Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, February 15th was set aside as President's Day, a day to honor the high office and those individuals who have been given the honor by their fellow citizens to hold it. And indeed, many who have held the office rank among our nation's greatest leaders. But February 15th also marked the 179th birthday of another of our country's greatest leaders, one who never held high office, but nonetheless changed our nation's history through her relentless protests of inequality. That leader is Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony is often remembered for her pioneering work in the cause of equal rights for women. Her fierce opposition to slavery was a natural counterpart to her struggle for women's rights. But as she fought to widen society's guarantee of equal rights to include women, she also sought to widen this guarantee for others, including unborn children. As we mark her anniversary, let us honor Susan B. Anthony's endeavors which established a legacy for posterity. When she died in 1904 only four states granted suffrage to women. Fourteen years later the nineteenth amendment granted universal suffrage. Let us continue her work toward a more equal and just society.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor a young Kentucky student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Jessica Moore of Louisville has just been named one of my state's top honorees in the 1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Ms. Moore, 17, is a senior at Sacred Heart Academy. She has raised close to $20,000 for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation (JDF) to help find a cure for the disease which her mother has had since she was 5 years old. ``After attending the 1997 kick-off luncheon for JDF with my mother, I was inspired to take on this major fundraising project to help find a cure,'' Jessica said. ``As I sat at the luncheon and saw mothers holding their infants, I began to envision what lay ahead for their futures.'' For the past two years, Jessica has spent countless hours raising money and an awareness of diabetes throughout her school and local community by conducting a letter-writing campaign, coordinating educational programs and organizing fund-raising walks. She plans to continue her fight against diabetes until her dream of a cure becomes a reality. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. Young volunteers like Ms. Moore are inspiring examples to all of us and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. Ms. Moore should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. I heartily applaud Ms. Moore for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can, and do, play important roles in our communities and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Patty S. Bryant, a teacher at Pleasure Ridge Park High School in my district of Louisville, Kentucky. Ms. Bryant will be honored with the First Place National Award for Teaching Economics by the National Council on Economic Education at its conference here in Washington, DC, tomorrow. The National Awards program recognizes outstanding, innovative, economic education teaching practices, stimulating improvements in the teaching of economics and providing examples of innovative teaching practices for replication in classrooms around the country. The goal is to increase student economic understanding as a result of enhanced teaching practices. The National Council on Economic Education is a unique nonprofit partnership of leaders in education, business and labor devoted to helping youngsters learn to think and function in a changing global economy. The shocking reality is that high school and college students know little about how the economic system works and what they need to know to work successfully in it. The price of economic illiteracy is young people who are unfamiliar with the basics of saving, investing, the uses of money and credit and adults who are more likely to have money problems, career problems and credit problems and less likely to make informed decisions as citizens and voters. To combat economic illiteracy, the National Council on Economic Education developed a vast network of state councils and university- based centers, teaching approximately 120,000 teachers who, in turn, teach basic economics to over seven million students. Ms. Bryant is being recognized for her program, ``The Cost of War.'' This model applies economics instruction to her world civilization class. Because economics influences world events, this curriculum instills in students an understanding of the economic impact on historic events. Her hope is to engage students and inspire them to become active in community and national affairs. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Bryant deserves to be recognized for her innovative approach to educating students on the role of economics in our global environment. It is with great pleasure that I stand today to congratulate her and applaud her achievement.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 535, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a House Concurrent Resolution recognizing and honoring the 50th anniversary of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. An identical resolution is being introduced in the Senate by my distinguished colleague, Senator Mack. As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the National Institutes of Health, I have a great interest in biomedical research and efforts to improve the quality of our public health. In this century, much has been accomplished, including the eradication of smallpox and the near-eradication of polio, the control of other infectious diseases such as whooping cough and diphtheria, and improved treatments for diseases of the immune system. We continue to benefit from the development of new diagnostic tools, medicines, and vaccines that have improved the health of citizens in this country and abroad. