[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.
____________________