[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6470-S6481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there has been a lot of discussion 
over the last 4 weeks about teenagers and smoking. I would like to 
begin my comments at this moment by asking who might have more 
influence over teenagers and smoking--Joe Camel or Leonardo DiCaprio? 
If we continue on this bill--and it is my fervent hope that we will 
not, as I believe it is not in the best interest of the country--or if 
it should come back, as those on the other side of the aisle are 
promising that it will, we will not have another tobacco debate that 
doesn't deal with the real culprit, which is the influence of Hollywood 
on our children and their encouragement, after watching fashionable 
movies, to take up this habit in which none of us believe teenagers 
should engage.

[[Page S6471]]

  An overwhelming number of children under the age of 18 regularly view 
motion pictures and television productions. A lot more of them do that 
than look at any cigarette advertising. Depiction of the use of tobacco 
products and illegal narcotics is widespread in motion pictures and in 
television productions. Such depictions have increased in recent years, 
as indicated by recent studies that have found, first, that 77 percent 
of all major motion pictures in 1996 portrayed the use of tobacco. Let 
me repeat that. Seventy-seven percent of all major motion pictures in 
1996 portrayed the use of tobacco. Fifty percent of the top grossing 
films released between 1990 and 1996 depicted scenes in which the major 
characters smoked cigarettes; 78 percent of movies, over the last 5 
years, include tobacco use, with an average of 11 smoking incidents per 
hour--11 smoking incidents per hour; 75 percent of movies that included 
tobacco use showed leading and/or supporting actors smoking.
  As Hillary Clinton has explained, every single movie nominated for a 
1996 Academy Award in the categories of Best Picture, Best Actor, and 
Best Actress featured tobacco use by a leading character. The Academy 
Award nominees for Best Picture in 1996 that featured this activity 
were: ``The English Patient,'' which was the winner; ``Fargo''; ``Jerry 
Maguire''; ``Secrets and Lies,'' and ``Shine.'' All of them featured 
tobacco use by the leading characters.
  These depictions often deceptively portrayed the use of tobacco and 
illegal drugs as healthy, desirable, and socially acceptable. As one 
would expect after hearing these facts and figures, teenage use of 
tobacco products and illegal narcotics is on the rise.
  Mr. President, I am raising the issue of whether teenagers are more 
influenced by Joe Camel or by Leonardo DiCaprio. I am not going to ask 
for a show of hands from the pages that are up here in the front of the 
Chamber. But I think I know the answer. I suspect anybody in America 
would know the answer. Clearly, the influence on teenage smoking as a 
result of depiction of smoking and glamorizing of smoking in movies is 
a very, very serious problem and considerably more significant than 
advertising.
  The depictions in the movies often deceptively portray the use of 
tobacco and illegal drugs as healthy, desirable and socially 
acceptable.
  As one would expect after hearing these facts and figures, teenage 
use of tobacco products and illegal narcotics is on the rise.
  Let's think for just a minute about some of the classic moments in 
cinema history where smoking is glamorized.
  Humphrey Bogart in ``Casablanca,'' James Dean in ``Rebel Without a 
Cause.''
  We have here a blowup of ``Rebel Without a Cause.'' Here you see 
James Dean featured with a cigarette in his hands. That was sort of my 
generation back in the 1950s.
  More recently, Julia Roberts in ``My Best Friend's Wedding,'' Jane 
Fonda in ``Agnes of God,'' or ``9 to 5,'' Rebecca DeMornay in ``Risky 
Business,'' Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta in ``Grease,'' which 
we have blown up again.
  Here is Olivia Newton-John featured smoking in ``Grease.''
  And who can forget the recent smash hit ``Titanic,'' which I referred 
to on the floor earlier in this debate. Leonardo DiCaprio who is 
currently, I am told, the teen idol of America--I see a few smiles on a 
few pages' faces down here. I think I probably got that right.
  Leonardo DiCaprio is ``Smokin' Teen Idol'', and appeared, of course, 
in ``Titanic,'' the most watched movie of all time, ``Romeo and 
Juliet,'' ``Marvin's Room,'' ``Basketball Diaries,'' and ``This Boy's 
Life.''
  We know ``Titanic'' is the highest grossing movie of all time at $554 
million. If we assume that ticket prices, including matinees, average 
$6, then we can fairly estimate that over 90 million people have seen 
this blatant glamorization of smoking. And, unfortunately, a 
disproportionate share of those 90 million people are our children.
  Let's face it. Who is more adored by the girls and idolized by the 
boys, as I asked earlier--Leonardo DiCaprio or Joe Camel? And in a 
study sponsored by the American Lung Association, youth watched 50 top 
box office movies to evaluate smoking. The youth concluded that a 
significant percentage of the scenes involved tobacco use that was 
``sexy, exciting, powerful, sports-related, sophisticated and a means 
of celebration.''
  Mr. President, I think it is time that Hollywood took responsibility. 
We need to send a message to Hollywood. ``Don't hook our kids on 
tobacco and illegal drugs.''
  Under the first amendment, we cannot and would not seek to deny the 
right of free speech to anyone. However, as the Senate, we can and 
should encourage Hollywood to take responsible steps to protect our 
children. We can make sure that at least the Federal Government does 
not costar with Hollywood in any movies that glorify or glamorize 
tobacco.
  Let me repeat, we can at least make sure that the Federal Government 
itself does not costar with Hollywood in any movies that glorify and 
glamorize tobacco.
  Now, Mr. President, had this bill continued, or if it continues--I 
hope that it will not, but if it does--I will be offering an amendment 
that would do this. The Federal Government currently grants permits to 
Hollywood for the production of movies and TV shows, and we have seen 
in recent years more and more movies, at least in part, depicted on 
Federal property. The Government has granted Federal film privileges to 
motion pictures such as ``Top Gun,'' ``Biloxi Blues,'' ``The Hunt for 
Red October,'' ``In The Line of Fire,'' ``Clear and Present Danger,'' 
``True Lies,'' ``Apollo 11,'' ``Apollo 13,'' ``Contact,'' ``Air Force 
One,'' ``Crimson Tide,'' and ``A Time to Kill.''
  The Government currently makes these decisions based on the nature 
and the message of the proposed production. In other words, the Federal 
Government itself makes a decision whether or not to allow the use of 
Federal property, and it made that decision in each of those films. The 
Department of Defense decides whether to grant Federal filming 
privileges based on whether a production ``appears to condone or 
endorse activities . . . that are contrary to U.S. Government policy.''
  Let me repeat. The current Department of Defense standard is as 
follows. They will grant the filming privilege based on whether a 
production ``appears to condone or endorse activities . . . that are 
contrary to U.S. Government policy.''
  In other words, ``Top Gun'' is OK but ``GI Jane'' is not. So 
Government agencies are already reviewing scripts and deciding who gets 
Federal film privileges and who does not. So we ought to make sure our 
young people and tobacco are not left out of this review process. And 
the amendment I was going to offer, or would offer if we stay on this 
subject or come back to it, would simply say that no agency or 
department of the Federal Government may grant permission for the 
filming of a movie on Federal property where such movie depicts the use 
of tobacco or illegal drugs as healthy, desirable, or socially 
acceptable.
  In other words, what I would do by this amendment, if and when I 
offer it, is require the Federal Government to make a decision about 
whether it is appropriate for movies filmed on Federal property to 
depict smoking. And the language should be that no agency or department 
may grant permission--in other words, we can't do it--for the filming 
of a movie on Federal property where such movie depicts the use of 
tobacco or illegal drugs as healthy, desirable, or socially acceptable.
  Furthermore, the President has, as we all know, a lot of friends in 
Hollywood. That is fine. He is free to associate with whoever he 
chooses. He was just out there this week, I am told. So I would call on 
the President today to issue an Executive order--all of this could be 
done by Executive order--mandating that agencies comply with the 
provisions of the amendment I would have offered. In other words, the 
President can today or tomorrow issue an Executive order stating that 
no agency or department may grant permission for the filming of a movie 
on Federal property where such movie depicts the use of tobacco or 
illegal drugs as healthy, desirable, or socially acceptable.
  Now, finally, Mr. President, had I offered the amendment--and I may 
well offer it; if we either stay on this bill or

[[Page S6472]]

come back to it later, I certainly will--the second part of the 
amendment would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. No one is more 
sensitive to the first amendment than the Senator from Kentucky, so 
this could only be done as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. And this 
sense-of-the-Senate would go something like this, Mr. President: A 
parent should have adequate information about the nature and content of 
motion pictures and television productions.

