[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 43 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2881-S2897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of S. 544, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 544) making emergency supplemental
appropriations and rescissions for recovery from natural
disasters, and foreign assistance, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Specter amendment No. 77, to permit the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to waive recoupment of Federal government
medicaid claims to tobacco-related State settlements if a
State uses a portion of those funds for programs to reduce
the use of tobacco products, to improve the public health,
and to assist in the economic diversification of tobacco
farming communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, there
will now be 90 minutes remaining on the Specter amendment, No. 77, to
be equally divided.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding with this amendment, I
have been asked to make this statement on behalf of the majority
leader.
This morning, the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the
supplemental appropriations bill. Under the order, there will be 90
additional minutes for debate on the pending Specter amendment, No. 77.
All Senators are, therefore, notified that the first vote this
morning will be at approximately 11 a.m., if all debate is used.
Following that vote, additional amendments are expected, and Senators
should anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session. Any
Senators intending to offer amendments to this legislation are
encouraged to notify the managers so that they can be scheduled for
consideration.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.
Amendment No. 77
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I found on my desk this morning a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter entitled, ``Oppose the Specter-Harkin Amendment That
Seizes $123 Billion in State Funds.''
Instead of outlining the provisions of the Specter-Harkin amendment,
I would just refer my colleagues to this ``Dear Colleague'' letter
signed by the opponents, and tell them that the amendment is exactly
contrary to what is in this ``Dear Colleague'' letter, so that by
reading the letter, they can just conclude the opposite, and they will
have a statement of what the pending amendment is.
Before dealing in detail with the ``Dear Colleague'' letter, or this
misstatement, permit me to outline in very general terms that the
pending amendment has been offered by the chairmen and ranking members
of the two Senate committees which are charged with authorization of
appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. Senator
Jeffords, the chairman of the authorizing committee, and Senator
Kennedy, the ranking member, are cosponsors of the amendment which has
been offered by Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the
appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility for
appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
subcommittee which I have the honor to Chair.
We must survey--the four of us in our positions as chairmen and
ranking members--the health needs of America in a very, very
constrained budget. We have seen the budget resolution, which
[[Page S2882]]
has come out of Budget Committee, and the limitations on discretionary
funding. Our subcommittee has the responsibility for funding not only
the Department of Health and Human Services, but also the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor, where so many vital programs for
worker safety are involved.
So our responsibility is a very heavy one. As we have observed, the
settlement with the States is in excess of some $200 billion over a 25-
year period. The thought immediately came to mind that these funds,
which have been obtained from settlements on tobacco issues, could be
used and should be used in very large part, frankly, if not entirely,
for health purposes.
In the Appropriations Committee meeting, an amendment was offered by
the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, to have the
Federal Government relinquish all claims to these funds, and have these
funds paid entirely to the State governments.
I can understand the popularity of this kind of an amendment.
It is backed by all 50 Governors; it would be shocking if it weren't.
It is backed by all 50 State legislatures; it would be shocking if it
weren't. It is backed by all State attorneys general; again, it would
be shocking if it were not.
I support the proposition that there ought to be minimal strings,
minimal requirements mandated by the Federal Government, especially in
the context where we mandate requirements and do not fund them.
Last week, we passed the Ed-Flex bill to give flexibility to the
States. But I submit to you that it is fundamentally different to say
that where there are Federal appropriations for a specific purpose,
there ought to be latitude for State governments and local governments
to figure out how to spend those funds, contrasted with saying that all
of $200 billion-plus ought to go to the States to spend as they choose,
when some States have already made an announcement that they intend to
use these funds, at least in part, for highway construction or for debt
retirement.
When a settlement is reached on matters of this sort by State
governments and officials representing the States, those funds
realistically are impressed with the trust, where the claims are
brought because of damages due to public health, due to tobacco. There
is a specific purpose that the lawsuits were started, and that was to
redress public claims on these important areas. Even without a Federal
direction limiting, in some way, or articulating a portion of these
funds to go for medical purposes, it is my legal judgment that those
funds are impressed with the trust. I would not be surprised to see
that, if the State governments undertake spending on items far afield,
they may face a class action or taxpayer suits or people who have been
injured by tobacco seeking to impress that trust.
We had a hearing in the appropriations subcommittee this Monday. Our
subcommittee took up the issue on an emergency basis to try to see if
we could find some area for resolution. We heard testimony from the
Governor of Kentucky and the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Iowa. Those four witnesses all emphasized the desirability of
having some resolution of this issue so that they could make plans for
their budgets.
I agree with that proposition. A very forceful letter was filed by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, strenuously
objecting to having the money paid over to the States, because the
Federal law gives her the authority to make an allocation as to how
much of those funds should be deducted from the Federal obligation to
the States on Medicaid.
