[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8651-S8655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
2160, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for agricultural, 
     rural development, Food and Drug Administration and related 
     agencies, programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, is 
recognized to offer an amendment. There will be 20 minutes of debate 
equally divided.


                           Amendment No. 1057

   (Purpose: To provide funding for activities of the Food and Drug 
Administration relating to the prevention of tobacco use by youth, with 
                               an offset)

  Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, 
Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy, and Wyden.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, 
     and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1057.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the matter under the heading ``salaries and expenses'' 
     under the heading ``Food and Drug Administration'' in title 
     VI, add at the end the following:
       In addition, the total amount made available under this 
     heading shall be increased so as to make available a total of 
     $34,000,000 for the Food and Drug Administration children's 
     tobacco initiative: Provided, That--
       (1) the amount that may be expended for equipment of 
     services related to automated

[[Page S8652]]

     data processing, information technologies, or related items 
     (including telecommunications equipment and computer hardware 
     and software) under section 4(g) of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(g)) may not exceed 
     $36,914,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (2) to the extent that funding becomes available for the 
     Food and Drug Administration children's tobacco initiative as 
     a result of the national tobacco settlement--
       (A) any amounts made available under this Act, allocated 
     for the Food and Drug Administration children's tobacco 
     initiative, and not expended on the date that such funding 
     becomes available shall be rescinded; and
       (B) the amount specified in paragraph (1) shall be 
     increased by the total of the amounts rescinded under 
     subparagraph (A):

     Provided further, That in carrying out their responsibilities 
     under the Food and Drug Administration children's tobacco 
     initiative, States are encouraged to coordinate their 
     enforcement efforts with enforcement of laws that prohibit 
     underage drinking.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. I understand I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. During previous consideration of the appropriations bill 
on agriculture I offered an amendment, along with Senator Chafee and 
others to protect America's kids and crack down on illegal tobacco 
sales. We would do it by providing full funding for the FDA's youth 
tobacco use prevention initiative.
  That amendment was debated and received a strong bipartisan vote of 
48 Senators, but some of my colleagues expressed concerns about certain 
aspects of the amendment. Those concerns seemed to focus primarily on 
the nature of the offset and on whether the FDA initiative should be 
funded before the outcome of the pending tobacco settlement is known. I 
have, in good faith, modified my amendment in two important respects 
that I believe fully address both concerns.
  First, this amendment contains an entirely different offset. It would 
reduce spending by the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation on automated 
data processing and information technology equipment during fiscal year 
1998 by $29.1 million, just enough to allow full funding for the FDA 
initiative.
  Second, to clear up any uncertainty about the relationship of the FDA 
initiative to the pending tobacco settlement, this amendment contains a 
sunset provision that would become effective if funding for FDA youth 
tobacco use prevention activities becomes available as a result of the 
tobacco settlement.
  I want to make it clear there is nothing in my amendment having to do 
with tobacco marketing assessments or tobacco farmers or anything that 
could remotely be called a revenue measure that could conceivably 
interest the Ways and Means Committee of the House.
  I also add the amendment includes language suggested by Senator Byrd 
that would have the FDA encourage States to coordinate their 
enforcement either under the youth tobacco use prevention initiative 
with enforcement of laws against underage drinking. I want to commend 
and thank Senator Byrd for that addition. As I said in the debate 
earlier, the two go hand in glove. You find kids using illegal tobacco, 
you find them illegally buying alcohol at the same time more often than 
not.
  With that background, Mr. President, I hope we can zero in on what 
this is all about. Plain and simple--this amendment is about protecting 
America's kids from killer tobacco. With a death toll of more than 
400,000 a year, smoking kills more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, motor 
vehicles, fires, homicides, illicit drugs, and suicide combined.
  This is an epidemic, and we know where it starts. It starts with 
kids. It starts with illegal underage smoking. Almost 90 percent of 
adult smokers began at or before age 18.
  Put this in perspective: The Senate last took up this debate 40 days 
ago with my previous amendment. Since that time, another 120,000 young 
Americans got hooked on tobacco and began smoking; 40,000 of those will 
die because of it. That is the toll just in the past 7 weeks. At 
current rates, 5 million American kids under age 18 who are alive today 
will be killed by smoking-related disease. And teenage smoking rates 
are still climbing.
  Smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high. The 
statistics on smoking among young women and girls is just shocking. 
Smoking among 8th grade girls jumped over 60 percent from 1991 to 1996, 
with rates of smoking now higher for 8th and 10th grade girls than for 
boys.
  Now, briefly reviewing what this amendment will fund at FDA. FDA 
needs $34 million to carry out enforcement of rules setting a minimum 
age of 18 for tobacco purchases and requiring photo ID checks. In its 
initiative, FDA is signing contracts with State and local jurisdictions 
for cooperation in carrying out enforcement of these rules.
  The FDA initiative also includes funding to provide information to 
retailers and the public about the rules to help retailers comply with 
the rules and not sell tobacco to kids. This excerpt from an FDA 
brochure shows why it is necessary to have a photo ID check.
  FDA has $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997 that it is using to fund 
contracts with 10 States. The $34 million will allow FDA to provide 
money to all 50 States to help them prevent youth tobacco use. This is 
not some big new bureaucratic program. The bulk of the money goes to 
the States and local jurisdictions.
  Of the $34 million, $24 million will go to enforcement and 
evaluation, and $10 million will be used to educate retailers and the 
public about the rules so retailers can comply. The point of the rules 
is not to punish anyone, it is to protect kids. I add that these photo 
ID check and minimum age rules were fully upheld by the Federal 
district court in Greensboro, NC.
  This funding request is part of the President's budget request for 
the Food and Drug Administration. I have a letter from Vice President 
Gore expressing the administration's strong support for my amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent the letter, dated August 28, 1997, from the 
Office of the Vice President, be printed at this point in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           The Vice President,

