[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6441-S6450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
resume consideration of the tobacco legislation, S. 1415, for debate 
only until the hour of 2 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:
       A bill (S. 1415) to reform and restructure the processes by 
     which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and 
     distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by 
     minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use, 
     and for other purposes.
  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2433 (to amendment No. 2420), to 
     modify the provisions relating to civil liability for tobacco 
     manufacturers.
       Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2434 (to amendment No. 2433), in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Gramm motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Finance with instructions to report back forthwith, with 
     amendment No. 2436, to modify the provisions relating to 
     civil liability for tobacco manufacturers, and to eliminate 
     the marriage penalty reflected in the standard deduction and 
     to ensure the earned income credit takes into account the 
     elimination of such penalty.
       Daschle (for Durbin) amendment No. 2437 (to amendment No. 
     2436), relating to reductions in underage tobacco usage.
       Ford amendment No. 2707 (to amendment No. 2437), to provide 
     assistance for eligible producers experiencing losses of farm 
     income during the 1997 through 2004 crop years.
  Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                    Amendment No. 2707, As Modified

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment that 
is pending at the desk. The only thing I am doing is changing a section 
of reference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2707), as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.  . INAPPLICABILITY OF TITLE XV.

       The provisions of title XV shall have no force and effect.

     SEC.  . ASSISTANCE FOR PRODUCERS EXPERIENCING LOSSES OF FARM 
                   INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, from amounts made available under section 
     1012(3)(A), the Secretary shall use up to $250,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 through 2004 to establish a program 
     to indemnify eligible producers that have experienced, or are 
     experiencing, catastrophic losses in farm income during any 
     of the 1997 through 2004 crop years, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Gross Income and Payment Limitations.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, use gross income and payment limitations 
     established for the Disaster Reserve Assistance Program under 
     section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a).
       (c) Effect on Other Payments.--The amount available in 
     section 1012(3)(A) for tobacco community economic development 
     grants under section 1023 shall be reduced by any amount 
     appropriated under this section. None of the payments made 
     under this section shall limit or alter in any manner the 
     payments authorized under section 1021 of this Act.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment to the question 
of where we appear to be, although no final decision I know has been 
made by leaders.
  But it is clear that at some point today, if events flow the way they 
have been discussed, the majority of the members of the Republican 
Party are going to try to kill this bill. And they are going to try to 
kill this bill either through a cloture motion--depending on what 
decision is made as to when that vote might be able to take place--

[[Page S6442]]

or through a tricky little budget point of order parliamentary 
procedure that should have, in fact, taken place at the outset when 
this bill came on the floor. The notion that, 3 and a half weeks into a 
debate, to try to reduce our kids from smoking, that all of a sudden 
somebody thinks, ``Oh, my gosh, there is a budget point of order we 
ought to bring,'' is rather extraordinary in and of itself. There is no 
way to hide. The old saying is, ``You can run, but you can't hide.'' 
You can run from the tobacco bill, but you can't hide from the effect 
of the vote.
  The effect of the vote today, or tomorrow, or whenever it occurs, 
will be either to side with children in order to reduce smoking in this 
country or to side with the tobacco companies. I know that there are 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are running around with 
polls that have been taken, and those polls show, ``Gee whiz, some 
people in the country are beginning to see this bill differently.'' And 
that is because millions of dollars have been spent by the tobacco 
companies to present a rather one-sided point of view.
  But the fact is that most people in America understand that they want 
their kids to be able to stop smoking. They want their kids to not be 
exposed to the increasing number of pressures that are applied to young 
people with respect to smoking, and they know that in States like 
Massachusetts, Arizona, California, and others there are very effective 
outreach efforts that are being made with young people that are 
reducing smoking.
  In the State of Massachusetts, we have seen a reduction of some 30 
percent over the last few years because of a very intensive State 
program which needs more help. The people in the State know that they 
can change that 30 percent into 70 percent or 80 percent if they have 
adequate capacity to be able to do that, adequate resources for 
materials, for outreach, adequate cessation programs, and adequate 
counteradvertising to the impact of the millions of dollars that the 
tobacco companies spend. All of these things are critical to the 
ability of kids to be able to make up their mind.
  I think most of us in the Senate understand that kids are most 
impressionable with respect to something like smoking at the ages of 
11, 12, 13, all the way through their teens. No one here disputes the 
fact that every single analysis shows that 86 percent of all the 
smokers in America began when they were teenagers. Eighty-six percent 
of the adults who today are hooked on nicotine, on tobacco, began as 
teenagers. Ninety percent of the kids in America recognize Joe Camel 
more than they do--or equivalent to--Mickey Mouse. And the statistics 
show that of those cigarettes advertised, Newport, Marlboro, and so 
forth, the brands that have the highest level of advertising, are the 
brands that kids smoke but not the brands that adults smoke, which 
tells you a story--that when they become adults, they make a different 
set of choices than just the bombardment of advertising. But when they 
are kids, the cigarette they pick up is the cigarette that is most put 
and shoved in front of them by the advertising. There isn't anybody who 
doesn't understand.
  The Senator from Arizona has talked about the impact on his 13-year-
old daughter of movies--the ``Titanic,'' for instance, Leonardo 
DiCaprio, who spends his whole time in the movie smoking when he isn't 
fighting water. I mean that is basically the heart of what the Senator 
from Arizona has said affected his child.
  And all across this country, Mr. President, those are the kinds of 
influences. There isn't a parent in America who doesn't understand 
that. There isn't a person of reasonable common sense who doesn't 
understand that.
  So why don't we try to do something about affecting the impact of 
those role models and the impact of the pressures of young people. We 
have had testimony from a young woman--and she is not alone, this is 
just one example--who talked about when she was a teenager, she thought 
it was going to make her look older if she smoked. She thought it was 
going to make her more acceptable to teenagers who were older than her; 
she could run in a group that somehow made her feel better. So she 
started smoking. Today she is in a wheelchair and raising a couple of 
kids because she developed a smoking-related disease in her lungs. She 
has had a lung transplant, and she looks older. She tells people of the 
impact of smoking on her life.
  Are we going to just ignore that in the Senate--all of the evidence 
of what the tobacco companies have done through the years saying they 
targeted kids? They know they have got to have replacement smokers. 
Here we have an opportunity to vote, and our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have decided they are going to side with the tobacco 
companies.
  That is what the vote before the Senate will be, plainly and clearly. 
You cannot make it into some sort of subterfuge. You cannot run and 
hide by a budget waiver. You cannot create some parliamentary trick. 
And you certainly cannot duck with one cloture vote and suggest that 
this issue, which we have spent 3\1/2\ weeks on, is going to go away.
  Who is for this bill, Mr. President? Well, there are more than 40 
Democrats prepared to vote for this bill now. So there will be no 
question if this bill doesn't move forward as to why it can't move 
forward. But every single public health group in America is for this 
bill. The lung and cancer associations are for this bill. All of the 
surgeon generals of our country are for this bill. Teachers are for 
this bill. Child care and day care specialists are for this bill. Forty 
attorneys general across the country want this bill.
  Who is opposed? Who is opposed? The tobacco companies. The tobacco 
companies and some number of Republicans who choose to be with them. 
That is who is opposed to this bill--the tobacco companies. No one else 
is spending millions of dollars trying to characterize this bill on a 
daily basis in the Nation. No one else is out there suggesting that 
somehow what the tobacco companies agreed to do, which is raise the 
price of cigarettes, is a tax increase.
  I hear these Senators who come to the floor and say, oh, this is a 
tax increase; we can't do that. That is a phony argument, Mr. 
President. That is looking for an umbrella to hide under. That is a way 
of running around and trying to find something to hang your hat on, not 
wanting to do what most health care advocates--teachers, child care 
specialists, surgeon generals, attorneys general, and others of this 
country--want to do. The only beneficiaries if this bill does not go 
through are the tobacco companies, plain and simple.
  The fact is that we have never heard anybody be able to dispute the 
notion that of the 60,000-plus kids who in the course of this debate 
have begun smoking, somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 of them are 
going to die early. And they are going to die at the expense of every 
other citizen in America. We have heard a lot of concern by the people 
who come to the floor and talk about how terrible the raising of a pack 
of cigarettes is going to be for the blue-collar worker who is going to 
buy the pack of cigarettes, but no one in the Government is telling 
them they have to go buy the pack of cigarettes. But that very same 
person who is buying the pack of cigarettes, or all of those families 
who do not buy a pack of cigarettes are paying a lot more of their 
hard-earned tax dollars to cover the costs of those people who get 
sick-- Medicare and Medicaid, Government dollars paid, tax dollars paid 
out to the tune of $25 billion a year because of people who are sick 
because of smoking. The cost of smoking is far greater to the average 
taxpayer than the cost of the rise in the price of cigarettes.

