Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, soft money cannot be used for independent expenditures. Soft money is used for issue advocacy. There is a big difference. Independent expenditures is expressly advocating the defeat or election of a candidate and soft money is not used for that.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the cosponsor of the bill from Massachusetts mentioned that they had 127 legal scholars working on this project. They issued a report called Buckley Stops Here, the 20th Century Fund, not-for-profit group. This is paid for by what we would call soft money, contributions. And we want them to use soft money to speak about an issue and try to overturn the Buckley case if they want to do that. But if Shays-Meehan is adopted, they are going to curtail the speech of not-for-profit groups because in essence they do not like what these groups are saying. You are curtailing the amount of money that can be given to 501(c)(3) organizations and you are expanding the definition of express advocacy.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is not anything more important than the discussion of public issues.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand why the other side would be so surprised that there are so many amendments being offered on these bills. When we have bills that so blatantly trample on constitutional rights, I think those of us on the other side have an obligation to introduce amendments to try to prevent that from happening. Justice Holmes in a case of Abrams v. U.S., 1919, in speaking about political campaigns, said that ``The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas; that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the marketplace.'' Most of these bills introduced drastically diminish the rights and opportunities for individuals who are not candidates to participate in the political system. I have heard some on the other side today say we have to reform the way the candidates receive their money, and yet these bills do not talk about the way candidates receive their money. It talks about the way other people who are not involved in the political system spend their money. Then we hear so much about special interest. And I have asked many of them what is a special interest, and I never do get an answer. But I finally have come to the conclusion that if someone does not like someone else's views, then that is a special interest. But if they like the views that are talking about, then they are probably good and wise public advocates. Then we also hear about we have got to know who runs these ads. If we look at these ads on television or radio, there are disclaimers that say who paid for them. The minority leader recently introduced a constitutional amendment saying we have to change the Constitution if we are going to pass some of these bills. And yet when it came up for a floor vote, only 29 Members voted for it. Yet despite that, some of our colleagues still want a restrictive rule to aid and abet their tampering with our cherished First Amendment rights. On a subject matter this important, the American people deserve the opportunity to listen to all sides of the debate, even if it is 400 amendments. So what are they afraid of? They are afraid that an open debate will reveal that Federal courts and the Supreme Court have consistently struck down FEC regulations that diminish the speech- crushing provisions of the legislation they are bringing to the floor. They are also afraid that the American people will realize that their proposal does not address the abuses which occurred during the Clinton- Gore scramble for cash in the 1996 elections. They do not address fund- raising in Buddhist temples. They do not address banning fund-raising in the Lincoln bedroom. They do not address banning making phone calls from the White House. So that is why we need this open rule.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of us certainly admire and respect the gentleman's legal analysis. I want to read to the gentleman from page 249 of the Massachusetts case that he cited.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just remind the gentleman from Connecticut that in Buckley, which is the ruling case on this whole issue, the Supreme Court case, it says very clearly in the case, ``The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.''

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, all of us have been clamoring for debate on campaign finance for some time. In fact, that has been the issue that most people have been talking about, particularly on that side of the aisle, since the beginning of this Congress, and rightfully so. But I find it interesting that every time they talk about we need full and open debate on all these issues, so we have time to talk about every issue, and yet in a minute we may vote on a rule that would allow us also to address some nongermane amendments to Shays-Meehan. And that is really where the problem began in the first place because, for example, the way the presidential elections are financed, that is where all of this problem started. If my colleagues will remember, the Clinton-Gore campaign came close to violating about every Federal election law there is to violate. I am reading from the Washington Post, the Federal page, and it talks about campaign finance probe, 94 witnesses who will not talk, 94 witnesses who take the Fifth Amendment. Many of them, it has been verified, have broken campaign finance laws. Yet this rule is going to be coming up, and I bet everyone on that side of the aisle will vote against the rule, even though we need also, if we are going to have full disclosure and full debate, we need to look at nongermane amendments as well as germane amendments. So, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the way my Democrat colleagues were talking and asking for full and open debate, I would urge them to vote for this rule that we will be considering a little bit later.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in 30 seconds that my colleague talks about giving everyone equal rights; and it is so interesting that in the Shays-Meehan bill and the bills that ban soft money, they are allowing politicians and their hard money to spend more, but they are shutting out other people from speaking on political elections by banning soft money, because soft money is simply money spent by groups interested in the political process to express their views.