[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8677-S8682]
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 Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 2160, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
A bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Harkin amendment No. 1057, to provide funding for
activities of the Food and Drug Administration relating to
the prevention of tobacco use by youth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Harkin amendment No. 1057 is pending on
which there shall be 20 minutes of debate equally divided.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. First, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Lori Turpin, a
detailee in the office of Senator
[[Page S8678]]
Inouye, be granted floor privileges during deliberations on S. 1061.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes, after which
time I will then yield to Senator Chafee, the majority cosponsor of
this amendment.
I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be added as a
cosponsor of the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Before I return to the substance of our amendment, I want
to address a couple of points raised yesterday.
The distinguished chairman of the agriculture appropriations
subcommittee suggested that my amendment should not be adopted because
it skirts the rules. Well, the rules governing this body clearly permit
this Senator or any other Senator to offer an amendment to the House
Agriculture appropriations bill once it comes over to us.
There was a quotation in AP today of Senator Cochran saying, ``This
is an unfortunate effort to go around the rules and procedures.''
How, I ask, can this Senator, be going around the rules when I am in
full compliance with the rules of the Senate? Our amendment is fully
within the Senate rules. There is no point of order that lies against
offering it. And I will point out that offering this amendment at this
time is in full compliance with the unanimous-consent agreement worked
out with the majority leader during the Senate's consideration of its
Agriculture appropriations bill.
The distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran, was involved in those
discussions also. I did not wait until after the Senate passed its
version of the bill and then spring this amendment on the Senate.
Before the Senate passed its bill, there was a unanimous consent
agreement worked out which plainly provided an opportunity for me to
offer an amendment at this point, an amendment that is clearly
permitted under the rules. That was all worked out under the rules
openly and aboveboard before the Senate passed its Agriculture
appropriations bill.
If, I submit, the argument of the distinguished chairman, Senator
Cochran, prevails and our amendment is defeated on the basis of his
procedural argument that this Senator should not be able to rely upon
the Senate rules, every Senator should be concerned about the precedent
that outcome would set regarding his or her ability to rely upon the
Senate rules. Senators who are inclined to vote with Senator Cochran
should think again and ask themselves what options under the Senate
rules they may be closing off that they may one day critically need. I
am not just talking about the rule I am relying on here. I am talking
about a whole host of other rules protecting the rights of Senators
that could be swept away in the name of expediency, rules that could be
eviscerated as mere trifling inconveniences.
This procedural argument made by the distinguished chairman is both
dangerous and bogus. Let's get to the real issue here. The issue is
whether or not kids under the age of 18 should be able to buy tobacco
and whether we ought to fund efforts to stop such sales. That is what
this vote is about. It is about our kids and protecting them from the
ravages of tobacco. With the death toll of over 400,000 a year, smoking
is killing more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, fires,
homicide, illicit drugs, and suicide combined. And I might add, with
the addition of the Byrd language, States will be encouraged to crack
down on the illegal sales of alcohol along with the illegal sales of
tobacco. Teenage smoking rates are climbing--a 17-year high among high
school seniors.
Why do we need these FDA rules? Because without the ID checks and a
strong rule against underage sales, kids will continue to fall prey to
tobacco.
This picture says more than a thousand words about why the FDA rules
are needed. Here is Melissa on the left, Amy on the right. ``Can you
tell which one is 16? If they walked into a store, would the clerk know
which one was under 18? To eliminate the guesswork, FDA requires
retailers to card anyone who is under 27.''
You could not tell which one of them is under the age of 18. It just
so happens the young woman over here, Melissa, is 16 and Amy, over
here, is 25. That is why this rule is needed. That is why the court in
Greensboro, NC, upheld this rule.
Our amendment seeks $34 million in funding, minuscule in comparison
to the $50 billion in smoking-related medical costs in our Nation each
year.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have
printed in the Record the editorial appearing this morning in the
Washington Post regarding the upcoming vote.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 3, 1997]
A Smoking Vote in the Senate
The Senate is scheduled to vote today on an amendment by
Tom Harkin of Iowa to give the administration the entire,
modest amount it seeks to enforce new rules meant to prevent
the sale of cigarettes to minors. The amendment deserves to
pass. This is a clear test of the instincts of the Senate on
this issue, which over the years has inspired so many
grandiloquent speeches and so little action.