  Part 2 of the sense of the Senate would be: The television and motion 
picture industries have developed rating systems that help provide such 
information. Point 3: These rating systems currently provide that 
motion pictures and television productions restricted to mature 
audiences should receive the designation of ``R'' and ``TV-MA''--that 
is, TV-mature audience--respectively.
  Such rating systems, Mr. President, however, provide insufficient 
information about the use of tobacco and illegal narcotics in motion 
pictures and in television productions.
  The sense-of-the-Senate would be this, were I to offer it:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the television and 
     motion picture industries should designate motion pictures 
     and television productions with the rating of ``R'' and ``TV-
     MA,'' respectively, if such pictures or productions depict 
     the use of tobacco or illegal narcotics as healthy, 
     desirable, or socially acceptable.

  Mr. President, in conclusion, this is not an amendment I am planning 
to offer at this time but will offer later if we get back to this issue 
or stay on it. It would do essentially two things:
  No. 1--and this is something the President could do today --is to 
prevent motion pictures which use Federal property from featuring 
smoking--and the President could issue an Executive order to do that 
today--and, secondly, to call on the television and motion picture 
industry to rate any production that features smoking with an ``R'' or 
``TV-MA;'' that is, TV-mature audience.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief remarks, 
and then I note the presence of the Democratic leader in the Chamber, 
and I know that he and others have some comments.
  But I think I would like to make a few brief comments now in 
anticipation that either tonight or tomorrow we will have a cloture 
vote on this legislation that we are now in our fourth week 
considering.
  First of all, I would like to point out, we have a lot of charges 
that are hurled at the bill, a lot of exaggeration, and more than a 
little fiction. Just this morning, one of our colleagues said that the 
bill has gone from $368.5 billion to $858 billion from the money grab. 
That is astounding--if it were true, and it is not. The first figure 
fails to include inflation, look-back penalties, and the second one 
does in order to make it look outlandishly bigger. First, it used to be 
too big a bill and too much spending, and now there is a revenue 
shortfall. We have covered most of the bases, Mr. President. So I 
congratulate the opponents of the bill and the industry on their memory 
loss and their creative accounting.
  When we decide the fate of this legislation--some have cast this as a 
vote over whether we believe in taxes or not-- it is really a question 
of whether or not we believe an industry should be allowed to lie to 
Congress and the American people and get away with it; whether an 
industry should be able to target kids to addict them to a deadly 
product and get away with it; whether to allow an industry to 
manipulate nicotine to better hook its customers and get away with it; 
whether to allow an industry to quash critical public health findings 
and get away with it; whether an industry can pay billions of dollars 
in campaign contributions for protection against their misdeeds and get 
away with it.
  This bill is not about taxes, it is about whether we are going to 
allow the death march of 418,000 Americans a year who die early from 
tobacco-related disease and do nothing; whether we are going to 
continue to heap $50 billion a year in smoking-related health care 
costs on the American taxpayer, and do nothing. It is about whether we 
are going to have the will to serve the public interest, or the special 
interests. So I hope every Senator, before making a decision about how 
he or she will vote, will be fully informed about what is and what is 
not in this bill, and whether they want to push the legislation process 
forward or to let it die.
  First of all, briefly, what is in this bill? A major youth smoking 
reduction program that addresses the single greatest cause of death and 
disease in America and will help stop one million kids a year from 
taking up a habit that will kill one-third of them. It stops the $50 
billion annual health care tax on Americans, which is nearly $455 per 
household per year. It has a major provision to address the illegal 
narcotics problem in America, and additional resources to find 
treatment and cures for deadly diseases including breast cancer, heart 
disease, lung disease and many others. It is a $190 billion tax cut. 
What I do not understand is some on the other side of the aisle who 
said they favored this bill when it came out of the committee with no 
tax cuts, now are opposed to a $190 billion tax cut. Nearly 40 percent 
of the bill now, as it sits, is to reduce taxes, and every penny above 
the June 20 settlement goes to tax relief.
  Mr. President, $3 billion is earmarked for veterans who suffer from 
smoking-related disease. I have been over this issue before, but the 
fact is there is only one group of Americans that I know of that the 
Government encouraged to smoke, and that is the veterans who were 
conveniently left out of the ISTEA bill, as we so eagerly sought our 
highways and bridges and other pork barrel projects. Don't the veterans 
deserve something, Mr. President, in the way of treatment of tobacco-
related illness from a Government that encouraged them to take up the 
habit?
  There is a cap on legal fees on tobacco suits so that more money can 
go to victims and not lawyers. No one in this body believed that we 
would pass an amendment, for the first time that I know of in this 
body, that caps legal fees; it caps them from any future bills at $500 
an hour. I will admit that is quite a bit of money. But the reality of 
that impact is that it is an enormous break for both individuals and 
groups bringing suits against tobacco companies.
  It is a chance to settle State cases collectively and efficiently, 
and an antismuggling campaign that will stop those who today traffic in 
contraband.
  I keep hearing, again, ``giant programs and huge bureaucracies.'' The 
fact of the matter is there is no guaranteed spending in this bill for 
asbestos victims and none whatsoever for black lung. Spending on 
prevention, cessation research, international reimbursement, and for 
Indian health services, is all subject to appropriations, and there are 
no new Federal bureaucracies. All the functions will be conducted 
through existing Federal, State, local and private entities.
  I really did not appreciate the resurrection of the old Clinton 
health care plan bureaucracy chart. I am tempted, with legislation that 
I see coming before this body which is supported on both sides of the 
aisle, to make up a chart. But there are no new Federal bureaucracies 
associated with this legislation.
  We have heard that giving the FDA authority over tobacco is an 
abomination, even though the courts have already upheld FDA's ability 
to regulate nicotine under their current authority, giving them far 
more power than this legislation does.
  We have heard that retail licensing is absurd, even though 46 States 
already have tobacco licensing programs, and both the National 
Governors' Association and convenience stores support their provisions, 
which is basically the same as alcohol. We have heard the concept of 
look-backs are absurd, even though the industry itself endorsed the 
idea last June. And every day, we cite drug statistics on this floor 
and give them great credence. They are based on the same premise of 
surveys that we would be using on determining whether we were reducing 
teenage smoking or not.
  We have heard the bill contains Indian largess, and the Craig-
Coverdell amendment eliminated the bill's authorization to set aside a 
percentage of money for Indian health services, although it is 
interesting to me that we

[[Page S6473]]

seem to not understand that Indians, poorest of all our citizens, have 
a high incidence of tobacco-related illness and the Indian Health 
Service, like the VA, has spent vast sums of money covering smoking-
related illness.
  What has caused the change in attitude since we reported this bill 
out by a 19-to-1 vote through the Commerce Committee? I don't know. I 
will leave that to others. I do think it is of note that some $50 
million or more, the estimate is a minimum of $50 million, has been 
spent on tobacco company advertising. I think anybody who believes that 
an advertising campaign of that magnitude does not have an effect, 
obviously is not aware of the effect of advertising in America.

