Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Congress 3 years ago, I brought a list of priorities: Balancing the budget, cleaning up the environment, and promoting economic development and small business opportunities. But after working on Capitol Hill for just a few months, I learned that more often than not, special interests, not public interests, drive the legislative agenda in Washington. That is why so much of the changes voters demanded, like cutting Government waste and curbing rising health care costs are so difficult to achieve. Under our grossly deficient campaign finance system, well-heeled lobbyists and PACs have greater influence over Washington's business than the folks back home. A perfect example is the 2-year debate about how to balance the budget. Congress could have passed a credible plan to balance the budget last year in the absence of special interests. Year after year, programs that have long outlived their usefulness are preserved in the budget. Everything from tax loopholes for energy and marketing subsidies are taboo when it comes to cutting Government spending, while education, employment and training programs for the working poor are on the chopping block. Even if we do get a balanced budget this year, Mr. Speaker, odds are that that balanced budget will contain costly tax breaks that benefit special interests and disproportionate cuts to the lower and middle class. Congress comes up against the special interest money barrier every time we try to take on the tobacco industry as well. Public decisions and public policies are often abstract, but this one could not be clearer. Every day 3,000 young people are enticed into forming a deadly habit before they are old enough to truly make impartial decisions about their health. Yet even when the issue is clear-cut, Congress has been unable to pass legislation or even try to eliminate or regulate teenagers' access to tobacco products. Last year, Common Cause released a report that illustrated the enormous amount of money the tobacco industry pours into political campaigns to stop antitobacco legislation from passing. According to the report, tobacco giants like Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, U.S. Tobacco and the Tobacco Institute have donated millions of dollars to Members of Congress over the past 10 years. Without question, this report documents the way money in the form of campaign contributions influence decisions that are made in Washington. During the last Congress, I joined with a group of like-minded freshman Democrats to pass campaign finance and lobby reform legislation. It is no secret now that our efforts failed largely due to the efforts of special interests. Both bills failed to pass, and many of my dedicated freshman colleagues lost in their bids for reelection as a result. I learned then that passing real congressional reform means forging new alliances across party and ideological lines to fight the embraced establishment and the entrenched establishment in Washington. That is how we passed lobby reform and the gift ban legislation last year, and that is the only way Congress can reform its corrupting campaign finance system. This week the Senate will start debating the first bipartisan bicameral campaign finance reform in over a decade. S. 1219, the McCain-Feingold regulation, has the support of a coalition of 30 grass-roots organizations and editorial board from all across America. Last year Linda Smith, Chris Shays, and I introduced the House version of this campaign finance reform bill. H.R. 2566, the Bipartisan Clean Congress Act, was the result of months and months of negotiations between groups of Democrats and Republicans. Both bills are a remarkable example of what can happen when Members put aside their partisan differences and sit down to the same table to try to make Congress more accountable. H.R. 2566 eliminates PACs, caps lobbyist donations, requires 60 percent of campaign contributions to originate in a candidate's home State. It eliminates loopholes and large political party contributions and sets voluntary spending limits, offering candidates discounted broadcast time and large mailings if they sign a pledge not to spend any more than $600,000. If enacted, the Bipartisan Clean Congress Act will halt special interest influence in Washington and really clear the way for the truly representative democracy which our forefathers envisioned 200 years ago. Now, it is difficult to change a system that is so favorable to incumbents, given the fact incumbents have access to PAC and lobbyist contributions. They help us win reelection in the Congress over 90 percent of the time. Incumbents receive 70 percent of their PAC contributions in each cycle. Seventy percent of all PAC contributions go to incumbents. Compare that with less than 12 percent for challengers; less than 12 percent. Mr. Speaker, the time for campaign finance reform is now. We have to act in this Congress while we have a President willing to sign this bill. Let us give President Clinton this bipartisan bill and pass it into law.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the freeze amendment. That is what this does. It is a freeze amendment. Now, it is interesting to me, when we voted on the balanced budget amendment there were about 300 Members of the House of Representatives who came in here and voted for a balanced budget amendment. That was the easy part, come in a vote for a balance budget amendment, go back to our districts and say, well, I voted for a balanced budget amendment; I want to balance the budget. We tried yesterday to cut corporate welfare with very little success, then we tried to cut tobacco subsidies with a little more success, but we were unable to do it. Mr. Chairman, this defense appropriations bill adds close to $11 billion more than what the President requested, $3.7 billion more than we gave the Pentagon last year. Adding $11 billion to the defense budget is the height of fiscal irresponsibility; 15 percent of the budget is the defense budget. How in the world are we going to tell the American people that we are serious about balancing the budget when we do not have the courage to make the difficult choices with defense? In this particular option, $1.8 billion, as my colleague from Massachusetts said, we cut $800 million just with the rule that we passed. This is an easy amendment. I hear this talk about we are going to cut health care, we are