The request is for $34 million instead of the $4.9 million
voted by the Senate Appropriations Committee and $24 million
by the House. Most of the money would fund enforcement action
by the states; no heavy federal hand there. The rest would be
used by the Food and Drug Administration for an educational
campaign aimed mainly at cigarette retailers.
The amendment nonetheless was beaten 52 to 48 in July, in
part because the money was to come from an increased
assessment on tobacco companies. Now it will come from
another source--an offsetting cut in a minor Agriculture
Department program. The question is whether those, including
a number of leading Democrats, who voted no on the earlier
grounds, will now vote aye. They should.
The rest of the session is likely to include a lot of
fights like this, mostly over second- and third-tier issues
and small amounts. The same Senate agriculture appropriations
bill, for example, contains some $50 million more than the
administration sought to pay commissions and otherwise
subsidize crop insurance; the House bill contains $30 million
more. Critics tried to use some of this money for programs to
feed the poor instead. No way, but the issue may still be
live in conference.
There are likely to be similar struggles when the Senate
takes up the Interior appropriations bill, possibly next
week. Subcommittee Chairman Slade Gorton included in the bill
two provisions that would make major changes in Indian law
harmful to the interests of the tribes. They ought to be
excised. An effort will be made to limit further logging in
the national forests by cutting construction funds for the
roads on which such logging depends. That one failed in the
House by only two votes when the administration wobbled in
support. It ought to pass.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am delighted to be here today to
support Senator Harkin's important amendment in the fight against
teenage smoking.
The attorney general of my home State of Rhode Island has urged
Congress to provide the full funding level of $34 million requested by
the Food and Drug Administration. Our attorney general believes
adequate funding is critical to our success in reducing the level of
smoking among children and adolescents, and I agree with him.
Furthermore, with the evidence that we now have regarding the
epidemic of teen smoking as outlined by the distinguished Senator from
Iowa, and all the implications this has for the future, it seems to me
there is no excuse for delaying full implementation of this critical
program.
As has been pointed out, smoking among high school seniors is at a
17-year high. That is very discouraging. Smoking among 8th and 10th
graders has increased by more than 50 percent in the last 6 years.
State and local officials need this money for enforcement purposes. And
the money is also needed to educate retailers about their
responsibilities.
In my home State, even though we have a law prohibiting retailers
from selling tobacco products to minors, over 70 percent of high school
smokers were not asked to show proof of their age when purchasing
cigarettes.
According to our attorney general, Rhode Island stores each year are
selling--I was stunned by this figure. We are a small State, a million
people--11
[[Page S8679]]
million dollars' worth of cigarettes to underage consumers, and the
main reason, of course, is the lack of resources at the local level to
enforce the law. We have been able to provide the funds for education.
We have to be able, in my judgment, to provide funds for education and
enforcement of this rule to make it meaningful.
Now, there is a little less than $5 million provided thus far by the
Senate. That is nice, but it just plain is not enough. With the
improvement of the sunset provisions in the new offset, I believe there
is no good reason not to vote for this amendment. Preventing underage
smoking should be a national priority and providing full funding of
this program is an important step toward achieving that goal. So I urge
my colleagues to join me in this effort to eradicate teenage smoking.
I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for
his leadership.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his comments. I thank him for his
strong support in the effort to eliminate teenage smoking.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes forty-five seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I will yield 1 minute 45 seconds to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Iowa.
I rise in strong support of this amendment. Think about this for a
moment. Have you ever met a parent who said, ``I had the greatest news
last night; I went home and my daughter came home and announced she had
started smoking.''
I have never heard that. I never heard a single parent say how proud
they were to learn their children started smoking and yet statistics
show us across America the fastest growing group of new smokers is
children, and particularly young women, who decide in high school or
sometimes earlier to start buying this product illegally to start
smoking, to develop a nicotine addiction which can haunt them for a
lifetime, leading to disease and sometimes to death.
What Senator Harkin is doing is just eminently sensible. If there is
such a thing as a family value, this is a family value amendment
because what Senator Harkin is doing with this amendment is to make
sure that the Food and Drug Administration has the resources to enforce
existing law. It is not a new imposition of law from the Federal
Government. It is just common sense. Keep this dangerous addictive
product out of the hands of children. And the people who want to sell
it to kids illegally have to be stopped.
