Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I appreciate the gentleman rethinking or willing to reevaluate this. I want to assure the gentleman and the other supporters of the bill that we were very careful to draft this in every way possible so that there would not be any dampening effect on encouraging people to vote; only in making sure that there is not cash out on the street floating around that can be exchanged for votes. That is what we are trying to get to. We think that the easiest way to try to address that is to make sure that anybody that receives money would have to be paid and recorded on the campaign files.

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

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is currency. You cannot provide currency. I think the gentleman is missing that word. It does not say you cannot provide donuts. You cannot provide currency.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but you can provide a check to somebody that is driving somebody. You can provide a check to somebody to buy donuts. You can give a check to somebody to buy gas. What you cannot do is give somebody $200.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, it says that. ``One cannot provide currency.''

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment mostly as a placeholder in order to allow the conference to reinsert the language that was stripped as a result of a point of order. The fact is that every 5 years the Universal Postal Union meets to negotiate international mail processes. The United States Postal Service is right now in control of all of these negotiations. We all know what they want. They would want what any business wants, and that is special arrangements that would help them assume a monopoly in the services they wish to offer. The problem is, these services are not a monopoly. They offer the same services that private carriers offer. Right now, because of these special arrangements that have been negotiated, Japan has 60 percent of the current package market. The fact is that this coming February there will be a new negotiation in which the Universal Postal Union will negotiate the next 5 years' mail processes. For that reason, I hope to reinsert the language that was stripped on a point of order. Some people will try to claim that the Post Office should continue to have this role and use these services as a way to offset the cost of universal mail. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that universal mail is a monopoly, and it is covered by all of first, second and third class rates. There is not 1 cent that is gotten in the competitive market that the Postal Service contributes to offset Americans' cost of stamps. In fact, there is more evidence that they use the revenues they get from the cost of stamps to offset the cost of their package delivery service in Japan. The point is that in today's world, we may lose on a point of order what was just stricken, but what we will not lose is the fact that the American people believe in fairness, and they do not believe that the United States Government should be able to use a quasi-government organization to go and provide for them certain services that the competitive market, the private carriers, cannot provide. In my district, Mr. Chairman, the UPS and the Teamsters work very hard. They pay taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay workers' compensation, they comply with OSHA requirements, and they are competing with the Post Office that has none of those things. Plus they donate millions of dollars into our schools and schools all across this country. All this amendment would have done, all the language in the bill would have done, was to make sure that when we go into this international organization to negotiation, that we have fairness. Since that was stripped out, I ask that we pass an amendment that says that the Post Office cannot spend any money at this organization next year. I think then what we will find is in conference people will agree to the fair restrictions and the fair negotiating authority and will give everybody equality.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California. I would conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this is the only way in which we can ensure that we will have this negotiation in the conference committee. I have no intention to take away from anybody the ability for fairness, particularly not the postal employees in my district nor the postmasters. But I do believe that we can all find fair ground here so that every carrier that wishes to deliver packages overseas will all deal with the same fair rules. I think that the American people eventually will resent terribly if the Post Office is not held to the same rules. Point of Order