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been responsible for many of our most important advances. NIAID began as the National Microbiological Institute, formed through the union of the Rocky Mountain Laboratory, the Biologics Control Laboratory, the Division of Infectious Diseases, and the Division of Tropical Diseases of the NIH. In 1955, Congress renamed the Institute as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recognizing the need for a coordinated scientific research program on infectious, allergic, and immunologic diseases. Research supported by the Institute has resulted in numerous important advances, including the development of vaccines that have prevented the death of millions of Americans, new treatments to fight the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and novel interventions that have reduced the burden of childhood asthma. Much remains to be done, however. Infectious diseases remain the world's leading cause of death, and the third leading cause of death in the United States, and immune-mediated diseases such as asthma are a leading cause of disability and lost productivity. NIAID continues to lead the way in developing new ways to reduce the toll of these diseases. I am introducing this resolution today to demonstrate the support of the United States House of Representatives for the NIAID, the NIH, and all of the dedicated professionals who have devoted their lives to improving the quality of the Nation's health.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we inject a little honesty into this conversation. The fact is, 84 percent of all Federal employees' plans cover oral contraceptives, and nearly 40 percent cover all 5 forms of contraceptives. But rather than just make that statement, I brought to the floor 50 copies and will provide as many more as needed of a list of all of the plans that serve Federal employees so that my colleagues can see the chart of just how many plans there are, about 600, and how many cover so many, an array, of different forms of contraceptives. The fact is that Federal employees have the envy of what the whole private sector needs and wants in health insurance. Every single Federal employee has the ability to choose whatever policy they want. What do we get? A booklet of policies. We get a booklet of high-cost HMOs, low-cost HMOs, fee-for-service, point of service. We have every option of every kind of health plan we want. What we ought to do is work to give what we have to the private sector, because the truth is that we have many different choices, many different plans, and most of them, most of them provide an array of contraceptive services. Mr. Speaker, what happens if we mandate that every plan cover every form of contraceptive? We take away the one choice that Federal employees have today that they will not have in the future, and that is affordable health insurance, because when one starts adding mandates, one starts doing what every State legislature has found for years, and that is, one starts adding to the cost of health insurance. And as it goes up, one starts on that slippery slope. Every woman who is 31 years old and is paying for every form of contraceptives for everybody in the workplace who cannot get pregnant says, why should I pay for their contraceptives and they not have to pay for my fertilization? And every 60-year-old woman says, why should I have to pay for all the young women's contraceptives and they not have to pay for my estrogen? The fact is we can do what State legislators have done. We can add every mandate that everybody wants, every service, every provider, every need, and we will drive the cost of health insurance right through the ceiling. What we need to do is make sure that every employee in Federal office keep what they have now, the choice of whatever services they believe are important to their health, and then we need to make sure that it is also affordable. That is the best choice and the best gift that Federal employees have. What we need to do is take what we have and not ruin it, but make sure that the private sector have it, too.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I want to start with where this idea I believe originated. There are women today that are in the private work force. They have a choice of one policy. Their employer says, you can have this policy; you have to contribute the monthly payment towards it, and some of those policies, in fact, pay for prescriptions, but do not pay for oral contraceptives. We need to address that issue. I hope that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) will bring it to us. I asked a long time ago why we did not ask for a GAO study that would study both the private and the public workplace to see what sorts of discriminations exist for women in terms of access to health insurance policies that give them what they need. Before we start fumbling around with the best choice that exists in the United States of America, and that is for Federal employees, before we start driving the price up, what we ought to do is be deliberative and see, first of all, do we have a problem? Do we have a problem in the public workplace; do we have a problem in the private workplace? But because this came so quick and unstudied, I did ask OMB a second question besides asking for a chart, and that was, is there any Federal employee anywhere in the United States that does not have access to policies that cover oral contraceptives; and the answer is, no, there is not one. So I think that before we push the price up at a cost, by the way, to many of the employees, because right now, what they may have chosen is the only affordable plan or the most affordable plan that meets their needs. If this plan either decides to drop out of the Federal employees health insurance plan because it cannot tailor something just to our mandate, and then they have to go to a more expensive plan, or if they have to pay more for the plan they currently have, we ought to ask them if that is what they want. I think the whole problem in health care is that somehow we in the Congress think that we can play God, that we can somehow hand out free health care. Nobody can hand out free health care. It feels good here, but somebody pays the bill. The taxpayers pay the bill, and the Federal employees who have to pay a higher copayment pay the bill. Please, do for Federal employees what the entire work force is asking us for, affordable health insurance, and do not take away that right that they have today.