The States have the obligation under Federal law to sue to collect on
claims that Medicaid has. And the States have the authority--and
exercise the authority--to release the tobacco companies from liability
to the Federal Government. That is provided for under existing Federal
law. So for those who say that the Federal Government can bring
lawsuits, it simply is not so, because those claims have all been
released.
It may be, Mr. President, that we are in an area where largely, if
not entirely, the States will recognize the duty to use these
settlement proceeds for tobacco-related purposes. The distinguished
attorney general of Pennsylvania, Mike Fisher, who testified on Monday,
outlined a program for the use by Pennsylvania of $11.3 billion. I
believe that, in conjunction with our distinguished Governor Tom Ridge,
there will be a program to use these funds for tobacco-related
purposes. But it is not sufficient to say that States may recognize
this obligation, because States may not recognize the obligation, as we
have already seen from preliminary indications of spending these funds
on unrelated purposes--debt reduction and highway construction.
In a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that has been circulated today, which
I referred to earlier, the statement is made:
The Specter-Harkin amendment will require every Governor--
each year--for the next 25 years to submit a plan to
Washington asking for permission on how to spend fifty
percent of the State's own money.
That is flatly wrong.
It is true that there is a 20-percent requirement for smoking
cessation education to try to dissuade youngsters from smoking and a
30-percent requirement on medical plans. But there is no need for
Governors to submit a plan to Washington asking for permission on how
to spend that money, that 50 percent. That is a matter where the
Governors only have to tell the Department of Health and Human Services
how the money was spent after in fact it is spent. They don't have to
submit a plan, and they don't have to ask for prior authorization.
The ``Dear Colleague'' letter further says:
This is a classic ``Washington Knows Best'' policy, an
unprecedented Federal power grab.
In a sense, it is complimentary to call it an ``unprecedented Federal
power grab.'' Considering all the Federal power grabs that have been
recorded historically, this is really a gentle nudge to the States,
saying that here we have funds realized from a tobacco settlement with
a statement of policy that 50 percent ought to be used for a specific
purpose.
On the 50 percent, it is actually on the low side. The facts show
that some 50 percent of the funds involved here come from Medicaid, so
that the percentage could have been substantially higher.
So, Mr. President, it is my hope that we will have a statement of
congressional policy on this vote today which will, in a very gentle
way, without regulations, without the requirement of submitting the
plan to Washington, simply say to the Governors that at least 50
percent ought to be used for tobacco-related purposes, such as
education to discourage children from smoking, where we see a very high
rate of juvenile smoking and overwhelming statistics of deaths
resulting from juvenile smoking--where we have a reasonable amount
allocated for that educational purpose, and a reasonable amount--some
30 percent--allocated not only for public health measures but also for
aiding smoking cessation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting my
amendment from the American Lung Association dated March 17, 1999, and
a letter of support from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids dated March
18, 1999, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Lung Association,
March 17, 1999.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: The American Lung Association is
pleased to support the legislation you are introducing with
Senator Harkin that requires states spend the federal share
of tobacco settlement funds on tobacco and health purposes.
The American Lung Association is a strong supporter of the
Medicaid program. However, if the decision is made to forego
the federal share of the Medicaid recovery, legislation like
your proposal must be enacted to ensure that the funds are
spent on tobacco control, prevention and cessation activities
and health programs. It would be extremely shortsighted not
to use these resources to reduce the cause of the disease
that led to the need for the recovery in the first place.
We favor your approach and the similar proposal by Senators
Kennedy and Lautenberg (S. 584) because they require tobacco
settlement dollars to be invested in tobacco control and
improving the public health.
Effective tobacco education, prevention and cessation
programs will help reduce the horrible toll tobacco takes on
American families. Reducing tobacco use also will help reduce
the enormous cost to taxpayers that tobacco-related disease
imposes. Investing
[[Page S2883]]
funds in the public health programs will improve the health
of millions of Americans. We also support efforts to help
tobacco growing communities diversify their economies.
To ensure their efficacy, the American Lung Association
supports rigorous federal review, evaluation and oversight of
tobacco control programs. Congress should contain Medicaid
costs and promote public health by affirming the authority of
the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco
products, implementing a vigorous national advertising and
education program to counter the tobacco industry's marketing
efforts and by enacting other policies and programs to reduce
tobacco use.
The American Lung Association looks forward to working with
you to enact strong legislation to combat the addiction,
disease and death caused by tobacco.
Sincerely,
Fran Du Melle,
Deputy Managing Director.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids--National Center for
Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, March 18, 1999.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
fully supports your amendment to the supplemental
appropriations bill to require states to spend 20 percent of
the money they receive from their settlements with the
tobacco companies on comprehensive programs to prevent
tobacco use. The Federal government has a legitimate claim to
a share of the settlement money and should condition its
waiver of the federal share on states funding effective
tobacco prevention programs.