going to cut the extra money for the troops and the extra money for readiness. This bill appropriates $6 billion more than the President's request on weapons procurement. It accelerates the purchases of new fighter aircraft and submarines, items that the Pentagon had not planned to buy for years. And if they had not planned to buy them for years, how in the world will we pay the upkeep? It does not make any sense. This budget sinks $858 million, 69 percent more than the President requested, into the national missile defense system. If we are serious about balancing the budget, let us not exempt 15 percent of the budget. Let us pass this freeze amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman from Kentucky bring up Twinkies, and it is interesting because when the CEO's of the major tobacco companies of this country testified before the Congress of the United States, one of them said, ``Nicotine is no more addicting than Twinkies.'' It is ironic that Twinkies would come up again here today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Durbin-Hansen-Meehan amendment to once and for all end the Federal Government's $25 million subsidization of tobacco. And by the way, the USDA says that it costs the taxpayers money, the Congressional Budget Office says it costs the taxpayers money. It is time to finally put an end to our agricultural policy that is not in line with our health policy. Mr. Chairman, the tobacco crop insurance subsidies, these are products of a bygone era that have no interest other than the special interest of the big clout that is supporting them. No longer should the Federal Government be a willing and knowing partner in the addiction of America's youth. Now is the time to correct a serious disconnect in Federal policy. It borders on hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, that on the one hand we tell our young people do not smoke, do not chew tobacco, it is a nasty and ultimately deadly addiction. Be smart, do not cave in to the destructive advertising, the peer pressure, and on the other hand to the tobacco and extension services and crop insurance subsidies the Federal Government tells our young all across America, do as I say, not as I do. A vote against this amendment is a vote against kids in America and a vote for big tobacco. Mr. Chairman, by voting for big tobacco Congress votes for an industry that manufactures a product that kills 420,000 Americans each year; an industry that has convinced through its cartoon character Joe Camel, by the way a multibillion dollar advertising campaign directed specifically to children in America, and through that specifically directed cartoon character there are 300,000 kids a day that pick up a cigarette and try it for the first time. One thousand of those children will eventually become addicted to this deadly product. It is an industry that costs the American economy through health care costs and lost productivity $100 billion a year. Is this the type of vote we want to go back and explain to the mothers and fathers back in our district that we made? Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the issue will argue that this vote will only affect a small family-run tobacco farm. Mr. Chairman, tobacco farming is one of the most lucrative forms of agriculture. An acre of tobacco is 1,000 percent more lucrative than 1 acre of corn. The fact is this amendment does not affect the operation of the tobacco price support program; therefore, this amendment will not cost a single tobacco farmers his or her job. No, this amendment is not directed against the small tobacco farmer, he will still have his customers, the Philip Morris, the R.J. Reynolds of the world. The amendment is about putting our agricultural policy in line with our health policy. We have spent millions of dollars educating Americans about the diseases of this product, the dangers of this product. We are seeing historic Americans come out in a historic way to demand that the Congress regulate this product in the advertising to children. We have seen the President come forward and call for the FDA to regulate this product in its advertising to children. We have seen attorneys general all across this country begin to hold tobacco companies accountable for the millions and millions of dollars of damage to health care in every State in this country. Now is not the time to move backward. Now is the time to make the move to move forward. Just because this amendment has been defeated in the past does not mean we shall not do the right thing here. Mr. Chairman, I agree the tobacco company needs the help of Congress, but further subsidizes are not the answer. No, Mr. Chairman; big tobacco does not need further subsidization; big tobacco in this country needs regulation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Durbin amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, for over a year now, we have been debating in this Chamber how to balance the budget. Democrats and Republicans have been trapped in a stalemate, arguing how to cut Government programs without harming the poor, the elderly, without sacrificing the environment. The majority party has proposed cutting vital programs for education, child nutrition, all in the name of deficit reduction. Yet today, here we are again, fighting an uphill battle to end one of the greatest corporate boondoggles in our budget, the renamed but certainly not repealed Market Access Program. There were 300 Members in this Chamber who voted for a balanced budget amendment. That did not take courage. They come in, vote for a balanced budget amendment. The challenge we face as a country is how to balance the budget. This Market Promotion Program is a flagrant misuse and misallocation of funds. Anyone who voted for a balanced budget should not come into this Chamber day in and day out to keep corporate subsidies in the budget. Let us stand up and take a stand. If Members voted for a balanced budget, have the courage to balance the budget.