one of the original Mercury astronauts hails from a small town in western Wisconsin, and current astronaut Mark Lee, a space shuttle astronaut who will be going up into space early next year, I am a strong supporter of space exploration and our national space program, a strong supporter of the NASA budget, and in fact, of the next fiscal year. Of the $15 billion in that budget, $13.5 billion is fine. It is the $1.5 billion that adds to the continuation of the International Space Station that I have a problem with. Because the space program is really what America is all about. It brings about the best in America and what we are. Who will forget, those of you living, the moment when Yuri Gugarin of Russia was the first person to be launched into space, and the shock waves that reverberated around the country that, my goodness, we are falling behind the Soviet Union in space exploration? But, 20 days later, Alan Shepard, sitting on that Mercury Redstone rocket with courage that only he could know whether or not it was going to blow up underneath him, was the first American that was sent into outer space. And then 20 days after that, where a young president by the name of John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to send a man to the moon and safely return him to earth. It has brought out the best in America and what we stand for, and the hopes and dreams of not only adults, but of children, realizing the importance of science and math. Alan Shepard was a childhood hero of mine. I had Freedom VII on my dresser growing up as a kid in the 1960's. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family tonight. He was a great American hero. Perhaps this country would be better served if more pictures of astronauts were to grace the magazine covers today, rather than the Hollywood stars and sports heroes that seem to dominate popular culture today. Who would forget Apollo XIII and those dreaded bone chilling words, ``Houston, we have a problem,'' and the fact that after the explosion and the machine that filtered the carbon dioxide from the capsule went under, the Director of Space Operations got all the scientists and engineers together and gave them the material that the capsule had and said, You have one hour to come up with a device that will filter the carbon dioxide out of the capsule so the astronauts can breath and we can get them home safely. As he concluded and was walking out, then he turned and said, ``Failure is not an option.'' It was not. They came up with a device and were able to save the astronauts and return them safely. It was one of my great honors just a few weeks ago to be able to present Commander Jim Lovell in western Wisconsin at a space show the Outstanding Wisconsin Aviator because he came from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The space program is a wonderful program, Mr. Chairman, there is no question about it. But what has to be questioned is the tremendous cost overrun that the American taxpayers are facing today in order to perpetuate a space program that, by and large throughout the scientific community, has limited value. You are hard pressed to find any scientist in the entire country who will come out in support of the space program who is not already on the NASA budget. I think that sends a very strong message about the lunacy of continuing to throw good money after bad in this venture. I think it is time that we step back, we take a deep breath, and realize what is happening with a program that is 1,200 percent over budget. And where is the end, and what is going to be the scientific value? What cannot be accomplished scientifically on the space shuttle today that can be on the space station? These are the things that we have to question. That is why we are having the debate at a quarter to one here in Washington, D.C. tonight. In an era when we are trying to tighten our belts, to bring fiscal responsibility to this place and hopefully reduce the $5.5 trillion national debt, a 1,200 percent over-budget program is wrong. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend a question. The gentleman represents the Eighth District of the northeastern part of Wisconsin. As the gentleman is traveling around his district, meeting with family farmers and dairy farmers in his area, is the gentleman hearing from them that they are looking for any special handout or privilege as producers of dairy products, as compared to the rest of the Nation?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman of Ohio. I do not think there was a meeting of the minds as far as the compromise that is being discussed right now on the House floor; otherwise, we would not be having this debate for over 2 hours. I appreciate what the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture was attempting to do. I also appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) about this is not the proper place to have the debate. If not now, when? Of course we need to have this debate. We need to have this discussion in front of the American people because this is very serious legislation that we are talking about. I am deeply troubled by the fact that this authorizing language is coming into the appropriations bill. This is something that, again, all the regions of the country and the representatives and the interests that are being affected by this legislation should come together at the same table and try to hammer out one coherent national dairy policy. That is not what is being done. Instead, we are going to go back to this old antiquated Federal order system that pits region against region. We are going to perpetuate that who knows when. There is a 6- month extension right now, but who knows what is going to come when that 6 months is concluded. This is an opportunity for us really to come together. I think we can all stipulate that farming and being a dairy