  You cannot hide under that one. That is not what is happening here. 
That is not what this is all about. What we are seeing is a fear by 
some in the House of Representatives that they might have to actually 
vote on this bill. What we are seeing here is that Newt Gingrich and 
some of those in the House have put a contract out on this bill. They 
do not want this bill. They want their friends in the Senate to kill 
this bill so they do not have to vote on it.
  But this bill will not go away. It will not go away for the next 
months in the election. It will not go away even on the floor of the 
Senate, because somewhere, sometime, somehow it is going to keep coming 
back. You cannot run away from a bill that has most of the people in 
this country believing it is a good bill, who believe it is an 
important objective.
  Now, if it isn't good--I heard one Senator say, ``I can't vote for 
that bill;

[[Page S6443]]

it's all loaded up.'' Who loaded it up? Mostly Republican amendments 
that have been passed for things that have nothing to do with smoking. 
There were Republicans who came to the floor and said, ``We have to 
have a bill that has a tax cut in it; we can't vote for a bill without 
a tax cut.'' So almost one-third of the money of this bill has now been 
voted to go to a tax cut. So the Republicans got their tax cut.
  Then a Republican came to the floor and said, ``I can't vote for a 
bill that doesn't have a drug plan in it.'' So we had a big debate and 
now the bill has a drug plan in it.
  And then we have three different attempts to try to curb attorneys' 
fees. People said, ``I can't vote for a bill that is going to have a 
whole lot of money that wasn't earned going out to attorneys,'' 
notwithstanding the fact that not one penny has been paid to attorneys, 
nor will the money be paid out of the bill because it is being paid by 
the companies.
  But leaving that reality aside, the Senate nevertheless passed a curb 
on attorneys' fees. So our friends on the Republican side of the aisle 
are not going to say no to this bill because it does not have a tax 
cut. They are not going to say no to this bill because it doesn't have 
a fat and firm clamp on attorneys' fees. They are not going to say no 
to this bill because it doesn't have a drug plan. They are going to 
wind up saying no to this bill because that is what the tobacco 
companies want them to do.
  So that is the choice. That will be the choice today--very, very 
clear--a choice between kids and the tobacco companies. And anybody who 
suggests, oh, no, I am not for the tobacco companies; I just want to 
make a good bill, let's make a good bill. Let's vote on the amendments 
the way we have been doing to make a good bill. And there is not 
anybody in the Senate who does not understand that this bill is going 
to go to a conference committee if the House ever voted on it, and it 
has the ability to be rewritten in that conference committee and to 
come back to the Senate differently.
  In the 14 years I have been here, I have seen plenty of legislation 
leave this floor where one side or the other disagreed bitterly with 
some component of it but everybody knew it would be fixed in conference 
committee. Why is it suddenly they do not want this bill, of all the 
bills, to go to the conference committee? They do not want to let it be 
fixed. They do not want to give it the opportunity to come back to the 
Senate in a shape that might be voted on, because that is not what the 
tobacco companies want. They do not want a bill. They walked away from 
all of this. It was fine.
  I know there are Senators on the other side of the aisle who were 
ready to vote for this bill only a few weeks ago, or even a few months 
ago, when the tobacco companies were part of the process. It was a good 
idea. Oh, yes, it is inevitable; we are going to do that; we are going 
to fix it up for our kids.
  But all of a sudden after the money has been spent, after all of the 
flow of those tobacco dollars, there is a different attitude in the 
Senate about what is possible and what is not possible. I respectfully 
suggest that no one is able to pull a curtain down over that reality. 
If people want to fix this bill, we can fix this bill.
  Every piece of legislation that came to the floor this year came to 
the floor with a Republican cloture motion attached to it--every bill. 
Every bill has had limited debate, except for this bill. Every bill we 
had to push through here rapidly, except for this bill. This is the one 
bill where there is one identifiable group that does not want it, and 
that identifiable group has enlisted soldiers in its army. The question 
is going to be whether or not the Senate has the courage to stand up 
and say: We are going to fix this bill; we are going to work on this 
bill; we can bring this bill together.
  We could have had any number of discussions about how to fix any 
number of difficult components of the bill, but the bottom line reality 
is that every study shows in order to keep kids from smoking, you have 
to raise the price of cigarettes. Even the tobacco companies agreed to 
that. Even the tobacco companies agreed to that.
  They came to an agreement in a global settlement, where they agreed 
to raise the price of cigarettes. But it is only when that rise in the 
price of cigarettes was geared to be something meaningful, that would 
actually have an impact on kids smoking, and only when they began to 
see that there were still going to be some lawsuits they would have to 
defend, that they began to see the balance differently.
  Frankly, there were some of us in the Senate who thought we 
understood that there was a legitimacy to trying to create that balance 
and hold it differently. But I think most people in the Senate 
understand that anything that is to go to the conference committee will 
come back with an ability to try to find that balance again and find 
the ability to pass a good piece of legislation.
  I know there are some colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
are very uncomfortable with what is happening. There are friends of 
mine, members of the Republican Party, who want to vote for a bill, who 
want to do something for kids, who want to be able to help out. I know 
there are some feeling the difficulty of what is happening right now. 
My hope is that people will simply recognize the reality. This is not 
an issue that grew up spontaneously within the Democratic caucus. This 
is not an issue that became the brainchild of some political strategy 
on behalf of Democrats. This is something that grew up out of kids and 
parents and teachers and doctors and health care specialists and 
surgeons general and scientific evidence, and even the tobacco 
companies' own documents, which gave birth to the notion that raising 
the price of cigarettes is a critical component of reducing teenage 
smoking.
  I read those documents on the floor of the Senate a number of weeks 
ago--I guess maybe last week. It is all somewhat of a blur at this 
point. But the Senate knows the tobacco companies have acknowledged 
that they lost business when they raised the price of cigarettes. They 
know, as all evidence shows, that no group in America is more price 
sensitive, more subject to the pressures of how much cash they have in 
their pockets and what they spend it on, than young people.
  So we have the ability to make a difference. The choice before the 
Senate is really going to be very clear. My hope, obviously, is that 
the Senate will act responsibly. If we are not happy with the bill in 
its current form, notwithstanding the fact that there are 40-plus 
Democrats prepared to vote for it in its current form, then we should 
continue to work and continue to be serious, rather than to continue an 
effort that just wants to kill it for the victory for those individuals 
and entities who want that victory, rather than putting together a 
meaningful piece of legislation.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for his remarks. I thought maybe it would be useful to come to the 
floor and just review how we got to where we are, why this legislation 
is important, and why it matters to American families.
  Months ago, I was called by our leader, Senator Daschle, and he asked 
me to head up the task force for Democratic Senators on the issue of 
tobacco. He did so after the settlement was agreed to in June of last 
year between the attorneys general, representing about 40 States, and 
the tobacco industry. That settlement, which was advertised as a 
settlement of close to $400 billion over a 25-year period, was also a 
settlement which was designed to not only raise prices to discourage 
consumption, but was also designed to have countertobacco advertising, 
smoking cessation, smoking prevention programs--all of it designed, 
really, to safeguard the public health and to reduce youth smoking.

