[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12126-S12129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2184. A bill to require the Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration to issue regulations limiting the advertising of 
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the Internet, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


            THE TOBACCO-FREE CHILDREN'S INTERNET ACT OF 1996

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Tobacco-Free 
Children's Internet Act of 1996, a bill to protect children from the 
health hazards of tobacco by extending to the Internet existing 
limitations on tobacco advertisements.
  Mr. President, countless studies have demonstrated the persuasive 
effect that tobacco advertising has on minors. This advertising 
encourages young people to smoke, which in turn leads to more lung 
cancer, more heart disease, and more death. As a result, the Food and 
Drug Administration has now decided to limit tobacco advertising in 
publications with a significant readership under age 18 to black-and-
white text only. This is a significant, positive step, and should 
substantially reduce the effectiveness of such advertising in appealing 
to children.
  Mr. President, the Internet provides unprecedented access to 
information to persons of all ages. I believe that the widespread use 
of the Internet should be encouraged. However, certain material, such 
as tobacco advertising, is not appropriate for children. In addition to 
the eye-catching images common in tobacco print advertisements and 
billboards, cigarette and smokeless tobacco ads on the Internet have 
one feature exclusive to this medium--they can be interactive.
  The indiscriminate bombardment of advertisements on the Internet is 
also troubling if tobacco ads on this medium are not subject to FDA 
regulations. To view certain ads, a child need only sign onto an 
Internet provider. If an online provider decides to use a tobacco 
advertisement for one of its so-called banner ads, there is no doubt 
that children will see it. Similarly, a child browsing the World Wide 
Web for a research project on camels could end up viewing over 300 web 
pages about or mentioning Joe Camel merely by typing camel on an 
Internet search program.
  I therefore believe restrictions on tobacco advertising should be 
extended to the Internet. Minors comprise a large percentage of 
Internet users in our country and this number is increasing. Although 
this is a welcome indication that our youth has access to information 
that may not be available at their local library or at their school, I 
am concerned that minors may be especially affected by interactive 
tobacco ads.
  Mr. President, I understand that the FDA was reluctant to extend 
their advertising restrictions to the Internet in their last rulemaking 
because they believed tobacco companies had not yet exploited this 
medium. It is true that the majority of tobacco ads currently on the 
Internet are posted by foreigners; however, I am confident that this 
situation will not last. The Internet is a veritable wild West to the 
tobacco industry seeking to hook children.
  It is my hope that, in addition to applying applicable tobacco 
regulations to the Internet, the FDA, perhaps in conjunction with the 
Federal Trade Commission, will develop an effective means of 
implementing the Surgeon General's warning to Internet advertisements.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2184

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tobacco-Free Children's 
     Internet Act of 1966''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who has 
     not attained the age of 18.
       (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' means any roll of 
     tobacco wrapped in--
       (A) paper or any substance not containing tobacco; or
       (B) tobacco if, because of its appearance, type, packaging, 
     or labeling, the roll wrapped in tobacco is likely to be 
     offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette.
       (3) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
       (4) Internet; interactive computer service.--The terms 
     ``Internet'' and ``interactive computer service'' have the 
     meaning given those terms in section 230(e) of the 
     communications Act of 1934.
       (5) Smokeless tobacco.--The term ``smokeless tobacco'' 
     means any cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco that, 
     because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling is 
     likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a 
     tobacco product to be placed in the oral or nasal cavity.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

       As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commissioner shall issue regulations limiting the 
     advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the 
     Internet or other interactive computer service within the 
     United States in a manner consistent with the regulations 
     issued by the Commissioner on August 28, 1996, at 61 Fed. 
     Reg. 44396 et seq.
                                 ______
                                 

  By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2185. A bill to improve Federal environmental policy by providing 
incentives for State and local growth management and land use programs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