Investing in tobacco prevention will save lives and money.
the evidence continues to build that statewide tobacco
prevention strategies are effective in reducing tobacco use.
Several states already have tobacco prevention campaigns and
have reduced overall smoking levels within their borders at a
faster rate than elsewhere in the country. And while youth
smoking rates have risen dramatically nationwide, they have
decreased or increased much more slowly in these states. Just
this week, results were released showing decreases in teen
smoking in Florida less than a year after that state's
comprehensive tobacco program was launched.
In addition to saving lives, decreasing tobacco use will
save money. Public and private direct expenditures to treat
health problems caused by smoking annually total more than
$70 billion. Aggressive tobacco prevention initiatives in
every state would reduce these costs for federal and state
governments as well as for businesses and individuals.
Requiring the states to devote resources to solving the
tobacco problem will save federal dollars in the future.
We heartily endorse your efforts to ensure that funds from
the tobacco settlement are used to address the reason for the
lawsuits in the first place--reducing the number one
preventable cause of death in this country. Thank you for
standing up for America's kids.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
Executive Vice President and
General Counsel.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time has been consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 12 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.
Does the Senator from Hawaii, who was on the floor first, seek
recognition on this issue?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the emergency
supplemental and rescissions bill.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in that case, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Rhode Island on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for
yielding the time, and I also commend him and Senator Harkin for their
amendment to this supplemental bill. They have done something that I
think is incredibly important, and that is to provide some emphasis on
smoking cessation and also public health in the use of the funds from
the tobacco settlements that the States are beginning to receive.
The amendment by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin strikes a very
reasonable balance between the desires of the Governors to use these
funds and also the willingness of the Federal Government to forgo its
share of the tobacco settlement, and also the need to ensure that we do
have in place significant tobacco prevention activities, as well as
being able to meet other public health priorities. This amendment
reserves 25 percent of the overall settlement to these priorities--
smoking cessation and public health--and allows 75 percent of the funds
to be spent at the discretion of the States. I think this is an
appropriate way to deal with the proceeds of the tobacco settlement.
When we consider the fact that the basis of these claims rested upon
Medicaid spending by the States, and we also consider the significant
contribution the Federal Government makes to the Medicaid Program, it
is not unrealistic--in fact, it is entirely appropriate--that we would
be able to, and should be able to, lay out some broad guidelines as to
the use of a small portion of the settlement funds. I can't think of
any more appropriate topic of concern at every level of government than
the reduction of smoking in this society.
Let's step back a minute. This process of suing the tobacco
companies, this process that led to the settlements, is not about
getting some money for new highways or new types of programs at the
State level. It started with the realization that smoking is the most
dangerous public health problem in this country and we have to take
concerted steps to do that. The suits resulted in a settlement,
financially, but it won't result in the effective eradication,
elimination, or reduction of smoking unless we apply those proceeds to
smoking cessation programs and other public health initiatives that are
critical to the health and welfare of this country.
We know that each day more than 3,000 young people become regular
smokers. We also know that 90 percent of those who are long-term
smokers began before they were 18 years old. So there is a critical
need for more and more efforts particularly targeted at youngsters to
ensure that they do not start the habit of smoking, and by requiring a
certain portion, a rather small portion, of the proceeds of these
settlements to that end is, again, not only sensible but it is
compelled by the crisis we face in the public health area of smoking in
the United States.
One of the other things that we must also recognize is that this
settlement represents a concession, an acknowledgement by the tobacco
industry that their marketing practices were sinister, that they
targeted young people, and that, in fact, their product causes disease
and death. And in that context we have to respond with some of these
funds to recognize the public health impact of smoking overall. On both
the law and the logic, it seems to me entirely appropriate that this
amendment should not only be debated but passed.
I think we have to recognize, too, that what the amendment proposes
is not some type of grandiose Federal program. It simply directs the
Governors and the legislatures in their own way, form, and fashion to
use these funds for very broad programmatic initiatives in public
health which encompass such things as smoking cessation.
So this is not an overwhelming usurpation of State and local
prerogatives by the Federal Government; it is a common way to deal with
problems that got us here in the first place, the fact that smoking,
particularly youthful smoking, is one of the major public health crises
in this country.
I believe Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have balanced and
complemented the way in which States are using these funds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REED. Their efforts are complementing what States are doing. Our
Lieutenant Governor, Bernard Jackvony, is proposing this initiative.