  The focus was on reducing youth smoking, because we all know the vast 
majority of smokers take it up as teenagers; about 90 percent of 
smokers start before they are age 19. Nearly half start smoking before 
the age of 14. As the tobacco industry has revealed in the documents 
that have come out in the court cases, if somebody is not hooked when 
they are young, they do not get hooked. That is why the tobacco 
industry has put such a focus on young people. That is why they have 
marketed to young people. That is why they have advertised to young 
people.

[[Page S6444]]

 Because they know that is the future of their business.
  I have read on the floor of the Senate quote after quote of the 
industry itself that have demonstrated that was the rationale behind 
the tobacco industry strategy. It was a business strategy: You target 
young people because people don't start smoking when they are older. 
They don't start smoking later in life because they have seen enough to 
know that it is not a very pretty habit, and they also get a sense of 
the health risk involved.
  So this is really a question of trying to encourage young people not 
to take up the habit. The industry has to get some people to be 
replacement smokers because they are losing over 400,000 customers a 
year. They are losing them to death. This is the only legal product 
sold in America that, when used as intended by its manufacturers, 
addicts and kills its customers. That is strong language. Those are 
strong words. But they are the truth.
  After accepting Senator Daschle's assignment to head up the task 
force on tobacco, we held about 25 hearings across the country. Many of 
them were here in Washington. We listened to every point of view from 
any people who wanted to have a chance to express themselves. We 
listened to the tobacco industry. We listened to those who are in the 
distribution chain. We listened to the convenience store owners. We 
listened to the vending machine operators. We listened to tobacco 
farmers. We listened to Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler. And we listened to 
the public health community: The Cancer Society, the Lung Association, 
and many more. We listened to those who are advocates of strong 
legislation. We listened to those who said Government ought not to be 
involved, let this go through the courts.
  We concluded that it was best if the Government did take action, that 
it was best not to leave it to a free-for-all in the courts that might 
ultimately bankrupt these companies. Nobody is out here advocating that 
we stop the use of tobacco products in this country. After all, there 
are nearly 50 million smokers in America. We have had a bitter 
experience with prohibition. It does not work. But what could we do 
that would discourage youth smoking and protect public health?
  In holding these hearings and listening to the experts and listening 
to just common citizens all across the country, over and over they 
said: Look, you need a comprehensive package. Don't just leave this to 
the courts. If you do, you wind up perhaps bankrupting these companies. 
That will not end the use of tobacco products in America. Simply, what 
will happen is we will wind up with a circumstance in which new 
companies come and fill in the gap, and the companies that are 
bankrupted will have no capability to cover the costs that they have 
imposed on society. Those are very, very significant costs. Those costs 
are variously estimated at $130 billion of costs being imposed on this 
society--$130 billion a year.
  The legislation before us would require the industry to pay $18 or 
$20 billion a year when fully phased in. That in no way covers the 
costs they are imposing on society. But that is not all the people who 
came before our task force told us. They said: You have to have a 
comprehensive plan. Yes, you have to raise prices to discourage 
consumption, but you need to do much more than that. You have to have 
the Food and Drug Administration have regulatory authority over this 
product, just like they have regulatory authority over other drugs in 
this society. But you have to go further than that. You have to have a 
comprehensive plan of public health. You have to have countertobacco 
advertising, so people hear a message other than the message they get 
from the tobacco industry, with the billions of dollars a year they 
spend in advertising and marketing. And you also have to have smoking 
cessation and smoking prevention programs to help those who are about 
to start, to give them a chance not to be hooked; and for those who are 
addicted, to give them every assistance in stopping.

  (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, obviously, there is more to the program 
than those elements, because we have to remember how this all started. 
It started with the States bringing legal actions against the tobacco 
industry. They are the ones that had the initial settlement with the 
tobacco industry. So, obviously, the States have to be compensated for 
the legal actions that they have pending.
  In addition, the Federal Government has potential actions against the 
tobacco industry, because Federal taxpayers are paying for Medicare and 
Medicaid and veterans' health programs, all of them that have had costs 
imposed on them because of the use of tobacco products.
  Mr. President, it was those concerns that led this Congress to take 
action. It was those concerns that led the Commerce Committee to 
consider the legislation sponsored by Senator McCain, and they reported 
out a bill on a 19-to-1 vote, an overwhelming vote.
  In the Senate, we have considered a series of amendments that have 
somewhat altered the work that they did in the Commerce Committee. We 
have considered amendments to provide a significant tax reduction in 
addition to the other provisions that were in the bill. About a third 
of the money now will go for a tax reduction.
  But there is more than that. There has also been amendments added 
that deal with the question of illegal drug use in this country. The 
Coverdell amendment that was adopted here on a very strong vote is 
included in this legislation.
  What we now have before us is really a comprehensive package. A lot 
of people say, ``Gee, this isn't my idea of a perfect bill.'' It is not 
my idea of a perfect bill either, but we have not yet completed action 
on it. That is the legislative process--to take a package, to work on 
it, to offer amendments and to have the votes of Senators dictate the 
outcome. That is the way it works. So far, that process has gone 
reasonably well.
  Again, we certainly don't have a perfect bill, but it is one which is 
comprehensive in nature and does offer the prospects of protecting the 
public health and reducing youth smoking. We have 420,000 people dying 
every year in this country because of tobacco-related illness. That is 
a statistic, but it is a statistic that has 420,000 different stories 
behind it. In hearing after hearing, we heard those stories. We heard 
the suffering of families and of individuals who have been hooked on 
tobacco products and have suffered the consequences.
  I remember so well a Pierce Fravenheim, big tough guy in Newark, NJ, 
a former football player, football coach, assistant principal. When he 
came to testify, you could barely hear him speak. You could barely hear 
him speak because after a lifetime of smoking, he developed cancer of 
the larynx. He had undergone a laryngectomy. He told us of the terror 
he felt when the doctor told him he was going to die unless they did 
this procedure, and even if they did it, he might not survive.
  In a way, he is lucky because he did survive, and he is there to tell 
the story. He told us how deeply he hoped that others could be 
dissuaded from taking up the habit, how deeply he hoped that others 
would not experience the terror he felt when the doctor told him he 
might die.

  There are hundreds and thousands of stories just like Pierce 
Fravenheim's that we heard as we went around the country listening to 
people, many of them begging us to pass legislation that would do 
something to deter others from taking up a habit that would addict 
them, that would create disease in them and that would ultimately kill 
them.
  Again, nobody is out here proposing that we have prohibition, make 
the product illegal. Nobody is proposing that. But we are proposing 
comprehensive legislation to try to do something to lessen the hurt, 
the pain, the suffering and the loss of life that occurs directly 
because of the use of these products.
  Mr. President, there are those who will take this bill and flyspeck 
it, and they will have 100 reasons to be against it, maybe several 
hundred reasons to be against it. That is the nature of a comprehensive 
bill. I could probably point to dozens of different provisions that I 
don't particularly like in this bill, but that isn't the question.
  The question before this body is whether or not we are going to 
advance, whether or not we are going to move forward, whether or not we 
are going to give this legislation a chance