               THE LOCAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT INCENTIVES ACT

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there has been considerable 
discussion in this Congress about assaults on our environment. But up 
until now, a serious, stealth assault that threatens our environment, 
our citizens' health, and quality of life has been essentially ignored.
  The threat I am referring to arises not from action that this 
Congress has taken. Rather, it comes from decades of Federal inaction 
in the face of haphazard development activities that are slowly 
degrading the landscape of our states and our communities.
  Mr. President, what I am referring to is the wholesale strip malling 
of America.
  If this trend continues unchecked, it will imperil our Nation's 
productive lands and natural resources, while turning the landscape 
into an unbroken expanse of suburban sprawl.
  This pattern of sprawling, uncontrolled development is in many 
instances promoted by the Federal Government. Despite the major impacts 
many Federal programs have on growth and land use, the Federal 
Government has largely turned a blind eye to the visual blight these 
programs spawn, let alone the environmental, health and economic 
impacts of unmanaged growth and development.
  Besides turning our landscapes into eyesores, unmanaged growth 
contributes to traffic congestion that snarls our highways, creating 
both additional stresses for commuters and additional exhaust emissions 
that degrade the quality of our air.
  Uncontrolled development not only hurts our citizens where they live 
and breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. Several studies have 
come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly 
higher than

[[Page S12127]]

more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show that 
taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility capital 
construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth 
management.
  Time and time again, I'm asked at town meetings what I can do at the 
Federal level to help manage growth in my home State of Oregon, so our 
State doesn't get overrun by suburban sprawl.
  The answer, Mr. President, is not to create a new Federal program 
that will embroil the Federal Government in land use decisions that 
have historically been State and local issues. Rather, what we should 
do is create incentives to encourage and build on the State and local 
growth management efforts already underway.
  For example, Oregon's pioneering Land Use Act builds environmental 
and resource protections into the State's growth management and 
development strategies. But our State gets no credit for this 
innovative program from the Federal Government.
  As a result, Federal development projects in Oregon have to undergo 
Federal reviews that in many cases duplicate the process under State 
law. That's bureaucratic overkill.
  Oregon and other States that have similar programs should be 
recognized by the Federal Government both when new Federal development 
projects are undertaken in these States and when new Federal 
requirements are imposed.
  Today, I am introducing the Local Growth Management Incentives Act. 
This legislation will give Oregon and other States and localities with 
good growth management programs the credit they deserve.
  Under this legislation, States that have good growth management 
programs will get several incentives.
  First, the legislation directs Federal agencies to take steps to 
eliminate duplication of studies, environmental assessments, planning 
and other activities to the extent these actions have already been 
undertaken under a State or local growth management plan.
  Because the State of Oregon and many cities in our State have 
environmentally protective growth management programs, development 
projects in our State frequently have to go through layers of 
duplicative environmental reviews--first at the local level, and then 
at the State level, and then again at the Federal level. In some cases, 
virtually identical environmental analyses are required by the 
different levels of government, each according to different sets of 
regulations.
  Let me cite several examples affecting the Port of Portland in 
Portland, OR:
  The Port of Portland's proposed development of additional marine 
terminals at Hayden Island in the Columbia River has already undergone 
extensive reviews and analysis by the city of Portland and by our State 
agencies. But in order for this project to proceed to the actual 
development stage, it still must undergo still another round of reviews 
by two Federal agencies--the Army Corps of Engineers and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service. The port estimates that if it could just 
eliminate the duplicative requirements, two or more years of 
unnecessary delay could be avoided for this project .
  The port's efforts to identify better ways of handling materials 
dredged from around its docks and piers and from the Willamette River 
navigation channel is subject to two virtually identical, essentially 
independent environmental analyses, one by the State of Oregon and 
another by the Corps of Engineers. Avoiding duplication by allowing 
the Corps of Engineers to rely upon the State analysis could save 
considerable money for both the port and the Corps and expedite this 
project.

