Does Rep. Gallegly favor the tobacco industry? Or is he representing you and me? Gallegly voted against the Lowey amendment to House Resolution 2160. The amendment simply reads, "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide or pay the salaries of personnel who provide crop insurance or non-insured crop disaster assistance for tobacco for the 1998 or later crop years."

Additionally, he voted against the motion by Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. The motion increased funding for Food and Drug Administration tobacco prevention programs to the level of funding in the Senate bill, which was significantly greater than in the House bill, to prevent tobacco use by minors.

In a letter, I asked Rep. Gallegly about this apparent flirting with the tobacco industry. In a written response, he explained that he voted against the Lowey Amendment to H.R. 2160 because it would have unfairly discriminated against tobacco farmers. Do you feel well-represented here? In view of the highly addictive nature of nicotine and the tobacco industry's proven role in the heavy damage that cigarettes have caused our society, isn't the distinction between tobacco and other crops warranted?

Regarding the Kaptur motion, Rep. Gallegly explains that it would have been fiscally irresponsible to vote for it. Perhaps more money would have been available had he voted to eliminate funding for the Department of Agriculture's Market Promotion Program, which provides subsidies for large corporations such as McDonald's, SunMaid, and Pillsbury. But he didn't. Again I ask, do you feel well-represented? Wouldn't it be better to use taxpayer money for the health of our young rather than subsidies for influential corporations?

He did, however, vote for a different amendment (by Martin Meehan, D-Mass.) to increase funding for FDA tobacco initiatives by $10 million and reduce crop insurance program funding by $14 million. He mentions he was one of only 41 Republicans to do so.

Finally, and of much greater importance, is Rep. Gallegly's and Congress's future action on the tobacco settlement. As you may know, a complex agreement, negotiated by a group of state attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers and industry representatives, is being considered. Although the deal would require prominent labels saying that cigarettes are in fact "lethal and addictive," and require them to pay part of the cost of treating smoking related illnesses, it would include special protections to shield the tobacco industry from legal accountability. Does this represent your wishes as a voter? Is legal protection deserved? Should an industry that delivers a lethal and addictive product get future legal protection?

Are Rep. Gallegly and Congress favoring the tobacco industry over voters? Their actions in this pending tobacco deal will answer the question more fully. You can speak with your vote, with letters to Reps. Gallegly and Brad Sherman and Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and by telling others what you think.