Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), my colleague who has been our partner in this effort to find bipartisan, bicameral campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, they said pigs would fly before we got an open debate on campaign finance reform in the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring home the bacon because we are here at last. After 4 years of promises made and promises broken, we are finally going to get a vote on Shays-Meehan. Or are we? It is not all clear to me that this rule will allow for a vote on the Shays/Meehan bill, especially in light of the commitment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to essentially filibuster this bill by offering hundreds of amendments throughout the summer. The Speaker's message is clear. He supports more money in campaigns, not less. He wants to enhance the role of wealthy special interests in congressional elections rather than diminish it. Well, the public clearly feels differently. In a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, 92 percent of the American people felt that too much money was spent on campaigns. We are here today because the American voters demand that we fix a broken system. Over the course of this debate, there will be many substitutes and many amendments. I urge all of my colleagues to remember that there is only one bill that is both bipartisan and bicameral and that will enact real campaign finance reform this year, there is only one bill that has the support of nearly every grassroots organization that is active on reform, and there is only one bill that has the support of editorial boards all across this country. That is the McCain/Feingold/Shays/ Meehan bill. Unlike the other substitutes and alternatives, only Shays-Meehan will conclusively ban soft money. Only Shays-Meehan will address the growing problem of third-party campaign advertisements and only Shays-Meehan will give the FEC the teeth it needs to prevent abuses in the current system. Above all, our bill is a product of compromise. It will benefit neither party at the expense of the other. At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, a vote for campaign finance reform is a vote for Shays- Meehan.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of the Nation's great newspaper publishers, Irving E. Rogers, Jr., who passed away this morning at age 68. Mr. Rogers and his family have owned the Eagle-Tribune in Lawrence, Massachusetts, for 100 years, and it remains one of the last local family-owned newspapers in America. Mr. Rogers was a successful businessman, a tireless advocate for his readers and his community, a generous philanthropist, a devoted friend and, above all, a dedicated family man. His passing will be mourned by all those who have benefited from his wisdom, good works, and adherence to the highest standards of journalism. The people of Greater Lawrence and the Merrimack Valley and the institutions that make it a great place to raise a family and run a business have lost a true champion and a giant of a man. Born in Lawrence in 1929 and raised in North Andover, Mr. Rogers was educated at the Admiral Billard Academy in New London, Connecticut; Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont; and the Bently School of Accounting in Boston before joining the family newspaper business. He was the third generation of the Rogers family to run the Eagle-Tribune. After 22 years as general manager of the newspaper, he was named publisher on August 29, 1982, by his late father Irving E. Rogers, Sr. This was 40 years to the day after the senior Rogers had been named publisher by his father, Scottish immigrant Alexander H. Rogers, who bought the two newspapers that became the Eagle-Tribune in 1898. Today, Mr. Rogers' son, Irving E. ``Chip'' Rogers, III, carries on the family's proud tradition for a fourth generation of the newspaper's general manager. It is not an accident the Eagle-Tribune has been recognized as one of the best regional newspapers in the country. This is the result of Mr. Rogers' commitment to excellence in journalism and in maintaining the Eagle-Tribune as a family-owned newspaper that knows and cares about its community and covers it aggressively and fairly. He received the highest honor in journalism when the Eagle-Tribune won in 1988 the Pulitzer Prize for general news reporting for its probe of the Massachusetts prison furlough program. Under his leadership, the newspaper was also a finalist for two other Pulitzer Prizes during this decade for an expose on corruption by former hockey czar R. Alan Eagleson and coverage of the devastating fire that destroyed Malden Mills and the heroic effort to rebuild the plant in the heart of Lawrence's poorest neighborhood. The Eagle-Tribune has also been named New England Newspaper of the Year 13 times. While winning awards every year for quality reporting and public service, Mr. Rogers was also making business decisions that allowed the Eagle-Tribune to remain in family hands at a time when publications across the country were being taken over by chains and corporations. He purchased the Andover Townsman, moved into New Hampshire when he bought the Derry News, and recently negotiated the purchase of the Haverhill Gazette. When the Eagle-Tribune outgrew its original headquarters in downtown Lawrence, he opened a modern plant in North Andover and became a pioneer in the use of photos, color graphics, and bold newspaper design, while insisting that his newspaper maintain traditional standards of fairness and language. He was devoted, generous, and always available to his 400 employees. When the newspapers of New England were hit by a brutal recession in the early 1990s, advertising revenues declined and newsprint costs soared. Mr. Rogers was a rarity. He never issued a layoff notice. He also showed an unwavering commitment to his private charity. He was a generous benefactor to so many important institutions in the Merrimack Valley led by the Rogers Family Foundation: the Lawrence Boys and Girls Club, Merrimack College, the United Way, Holy Family Hospital, Lawrence General Hospital, St. Mary's Church, the American Cancer Society, St. Michael's Church, and countless other community organizations. Every year, the Eagle-Tribune Santa Fund provides hundreds of thousands of dollars for the needy at Christmas. Mr. Rogers was a friend to presidents and governors and leaders of industry. Despite his great influence, he was an unassuming man. He walked his dog every morning, he lunched at the Lantern Brunch in Andover, and fished off Seabrook Beach and Gloucester. His priority was always his wife Jacqueline and children Chip, Debbie, Marty and Steve, along with his grandchildren, and the nieces and nephews left by his brother, Allan B. Rogers, a former Eagle-Tribune editor who died in 1962. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have known Irving Rogers as a friend and admired him as a leader in our community. My wife Ellen and I extend our deepest sympathies to him and his family.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, April Fool's Day has come to the House 2 days early, and, unfortunately, the joke is on all of us who took the Speaker at his word when he promised last December to allow a fair debate and vote on campaign finance reform. Today, we are going to consider four so-called reform bills under the suspension calendar. Now, the suspension calendar is usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Campaign finance reform is a tough issue and a controversial issue. Here it is now, it is 12:30 in the afternoon. We are supposed to have a debate on this at 2 o'clock. We do not even have the language of all of the various proposals that on Friday afternoon the Republican leadership said we were going to vote on. We do not even have all of the language that we are going to be asked to vote on later on this afternoon. The truth is, during the 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans passed a House rule that required the Speaker to notify the minority before scheduling suspensions. Yet these bills were put on the calendar without any consultation with the minority or the bipartisan group of legislators interested in passing real campaign finance reform legislation. Needless to say, absent from the list of those bills to be voted on today is the bipartisan McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan bill, which could pass on a simple majority vote. It is clear to me that the Speaker and the Republican leadership have been promoting an outrageous lie that the House will seriously consider reform. It is a disgrace. After all of the time and money that we have dedicated to discussing and investigating the problems with our current system, here we are, we cannot get a fair vote on bipartisan reform. Yes, Mr. Speaker, April Fool's Day has come to the House early, and, unfortunately, the joke is on the American people. And one need not look very far to find out what independent sources are saying about today's mockery. For example, if you look at today's New York Times and look at the lead editorial, it states, Today in place of real debate on campaign finance reform, the House is set to stage a mock debate on phony campaign finance reform. It is outrageous enough that the Republican House leaders' version of reform is the Thomas bill, which fails to end the corrupt soft money system, would triple contribution limits, and is laced with poison pill provisions. Mr. Speaker, many in this House, on both sides of the aisle, have been working literally for years to try to form a consensus to pass real meaningful campaign finance reform. The American people have watched the news on all the major networks and have watched the debate and the hearings that have been held about the abuses of the soft money system and the influx of literally millions and millions of dollars into our campaign finance system. Yet, when this debate is held today, it will be held under a suspension of the rules. There will not be an offer to have a vote up or down on bipartisan campaign finance reform, even though a majority of the Members of the United States Senate passed real campaign finance reform by a majority vote of 53, only to have that majority vote burst asunder by a filibuster that requires 60 votes in the other body. Now, we have an opportunity to get that bill back to the United States Senate and have the United States Senate decide to pass real campaign finance reform by simply only allowing a majority vote. But we are going to be unable to do that this afternoon. We are going to be unable to do that because the leadership on Friday afternoon decided that we are going to have a debate under suspensions, that requires a two-thirds vote to pass anything. That is why usually when suspensions are up, noncontroversial items are brought up. You look at the New York Times this morning. The New York Times says, ``Now by bringing the phony Thomas bill up under suspension of the rules, the Republican leadership has rigged the process for this rigged bill, prohibiting House Members from offering any amendments or any alternative legislation and denying them a way to vote against the process.'' The American people deserve a real debate on campaign finance reform,'' especially, according to the New York Times, after the campaign fundraising scandals and abuses in the last elections. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the New York Times said that the Shays-Meehan bipartisan bill, which is a companion measure to the McCain-Feingold bill that received a majority vote in the Senate, deserves a fair vote. Mr. Speaker, let us take this suspension back, and let us come back with a real vote on campaign finance reform and allow the vote on bipartisan reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, not that long ago I listened to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), state all kinds of reasons as to what was wrong with the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold bill, and he went on and on and on about all these problems with this bipartisan approach to campaign finance reform. It kind of made me wonder why the Republican leadership has gone to great lengths, such great lengths, to prevent a vote on this bill, if it is such a bad bill. It is incredible how far the Republican leadership has come to try to stop this debate. We were promised a debate; a full, fair debate, with integrity and honesty on the floor of this House, and we have not gotten it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) knows full well that every public interest group in America who has been fighting for campaign finance reform supports the bipartisan approach, and he knows as well that every major editorial board in America favors the bipartisan approach. He also knows that Members on both sides of the aisle have been working for 3 years to get a debate and get a vote on meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform, and he also knows that the other body just voted 53 votes for the same bill in the United States Senate. Well, we are going to get this bill sooner or later, because the American people will respond and newer Members will respond. All I have to do is look at the newest Member of this body, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who walked into my office with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and made this legislation the first bill that she signed on to as a new Member, and the people of the 22nd District of California are proud of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and Walter is as well, and there will be more Members that will be elected in the November elections, and campaign finance reform will be an issue. There will be a price to be paid for this disgusting maneuver.