[[Page S6445]]

or whether or not we are going to snuff it out right here today on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and say, ``No, we give in; the big tobacco 
industry advocates and defenders win.''
  I hope that is not the outcome here today, Mr. President. The tobacco 
industry does not exactly come to this Chamber with its credibility 
intact. The tobacco industry came before Congress and said, ``Oh, no, 
our products don't cause health problems.'' At the time they said it, 
they knew, and the documents reveal that their products cause serious 
health problems. And that same industry came before this Congress and 
said, ``Oh, no, we don't target children; we wouldn't do that. It is 
illegal to sell to children.''
  We now know from the documents of the industry itself that, in fact, 
they have targeted children. In fact, they have targeted kids as young 
as 12 years old, and I have shown the charts and the quotes day after 
day on the floor of the Senate that demonstrate conclusively that they 
have targeted our kids. This industry has come before the Congress and 
said, ``We don't have nicotine in there to addict people. It is not 
addictive.'' And yet, again, their own documents reveal that nicotine 
is addictive. In fact, their own documents compare it to cocaine and to 
morphine. These are their words, not my words.
  This same industry has come before Congress, and they have told us, 
``Look, we have not manipulated nicotine levels to further addict our 
customers,'' and when you look at the record, when you look at the 
documents, what you find is that is precisely what they have done.
  This industry does not come with a great deal of credibility to this 
Chamber in arguing on behalf of this legislation. Rather, I should say 
in opposition to this legislation, because they have made it clear, 
although they supported a version early on that would have basically 
taken their settlement and made that into a legislative vehicle, they 
supported that, but as soon as we started stripping away the special 
protection that was in that proposed settlement, an amendment by the 
occupant of the Chair, an amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly in 
the U.S. Senate and stripped out all the special protection that this 
industry was seeking, special protection that was unprecedented, 
special protection never provided any other industry in the history of 
our country, all of a sudden they said, ``Oh, no, we don't want 
anything to do with this legislation. If we can't get special, 
unprecedented protection, we're out of here.'' That is what the tobacco 
industry said. Now the tobacco industry is in total opposition. And day 
after day, hour after hour, we hear their adds in the national media 
opposing this legislation, attacking this legislation.

  Mr. President, it is important, I think, for us to understand what is 
here and what is not. We have, I think, the best indication: The recent 
polling that has been done that shows the American people strongly 
support this bill. It is different than saying this legislation is 
their top priority, because it is not.
  The American people have lots of things to be concerned about. They 
are concerned about their jobs; they are concerned about getting their 
kids into college and paying for it; they are concerned about having 
their families safe and secure in their neighborhoods; they are 
concerned about the health care of their parents and of themselves and 
of their children.
  Mr. President, they are also concerned about doing something to 
protect their kids from the addiction, disease, and death brought by 
the use of tobacco products. Most recent polling shows very clearly the 
American people support this legislation. When they are asked to choose 
between this legislation and no legislation, they say, ``Pass this 
bill.'' By 2-to-1 margins they say, ``Pass this bill.''
  This is a poll that was just taken by the ENACT Coalition. It shows 
the voters in the United States support this bill by 66 percent to 32 
percent.
  It is interesting, because we are going to have a vote, perhaps 
today, on the question of whether or not we move forward. Some will 
say, ``Let's just kill the bill.'' That is what the tobacco industry 
wants. That is their argument. And their defenders and their apologists 
will be making that argument. The American people say, ``Pass this 
bill.'' Let us have a chance to protect the public health and reduce 
youth smoking.
  Mr. President, I am very hopeful that my colleagues will let us move 
to conclusion on this legislation. We are now in the fourth week of 
consideration on the floor of the Senate--4 weeks. We ought to complete 
our work. We ought to send this bill to the House of Representatives, 
give them a chance to do their work, and then go to the conference 
committee to work out the differences and produce legislation that can 
be brought back to both Chambers for a final decision. But we should 
not end the process now. We should not kill this bill before it has 
even cleared the first hurdle.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will say yes to protecting our 
kids' health and say no to the tobacco industry that has waged a 
campaign of deception and diversion in an attempt to delay and 
ultimately derail this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this bill. And I 
take offense to some of the comments that were made by some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who said, that anybody who 
wants to kill this bill is an instrument of big tobacco.
  That s simply not true. I did not support this deal when the tobacco 
industry and the administration and attorneys general got together and 
made a deal. They didn't consult this Senator. I was never in favor of 
the deal they were in favor of that some people have tried to promote 
and some people have tried to push, including, this administration. So 
let me just make that very clear.
  Now, I have many reasons to oppose this bill, and I am going to 
enumerate these. Not one of them has anything to do with the way the 
tobacco industry wants this Senator to vote. And so people making 
allegations--I wonder if that can be turned the other way around, but I 
am not going to do that. I do not impugn people's motives or their 
integrity. I think people have the right to make decisions on whether 
or not legislation is good legislation or bad.

  I spent a little bit of time studying this legislation. And everybody 
is entitled to their own opinion. They can brag on the legislation; 
they can be critical of it. I am going to be critical of it. I have 
read the legislation.
  First, let me just comment on a comment that the President made. It 
was reported in the Washington Post recently, Monday June 15. This past 
Monday, President Clinton said his critics contend that ``this [is a] 
dark scheme in Washington to build some new federal bureaucracy, and 
it's the biggest load of hooey I ever heard in my life.''
  So President Clinton thinks that those of us who are critical of this 
legislation, who say this is just a big bureaucracy, that that is just 
a big bunch of hooey--as a matter of fact, ``the biggest load of hooey 
I ever heard in my life.''
  I told my colleagues this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I 
have seen in my Senate career. The only thing I can think of that was 
worse was the health care legislation promoted by President and Mrs. 
Clinton.
  Mr. President, this chart that was put together by the Budget 
Committee, showing where the money was coming from, where the money 
goes, on Commerce I--and that was the bill that was reported out of the 
Commerce Committee--shows that the President was incorrect. This is a 
lot of new government. There are about 30 new programs, spending 
hundreds of billions of dollars, all above budget, all outside the 
budget. So I just think the President is incorrect. And I wanted to 
make that comment. He is entitled to his own opinion, but I think we 
are entitled to look at the bill and we are entitled to look at the 
facts.
  This is Commerce II. This is the bill that the administration 
basically had rewritten--the bill. And this is the bill that we have on 
the floor, although it has been added to. And we have new mandates and 
new spending, and a tax cut and a drug provision. I don't show those on 
this chart. But this is the current bill that we have before us.
  There is a lot of new government in this. So the President calls its

[[Page S6446]]