                                  Washington, DC, August 28, 1997.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: I am writing to inform you of the 
     Administration's strong support for your amendment to fully 
     fund the anti-youth access to tobacco initiative in fiscal 
     year 1998. As you know, every year, there are more than $1 
     billion in illegal sales of tobacco products to children and 
     adolescents in the United States. With approximately 500,000 
     retailers in the country who sell tobacco, it is critical 
     that the Food and Drug Administration's request for $34 
     million in funding be granted in order to stop these illegal 
     sales to our children.
       The requested funding is intended to enforce the age and 
     photo ID provisions of the FDA rule, upheld by the Federal 
     District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. The bulk of the 
     $34 million will be spent on contracts with states that want 
     to join the FDA in ensuring retailer compliance with these 
     provisions. While the FDA is in the process of providing 
     initial funding for 10 states to begin conducting compliance 
     checks, the $34 million is needed to allow state officials in 
     all interested states to undertake compliance checks in 
     fiscal year 1998.
       The remaining funds are intended to educate retailers and 
     the public about the new rules. We believe that the vast 
     majority of retailers in this country will comply with the 
     age and photo ID requirements if they understand their 
     responsibilities and recognize the important role they can 
     play in protecting children from tobacco and its 
     consequences.
       Funding the FDA initiative is vital if we are to have a 
     credible national youth tobacco program in the upcoming 
     fiscal year; the $4.9 million provided thus far by the Senate 
     will not enable us to do so. This amendment would add the 
     needed $29 million to the initiative, offset by reducing the 
     Department of Agriculture automated data processing funds 
     available through the Commodity Credit Corporation. The 
     Administration has determined that this modest limitation 
     will not impair the ability of USDA to carry out its programs 
     and provide services to the public.
       Once again, let me assure you that the President and I 
     remain strongly committed to protecting young people from 
     tobacco and its consequences. Your amendment would allow the 
     government to have a meaningful enforcement and outreach 
     program that will ensure the safety of our children.
           Sincerely,
                                                          Al Gore.

  Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter from 33 attorneys general involved in the 
tobacco settlement negotiations calling

[[Page S8653]]

for full funding of the FDA initiative. I ask unanimous consent a 
letter from the attorneys general be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Attorney General of Washington,