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a loud and lively debate here today about campaign finance. I for one think that that debate is healthy. Anyone watching this debate would see that there are very deep feelings about this issue. I think that all sides are speaking from the sincerity of their beliefs. There are a lot of confusing issues on this issue of campaign finance. I for one do not think simply calling something reform means that that is going to make it better. In fact, some people would say that instead of campaign finance reform, this should be called campaign finance regulation. In the definitions of campaign finance, we talk about hard money, we talk about soft money, we talk about independent expenditures, we talk about issue advocacy, we talk about a lot of magic words that a lot of people really do not focus on, do not understand. I noticed that, during the debate today, that the minority leader referred to independent expenditures as being a real problem as someone else referred to independent expenditures as being a real problem. I do not really think independent expenditures are a real problem, because independent expenditures is express advocacy and already comes under FEC jurisdiction except in a few minute exceptions. But if a person donates money to a candidate, and the candidate decides to give that money, let us say, to a not-for-profit group, there are some provisions in here, the Shays-Meehan bill, that would prevent, for example, political parties giving money to 501(c)(3) organizations or nonprofit organizations. I for one think that political parties have a right to give money to nonprofit groups and allow them to get their message out on issues that are important to them. Issue advocacy was the real issue that brought us this whole debate to the House floor, because during the 1996 Presidential election, the Clinton/Gore campaign and the Dole campaign went farther than anyone had ever gone in raising soft money for issue advocacy by the political parties. The only reason that there was difficulty with that is because a lot of foreigners made contributions to some of these political campaigns, and that is illegal under existing law. Section 441(e) of the Federal election law already makes it illegal for a foreigner to contribute to a political campaign. Not only that, but also we know for a fact that, at the Buddhist Temple fund-raiser, many individuals were listed as contributing hard money supposedly to a campaign, and then we subsequently found out that they did not actually contribute, but money came from foreign sources. So I would simply submit that we already have legislation on the books that can deal with the foreign money issue. Now, another issue that is disturbing to many of us is the fact that some of these bills expand the definition of express advocacy. What that means is that, if you use express advocacy, you are expressly advocating the election or the defeat of a particular candidate. If you do that, then you have to file all the reports with the FEC. You have to meet the contribution limits and so forth. I for one think that we have an opportunity in this debate that is I suppose to begin tomorrow to address some very serious issues, very serious constitutional issues regarding these pieces of legislation. I know that tomorrow it will probably be another heated debate, but, as I said in the beginning of this statement, I know that both sides are approaching it with sincerity in their beliefs. I see my time is about to expire, but I do look forward to the debate tomorrow.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that a while ago there was some discussion about which groups were contributing to which candidates, and I do not think anyone on this side meant to diminish anyone for the contributions that they had received, or certainly not to diminish the groups that contributed. But I think that what we are speaking from on this side is that we want to guarantee the right of those individuals and those groups to be able to continue that free speech. I think it is important that we remember that hard money is money regulated by the FEC. It is money that can be used to expressly advocate the defeat or the election of a political candidate. All other money is soft money. It is interesting that most of these so-called campaign finance reform bills are designed not to cut back on or reduce the money spent by candidates for political office, but they are designed to prevent and reduce the money spent by so-called special interest groups. What are special interest groups? Special interest groups are labor unions, teachers, right-to-lifers, prochoice, proenvironment, antienvironment. And why should any of those groups be denied the right to spend whatever money they want to spend to bring to the attention of the American voter the voting records of individual candidates, as long as they do not expressly advocate the defeat or the election of that candidate? I, for one, commend the majority whip for bringing the Gephardt constitutional amendment to the floor. I do not think it is going to pass, but I think it illustrates the fact that the Gephardt amendment to the Constitution is very open in what it attempts to do, and that is that it attempts to diminish speech. It allows the Government, through some bureaucrat at the FEC, to determine what is too much, what is not enough, what is inappropriate, what can be done and what cannot be done. Even the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) himself said, ``What we have here is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns. You can't have both.'' I would ask the gentleman, if he were here, what is a healthy campaign? What is too much money? I think it has been pointed out very clearly here this evening that the amount of money spent on campaigns by all candidates for Federal office in 1996 was a very minute amount compared to the money spent to advertise alcohol, soapsuds, detergents, toothpaste and all sorts of products that are manufactured throughout America. Is it inappropriate for the American people to be fully aware of all the issues that they are going to be voting upon? I think that if the American people realized that this constitutional amendment that we are going to be voting on maybe tomorrow, that the Shays-Meehan