  The port is currently planning further development and expansion at 
the Portland International Airport, the port's marine terminals, and 
several port-owned general aviation airports, all of which contain 
wetland areas. These activities could be facilitated, without 
diminishing environmental protections, if the State of Oregon's 
extensive process for addressing the environmental impacts associated 
with wetlands could be relied upon by the appropriate Federal agencies.
  Under my legislation, Federal agencies would have to incorporate, as 
part of the reviews they require, any relevant reviews and analyses 
already conducted under State and local programs. This would save the 
project sponsors considerable time and expense compared to starting the 
Federal reviews essentially from scratch.
  The net effect of this provision is that Federal development projects 
reviewed and approved under good State and local programs can avoid 
redundant Federal reviews that increase costs and cause delays with no 
environmental benefits. If environmental safeguards are already in 
place under State law, these protections should be recognized when it 
comes time to develop federally supported projects in the State.
  Second, States and localities with good growth management programs 
will be eligible for extensions of up to 1 year to comply with new 
Federal requirements, when this additional time is needed to integrate 
a new Federal requirement with the State or local growth management 
program. However, additional time would not be provided if an extension 
of time would adversely affect public health or the environment.
  This incentive recognizes that good growth management programs offer 
a more comprehensive and more long-term approach to protecting our 
environment than many of the specific requirements imposed by Federal 
environmental programs. At the same time, coordinating Federal 
requirements with State and local programs is hard work, as two leading 
growth management experts point out in their recent book ``Land Use in 
America.'' For this reason, we should give those States and localities 
that are undertaking this difficult, but ultimately rewarding effort 
the extra time they need to do it right.
  The same amount of additional time granted to the State or locality 
would also be provided to any private party in that jurisdiction who is 
subject to a compliance deadline under the new Federal requirement, 
unless this would adversely affect public health or the environment. 
While States and localities are working to meld their programs with 
Federal requirements, private parties should not be subject to double 
jeopardy by having to comply first with a Federal requirement and then 
subsequently with a different requirement after the State or locality 
modifies its program to meet the new Federal mandate.
  Third, Federal agencies conducting development projects and other 
activities affecting growth must ensure that their activities are 
consistent with States' and localities' growth management programs. 
This provision, which is modeled on a similar consistency requirement 
in the Coastal Zone Management Act, empowers States and localities by 
giving them the ability to affect Federal activities that could 
undermine State and local efforts to manage growth locally.

  Fourth, my legislation amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act [ISTEA] to give priority for discretionary spending 
under ISTEA to any State or locality that has a growth management 
program that meets the eligibility criteria set out in the bill. Giving 
States and localities with good growth management programs priority for 
ISTEA funding will not only provide a financial incentive to establish 
these programs, it will also help reduce Federal, State, and local 
transportation costs and even help reduce air pollution from motor 
vehicles.
  The legislation I am introducing is the beginning and not the end of 
a process. It is my hope that the Local Growth Management Incentives 
Act will begin a discussion on what the Federal Government should be 
doing to address the impacts Federal actions have on growth and land 
use. In the next Congress, I will be looking for additional incentives 
to offer States and localities so they will develop their own programs 
to manage growth.
  In summary, I think there is an appropriate role for the Federal 
Government to help States and localities to manage growth so we have 
smart growth, instead of either uncontrolled sprawl or NIMBY [Not In My 
Back Yard] efforts to block any kind of growth. I am introducing my 
legislation today in an effort to jumpstart a dialog on how the Federal 
Government can promote well-managed, sustainable growth that will best 
serve our environment, our citizens' health and, our

[[Page S12128]]

Nation's economic well-being in the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2186. A bill to provide access to health care insurance coverage 
for children; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