                                       Olympia, WA, June 20, 1997.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chair, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
         Rural Development and Related Agencies, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dale Bumpers,
     Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
         Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: We are writing as the attorneys 
     general for our respective states in support of the Food and 
     Drug Administration's (FDA) request for $34 million to 
     implement the tobacco initiative in the Agriculture 
     Appropriations bill. This funding is critical to our efforts 
     to protect kids from tobacco sales.
       There is no reason not to fully fund the FDA tobacco 
     regulations. A Federal District Court recently upheld FDA's 
     general jurisdiction over the sale of tobacco products to 
     minors, and the American public overwhelmingly supports this 
     initiative. The tobacco industry failed in its legal effort 
     to derail FDA's important protections for kids. Now, local, 
     state and federal officials must move forward and work 
     together to implement FDA's regulations.
       In 1994, attorneys general from around the country issued a 
     report illustrating the need for comprehensive new policies 
     to protect kids from tobacco. In the past three years, 40 
     attorneys general have filed suit against the tobacco 
     industry to recover damages caused by their behavior. To stop 
     the marketing of tobacco products to kids is a primary goal 
     of these lawsuits, against the tobacco industry.
       We are prepared to work hand-in-hand with FDA to ensure 
     that the provisions of its tobacco initiative are fully 
     enforced. Towards this end, FDA has allocated a significant 
     portion of the $34 million to go directly to the states to 
     help with enforcement. This money is critical to ensuring our 
     country's success in reducing tobacco use by youth.
       We need to act without delay: cigarette smoking among high 
     school seniors is at a 17 year high and smoking among 8th and 
     10th graders has increased by more than 50 percent since 
     1991. Tobacco use is clearly a problem that starts with 
     children: almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using 
     tobacco at or before age 18, and the average youth smoker 
     begins at age 13 and becomes a daily smoker by age 14\1/2\.
       While some provisions of FDA's initiative are on hold 
     pending appeal, the court fully upheld FDA's funding that 
     cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are both drugs and 
     drug delivery devices. In addition, the court provided FDA 
     with full authority to continue implementing provisions 
     requiring retailers to check photo identification of 
     consumers seeking to purchase tobacco who appear to be 
     younger than 27 years of age. Strong enforcement of this 
     provision is key to reducing youth access to tobacco 
     products. The $34 million requested by FDA will provide much 
     needed funding for enforcement by state and local officials.
       Currently, it is far too easy for kids to buy cigarettes 
     and chewing tobacco through vending machines and at retail 
     outlets. A review of thirteen studies of over-the-counter 
     sales found that, on average, children and adolescents were 
     able to successfully buy tobacco products 67 percent of the 
     time. We can substantially improve on this record by 
     providing funding for the FDA regulations.
       The tobacco industry's record of targeting our kids is 
     clear. Now is the time to stand up for America's kids and 
     protect them from cigarettes and chewing tobacco. FDA's 
     jurisdiction over sales to minors has been upheld in court 
     and enjoys strong support among the people of our states. We 
     hope you will vote for full-funding of this critical 
     initiative.
           Sincerely,
         Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington; 
           Bruce Ml. Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska; Grant 
           Woods, Attorney General of Arizona; Gale A. Norton, 
           Attorney General of Colorado; Richard Blumenthal, 
           Attorney General of Connecticut.
         A. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware; Robert A. 
           Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida; Alan G. 
           Lance, Attorney General of Idaho; Jim Ryan, Attorney 
           General of Illinois; Tom Miller, Attorney General of 
           Iowa.
         Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas; Richard P. 
           Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana; Andrew Ketterer, 
           Attorney General of Maine; A. Joseph Curran, Jr., 
           Attorney General of Maryland; Scott Harshbarger, 
           Attorney General of Massachusetts.
         Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota; 
           Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi; Jeremiah 
           W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Joseph P. 
           Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana; Frankie Sue Del 
           Papa, Attorney General of Nevada.
         Philip McLaughlin, Attorney General of New Hampshire; 
           Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey; Dennis 
           C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York; Heidi Heitkamp, 
           Attorney General of North Dakota; Betty D. Montgomery, 
           Attorney General of Ohio; A. A. Drew Edmondson, 
           Attorney General of Oklahoma.
         Hardy Myers, Attorney General of Oregon; D. Michael 
           Fisher, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Jeffrey B. 
           Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island; Jan Graham, 
           Attorney General of Utah; William H. Sorrell, Attorney 
           General of Vermont; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney 
           General of West Virginia; James E. Doyle, Attorney 
           General of Wisconsin.