I hope we can all stand behind this amendment, and I thank the
Senator for yielding me time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have two speakers on the amendment,
but I know Senator Akaka wants to speak on the bill. I would like to
ask him if he could take 5 minutes--and then let us get back to the
amendment--equally divided from Senator Specter's side and my side.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
me this time. I want her to know that I will be speaking on the
emergency supplemental and rescissions bill.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand that the Senator was not aware we had
set aside this time by unanimous consent for the amendment. So I am
happy to give him 5 minutes equally divided between Senator Specter's
side and my side, if he will do that, and then allow us to go back to
the amendment under
[[Page S2884]]
the current unanimous consent agreement. Is that acceptable?
Mr. AKAKA. I certainly would accept that, and I thank my friend from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern on the FY 1999
emergency supplemental and rescissions bill. I support disaster relief
for Central America and the Caribbean, emergency relief for America's
farmers in crisis, and aid to Jordan to implement the Wye River
agreement. It is important that these priorities be funded.
My concern is that one of the budget offsets to pay for this bill
pits these important foreign and domestic needs against the needs of
the country's poorest families--something that Hawaii's poorest
families can ill afford. This supplemental bill seeks to defer $350
million in funding from ``unobligated balances'' under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program until fiscal year 2001.
The language in the bill requires deferral of portions of states'
unobligated TANF funds.
The deferral is based on the states' share of total unobligated
funds. Preliminary estimates show this means Hawaii would not be able
to spend about $800,000 of its TANF funds until fiscal year 2001.
It is my understanding that my friend from Alaska, chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, is working to find a
different offset so that the $350 million in TANF funds will not have
to be deferred. I strongly encourage him in these efforts and urge that
this be done.
In the meantime, we all know that TANF replaced the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children welfare program in 1996. I am a critic of the
TANF Program for failing to provide an adequate safety net for low-
income families. However, I am adamant that full funding must continue
to go to the states to assist welfare families and their children. No
part of it should be deferred to offset supplemental spending.
The term ``unobligated,'' may seem self-explanatory. Anyone may think
that a $350 million deferral of unobligated funds under the bill would
apply to funds that have simply not been spent under this program.
Proponents would argue that welfare rolls have fallen so far that this
money is not needed by states, which is why it remains unobligated.
However, Mr. President, we know that funding decisions by state and
local governments take time. Transfers of expenditures must go through
a process. States often commit funding to counties and local
governments that is not transferred immediately, so the amount is not
taken off the states' books.
The fact is many states rely heavily on these unobligated funds and
have already committed them for a wide variety of uses, such as
distribution to counties and local agencies, ``rainy day'' funds for
contingencies such as economic downturns that swell the rolls and leave
states without enough money until the next federal payment, transfers
into child care and social services activities, or other basic expenses
to help low-income families become self-sufficient.
My state of Hawaii continues to plan uses for all available funds to
provide child care services to our TANF families so that they can be
given a chance to continue at their jobs and make it work. Hawaii is
doing this the right way, instead of simply looking at the numbers and
acting to drop welfare recipients off their rolls. Hawaii is truly
``teaching them to fish,'' so that they truly achieve self sufficiency.
Deferring release of TANF funds for a number of years and using the
$350 million for emergency spending violates the agreement made when
TANF was passed. I have a letter here from Governor of Hawaii, Benjamin
Cayetano, dated March 12th, that describes the agreement between
Governors, Congress, and the administration that the entitlement nature
of the old AFDC Program would be replaced with a set amount of funding
to states under TANF. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
March 12, 1999.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I am writing you today to express
concern about information I have received which predicts
Congress will attempt to cut the funding for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program this year. My
concern is that there was an agreement between the Governors,
Congress, and the Administration that the entitlement nature
of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program
would disappear in favor of a set amount of funding in block
grant form under TANF.
The funding under TANF is not overly generous. If fact, in
Hawaii, we have not experienced a decrease in the welfare
population and every dollar is needed.
I have been told that Congress may be viewing unspent TANF
allocations as a surplus that could be used to fund other
initiatives. This is being discussed even though child
poverty has increased since the passage of Welfare Reform.
While I cannot speak for other States, I can assure you we
are trying very hard to assist welfare recipients to become
employed and self-sufficient. It appears many States may have
tightened their eligibility criteria, but have not been
successful in getting welfare recipients employed. If this is
the case, the States will be needing their TANF allocation to
address the continuing hardships of these families.
I hope you will agree that the TANF funding needs to be
safeguarded to provide States with the necessary resources to
assist welfare families. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. Your strong support is greatly appreciated.
With warmest personal regards,
Aloha,
Benjamin J. Cayetano.
Mr. AKAKA. To use TANF funding as an offset abrogates this agreement.
I hope my colleagues, the appropriators, are working to keep this
agreement intact. Hawaii and other states need this money to assist
poor families.
And of all states, Hawaii needs assistance the most.
Mr. President, our Nation is enjoying the longest peacetime expansion
in American history--yet Hawaii is not benefiting from this expansion.