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, every public interest group that has been fighting for reform over the last decade have worked with a bipartisan group to put real reform before the table. Members of the press, New York Times, the Washington Post, every credible editorial in America have called on this body to have a vote on real bipartisan campaign finance reform. And what do we have? We have a motion to suspend the rules that requires a two-thirds vote. Members of the majority party may think that they are fooling the American public, but I have to tell them, the public gets it. They understand what is at work here, and they are just as disgusted at this process as the Democrats are.

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. I have worked with Republican and Democratic Members over the last 5 years working to find a way to find bipartisan campaign finance reform, to level the playing field and treat both Democrats and Republicans fairly. I have worked with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and a number of other Members; and, finally, the day is here. We had a bill that passed the United States Senate. It got 53 votes in the other body. That is the bill that we wanted to vote on today. But what did the Republican leadership do? Made a mockery of this debate, a sham of this debate by going through a suspension of the rules where a two-thirds vote is required and calling it campaign finance reform. Shame on them. This is not the way to have campaign finance reform. There are Members who worked too hard, too long trying to pass a campaign finance reform bill that is fair to both political parties, that ends the corrupt system of raising more and more money through soft money contributions. All anyone has to do is look at the contributions of big tobacco in 1997 and how much money they are spending in attempting to try to influence the process as we try to make a decision on tobacco. This debate is, without question, one of the lowest moments for this House of Representatives. Every conceivable public interest group in America that has been fighting for campaign finance reform has asked for a debate.

Mr. MEEHAN. So this amendment cannot be amended to include it?

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, but I cannot ask for unanimous consent to suspend the rules and ask for consideration of the bill?

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to suspend the rules and ask for consideration of H.R. 3526, the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what we have just heard from the other side of the aisle here, the substance of which was pathetic. Can you imagine trying some way, somehow to excuse the outrageous behavior of the Republican leadership on the floor of House of Representatives right now? Every major newspaper in the country was outraged at the fact that they had a rigged rule. If that was not bad enough to have a rigged rule, they took that off, because the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan bill was about to pass this House. Now they are going to bring up the campaign financial reform suspension, unprecedented, that requires a two-thirds vote before anything could pass. The leaders of campaign finance reform in this institution are outraged. The American people get what is going on. It is an outrage that this leadership is going to, after promising campaign finance reform, is going to bring this up when one of our Members is being buried and other Members want to be out at the service. I cannot believe the total disregard to the public interest that we have seen here this afternoon, an absolute outrage. I have never seen it this bad before. The American people see what is going on here, and it is a disgrace.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1500.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to inform the House that on September 10, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of a new portable, easy to use, medical screening device that can quickly detect high levels of lead in blood. The Leadcare In Office Test System was developed by ESA, Inc., of Chelmsford, MA, and AndCare, Inc., of Durham, NC, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Located in my congressional district, ESA, Inc., is a biotechnology research company whose products and services have played a significant role in advancing the health care of Americans for over a quarter century. Since its establishment in 1970, ESA has designed and manufactured numerous high technology analytical instruments used for analyzing minute quantities of substances, often at the molecular level. The company's products are frequently utilized in biomedical research projects, clinical laboratories, and environmental quality control studies. The recently approved Leadcare System promises to dramatically improve the rate at which children in the Untied States and abroad are screened for lead poisoning. Currently, blood samples from children tested for exposure to lead must be sent to a laboratory for clinical evaluation. This process could take several days or even weeks. With the Leadcare System, a sample of a patient's blood obtained by a finger stick can be analyzed by the system within 3 minutes, and the results are instantly displayed. Moreover, clinical studies conducted by ESA indicate that the new test is as reliable as established laboratory screening methods. Both ESA and the Department of Health and Human Services believe that the expediency of the Leadcare System will allow heath care professionals practicing in urban, underserved areas to screen more high-risk children in transient innercity communities. The FDA's approval of the Leadcare System is also a major victory for the many countries around the world currently losing the battle against lead poisoning. Following the FDA's decision, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, stated that ``thanks to the FDA and CDC, and to memorandums of understanding we have developed with other countries, this new technology can soon be applied to fighting lead poisoning throughout many areas of the world.'' To this end, ESA plans to introduce the Leadcare System to public health officials and primary care physicians in countries with high incidents of lead poisoning. Mr. Speaker, the FDA's approval of the Leadcare System is truly a landmark in the fight against childhood lead poisoning.