family is a very noble, very honorable occupation. All of us could stand on the House floor and tell story after story of the plight of dairy farmers throughout the country. There is no question about it. But what this really comes down to is a question of fundamental fairness. Just a little history. Sixty years ago, back in 1935 when the old order system was established, there were some supply problems in various parts of the region. In order to encourage getting the production of dairy products to those regions, this Federal order system was established. Anyone who has had a business understands that not only do we need to produce the product, but we have to get that product to market. Perhaps 60 years ago there was difficulty in doing that, but the circumstances have changed. The market has changed. As my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) pointed out, we have got an interstate highway system right now, refrigeration means, in order to transport fluid milk around the country. That is not the problem. What we need to do right now is be thinking forward on this issue, thinking creatively on how we are going to be able to avert a crisis that is impending in the dairy industry, not region against region but internationally. Because other dairy industries in other countries are now starting to position themselves to start taking advantage of market opportunities as they open up overseas. We are still having the 60-year-old debate today talking about removing the trade barriers within our own borders. What we should be talking about is how do we position the dairy farmers today in order to compete tomorrow in the international market. Until we are able to get to that issue, we are going to leave our dairy farmers at a distinct disadvantage starting early next century. By this prop-up price differential system that we have right now, that discriminates against producers the closer they are to a city in my district, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, what we are going to end up doing is encouraging inefficient dairy operations to continue to exist, and we are going to encourage other operations outside our borders to start moving their product into the United States at an unfair competitive advantage to our dairy farmers because of this old system that we refuse to come to grips with. That is the discussion that we really should be having today. Everyone is going to stand up and defend their interests and their regions, and good representatives, they will do that. I never thought I would be on the House floor hearing my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), associate himself with the liberal economic interests in the upper Northeast, but that is in fact what he did today. We need to be thinking more creatively than what we are doing right now. This discussion should go on. This debate should go on. But so should the process that was put in place just a couple of short years ago under the Freedom to Farm bill where the Department of Agriculture was given the authority to take a look at the Federal order system and to come up with some options of where we go from here.

Mr. KIND. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we can. I think we have to. I mean, really, is there any philosophical difference between the dairy family who wakes up in the morning to go milk the cows as compared to the family on Main Street with a small business trying to make that business survive and be very competitive in an international market that they are expected to be able to compete in? That is really what it comes down to. It comes down to basic economic principles.

Mr. KIND. Sure. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin knows very well, this is June Dairy Month back in Wisconsin. We have got 72 dairy breakfasts going on. Twenty-four thousand family farms are celebrating June Dairy Month right now. Since 1980 alone, because of this antiquated Depression-era Federal milk marketing order system, we have suffered half, half of the family farms that have gone out of business in the last 18 years. Roughly five or six family farms a day are going out of business because of this price differential that is pitting region against region. This is a golden opportunity for this Congress to finally come together, bring the competing regions together, finally hammer out one coherent national dairy policy that will get rid of these trade barriers that are now existing from region to region and start positioning our dairy producers for the 21st century so we can compete internationally. Rather than subsidizing inefficient dairy operations at home, we should be looking beyond our borders in how we can gain access to these opening markets overseas. We are not going to do that as long as we perpetuate this discriminatory form of dairy policy that works by and large to the disadvantage of farmers in Wisconsin. I have got 9,000 of those family farms in my district alone. Eau Claire, the city, has been the epicenter of this discriminatory policy. That is what has to change. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, just from a personal point of view, one of the concerns I have is even if this amendment fails and we get the 6- month extension, we are merely delaying the inevitable. We have been in touch with the Department of Agriculture. They have been having hearings, they have been receiving public comment. They propose two options right now. They are ready to move forward on issuing a rule this fall and implementing that rule early next year, just as the Freedom to Farm bill authorized them to do just 2 short years ago. Let us get on with it right now. We do not want to have another big dairy fight on this House floor now.