While the country is enjoying the lowest unemployment in nearly 30
years and tremendous job creation, Hawaii is losing jobs and its people
are having a difficult time finding work at a living wage. Our
unemployment rate is at 5.7 percent as of November 1998--well above the
country's average of 4.3 percent. Bankruptcy filings increased more
than 30 percent form 1997 to 1998. Retail sales fell 7 percent from
$16.3 billion in 1997 to $15.2 billion in 1998. These are some recent
economic indicators. Hawaii has been suffering from an economic
downturn for most of this decade. As if this were not enough, my state
has had to endure the worst of all states from the economic crisis in
Asia. The Aloha State welcomed 11 percent fewer tourists from Japan and
other parts of Asia in 1998. If anything should be slated for emergency
funding, Hawaii should.
With all of this need, you can see why $800,000 in TANF funding means
a lot to my state. The number of families in Hawaii receiving
assistance under this program has increased since the new law was
passed. According to the Hawaii Department of Human Services, as of
January, 1999, 16,575 single-parent families and 7,119 two-parent
families were on the rolls, for a total of 23,694 families receiving
assistance. This represents an increase of more than 2,000 families
since 1995 when the number of families receiving assistance was 21,480.
Hawaii's numbers have increased because of the tough economic
conditions we are now enduring.
Hawaii needs every bit of our TANF funding to make sure that our poor
families continue to be self-sufficient. This is stated in the letter I
submitted earlier from Governor Cayetano. We have not put our
unobligated balances aside for a rainy day fund because we do not have
enough of it--we need to use every dollar we have for caseloads now.
Once again, I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and
the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Stevens, to continue working to
find another $350 million offset for this emergency supplemental bill,
rather than defer much-needed TANF funds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Texas for
yielding me time.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
[[Page S2885]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield me 5
minutes at this point?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, one of the ways in which the Congress of
the United States has been the bane of every Governor and State
legislator in the United States of America is its constant willingness
to impose unfunded mandates on States and on local communities. We
constantly pass laws that tell States and local communities what they
are to do, but we rarely pass appropriations sufficient to cover the
costs of carrying out those duties.
Just last week we debated the overwhelming unfunded mandate that is
included in our rules relating to the education of special needs
students, and, in fact, we moved, at least slightly, in the direction
of funding some portion of those unfunded mandates. Here, on the other
hand, we have the exact mirror image of an unfunded mandate originally
imposed by the Congress of the United States. Here we are asked, in
this amendment, to decide that billions of dollars recovered by almost
every State in the Union in tobacco litigation against tobacco
companies will be appropriated, effectively, by the Federal Government,
unless the States agree on the way in which we think that money ought
to be spent.
Mr. President, 50 percent of all recoveries that the States have
made, pursuant to this amendment, must be spent in accordance with this
amendment, and detailed regulations are promulgated by the Federal
Government for every State in the country. Every Governor will have to
make a new application every year for 25 years and meet these
requirements or will, in effect, lose an amount of money equal to 50
percent to 100 percent of the money that State has already recovered in
an action in which the United States of America was not a party at all.
That is fundamentally unfair. It makes an assumption, an unwarranted
assumption, that these were Medicaid claims that were presented by the
States of the United States. My attorney general, the attorney general
of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire, one of the three or
four leaders of this effort, brought and prosecuted a case through much
of the trial period, before it was ultimately settled, without the
slightest mention of Medicaid. There were all kinds of fraud and
contract and tort claims connected with this litigation, quite
independent of Medicaid claims on the part of the various States of the
United States of America. Last year, this body spent weeks debating
whether or not we should control the settlements that the States were
making. We ultimately abandoned that effort and left it entirely to the
States.
As a consequence, we have absolutely no right, at this point, to tell
the States how they are to spend their money. Many are already engaged
in extensive and sometimes successful antismoking efforts. Many have
priorities that are different than the priorities here in the U.S.
Senate. But if Members of the U.S. Senate want to control the spending
in their own States, money that their own States have recovered, they
should run for the State legislature, not for the Senate of the United
States.
The position taken by the Senator from Texas and her companion, the
Senator from Florida, a position that was accepted by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, is the right and just position. This money
was recovered by the States, this money belongs to the States, and the
spending of this money should be determined by each of the 50 States of
the United States of America.
It is no more difficult than that. It is as simple as that. We have
already imposed too many unfunded mandates on the States by our
substantive legislation here. Let's not do essentially the same thing
by telling States that money they have already recovered has to be
spent on our priorities, rather than their own. Support the position of
the Senator from Texas and Florida. Reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I thank my friend and my colleague
and my leader, Senator Specter, for bringing forth this amendment,
which is common sense and which goes to the heart of what the smoking
problem in America is all about. It is about health.