If we are going to do that, it takes more than a speech on the Senate
floor. It takes a commitment of resources. I am sorry that Senator
Harkin's effort lost last time by a handful of votes. There were a lot
of speeches given and a lot of reasons given. I hope my colleagues have
had a chance to go home during this break and talk to a number of
families, as I have. They should realize, as I do, how critically
important it is to pass the Harkin amendment and give the FDA the
resources to make sure that our kids are not lured into this dangerous
addiction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, what is the situation with time? Has
all the time been used by the proponent of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute 35 seconds
and the Senator from Mississippi controls 9 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam President, one comment at the outset has to be made in response
to the Senator's statement quoting from an Associated Press article
which suggests I said yesterday that the effort to bring this amendment
to the Senate on a second vote violates the rules of the Senate. I said
no such thing yesterday. I have just completed reading my remarks as
reflected in the Congressional Record of yesterday's proceedings of the
Senate, and that is not contained in my remarks.
What I did say was this, and I will read it again for emphasis. ``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.''
Now, let me elaborate on that. The procedure being used by the
proponent of this amendment creates an unfortunate precedent. If it is
rewarded by a majority of the votes on his amendment, that precedent
will permit a vote on an amendment to a bill after third reading, and,
after a unanimous-consent agreement has ripened, as an order limiting
amendments on a bill. Using the tactic employed by the distinguished
Senator and my friend from Iowa should not be rewarded by the Senate
and such a precedent should not be established.
The reason I am making that point as strongly as I can, and repeating
what was said yesterday in the 10 minutes we had to discuss this issue,
is that we had worked out a procedure for considering appropriations
bills here in the Senate in advance of their being considered by the
House. We had markups, in subcommittees and the full committee, of
appropriations bills that had not yet passed the House. That is a
departure from procedures that had been used as a matter of custom and
practice in the past. The reason was to accelerate and expedite
consideration of these bills so that we would not get into a situation
of winding up at the end of the fiscal year, or right on the brink of
the beginning of a new fiscal year, not having passed all
appropriations bills because of the slowness of that earlier procedure.
This was working fine. But one little nuance to permit that to work
is that when the House-passed bill is received in the Senate, we have
to get unanimous consent to hold it at the desk, and then call it up,
substitute the Senate action on the appropriations bill for the
language of the House-passed bill, and have it passed as amended by the
Senate action. We have already had third reading of the Senate bill; we
have already adopted all the amendments; we have had orders limiting
those amendments; and then the Senator decides to use this opportunity.
Under the Senate rules, he is right. Under the Senate rules, any
Senator can object to a unanimous-consent request, and that is what he
did. The difference is that it was understood that when we completed
action on the Senate bill, we would then take up the House-passed bill,
substitute the Senate action on it, adopt it, and go to conference. So
it was at that little point in the procedure that the Senator decided
to use a new tactic, and that is why we are having to vote another
time, a second time, on an amendment that was disposed of during the
consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill.
We passed the bill on July 24. Here we are in September having to
vote on an amendment virtually the same with a different offset. The
offset is described as defective and flawed in a statement made by
Senator Domenici that is in the Record of yesterday. I invite the
attention of Senators on that subject. What it does, in effect, is
instead of spending money in this next fiscal year, we will postpone it
to the following fiscal year, and that is scored by CBO as an offset.
Are you kidding? There is a statutory maximum to spend, a mandate for
computer operations to be funded at the Department of Agriculture. So
the offset, while the CBO scores it--and we continue to live under this
very interesting obligation to honor, cherish, and obey the decisions
of CBO on these issues, the wisdom of the Senate or the will of the
Senate notwithstanding--we are bound to respect the CBO decision on
whether or not this is an effective offset of the new spending.
The arguments about whether you are for or against smoking--really,
we are all for doing everything possible to persuade young people,
minors, not to smoke. That is not the issue here. This program by FDA
provides some funds to States to help enforce State rules and laws and
Federal regulations on sales of tobacco to minors. Only a few States
are even getting this money. I mean, the whole point of this argument
[[Page S8680]]
suggests that the substance of the amendment deals with that issue in
some important or dramatic way. It does not.
The point is, this money, this account, will be negotiated in
conference. All Senators understand that. The House has a higher number
than the Senate has. We have higher numbers for other things like
agricultural research and some other important initiatives protecting
farmers, trying to do something about production agriculture and the
efficiency and the yields that our farmers can achieve on their crops
to remain globally competitive. This is a big bill. It has WIC money,
which is very important. A lot of nutrition programs are funded in this
bill at higher levels than the House recommends.
