[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5618-S5619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate debate on this landmark youth 
smoking reduction bill began more than two weeks ago. The time for 
debate on this legislation is rapidly drawing to a close. Each of us 
has had ample opportunity to state our views. The Senate should commit 
to a vote on final passage within a week. We owe it to our children who 
are being entrapped into a life of addiction and premature death by the 
tobacco industry every day.
  The opponents of this legislation have used every parliamentary tool 
at their disposal to extend the debate and to divert attention to 
unrelated issues. They want to talk about every subject but the impact 
of smoking on the nation's health. However, the real issue cannot be 
obscured by their verbal smokescreen. It is time for us to move from 
talking to voting.
  Each day that the opponents delay final Senate passage of this bill, 
3,000 more children begin to smoke. A third of these children will die 
prematurely from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, or other 
smoking-caused illnesses.
  Each day that we delay, the price of a pack of cigarettes will 
continue to be affordable to the nation's children, and more and more 
of them will take up this deadly habit.
  Each day that we delay, Big Tobacco will continue to target children 
with billions of dollars in advertising and promotional giveaways that 
promise popularity, excitement, and success for young men and women who 
start smoking.
  Each day that we delay, millions of nonsmokers will be exposed to 
secondhand smoke. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
secondhand smoke causes 3,000 to 5,000 lung cancer deaths each year in 
the United States--more than all other regulated hazardous air 
pollutants combined. Secondhand smoke is also responsible for as many 
as 60 percent of cases of asthma, bronchitis, and wheezing among young 
children.
  Each day that we delay, tobacco will remain virtually the only 
product manufactured for human consumption that is not subject to 
Federal health and safety regulations, despite the fact that it causes 
over 400,000 deaths a year. In fact, Kraft Cheese is more heavily 
regulated than Marlboro cigarettes, although both are manufactured by 
Philip Morris.
  With so much at stake for so many of our children, it is truly 
irresponsible for the opponents of this legislation to practice the 
politics of obstruction. Let the Senate vote.
  There are two pending amendments before us today--the Gramm amendment 
on the marriage penalty and the Durbin-DeWine amendment on the youth 
smoking reduction lookback. I would like to address each of them in 
turn.
  The pending amendment by the Senator from Texas seeks to divert $52 
billion over the next 5 years away from smoking prevention, away from 
smoking cessation, away from medical research, and away from 
reimbursing states. He proposes to take 80 percent of all the money 
raised by the cigarette price increase and use it for unrelated tax 
cuts. No funds would be left for programs which are essential to 
reducing youth smoking and to helping current smokers quit.
  By offering such an amendment, the Senator from Texas shows his true 
intent. It is he who wants to convert this legislation from a youth 
smoking prevention bill into a piggybank for unrelated projects. 
Although he has complained that the tobacco bill is a piggybank that 
Democrats are using to fund new programs, in fact it is the Gramm 
amendment which would hog 80 percent of the money taking resources 
which are needed to prevent young Americans from beginning to smoke and 
to help current smokers overcome their addiction. These numbers speak 
for themselves. This tax cut was not designed to help working 
families--it was intended to destroy the underlying smoking prevention 
legislation.
  The criticism of the Gramm amendment has been so strong and so 
widespread that even the sponsor has agreed to reduce the size of the 
proposed moneygrab. Under his new proposal, he only wants to take one-
third of the revenue generated in the first 5 years and one-half of the 
money in succeeding years. That would amount to approximately $60 
billion over a 10-year period. It would still cripple the 
smoking prevention and cessation efforts which are essential to 
effectively reducing youth smoking.

  All of the money raised by the cigarette price increase contained in 
the legislation is currently earmarked for smoking related purposes: 22 
percent is directed to smoking prevention and cessation, 22 percent is 
to be used for medical research, 16 percent is for transitional 
assistance for tobacco farmers, and 40 percent is to compensate states 
for the cost of medical treatment of smoking related illnesses. There 
it is, Mr. President.
  Which of these smoking related initiatives would the Senator from 
Texas eliminate? Does he propose to eliminate all compensation to the 
States for their tobacco related health costs? After all, it was the 
State lawsuits which provided the genesis for this legislation and 
which exposed the most dramatic evidence of industry wrongdoing. That 
would not be fair. Even if every dollar intended for the States was 
taken to fund the Gramm amendment, it would not be enough to cover the 
cost.
  Does he propose to eliminate all transition assistance for tobacco 
farmers and communities? It would not even cover one-third of the cost 
of the Gramm amendment.
  All of the remaining dollars are directed to smoking prevention, to 
smoking cessation, and to medical research. These initiatives are the 
heart of the legislation. If we are serious about stopping children 
from smoking and saving lives from tobacco-induced diseases, we have to 
make these investments. Would the Senator from Texas propose that we 
take money from these programs and use it to fund an unrelated tax cut 
instead? How can we in good conscience raise the price of cigarettes 
and then refuse to fund programs which will address the evils of 
smoking? These programs work. Let me give you a few examples:
  Every dollar invested in a smoking cessation program for a pregnant 
woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal intensive care and long-term care 
for low-birthweight babies. The effect of the Gramm amendment would be 
to reduce funds for these programs, and that makes no sense.
  The Gramm amendment would take funds intended to assist states and 
communities to conduct educational programs on the health dangers of 
smoking. The tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year--$5 billion--on 
advertising to encourage young people to smoke. Shouldn't we spend at 
least one tenth of that amount to counteract the industry's lethal 
message?
  Counteradvertising is a key element of an effective tobacco control 
strategy. We know that if children are easily swayed by the tobacco 
industry's marketing campaigns, which promise popularity, excitement, 
and success for those who take up smoking, we can reverse the damage by 
deglamorizing the use of tobacco among children with 
counteradvertising.
  Both Massachusetts and California have demonstrated that paid 
counteradvertising can cut smoking rates. It helped reduce cigarette 
use in Massachusetts by 17 percent between 1992 and 1996, or three 
times the national average. Smoking by junior high students dropped 8 
percent, while the rest of the nation has seen an increase. In 
California, a counteradvertising campaign also reduced smoking rates by 
15 percent over the last 3 years.
  The Gramm amendment also would take money from law enforcement 
efforts to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, even though 
young people currently spend $1 billion a year to buy tobacco products 
illegally.
  The Gramm amendment will diminish funding for medical research on 
tobacco-related diseases, which kill 400,000 Americans each year and 
incapacitates millions more. Given the

