Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, what I would say is that there are different ways for different people to influence elections. The fact is, soft money, I believe, is a very good form of support for our parties. If GE gives $100,000 to the Republican Party, whatever candidates they help have no idea who gave that money, have no idea whom they might owe. In fact, the only thing that they are thankful for is the fact that their party, whom they already agree with, their principles, supported them.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I will just point out that we all know who gives to the parties because it is reported. But if the XYZ Corporation thinks they want to influence an election, now they can give it to an independent organization, which is the part of the bill we think will become unconstitutional; and no one, no public has any ability to know they got $100,000 or whether they told the candidate that they gave $100,000. That is the sort of illegal action that has happened in States where they have previously passed this kind of legislation. I am sorry we cannot hear the rest of the story.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the gentleman can name, for example, five contributors that have given $100,000 to his party. I could not name that.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman another question.

Mrs. NORTHUP. All right.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think I am the one that has the floor, and I want to ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Rhode Island has very eloquently pointed out the difference between the perspectives here. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman would agree that if we believe every point of this bill by itself is good, then severability makes sense. But if the Court struck out any two provisions, any three provisions, any one provision of the Shays-Meehan bill, what I believe I heard the gentleman say was it is still a great beginning and he supports it.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight Friday, June 19, 1998, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

Mrs. NORTHUP. It is an open rule, sir.

Mrs. NORTHUP. But I was happy to yield to the gentleman's question.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me and giving me an opportunity to answer some of the previous statements. First of all, I was surprised at how many speakers have talked as though the whole system is corrupted. Maybe I am naive, but I believe that this is a mostly honest system. I believe that there are those people that cannot resist money in return for influence, but I have not seen many colleagues on this floor that are in that position, and I believe most of our Members work throughout the system in an honest way. And so I think it is important to tell the people, the American people around this country, that while, yes, individuals, corporations and labor unions contribute money because they care about elections, that most Members on this floor can cite many instances when they have turned to those people that are contributors and said, in this case, I cannot support you, I do not agree, even though they contributed, because they believed in most instances they shared a common perspective of public policy. Most all of us have, on plenty of occasions, looked almost every one of our contributors in the eye and said, not on this occasion, I cannot agree with you. I was asked why I believe nonseverability is so important, and this is why. I believe almost without a doubt that the courts are going to strike down the provisions related to independent expenditures. So, yes, we can make soft money illegal, and soft money, in my opinion, is the type of money that is used for party building, for general themes. I am not aware that any soft money has ever come into my campaign. It may have, but I am not aware that it ever has. But people that wish to influence campaigns, and we know they are there, if they wish to influence campaigns, they can begin giving their money to independent organizations, where most of us believe the constitutional problems with this system exists. And in that case the money is not traceable, it is not reportable, and the fact is that those independent organizations can then collaborate or whisper in the ear of anybody they want. I know that I am going to abide by every law in campaign finance. I know I believe in the system and that I believe in the voters, but I do not want to create a system where money goes so that it can then be sent to candidates, so that the candidate that is willing to break the law the most, who collaborates with an independent organization, who will be so desperate that they ask an independent organization to, in a sense, money launder, which is what would happen, that the person that is willing to break the law the most is the person that has the best advantage. Some people say that will never happen, but let me assure my friends that in Kentucky we passed campaign finance reform for our governor's races. And what happened? It did not take one session before we began to have parallel campaigns. For example, somebody left from one of the candidate's staffs, went to an organization, worked to raise money, worked to spend money, and none of it reportable, none of it available for the public to see. And what we had was parallel campaigns going on out of sight of the voters. That is the sort of thing that will begin to change the system for those of us who report every expenditure and who are happy to live within the system. It will put us at the most disadvantage, and the person that is willing to collaborate illegally will be at the greatest advantage. I am sorry that it is given to those of us that oppose this such evil intentions, because the truth is there are not many people in this House that set a better example than if we just have hard money. No independent money, no soft money. I have raised in my district from individuals, from the $5 contributors, the $10 contributors that give every month, and the large contributors, a whole group of people who have supported me, and I do not need the soft money or the independent expenditures. But there are people in districts who have not had that opportunity and they have been able to get their voice out, they have been able to have the support of the overall party building money that can turn out voters, that can say this is what the Democratic party stands for, that cannot be candidate specific, but they will be the people who suffer.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, considering what the gentleman says, that somebody respond to the cynicism of what he said, and particularly, about the tobacco bill. I do not take, and never have, a penny of tobacco money, and yet the tobacco bill over on the Senate side is simply too big. There are reasons that people oppose it. I think that that is the sort of discussion that ruins political discussion on its value, and every time somebody disagrees with you, to say, see, they took money; or see, it is all the influence of evil. The fact is, I do not take money, and I thought the bill got way out of hand; and it is a perfect example of why that kind of a bill that is that complicated can never pass unless we get some leadership from the White House that is involved in it and calls for it every single week.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think it is important that we remember that when one black man is brutalized, every other person of race feels a greater sense of unease, and rightfully so. The effects of what happened in Texas will live long beyond one person. It would be impossible to measure the sense of dis-ease, dis-ease, that black Americans all across this country feel as a result of this act. Because of that, it is important that we register our outrage and our agony. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her resolution, for giving Congress and for giving this body the collective opportunity to share our outrage. Many white Americans wish that they had the opportunity to share their sympathy and their sorrow over what happened. So on behalf of them, I wish to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the Black Caucus for this opportunity, and to share with the Members the sympathy that so many Americans feel all across this country, and our commitment to a better America, where this will not happen in the future.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be considered as original cosponsors of the resolution: Messrs. Gingrich, Armey, Hastert, Boehner, Linder, Watts of Oklahoma, Gephardt, Bonior and Fazio of California, Ms. Dunn, Ms. Pryce of Ohio and Mrs. Kennelly.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity, however it is a very, very sad time for this country in light of the very brutal slaying of James Byrd. It is important and it is appropriate that this House pass this resolution and state emphatically how important it is that we resolve the racial separation that exists in this country today. Officially we have to protect everybody's civil rights, and we know that this resolution requests that we do that. But, far beyond the legal responsibilities of protecting civil rights, we have to put the prestige and the leadership of this Congress forward and say that it collectively represents our personal sense of outrage. This goes way beyond our outrage at the violation of Mr. Byrd's legal civil rights. Racial hatred is wrong. It is wrong in actions, it is wrong in the mind, and it is wrong in the heart. While the legal system will attack the actions, we have to, through our message, say that racial hate is wrong in our heart and in our mind. Every one of us and every American has to say in every way they can I love you, I accept you, and I want to reach out to you. We in this country of every race and especially to those that are most vulnerable and in the minority have to say every way possible that we want to share our lives, we want to share our neighborhoods, we want to share our schools, we want to share our families. In every way possible, we have to reach across whatever divides us. This means every American. This means every neighborhood. This means every economic group. In the end, this country will rise or fall as one. We will be part of the same community, the same neighborhood, and the same great country. I believe in this country, Mr. Speaker. I believe in my friends on this floor. I believe in our communities. I believe if we all use this occasion to reach down as deep as possible and find as many ways as possible to reach across the divisions we share and resolve to close those gaps, to open those discussions, and to unite our hearts and minds, that we will make a difference, and that James Byrd's very brutal and outrageous killing will not be in vain. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)