``hooey.'' My comment is, these just happen to be the facts. That is 
what this bill has in it. This bill has a lot of money in it. It has a 
lot of spending in it. And I want to get into that because a lot of 
people have said, ``Well, this bill, it is really only a $65 billion 
bill. It only raises taxes by $65 billion.'' And this Senator, for one, 
has been saying, ``Wait a minute. It's a lot more than that.''
  Where does this thing say in this bill, if you look at the bill and 
look at the language of the bill--and I would encourage my colleagues 
to do so, and anybody else. I had to ask unanimous consent to get the 
bill printed. The committee printed the Commerce I. They did not print 
Commerce II. This is the bill we have before us that is now printed on 
the Senators' desks.
  If they would look at the bill, maybe look at page 183 of the bill, 
it talks about annual payments. The bill does not say anything about 65 
cents a pack; it does not say anything about $1.10 a pack. It does say 
consumers pay $10 billion the first year, $14 billion the second year, 
$15 billion the third year, $17 billion the fourth year, and $21 
billion in the fifth year, without even considering look-back 
penalties.
  So if you total that, that is all $102 billion. That is what the bill 
says--$23.6 billion in the fifth year. And after that, those amounts 
are adjusted by inflation. That is on page 183 of the bill.
  If you put those figures in and you adjust them for inflation--it 
says 3 percent or inflation, whichever is greater. I just plugged in 3 
percent. You do that, and you come out with $755 billion over 25 years. 
What is this nonsense we hear, ``Well, we think it's only $516 
billion''? This is $755 billion. That is in the bill. That is what we 
are considering, not $516 billion.
  And then the look-back potential. I show $130 billion of look-back 
potential. I say ``potential'' because it can be assessed. No one knows 
exactly how much that will be. But evidently a lot of people felt it 
should be much more, because this chart is obsolete.
  My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, had an amendment to 
increase this to $7.7 billion and then index that for inflation. As a 
matter of fact, if you put the new figures into the chart, this $130 
billion goes to a maximum of $241 billion. So you add that to the $755 
billion and you get really right at $1 trillion--$1 trillion potential 
tax on consumers. And I say ``tax on consumers'' advisedly, because 
this bill mandates that 100 percent of this money be paid for by 
consumers. It does not say, ``Tobacco companies, you pay this.'' 
Basically, it says, ``Tobacco companies, you pass this cost on. You 
pass every dime of this on.''
  So I make the point we are talking about, President Clinton may think 
it is a bunch of hooey, but this is a big government bill.
  It has lots of new agencies and hundreds of billions of dollars of 
new spending. With the new look-back potential, up to $1 trillion in 
money transferred from consumers to government.
  I make those points because I think it is important that we know the 
facts. Some people say this is not a budget buster, this is 
responsible, we are raising taxes. This bill doesn't say anything about 
taxes. It says these funds shall be paid, and 100 percent of the funds 
shall be passed on to consumers. It is not clear. It is not direct. It 
is confusing. And it is hard to tell exactly who is taxed how much.
  I will give an example. If a person looked at page 186 of the bill, 
we find out there are exclusions for some companies. To give an 
example--I looked this up--Marlboro, a Philip Morris brand, would have 
to pay presumably a price per pack of $1.10 more; this brand, 
Chesterfield, by the Ligget Group, pays zero. Now, both companies 
presently pay 24 cents per pack. Both of them do. Under this bill, 
supposedly, the price per pack on this item goes up $1.10; the price on 
this item goes up zero. So they will have a $1.10 advantage over all 
other competitors. Why? Because their sale volume isn't so large? Wait 
a minute; is that good tax policy? They have the same excise taxes 
today, but we are going to give a $1.10 advantage to one company versus 
another company? We do that in this bill? That doesn't make sense.
  We did the same thing in other tobacco products. Looking at smokeless 
tobacco, again if a person looked at page 186, we find out some 
companies have a significant differential. This product, Copenhagen, is 
made by U.S. Tobacco Company. This product is Kodiak, made by Conwood 
Company. Both have a current excise tax of 2.7 cents per product.
  This product made by U.S. Tobacco, the new tax increase is 82.5 
cents; that is a 3,056-percent increase. This product, the tax increase 
is 57.8 cents; that is a 2,141-percent increase. This has a 25-cent 
advantage under this bill. This product has a 25-cent advantage. Why 
should we be choosing winners and losers in this bill? Is that good tax 
policy? Is that good consumer policy? We will encourage some people to 
buy this product over another product, but in the language in this bill 
on page 186, it gives certain items a competitive advantage over their 
competitors. Is that right? Is that in this bill? Sure it is in this 
bill. It is on page 186. I mentioned it on the floor before, and at 
some point I plan on addressing it if this bill stays on the floor.
  So the President said it wasn't a bunch of new government and I 
showed the charts. There is a lot of new government, tons of new 
government. There are new taxes that run into almost $1 trillion over 
25 years. The money is all off budget, and that bothers me.
  Somebody was complaining Republicans may make a budget point of 
order. We well should. If a person looked at page 181 of the bill, 
talking about the national trust fund, it says, ``The amount of such 
appropriations shall not be included in the estimates required under 
section 251 of the act,'' talking about the Budget Act. So all the 
appropriations that were mandated out of this trust fund shall not be 
included in the budget, the budget that the President signed just last 
year with both Houses, the House and the Senate, and I will say with 
bipartisan support. We finally did get a budget that was supported by 
Democrats and Republicans. The President said we will stay by these 
caps. Even at the State of the Union, we will not spend one dime, not 
one dime unless we don't cut taxes. We want to save Social Security.
  But what he does in this bill is basically ignore the budget. The 
budget makes no difference. All this spending, hundreds of billions of 
dollars, are over and above the budget. They don't count towards the 
cap. They don't count toward the budget. It is over and above. All the 
taxes are above, all the expenditures are outside the budget realm. So 
certainly a budget point of order lies against this bill. As a matter 
of fact, if we don't make a budget point of order, I think we just 
might as well say we don't have a budget. There is no need to have a 
budget. There is not a budget.
  Why should the conferees, and I am a conferee on the budget for this 
year's budget, why should we worry about a budget if we are going to 
pass a bill that has tax increases and expenditures larger than any tax 
cut that anybody else is talking about in the budget that the President 
signed last year or in the budget that we are talking about this year? 
This has a larger tax increase, larger spending increase, than either 
the budget that was passed last year or the one that is contemplated 
for this year. So why have a budget, if it will all be outside the 
budget as stipulated on page 181 of the bill?
  So my colleague who earlier said we have taken a poll and now the 
people by some majority support this bill--they don't know what is in 
this bill. If you told the people that we are giving one brand of 
cigarettes an advantage of at least $1.10 over another brand, would 
they say that is fair? Don't we have a constitutional responsibility to 
be fair? Or if you are giving one smokeless tobacco product a 
competitive advantage over another one, does that make sense?
  What about some of the other tax provisions--if a person looked at 
page 104 of the bill, it talks about the look-back assessment. The 
look-back penalties, which I mentioned in the earlier charts 
originally, were $2 billion under the settlement, $4 billion under the 
Commerce Committee bill, Commerce II, the last bill we had on the 
floor, and then we had an amendment to increase the look-backs to $7.7 
billion a year and index those for inflation. Who determines whether 
there is a look-back penalty or assessment or tax? The Secretary of 
Health and Human Services.

[[Page S6447]]

 How does she determine it? She takes a poll; she does a survey. It is 
in this legislation. She does a survey. I am talking about Secretary 
Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. She does a survey, 
and from the survey she has the power to assess fines, penalties or 
taxes equal to $7.7 billion a year. That is an unbelievable transfer of 
authority, of taxation authority, to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services.
  In her survey, under the legislation, the survey-using methodology 
required by this subsection is deemed ``conclusively to be proper, 
correct, and accurate for purposes of this act.'' So her survey is 
deemed by this act, deemed to be correct, deemed to be accurate. And 
she has the capability to assess fines and penalties up to $7.7 billion 
per year, an unbelievable power of taxation by her survey which 
Congress is deeming to be correct. So they can assess companies $1,000 
for whoever answered the survey wrong or inappropriately according to 
her wishes. Unbelievable power.
  Then we passed an amendment, I believe it is Senator Reed's 
amendment, that said we will deny deductibility of advertising to 
tobacco companies if they don't comply with FDA advertising 
restrictions. That is now part of this bill. What does that mean? FDA 
promulgated a long list of rules which, incidentally, I will comment on 
in a minute. This legislation deems to be law. That is interesting. But 
in the amendment Senator Reed says if they don't comply with FDA 
advertising restrictions, then they will lose deductions of their 
advertising. Basically, what we have done now is turned the power to 
tax over to the FDA. Now, that is unconscionable for those who think 
the power to tax belongs to Congress, not to a bureaucrat, a bureaucrat 
that may or may not have an agenda.
  And if one thinks that all the FDA regs are accurate and make sense, 
one of the regs is that you can't have any tobacco sponsorship for 
sporting events. The Indianapolis 500 comes to mind. An automobile runs 
around with ``Marlboro'' painted on the side. If you had that, or the 
driver had ``Marlboro'' on the side, it would be a violation. They 
would lose deductibility of all their advertising expenses. Or even if 
you had a hat that said ``Marlboro'' on it, or ``Winston'' or ``Salem'' 
or whatever, any tobacco product, if you had a hat or T-shirt or car 
that had that emblem, you are violating the FDA advertising 
restrictions and therefore you would lose your deductibility.
  So we would have tax policy being set, one, by the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, and another by FDA. The combination of that 
is probably the worst tax policy I can imagine. Unbelievable.
  On page 99 of the bill, we do something else dealing with FDA 
regulations, and Congress is a legislative body. We are supposed to 
legislate. If we want to ban advertising of tobacco products, we should 
do it. Somebody should introduce a bill to ban advertising. We didn't 
do that. FDA promulgated some rules restricting tobacco sales, labeling 
and advertising.

