[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6718-S6719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

  THE NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT OF 1998

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with this week's defeat of S. 1415, 
the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act of 1998, 
the Senate has for the time being lost a unique opportunity to create a 
better future for our nation's children. Cloaked in a procedural vote, 
the Republican leadership of this body voted to override the will of a 
majority of our colleagues and scuttle an historic effort to protect 
our children from the ravages of tobacco. In the end, a determined 
minority of Republican Senators was more responsible to the wishes of 
the tobacco industry than the need's of America's children.
  Preventing the devastation that tobacco wreaks on our children was 
the impetus for the considerable work that went into the drafting of 
this bill over the past several months. It is also the reason why many 
of us have been willing to devote a significant portion of the Senate's 
time--almost four weeks--to this cause.
  We know that ninety-five percent of all adult smokers begin smoking 
as children. An estimated 3,000 youth start to smoke each day--a number 
that has been increasing for the last five years. One thousand of those 
children will die early as a result of taking up this deadly habit. 
Provisions in this legislation would have reduced by two-thirds the 
number of children who smoke.
  Those who voted to abandon this effort have chosen to allow our 
children to continue purchasing over 256 million packs of cigarettes 
per year, providing over $500 million in revenues to tobacco companies. 
They have chosen to do nothing to prevent sickness and death that are 
certain to befall millions of children who become addicted to tobacco.
  This bill would have been a tremendous step in the right direction. 
As originally drafted it would have comprehensively addressed the 
epidemic of youth smoking by funding anti-smoking campaigns and smoking 
cessation programs, reducing the ability of young people to buy 
cigarettes, and limiting the ability of tobacco manufacturers to market 
to children. There were also a number of other improvements offered to 
the bill during debate on the floor, which I was proud to support.
  In particular, I was pleased to see two amendments incorporated into 
the bill that would have provided strong disincentives for tobacco 
manufacturers to continue to market to America's children. The first 
provision would have ensured that tobacco companies would be penalized 
if they marketed to children by denying them the ability to claim a tax 
deduction for those advertising expenses. A second amendment would 
require the tobacco industry to pay stiffer lookback penalties if youth 
smoking reduction targets were not met.
  Public health and economic experts agree that the cornerstone of any 
effort to reduce youth smoking is a steep increase in the price of 
tobacco over a short time. That is why I strongly supported an 
amendment to increase the price of cigarettes by $1.50 per pack, the 
minimum amount of increase that experts agree is needed to reduce youth 
smoking. This price increase would have reduced the number of children 
smoking by 60% in one year, kept 2.7 million kids from starting 
smoking, and would have saved 800,000 lives. While I was disappointed 
that the proposal was defeated, I was encouraged that a majority of the 
Senate resoundingly rejected an attempt to strip from the bill the 
original $1.10 per pack increase--one of the bill's strongest weapons 
against youth smoking.
  I was also proud to support a provision that would have improved the 
quality of child care and made it more affordable and accessible to all 
Americans. By setting aside for child care 50 percent of the federal 
portion of tobacco funds going to states, this provision would have 
provided a solid foundation and a concrete committment to the future 
health and safety of our children.
  There were also a number of amendments to this legislation which I 
opposed out of concern that they would have significantly weakened its 
impact. First, I was unable to support an amendment that would have 
denied tobacco manufacturers any limitation on annual liabilities. Like 
the Administration, I believe that some limitations on liability were 
necessary in order to maximize our chances of passing a bill that would 
actually succeed in curbing youth smoking. Without such provisions, 
members of the industry were prepared to argue that their First 
Amendment rights were violated. They would have tied the legislation up 
in courts for decades, while leaving America's children unprotected.
  Several amendments concerning limits on lawyers fees were also 
considered as part of the debate on this bill. While the lowest 
proposed limit would have perhaps inadvertently limited access by 
individuals to attorneys willing to take their cases, I supported 
subsequent amendments which offered less onerous limitations on the 
amount attorneys can charge to bring suit against the misdeeds of the 
tobacco industry.
  I was troubled by efforts of some Members to divert the funds 
dedicated in this bill for public health purposes. For instance, while 
I have been a staunch supporter of anti-drug legislation, I was unable 
to support an amendment that would have gutted anti-tobacco public 
health programs in the bill in favor of poorly crafted anti-drug 
provisions. This amendment would have diverted public education funds 
to private-school vouchers for victims of school violence. A main flaw 
in this concept is that it offers assistance only after a student has 
been victimized, but does nothing to prevent crimes against children 
before they happen. This amendment would have also overridden the 
collective bargaining rights of employees of the Customs Service, 
undermining a successful anti-drug program developed through 
cooperative labor-management relations. It would have also barred 
Federal funds and limited non-federal funds for needle exchange 
programs--programs that have effectively helped control the spread of 
the deadly AIDS virus in our communities. Not surprisingly, this 
amendment was opposed by several law enforcement entities.
  In contrast, the Democratic alternative, which I did support, would 
not have jeopardized funding for public health. This alternative would 
have included tough money laundering provisions, not present in the 
Coverdell amendment, which would have provided critical assistance to 
law enforcement to combat drug problems. Rather than weakening the 
Customs Service, it would have increased the drug interdiction budget 
for the agency as well as for the Coast Guard and the Department of 
Defense, using general revenues. In addition, the Democratic 
alternative would have created financial incentives for states to 
report on and improve the safety of schools.
  I also felt compelled to vote against the marriage penalty amendment 
offered by the Republicans because, in my view, the amendment did not 
provide targeted relief to those who need it most. In fact, 60 percent 
of the tax cut in the provision would have gone to couples who 
currently enjoy a marriage bonus. Moreover, this amendment was a costly 
measure--costing 50 percent more in the first 10 years than the 
Democratic alternative that was offered, which I was pleased to 
support. In addition, the Republican amendment would have been 
partially funded

[[Page S6719]]

in the out-years by tapping into the projected budget surplus, 
potentially leaving fewer funds available for long-term Social Security 
reform.
  The Democratic alternative to this amendment would have reduced the 
marriage penalty in the tax code by a much greater extent than the 
Republican proposal for most couples with incomes below $60,000. 
Indeed, this amendment was carefully targeted and would cut the 
marriage tax penalty more for a greater number of families. 
Furthermore, this proposal would have cost far less than the Republican 
proposal, while preserving the capacity of the tobacco bill to fulfill 
its fundamental purposes: cutting youth smoking, recompensing states 
and tobacco farmers, and improving the medical knowledge about the 
treatment of tobacco-related illnesses.
  Mr. President, this was not a perfect bill. However, even with its 
flaws, it would have marked a dramatic step forward in the effort to 
protect children from the dangers of smoking. I was disappointed by its 
demise. But I firmly believe that its defeat is only a temporary one. 
The health of our children is simply too important for this Congress to 
ignore. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in the days to come to address this critical issue.

                          ____________________