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the current law of the U.S. Code, section 2401, provides a permanent appropriation to the U.S. Postal Service, and, as such, this amendment is within the jurisdiction of the appropriations bill. The fact is that every dollar that the Postal Service collects for stamps comes into the U.S. Treasury and then is appropriated out by us.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. In fact, I want to urge my colleague to withdraw his point of order. The provision the gentleman wants to strike is a step towards fairness. I want to just follow up by saying if the point of order is not withdrawn, I have an amendment at the desk that I am prepared to offer that will contain the language that was negotiated to try to create fairness. It will strictly prohibit the use of funds by the Post Office at the Universal Postal Union convention next year.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to talk about the importance of fairness. In this country we have given the United States Postal Service a monopoly on delivery of mail and universal mail service. None of us disagree with that. In fact, all of us appreciate the wonderful gains that have been made over the past years in terms of customer friendliness and in terms of efficiency, and we are not here to jeopardize that today. But, in fact, the United States Postal Service has decided that they are going to expand their operations and get into services and provide services in which the private market already exists. As they do that, they have used, in the international forum, special prerogatives that they have to negotiate sweetheart deals with other countries in order to bypass Customs, both saving time and money. What does that mean? That means that our hard-working Americans here in this country, members of the teamsters, that deliver the packages around this country and that depend on the solvency and the growth and the opportunities that our private carriers are providing, that their jobs are in jeopardy. So as the Postal Service gets into competitive services, we ought to make sure that whoever negotiates the arrangements between this country and other countries, that all of those arrangements are the same, regardless of whether one is a private carrier bringing that package, or the United States Post Office. All we ask is that the trade negotiator have an opportunity to be in that room and ensure that the same arrangements that are available to the postal service are available to the private carriers. That is what the language was that was in the bill. It was struck on a point of order. So now I bring an amendment on which I have checked with the parliamentarian, and understand is not authorizing on appropriations. It is meant to hold a place so in the conference committee we can restore the very popular language that is supported by so many Members of this body to ensure that we have fairness. It would be great if we could do it another year, but the fact is, these negotiations are going to go on this February, before we have another chance to pass a bill to bring this fairness. So if we do not put this in this bill, then all the Americans who have jobs in this country, all the union jobs for companies that provide package delivery service, all of those jobs and their ability for their companies to compete internationally will be in jeopardy. It is important that we pass this amendment so that we have the fairness that all American employees deserve.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. NORTHUP. Those were remarks we would not want anybody to miss. They were very helpful. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2183.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a constituent of mine from the Louisville area. His name is Peter O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil recently retired from the United Parcel Service where his leadership in the area of aviation security helped to make our skies safer for everyone. Even though working for an all-cargo airline, Mr. O'Neil served as Chairman of the Air Transport Association's Security Committee and worked to bring industry consensus on how to respond to security threats. Mr. O'Neil distinguished himself here in Washington, working with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. I would like to thank Peter O'Neil for his dedicated service to our country and wish him and his wife Robin a happy retirement.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 264, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It is interesting to hear the lawyers debate what the courts might do. The fact is there is clearly concern that there are portions of this bill that are not constitutional. In fact, it is clear by the resistance of the people that oppose this amendment that they fully expect that the courts are probably going to strike down a portion of the bill. If they did not expect that, they would join us, and they would support the clause that says if part of the bill goes down, it all goes down. The aggravating part of this is that the very sponsors of this bill have sent out to the Members of this body a bill, a letter, a dear colleague letter bragging about the fact that this is a balanced approach, that we should support Shays-Meehan because it is balanced, and they go on to explain why it is balanced. So, if they are not supporting this amendment that says it either all stands or it all falls, what they are saying is we do not care if it is balanced, we do not care in the end if what we get is an unbalanced product, we still like it. The fact is that they would like to call this campaign finance reform. I do not believe that is a correct term because reform means better, and I think what we got is something far worse. It is a change, it is a change in how campaigns will be conducted, it will be a change in who can speak and who cannot speak. But what it will do will not be better because it will force people who want to speak about elections, people that want to talk to the voters, and the voters that wish information, they will now have less information. They will have information from Citizens for a Better Democracy or citizens who like this democracy, and they will have no idea who put money in and how the money is being spent and what their ultimate motives are. But the point is that they are saying that this bill is balanced, and then they tell us, if it ends up that only portions of it are constitutional, that that is okay with them, too. So why do they not say they do not care whether it is balanced or not? They like the bill. Mr. Chairman, this body should support this amendment and make sure that what has been purported to us, that having balance is important, actually sticks with the bill in case it ever goes anywhere. In the meantime the rest of us should worry a lot that there will be some groups who may be able to speak and some groups that will not be able to speak. That is exactly what starts happening when we start talking about free speech and who can participate in elections. We start deciding who has speech and who does not have speech, and that is why the courts strike it down, that is why they will strike part of this down, that is why they may strike it all down. But to tell us that it is balanced and then say we should pass it and they do not care if it is balanced because they oppose this amendment is flat wrong. It absolutely cheats the American people of being able to have the whole story, the whole truth, the whole message, free speech.

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

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I can clarify my request, just to allow the gentleman to finish.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I control the time here.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask that the gentleman be allowed to ask the question of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). Point of Order

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, if I can answer that because I think this is such an important clarification. Mr. Chairman, we do not put nonseverability because those of us that voted for that tax cut believed each one of those cuts stood on their own merit, had a merit of their own. For those of us that are asking for support for the nonseverability, we are saying that if Members believe that balance is important, and this is a balanced product and that if two or three points of it would be struck down by the courts and the rest of it would create an imbalance, severability would be important.