bill and others was going to effectively limit their right to participate in the American political system, that they would be rightfully upset. Buckley v. Valeo has made it very clear that free speech is a part, and an integral part, of the political system in America, and that we cannot limit the amount of money spent on these political campaigns. We cannot limit the amount that one individual can spend of his own money or her own money in their campaign. As I said earlier, I find it quite ironic that all of these bills want to limit everybody's money that they spend for issue advocacy, but they do not want to limit the amount of money that the politicians spend in their campaigns. As a matter of fact, some of these bills go so far as to say that during the last 60 days before an election, no one will be speaking except the candidates themselves or the news media. I do not want, particularly, to have a system that controls our political system in America that is controlled by the news media exclusively or even political candidates, because I think a vital part of our freedom in America guarantees the rights of any group to spend any money they want to to talk about issue advocacy.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for clarifying that. Mr. Chairman, all of us in 1996 have groups that came in and bought television ads for issue advocacy. In my race, the labor unions spent $850,000 on issue advocacy. I did not like that particularly, but I think they have the right to do that. I find it quite disturbing that anyone would take the notion that you have a right to curtail the right of any group to buy television ads or radio ads or newspaper ads to talk about issues, even if it mentions a candidate by name, as long as they do not expressly ask for the defeat or the election of that candidate. I would like to say more about this issue, but I appreciate the gentleman letting me get that comment in.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, the Buckley decision was obviously the most important campaign finance decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall in that opinion wrote, ``One of the points on which all members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication.'' Now, in Federal campaigns we have two kinds of money. We have soft money, which is money spent by any organization, any individual, or a political party to talk about issues. Now, in my campaign in 1996, the labor union spent $866,000 against me in TV ads, and it said, paid for by the AFL-CIO. That is soft money. I did not like it, but I think they have the right to run them. The Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled they have that right. Hard money is money spent by candidates for Federal office. It is used specifically to elect or defeat a candidate and is, therefore, regulated by the Federal Government. Now, the Shays-Meehan bill, not only does it place a cap on the amount that a person can spend of their own money, but it also prohibits any organization, any individuals and political parties of any political philosophy from spending money to educate people about issues within 60 days of the election. So in Federal elections, where does that leave us? Those that spend hard money, the candidates, and then, of course, members of the news media will be able to express their views. They will be the only ones. But individuals around the country, organizations around the country will not be able to spend any money. And I, for one, do not like to see the last 60 days of an election having the news media being the only ones that can talk about the candidates, because they are not regulated by anyone. So they will exercise their free speech, but the American people will not exercise their free speech.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the 1996 presidential elections, the Nation's news media and many other people began to focus upon the way campaigns are financed in America. This focus was generated because of the Clinton/Gore campaign violating provisions that said, you cannot receive funds from foreign sources. The Democratic Party is not the only one guilty of violating campaign finance laws, whether deliberately or not deliberately, because they are very complex. I would like to suggest to my colleagues that when people talk about campaign finance, they focus on two things. First of all, they talk about special interests as if it was something horrible. Yet what special interest means is that any citizen belonging to any group in America, whether it be a nurse, a labor union member, a doctor, a tobacco farmer, a teacher, whatever, has a right to speak on issues that affect them and to join together with others to speak on issues that affect them. Those are what you refer to as special interests. That is all that they are. All of us have some special interest. So I do not see that there is anything particularly negative about having a special interest. The second thing that people talk about in a very negative way is this term ``soft money.'' Now, what is soft money? Soft money is money spent by any organization in America, any individual in America, any political party in America, regardless of their philosophy, to take time on television or in the newspapers or on the radio to educate the American people about issues that affect them. And they pay for that with their money. And when they run these ads, they are required to put at the bottom of the television the group that paid for it. But we all talk about soft money, and those who are advocating the Shays-Meehan bill and others are talking about, we have got to get rid of soft money. Now, what is hard money? Hard money is money that candidates themselves and their committees spend to expressly ask that you defeat or elect a particular candidate. And hard money is regulated by the Federal Government, and it has been for some time. But reformers, when they talk about reform, it is interesting to note that they never want to talk very much about the hard money. That is the money they spend. They want to talk about the soft money. That is the money that can be spent by any person in America. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it is a constitutionally protected right. So in the Shays-Meehan bill, for example, they talk about any time within 60 days of an election, they broaden the definition of express advocacy to include any ad run 60 days prior to the election and they would stop those ads from being run, if it is paid for by soft money. It would be stopped. And when you do that, this is what you end up guaranteeing will happen. Sixty days before an election, there will be two groups talking about candidates running for office, the candidates themselves will be running their ads and then the only other group speaking will be the news media through editorials. And it is not surprising that the news media editorialize all the time about we need campaign finance reform, because the way these bills are designed to eliminate soft money, the American people's money, the interest groups, the labor unions, the pro-choice, the environmentalists, the management groups, whatever, eliminating them spending their money, then you get down to a point that the news media is the only entity that will be editorializing on which candidate should be supported. I hope that as we continue this discussion that we will think deeply about these terms and what they really mean.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the previous motion, our majority whip had yielded our time back, and we did not reply in any way to that discussion. But I would like to take this opportunity to just point out one thing. There was expressed great consternation on the minority side that the majority was going to agree to use CBO numbers in the scoring in this conference on the ISTEA or BESTEA bill, and that we allegedly closed the government down last year because the CBO scoring was not used, and then they expressed great consternation that now we are going to use OMB scoring. I would simply say that, while I am not a member of the conference, I have discussed with Members who are, and it is my understanding that they agreed to use OMB numbers because, in the negotiations with the administration, and the administration's concerns, that the administration insisted that the OMB numbers be used; and that was the reason that they were. Then as far as the budget, I would just say this, that this side, obviously, we are as committed today as we have always been to making sure that we maintain the balanced budget, that we try to pay off part of the Federal debt, that we try to give the American taxpayer some tax reduction, that we save Social Security, that we put Medicare on a sound footing. Then I would make one other comment. I think that Congress does have a right to specify how some money is spent for highway projects. The State that I am from, Kentucky, the money goes down to the State, and, usually, the Governor and the transportation cabinet in that State make all the decisions. So I do not think that we should apologize for directing where a small amount of this money will go, because needs have been brought to our attention. We appropriate the money, so we should have some say in how the money is spent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that the President is the one that vetoed those bills, and because of that funding ran out. As I said earlier in these discussions, in the conference regarding this very complicated, complex bill, that was one of the areas that I understand our side gave in on, to use the OMB numbers, in an effort to be amicable in this situation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for the fine work that they have done on this bill, and to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1872. This base bill aims to eliminate the last statutory monopoly in the U.S. telecommunications market by subjecting COMSAT to competition and taking steps to privatize INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Monopolies and organizations like international consortia may have made sense back in the 1960s when Congress first passed the Satellite Act, but they do not make sense today. Having said that, I do think we need to examine thoroughly the Tauzin and Morella amendment. But the world has changed dramatically in the years since Congress enacted the Satellite Act. Technology and the economy have evolved to the point that it is possible for private companies to do what once we thought only governments could do. So I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for bringing this bill to the House floor and particularly for this rule, because I think it is important that we have an opportunity to debate one of the leading causes of crime in America today and that is the use of illegal drugs. We have seldom an opportunity to debate this, and I am delighted that the gentleman has this measure on the floor today. I find it ironic that the Clinton administration and many on the other side of the aisle spend most of their time talking about reducing teenage smoking, and that is very important, but that is not the immediate threat to young people today as is the use of illegal drugs. As far as scientific studies and experts, I would just like to read an article from the New York Times which is quoting Dr. James Curtis, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University's medical school, relating to needle exchange, which many people on the other side of the aisle want to advocate. He says, For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist specializing in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of needle- exchange policies, which hurt not only individual addicts but also poor and minority communities. There is no evidence that such programs work. An addict is enrolled anonymously, without being given an HIV test to determine whether he or she is already infected. The addict is given a coded identification card exempting him or her from arrest for carrying drug paraphernalia. There is no strict accounting of how many needles are given out or returned. And the studies found that those addicts who took part in such exchanges were two or three times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not participate. So I would send a challenge to this administration and our friends on the other side of the aisle. Let us get serious about the real problem facing the youth of today. It is not so much teenage smoking as it is the use of illegal drugs. Once again, I commend the chairman for bringing this issue to the floor.