      the healthy children family assistance health insurance act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today, 
joined by my friend, colleague, and esteemed senior Senator, Ted 
Kennedy, to help ensure that the 10 million uninsured children in this 
country get the health care they need and their parents get the peace 
of mind they deserve.
  Mr. President, the fact is that most of these 10 million uninsured 
children have parents who work--90 percent of these uninsured children 
have parents who work, according to the General Accounting Office 
[GAO]. And three out of five of these children have parents who work 
fulltime during the entire year.
  Unfortunately, the problem of uninsured children is getting worse, 
not better--each year, more than 1 million additional children lose 
private insurance. No parent should have to choose between medicine for 
a sick child and food for the family. The thought of a mother and 
father, working hard to make ends meet, waking up in the middle of the 
night with a child in pain, and waiting to see if the pain passes 
because they cannot afford to go to the hospital, is a stark image of a 
national tragedy. Mr. President, American children without health care 
are alone in the world--we are the only Western industrialized nation 
that does not provide health care for every child.
  I am proposing today with Senator Kennedy a voluntary subsidy program 
to help working families to purchase private health insurance for their 
children. Only families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid 
would be eligible to receive these vouchers. Participation in the 
voucher program would be voluntary. The premium subsidy would be 
provided on a sliding scale with families earning 185 percent or less 
of the poverty line receiving the full subsidy; the subsidy would phase 
down so that families earning more than 300 percent of the poverty line 
would not receive a subsidy. Cost-sharing would be limited but everyone 
would pay something. The proposal includes a comprehensive benefits 
package with a full range of the essential services needed by children. 
The total cost of the plan is $24 billion over 5 years and is paid for 
by a combination of cuts in corporate welfare and a tobacco tax 
increase. Although it is apparent there is no chance the plan will be 
enacted this year, with Congress now in its final hour before 
adjourning prior to the election, we are introducing it as a bill today 
because we want to place this issue prominently on the national agenda 
during the next few months preceding convening of the 105th Congress.
  Mr. President, I want to discuss 2 of the 10 million compelling 
reasons to provide basic health insurance to children who are not 
covered now.
  One of the first reasons is a 13-year-old student in Lynn, MA, named 
Costa Billias. He played football at Breed Junior High and loved the 
game, but said, ``For the past 2 years I gave my best to football, but 
my mom explained that we were not insured and if I got hurt we would 
lose our house and everything we own to pay the hospital.'' He quit the 
team, but he cannot quit life. If he gets hurt doing something else, 
his family still stands to lose everything. In addition, I think it is 
wrong that Costa Billias is being denied the opportunity to play 
football again.

  One more of the 10 million reasons we must pass this bill is the 
Pierce family. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married in 1980 and live in 
Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber and they had three children, Leonard, 
Brianna, and Alyssa. In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her 
fourth child when Jim was tragically killed on his way home from the 
store. In that one horrible minute her life changed forever. She not 
only lost her husband, but, pregnant and alone, she lost her health 
insurance as well. Her survivor's benefits made her income too high to 
qualify for long-term Medicaid, and too low to pay the $400 a month it 
would take to extend her husband's health plan. Sylvia said, ``I've 
always taken good care of my children. I feed them well; I take them to 
the doctors immediately when they need it. All of a sudden I couldn't 
do that anymore.
  Mr. President, in addition to the moral imperative, the scientific 
evidence is overwhelming that lack of health coverage is bad for 
children, delaying medical care or making it impossible to get. A 
recent study in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] 
found that children with health coverage gaps were more likely to lack 
a continuing and regular source of health care--even when factors such 
as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility were factored 
out. Numerous studies by university researchers and by government 
agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive preventive 
care (such as immunizations for children), more likely to go to 
emergency rooms for their care, more likely to be hospitalized for 
conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care, 
and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with 
health insurance coverage.
  Mr. President, every hour we wait to take this step, another 114 
children lose private health insurance. Every 30 seconds we wait, 
another child loses private health insurance. America's children cannot 
wait any longer. Families without insurance are forced to pay the full 
cost of medical services--an impossible burden for struggling families, 
one that often takes a back seat to putting food on the table and a 
roof over the children's heads.
  Mr. President, this plan is an important, incremental step toward 
guaranteeing health coverage for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator John Kerry 
in introducing this visionary and practical program. Senator Kerry has 
been a consistent leader in the Senate in fighting for children, for 
health care, and for working families. This initiative sets a benchmark 
for the next Congress and the American people. It is a proposal that is 
a reflection of true family values.
  Every American child deserves a healthy start in life, but too many 
don't receive it. Seventeen industrialized countries do better at 
preventing infant mortality than we do. A quarter of American children 
do not receive basic childhood vaccines. Every day, 636 babies are born 
to mothers who receive inadequate prenatal care, 56 babies die before 
they are a month old, and 110 babies die before they are a year old.
  Access to affordable health care is one of the greatest problems 
children face. Ten-and-a-half million children under the age of 19 have 
no health insurance--one in every seven American children. If it were 
not for the expansions of Medicaid over the past 5 years, the number 
would be seven million higher. Under Republican proposals to cut 
Medicaid, four million children would lose their coverage. Employer-
based insurance coverage is eroding. Too many pregnant women--more than 
400,000 a year--are uninsured, and lack access to critical prenatal 
care.
  Almost all uninsured children are members of working families. Their 
parents work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. But all their hard 
work does not buy their children the protection they deserve. Every 
family should have the right to health security for their children. No 
parents should fear that the loss of a job or their employer's failure 
to provide coverage will put their children out of reach of the health 
care they need.
  Health insurance coverage for every child is a needed step in the 
fight to guarantee health care for every family. The cost is 
affordable. The benefits are great. The opportunities for 
bipartisanship are substantial.
  The legislation we are introducing today is a simple, practical 
proposal. It imposes no new government mandates on the States or the 
private sector. It does not substitute for family responsibility. It 
fosters it, instead, by assuring that every family has the help it 
needs to purchase affordable health insurance for their children.
  Our plan will establish no massive new Federal bureaucracy. Basic 
guidelines and financing would come from the Federal Government, but 
the plan