  On page 99, it talks about the rules, and it says, ``The code of 
Federal regulations dealing with tobacco are hereby deemed to be lawful 
and to have been lawfully promulgated by the secretary under Chapter 9 
in Section 701 of the Food and Drug Act.'' Here is a whole list of FDA 
regulations. This bill deems them to be the law, makes them the law. I 
am bothered by that. If somebody wants to make it the law, let them try 
to pass a bill--we are the legislative body, not FDA--not taking a 
whole section of FDA regs, some of which make no sense whatsoever, some 
of which are not workable.
  Here is one example. One reg deals with checking IDs, identification 
on people when they purchase tobacco products. Every State in the 
Nation has a law, and it is against the law to sell tobacco products to 
teenagers, people less than 18. Some States have higher age limits. 
They said we need to check that, and the rule said they are going to 
check the identification of people up to age 27. And if a convenience 
store, or something, doesn't comply, they are subjected to fines and 
penalties, which range, for the fifth violation, up to $10,000. Wait a 
minute, that isn't in the bill. But the bill says they are all deemed 
to be lawful. So we are making it law by this one paragraph on page 99.
  Now, if we stay on this bill, I am going to have an amendment saying, 
wait a minute, should it be against the law for a convenience store not 
to check the identification of people up to age 27? The law is 18. You 
could have a combat veteran of the Persian Gulf who is 26 years old and 
has four kids, and somebody could be fined up to $10,000 if they don't 
check his ID. Obviously, he is older than 18. Yet, the FDA reg says you 
check their identification, and if they are less than 26 or 27 and you 
didn't check the ID, you are subject to fines and penalties up to 
$10,000. And we are codifying that; we are deeming that to be lawful. 
That bothers me. That is crummy legislating. That is not good 
legislation.
  We have another provision that I don't even know many of our 
colleagues are aware of. They had better become aware of it if, Heaven 
forbid, this becomes law. This bill prohibits smoking of cigarettes in 
almost any building in the United States. I will read you the language. 
It prohibits the ``smoking of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any other 
combustion of tobacco within a facility or on a facility or property 
within the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the facility.'' I 
could go on. How is ``facility'' defined? It means ``any building used 
for purposes that effect interstate or foreign commerce, regularly 
entered by 10 or more individuals at least one day per week.''
  Unbelievable. Unless you have a real small building, you are going to 
be covered by this ban. So we are banning smoking on almost every 
single building--certainly every business building in the United 
States, or significant business building. Are people aware of that? 
What kind of fines and penalties will be imposed if you don't comply 
with that? I could go on and on.
  My point is, when I heard my colleague say, ``We think the public 
supports this bill,'' maybe a lot of the public really haven't looked 
at what is in this bill. There are a couple of sections I will point 
out just for the information of our colleagues. I heard somebody say, 
``You can't be opposed to this bill now on attorney's fees,'' because 
we passed an amendment by one vote that had a limitation on attorney's 
fees. They can only make $4,000 an hour for the old cases and, for 
future cases, $500 an hour. Well, Mr. President, there is language in 
this bill that is an invitation for litigation that would not stop, 
that would be probably the most expensive litigation piece I have ever 
seen. There is a presumption. I will just read this part on page 233 of 
the bill. It is just a couple of paragraphs, but the paragraphs would 
cost consumers hundreds of billions of dollars.

       General Causation Presumption. In any civil action to which 
     this title applies involving a tobacco claim, there shall be 
     evidentiary presumption that nicotine is addictive and that 
     the diseases identified as being caused by use of tobacco 
     products in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of 
     Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General [back in 1989], The 
     Health Consequences of Smoking: Involuntary Smoking [done in 
     1986]; and The Health Consequences of Using Smokeless Tobacco 
     [Health Service in 1986], are caused in whole or in part by 
     the use of tobacco products . . .

  There is an evidentiary presumption that nicotine is addictive and 
diseases are identified as being caused by using tobacco products. In 
other words: Come sue. Come sue for anything. There are three books, 
and they touch on all kinds of diseases, including diabetes. It can 
have some little relationship to smoking, and we made a presumption 
that: tobacco is the fault; come sue. This is an invitation for 
litigation. Here you go, the trial lawyers will love this. They came 
out with a big one. They may have snuck it in, I don't know. This is a 
big invitation to sue. I heard Senator Domenici talking about this. I 
compliment him for raising it on the floor. Other people acted like 
they didn't know it is in the bill. It is still in the bill. So I make 
those comments.
  I will make a couple of other comments. I see my friend from Kentucky 
here. I have already related the inequity of some of the taxation 
provisions in this bill dealing with either cigarettes or other tobacco 
products. We have currently pending an amendment by my colleague to 
strike out what some people have referred to as the Lugar provision, 
and I expect that

[[Page S6448]]

