[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.

                          ____________________