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, often when I go before groups at home they ask me what sort of training I had or what seemed to help me be a Member of Congress. I tell them that it was growing up in a family of 11 children, because when one grows up in a family of 11 children, one does not always get one's way. In fact, it often seems like one never gets their way, and one learns that one gives up all the time. One gives up their choice on what television show to watch, one does not get to choose when one goes to the pool, where one goes, what one eats for breakfast. The fact is that when one is one of 11 children, one learns to compromise all the time to get to an end that is very important. So in the conference committee we had very strong feelings. Most of us compromised. Three of the provisions that were controversial I agreed with. I do not believe that we should add more mandates on our Federal employees' health plans that will have the effect of driving up their costs. But I agree, because it was very important to a group on the Democratic side particularly, but on both sides, that we include that. The fact is that in the end the minority party decided not to support the rule and not to support the conference committee because one thing was more important than anything, and that is that the general council have bipartisan support to stay in place. So the rule went down. So now we are back with all of the controversial provisions stripped. I understand that it is very important to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). She has dedicated day after day to this mandate on health insurance. So she is going to stand up and offer a rule to recommit, I understand, for her provision. It sort of ignores, to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and to me, the fact that the Haitian provision was very important, and that in this recommit rule, what we are saying is what I want is more important than anything else, and so I am going to recommit the bill to get the one provision that trumps everything else. That is the sort of lesson one learns when one is in a family of 11 that one cannot do. To directly address this, I just want to say that not one Federal employee has contacted me asking me to mandate every form of birth control in every plan. They like what they have. They like their choices, and they have confidence that they can choose the plan that is best for them. Now, if we want to go back to a state where we have to tell Federal employees, we know what is better, you may not want a higher priced plan, but we know what is better for you and we are going to mandate it. They will come back and tell us that CBO said there is no additional cost, and the truth is, there is no additional cost for the Federal Government. First of all, CBO has now said that maybe they did not score it correctly. But let me point out that in some ways, Federal employees are like many employees of small businesses. The employer says, I am going to pay this much every month for your policy, and you are going to pay the balance. And so if right now they do not need contraceptive coverage, and maybe what they need is the most affordable plan, something that they can choose, and in fact, we know Federal employees are moving to cheaper plans, that tends to be their criteria, what we are saying is that we do not care that is your criteria, we know better. Mr. Speaker, I have not had one Federal employee that wants me to change and mandate, add mandates. So what we are doing is deciding here that maybe something we want them to have is not even something that they want. There are women in the private sector that would love to have options on their insurance, but they do not exist in the Federal system.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to honor Lee Hamilton, who has served this distinguished body for 33 years. Divided only by the Ohio river, his district of Southern Indiana and my district of Louisville, Kentucky have shared a great deal together: The tribulations of the river flooding, the highs and lows of economic success, and the community spirit which makes Kentuckiana what it is today. Lee Hamilton is a part of that spirit. While his talents have served his district and mine, his work on international issues has made him well known and well respected worldwide. As the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and now the ranking member of the House Committee on International Relations, Lee has represented our country with the utmost dignity and dedication to helping others internationally, while maintaining our nation's place in international affairs. Although he has served this Congress for many years and in the role of both the majority and the minority, Lee has always been able to work on a bipartisan nature. Last year, I had an opportunity to work with Lee on a project that would help bring our districts even closer by providing the infrastructure needed to cross the Ohio River. Although we may be from different political parties, and even though he had been here many years and I was just a freshman, Lee Hamilton treated me with the same respect as he has treated more senior members. For this, I will always admire and respect him. Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that we honor Lee Hamilton today to thank him for his service and to wish him the best in the future. His presence in Congress will be missed by his colleagues and his district.