there will be an amendment pending to strike out the Ford provision. 
Both of them deal with compensation for tobacco farmers. I think both 
are too generous. One has a total cost, over 25 years, of $28 billion; 
one has a cost of $18 billion. Both would compensate tobacco farmers 
far in excess of the value of the land--value of the land that you 
could buy today on the open market, but we would pay several times the 
value. I think that is a mistake. I am troubled by that provision.
  Mr. President, I don't know if this has been entered into the Record. 
I have a letter from the Governors urging opposition to this bill. 
These are the Governors whose attorneys general originally put together 
the package that said: Yes, we want to make a deal; we won't sue the 
tobacco companies if you will give us a couple hundred billion dollars 
over the next 25 years--about 8 billion a year. If you give us $8 
billion a year, collectively, then we will drop our class action suits. 
They have now looked at this bill and said: Don't pass it. It is not 
acceptable in its current form.
  I happen to agree with the Governors--maybe for different reasons--
but I don't think this bill is salvageable. I don't think we should 
pass it. Does that mean I am against doing something to reduce the 
teenage consumption and addiction of tobacco and drugs? Absolutely not. 
I want to do something. I have indicated that I am willing to pass a 
bill that would be directed, targeted, at reducing teenage consumption 
and addiction to tobacco. Do you have to spend hundreds of billions to 
do that, as we have in this legislation before us? The answer is no, 
absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I think what we are doing is 
funding an addiction of government to more government and doing very 
little on tobacco.
  If we want to do some things to reduce teenage consumption and 
addiction to tobacco, let's do it. We have the HHS appropriation bill. 
We can put in more money for NIH, for cancer research, for money to 
have programs to discourage drug consumption, tobacco consumption. 
Let's do that, increase it, and cancel some other programs. We are 
spending now $1.7 trillion per year. Let's move some of that around and 
put it into functions that would actually be targeted at our youth, to 
reduce their addiction and consumption of tobacco. I think that would 
be a giant step in the right direction.
  I think passing this legislation is not really targeted to kids; it 
is targeted more to government. The President was absolutely wrong when 
he said those people who oppose this bill and think it is more 
government, that is a bunch of hooey. I think we did something. We read 
the bill. This bill is a bunch of hooey. This does not deserve to be 
passed.
  I think this bill is a serious, serious mistake. If our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle want to increase tobacco taxes, they can do 
so. This bill is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of legislation 
this Congress has considered in my legislative career. It should not 
pass. We should defeat this bill. We should defeat it either in the 
form of not agreeing to cloture--we have already had three cloture 
votes. We may well have one more. I hope my colleagues will not vote 
for cloture. I hope that a budget point of order, if that is made, will 
be sustained.
  This bill is clearly outside the budget. It says so in its language. 
Do we agree with the budget that we passed last year, or are we just 
going to ignore it on this issue? We ignored it on the urgent 
supplemental. We violated the budget on those. There were some 
emergencies. There were some floods and other emergencies required 
funding and we have done that for before.
  But to ignore the budget on these programs, all of which are in 
governmental entities, or creating governmental entities for new 
programs--for example, international tobacco control. That is $350 
million a year for the first 5 years, and such sums as necessary for 
the future years. That is a brand new program. I don't know that we 
need to fund it. But if we do, let's fund it under the budget. Why have 
it be outside the budget?
  I look at a lot of these other programs. My colleagues were 
successful in saying, let's spend a couple billion dollars more in 
child care. We mandated that in this side of the equation. We have the 
tobacco community grants; opportunity grants. We have got a lot of new 
spending. I say that spending should be in the budget. It shouldn't be 
outside the budget.
  So I urge my colleagues, let's defeat this bill. Let's come back to 
something that is responsible, something that is within the realm of 
the budget agreement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from of 
Governors' Association, as well as an article from the Washington Times 
on Monday, June 15 that says the tobacco bill is packed with programs 
and agencies be printed in the Record, as well as two charts that I 
referred to in my speech, one of which is the national tobacco 
settlement trust fund that shows the total cost of this bill could 
easily well reach $997 billion. That is $745 billion under the annual 
industry payments; maximum look-back. Maybe that would happen, part of 
it would happen; maybe not.
  There are some who would say, ``Wait a minute. You didn't take into 
consideration the volume adjustment.'' The bill said, if volume comes 
down below 20 percent, there will be some reduction in these industry 
payments. Maybe tobacco consumption would fall by more than 20 percent. 
Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. It is hard to guess. There might be 
some reduction on that figure. I don't know. For cost analysis 
purposes, though, I note that the OMB did not figure volume adjustments 
down within their original proposals. The attorneys general did not in 
their original proposal. Since it is impossible to do, I haven't done 
it in mine, either.
  I make mention of that for the Record, and also ask to have included 
a chart that shows the disparity between products of companies.
  I absolute don't think it is right for us to have different excise 
taxes on cigarette products because one company sells more than another 
company. That doesn't make sense to me. We have that throughout this 
bill. That needs to be remedied. If we stay on the bill, I will have an 
amendment to do.
  So I ask unanimous consent that two charts, a letter, and newspaper 
articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1998.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lott and Daschle: When the Senate began floor 
     consideration of S. 1415, Senator McCain's tobacco settlement 
     legislation, the bill included $196.5 billion over twenty-
     five years for the states and territories to settle their 
     lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Those state lawsuits 
     made possible the development of comprehensive federal 
     tobacco legislation.
       Governors have made clear from the beginning of the 
     Senate's legislative debate that preserving and protecting 
     state settlement funds would be one of our highest 
     priorities. We agreed to support the state financing section 
     of the McCain-Lott manager's amendment, which included some 
     restrictions on the use of half of the state funds, in 
     exchange for a guarantee that the states would receive at 
     least $196.5 billion over twenty-five years This funding 
     level is consistent wit the amount negotiated between the 
     state attorneys general and the tobacco industry in the 
     original June 20, 1997, agreement. At the same time, the 
     amount of money available to the federal government through 
     the tobacco bill has expanded significantly.
       Over the past few days, the Senate adopted several 
     amendments that dramatically reduce the amount of money 
     available to the states to settle state lawsuits and restrict 
     state flexibility related to the use of those funds that 
     remain. Some Governors support the goals of the amendments 
     that have been considered by the Senate, but federal 
     priorities should be financed through the federal portion of 
     the bill, rather than through state tobacco settlement funds.
       The state funding pool has been reduced dramatically below 
     the level to which Governors agreed. At such low levels, 
     Governors must weight the potential of new state tobacco 
     settlement revenues against the reality that a federal 
     increase in the price per pack of cigarettes will result in 
     an offsetting decrease in state cigarette excise tax 
     revenues.
       Accordingly, the nation's Governors are not able to support 
     the state financing section of S. 1415 as amended. Given the 
     experiences of the four states that have negotiated 
     settlements of their individual lawsuits and the original 
     state attorneys general agreement, the bill no longer places 
     appropriate

[[Page S6449]]

     priority on successfully settling state lawsuits. We urge you 
     to restore the $196.5 billion reserved for the states while 
     the bill is still on the floor of the Senate.
       In addition, the states must be free to continue to pursue 
     their own lawsuits against the tobacco industry. We strongly 
     urge the Senate to ensure that the language included in S. 
     1415, to clarify that state settlement funds are not subject 
     to federal recoupment, is applied to all states, including 
     those that choose not to participate in the federal 
     settlement.
       If we, the Executive Committee of the National Governors' 
     Association, can provide you with clarification of our 
     position, please do not hesitate to let us know.
           Sincerely,
         Gov. George V. Voinovich, State of Ohio; Gov. Roy Romer, 
           State of Colorado; Gov. Bob Miller, State of Nevada; 
           Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, State of Utah; Gov. Howard 
           Dean, M.D., State of Vermont; Gov. Thomas R. Carper, 
           State of Delaware; Gov. Lawton Chiles, State of 
           Florida; Gov. David M. Beasley, State of South 
           Carolina; Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, State of Wisconsin.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, June 15, 1998]

             Tobacco Bill Is Packed With Programs, Agencies

                          (By Nancy E. Roman)