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to insert Father Robert F. Drinan's opinion editorial ``Posturing on Abortion,'' the New York Times, June 4, 1996 into the Record. Father Drinan, a Jesuit priest, is also a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and a former Representative from Massachusetts. I applaud Father Drinan for standing up in support of a goal that both Democrats and Republicans should agree to--limiting the number of abortions in the United States. Father Drinan rightly argues that Congress and the President should move away from partisan grandstanding on abortion issues and work together to protect women's reproductive health. As a Catholic, I would like to thank Father Drinan for publicly opposing the so-called partial birth abortion ban. It was incredibly difficult for me to vote against this bill. Yet as Father Drinan noted, Congress should be focusing on reducing the number of abortions, not posturing on issues that do not allow doctors to safeguard women's health or protect those unfortunate victims of incest and rape. Posturing on Abortion (By Robert F. Drinan) Washington.--The indignant voices of the pro-life movement and the Republication Party will likely reach new decibels in the campaign to urge Congress to override President Clinton's veto of the bill banning so-called partial-birth abortions. But Congress should sustain the veto. The bill does not provide an exception for women whose health is at risk, and it would be virtually unenforceable. I write this as a Jesuit priest who agrees with Vatican II, which said abortion is virtually infanticide, and as a lawyer who wants the Clinton Administration to do more to carry out its pledge to make abortions rare in this country. The bill the President vetoed would not reduce the number of abortions, but would allow Federal power to intrude into the practice of medicine in an unprecedented way. It would also detract from the urgent need to decrease abortions, especially among unwed teen-agers. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed the House by 286 to 129, and 290 votes are required to override the veto. It cleared the Senate by 54 to 44; though it seems unlikely that 13 of the 44 votes would change, all bets are off in an election year. More than 95 percent of all abortions take place before 15 weeks. Only about one-half of 1 percent take place at or after 20 weeks. If a woman has carried a child for five months, it is extremely unlikely that she will want an abortion. The three procedures available for later abortions are complicated and can be dangerous. The vetoed bill would have criminalized only one--a technique called dilation and extraction--that medical experts say is the safest of the three. The bill calls this procedure a ``partial birth,'' a term that experts reject as a misnomer. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported the veto. President Clinton said he would sign a bill regulating late-term abortions if it provided an exception for women whose health might be at risk if they did not have the procedure. As the bill stands, the abortion would be allowed only if a woman might die without it. Mr. Clinton is serious. as Governor of Arkansas, he signed a bill prohibiting late abortions except for minors impregnated by rape or incest or when the woman's life or health is endangered. In any case, a conviction would be difficult to obtain if the bill became law. Legal experts say that doctors could argue that the language was too vague for a measure that imposed criminal sanctions. And juries might be reluctant to convict a doctor who aborted a fetus that was likely to be stillborn or in cases where the woman's health or ability to have children was in jeopardy. The bill would also sanction intrusive enforcement by requiring Federal officials to keep informed about doctors who performed late-term abortions. The F.B.I. would be authorized to tell nurses and health aides that they had a duty to tell officials about illegal late abortions. If Congress were serious about getting a law on the books limiting late abortions, it would include the woman's health as justification for the late-term procedure. But it seems more intent on using Mr. Clinton's veto as a political weapon. This will poison the campaign and inhibit a larger discussion about real strategies to reduce abortions.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hour is late, but you know, it is only so often we get an open rule, so if I am going to be here at this time I might as well take this opportunity. I just want to rise to voice my opposition to this amendment. Each year the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] finds it necessary to offer the same amendment to cut foreign assistance to India. Fortunately each year this amendment fails, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and defeat it again this year. India is the largest democracy in the world and continually displays its commitment to democratic principles. Recently 350 million people exercised their right to direct the future of their country by voting in democratic elections. India has maintained its allegiance to freedom and democracy. Understandably, this amendment is being offered to punish India because of the country's poor human rights record. However, India has taken steps to improve its record and continues to do so. The Indian Government has allowed the United Nations offices, the Western media and the Red Cross into many regions to document their success. Furthermore, we will not improve the government's record on human rights by cutting aid, which will cause thousands of India's residents to suffer. As Representatives of this Congress, we must be aware of our message on this vote and what it will send to nations struggling for democracy, to invest it in the United States and abroad. Cutting development assistance or making aid conditional on unwarranted premises will stigmatize India and make it less attractive to businesses and development that that country desperately needs. It is our responsibility to help invest in and help stabilize any nation willing to let citizens live in freedom and participate in government. Let us show our support for the largest democracy of the world and vote against the Burton amendment, and I thank the majority for having an open rule. It is seldom that we get this opportunity.