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a Louisville- resident who is dedicated to breaking the cycle of illiteracy. Sharon Darling is being awarded this year's Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, joining the ranks of former President Jimmy Carter, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund. This award, administered by John Hopkins University, recognizes ``exemplary contributions to humanity and the environment.'' Truly, the work of Sharon Darling has been felt not only by the Louisville community, but throughout our nation. As the founder of the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL), Sharon has pioneered a program that combines early childhood education, adult literacy education, parent support and structured interaction between parents and their children. Sharon is a perfect recipient for this year's award because of her dedication to breaking the grasp of poverty by teaching families the skills so necessary to succeed in our society. Without the ability to read, individuals are restricted in their ability to get ahead in our world. Illiteracy is a cycle because parents' inability to read is reflected in the ability of their children to succeed in the classroom. The fact is a child's success in school is linked to the education of the parents and the ability of the parents to earn a living. What the National Center of Family Literacy has learned is that to approach literacy through the family is the surest way to increase education levels of adults and children because this approach expands the skills of both and draws on the power of the family to affect its own future. In an era where individuals are moving from welfare rolls into the workforce, Sharon Darling and the NCFL have worked in Louisville and throughout the country to free families from the trap of poverty and ignorance. I am thrilled Sharon Darling is being awarded the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism and am honored to recognize her today for her commitment to a truly noble goal. Literacy is a key to success, and Sharon is using that key to give families nationwide the chance for a brighter future.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for this, speak on behalf of Dollars to the Classroom and against this amendment, because of how it works for Kentucky. Kentucky has long been cited for their education reform bill that was passed in 1990, and I was proud to have supported that bill and to have been on the partnership for the implementation of it. The entire bill, the entire reform was based on the fact that schools know best what their talents are, what their obstacles are, what the challenges are, their unique children in that school face, and the ideal was to put the dollars in the hands of a cite-based decision- making counsel made up of parents, made up of school employees, made up of teachers and the principal, and all together now they have the right to hire the teacher, hire the principals. They have the right to divide up their allocation of money. And the one thing I hear repeatedly from them is please stop telling us from Washington how we have to spend our money, how we have to comply with all these little incremental spendings instead of giving us the ability to really freely address the challenges that most confront our kids. I want to point out that Secretary Riley points to Kentucky very often when he speaks as the model of school-based reform, the model of what all schools should be after, and it is hard to believe that a Department of Education would support a program that would fly in the face of what he points to every day as a model of school reform. This bill is compatible with education in Kentucky with school reform. The substitute that has been proposed absolutely goes in the opposite direction of everything he talks about being good for schools. How we would possibly take a step like that when both sides agree that schools succeed one school at a time, one classroom at a time, one child at a time, and they have to be free and able to use their resources to do that.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect and admiration for a man of great fortitude and commitment to his community. As a resident of Louisville, Kentucky, Oscar Canas has blessed the city and the surrounding area with his good will and determination to provide health services to those who need it most--those who are unable to afford health services. Oscar has made the Family Health Centers in Louisville, and the 40,000 patients which have been served, his second family. Starting from humble beginnings, Oscar and his wife Hilda came to the United States in 1962 shortly after Cuba was consumed by Castro and his militants. Leaving their country with no money and only the clothes on their backs, Mr. Canas and his wife came to Louisville to make a new home--and we are so glad that they did. Five years later, Oscar and his wife became proud citizens of the United States. At the same time he was trying to master the English language, Oscar Canas attended school and held full time employment. In 1972 he received a Master's Degree from the University of Louisville and four years later established the Family Health Centers, a network of community health centers to meet the needs of the underserved. Family Health Centers has five locations to meet the needs of residents in Louisville. I believe Oscar's hard work and dedication to providing health care to underserved is a constant reminder to the local community and to Congress that these services are truly essential. Since I have come to know him, Mr. Canas has been forthright with his concerns about health care policy and he has been an asset to me in providing pertinent local information relevant to federal decision-making. I consider him a colleague and a friend. Louisville is sad to see a member of our community move away, and I share the sorrow as Oscar make plans for retirement. Always thinking of family, Oscar is leaving his Family Health Centers family to be with his own in Florida. While he may not stay in Louisville forever, his legacy will. I wish him the very best and hope he will always think of Louisville as his home.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, the people that come before us and say they are for campaign finance changes say it will protect the integrity of elections. What about protecting the integrity of elections? Why do they want to so narrowly define it that they only stick to the subject areas they want to? Kentucky is one of the States where we have to have a Social Security number to register. We did not do that to discriminate, we did that with a Democratic Party legislature, because we had such fraud in our voting process. We did it to protect the integrity of the election. What the people who oppose this today say is that, we would rather make our bed and pass a law with people who do not want to protect certain portions of the integrity of the election process in order to pass our own version. This is exactly what I fear about campaign finance reform, that we will pass laws that certain people will not want enforced, they will not pursue, they will not really protect the election process. If they are not willing to protect the laws that say only citizens can vote, I would never want to be on their team to pass any other laws.