       The tobacco bill moving through Congress would spend $350 
     million per year for the first five years and as much ``as 
     may be necessary'' for each year after that to promote 
     smoking awareness abroad.
       The foreign-aid program is one of many new government 
     functions created in a tobacco bill that raises $92 billion 
     over five years by taxing cigarettes by $1.10 per pack, and 
     uses about $65 billion of that over five years to pay for 
     things ranging from child care to college tuition.
       The bill would also create new Medicare pilot projects, ban 
     smoking outside public entrances, create new causes for 
     litigation and spend up to $18,000 per American Indian to 
     help them stop smoking.
       Under the latest printed version of the tobacco bill, a 
     whopping 480-page to me that few have read, the secretary of 
     health and human services is directed to ``promote efforts to 
     share information and provide education internationally about 
     the health, economic, social and other costs of tobacco use . 
     . .''
       Part of the $350 million for each year through 2004 would 
     be used to ``support the development of appropriate 
     governmental control activities in foreign countries.''
       The bill would also:
       Ban smoking inside--and even outside--of public buildings 
     involved in interstate commerce, including almost all retail 
     facilities except restaurants. The bill prohibits smoking 
     ``within the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the 
     facility.'' The only alternative is for facilities that set 
     up a separate smoking section where the air is ``directly 
     exhausted to the outside.''
       Create a right to sue in federal court for individuals who 
     believe that owners of buildings where they work or live 
     violate this provision. Under the bill, individuals must 
     notify the building owner of his or her intention to sue. 
     After 60 days, if the owner has not corrected the situation, 
     the individual may sue. Civil penalties of up to $5,000 per 
     day may be awarded under the bill. That would be a $1.65 
     million fine for a one-year violation.
       Provide up to $1,700 per year in college tuition for 
     tobacco farmers and their family members, including brothers, 
     sisters, stepbrother's, stepsisters, sons-in-law, and 
     daughters-in-law. There are currently two sections of the 
     bill dealing with farmers, and one will have to be struck.
       Provide as much as $7.6 billion to help American Indians 
     stop smoking, or about $18,000 per American Indian smoker.
       Under the bill, between 3 percent and 7 percent of the 
     public health trust fund, or as much as $7.6 billion, is set 
     aside for smoking-cessation programs for American Indians, as 
     defined by the Department of the Interior.
       Under that definition, there are about 1.4 million American 
     Indians, about 406,000 of whom are adult smokers who would 
     qualify. Assuming 39.2 percent of them smoke (the average 
     rate of smoking among American Indians), that would be about 
     $18,800 for each.
       The original tobacco bill created about 17 new agencies, 
     boards and commissions.
       New functions for government include setting up a national 
     tobacco document depository, creating tobacco smuggling 
     prevention programs and countering advertising programs.
       The bill would spend about $13.6 million over five years to 
     consider topics like the effects of smoke on pregnant women 
     and further research on second-hand smoke.
       A Senate aide who helped draft the bill said research has 
     demonstrated that smoking damages fetuses and that secondhand 
     smoke is dangerous, but it has not shown how it damages 
     fetuses.
       The bill would require states to license retailers that 
     sell tobacco and bar those retailers form selling cigarettes 
     to minors.
       All 50 states have already out-lawed selling tobacco to 
     minors. However, this bill requires them to conduct ``monthly 
     random, unannounced inspections of sales or distribution 
     outlets in the state.''
       The states must then submit annual reports to the federal 
     government detailing how it enforced the laws, the extent of 
     the success achieved, how the inspections were conducted and 
     the methods used to identify outlets.
       One-quarter of the $24.6 billion the state receive under 
     the bill must be spent on child care programs, including 
     those for school-age children.
       The bill sets targets to reduce teen smoking--by 15 percent 
     after four years, by 30 percent after six years, by 50 
     percent after eight years and by 60 percent after 10 years.
       Tobacco companies are charged a surcharge if those targets 
     are not met and it is the government that determines whether 
     those targets are met, based on ``prevalence of tobacco 
     products for the industry.''
       If the bill passes, the federal government will determine 
     whether the targets have been met.
                                  ____


                                     NATIONAL TOBACCO SETTLEMENT TRUST FUND
                        [Gross tax increase on consumers in billions of nominal dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Maximum
                                                                Initial       Annual     potential
                            Year                                payment      industry     lookback   Grand total
                                                                             payments   assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999........................................................        10.00        14.40  ...........        24.40
2000........................................................  ...........        15.40  ...........        15.40
2001........................................................  ...........        17.70         7.70        25.40
2002........................................................  ...........        21.40         7.92        29.32
2003........................................................  ...........        23.60         8.13        31.73
2004........................................................  ...........        24.31         8.35        32.66
2005........................................................  ...........        25.04         8.57        33.61
2006........................................................  ...........        25.79         8.81        34.59
2007........................................................  ...........        26.56         9.04        35.61
2008........................................................  ...........        27.36         9.29        36.65
2009........................................................  ...........        28.18         9.54        37.72
2010........................................................  ...........        29.03         9.80        38.82
2011........................................................  ...........        29.90        10.06        39.96
2012........................................................  ...........        30.79        10.33        41.12
2013........................................................  ...........        31.72        10.61        42.33
2014........................................................  ...........        32.67        10.90        43.57
2015........................................................  ...........        33.65        11.19        44.84
2016........................................................  ...........        34.66        11.49        46.15
2017........................................................  ...........        35.70        11.80        47.50
2018........................................................  ...........        36.77        12.12        48.89
2019........................................................  ...........        37.87        12.45        50.32
2020........................................................  ...........        39.01        12.79        51.79
2021........................................................  ...........        40.18        13.13        53.31
2022........................................................  ...........        41.38        13.49        54.87
2023........................................................  ...........        42.62        13.85        56.47
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
Total 25 years..............................................        10.00       745.67       241.36       997.02
                                                             ===================================================
Total 5 years...............................................        10.00        92.50        23.74       126.24
                                                             ===================================================
Total 10 years..............................................        10.00       221.55        67.80       299.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: S. 1415 as modified on the Senate floor.

       Annual industry payments are adjusted for the greater of 3% 
     or CPI-U beginning in year 6. This estimate does not include 
     potential increases or reductions in industry payments 
     resulting from changes in the volume of tobacco sales.
       Lookback assessments would be initiated after year 3 if 
     underage tobacco use is not reduced by specified percentages. 
     The maximum lookback assessment of $4.4 billion is adjusted 
     for inflation. Does not include an estimate for brand-
     specific lookback assessment.
                                  ____


                                            TOBACCO PRODUCT ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Share of U.S.    Cigarette tax
          Cigarette manufacturer                     Cigarette brands              market (in     increase under
                                                                                    percent)       S. 1415 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris (USA).......................  Marlboro, Benson & Hedges, Merit,              49.1            $1.10
                                             Virginia Slims, Parliament,
                                             Basic, Cambridge.
R.J. Reynolds (USA).......................  Winston, Doral, Camel, Salem,                  24.2             1.10
                                             Vantage Monarch, More, Now, Best
                                             Value, Sterling, Magna, Century.
Brown & Williamson (US subsidiary of BAT    Lucky Strike, Carlton, Kool.......             16.1             1.10
 Industries, UK).
Lorillard (USA)...........................  Newport, Kent, Old Gold, True.....              8.7             1.10
Liggett Group (USA).......................  L&M, Eve, Chesterfield, Lark......      Less than 1             0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Other smokeless
                                                                Share of U.S.   Moist snuff tax    tax increase
      Smokeless manufacturer             Smokeless brands         market (in     increase under   under S. 1415
                                                                   percent)       S. 1415 \2\          \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Tobacco (USA)................  Copenhagen, Skoal, WB                 37.9            $0.83            $0.39
                                     Cut, and 13 other brands
                                     of moist & dry snuff.
Conwood (USA).....................  Levi Garrett, Kodiak,                 23.3             0.58             0.27
                                     Taylor's Pride, and 34
                                     other brands of chewing
                                     tobacco and moist & dry
                                     snuff.
Pinkerton (subsidiary of Swedish    Red Man, Timber Wolf, and             22.0             0.58             0.27
 Match, Sweden).                     19 other brands of
                                     chewing tobacco and
                                     moist snuff.

[[Page S6450]]

 
National Tobacco (USA)............  Beech-Nut, Big Red,                    9.2             0.58             0.27
                                     Havana Blossom, Trophy.
Swisher (USA).....................  Mail Pouch, Silver Creek,              6.8             0.58             0.27
                                     and 33 other brands of
                                     chewing tobacco and
                                     moist & dry snuff.
Brown & Williamson (US subsidiary   Unknown..................      Less than 1             0.58             0.27
 of BAT Industries UK).
R.C. Owen (USA)...................  Unknown..................      Less than 1             0.58             0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S. 1415 purports to impose a $1.10 per pack cigarette tax by the year 2003. Subsection 402(f), page 186,
  exempts cigarettes produced by the Liggett Group as long as their cigarette production does not exceed 3% of
  the total U.S. production.
\2\ Subsection 402(d)(3)(A) provides that a 1.2 ounce package of moist snuff is taxed at 75% of the level of a
  pack of cigarettes, and a 3 ounce package of other smokeless tobacco products is taxed at 35% of the level of
  a pack of cigarettes. Further, subsection 402(d)(3)(B) provides the smokeless tobacco products by smaller
  manufacturers (under 150 million units) are taxed at only 70% of the rate applied to other smokeless tobacco
  products.
 
CURRENT LAW TAX RATES: Cigarette = 24 cents per packj; Snuff = 2.7 cents per 1.2 ounce can; Other smokeless
  tobacco = 2.25 cents per 3 ounce package.

  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent 
that I might speak for about 10 minutes, probably less, as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________