  What happens if we fail to invoke cloture, and after a lot of 
machinations that we leave this legislation and go on to other issues? 
I think it is important to point out that what happens is two things: 
One is that 36 attorneys generals go to court. They have said they 
will. They have cases pending. And the other is, of course, and most 
tragically, 3,000 more kids will start smoking every day that we fail 
to act.
  I have heard comments on the floor today, finally, Mr. President, 
about defining the Republican Party, about how we act on this 
legislation will define the Republican Party. You know, there may be 
something to that. There may be something to that. Because maybe we 
ought to remember the obligations that we incur when we govern America. 
Maybe we might remember the principles of the founder of our party when 
we are defining the Republican Party and how we vote on this 
legislation. We might understand that our obligation, first of all, is 
to those who cannot care for themselves in our society and that 
includes our children. Isn't it our obligation, shouldn't it define the 
Republican Party, that we should do everything we can to handle this 
scourge, this disease that is rampant throughout young children in 
America? Does that define the Republican Party, or at least have 
something to do with the definition of our party? I hope my colleagues 
might understand what our obligations are.
  I did not invent this bill. I did not seek the responsibility for it. 
But I believe in the strongest possible terms that we need to act. 
Otherwise we will act, sooner or later, and every day that it is later, 
more young Americans will die as a result of our inaction.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I did not hear all of the remarks of the 
Senator from Arizona. But I observe the applause that he just received. 
I join in expressing my appreciation to the Senator from Arizona for 
the work that he has done in taking this issue up in the Commerce 
Committee, being willing to deal with it, being willing to deal with 
the criticism both in this Chamber and other venues for the effort he 
has made. Also, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
cooperation in a number of ways, in the way he worked with Senator 
McCain.
  I do have some requests to ask that have been cleared with Senator 
Daschle, or he is aware of what I am going to ask for. After I make 
these motions, then I would like to just make some brief comments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
file a cloture motion on the committee amendment to the tobacco bill, 
and at the hour of 5:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the cloture 
motion with the mandatory quorum under rule XXII having been waived.
  I further ask that the time between now and 5:15 be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees. I further ask, if cloture 
is invoked, Members have until the close of business today to file 
first-degree amendments and until 10 a.m. on Thursday to file second-
degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask 
the majority leader, does the majority leader intend to vote for 
cloture?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was going to explain that after I had 
asked these unanimous-consent requests. Since the Senator has asked, 
there has been a request and efforts made in the past to get cloture, 
to have cloture filed and have votes. We have had three of those. This 
is a cloture motion that we will vote on, instead of 2 days from now, 
go ahead and vote today to see where we are.
  It is my intention to vote against cloture. I still think we should 
not cut off some of the amendments and substitutes that could be 
offered. We also still have the pending problem of what to do about 
farmers in this issue. But I think we need to see where we are.
  I have, over the past several weeks, been hoping that we could come 
to some resolution on this matter, but we have spent 78 hours or more 
now and 56 minutes--I guess it is probably closer to 80 or 82 hours. I 
don't see how we are going to conclude this just by moving along at the 
slow pace we have been moving along. I think we need to see where the 
votes are. This cloture vote will give us that opportunity. I think it 
is important that we not have this vote occur next Monday or next 
Tuesday. If we file cloture today or tomorrow, that will be the result. 
After this cloture vote, then we will make a decision where to go from 
there.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will not object, but I wish the 
proponent of the vote on cloture will vote for the cloture motion. We 
will then discover where the votes are. I am prepared to move to final 
passage. There is a lot in the bill I don't like. I agree with what the 
Senator from Arizona said earlier. I believe it important to enact 
legislation. There are a lot of lives at stake. I wish you would 
discover where the votes are by moving to cloture, but also supporting 
the cloture motion you are going to file.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. I now send the cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provision of 
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the committee substitute to Calendar No. 353, S. 
1415, regarding tobacco reform:
         Trent Lott, John McCain, James M. Inhofe, Christopher S. 
           Bond, Gordon H. Smith, Robert F. Bennett, Joseph R. 
           Biden, Jr., Ted Stevens, Richard C. Shelby, Mike 
           DeWine, Kent Conrad, John Glenn, Tom Harkin, John F. 
           Kerry, and Frank H. Murkowski.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
following the cloture vote, if not invoked, Senator Stevens be 
recognized to raise a Budget Act point of order, and that the 
Democratic leader, or his designee, be immediately recognized to make a 
motion that it be waived, and that that vote occur immediately 
following the earlier vote without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the right to object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to ask the majority leader two 
questions.
  First, with regard to the cloture motion, he and I have talked about 
this matter. The motion itself says:

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee 
     substitute. . .

  And it is signed, of course, by 16 Senators, including the 
distinguished majority leader. If, indeed, it is his position that he 
will vote against the cloture motion, I am curious as to how he can be 
signing the cloture motion.
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, the motion has to be 
filed to get a vote on the cloture process. It doesn't mean that you 
will vote for cloture, and I don't want any inference to be made here 
that this is unusual. This is, as Senators on both sides know, done 
quite often by majority leaders, that they file cloture and on occasion 
vote against that cloture. So this is

[[Page S6474]]

just a process to get us to a vote, to see where the Senate is, to see 
if the Senate is ready to cut off debate, and there is nothing unusual 
about that at all.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, Mr. President, I just say, I have never heard of 
it before. I think it is highly unusual, but certainly that is the 
majority leader's prerogative. I just call attention to this 
interesting juxtaposition of filing cloture and then voting against it.
  Another question I have relates to the Budget Act point of order. Is 
it the majority leader's understanding that those who vote not to waive 
the budget point of order will then be voting against those amendments 
that the Senate has adopted, including the amendment on marriage 
penalty and the amendment on drug enforcement; is that the 
understanding of the majority leader?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am sure that a lot of people will read 
into that vote and other votes any number of things, and I am sure that 
it will be described by Senators on both sides of the aisle in the way 
they would like to describe it, maybe even going so far as to impugn 
the integrity of Senators based on that vote.
  But all that means to me, as the Senator says, is that we should not 
waive the Budget Act. We agreed to the Budget Act; we agreed to the 
budget last year. That is one of the major problems with this whole 
bill. The original concept that we try to get some limits on teenage 
smoking, to stop teenage smoking and drug abuse and to deal with some 
of the problems caused by smoking, that is one thing, but it has gone 
far, far afield from that.
  I had planned to comment on some of those later, but I will go ahead 
and mention them now. The micromanaging in this bill, the exceeding of 
the budget caps--what really has happened here, while we have a good 
principle that we can all vote on something right now that will deal 
with teenage smoking if we wanted to and health problems caused by 
smoking, what has happened is a lot of people have figured out, ``Oh, 
look, this is a cookie jar, this is a bill we can use to pay for all 
these programs that we are not going to be able to pay for''----