  Mr. HARKIN. Keep in mind the $34 million FDA needs is just a drop in 
the bucket compared to the $50 billion in annual smoking-related 
medical costs in our Nation.
  As I close, I want to bring the discussion back to the central issue. 
That is, whether we will stand up to big tobacco and stand up for 
America's kids. If we cannot even take this modest step, $29.1 million, 
what kind of message does that send?
  We talk a lot around here about protecting kids. Well, it is time to 
quit talking and do something about it. Let's do what is right for our 
kids, right for law enforcement, right for the future. Let's pass this 
amendment and give our kids what they deserve--better health and a 
brighter future.
  Again, I point out that this amendment is in full compliance with the 
rules. This Senator is offering the amendment parliamentarily to the 
House-passed bill as it came over here under the unanimous-consent 
agreement reached with the majority leader prior to the Senate going 
out in early August.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 53 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, let me say at the outset, when we started the 
consideration of appropriations bills this year it became important 
that we work out an arrangement whereby we proceed to consider bills 
even though they may not have passed by the House. And as all Senators 
know, it is the past custom, and the practice has been that 
appropriations bills originate in the House, they come to the Senate, 
and they are amended, and then they go to conference to work out the 
differences.
  Because of the crush of the time and the negotiations on a budget 
resolution and for a number of other reasons, it was considered 
appropriate for the Senate committee to proceed to consider original 
legislation on appropriations here in the Senate, for the subcommittees 
to mark up bills and the full committee to report out bills, whether or 
not the House had passed the bill or even met in the Committee on 
Appropriations to act on legislation.
  Consistent with that procedure, it was assumed that it would be 
appropriate at the conclusion of the Senate's action on an 
appropriations bill to obtain unanimous consent to hold the bill here, 
and that upon receipt of the bill as passed by the House, the Senate's 
action on the bill would be substituted for the House-passed bill. That 
it would then be considered as passed, conference would be invited, and 
we would proceed to work out our differences in conference.
  The Senate has passed 10 appropriations bills, all but two were 
Senate-originated bills; the House has passed only 7 appropriations 
bills. The process was working just fine, and with the cooperation of 
all Senators, until the agriculture appropriations bill was considered 
and action on the bill was nearly completed. Our leadership sought to 
get unanimous consent to substitute the Senate-passed bill, to insert 
it as an amendment to the House-passed bill when that bill was 
received. We could not get unanimous consent because the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa had offered an amendment, as other Senators had, 
during the course of consideration of the bill. The amendment had been 
disposed of, but he wanted to offer

[[Page S8654]]