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to voice my opposition to this amendment. Each year, Mr. Burton finds it necessary to offer the same amendment to cut foreign assistance to India. Fortunately, each year, this amendment fails. I urge my colleagues to join me again this year to defeat it. India is the largest democracy in the world and continually displays its commitment to Democratic principles. In recent countrywide Presidential elections, preliminary results show that over 350 million people exercised their right to direct the future of their country by voting. India has maintained its allegiance to freedom and democracy despite being surrounded by autocratic regimes and unstable governments. Villages in India need outside aid to help foster their citizens' entry into modern living; 75 percent of all the bikes and portable radios sold in India are sold in small villages. Sixty percent of all the table fans, sewing machines, bath soaps, and wristwatches are being bought by people who live in isolated areas that are years behind in technology. Reports show that foreign aid dollars can translate into lower mortality rates, higher gross domestic product levels and higher literacy rates. Currently, health and medical conditions are so poor in parts of India that 40 percent of the women in India die in childbirth, 50 percent of all children are undernourished, and 50 percent of all polio patients die for lack of vaccinations. Food security is still a national security concern in this country--if this aid is cut thousands will go hungry, many more could die. This amendment is being offered to punish India because of the country's poor human rights record. However, India has taken steps to improve this record and continues to do so. The Indian Government has allowed United Nations officers, western media, and the Red Cross into many regions to document their progress. Furthermore, we will not improve the Government's record on human rights by cutting aid that will cause thousands of India's citizens to suffer. As Representatives to the United States Congress, we must be aware of the message our vote on this issue will send to nations struggling for democracy and to investors in the United States and abroad. Cutting development assistance or making aid conditional on unwarranted premises will stigmatize India and make it less attractive to the businesses and development the country desperately needs. As our world grows smaller, it is to our responsibility to help invest in and help stabilize any nation willing to let her citizens live in freedom and participate in government. Let's show our support for the largest democracy in the world. Vote against the Burton amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, we want to balance the budget. There is a Democratic plan to balance the budget. The question is this: Are we going to ask for shared sacrifice? Who is going to pay the price to balance the budget? The budget actually increases the deficit in the first year by $17 billion. We are going to have to borrow $17 billion to pay for tax cuts in the first year of this budget. In addition to that, we have corporate welfare cuts that would be difficult politically to institute because the special interests are supporting it in the Halls of Congress. We could do a better job of cutting corporate welfare. This budget does not do that. This budget looks at education and again cuts education, again cuts the growth in the Medicare program. We have to make difficult decisions, Mr. Chairman. Let us make them fairly. Let us ask all Americans to share that burden. We just passed a defense authorization budget that increases the defense budget above what the Pentagon asked for by $13 billion. Is that shared sacrifice? We should vote for a budget that is fair. This budget is not fair.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is foolish and irresponsible to propose increasing the deficit as part of a plan to balance the budget, but that is exactly what the Republicans want to do. Their much touted 6- year budget plan will order the Congress to borrow $17 billion next year in order to pay for 1 year of tax cuts, tax cuts that in the end will cost $175 billion in just 6 years, even though the Republicans only have enough to pay for $124 billion. Are we not supposed to be cutting the deficit? Every year we fail to balance the budget we add to the growing national debt. The nearly $5 trillion debt sops up national savings, leaving increasingly less money for private investment, new equipment, technology, and worker training. Balancing the budget involves some very difficult choices. We just passed a defense authorization bill this year that added $13 billion to what the Pentagon asked for. Last year we added, that is right, we added $7 billion to what the Pentagon asked for. We have tough choices to make. How about the $200 billion we could save in corporate welfare over a 6-year period if Republicans would forget about the special interests and really try to make the tough decisions to balance this budget? The short-term consequences of expanding free trade pale in comparison to the long-term effects of a growing national debt, lower wages, a poorly trained work force and lagging economic growth. The Republican plan foolishly sells tax cuts to the public in exchange for increasing the debt while drastically reducing investments in technology, economic development, education and the environment, ironically the very resources we need to be competitive worldwide and to reestablish high growth rates that our next generation needs to enjoy. Let us forget this plan and support the coalition's budget alternative. This involves tough decisions. The coalition budget does that.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding author, John F. Nowak from the city of Lowell. Mr. Nowak is the author of ``Jasiu,'' an autobiography honoring his education and experiences as a child and later his adult years. I know the city of Lowell, as I was born and raised there. It is a proud immigrant city, with a rich history. It was very prominent in the 19th century and was renowned for it's robust mill industry. Today, for many families, it remains a symbol for people to work hard and achieve one's goals. I make this point, Mr. Speaker, for I feel that just as there are many families of this region who have made historic contributions to our country, Mr. Nowak has made his own contribution. Mr. Nowak served as a member of the Armed Forces and was a Federal employee to our Government. I believe that by writing and publishing ``Jasiu,'' Mr. Nowak has achieved a lifetime goal. A goal that few of us ever achieve. In his book, Mr. Nowak tells a number of interesting stories about his experiences as a young Polish-American boy growing up in the 1930's, his adult years in the Air Force while stationed in North Africa and his volunteer efforts working to preserve the environment. His light-hearted philosophy makes ``Jasiu'' a work that is spirited and entertaining, despite the trials and tribulations he encounters. Mr. Nowak graduated from Lowell High School and after returning to civilian life, he earned an associates degree in business administration from Merrimack College. He then went on to receive two subsequent bachelor degrees--one in liberal arts from Merrimack College and the other in sociology from River College. I commend Mr. Nowak's drive and ambition, as well as his love of learning. His sense of human understanding gives his book a genuine quality and paints a portrait of a man who has lived and accomplished much. I extend my congratulations to John Nowak on the publication of his book.