So, what I am saying is that we don't agree with the House on every
part of the bill. That is why we are going to conference. But to permit
this procedure to prevail and have us vote on the same amendment we
have already disposed of, I think should be rejected. We are not going
to be able to continue the procedures we followed if we reward this
strategy, this tactic, this use or abuse of the procedures that we have
been following.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of
this amendment to restore funding to the Food and Drug Administration
so it can enforce its rule in the war on teen smoking. At stake are the
lives of millions of our children.
This rule prohibits--nationwide--the sale of tobacco products to
anyone under the age of 18. It also requires retailers to check the ID
of any purchaser of tobacco who appears to be under the age of 27.
Isn't this just common sense as matters of both public policy and
public health? Apparently not.
Madam President, if I wasn't seeing this with my own eyes, I would
not believe anyone doubted the need to fund FDA enforcement of this
rule. The rule against teen smoking is overwhelmingly supported by the
American people. It was validated by a North Carolina judge. Yet, here
we are on the floor of the U.S. Senate, trying again to save this rule
from obliteration.
Madam President, the tobacco lobbyists have spread a great deal of
money and misinformation about the need for this initiative. I would
like to clear the air.
The tobacco lobby has been telling Senators that we should wait until
we pass settlement legislation before we fund the FDA's teen smoking
enforcement efforts. That is nonsense. The ultimate disposition of the
proposed settlement--which is far from being in place--has nothing to
do with this fight against teen smoking. Nothing. The settlement
negotiations, assumed that these rules would be in place and fully
funded.
Once you eliminate this nonsense, it comes down to a basic question.
Should we simply sit back and watch 3,000 kids a day pick up an
addiction that will kill or cripple many of them? Or should we fund
this program and start saving lives? The money we approve today is a
bargain compared to what we'll be forced to spend in later years on
treating smoking-related illness.
Everyone, including the tobacco companies, says they are against teen
smoking. Our Nation's parents, the medical community, and public
opinion support the President's fight against teen smoking.
And make no mistake about it. If you vote against this funding, you
gut the President's plan and take a stand for tobacco and against
America's kids. I therefore urge you to support this amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will vote against tabling the Harkin
amendment. It is a good amendment with the worthwhile goal of
protecting the health and lives of young Americans.
Both the tobacco and alcohol industries have received well-deserved
criticism in recent years for a variety of questionable or unsavory
practices, including what many of their critics have identified as the
use of advertising campaigns specifically intended to entice young
people to try, and then become hooked on, their products. In response,
the tobacco industry has been attacked at both the State and Federal
levels, but, unfortunately, much less attention has been directed
toward the alcohol industry.
Certainly, tragedies like the recent alcohol-related death of a
Louisiana State University student demonstrate that a national effort
to save our young people from the destructive forces of alcohol is
warranted.
This amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill will boost the
ability of the States to enforce age and identification requirements
for the purchase of cigarettes, but, importantly, at my request, the
amendment also addresses the need to shore up the enforcement of checks
for the purchase by minors of alcohol.
The amendment encourages States to couple their youth-smoking
prevention efforts with State laws that prohibit underage drinking.
These issues go hand in hand in preventing our youth from using
destructive substances.
According to statistics from the Federal Centers for Disease
Control's National Center for Health Statistics, the three leading
causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds--accidents, homicides, and
suicides--often involve the use of alcohol. Efforts to curb the sale of
alcohol to minors, therefore, can be expected to yield high payoffs to
our society.
Under the original amendment, Federal funding was to be used to
increase supervision of retailers to ensure that they examine the
identifications of customers purchasing tobacco products. But language
I added calls for coordinating the oversight of identification checks
for alcohol sales along with those tobacco-related programs. It only
makes sense that store clerks who are already checking ID's for
cigarettes also be checking ID's for alcohol. The exercise is called
``carding,'' checking identification cards to verify that the buyer is
not under the legal age. It is such an easy step that can help prevent
a teenager from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car--
``carding'' for age. Perhaps it would be more aptly described as
``carding for life.'' I hope that this amendment may indeed result in
saving lives.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I am in wholehearted agreement with the
intent of the amendment before us, and I commend my colleague from Iowa
for his sincere attempt to address the crucial issue of youth smoking.
However, I remain unconvinced that FDA control and management of a
youth antismoking initiative will solve the problem. Let me be very
clear, I support a Federal role in restricting teen smoking and in
funding a youth antismoking initiative. However, a cursory review of
our Nation's history shows that the States have the primary
jurisdiction over enforcement over youth smoking laws, just as they do
with laws relating to underage consumption of alcohol.