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill as currently drafted. I would urge my colleagues today to support the amendments that will be offered that will strip the dairy provisions from this bill. More specifically, Mr. Chairman, section 736 was added to this annual agricultural appropriations bill. It allows Congress to delay reforming the Federal milk marketing ordering system for another 6 months. It also allows the ill-advised Northeast Dairy Compact to remain intact for an additional 6 months. In the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, Mr. Chairman, Congress was unable to find a legislative remedy for the regional dairy policy which has been in existence for too long that has pitted producers in various regions of this country against one another. That bill instead authorized the Department of Agriculture to develop a market-oriented system. Now some Members of this Congress, through a back room deal, have decided that reform should be delayed another 6 months, which would also extend to the New England Dairy Compact. Who knows how much longer it is going to be delayed beyond that point? Mr. Chairman, the Secretary's office has informed me that they are on track for passing the final rule this fall and implementing it early next year. They have had public hearings, they have accepted public comment. They are ready to go forward with this market-oriented reform of dairy policy. This legislation would set that effort back. I would say, let us stop delaying the inevitable. Instead, let us allow a fair market-oriented dairy policy to take effect. The 1996 farm bill held out the promise that farmers could produce for the marketplace, rather than for a government program. Today dairy farmers and consumers should not be subjected any longer to a Depression-era dairy policy in this country. Let us let the Department of Agriculture do its job, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage my colleagues to support the amendments that are going to be offered a little later this afternoon that would strip the dairy provisions and allow the Department of Agriculture to move forward on a more market-oriented, fairer system for our dairy producers throughout the entire country.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I too want to extend my congratulations to the distinguished careers of the chairman and ranking member, and especially in one regard, and that is that they have been true champions of a great national treasure that we have in the country called the Mississippi River. In fact, in this appropriations bill, we nearly fully fund a very important program affecting the Mississippi River called the environmental management program that is a multistate, multiagency cooperative effort in order to collect data and monitor resources and conduct some habitat restoration on the Mississippi in order to preserve this treasure for future generations. It affects the upper Mississippi in particular, but I have always said that if we blow it up there, there is going to be consequences down south. I look forward to working with these gentlemen throughout the course of the year in reauthorizing the environmental management program, and I too want to again just congratulate them on the leadership that they have shown on this issue, an issue that not only affects me and my constituents in western Wisconsin, but millions of people throughout middle America who appreciate the river and the multiple uses that we all share and use the river for. As we consider the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for prioritizing funding for one of our Nation's most treasured natural resources, the Mississippi River. By providing nearly full funding, the environmental management program [EMP] for the Mississippi River will continue to excel at restoring and monitoring the long-term ecological health of one of our Nation's most treasured waterways. During this Congress, I have worked with Representative Oberstar, Representative Leach, and Representative Gutknecht to form the Bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Task Force. Sixteen Members of Congress--eight Members from each side of the aisle--have come together, in a bipartisan fashion, in recognition of the national importance of the navigational, recreational, and environmental benefits this Nation enjoys because of a healthy, vibrant Mississippi River. The Upper Mississippi River Task Force has repeatedly voiced its unwavering support for fully funding the EMP. I thank the members of the task force for their bipartisanship, diligence, and perseverance in supporting our Nation's interest in the Mississippi River. The EMP is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the five Upper Mississippi River Basin States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to evaluate, restore and enhance the river and wetland habitat along 1200 miles of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is a tremendous example of how Federal funds support the successful multi-state, multi-agency cooperation responsible for ensuring a healthy, vital Upper Mississippi River system. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the Upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income, Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. I would also like to commend the Appropriations Committee for funding the La Farge Dam land transfer, an Army Corps of Engineers project in my district in western Wisconsin. The funding in this bill finally allow the Federal Government to return the Kickapoo reserve lands to the people of western Wisconsin. It will begin to restore the natural surroundings so that visitors from across the country may once again enjoy the beautiful bluffs and flowing waters of the Kickapoo River. I look forward to working with the conference committee to guarantee that the Corps of Engineers fulfills its financial obligations under current authorizing legislation by providing the necessary funds to the transferees.