I might just say, at the outset, really the provision in the
supplemental bill we are talking about should not even be on the
supplemental. It is not an appropriations measure. It more
appropriately ought to be in the Finance Committee, but it was slipped
in as a rider on the appropriations bill, the amendment offered by the
Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.
What Senator Hutchison's amendment says is all the money already
recouped by the States in their settlement with the tobacco companies
should be kept by the States and they can do with it whatever they want
to do with it. That is all right as far at the State's money goes.
I have no problem with that. But that also includes the Federal share
of Medicaid. As I have continually pointed out, under the Social
Security Act the States are required to go after recoupments in
Medicaid from third parties. In fact, they are the only ones who can
sue for third party recoupment. The Federal Government is preempted
from doing that. Only the States can do that. So they act as an agent
for the Federal Government and recoup them. Keep in mind, the law
states, regarding any money recouped by the States for Medicaid, the
Federal portion has to be returned to the Federal Government.
We have to keep in mind what we are talking about here. Are we
talking about the fact that the tobacco companies didn't build a number
of highways in Texas? Or that they did not build prisons in Alabama? Or
they did not build a sports arena in Michigan--or on and on and on? No.
That is not why these lawsuits were brought. They were brought because
tobacco is the biggest killer we have in America today. You add up
alcohol, accident, suicide, homicide, AIDS, illegal drugs, fires--add
them all up and tobacco kills more a year than all of these combined.
What has this tobacco debate been about, that we have been here for
years and years on end debating? That is what it is about. Tobacco is
hooking young people, getting them addicted. And the tobacco companies
have lied and lied and lied, year after year, and covered up, and
fought with powerful money and powerful interests here in Washington to
keep us from doing what we need to do to protect the public health.
That is what it is all about.
Now, the CDC estimates that smoking among high school students has
risen 32 percent since 1991--32 percent. The tobacco companies say they
are going to cut down on their advertising to kids and stuff. If they
really want to do that, get rid of the Marlboro Man. You don't see the
Marlboro Man disappearing, do you? No, he is still out there. And the
Virginia Slims and all that kind of stuff is still out there; the
Marlboro gear--that is all out there. They are still hooking kids.
Tobacco, an estimated $50 billion a year in health care costs alone,
and a big portion of that is borne by the Federal taxpayers who finance
over half the costs of Medicaid.
Again, to repeat for emphasis' sake, what does the Specter amendment
do? It only would require the States to use 20 percent of the total
settlement to reduce tobacco use and 30 percent for public health
programs or tobacco farmer assistance, helping some of our tobacco
farmers, and we would then waive the Federal claim to the tobacco
settlement funds. We do not dictate what the States spend their money
on. If the States want to take their portion and build a sports arena,
that is up to the voters of that State. I can tell you if it happened
in my State, I would be on the side of any other taxpayers in my State,
suing the Governor or anybody else who was spending the money that way,
because I think that money is held in trust for the very purposes which
I just enumerated, and that is to cut down on smoking and to help the
public health.
CBO estimates the Federal share would be about $14 billion over 5
years.
[[Page S2886]]
Others are saying that the Federal Government had no role in these
lawsuits. I just covered that.
Under the Social Security Act, it is the responsibility of the States
to recover any costs and, in fact, the law states that only the States
can file such suits.
I want to correct something that was said last night by my colleague
from Alabama, Senator Sessions. He claimed that only one State had
filed suit to recover tobacco-related Medicaid costs. Sorry. That is
wrong. In fact, the following States had Medicaid claims in their
lawsuits: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin--all
had Medicaid claims in their lawsuits.
I think this is really the crux of it--whether or not a State
included a Medicaid claim isn't the issue. The fact is every State that
settled in November of 1998, and that included all 50 States and the
territories, even those that did not include a Medicaid claim in their
suit, waived their right to recover tobacco-related Medicaid costs in
the future. Why do you think that was put in the settlement? If, in
fact, the lawsuits were not about Medicaid, why do you think that the
tobacco companies came in and insisted, as a condition of the
settlement, that the States had to waive their right for any future
suits based on Medicaid? It is curious. If that is not what this was
all about, why did they put that in there? Because the tobacco
companies, smart lawyers that they have got, knew this is what it is
about. It is about health care. It is about hooking kids on smoking.
They could see that the States are going to get all this money. What
do the States want to do with it? They want to reduce debt. They want
to build prisons and highways. They want to reduce taxes.
How many are going to use it to cut down on what the tobacco
companies are most afraid of? What they are afraid of is losing young
people who would not be smoking, who won't take up the habit. That is
what they are afraid of. That is why they put it in there. Not only did
the settlement waive the right of the States forever to sue to recoup
for Medicaid, it waives our rights, the Federal Government's rights to
sue. Why? Because under the Social Security law, only the States can
sue for recoupment under third parties. When they waive their right,
they waive our rights. The States, in making this deal with the tobacco
companies, have effectively taken away the right of the Federal
Government to go into court and to go after tobacco companies to get
the Federal taxpayers' share of the money for the health care costs of
Medicaid. That is what it is about.