[[Page S12129]]

would be implemented and administered by States.
  The program will make a major difference in the lives of millions of 
families, but its basic principles are not novel or untested. Fourteen 
States already have similar programs in place and running. Earlier 
their year, for example, Massachusetts enacted a program very similar 
to our proposal.
  Under our plan, the Federal Government will assist all families with 
incomes under 300 percent of poverty to purchase health insurance for 
their children, if they do not already receive coverage under an 
existing public program. Families with incomes under 185 percent of 
poverty will receive a full subsidy. Families with incomes between 185 
percent of and 300 percent of poverty will receive assistance on a 
sliding scale. Between 80 and 90 percent of all uninsured children live 
in families with incomes below 300 percent of poverty. Even uninsured 
families with higher incomes might buy coverage for their children if 
policies designed for children were available. Families with income 
under 150 percent of poverty will also receive assistance with the cost 
of copayments and deductibles. Similar assistance will be provided to 
uninsured pregnant women.
  The program will be administered by States under Federal guidelines. 
In general, States will contract with private insurance companies to 
offer children's coverage to any family that wants it. Lower income 
families will receive assistance with the cost of coverage, but 
coverage will be available to all families at all income levels. Basic 
rules will guarantee that coverage is adequate and tailored to the 
special needs of children, especially the need for comprehensive 
preventive care.
  This plan does not guarantee that every child will have insurance 
coverage, but it gives the opportunity to every family to cover their 
children at a cost the family can probably afford. It will be a giant 
step toward the day when every member of every American family has true 
health security.
  The cost of a similar program has been estimated at $24 billion over 
5 years. We propose to finance our plan by a combination of tobacco tax 
increases and closing corporate tax loopholes. The Nation currently 
spends close to $1 trillion per year on health care. The additional 
cost of this proposal is substantial, but it is a needed step toward 
healthier lives for millions of American children and peace of mind for 
their parents.
  In this Congress, we made substantial progress toward improving the 
health care system. We turned back extreme proposals to slash Medicare 
and Medicaid. Working together in a bipartisan way, we were able to 
pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act, take a 
significant first step toward mental health parity, and protect mothers 
and infants from premature discharge from the hospital. Every 
Democratic and Republican health plan in the previous Congress endorsed 
the idea of subsidizing private insurance coverage for children. This 
proposal should be a bipartisan health priority for the next Congress. 
I believe it is an idea whose time has finally come.

                          ____________________