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to discuss the independence of Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Six weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Starr a letter. I asked him to immediately take the necessary steps to assure the credibility of his position by eliminating even the appearance of conflicts of interest in his Whitewater investigation. Since that time, Mr. Starr has done nothing to rectify the situation. In face, he has not even responded. At first, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that Mr. Starr, who is such a highly successful attorney that he can pick and choose his clients, would decide to represent a tobacco company--a political foe of the President. However, as I began to take a closer look at Mr. Starr's career decisions, his representation of Brown & Williamson fits perfectly into a portfolio of controversial clients. The archconservative Bradley Foundation, is another ideological client of the Independent Counsel. The Bradley Foundation hired Mr. Starr as a consultant and when Mr. Starr argued a school voucher case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Bradley Foundation provided a $150,000 grant to pay State's legal fees. By defending the Wisconsin school voucher system, Mr. Starr argued directly against the Clinton administration's stance on an issue that could very well play a role in the 1996 Presidential election. Mr. Speaker, the Bradley Foundation is one of this Nation's most conservative and partisan organizations. Each year the Bradley Foundation doles out $20 million to groups like the American Spectator, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, and others who attack the President and First Lady in a highly political and often personal fashion. We can conclude then, Mr. Speaker, that Independent Counsel Ken Starr's personal wealth--he made well over $1 million dollars last year--is quite dependent on a political clientele. Let's now look at Mr. Starr's firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and its dealings with the Resolution Trust Corporation--the key Federal agency in the Whitewater investigation. In May 1993, nearly a year before Starr's appointment as Independent Counsel, the RTC accused Kirkland & Ellis of professional misconduct in the negligent representation of the First America Savings Bank, a failed savings and loan association. After Mr. Starr was appointed Independent Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis paid the RTC $325,000 to settle the claim. Starr, who, as senior partner serves on Kirkland & Ellis' management committee, claims he was unaware of his firm's negotiations with the RTC. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope Mr. Starr was blissfully unaware of this case. Because, during this same period, Mr. Starr as Independent Counsel in the Whitewater Investigation, was questioning some of the same RTC officials who were involved with the decision to sue his law firm. Again, a reasonable person would see the appearance, if not the existence, of a serious conflict of interest. Mr. Starr's appearance problems neither begin nor end with Brown & Williamson or the RTC. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department has launched a number of grand jury investigations into possible criminal violations on the part of tobacco companies and their executives. According to the New York Times at least five grand juries have been convened. Department of Justice's probe of the tobacco industry represents the Department's largest investigation of the manufacturer of a consumer product under the Clinton administration. However, while parents and health advocates overwhelmingly support the President's actions on curbing youth tobacco use, cigarette manufacturers, like Brown & Williamson, have retaliated with a massive political donation campaign to thwart the FDA's common sense regulations. Political donations by tobacco interests set new records last year. They gave $4 million in PAC and soft money to the two major political parties and various congressional candidates. Tellingly, Mr. Speaker, more than $3 million went to Republicans. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed new regulations on tobacco advertising and marketing to children. President Clinton's leadership on the FDA's regulations has been historic. Never before has an American President so boldly stood up to Big Tobacco and not backed down. Mr. Speaker, to say that tobacco companies, like Brown & Williamson, have a contentious relationship with the Clinton administration would be a gross understatement. Never before has the tobacco industry faced so many challenges in its dealings with the Federal Government. Let me just add, as an aside, that problems for the tobacco industry are victories for America's children. The Castano suit is the largest class action suit in history. It has been filed on behalf of all addicted smokers in the United States against the tobacco industry. If successful, the Castano suit will cost Big Tobacco millions and millions of dollars. I could not believe that the politically savvy Mr. Starr--a former Solicitor General in the Bush administration--would be so naive as to not see a serious problem in his dual role as lead attorney for Brown & Williamson and the Whitewater investigator. I was unnerved, to say the least, Mr. Speaker, when I turned on my television set several weeks ago and saw Mr. Starr--not in Little Rock, AR, working on Whitewater--but in New Orleans. He was there acting as the Counsel of Record, in other words, the lead attorney, for the entire tobacco industry in the Castano class action suit. For several years now, I have worked to hold Brown & Williamson, along with the rest of the tobacco industry, accountable for manipulating the level of nicotine in cigarettes, for targeting America's children in advertising, and for misleading the Congress, Federal agencies, and the American people when it comes to the dangers of tobacco products. Unfortunately, here is what they are getting: Mr. Starr, while purporting to oversee and lead the Whitewater Investigation, remains actively involved in an enormous private practice, over $1 million per year. Moreover, much of his private practice is dominated by ideological foes of the President. For example, Mr. Starr is employed by Brown & Williamson--one of this Nation's largest tobacco companies. In fact, my interest in Mr. Starr's conflicts of interest stems from his work for Brown & Williamson. Mr. Speaker, when the sitting President of the United States is under investigation, the public demands a fair and impartial investigator. I do not believe that is too much to ask. Currently, though, we have an Independent Counsel who seems to be the servant of several masters. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this, the Congress deserves better than this, and the President deserves better than this. Mr. Starr fails to recognize the political context of this Whitewater investigation. If he is to serve effectively as the Independent Counsel, it is imperative that he resolve problems his large, lucrative private practice creates. His unwillingness to address these questions will ultimately taint any resolution in this case. Mr. Speaker, when a sitting President is the subject of any kind of investigation, the public demands a fair and impartial investigator. I do not believe that is too much to ask. Currently though we have an independent counsel who seems to serve several masters. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. The President deserves better. This Congress deserves better. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Starr needs to clear up this conflict of interest. You cannot serve two masters. He made a million dollars last year in private clients. Somebody who can conduct a politically charged investigation that involves potentially the President ought to be really independent. It is time, Mr. Starr. Answer these questions.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment. When the 1996 Defense authorization bill became law, it banned privately funded abortion to U.S. military hospitals overseas, except in the case of rape or incest. The DeLauro amendment simply strikes this language. Mr. Chairman, I understand that many of my colleagues disagree that a woman has a right to choose. I also understand many of my colleagues believe that Government funds should not be used to pay for abortions. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about abortion, and not a debate about Government subsidizing abortion. This is a debate about the safety of our soldiers in our armed services and their dependents. The issue here is whether we are going to give a woman who is overseas, because we sent her there, her right to use a safe U.S. military medical facility. If a woman can freely use these facilities when she has the flu or appendicitis, why can she not go there for a legal procedure, particularly when she is using her own funds? Now, the reality is, many of our women are stationed in countries where these medical procedures may be prohibited or where adequate medical facilities are not available. If we deny a woman adequate medical care on base, we may force her to an unsafe facility. This ban does not make any sense. It makes a difficult decision even more difficult, and it needlessly risks the safety and health of women who are serving our country. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, as we close general debate on the fiscal 1997 national defense authorization bill, I wonder what sort of message we are sending to the citizens of this country. For months the American public has heard nothing but the dangers of the growing deficit and the need to tighten our belts and balance the budget. Frankly, I could not agree more. Unfortunately, today we are considering a bill that adds $13 billion to the Pentagon's request. That is right, $13 billion more than the Pentagon asked for. The same Congress that shut down the Government twice in the name of balancing the budget is sending a Government agency $13 billion more than it wants. Congress is sinking $13 billion into defense, and we will not even be discussing the final cost to the defense budget during this debate because the Republican-controlled leadership has refused to put a single amendment in order that would cut this budget. We added $7 billion in the fiscal year. Now we are adding $13 billion in this fiscal year. The defense budget is half of all discretionary spending we have in this country. If half of discretionary spending, we are going to tell the Government they need to spend more, $20 billion over 2 years, how in the world are we going to make the investments in education, in student loans, in children? We are not making that investment because we do not have the courage to make the difficult choices when it comes to the defense budget in this country. This is an outrage, that we cannot even have an amendment before this House, the people's House, to determine whether or not we should add $13 million to a budget where the Pentagon said they already had enough. The American public ought to be outraged that we are actually coming before this House. I urge us not to vote for this bill.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to this rule. This is supposedly an opportunity for a candid debate on the merits of the 1997 Department of Defense authorization bill. The Committee on Rules is supposed to enable this debate. My colleagues submitted 117 amendments to this bill. Although this is a high number, it is actually lower than in previous years. Why? Because it is difficult to draft amendments to a bill you have not seen. And this bill became available to Members the day after amendments were due. So by sheer will, 117 amendments were submitted. However, we are going to debate only 41 of them. The Committee on Rules has shut down 68 percent of the amendments they received. Clearly the majority have carefully selected which amendments they want to debate candidly. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one issue that we will not be debating, because under this rule we will not be debating the majority's addition of $12.9 billion to the President's budget request for defense. We added $7 billion above what the Pentagon asked for last year. Now in this year of balancing the budget, we say to a government agency, the Pentagon, you did not ask for enough money. We have found $13 billion that you should have asked for, but we are going to give it to you. Then we are going to bring it to the House of Representatives for a debate, and there is not a Member who has an opportunity to question whether or not we should be giving that agency more than they asked for. Could you imagine any other budget that we deal with on the floor of this House that we would say to a government agency, you did not ask for enough money. We are going to give you more then we are not going to debate it. That is exactly what this rule does. The same people that want to balance the budget, want to take 15 percent of the budget, increase it by $13 billion and say when we have debate on the floor of the House, we are not going to debate whether it is in the Nation's interest to have added this money to the bill, not to mention the fact that we are adding money for missile systems, and if you look at the Republican budget over 7 years that you voted for, if you look at the increases in the $13 billion, how are we going to maintain this equipment? If you look at the outyears of the Republican budget, it is heavy on the front end, but once you get into the sixth, seventh, eighth, later years of that budget, it goes down. We have already added $20 billion in 2 years beyond what the Pentagon asked for. No one in America really believes that this is the way that you balance the budget. We should defeat this rule. It is unfair and it does not give the American public an opportunity to debate whether or not we ought to be giving $13 billion more than the Pentagon asked for.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the calls for Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to address concerns over his outside legal practice continue to mount. This weekend, former independent counsels--both Democrats and Republicans--added their voice to the chorus of concerned citizens questioning the judgment and independence of Mr. Starr. Lawrence Walsh, former judge and independent counsel for Iran Contra, said: ``The one excuse for an Independent Counsel is his independence * * * he can't be involved with anything that impairs his freedom of action.'' And Gerald J. Gallinghouse, another Republican who investigated President Jimmy Carter said, ``He should either get in or get out.'' Mr. Starr's investigation is now almost 2 years old and is costing the taxpayers about $1 million a month. At the same time, Mr. Starr continues to maintain an enormous private legal practice which includes many of the President's fiercest political enemies. In fact, it seems that the only criteria is to be an enemy of the Clinton administration. The issue is perception and confidence. I call on Mr. Starr once again--put the private legal practice on hold and focus on the job at hand--the public deserves nothing less.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor this evening to ask for the Nation's help. A long time family friend of mine, Tom Welch, who lives in the town of Chelmsford, MA, is in serious need of a bone marrow transplant. Tom is a community activist, who tirelessly works to help others. He is employed by Hewlett Packard and he also serves as a town selectman--a position to which he was recently elected. He has a wife, Maureen, and two sons--a family to which he is absolutely committed. Well-read and smart; a lover of jazz music, Tom is--to all who know him--an all around great guy. That is why it is with great sadness that I make this plea tonight. In January of this year, Tom was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Disorder, a condition which inhibits reproduction of the body's blood cells and destroys its ability to combat infection. Tom's condition is the result of long-term exposure to several forms of radiation therapy as, over the years, he has battled Hodgekin's Disease, Melanoma, and Basil-Cell Carcinoma. While his cancer is in remission, his life is now threatened by this immuno-deficient condition, and the last hope for a cure is to perform a bone marrow transplant. Such a procedure would replace his damaged bone marrow with another person's, much healthier marrow, restoring his body's blood-cell production and adding years onto his life. Since Tom is in good health, the procedure should be successful; the real obstacle is finding an acceptable donor match. Each year over 9,000 Americans are diagnosed with Tom's condition. Unfortunately, less than 30 percent of those in need ever receive a bone marrow transplant. Matching potential donors is an extremely difficult process. Currently, two agencies in the United States are coordinating the effort: The American Bone Marrow Donor Registry, and the National Marrow Donor Program. Worldwide, over 3 million potential donors have been cataloged, but the demand for transplants still outnumbers the known supply. Today, in my district, the friends of Tom Welch are holding a donor drive in an attempt to find a match for Tom, and this where I need America's help. I want to first encourage all Americans to contact their local donor registry to be listed as a potential donor. I also want to urge for help with the tremendous financial burden involved with such a drive. Take Tom's case for example, the cost to catalog each potential donor is approximately $50. One can easily see that such a drive quickly becomes very expensive. So tonight I am asking, on behalf of Tom Welch and all other patients in need of a bone marrow transplant, for help. Behind me is the address and phone number of the friends of Tom Welch. I urge everyone to call and pledge your support. In closing, I want Tom and Maureen to know that they are in my prayers and in the prayers of people across the nation. With the help of the entire Nation, donors will be found for Tom and all others in need.