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order in the Chamber in order that 
we may hear and understand the majority and minority leaders?
  Mr. LOTT. ``For these programs under the strictures of the budget 
agreement we had just last year.'' The Washington Post outlined it 
pretty clearly today. It is going to be tough to get the appropriations 
bills done, to get a budget done this year because of the constraints 
that we agreed to.
  This bill violates the Budget Act in several instances, I think about 
six different points. At least one of them we are pointing out here 
today. That is all it means, that you don't want to waive the Budget 
Act, that we have agreed to pass this bill that started out well-
intentioned, but has grown like top seed to the point where we have to 
decide whether we want to take this cup from our lips and move on or 
not.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have, 
I simply ask that there be 5 minutes equally divided between votes so 
that we might talk about the specific vote and its ramifications prior 
to the time we cast it. I ask if the majority leader has any problem 
with that?
  Mr. LOTT. I think that would be the way to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am a 
little confused.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. It is my understanding that the majority leader some 7, 6, 
5, 10 days ago, told us that this bill would go nowhere unless we added 
a Republican provision relating to the marriage penalty. And now he is 
telling us that it violates the budget because we passed on this floor 
what he asked us to do.
  I want to tell you, I find that incredibly fascinating. I don't find 
it unusual, I find it fascinating. I have to get this straight. Here is 
my question, and I will not object if I get an answer: Is one of the 
reasons why the Republican leader will argue that this is a violation 
of the budget agreement the fact that this bill now contains a tax 
expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to correct the marriage 
penalty, which all the Republicans voted for and told us we had to 
have? Is that one of the reasons why we violate the Budget Act? I ask 
that as a question of my friend.
  Mr. LOTT. The violation of the Budget Act that I think carries the 
greatest weight is the exceeding of the caps that were agreed to by 
category in the budget resolution. That is the major problem with it.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not object, but it is a fascinating 
place.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, 
just for clarification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. There may be some confusion. I ask there be an 
intervening period of at least 5 minutes prior to the second vote so we 
can have an opportunity to discuss the ramifications.
  Mr. LOTT. So everyone is clear, the cloture vote will occur at 5:15. 
Following that vote, if not invoked, the Senate will proceed--well, 
will have 10 minutes equally divided, and then proceed to the second 
vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act to allow Senator Stevens and 
somebody on your side, some designee on your side, to speak on the 
particular budget point of order.
  Therefore, there would be then two back-to-back votes at 5:15, with 
the 10-minute interval between those two votes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I would just like to make this comment and really express my profound 
disappointment. For those of us that are somewhat, relatively new to 
this body, I think to see a very consequential piece of legislation 
come a cropper in this way is extraordinarily disappointing. Obviously, 
what has happened is to kill tobacco reform.
  There is no question about how it is being done. There is no search 
for alternatives. There is no search for where there may be a consensus 
in this body. And I think there are points where there is consensus. I 
deeply believe a bill can be put together which can deter teen smoking.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, would the Senator yield on that point, 
because I would like to commend her for some efforts in which she has 
been involved?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I finish my train of thought for a moment?
  That there is the possibility--I watched the McCain bill come out of 
committee. And then I watched the amendments go on. And then we sat 
down to do our due diligence and took a look at the impact that the 
amendments have on the bill. The Gramm and Coverdell amendment took 
$16.8 billion off of it. The marriage penalty took, I think, around $31 
billion off of it. It ate up all but a very small amount of the public 
health money.
  Yet the very party that put these amendments on a tobacco public 
health bill--drugs, taxes--now is going to kill that bill, and no 
calling together any kind of opportunity for consensus.
  I make no secret that I have been working with the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee to try to put something together. It isn't perfect. 
It took what we saw were points at issue here and put them in a form 
where we thought there could be concurrence. And yet the way we are 
going to leave this debate, I have no doubt that the Republican Members 
of the U.S. Senate are clearly going to kill any form of tobacco 
reform; they are going to kill campaign-spending reform and they are 
going to kill tobacco reform. I, for one, who tries very hard to work 
across the aisle, find that just reprehensible.
  Mr. Majority Leader, I would sincerely hope that there would be some 
leadership to take the remnants of what we can do and put it in a bill 
to send to the House. I have no other--I tried now----
  Mr. LOTT. Would you yield, because I would like to respond to what 
you are saying there?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield if I could just finish. I 
have been trying to, as Senator Kerry knows, make a simple amendment to 
the bill since last week. Can't get in line. Wait, wait, wait. Can't 
get in line. Then we go into gridlock. And I just find it all a very 
sorry mess.

[[Page S6475]]

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree with that 
part of it. It is a sorry mess. We have gotten into gridlock. And there 
are lots of explanations for that. I don't think we should start 
blaming one Senator or one side or the other.
  But I wanted to commend the Senator from California for the efforts 
that I was under the impression she had been making with Senator Hatch 
and others, perhaps on both sides of the aisle, to come up with a bill 
much different from what is before us--smaller, probably, by $100 
billion, with all the components that would really be needed.
  I want to remind the Senate that I have given a lot of time and a lot 
of personal effort and have taken a lot of flak for trying to find a 
way to get a bill through here that was responsible enough that we 
could choke it down in a reasonable period of time, and we are not 
there. And I cannot figure any way to get a bill that would be credible 
that we could get through here.
  In fact, when we have had some critical votes, they went the wrong 
way. I am not blaming that on one side or the other. There were some 
votes on our side that were really disturbing to me, that you are 
really trying to get something.
  But what is wrong with this bill now is it has lost sight of the 
original noble cause of just dealing with the question of teenage 
smoking and drug abuse, if you want to add that--and I think we 
should--and some limited effort to address the problems for the States 
on health problems caused by smoking or research.
  But we are talking about a bill very different than what you are 
talking about. If we could wind up somewhere in the area that you are 
talking about, I would support that. And I want to note that when this 
point of order is sustained, or we do not waive the Budget Act, the 
bill does not disappear. It goes back to the Commerce Committee.
  There has also been a suggestion that we consider having a task force 
to see if we could come up with something that could resurrect this in 
a way that would be much smaller, to do what we say that we want done, 
but without these massive micromanaging government controls that we see 
in this bill.

  Most Senators are not happy with this bill. I mean, some don't like 
it because of, perhaps, the marriage penalty tax, although I think, 
generally speaking, everybody realizes that is going to happen; it is a 
good idea.
  But we have major problems with it over here. But we are stalled out 
with no end in sight. Even if we get cloture today, which, you know, I 
hope we don't, there are about seven other opportunities for cloture 
motions to be filed.
  The Senate, in its unique way, has not reached a consensus here. We 
have not reached a consensus. It is like Senator McCain has said 
before: We can guarantee a vote; we can't guarantee a result. And until 
we find a way we can get together on something that is much smaller, 
that is targeted and limited, that is not just more Government from 
Washington, dictates from Washington--I mean, this thing even has 
requirements in here that not only you can't have smoking in Federal 
buildings, you can't even have smoking in front of Federal buildings.
  Mr. NICKLES. Any building.
  Mr. LOTT. Any building.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LOTT. That is just one example. At any rate, I thank you for 
yielding. I thank you for your effort. Don't give up.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may just finish my statement for a moment, it 
was my understanding that at the present time the only game in town, so 
to speak, was the McCain bill, that we could vote out the McCain bill, 
it would go to conference, and a bill could be written.
  Now, Mr. Majority Leader, based on what you are saying, there will be 
no bill at all that would go to conference; ergo no bill, period. That 
is what I find very disturbing.
  I am prepared to vote for the McCain bill, with the view that it goes 
to conference, and perhaps some of the ideas that Senator Hatch and I, 
and others, Senator Jeffords, Senator Breaux, Senator Torricelli have--
that might prevail in a conference setting. So I will just, most 
respectfully, urge you to reconsider, vote out this bill. Let us not 
give up the issue of tobacco reform.
  I thank the Chair for your forbearance. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, but does 
the majority leader understand that there will be an opportunity for 
this body to offer this particular measure, the McCain bill, on any 
other piece of legislation that is coming down the pike? This may go 
back to the committee, but it ought to be very clear to this Membership 
that this issue is not going away and that this body ought to get 
prepared to consider this legislation on every appropriate measure.
  I have no objection.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, 11 years ago, I offered a 
bill in the House of Representatives to ban smoking on airplanes. I 
passed that bill by five votes. And since that bill passed, in the 11 
years since, I have had any number of Members who came up to me and 
said, ``I voted against you that day, Congressman Durbin, but I was 
wrong. And I realize I was wrong. I was on the wrong side of history.''
  I want to tell you, the folks today who are killing this tobacco bill 
on the floor are on the wrong side of history. In defending the tobacco 
companies, they are defending the indefensible. In refusing to protect 
our children, they are attacking the vulnerable.
  We can talk about all the procedural votes that we want to. We can 
talk about filing motions and voting against them, points of order, and 
all the rest. The bottom line is, for almost 4 weeks now we have 
endured countless amendments from those who have no use whatever for 
this bill, most of which have been adopted, and now the people who 
offer the amendments successfully are telling us, let's walk away from 
this, we don't like it after all.
  I think the American people will see through this. Although the 
procedural battle may be won today, ultimately the folks who opposed 
this tobacco legislation are on the wrong side of history.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am liable to object unless we get an agreement to get 
the agreement in order.
  I was supposed to have half this time and the other side half the 
time. Now my half will be less than one-eighth. I don't object. Let's 
get the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation, may 
I ask, in terms of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designee.
  Mr. STEVENS. Between now and what time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 5:15.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I assume that means there is 
approximately 12 or 13 minutes per side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will designate our manager as the 
manager of our time, Senator Kerry.
  Let me make a couple of brief remarks. Many of our colleagues, 
obviously, want to speak to this issue.
  First of all, our caucus is united, as we have been throughout this 
debate, on this very important issue. I hope the American people will 
see it for what it is. We are not deceived, and they shouldn't be 
either. This will be an effort, this afternoon, to kill this bill. The 
gun is on the other side. They will shoot it dead. It will be dead if 
those votes occur this afternoon as we predict they will vote. That is 
a tragedy. That is a tragedy. Three thousand kids a day start smoking; 
1,000 kids a day die early because they started too early. That is what 
is at stake.
  I hope it is more than just a coincidence that, a night after we 
raised $10 million downtown, they raised $10 million downtown.