Mr. KIND

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of both the Shays-Meehan bill, as well as the bipartisan freshman campaign finance reform bill. I think these bills take a large step in the direction we need to go in this country, the ability to take the big money out of the political system. I find it amazing though, Mr. Chairman, that opponents to these bills claim that if there is a ban on soft money that our constitutional freedoms and liberties and free speech are in jeopardy, yet when I go home back to Wisconsin and listen to the people, they know, just commonsensically, they know there is too much money in the political system, too much big money being contributed, too much influence of money out here in Washington, D.C. Why is this so important? Why do we need to have this debate and pass this legislation as soon as possible? As this chart demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing an explosion in the arms race for big money in the political system. Back in 1987-1988, roughly $45 million in soft money contributions were contributed to both political parties. That jumped up to $86 million in the 1991-1992 campaign season, and then suddenly in 1995-1996, the last campaign season, it exploded to $262 million in soft money contributions to both parties. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is only going to escalate unless this body, the only body that can do something about it, takes some action as soon as possible. That is what this debate should be about. That is why these campaign finance reform measures are so important, because the people know there is too much money going into this, and it is only going to get worse. I just have a couple more points to make. That is why we need to take action. I am proud to have a Senator in my home State of Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, leading the charge in this effort in the U.S. Senate, teaming up with Senator John McCain from Arizona in sponsoring the McCain-Feingold bill, one that suffered a fate that was unbecoming of this United States Congress. I commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for the work that they have put in for many years of getting finance reform passed. But perhaps it was a group of freshmen, and it behooves us as freshmen to sit up and take notice and keep our eyes and ears open to see how this place operates. Maybe it was a group of freshmen who had to come together and take a look at this from a fresh perspective, with new insight, and decide to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to eliminate the poison pills for both parties and draft something that would have a chance of passing; and I am very proud to have been a part of that process and the product that we produced. I want to encourage my colleagues that if Shays-Meehan goes down, we support the freshman bill. But the severability clause is important, the amendment is important to discuss, because I do not believe the soft money ban is unconstitutional. I think we have solid constitutional case law that supports us with Buckley v. Valeo, which says that we can limit money, that is, soft money contributions, in order to prevent the corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political system. Anyone who takes notice of how decisions are made out here would see the appearance of corruption every day, with the amount of contributions being contributed. I have a lot of respect for my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) who was here a little bit earlier talking on the floor; but I was flabbergasted by some of the statements coming out of her mouth that she did not know where the soft money contributions were coming from to the parties and that she did not see any influence of big money in this political system. Well, I do not know where she has been for the past year and a half in watching this democratic process of ours work. I do not know where she has been for the last couple of weeks in watching the tobacco legislation and the fate that it suffered unfold in the U.S. Senate. There is a direct link to big money in the political system. We are seeing the results of this day in and day out. But perhaps the most egregious example of what big money is doing in corrupting this political system of ours happened last year. I came as a fiscally conservative Democrat, believing in fiscal responsibility, but also the need to invest in priorities in this country. I was very proud to be a part of the negotiations in trying to reach a bipartisan, balanced budget agreement that would put our fiscal house in order; and after the days and the weeks and the months of negotiating that balanced budget agreement last year, it finally came to a vote on this floor. I cosponsored an amendment that would have given us 10 hours to look at that budget agreement, page through it, to see what all was in it before we were forced to vote on it. And it was voted down, that amendment, along party lines, and I could not understand. This amendment was not that unreasonable. The least we can do is step back, pause and look at the agreement before we vote on it, and I did not understand why it went down to such defeat as it did. But I did 3 days later when it was discovered that the tobacco companies received a $50 billion tax cut that was never, we never had any hearings on it, it was never part of any of the discussion or the debate on the House floor. We certainly did not have any separate vote on this tax credit, and yet it was in there. The only reason it was in there was because of $11,293,000 worth of contributions from big tobacco.

Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I think I got the gist of the gentlewoman's point there. The gentlewoman may not take the money, the parties take the money, and to be fair, the Democratic Party is also dipping into the tobacco till, perhaps not to the extent that the Republican Party is. No one has clean hands on this floor. But the only body, the only people who are capable of cleaning it up are the ones right here, right now, and we have that ability to do it. There is cynicism across the country, and perhaps there is some even in the gentlewoman's district, because I know there is in mine, those who feel that this democratic process is being taken away from the average citizen on the Main Streets of rural western Wisconsin, and it is going to large money, special interests that are dominating the political agenda out here in Washington; and that is what this debate is all about.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, just to close, and I will just be a brief second before I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), all we have to do is just take a look at where the contributions are coming from, and we start seeing a track, we start seeing the appearance of corruption, if not corruption outright, of what is taking place right now. How did this $50 billion tax cut get inserted in this budget agreement without any knowledge on the House floor? Well, it was because the chief lobbyist of the tobacco industry went to the Republican leadership in this Congress, literally the night before final passage of this bill, and said, hey, because a pack of cigarettes is going to be taxed an additional 15 cents, we need a break in all of this. So there was a corresponding tax credit for the next 25 years for that tax increase on a pack of cigarettes, and it was done behind closed doors without anyone else's knowledge. Again, we just have to follow the money. There are 11,293,853 dollar reasons for why something like that would take place in this democratic process of ours. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.

Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every Member in this House is raising some money. The money that I was receiving was from hard-working men and women.