it again in a different form. So to do that, he objected.
  It was discovered that unanimous consent had to be obtained under the 
procedure we were using. So if he objected, he could hold up passage of 
the House bill, offer his amendment again, reconfigure it, and have the 
Senate vote on it again. That is what has happened.
  I think the Senate should reject the amendment on the grounds that 
the procedure is one where we will have to either stop considering 
Senate appropriations bills until the House has acted, or at the 
beginning of the consideration of an appropriations bill either get 
unanimous consent in advance to taking up amendments, or take some 
other action that would keep from happening what the Senator from Iowa 
is trying to make happen now. That is, on the whim or on the action of 
any individual Senator, to force this Senate to vote on all the 
amendments again or versions of the amendments that were defeated when 
we were considering the Senate bill. This becomes a terribly unwieldy 
and impossible procedure to follow.
  We have certain understandings all the time about how things will be 
done here in the Senate. There are certain procedures and rules that 
are institutionalized. After third reading, you cannot offer any more 
amendments, for example. I don't know of anybody that has tried to 
overturn or undo that rule. There are other procedures that have become 
a part of the practice of the Senate in doing business. The reason for 
the rule on third reading is that at some point there has to be an end 
to the offering of amendments. No one objected to the procedure we were 
following on the other appropriations bills; there was no alternative 
proposed; everybody agreed it was fair; it was serving the purpose of 
expediting action on appropriations bills; it was not a problem with 
the House; no one objected and said they were not going to permit the 
Senate to act on appropriations bills until the House has completed its 
action. We heard nothing like that from the House leadership.
  So what I am suggesting, Mr. President, as respectfully as I can, is 
that this is an unfortunate effort to go around the practices and the 
procedures that have been established for this purpose, to facilitate 
the orderly consideration of appropriations bills, and the Senate ought 
to reject this effort. The Senate ought to vote down this amendment. 
Tomorrow morning, after all time has been used under the unanimous-
consent request, I will move to table the Harkin amendment. I urge the 
Senate to vote to table the Harkin amendment.
  It is the same amendment, in effect, that was offered and argued 
before the Senate on July 23. A motion to table that amendment was made 
and agreed to by the Senate on a record vote. Then, after amendments 
had been considered, a unanimous-consent request was made by our 
leadership, jointly supported, to limit the remaining amendments to a 
stated number. This was after the Harkin amendment had been defeated on 
a motion to table. The Senator should have asked, if he wanted to offer 
another amendment on this subject, that he be permitted to do so under 
that unanimous-consent request. And there was no request that he be 
permitted to do so. There were a few amendments left to be considered 
at that time, and so the Senate heard that request. There was no 
objection, and so it was ordered that the remaining amendments on the 
bill be limited to those stated in that order. The Harkin amendment was 
not one of them. No amendment to be offered by Senator Harkin was one 
of them.
  He or any Senator under that situation should be stopped from urging 
a right to offer another amendment then after that order was entered. 
After the order was entered, then we voted on the bill, as amended, and 
it passed 99 to 0 on a rollcall vote. Now, after that has happened, the 
Senate is obliged to consider this amendment in order to get unanimous-
consent to receive the House-passed bill, which was adopted on the same 
day the Senate adopted its bill. We have to consider this amendment 
before the Senate again and have the Senate act on it in exchange for a 
unanimous consent agreement that we can then substitute the Senate-
passed bill, as amended, for the provisions of the House bill and go to 
conference.
  I hope the Senate will not encourage this kind of activity in the 
future and make it impossible for us to proceed as we have been 
proceeding by acting favorably on the Harkin amendment. The Senate has 
to vote down the Harkin amendment or vote for a motion to table, which 
will be made tomorrow.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the arguments 
made by my friend, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee. However, let me point out that, first of all, 
no point of order lies against my amendment. Therefore, it is in full 
compliance with the rules of the Senate. I know of no one who would say 
that something ought to be defeated because it is in compliance with 
the rules.
  I, through my staff, consulted the Parliamentarian's office about 
researching any precedents for the procedural situation of my amendment 
on the bill. My staff was told it would be virtually impossible to 
research precedence because offering an amendment in this posture is 
clearly within the rules and would not be identified as having set a 
precedent. By the same token, I believe that adopting my amendment 
would not set any precedent whatsoever. We are simply using the rules.
  Now, the fact is that, as the chairman said, most of the time bills 
are passed in the House and they come over and we substitute, in the 
beginning, before the process, the House-passed bill, and therefore we 
work on one bill, and when third reading is made, that is the end of 
it. But in this case, we passed the bill prior to the House passing it. 
The rules clearly allow that any bill that comes over from the House 
taken up by the Senate is amendable. That is all this Senator is doing. 
It sets no precedent whatsoever.
  Second, I point out that I did not need a unanimous-consent agreement 
to offer my amendment. I could have done it without any unanimous 
consent agreement whatsoever. The only reason the unanimous consent was 
entered into is I was accommodating to the majority leader that night, 
who wanted to get the bill done. I want to make it clear that I didn't 
need unanimous consent to offer this amendment.
  Third, there was a lot of confusion at the time that I offered this 
amendment that, by offering it, it would go to the House, it would be 
blue-slipped by the House, would go to the House Ways and Means 
Committee, all of which I thought at the time was spurious. But I think 
some Members were swayed by that. Even in light of that, this amendment 
got 48 votes. I now point out that no such argument can be held on 
this, because this will not go back to the House. It will go right to 
conference. Therefore, it cannot be blue-slipped. It will not go to the 
Ways and Means Committee in the House. So, therefore, there was some 
confusion about that at the time.
  Next, there was a feeling by some that the offsets I had were not 
appropriate. So we changed the offsets, as I said in my initial opening 
comments, to accommodate certain Senators who didn't feel I had the 
right offsets.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Mr. Harkin's amendment uses a budgetary 
gimmick to offset increased spending in 1998.
  The amendment merely delays $29 million in mandatory Commodity Credit 
Corporation [CCC] spending for USDA computers and related items until 
1999 to offset increased spending in 1998.
  The 1996 farm bill included $275 million for computer and related 
expenses over the 1997 through 2002 fiscal years. Based upon the 
language in the farm bill CBO had to estimate the flow of funds over 
the 6-year period.
  The CBO estimated that approximately $66 million will be spent on 
computers and related expenses in 1998. The Harkin amendment merely 
delays the expenditure of $29 million into 1999 thus increasing 
spending in 1999.
  Under our scoring rules if the appropriations bill changes a 
mandatory program the Appropriations Committee will get scored with the 
change. If this