[[Page S6476]]

  We vote today to kill the tobacco bill. I am amazed, really, at the 
logic of some of our colleagues on the other side. How many colleagues 
have come to the floor to say we cannot pass this legislation until we 
include the marriage penalty, until we include the drug amendment, 
until we include some cap on lawyers' fees. Guess what. We spent the 
last 4 weeks doing just that: We passed a marriage penalty; we passed a 
drug enforcement amendment; we passed, now, some limit on legal fees. I 
will guarantee that virtually every one of our colleagues on the other 
side, in spite of that, having voted for it, will vote to kill this 
bill.
  It is amazing to me that I have heard even our majority leader say we 
can't pass this legislation until we address the marriage penalty, that 
we can't address this bill completely until we have done the drug 
issue. We have done those, and now we are being told it is too heavy, 
we can't pass it.
  The majority leader just said, ``I can't think of a way to bring this 
to closure.'' I can. If the Democrats were in the majority, we would 
bring this bill to closure, because I would vote for cloture. I would 
vote for cloture this afternoon, and every one of our Democratic 
colleagues would vote for it as well. We would bring an end to this 
bill. There is no mystery to it. You get 60 votes. We have more than 40 
on this side. All we need is a fraction of the caucus on that side and 
we would bring this vote to closure. There is no mystery here.
  Let me say, as my colleagues have noted, this is not over. This bill 
may be dead, but tobacco legislation is not dead. We will continue to 
come back. I will tell my colleagues right now, we will not let this 
issue die. We will continue to come back. There are, as the Senator 
from California noted, some principles that ought to unite us as 
Republicans and Democrats. We ought to be united on stopping kids from 
smoking. We will continue to pursue other methods, other ways, other 
legislation, but we will keep at it.
  So I hope we can agree on principles. I hope we will all agree that 
even though that bill may die today, the issue does not die. The issue 
will continue to live until we are victorious.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the senior Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am one of the members of the Commerce 
Committee who voted to report this bill. I think I am one of the 
Members of the Senate who does not take tobacco contributions. And I 
have very serious intentions to see to it that there is a bill passed.

  But I am also chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and we have 
13 bills to pass. We have taken 4 weeks, now, on this bill, and I don't 
see any hope that it will be finished before the Fourth of July recess, 
the way things are going. Now, this country has to have a government 
and it has to have the appropriations bills come out of our committee.
  Members of the Senate seem to think that we are sort of the obnoxious 
people who bother them all the time until the time comes to decide what 
goes in those bills, and then I have a lot of friends. I am not going 
to have a lot of friends on what I want to do today, and I am sure 
there are people who are going to get involved, and unless the chairman 
of the Budget Committee wishes to make a point of order, I will make a 
point of order that if cloture does not come into effect--we have known 
all along, Mr. President, this bill violates the Budget Act.
  When I voted to bring it out of the Commerce Committee, I did so on 
the basis that we thought we could clean it up on the floor and 
eventually get it to conference, where it would become a bill that we 
would all be proud of. The trouble is, now it is just too complex and 
involves too much money.
  I decided to get involved when I heard about CBO's latest letter that 
went to Senator Lugar, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and 
pointed out that over 25 years this bill would be in effect, the 
cumulative cost of title X is $28 billion and the cumulative cost of 
title XV is $18 billion. That is just two titles. This bill is totally 
out of whack with the Budget Act.
  When I bring a bill out here for the Appropriations Committee, our 
whole committee brings it out. We are subject to a point of order if we 
violate the Budget Act. The beauty of anybody who deals with the 
legislative process is, you are not subject to points of order until 
you get to the point that it is so extreme, as this one is, and now it 
does violate the Budget Act.
  I believe that it should go--I have suggested the idea of a task 
force being created. I agree with what the Senator from Massachusetts 
said actually. We are going to see something come back here. This 
concept of trying to deal with tobacco and its impact on society is not 
gone. But this bill has become too complex and too bulky, too 
cumbersome. We can't agree even on what amendments to be offered next, 
and we are not sure what the amendment does from the titles that are 
already here.
  Now, I had hoped that I could stay with my good friend from Arizona 
and provide support to get this bill to conference. I don't see any 
hope of going to conference. I am taking the floor to announce that 
while I am still for a bill that would try to satisfy what the 40 
attorneys general tried to do in trying to find some way to settle this 
matter, I am not for a bill that continues to create more commissions, 
more boards, more entities, more spending, and does so in the name of 
spending the money that will come out of the tobacco settlement.
  This is a bill to spend money out of the tobacco settlement. It is 
not a bill to deal with stopping smoking by teenagers, but particularly 
targeted young women--which is something I have always been appalled 
by--the targeting of young women by the tobacco industry.
  As a practical matter, we spent too much time on our bill. We must 
get back to our regular, ordinary, drudge work of getting the 13 
appropriations bills through the Senate and to the President.
  If no one else makes a point of order after the cloture on the vote, 
if cloture is not invoked, I will make that point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho.
  Who yields the time?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sensed an effort to express a great 
deal of outrage here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I am 
outraged that there are a good number of folks who would like to hide 
behind the idea of teenage smoking to raise more taxes than this Senate 
will ever have raised with the sweep of one vote and to create more 
official bureaucracies in big government than we have ever created by 
one vote. That is exactly what you are tending to do.
  Let me tell you where the outrage is. It is outside the beltway. It 
is the average taxpaying citizen who says, ``By golly, they figured out 
another way to do it. They balanced the budget. Now they will raise 
nearly $600 billion in taxes and they will create all kinds of 
bureaucracies.''
  And the latest polls--and they are not biased polls, they are taken 
across the board--say that this bill will not stop teenage smoking. 
Why? Because we don't go at it how you go at a teenager. I am all for 
making tobacco a controlled substance, and I think this Senate is. I 
want to get tobacco out of the hands of teenagers, and we ought to. We 
ought to do exactly what the States are doing. If you drink or you 
attempt to acquire liquor as a teenager, you lose your driver's 
license.
  But we are not saying that. We want to create great schemes; we want 
to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. I say, let's go get the 
tobacco companies, but let's talk the right talk about how we deal with 
teenage smoking. That is what the issue is here.
  I am all for pulling this bill down. Maybe we will come to our senses 
and craft something limited, something directed, and something 
relatively simple. And the American people will say: I believe they are 
serious. Right now, the American people are saying--that $30,000 and 
lower-income group--you are really laying it on us heavy. You are going 
to take it away from us and you are going to try to give it back? It 
doesn't make a lot of sense. Then again, for 4 weeks we have not made a

[[Page S6477]]