The provision put in by the Senator from Texas says let them have it.
Let the States have all this money. If they want to build highways, let
them build them. I tell my colleagues, I know where the tobacco lobby
is on this one. The tobacco lobby is foursquare for this provision in
the bill, because they do not want States spending money to cut down on
teen smoking. Some States will. I compliment and commend the Governor
of my own State of Iowa who has said that they will use a large portion
of this for education, intervention, cutting down on youth smoking. How
much, I do not know, a large portion of it.
Again, this is a bipartisan, commonsense amendment. For the life of
me, I do not know why anyone would oppose it, unless it is under some
theory that we can't tell the States what to do with this money. I
don't want to tell the States what to do with their money, but when the
Federal taxpayers provide over 50 percent of Medicaid monies to the
States and we are paying 50 billion bucks a year in health-related
costs and much of that through Medicaid, then I think we have a right
and an obligation to say that some portion of that money that is
Federal money ought to go for health-related purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. For example, in Maine, I am told the Governor wants to
use it for a tax cut. In Michigan, the Governor wants to use the
settlement for college scholarships; no funds for tobacco prevention.
The Nevada Governor wants it for college scholarships. New Hampshire's
Governor wants the money for education; no proposal on tobacco. In New
York, the Governor wants to spend 75 percent for debt relief. In South
Dakota, the Governor wants money for prisoners, nothing on tobacco. In
Rhode Island, the Governor wants money to cut the car tax. That is all
well and good, but that is not what this is about.
I say to my friends, we have a statement of policy from the Executive
Office of the President which says, referring to the emergency
supplemental bill, S. 554:
Were the bill to be presented to the President with the
Senate Committee's proposed offsets and several objectionable
riders discussed below, the President's senior advisers would
recommend that he veto the bill.
One of the provisions:
A provision that would completely relinquish the Federal
taxpayers' share of the Medicaid-related claims in the
comprehensive State tobacco settlement without any commitment
whatsoever by the States to use those funds to stop youth
smoking. Federal taxpayers paid more than half, an average of
57 percent of Medicaid smoking-related expenditures. The
Administration believes that the States should retain those
funds but should make a commitment that the Federal share of
the settlement's proceeds will be spent on shared national
and State priorities: to reduce youth smoking, protect
tobacco farmers, improve public health and assist children.
So there we have it. If this amendment stays in there untouched, the
President's senior advisors will recommend a veto.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank my Scottish cousin, Senator
Graham, for letting me go first so I can go back to the Budget
Committee.
I am very happy to be here and join both Senator Graham of Florida
and my colleague from Texas in strongly opposing this amendment.
The idea that the Federal Government is trying to seize $18.9 billion
from the States to spend in Washington, DC, when we had nothing to do
with their settlement and when we were in the process of trying to
impose our own taxes and, in fact, when the President has in his budget
the imposition of new taxes on tobacco, is absolutely outrageous.
The amazing thing is the President proposes taking the money away
from the States and then giving them a bunch of money, but then telling
them how to spend it.
This amendment is the height of absurdity. In my State, this
amendment would tell Texas that we have to spend $4 billion on smoker
cessation. We could literally hire thousands of people and have a
personal trainer for each person who are chewing tobacco or dipping
snuff. Why should the Federal Government have the right to tell the
States how to spend this money?
I suggest our colleagues read the tenth amendment of the
Constitution--powers not specifically delegated to the Federal
Government are reserved to the several States and to the people.
This amendment is an outrageous power grab. Where we in Washington,
the day before yesterday, were trying to be the school board for all
America, now we are trying to tell the States how to get people to stop
smoking, when we have done a very poor job of it in the Federal
Government. We are trying to tell the States how to spend their money.
Somewhere this has got to stop. My suggestion to our colleagues is, if
you want to run the schools in America, quit the Senate and go run for
the school board.
If you want to be a State legislator, leave the Senate and run for
the State senate or the State house or run for Governor. Our job is not
to tell the States how to spend their money.
This is an outrageous amendment. I just cannot understand the logic
of this, other than the belief that only we know what is best. The idea
that we on the floor of the Senate will tell Texas how they have to
spend $4 billion over this period is absolutely absurd--that Texas has
to file a report every year
[[Page S2887]]
with Health and Human Services, and then they have to approve how Texas
is spending its own money that the Federal Government had nothing to do
with, had no part in claiming, no role in the settlement. In fact, in
the President's budget this year where he tries to reclaim this money,
he is talking about imposing a tobacco tax. Are we going to let the
States tell us how to spend that money? I think not.