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my few remarks here today could never adequately express the profound sadness felt by myself, my Congressional colleagues members of the Capitol Hill Police Force and indeed the entire nation, over the slaying of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. Last Friday, an individual bent on destruction and misery, launched an attack on this building. But he did much more than that. He also attacked the very freedom this building symbolizes. But he was not successful. At that critical moment in time, two officers performed the duties they were sworn to, and sacrificed their lives to saved others. This tragedy has affected all of us. I believe that during the past few days, Americans have paused to reflect what freedom and democracy mean to them. Because the Capitol is much more than just a building. The Capitol Hill Police Force do not just project a physical structure, but also the very center of our democracy. In my year and a half in Congress, I have often commented on the openness of our capitol building. I have seen how the history of both the building and our nation, expressed the walls and ceilings and stairs, interested and inspired school children and senior citizens alike. The supreme sacrifice given us by Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson is in the same tradition of courage and honor demonstrated by every man and woman who have given their lives so that we may be free. I would like to complement the outstanding work performed daily by the Capitol Hill Police Force. Every day, they stand on the street corners and in doorways and give directions to lost and tired visitors. They answer the same questions one hundred times a day. And they do it with courtesy, dignity, and professionalism. They are goodwill ambassadors to thousands of visitors--yet they remain largely unheralded. Finally, they are highly trained law enforcement agents sworn to protect the lives of Members of Congress, staff, and all others who make their way to Capitol Hill. Last Friday, two brave men upheld their oath with heartbreaking efficiency, and today we mourn their loss.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, our discussion on health care is extremely important, especially to residents in Kentucky. For the last few weeks, I have received calls and letters from patients stating that they want me to protect their rights to have health care--affordable health care. You see, Kentucky residents know what it is like to have very few choices in health care, to only have two insurers left in the state to offer health plans, and they know what it is like to have their health care premiums go through the roof. Well-meaning, but very poorly thought-out mandate-laden legislation on the state level created a monster they must face every day. We cannot have that happen nationwide. Kentucky residents have told me they must have affordable health care. The Republican bill which passed the House last Friday, H.R. 4250, improves a patient's access to affordable health care and protects patients against abuses in the delivery of care. The bill allows employees to direct their health care benefits toward the coverage they deem most appropriate for themselves--if they want to have chiropractic care, they can choose a plan that offers these benefits. In addition, the bill makes Medical Savings Accounts a more attractive option, and permits individuals to participate in a Flexible Spending Account similar to the option currently provided to Kentucky state employees. The bill also would enable more small businesses to provide affordable health care coverage to their employees, an option which is not available right now. Patients also deserve to know that they can get quality health care when they need it. That is why H.R. 4250 guarantees women direct access to OB/GYN care and allows parents to have direct access to pediatricians so that they can get the care they need as soon as necessary. The bill prohibits health plans from restricting physicians from giving advice to a patient about the best medical treatment for that patient and requires health plans to provide information about their plans to patients, and allows patients to inspect their medical records. No one should argue with the fact that medical dollars should go strictly to medicine--not to administration of the plans and not to lawyers. Talking to my constituents, they have told me they want health care not court action. If their child is ill, they want them to see a doctor for care, not a lawyer. H.R. 4250 requires plans to provide written and understandable notice to patients of any negative coverage decision within 30 days (for emergencies or specialty care--72 hours); it allows patients to appeal a decision internally with a doctor who did not make the initial decision; and permits patients to request an external review within 30 days with one or more independent medical experts. This bill is about protecting the rights of patients to have affordable quality health care. It is the right bill for the 42 million Americans who currently have no insurance, and it is the right bill for those who currently have health insurance. It will provide more opportunities, more choices, and more patient control over health care decisions. It is a bill for children, women and families in Kentucky and throughout our nation.