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank my colleague from Georgia, and let me just say that I woke up this morning and reads the headlines of the newspapers, and I think everyone in America has looked and seen that the Democrats have been trying to delay and procrastinate in the procedures and shut this place down, if need be, in order to get a vote on campaign finance reform. Now, all of us have looked at the newspapers and on television over the last months and there has been a lot of attention on the problems with our campaign finance system; the fact that there is too much money involved in American politics; the fact that here we are at a critical time and trying to protect America's children from tobacco, and we find the tobacco companies gave millions of dollars in the last election cycle; and the only way we will do anything about this is by forcing a debate on campaign finance reform. Now, it is interesting that at the same time the other body is taking up campaign finance reform and taking up a bill that is sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold, that has the support of nearly every newspaper in America, nearly every public interest group that has been working on campaign finance reform in America, that we find that the Speaker of the House, at the same time this bill is being debated, has a headline in the New York Times which reads ``Gingrich Asserts Campaign Bill Is Dead in the House.'' Well, I am joining with a Republican Member, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Chris Shays], and a number of Members of the House, at one o'clock, and we are going to have a press conference to announce that campaign finance reform is not dead in the House. As a matter of fact, we are going to introduce early next week a revised reform bill based on a scaled-back McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan bill. Now, what does it do? No. 1, it bans soft money. The fund-raising controversies that we have heard about by and large have been soft money, the ability of someone to go into the Speaker's office or go into the White House or anyplace else with a check for $50,000 or $100,000. That should be illegal. We ought to have a vote on the floor of the House and let Members vote whether they think it should be illegal or not. Certainly 80 to 90 percent of the American public think it should be illegal. The Speaker thinks it ought to be legal. He thinks there is not enough money being spent on campaigns in America, and that is the opposite of the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that the time has come for campaign finance reform. The Speaker says that we need more money involved in this process. The truth is money is corrupting American politics and everyone knows it. We are going to file a bill that will ban soft money, that will give better disclosure requirements, greater disclosure and better enforcement from the Federal Election Commission. All of us here today believe that the Speaker's desire to vastly increase the amount of money in the current system would be a disaster for democracy. I am confident that the Members of this House are going to stand up to the Speaker and, if we need to do it, we will file a discharge petition and require that there be a vote on the floor of this House to ban soft money. One person cannot stand in the way of campaign finance reform, and I believe that the membership of this House is ready to take on Speaker Gingrich and require that there be a vote on campaign finance reform and a vote to abolish soft money.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to yield to my colleague from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Doggett- Meehan-Hansen-DeGette amendment. Simply put, we can no longer continue to promote and facilitate the overseas sale of preventable death. In 1995 alone, Mr. Chairman, tobacco products killed 3 million people worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, 500 million people alive today will die due to smoking-related illness. It is hypocritical at best and immoral at worst for us to continue on our present course. At a time when we are working to improve the health of our citizens, it should not be the policy of the U.S. Government to promote the sale and marketing of death and disease abroad. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is about our Government's complicity in big tobacco's export on an epidemic scale. Here in the United States, smoking rates among adults have finally begun to decline. In response to a shrinking domestic market, the American tobacco companies have turned their attention to the independent national market, particularly developing nations in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, international sales of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have already quadrupled in the last 10 years. Mr. Chairman, opponents of this amendment do not mention the fact that American tobacco companies are unleashing an unprecedented advertising and marketing campaign on unsophisticated and vulnerable consumers all across the world. Further, they conveniently forget to mention that American tobacco companies have targeted women, the vast majority of whom had not previously smoked, by linking the women's movement with the smoking of cigarettes. It is abundantly clear that the American tobacco companies are looking overseas for future profits. With this amendment, we must decide whether or not we, as a nation, will facilitate big tobacco's overseas campaign. Currently we are willing accomplices to the worldwide addition of children to tobacco products. Thus, we had have contributed to these untimely deaths. How can we on the one hand seek to protect our children from the ravages of nicotine addiction while