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Once again, I join my colleagues and Armenians around the world to honor over 1.5 million Armenians who were killed in this tragic event. Like every human tragedy, we must retell this terrible story to our children to teach a lesson: Hatred and bigotry must not be tolerated. Instead, as our world grows smaller every day, we must learn to live together in a global village. We must discover and treasure the differences among peoples around the world. We must promote tolerance and understanding. Only then will we have peace. When we remember the Armenian genocide we send a strong message to our global community that violence born of hatred and fear is unacceptable. While reflecting on the tragedy that began in 1915, our thoughts inevitably turn to a present day tragedy: Bosnia. The world is just beginning to comprehend the atrocities that took place there. The international community is working tirelessly to piece this war torn country back together. However, like those lost in the Armenian genocide, no one can bring back the many precious lives that were lost for no valid reason in the Bosnian War. I represent a large and active Armenian community in my district. They are hard working and proud of their heritage. As Representatives to the United States Congress, it is our duty to commemorate the Armenian genocide in the hope that future generations will never allow such a callous disregard for human rights to occur again.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, good morning and welcome to the U.S. House of Representatives. Today's debate has been bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association. And boy was it expensive. It cost: Soft money contributions of $308,000 to the Republican National Party Committees. Nearly $2 million in special interest PAC contributions, 78 percent or $1.4 million of it going to Republicans. The NRA spent another $1.5 million in independent expenditures, $1.2 million of which went to support Republican candidates. And how about those reformers--the Republican House freshmen. They want this vote today. And there is little wonder. The NRA shelled out $235,000 in special interest PAC money to House freshmen in the 1993-94 election cycle, 44 percent of the NRA's total PAC contributions. Mr. Speaker, from day one this Congress has been responsive only to the powerful special interests that funnel high dollar campaign donations to the GOP. Today is just another glaring example.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the record speaks for itself. Why else would we be here, because between January 1993 and November 1994, the NRA donated $308,000 in soft money contributions to the Republican National Committee. Now, these Republican freshmen that were going to shake up the place, well, they demanded this vote today. Guess what? The NRA donated $235,000 in special interest PAC money to House freshmen in the 1993-94 election cycle. That was 44 percent of the total NRA contributions from PAC's. The NRA gave large PAC contributions to four of the five House freshmen appointed by Speaker Gingrich to his firearms legislation task force. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA donated $1,853,000 in PAC contributions, 78 percent going to Republicans. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.5 million on independent expenditures, $1.2 which went to support Republican candidates. In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.93 million in communications costs to support Republican candidates. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, for my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] I have never taken any political action committee money. Maybe you should try it.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very obvious why we are here. These guys have taken millions and millions of dollars from special interest PAC's. Mr. Speaker, the whole country is watching this debate. The whole country is watching it. Seventy percent of the American people are opposed to this.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor Victor Crawford, who died March 2, 1996, at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD. Mr. Crawford was a leader and a national spokesman in the fight to curb tobacco use. Mr. Crawford served in Maryland's State legislature for over 26 years. After he retired from his legislative career, Mr. Crawford became a lobbyist. One of his largest lobbying contracts was with the tobacco industry, including the Tobacco Institute, which paid him over $20,000 in fees. As a tobacco lobbyist, Mr. Crawford used his considerable legislative and personal skills to derail a number of State initiatives that would have curbed tobacco use in public places and by young people. ``I was in it for the money,'' he said, ``and I was never concerned if people were dying.'' Mr. Crawford's views on tobacco radically changed after he was diagnosed with cancer, a product of his lifelong smoking addiction. He became an eloquent and persuasive speaker on the issue of tobacco. His message was clear and sobering, ``It's too late for me, but it's not too late for you.'' By appearing on ``60 Minutes'', Massachusetts' Department of Public Health's ``Let's Make Smoking History'' campaign, and a radio address with President Clinton, Victor Crawford made a difference in the fight against youth tobacco use. His was a credible voice, a man who realized he had made a mistake and wanted to make amends. Mr. Crawford will be missed not only by his family and friends but also by countless children who listened to his message and decided not to start smoking. His legacy will include thousands of healthy lives that otherwise would have ended prematurely from tobacco related illnesses.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schumer amendment. I think it is clear that sugar subsidies are bad for most Americans. Think about it. When the Government indirectly raises sugar prices to help sugar farmers make a living, all other Americans must pay more for sugar products. Most families in my district have had to deal with a decline in real income over the last 10 to 15 years. At the same time, the Government is still in the business of artificially raising prices on basic foods. The bottom line is that sugar subsidies help sugar growers, and they hurt everyone else that have to pay inflated prices for food. To top it all off, the sugar program costs money. This is a Congress that is going to do all kinds of things to balance the budget, and we have been cutting all kinds of things in this Congress. It is time to put an end to these subsidies. A vote for the Schumer amendment can put an end to one more special interest: agricultural subsidy.