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be a part of this debate. In my previous life I was part of the Kentucky General Assembly, and while they were altruistic legislators that created the disaster that we had in Kentucky, the fact is that that is exactly what they created, a terrible disaster. We had what would be proposed today by the Democrats in the term of health care reform, and what it created were enormously escalating prices, prices that escalated so fast that we tried to intervene by capping the prices of our insurance premiums. What did that do? It chased 45 out of 47 of the insurance companies that were selling insurance in Kentucky right out of the State. So what did our consumers in Kentucky get left with? They got left with higher prices for insurance, they got left with higher copayments, and they got left with fewer choices. I am so proud to be here today, to be part of an effort to give the American people what they really want. What do they want? They want essential medical services. They want them to be affordable, both the insurance and the copayments, and they want more choices. We are taking a giant step in that direction today. What we are doing is helping make sure that medical money stays in medicine. The American people resent the fact that they pay for their insurance, that their employer contributes to their insurance, and they make copayments, and a tremendous amount of that money gets diverted to lawyers, to court costs, to liability costs and to administrative costs. We need to make sure that all the money we spend in medicine, understanding that there is a finite amount of money that gets spent on good health delivery, for patients when they need it. We need to make sure that we do not create a bill that has so many mandates in it that we begin to say to the American people, you are going to pay more and more because we know what you need and want, not you. I thank the task force for creating this opportunity.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, we all know that, in this fast-emerging change in health care that there have been abuses by HMOs, and we are proud to be here today to deal with those and to address those and make sure that there is the important level of care that every American deserves. We are going to deal with that today. But we should not let this be an excuse for huge new Federal controls of the delivery of health care. That is what people that believe in a big bureaucracy dealing with health care support. We should not also make this an excuse to give the trial attorneys a huge new cut of our medical premiums. Medical money needs to go to medical care and not to trial attorneys. I am proud that I am not on the trial attorneys' side and not on their team. It is no wonder that the team that is on their side is supporting this substitute here today.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, whoever uses the money has to be given the money in the form of a check, so that if you are going to haul voters, for example, a check would be written to you. You could then not give voters or anybody else cash. Obviously if you wanted to fill up your van with gas, you could turn that in as an expense and the campaign can reimburse you. This is just to make sure that you cannot have what goes on, like $300 cash to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and then the gentleman gives out $50, $25, $10, $5, and it does not have to be recorded. The end receiver of the money is not on record.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, they would cash it wherever they cashed any other check. If they have a welfare check, they have to cash it somewhere. If they have a paycheck, they have to cash it somewhere. They can get a money order. You can give them a money order. That is legal. All you could not do is give a check to somebody and have them then pay cash around to unrecorded people.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, it says specifically here that anything that encourages or assists individuals to appear at the polling place is not forbidden. All you could not do is give somebody cash. In other words, on the campaign form the final receiver of money is written there, because it has to be given to them by money order, check, whatever.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have opposed the Shays-Meehan bill for a couple of reasons. First of all, I believe that it chills free speech, that it has the effect of trying to keep people who want to influence public policy from having their voice heard. Furthermore, I feel that it has the effect of encouraging people to have their voice heard in elections by contributing to organizations that are, in a sense, ``blind organizations,'' organizations that the public will not know who they are, what they stand for, who contributes, or how much, and that that is a worse campaign finance system than what we have. I do not believe you can call this reform; I just believe you can call it change. In my opinion, it is a worse change, a change for the worse. However, if we are going to do anything in changing campaign finance, we ought to close the abuses that exist today, that are widespread and blatantly wrong, and that is the ability to spend cash, what is commonly referred to as ``walking-around money,'' that is used for vote buying. This is done in many different parts of the country, and it is done with the use of cash. All my amendment would do would be to require that any money used for getting out the vote, that it be done in the form of a check, so that it would be visible and we would know to whom the money was paid. Obviously we all believe that if somebody is going to drive a van for the day and go down to the local nursing home in order to provide transportation to the polls, that that is a good thing to do and that would be a good expenditure of campaign funds. This is just to make sure that people cannot get the money in unrecorded amounts and to unrecorded people. It is part of the premise of this bill that we would have visibility, that the voters, that the public, that the people in this country would have visibility about who is spending money on campaigns and how they are spending it. So I would be surprised to find anybody that supports Shays-Meehan opposed to disclosure of this kind. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear the gentleman asking that and asking if one could buy donuts. Actually in Kentucky, where we have a more similar bill to Shays-Meehan than anyplace else, you cannot buy donuts.