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, last summer, State attorneys general, representatives of health care groups, representatives from the White House, and the tobacco industry met to see if they could come up with a settlement of a tobacco controversy regarding teenage smoking. After many hard hours of negotiation, and in fact, many days of negotiation, an agreement was reached, and the tobacco companies agreed that they would pay the sum of $368 billion every 25 years forever. In addition, they said that they would allow and agree that a health care agency, a third party, would set targets to reduce teenage smoking by a certain percent each year. If that target was not reached, the industry would pay $80 million for every one percentage point that the target was not met. In addition, the industry agreed that it would pay $5 billion annually into a trust fund to take care of any court judgments obtained against the industry. In addition, the industry agreed that they would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry, going far beyond the FDA regulations proposed by former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, in fact, going much further than had ever been recommended before. They agreed also that they would waive their constitutional right to advertise their product. In addition they agreed, and this is really almost unheard of because every citizen in America has a right to petition the government, to lobby the government, but the industry agreed that they would also ban and eliminate the Tobacco Institute which was their lobbying arm. They also agreed that, like today, any individual that is harmed by using a tobacco product would have the right to continue to sue the tobacco industry to obtain damages for any injuries that they suffered. And so the health care groups, the State attorneys general, the White House, all of those groups received exactly what they wanted from the industry. Now what did the industry want in return? Well the industry said that they would simply like to have settled the 40 State lawsuits brought by State attorneys general under an innovative new legal theory of reimbursing States for Medicaid costs that they expended in treating Medicaid beneficiaries who received damages from using tobacco products, and that was agreed to. They said, ``Okay, we'll settle these lawsuits, and some of the $368 billion that the industry is going to pay every 25 years forever will go to the States.'' And so everyone left that settlement, and President Clinton said it was a great settlement, Vice President Gore said it was a great settlement, the tobacco industries were satisfied, the health care industries were satisfied, and even FDA Commissioner Kessler said that it represents the single most fundamental change in the history of tobacco control in any Nation of the world. But yet when the bill started moving through the Senate, the administration changed their views, the health care industry changed their views, David Kessler changed his view, and they became greedy, to put it very bluntly. They wanted more. They had this industry on the run; they wanted more. And so I think they lost sight of the original goal, to reduce teenage smoking. They now wanted to punish an industry. And under the McCain bill the $368 billion that the industry agreed to pay every 25 years forever went to $506 billion every 25 years forever. If the industry missed the targeted reduction, instead of paying $80 million per percentage point, they now under the McCain bill would be paying $240 million. And then, furthermore, the one thing that the industry received from it, immunity from these State lawsuits, they lost. So it is not surprising that the tobacco industry said we are going to walk away from this agreement, and who could blame them really, because if the goal is to reduce teenage smoking there was plenty of money there. There was plenty of money to initiate programs to help teenagers reduce smoking. But as I said, people became greedy and they wanted to punish this industry, and so the whole thing has fallen apart. And I would suggest to you today that the real problem facing teenagers is more the use of illegal drugs than tobacco. I hope that we can retain some common sense and approach this problem to solve it, and I look forward to working with others in that effort.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion recently about efforts to reduce teenage smoking in America, and all of us in the Congress recently returned from our Easter recess in which we went back home to work and talk to constituents about problems facing them. In my district I met with a lot of young people, a lot of educators, and it became quite obvious to me that, yes, teenage smoking is a problem. But it is not nearly the problem in America that is caused by the use of illegal drugs and alcohol among young people today. As a matter of fact, if we visit any juvenile facility around the United States, on the average 63 percent of juveniles in every juvenile facility were using drugs on a regular basis before going to that facility. I firmly believe that while teenage smoking is a problem, the major problem facing teenagers today is the use of illegal drugs and alcohol. Yet despite that, the mobilization against a single legal industry, the tobacco industry, by a President, a Vice President, a former FDA commissioner, Surgeon General, trial lawyers, 40 State attorneys general, and other organized groups may be a first in America. The wartime fervor with which the antitobacco movement pursues its aims, its deployment of extreme measures, including punitive legislation and coordinated lawsuits, is unprecedented in our country. The issue is much more than simply teenage smoking and the reduction of teenage smoking. These groups want to punish this industry. Now, last July representatives of the tobacco companies sat down with 40 State attorneys general and various trial lawyers and various health care groups and under the auspices of the White House to see if they could reach an agreement to reduce teenage smoking in America. And they did reach an agreement, and it was a historic agreement in many ways. And yet I would say that I doubt that 1 percent of the American people know what the tobacco industry agreed to do in those negotiations. I want like to review that for the American people this evening. First of all, the tobacco industry agreed that they would pay $368 billion every 25 years forever. And from that money, some would go to the States to reimburse them for Medicaid costs, but