In the aftermath of the tobacco settlement negotiations, our Nation's
attention is focused, as never before, on the problem of teen smoking.
We have an unprecedented bipartisan commitment to addressing this
problem at all levels of government. Currently, seven committees in the
Senate alone are tackling the complex issues raised by the settlement.
In my opinion, we do the children of America is disservice by thinking
we absolve ourselves of responsibility by simply delegating this job to
Federal bureaucrats. We have a golden opportunity to put these
financial resources to work, and bring about long-overdue solutions. I
am not a politician by trade or training, and I find that sometimes
that works to my advantage. I haven't been in Washington long enough to
lose my appreciation for the truism that the best solutions are often
found at home.
Let's talk about some of the initiatives the Federal Government is
already funding to prevent youth smoking.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an Office on
Smoking and Health [OSH] which conducts scientific research,
communicates health information to the public, and coordinates action
with other Federal agencies, State health departments, and other
organizations. Their programs include the Smoke Free Kids & Soccer
campaign, which collaborates with the U.S. women's national soccer team
to promote smoke-free lifestyles among teenage girls. The OSH budget is
$21.4 million.
At the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute
funds the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study research program in
collaboration with the American Cancer Society
[[Page S8681]]
and State and local health departments and other organizations to
develop comprehensive tobacco control programs in 17 States. NCI also
administers investigator initiated research projects in smoking
cessation and education, funded at $94.9 million. The National
Institute of Drug Abuse funds research on smoking and nicotine
dependency.
The Health Resources and Services Administration provides funding for
antismoking education through its health professions education and
nurse training programs. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
funds health services to mothers and children, including antismoking
education.
And let us not forget, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration provides discretionary funding for community-based
demonstration projects for the prevention and early intervention of
alcohol and drug abuse, including tobacco use. Also, SAMHSA is already
implementing the Synar amendment, which requires States to enforce laws
prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to individuals under age 18.
States must conduct random unannounced inspections of retail outlets,
and develop a strategy for achieving an inspection failure rate of less
than 20 percent. States that don't comply with these requirements may
lose their block grants funds, and I would like to point out that these
funds may not now be used for enforcement activities.
Now, Madam President, I've named a few Federal antismoking efforts,
but there are actually over 17, in different departments and agencies.
The settlement which has been negotiated between industry, plaintiffs,
the attorneys general, and the public health community has been
referred to no fewer than seven Senate committees. I think it's time
for a little common sense. The FDA, while they have done many wonderful
things, have too often demonstrated a tendency to rely on centralized,
heavyhanded bureaucracy rather than practical solutions. Let's proceed
with hearings in the Senate, and let's examine the best possible
avenues for administration of these funds. Most of all, let us not lose
sight of the goal of our public health efforts.
The issue is reducing teen consumption of cigarette smoke. At every
level of government, local, State, and Federal, and in every part of
our communities, we must commit to do this ourselves. We cannot simply
look the other way when a child with a cigarette walks by. Convenience
store owners cannot ignore the law, and profit from our children's poor
decisions, and legislators cannot allow campaign finances to cloud
their judgment on this issue.
We know that one very effective tool is a consistently enforced
requirement that retail outlets care young people. This is primarily a
task for local law enforcement. Any Federal agency that Congress
authorizes to police retail outlets will in the final analysis turn to
local agencies to conduct the compliance checks. As we seek to partner
with governments at home, we can and should build in Federal compliance
standard for States who refuse to cooperate. Together, we can put some
teeth into the laxly enforced statutes already on the books.
Let me add that I think we should have some concern for what could
happen if we stray too far from the obvious connection between personal
responsibility and health. Personal responsibility is the key to good
health. As a physician, I urged everyone of my patients and my
constituents to stop smoking if they had started, and more importantly
not to start. There is a clear link between smoking and many types of
cancer and other diseases. As a heart and lung transplant surgeon, I
have seen firsthand the harmful effects of smoking. I have held tar-
laden lungs in my hand and removed malfunctioning hearts from failing
bodies. As the father of three sons, whom I relentlessly urge not to
smoke, I agree with columnist James Glassman that ``Kids shouldn't
smoke; parents, taxes, and laws should deter them.'' But before we
entrust $29 million of taxpayers hard-earned money to the Food and Drug
Administration, let's make sure that this is the wisest use of our
resources.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa controls 1 minute 53
seconds, the Senator from Mississippi 2 minutes 47 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, Senator Cochran said that only a few
States are getting FDA funding right now. That is the point. Six States
right now are receiving FDA enforcement money, and only 10 States are
expected to receive such money in fiscal 1997, because FDA does not
have the money for all States. What this amendment provides is enough
money to expand the FDA initiative to all 50 States. I thank my friend
from Mississippi for pointing that out. That is the essence of this
amendment; to expand to all interested States FDA funding for
enforcement of rules providing for ID checks and prohibiting illegal
sales to kids who come in to buy cigarettes and tobacco.