[[Page S5619]]

damage that smoking inflicts on the nation's public health, it make 
little sense to divert tobacco revenues to tax cuts when they could be 
directed to finding a cure for cancer and other tobacco-induced 
illnesses. Since tobacco induced disease costs America $130 billion per 
year, it certainly is not cost effective to reduce research spending.
  In essence, the Gramm amendment would destroy much of the public 
health benefit this legislation is designed to achieve. It would be a 
tragic mistake.
  The goal of eliminating the marriage penalty for low and moderate 
income families is a worthy one. It is shared on both sides of the 
aisle. However, it must be accomplished in a way that does not imperil 
our primary goal--preventing youth smoking and helping smokers overcome 
their addiction.
  I anticipate that an alternative amendment will be offered which will 
provide relief from the marriage penalty without imperiling our smoking 
prevention efforts. It will cost far less than the Gramm amendment, and 
it will do a much better job of targeting tax relief to those most in 
need.

  That is the difference between preserving a viable youth smoking 
reduction effort and destroying it. That is the difference between 
helping millions of smokers quit and leaving them at the mercy of their 
addiction. That is the difference between advancing medical research 
that can cure tobacco induced diseases and indefinitely delaying it.
  The second issue I want to address is the Durbin-DeWine look-back 
amendment. It will assess increased sums for noncompliance with the 
youth smoking reduction targets. In addition, the emphasis will be 
shifted from industry-wide assessments to company-by-company 
assessments, in order to more effectively deter individual tobacco 
companies from marketing their products to children.
  Big Tobacco knows how to hook children into a lifetime of nicotine 
addiction and smoking-related illnesses--whether appealing through 
characters like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, through the prominent 
placement of tobacco advertising, or through a strategic cut in 
cigarette prices. And Big Tobacco also knows how to stop appealing to 
children.
  The purpose of the look-back is to give tobacco companies an 
overwhelming financial incentive to turn their focus away from the 
youth market. Our goal is to influence every business decision by 
taking the profit away from addicting teenagers.
  The Durbin-DeWine amendment will accomplish that goal much more 
effectively than the current look-back provisions in the manager's 
amendment. It will substantially increase the total amount of the 
surcharges which companies must pay if youth smoking levels do not 
decline in accordance with the reduction targets. It also shifts the 
payment obligations from a predominately industrywide system to a 
predominately company-specific system. This will dramatically increase 
the deterrent influence of the look-back on company policy.
  The current McCain provision provides for a maximum industrywide 
penalty of $4 billion, or about 20 cents a pack. The company-specific 
portion is extremely small, amounting to only a few pennies per pack. 
The Durbin-DeWine amendment provides for substantial company-specific 
penalties, which in the aggregate could reach $5 billion per year if 
companies continue to flaunt the law and blatantly target children. The 
amendment also provides for an industrywide surcharge of up to $2 
billion a year.
  Through this important amendment we are speaking to the tobacco 
companies in the only language they understand--money. If they continue 
to target children, these companies will pay a financial price far in 
excess of the profits raised from addicting children.
  But if they are willing to cooperate in efforts to prevent teenage 
smoking, the companies may never have to pay a dollar of look-back 
surcharges. A strong, company-specific look-back, such as the one we 
are proposing, will give the tobacco companies a powerful financial 
incentive to use their skill in market manipulation to further, rather 
than undermine, the public interest in reducing youth smoking.
  Each tobacco company must be held accountable for its actions on 
teenage smoking. The stakes involved are nothing less than the health 
of the Nation's children. For each percentage point that the tobacco 
industry misses the target, 55,000 children will begin to smoke. One-
third of these children will die prematurely from smoking-induced 
diseases.
  This bipartisan amendment deserves the support of the full Senate, 
and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  These two issues--the marriage penalty and the look-back--should be 
resolved quickly. Once they are decided, there is little excuse for 
further delay. The remaining amendments can be considered in a few days 
if we move conscientiously forward. There is no valid reason why the 
Senate cannot vote on final passage by the middle of next week. If we 
do not, the American people will know why. A small group of willful 
defenders of the tobacco industry will have succeeded in obstructing 
the work of the Senate on this vital issue of public health. On an 
issue of this importance, which is literally a matter of life and 
death, our constituents will not tolerate such obstruction. Now is the 
time for the Senate to act.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized to proceed as in morning business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2133 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________