a lot of the money would go for programs to help teenagers be educated about tobacco, to help teenagers stop smoking this product and maybe not even begin to smoke it. Second of all, the industry agreed that the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, would be able to regulate tobacco, going far beyond the FDA rules to regulate tobacco initiated by former Commissioner Kessler. The agreement went far beyond that. In addition, the industry agreed that a third-party entity, a health care entity, would be able to set goals to reduce teenage smoking each year by a certain percentage point. And if the industry were not able to reach that goal, if the goal was not reached, the industry would pay $80 million per 1 percentage point that that target was missed. That is even considering that the industry does not necessarily control teenage smoking. Yes, we live in a country that even teenagers have some responsibility and can make a decision of are they going to use the product or not, knowing full well that it is not healthful to use. But the industry agreed they would pay $80 million for every percentage point missed. In addition, they agreed to pay $5 billion a year into a trust fund for payments to pay off court judgments. In addition, they said that they would voluntarily sign consent decrees waiving their constitutional right to advertise their product. In addition, they said they would sign consent decrees to voluntarily waive their right to lobby the Congress. Every constituent, every citizen in America has a right to lobby the Congress, to petition government, and they agreed to give that up too. But despite all of those things, the antitobacco groups now are going forward and saying ``We want more out of this industry.'' I want to urge them to focus more on helping us reduce teenage smoking and the use of illegal drugs and stop trying to punish an industry.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for today all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled extension of remarks.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for those kind words of tribute to the Kentucky basketball coach, Tubby Smith. All of us from Kentucky are certainly quite proud of his accomplishments in his first year as the head coach of the University of Kentucky, and he certainly demonstrated the type of leadership and character that are so important to young men and women at the University of Kentucky. It makes us even more proud to know that he is from the State of Maryland. I want to thank the gentleman for those kind remarks for our basketball coach at the University of Kentucky. I also would like to point out that this afternoon I had the opportunity to visit with six high school students who came to my office to talk about some issues facing young men and women today. As we had our discussion, they pointed out that some of their greatest concerns on issues facing young people today were: One, teenage pregnancy; and two, the use of illegal drugs. I found that quite informative, because over the last 6 or 7 months, our President of the United States, our Vice President, Mr. David Kessler and others have placed great emphasis and have drawn attention to the fact that tobacco and the use of tobacco products by young people may be one of the most serious issues facing young people. Yet, in my discussions with these young people today from Kentucky and other young people throughout my district, none of them really talk about the use of tobacco products as one of the major problems facing young people today. As I listen to the debate on this tobacco issue and the universal tobacco settlement over on the Senate side, and as I have read the universal settlement agreement between the tobacco companies and the State Attorneys General, it has really caused me to do a lot of thinking about this issue. All of us recognize the importance of doing everything possible to prevent young people from using tobacco products, and that is why 50 States already prohibit the sale of tobacco products to young people throughout this country. Yet in spite of that, the real issue in this universal tobacco settlement seems now to me to come down to be a matter of money. In the settlement agreement, the tobacco companies agreed that they would pay $368 billion every 25 years forever to reach this settlement, and, in exchange, they agreed that any individual would be able to bring a lawsuit against the tobacco companies to recover any damages suffered by using tobacco products; that those individuals would have that right to bring these lawsuits forever. The only immunity that the tobacco companies asked for in exchange for $368 billion every 25 years forever was to simply settle the class lawsuits and the lawsuits filed by the States in these innovative legal theories, that were filed by the States to reimburse the States for Medicaid costs that the States incurred by individuals who voluntarily used tobacco products. But as I look into this more and more, it seems that this issue is much broader than simply teenage smoking, because there are hundreds of thousands of individuals and their children who depend upon the tobacco product for their livelihood, for the education of their children, to take care of their families. As a matter of fact, there are 140,000 farm families in the United States alone that grow this product. This discussion talks only about teenage smoking, and yet we are not giving any consideration to the impact, the economic impact, that this settlement can have on these hundreds of thousands of families who depend upon this product for their livelihood. As I listen to the Senate debate, I am quite discouraged that more and more it seems to be a matter of wanting to punish an industry, to provide punitive damages against an industry that has grown and processed a legal crop, a crop that has been legal in America since Jamestown; a crop that, if you walk around the Capitol of the United States, you will see tobacco leaves at strategic points in this Capitol, a crop that has provided valuable economic interests to our Nation. I would simply say as we continue our debate on the tobacco settlement, let us not forget the economic impact that this is going to have on farmers, workers, and many other people. I think we have a unique opportunity to reach a balanced agreement.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.