Madam President, we hear time and time again the tobacco companies
saying they want to stop kids from smoking. This amendment does that.
Yet has one tobacco company stepped forward to support this amendment?
A deafening silence. Not one penny comes out of their pockets under
this amendment, and yet not one tobacco company has come forward to
say, yes, this amendment by Senators Harkin and Chafee is good because
it will keep kids from smoking and buying tobacco. They say they want
to help stop kids from smoking. Not one of them has come forward to
support this amendment. Shame on them.
We debated the previous version of this amendment on July 23, and it
was tabled 52 to 48. Since that time another 125,000 young Americans
have gotten addicted to smoking, and every day that we delay, thousands
more kids like these young women here walk into stores, buy cigarettes
and tobacco products, and get hooked. That's why the tobacco companies
are not here supporting this amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will yield to my friend from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for fighting this battle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. One quick point is the tobacco companies have increased
their contributions to colleagues so they will not support you, and I
hope we overcome that this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Mississippi controls the remaining time.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I have made the arguments that I
intended to make. If Senators are interested in a little more detailed
discussion of the procedures and why I think it would be such an
unfortunate precedent for us to reward the strategy being used by the
proponent of the amendment, I invite attention to yesterday's Record.
Let me just say one other thing about the effort to resolve this
issue. We have plenty of room within the amount provided by the House
in its version of this bill and the amount provided by the Senate in
the bill that passed the Senate 99 to 0 to negotiate an appropriate
level of funding for the FDA's program. We are not suggesting that this
program ought not be funded, that assistance ought not be made
available to States which need the assistance. But has it occurred to
anybody that the States are bringing lawsuits and collecting from the
tobacco companies money to do this very thing? Our State of Mississippi
is the first to obtain a cash settlement with the tobacco industries,
and it can use the money for a wide variety of purposes: to help defray
expenses, medical expenses, that have been paid out to those who have
suffered health problems because of smoking, antiteenage smoking
campaigns and efforts and initiatives--and that is what this program
is. Here we are asking people around the country to use their tax
dollars to go to States, whether they have brought law suits, whether
they have taken action--these are applicants for funds under a new FDA
program that has just begun.
So, I am saying there is more to this than is being discussed. There
is more to this than is being admitted. Florida has just now undertaken
to consummate a settlement that is similar to the one in Mississippi,
and there will be others. Where has been the Department
[[Page S8682]]
of Justice? Where is the Federal Department of Justice on these issues?
Where is the proposal of the administration on these issues? We are
asked to spend more taxpayer dollars, but I am not sure it is for a
coherent, comprehensive way to deal with the overall issue. That is
what I am suggesting. The States are doing a much better job and a much
more aggressive job getting after this than we are. And an amendment is
being suggested here to solve all those problems. Well, that is just
not an accurate reflection of the facts, is it, Madam President?
So I urge, when we make a motion to table the amendment, once all
time has been used or yielded back, that the Senate vote for the motion
to table to permit us to continue to consider appropriations bills in
this orderly fashion so that we can expedite their consideration and be
fair to all Senators who offered amendments when the Senate considered
the bill. I thank the Senators very much for their careful attention to
this discussion.
Madam President, if all time has been used----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. COCHRAN. Then I move the amendment of the distinguished Senator
from Iowa be tabled.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 1057. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner]
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]
YEAS--28
Ashcroft
Brownback
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lott
McConnell
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
NAYS--70
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Murkowski
Warner
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the adoption of the Harkin
amendment.
The Senate will please come to order.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair please state the question
that is now before the Senate on which we are about to vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 1057, the Harkin amendment.
The amendment (No. 1057) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the text of S. 1033,
as amended, including amendment No. 1057, is substituted for the text
of H.R. 2160, and the bill is read for the third time and passed.
The bill (H.R. 2160), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair
is authorized to appoint conferees.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Allard) appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Inouye
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________