promoting the activities of tobacco companies abroad? This is a good amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, as Congress reconvenes this week after successfully passing a balanced budget deal, we have a major piece of business that we need to finish, campaign finance reform. Yet when the Republican leadership was asked what was on the agenda for the rest of this year, campaign finance reform was nowhere in sight. So far this Congress, the Speaker has delayed over and over, refusing to bring up campaign finance reform, refusing to schedule a vote in the first 100 days, refusing to schedule a vote and accepting the President's challenge by July 4. Now he wants to end this year without dealing with campaign finance reform. Well, many of us feel it is not too late. In fact, the only way to affect the 1998 elections and change the campaign finance system is to pass campaign finance reform now. We have proposed ending soft money, abolishing soft money. Surely all of us can agree with all of the political hearings that have been held in Washington that there is a need to end soft money. This is a simple thing to do. The only way we can affect the 1998 elections is to end soft money, and we are going to begin that battle this week.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today it is time to bring our agricultural policy in line with our health policy. As the cochairman of the 83 member congressional task force on tobacco and health, we need to correct this serious disconnect in Federal policy. We cannot credibly discourage the use of tobacco as long as we are subsidizing the growing of tobacco. It is really that simple. We may be able to come up with assistance to tobacco farmers, we should do that through the settlement that has been negotiated by the attorneys general. But it does not make any sense to take taxpayer money and subsidize the growth of tobacco in this country. We have made enormous progress on this amendment over the last few years. In fact, we have made so much progress that last year it failed by only two votes. Surely in the last year we have gotten enough information about what tobacco companies knew about the dangers of their product, about decades of duplicity and lying that they have perpetrated upon American people. Now is the time to pass this amendment. This is extremely important.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because what we need to do with this amendment is fully fund the tobacco initiative. The administration does not support this. The administration requested $34 million to carry out the necessary enforcement and outreach that will effectively curtail sales of tobacco products to children. I would hope that we could all agree, there are 50 States that have laws that are in effect, to regulate tobacco use to children. This allows the FDA to fully enforce those laws. That is what this is all about. It does not affect tobacco farmers. It does not deal with the contentious or controversial issues relative to FDA regulation like marketing restrictions and advertising. All this attempts to do is give the FDA the resources that the administration says they need to effectively inform retailers of what they are to be doing; namely, carding a consumer who is underage who comes to buy tobacco products. The evidence is overwhelming that retailers are selling these products that kill children to children. The only thing we are trying to do with this amendment is allow the FDA to implement a program of education so that they can make sure that retailers know how they should protect children from sales. We have to card people, to educate people. We are talking about tobacco, the leading preventable cause of death in America. In nearly every category, children are using tobacco products more and more, 3,000 children experiment with tobacco products a day, 1,000 of them have their lives cut short. The minimum that we can do, the minimum we can do is enforce the laws that are in effect now. Let us make them card people. Let us make the retailers stop selling this destructive product to children. The way we do that is by giving the FDA the authority and the resources they need. Even with this money that is available, the Department of Agriculture will still get 114 percent of what they asked for. There is no excuse for not passing this amendment. It is in the interest of America's children. This is a bipartisan bill. It is not a Democratic amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. There are Members here who have been fighting all across America, attorneys general who have been fighting, hours and months of negotiating to keep tobacco products away from children. Let us join with those health experts. Let us join with the President and protect America's children. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], my Republican colleague, a leader in the fight to protect America's children against tobacco and the cochair of the task force on tobacco and health in the Congress. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I have an amendment that is a very important amendment, very important not only to this House but very important to young people all across America. It is a bipartisan amendment that gives the FDA the resources it needs to effectively inform retailers of what they need to be doing; namely, carding potential consumers of tobacco. Now, I had 24 Members who were ready, willing, and able to come up and speak on this particular amendment. And after this rule came out of the committee at 11:30 last night, I only get 5 minutes to try to discuss this very, very important and critical amendment. We are at a critical and historic juncture in this country on tobacco. At the Federal level we have a unique opportunity to protect our children from nicotine addiction and tobacco-related disease. There is no better time to act than now. Attorneys general from all across America have been negotiating for months an effort to try to give the FDA the regulation and the teeth they need in order to protect America's children. All across America there has been a dialog in the health care community about the effects of tobacco on children, and here we are with the unique opportunity to fund the FDA, to help them protect America's children, and we do not want to debate. We give 5 minutes to an issue of critical importance. This particular rule is an outrage. No Member in good conscience should vote for this rule.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.