[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6007-S6008]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No amendments are in order until 1 o'clock.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
be able to proceed maybe for 20 minutes, 10 minutes for myself and the 
other 10 minutes for our friend, the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. I would like to request 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senate has been considering the comprehensive 
tobacco legislation offered by Senator McCain for three weeks.
  In fact, since the Senate began to debate the tobacco bill on May 18, 
69,000 children have begun to smoke, and 23,000 will die prematurely 
from a smoking-caused disease.
  In the past day, however, we have made significant progress in moving 
forward in a bipartisan manner to resolve our differences and bring 
this bill to final passage.
  The Senate should once and for all reject the dilatory tactics of the 
opponents of this legislation, who care more about protecting the 
profits of Big Tobacco than they do about protecting the health of the 
nation's children. They have used every strategy in the book to delay 
and obstruct this important legislation while thousands of children 
begin a lifetime of nicotine addiction and smoking-caused illness. But 
the pressure is starting to build in every corner of this nation, and 
the American voters are demanding that the Senate take quick and 
decisive action to bring this bill to a vote.
  The stakes have rarely, if ever, been higher on any public health 
issue. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death and 
disability in the nation. Of the 48 million smokers in the United 
States today, it is estimated that 20 million adults and 5 million 
children will die prematurely from a tobacco-induced disease.
  In fact, tobacco products are responsible for a third of all cancers, 
and 90% of all lung cancers. 170,000 new cases of lung cancer are 
expected in 1998. 90,000 men and 65,000 women are expected to die of 
the disease in this year alone.
  Tobacco use is also linked to a wide variety of other illnesses. 
Smoking by children and adolescents is associated with higher 
cholesterol levels which can significantly increase the risk of early 
development of cardiovascular diseases.
  New research also indicates that tobacco use is a risk factor in 
alcoholism, depression, hearing loss, and vision loss among the 
elderly.
  The use of smokeless tobacco products is associated with cancers of 
the mouth, gum disease, and tooth loss.
  The dangers of secondhand smoke are also becoming increasingly clear. 
It is linked to low birthweight, respiratory distress syndrome, and 
sudden infant death syndrome. A recent report by the Agency for Health 
Care Policy and Research says that secondhand smoke is responsible for 
as many as 60% of cases of asthma, bronchitis, and wheezing among young 
children.
  It is also clear that smoking-related illnesses impose an enormous 
burden on the United States economy. According to the Department of 
Treasury, smoking will cost society $130 billion this year, of which 
$45 million is attributable to medical costs due to smoking-caused 
diseases.
  Smoking during pregnancy, which results in increased costs from 
complicated deliveries, medical care of low-weight babies, and 
developmental disabilities, adds up to a $4 billion loss for the U.S. 
economy.
  The damage resulting from smoking-caused fires is $500 million a 
year, which does not even account for the 2,000 lives lost in these 
tragic accidents.
  $500 million is attributable to lost productivity, since smokers miss 
50% more work days than nonsmokers. In addition, smokers tend to die 
younger and retire sooner, which costs society an astounding $80 
billion in lost output and wages.
  Much higher priority is obviously needed for smoking cessation 
programs and tobacco prevention initiatives, which are among the most 
cost-effective means available to reduce health care costs while, at 
the same time, improve the lives of millions of Americans.
  The pending amendment by the Senator from Texas seeks to divert 
approximately $47 billion over the next ten years away from smoking 
prevention, away from smoking cessation, away from medical research, 
and away from reimbursing states.
  When we add the combined impact of the pending Gramm amendment and 
the Coverdell amendment which was approved yesterday, no funds would be 
left for programs which are essential to reducing youth smoking and to 
helping current smokers quit. In fact, the Gramm amendment alone would 
result in roughly 4 million fewer Americans served by smoking cessation 
programs, 20 million fewer people discouraged from smoking by 
counteradvertising campaigns, and 48 million fewer children 
participating in school-based smoking prevention activities.

  These numbers speak for themselves. Reasonable marriage penalty 
relief makes sense. But the Gramm amendment goes too far. It would 
destroy the underlying smoking prevention legislation.
  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.
  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, yet both the pending Gramm amendment and the 
Coverdell amendment approved yesterday will deny needed resources to 
prevent teenagers from beginning to smoke. If we are serious about 
stopping children from smoking and saving lives from tobacco-induced 
diseases, we have to make these investments.
  These programs work. Let me give you a few examples:
  Every dollar invested in a smoking cessation program for a pregnant

[[Page S6008]]

woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal intensive care and long-term care 
for low birth weight babies. In addition, smoking cessation programs 
have an added benefit of reducing tobacco use among children. According 
to Michael Fiore, Director of Tobacco Research at the University of 
Wisconsin Medical School, children who smoke have twice the risk of 
becoming smokers than children of nonsmokers have. By helping parents 
to quit, the risk of children becoming smokers is reduced as well. The 
effect of the Gramm amendment would be to reduce funds for these 
programs, and that makes no sense.
  The Gramm amendment would deny funds needed to help states and 
communities 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 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 use 
counteradvertising to reverse the damage by deglamorizing the use of 
tobacco among children.
  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 three 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. According to Professor Joseph DiFranza of the University of 
Massachusetts Medical Center, ``if $1 billion in illegal sales were 
spread out evenly over an estimated 1 million tobacco retailers 
nationwide, it would indicate that the average retailer breaks the law 
about 500 times a year.''

  The Gramm amendment will diminish funding for medical research on 
tobacco-related diseases, which kill 400,000 Americans each year and 
incapacitate millions more. Given the damage that smoking inflicts on 
the nation's public health, it makes little sense to deny funds that 
should be directed to finding a cure for cancer and other tobacco-
induced illnesses.
  In essence, the Gramm amendment would destroy much of the public 
health benefit this legislation is designed to achieve. 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.
  The Daschle amendment, which offers relief from the marriage penalty 
without imperiling our smoking prevention efforts, will cost far less 
than the Gramm amendment, and it does a much better job of targeting 
tax relief to those most in need.
  The Daschle amendment will cost only $27 billion over the first ten 
years. That is the most which can be accommodated without damaging our 
ability to achieve the legislation's core anti-smoking purposes. The 
cost of the Gramm proposal mushrooms after the fifth year. Thus, over 
ten years, the cost of the Daschle amendment is approximately $20 
billion less than the Gramm amendment. This 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.
  Because it is carefully targeted, the Daschle amendment actually 
provides more tax relief to those two income families earning $50,000 a 
year or less who currently pay the marriage penalty. By contrast, more 
than half the tax relief provided by the Gramm amendment would go to 
families that are not subject to the marriage penalty. Senator 
Daschle's proposal will do more to achieve tax fairness at a much lower 
cost.
  Once this issue is 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 soon. If we do not, the American people will know 
why. A small group of willful defenders of Big Tobacco will have 
succeeded in obstructing the work of the Senate on this vital issue of 
public health. On an issue of this importance, our constituents will 
not tolerate such obstruction. Now is the time for the Senate to act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________