lot of sense. We have postured politically, but we haven't done the 
right thing for America's teenagers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. KERRY. First, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with the previous speaker. There 
have been a lot of things not making sense. On Friday, June 5, the 
majority leader said, ``If we don't add something on the marriage 
penalty, tax relief, and on drugs, there will not be a bill.'' Two days 
later, he said, ``This has gone way beyond trying to do something about 
teenage smoking. Greed has set in. This is about money grubbing; it's 
about taxing people and spending on a myriad of programs. We have lost 
our focus.''
  That was the same person--in 2 days, two different things. Yes, there 
has been a lot of confusion around here on this bill. I think it is 
very clear. If this bill goes down today, Joe Camel wins, and our kids 
lose--3,000 a day will lose, and Joe Camel wins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is clear that the tobacco companies have 
no shame. My question for this body is: Have we no shame? What are we 
about to do? Nothing will happen to protect our children when this goes 
down. Have we no shame at all?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 1 minute to the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is not the end of this issue. It may 
very well be the beginning of the issue, because the Democratic Party 
and the American people are not going to let this effort die. It may 
very well be that the final vote on this issue is cast on election day.
  This is not a whodunit. We know who has done it. It is big tobacco 
and the Republican Party. They may mug this bill in the Senate of the 
United States today, but they cannot kill it because it will not die, 
and we won't let it die.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, from the outset I had hoped to be able to 
vote for a bill that would effectively reduce underage smoking and I 
still hope to do so during this session of Congress.
  I continue to believe that a resolution of the issues surrounding 
tobacco are in the best interests of all interested parties--not just 
children, but also the public health community, plaintiffs, tobacco 
workers, tobacco companies, tobacco farmers and their communities.
  After nearly four weeks of Senate debate on this bill, however, the 
bill currently before us has lost its focus and falls well short of a 
reasonable resolution of the issues involved here. In fact, it actually 
undermines the original goals of the legislation. And with as little 
discernible benefit to the public health in the legislation as it 
currently stands, I cannot support a bill which unfairly places too 
heavy a burden on too many people I was sent here to represent.
  First, this legislation currently places no limits on the liability 
of tobacco companies. While I understand the desire of many of my 
colleagues to punish the companies for their past behavior, the fact of 
the matter is that a liability cap is needed to entice consent from the 
companies to modify their speech and limit their advertising and 
marketing practices.
  Second, this legislation now contains tax and spending measures which 
have nothing to do with the underlying purpose of reducing teen 
smoking. By approving amendments to add tax relief and anti-drug 
spending to the bill, we have usurped valuable funds for medical 
research and public health efforts to combat teen smoking as well as 
put in jeopardy funds for tobacco farmers, tobacco workers and their 
communities as they transition into a new era.
  Third, this legislation relies on highly regressive taxes to 
accomplish its goals rather than individual responsibility. If raising 
the price of cigarettes by $1.10 a pack was the only way to tackle the 
problem of teen tobacco use, I would not hesitate to assess it. But I 
don't believe that is the case. In my view, there is too little 
certainty on the question of what will actually stop teens from smoking 
to assess such a large and regressive tax on adults. Since only 2% of 
the cigarettes purchased are actually used by children, I would prefer 
a much more precise approach than a tax on the other 98%, particularly 
when that tax disproportionately affects lower income individuals. A 
much better approach in my view is to enhance marketing and advertising 
restrictions, toughen retail enforcement, and make adolescents more 
accountable for the decisions that they make, like taking away their 
car keys if they use tobacco products.
  In sum, Mr. President, I said from the outset that I was not only 
willing to support a tobacco bill but believed it was in the best 
interests of the country to resolve these issues. I applaud the 
President for his leadership on the issue as well as our colleagues who 
have worked in good faith to create a fair and effective bill. But this 
bill, as it currently stands, has become a patchwork of initiatives 
that are entirely unrelated to the issues surrounding tobacco and teen 
smoking. For this reason, I cannot in good conscience lock in the 
current provisions of this bill by voting for cloture. I sincerely 
believe that this body has the ability and the desire to craft a piece 
of legislation that is both an effective tool in the fight to reduce 
teen smoking as well as an effective resolution of all issues 
surrounding tobacco.
  I don't intend to give up on resolving these difficult issues and I 
look forward to working with those colleagues who sincerely want a 
bill, not just an issue.
  I believe we can and will succeed in due course.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe the Senate should act on 
legislation to address the problem of teen tobacco addiction, but am 
troubled by the tax and spend aspects of the legislation as it now 
stands. I support an approach that is closer to the agreement reached 
by the states attorneys-general a year ago this week. That agreement 
combined tough restrictions on advertising and a commitment by the 
states to address teen tobacco use.
  I have worked with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and other Senators to 
co-sponsor legislation codifying the attorneys-general agreement. Our 
legislation is a responsible and credible effort to achieve the goal we 
all share: ending smoking by underage youth. If we cut off debate on 
the McCain tobacco legislation, the rules of the Senate would prevent 
debate on the Hatch bill or any other responsible alternative. I cannot 
support that. Therefore, I will vote against cloture.
  We will have other opportunities during the 105th Congress to 
consider alternatives to the McCain bill. I intend to work hard to pass 
legislation that includes voluntary restrictions on industry 
advertising to young people and a substantial commitment to smoking 
cessation programs for minors.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes remain for the Senator from 
Oklahoma. Five minutes 50 seconds remain for the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Missouri 2 minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this bill may be about tobacco and about 
smoking, but I think it is more about a smokescreen. Constantly, it is 
suggested that this is a bill which penalizes tobacco, but the tax 
falls upon the American people. There is a specific provision in this 
bill that requires that the $868 billion assessment goes to the 
consumer. Sixty percent of those people earn less than $30,000 a year 
and 44 percent earn less than $10,000 a year.
  This is not a hit on the tobacco companies for that money. There is a 
requirement in the bill that the money be collected from these hard-
working, low-income Americans. This is a massive tax on low-income 
Americans, and it is used to proliferate the bureaucracy of this 
Government--17 new boards, commissions, and agencies, and hundreds of 
new functions and responsibilities.
  It is time for us to say no. When it comes to a habit that needs to 
be broken, the tax-and-spend habit of the

[[Page S6478]]

U.S. Congress must be broken. Here it is time for Congress to break the 
habit. That $868 billion in new taxes that will be focused upon hard-
working Americans to fund Government programs, including a $350 million 
annual disbursement to foreign countries to conduct studies of smoking, 
is not what the American people expect.
  This is tax and spend. This is Government bureaucracy. It is time for 
us to stop and give the American people tax relief instead of the kind 
of burden that this bill imposes.
  I reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. President, let's understand very clearly what is happening here. 
To use the word ``tax'' is to use the word that has been the 
centerpiece of a billion-dollar advertising campaign. If this is a tax, 
this is the one tax in America that nobody has to pay--nobody--unless 
you buy a pack of cigarettes. This is a tax that is purely voluntary, 
and the countertax is the tax that millions of Americans pay for the 
cost of people who do smoke, who get sick--all of America pays the tax 
for those who smoke. The tax that our kids pay is a tax called dying--
30 percent of those who smoke. And those who started since this debate 
began are going to die as a result of this habit, and the Senate today 
is refusing to do something about that.
  Now, every time that a Republican bill has come to the floor of the 
Senate this year, it has been accompanied by a cloture motion that the 
majority leader joined in and was prepared to set up a structure in 
order to close debate. This is the first bill that has gone on for 3\1/
2\ weeks. Not one Democrat amendment--not one--has added a penny to the 
cost of this bill.
  We are going to give a new definition to hypocrisy in the U.S. Senate 
today, because the very people who brought us the marriage penalty 
break, who brought us the drug program, the very people who brought us 
the additions of every penny in this bill are going to come to the 
floor today and say, point of order, Mr. President, forget about the 
kids, we are going to turn around and tube the entire tobacco bill no 
matter what we did before. It was a Republican amendment on each one of 
those efforts. Not one Democrat amendment has added a penny to this 
bill. That is critical.
  I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, around this building now there is that army 
of high-priced tobacco lobbyists who are getting ready to celebrate 
tonight. It looks like the tobacco industry is going to win a big round 
in this fight. The children lose. The powerful will beat out the 
powerless.
  But this fight is going to have other rounds. And to those who think 
that the Senators who are trying to protect the kids are going to give 
up today, I ask, ``What are you smoking?'' The health of millions of 
our kids is worth a long, hot summer of debate in this Capitol. Get 
ready for it, folks.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 4 minutes 5 
seconds, and the Senator from Massachusetts has 3 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Washington 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a year ago on Saturday, the attorneys 
general of most of the States of the United States reached an agreement 
with the tobacco companies. Those attorneys general understood that in 
order to have real control over tobacco sales and advertising such an 
agreement needed to be reached. Members of this body have never 
understood the fundamental fact that without that agreement, the basic 
restrictions on advertising, on look-backs, and on the like are 
blatantly unconstitutional.
  As a result, we have a bill before us that is unconstitutional, 
steals the money that the States' attorneys general earned for 
themselves, and provides no incentives for tobacco companies to operate 
responsibly.
  If we reject it, either we will get out of the hot rhetoric of this 
body with a small group who came up with a responsible bill, or the 
States will go ahead themselves. People will be protected. They were 
protected by the States, in the first place. They will be protected by 
the States if we fail to act responsibly. This bill is not remotely 
responsible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just point out that the very thing 
he just called for they voted against, bringing in industry. They came 
in and took away the cap. Each time there is something they want, they 
take it away and use it as an excuse to kill the bill.
  I yield 35 seconds to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the fact is there are no new bureaucracies 
in this bill. Those have been taken out. Our friends on the other side 
talk about taxes. They talk not at all about the taxes that are being 
imposed on every American to pay for the costs that are imposed on 
society by the use of this industry's products. This is a defining 
moment.
  The question is, Are we going to protect kids or are we going to 
protect the profits of the tobacco industry?
  The estimates by the experts are that this legislation would save 1 
million children's lives. The costs for the reduction in industry 
profits are $4 billion.
  That is the question before the Members of this body. Do we protect 
our kids' lives or do we protect the profits of the tobacco industry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Tennessee 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think that the premises on which this 
legislation began were faulty. And I think they still are.
  I think it is basically the premise that in order for us to express 
our hatred for the tobacco companies and in order for us to express our 
love for our children, we must pass a tax increase in excess of $800 
billion a year over a 25-year period, which is three times our annual 
defense budget.
  That, Mr. President, is a faulty premise. It is based on the faulty 
premise that we can raise taxes and raise the price of cigarettes to a 
point that it will discourage youth smoking; we can raise it high 
enough to do that but not so high as to create a black market. I 
understand that one out of every five packs of cigarettes sold in the 
State of California today are black-market cigarettes. It is based upon 
the premise that if you will raise prices of cigarettes that the youth 
of America will substantially decrease smoking, even though there is no 
evidence to indicate that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 50 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 45 seconds to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I was a little girl, my mother used 
to tell me about my grandfather, who I never met, because he died very 
young from a smoking-related illness. I heard about how wonderful he 
was. And my mother, I remember her saying almost every day of my life, 
``Don't smoke. Don't smoke.'' Little did I know then that I would have 
a chance to do something to turn this epidemic around. And what happens 
tonight? We are sitting here and are going to see those on the other 
side kill a chance to make a difference by killing a bill that people 
are going to continue to die from. It is as simple as that.
  I just want to say I watched those amendments that were loaded on. 
Those were amendments from the other side of the aisle, which they said 
they had to have to vote for a bill. Now they don't even vote for a 
bill. That shows you the power of the tobacco companies.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 33 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the cloture vote. We have already had three