[[Page S8655]]

amendment becomes law, the discretionary spending caps will be adjusted 
downward in 1999.
  This amendment will therefore make it more difficult for Congress to 
fund agriculture research and extension, education, and environment 
programs in next year's appropriation bills as less money is available 
to spend.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I presume all time has now expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 15 seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I hope everybody will read Senator Domenici's remarks in 
the Record tonight. They refer to the fact that the offset this 
amendment proposes really isn't anything more than a temporary, 1-year 
offset. In order to achieve the savings that are purported to be added 
to the FDA account by this amendment being offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, a limitation on the use of Commodity Credit 
Corporation funds is imposed. But that is only for 1 year. In other 
words, that deserves some consideration, as Senator Domenici indicates. 
I agree with him.
  In addition, if $47 million in Commodity Credit Corporation funds is 
really needed for the Department of Agriculture to operate and maintain 
its computer systems in fiscal year 1998, as the Department indicates, 
those funds will have to be reprogrammed from other accounts, putting 
pressure on possibly the Farm Service Agency or other USDA agencies.
  I am focusing on and I hope the Senate will focus on why we are going 
to have to reject this effort to undermine the procedure we have, or 
either change the procedure. We had a procedure that seemed to satisfy 
everybody. And now there is an effort to undermine it completely. It 
ought to be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes on the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment that 
the Senator from Iowa has offered on increasing the funding for the FDA 
youth tobacco initiative. This amendment will restore full funding for 
the Food and Drug Administration's tobacco initiative in order to 
prevent tobacco use by teenagers and adolescents. The goal of the 
amendment is to prevent illegal sales of tobacco products to children.
  In the bill presently before us, the Senate has allocated $4.9 
million for the implementation of the FDA regulations that restrict the 
sale and distribution of tobacco products to young people.
  This is not adequate funding. The FDA will not be able to enforce the 
restrictions on the sale of tobacco to children unless the additional 
funds proposed by the Harkin amendment are agreed to. Some have said 
that the amendment is premature and the tobacco settlement is still 
being reviewed. Here in the Congress we will provide the money that the 
FDA needs in order to go ahead with the enforcement called for in the 
current regulations.
  First, I point out that it is not that clear that Congress will go 
ahead and approve a settlement similar to that proposed by the 
attorneys general and the tobacco industry. Even if we are able to 
agree upon legislation to implement such an agreement, money for FDA 
enforcement through that settlement is not likely to be provided before 
fiscal year 1999, and the FDA enforcement and outreach efforts are very 
important and should not be delayed until that time.
  It should also be noted that the amendment has a sunset provision. 
The Harkin amendment has a sunset provision, and if funding for the FDA 
tobacco initiative is provided for fiscal year 1998 through any tobacco 
settlement legislation, then the extra funds covered by that offset 
would be rescinded under the amendment. The amendment would raise the 
level to $34 million in fiscal year 1998 so that the FDA, working with 
the States, can carry out rules to prevent kids from smoking.
  Clearly, the need to give more attention and more effort and more 
resources to the effort to prevent young people from smoking is clear: 
4.5 million young people, ages 12 through 17, are smokers today. High 
school seniors are smoking at the highest rates they have in 17 years. 
Nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before the age of 18 and 
began with that habit. Today, just like every other day of the year, 
another 3,000 young people will become regular smokers. If current 
rates continue, more than 5 million children under age 18 who are alive 
today will wind up being killed by smoking-related diseases.
  A root cause of youth smoking is the easy access that kids have to 
tobacco. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control shows that 
children and adolescents were able to buy tobacco products 67 percent 
of the time that they tried. The CDC found that most young smokers 
usually buy cigarettes without questions being asked and without any 
identification being requested. The American people support the effort 
that the FDA is making to reduce smoking among young people. Their 
strong support is shown in recent polls among the public with the use-
access provisions of the FDA rule in the enforcement of those 
provisions. Eighty-seven percent of the public agreed with the FDA 
policy setting a national minimum age of 18 for the purchase of tobacco 
products. It is estimated that there are more than $1 million in 
illegal sales of tobacco products to children and adolescents in the 
United States every year.

  Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that this amendment, 
which Senator Harkin has offered and I have cosponsored with him, will 
allow us to enforce the law that is in effect in all 50 States--the law 
against the sale of tobacco products to minors. It simply restores full 
funding to the FDA's tobacco initiative to prevent teenage tobacco use.
  I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________