[[Page S6479]]

cloture votes. This is going to be the fourth. This is our fourth week 
on this legislation. If cloture is invoked, I guess we will probably 
spend another 2 or 3 weeks on this legislation and not do the work of 
the Senate.

  Why should we get rid of this bill for the time being? I heard one of 
my colleagues say that there are no new programs in this bill. That is 
not correct. There are lots of new programs in this bill. We don't have 
a current international tobacco control awareness program that gets 
$350 million a year for the next 5 years, and then ``as such sums as 
are necessary.'' That is in this bill. We presently don't have a 
tobacco farmer quota payment of $1.6 billion per year that is going to 
make some tobacco farmers multimillionaires. That is not current law. 
It would be if this bill became law. We don't have a situation right 
now that gives advantages to one cigarette company over another one. 
Under this bill, some companies have an increase in price of at least 
$1.10. Some have zero. Some we increase the price of smokeless tobacco 
by 80-some cents; others, only 50-some cents. That is in this bill.
  There are lots of reasons to be against this bill. This bill 
prohibits smoking in buildings that are engaged in international 
traffic and international trade--far greater than any restriction on 
any Federal building. This bill goes way too far. If we vote cloture--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for 1 minute of the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. NICKLES. If we invoke cloture, we will not have the ability for a 
substitute. Senator Hatch has a substitute with Senator Feinstein. It 
will not be offered. The Gramm amendment won't be offered and couldn't 
be offered.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on cloture. If we have a point 
of order, every dime of this bill is above the budget, the budget the 
President agreed to with bipartisan Members of Congress last year. 
Clearly, a budget point of order should be sustained. This bill is 
above the budget. It breaks the budget. It is a violation of the budget 
agreement which the President agreed to with Members of Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on cloture and then to sustain 
the budget point of order.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I ask that the 1 
minute be restored to our side of the aisle which was taken from the 
leader's time on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I also have 1 minute of our 
leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the 1 minute remaining of the time in the original 
agreement to the Senator from North Dakota, and I reserve the remainder 
of the time for myself.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are two lessons that we are learning 
here today: First, money talks; second, the tobacco companies have 
money and kids don't.
  We have heard people say this is an issue of taxing and spending. Of 
course it isn't. They are trying to change the subject. The issue is 
very simple. When the roll is called, the question is, Who do you stand 
for? Do you stand for the tobacco companies or do you come and stand on 
the side of kids? If you stand for the tobacco companies, understand 
this: If enough of you do it, and you prevail, this issue is not over. 
It is coming back and back and back again, and eventually enough 
Senators will stand for the interests of kids and the interests of 
preventing teen smoking in this country. And we will prevail.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say quickly, with respect to 
the chart that was shown, there are almost no new programs in this. 
Those were existing programs. Most importantly, there is only one 
board. The flimflam artistry of this is really political. The Speaker 
of the House and the House of Representatives do not want a vote on 
this bill. They fear this bill. Newt Gingrich has had a contract out on 
this bill. And the Republicans on this side, this afternoon, are going 
to be the ``hit people'' for that contract because they fear voting for 
this bill. They have said they won't take it up.
  Every amendment that came to the floor that has changed this and that 
has supposedly weighted it down are by the very Members who today will 
vote against this bill because it is weighted down. This bill is a bill 
that sought to do what 19 members of the Commerce Committee approved. 
We didn't raise the tax; that fact was agreed to in raising the price 
of cigarettes by the companies themselves. That price wasn't even 
raised on the floor of the Senate. The Democrat amendment failed.
  So what we have here is a choice between kids or the tobacco 
companies--kids or the tobacco companies.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the motion has expired. By 
unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 
Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee 
     substitute to Calendar No. 353, S. 1415, regarding tobacco 
     reform.
         Senators Trent Lott, John McCain, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, James Inhofe, Christopher Bond, Gordon Smith, 
           Robert Bennett, Joe Biden, Ted Stevens, Richard Shelby, 
           Mike DeWine, Kent Conrad, John Glenn, Tom Harkin, John 
           Kerry, and Frank Murkowski.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under 
the rule is waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the committee substitute amendment to S. 1415, the 
Universal Tobacco Settlement Act, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is absent because of illness.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Specter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 57, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Alaska is to be 
recognized, but the Senate must be in order. Will the Senators in the 
aisles engaged in conversation take their conversations elsewhere.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the tobacco 
bill violates section 302 of the Budget Act as a result of exceeding 
the committee's spending allocation.
  The bill violates section 302, but I will highlight problems with the 
substitute.

[[Page S6480]]

  In my judgment, the substitute is vulnerable to a point of order 
under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
amended. Section 302(f) provides a point of order against legislation 
that would cause the spending allocation of the Committee reporting the 
bill to be exceeded. The bill was reported from the Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation and the direct spending contained 
in this bill exceeds that Committee's allocation.
  As a matter of fact, the bill and the substitute violate section 
302(f) in a multitude of provisions.
  For example, the substitute contains a State Litigation Settlement 
account. Amounts allocated to the account would be automatically 
appropriated and available for grants to States. Once again, the 
Appropriations Committee's jurisdiction will be reduced and not subject 
to annual allocation. CBO estimates new spending of between $5 and $6 
billion per year from this account.
  The substitute would prohibit the sale of cigarettes in vending 
machines and provides for paying the owners of cigarette vending 
machines (other than machines that could be used for other products) an 
amount equal to the fair-market value of the machines before the 
prohibition (section 1262). The legislation states that such payments 
would be subject to appropriation, but other provisions make it likely 
that the government would be required to make the promised payments 
even if discretionary appropriations are not provided. CBO estimates 
new spending of a billion dollars per year from this account over the 
FY 2000-2002 period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a point of order or is 
he debating?
  Mr. STEVENS. I did make it, yes, against the bill.
  The substitute includes two titles that provide spending from a 
Farmers Assistance Allocation account established in the bill. 
According to CBO both title X and title XV would provide direct 
spending authority. CBO estimates that title X would increase direct 
spending by $18 billion over the 1999-2008 period and that title XV 
would increase direct spending by a billion dollars in 2009 and by half 
a billion dollars annually from 2010 through 2023.
  The substitute contains additional provisions that would cause 
additional direct spending. These provisions would require Medicare to 
pay for a demonstration project of cancer care (section 455), Medicaid 
to cover tobacco cessation products, (section 221). In addition, the 
bill would prohibit the Federal Government from recovering any of the 
payments made to States under this legislation as overpayments of 
Medicaid costs to the States (section 451(a)(5)).
  I believe the point of order is valid. I yield the remainder of the 
time to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                     MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act for the 
bill, the committee substitute, and the pending Gramm motion to 
recommit.
  What is the parliamentary order, given our unanimous consent 
agreement? How much time is on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes equally divided, five minutes to a 
side, to debate the motion to waive.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield myself a couple of minutes, and then yield the 
remainder of the time to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
and the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. President, let there be no misunderstanding what it is we are 
doing here. This is one more effort to kill this bill. If it wasn't 
dead the first time, they are going to try to ensure that on the second 
shot it dies. That is what this is about.
  I think it would be much better if we just voted it up or down, yes 
or no. Instead, some of our colleagues on the other side are hiding in 
the rocks. They want to shoot and kill that bill so nobody knows who it 
was who killed it.
  Well, this will kill it pure and simple, and it is a cynical approach 
to killing it, because it is an amazing demonstration, in my view, of 
political juxtaposition here that the very Senators who will vote to 
kill it by not supporting the waiver on the point of order are the very 
Senators who offered the amendments on taxes and on drugs and on the 
other amendments that brought us to this point. The very Senators who 
said we have to have a tax bill, we have to have a drug bill, we have 
to have all these other amendments added before we can support this 
legislation are now going to vote not to waive the point of order to 
bring the bill down.
  So I hope there is no misunderstanding about what is at stake here. 
We are going to kill this bill tonight. I should say they are going to 
kill this bill tonight. But they are going to try to use this ruse of 
saying, now that we have loaded it up, it is too heavy; now that we 
have loaded it up, we can't afford to carry it further.
  Mr. President, that is a disappointment. The fact remains that this 
bill dies tonight, but the issue will live. And some day in the not too 
distant future, we will pass tobacco legislation that will rectify what 
we are doing tonight. This is wrong. I hope nobody misunderstands what 
this vote is about. They killed the bill tonight by voting not to waive 
this point of order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has time yielded 
by the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the Senator from Alaska has yielded me 
control of the time, and I will manage the time. I yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes at this point.
  Mr. President, let me make a point first for everybody here. The 
Budget Act which was passed, with Republicans voting for it and three 
Democrats, the budget resolution, did three things that we have already 
forgotten about.
  One, it provided a $15.5 billion increase for NIH over the baseline, 
over the President's request; $15.5 billion without this bill goes to 
NIH for cancer research and the kind of things this bill is supposed to 
do.
  Secondly, the budget resolution provided $800 million--eight-tenths 
of a billion dollars--for teen smoking cessation. The President of the 
United States asked for less than that.
  The same budget resolution provides $5 billion for child care, and we 
are up here debating a bill to impose over the next 25 years $998 
billion worth of new taxes, and we are talking like we haven't done 
anything in these areas that the very bill before us says we are 
supposed to do.
  Frankly, whether the other side is saying we killed this bill or not, 
I guarantee you, the bill was subject to a point of order before any of 
the amendments were attached. So an argument that Republicans added 
amendments and thus made it subject to a point of order is--it is 
subject to at least five points of order, and, as a matter of fact, the 
underlying bill is subject to the worst of all points of order. It 
kills the bill. That is how bad the bill is in terms of budgets. It 
kills the bill. We didn't make that point of order. The point of order 
that was made is one that says it goes back to the committee and they 
reconsider.
  Let me tell you, when you work on budgets and you all vote and you 
want to restrain Government spending, all the Budget Act says to you, 
once you made the deal and said this is the budget, if you want to 
violate it, you can. It does not say you cannot. It says you can. But 
you need 60 votes.

  That is what this argument is about. If you want to say we ought to 
pass this bill, it violates the Budget Act. It has far more spending 
than we agreed to spend. And let me tell you, another portion of this 
just absolutely says, here are the caps, the spending restraints, and 
we just do not care about them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has used----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself a half a minute.
  We say the taxes do not count as taxes--that is what the bill says--
and the expenditures do not count as expenditures. Now, how in the 
world

[[Page S6481]]

could that not be subject to the Budget Act if we have any kind of 
budget restraint at all? So that is the issue. The issue is: Do you 
proceed with the bill or do you send it back to committee and let them 
try to fix it so it does not violate the Budget Act, which we spent 20 
years developing around here to get our house in order? And all of a 
sudden, over 25 years, $998 billion worth of new revenues and 
expenditures are supposed to be forgotten about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, since 1995, we have voted to waive the Budget Act 105 
times. Now, we have heard debate here on the floor of the Senate for 
3\1/2\ weeks, and $40 million has been spent telling America there is a 
tax increase in here. Nineteen members of the Commerce Committee--19 to 
1--voted to send this bill to the floor of the Senate with a $1.10 
price increase in it. That is the revenue that is raised by this bill.
  The Senator from New Mexico does not tell you that every single penny 
that is contemplated to be spent in this bill is offset--it is offset. 
It was the Republican leader who put into this bill the Lugar amendment 
that competes with the Ford amendment, which everybody knows has to be 
resolved one way or the other before this bill could finally be signed 
into law.
  So this is a charade. This is a charade. We have all learned that you 
can always find an excuse and a way to use the Budget Act to accomplish 
your goals.
  But if you measure what has happened here, there was an effort by 
Democrats to raise the price. It failed. That should have helped the 
bill pass. There was an effort to have a cap on the damages, but it was 
a Republican Senator who brought the amendment to get rid of it. And 
more Republicans voted to get rid of that cap restraint than Democrats. 
Once again, the Republicans had their hand and their way.
  Then there was the look-back amendment. It made it tougher on the 
tobacco companies, holding them accountable in reducing the level of 
smoking for kids. If you are interested in stopping kids from smoking, 
that was an amendment that made this bill better.
  There was a child care amendment. All it did was restrict spending 
that was already in the bill. It was no new addition of one penny. It 
took restricted money, already restricted to the Governors, and it 
simply restricted within the pot of money that was already restricted 
somewhat further. No add-on of new money. Not one penny was added on by 
one Democrat amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.

  Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a choice between tobacco--and $40 
million spent to advertise a tax increase--and a choice between kids; 
and everybody in the country will understand that.
  I yield the balance of the time to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 
the same time available to us on this side as the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico had, which would have added about a half a minute or 
so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have already had more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair charged time to the Senator from 
Alaska and the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask consent we add a minute to the----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would object unless we get time equal 
to all the time used by--I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the present situation in terms 
of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The situation is, the Senator has about 20 
seconds left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In 20 seconds, Mr. President, what we have seen 
tonight is a charade. What they did was spread DDT here. First delay, 
then destroy, then terminate any action on tobacco. That is the 
mission. This Budget Act is not--is not--violated. Everything here is 
paid for. And I hope that we will vote to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 40 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Forty seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object. You have 40 seconds left? No objection. You 
asked for a half minute, and went over.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the 40 seconds to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the question is really, Do we have a 
budget or not? This bill says the budget does not apply. Read page 181. 
It says, ``the amount of * * * appropriations shall not be included in 
the estimates required under section 251 of [the Budget Act]. In other 
words, all these hundreds of billions of dollars of spending are over 
and above the budget that we agreed to, that the President agreed to.
  This clearly breaks the budget. If we are going to have a budget, we 
should sustain it. This point of order is well made. And I urge my 
colleagues to support it and vote against the motion to waive the 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to waive the Congressional Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Specter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
46.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the bill falls.
  Pursuant to section 312(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, the bill, 
S. 1415, is recommitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.

                          ____________________