I congratulate my colleague from Texas. This is an amendment that
deserves to be defeated overwhelmingly. I hope 80 or 90 of our fellow
Senators will vote against this amendment. Again, if you want to tell
Texas how to spend its money, quit the Senate, move to Texas, establish
residence, run for the State legislature; if you can get elected, go at
it. But do not get elected from another State and come here and try to
tell our State or any other State how to spend its money.
The Federal Government needs to butt out. We have plenty of our own
problems to deal with here. Social Security is going broke, Medicare is
going broke quicker, and what are we doing? The day before yesterday,
we were trying to run all the schools in the country as a national
school board. Today we are trying to spend money in every State to tell
them how to deal with their tobacco settlements.
It seems to me we are running away from real problems that we ought
to be solving and trying to find somebody else's problems to solve
where we don't have any responsibility if things go bad.
Again, I congratulate my colleague from Texas. I congratulate the
Senator from Florida. I thank him for letting me come in and speak at
this time. I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, does the Senator
from Texas yield to the Senator from Florida?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and Teutonic cousin
for his kind remarks and for his comments against this misguided
amendment.
First, I strongly support the original purpose of this legislation,
which is to provide relief to our neighbors in the Central American
countries and the Caribbean which were so devastated last year by a
series of hurricanes.
I had the opportunity to visit Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and
Dominican Republic which were primarily affected by those hurricanes
and can testify that the need is great and that the humanitarian
assistance which the United States has already provided, and which this
legislation will allow us to continue, has been of immeasurable value
and has added to the strength of the relationship between the United
States and those affected countries.
I also strongly support the tobacco recoupment amendment which was
added in the Appropriations Committee by my colleague, the Senator from
Texas. In addition to the wisdom of the amendment, there is a sense of
urgency to move forward with this. Many State legislatures are meeting
as we meet this week. Many of those legislatures are well along toward
their adjournment date. Many of those States are awaiting our action on
this issue to make a determination as to what is the most appropriate
way to utilize funds that have been secured through the tobacco
settlement for purposes that will benefit their citizens.
We need to resolve this issue and resolve it in a way that has been
suggested by the amendment recommended by the Appropriations Committee,
which is that the Federal Government keep its hands off this money
which has been secured solely as a result of the actions of the States.
Let me give a brief history of this issue, with particular focus on
the State of Florida, which was one of the first four States to secure
an individual settlement with the tobacco industry.
Under the leadership of our departed friend and colleague, Lawton
Chiles, the Florida Legislature amended its law to allow a specific
statute to be passed, under which the State brought litigation against
the tobacco industry. At the time that occurred, Governor Chiles wrote
a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno suggesting that the Federal
Government join in the lawsuit--not join in the lawsuit as it relates
to any specific claim, such as the Medicaid claim, but, rather, join in
the lawsuit to advance Federal interests that were at stake. I will
talk later about what those Federal interests are.
This is the letter--and I quote it in part--dated June 6, 1995, which
was sent from the Attorney General to the Governor of Florida:
Dear Governor Chiles: Thank you for your letter concerning
the possibility of the Department of Justice participating in
the State of Florida's lawsuit against cigarette
manufacturers. As you know, similar suits have been filed by
the States of Mississippi, Minnesota and West Virginia. At my
request, the Department's Civil Division has been monitoring
the tobacco litigation. Thus far, we have not been persuaded
that participation would be advisable. We will continue to
actively monitor these cases, however, and will reconsider
this decision should circumstances persuade us otherwise in
this regard.
There were no subsequent reconsiderations, and the Federal Government
essentially said, ``We will stand apart from these States' efforts.''
Stand apart until the States, having spent enormous amounts of money,
effort, and political resources now have secured a settlement.
At this point, the Federal Government wishes to invite itself back
into this litigation by, in the President's budget proposal, taking
half the money and having the Federal Government spend it or, in this
amendment proposal, having the Federal Government serve as the parent
for the States and tell them how to spend their tobacco settlement
money.
The assumption of this legislation started with another letter from
Washington which went to the States which stated, in effect, that the
Federal Health Care Financing Administration was going to initiate an
administrative collection procedure under an arcane provision of the
Social Security statute--specifically, 1903(D)(3)--in which it would
recoup a substantial portion of the States' settlements.
The specific language which was relied upon by the Federal Health
Care Financing Administration is the language which states:
The pro rata share to which the United States is equitably
entitled, as determined by the Secretary, of the net amount
recovered during any quarter by the State or any political
subdivision thereof with respect to medical assistance
furnished under the State plan. . . .
Mr. President, I argue that that statute, which is the basis of the
Federal efforts to recoup, is inapplicable to the tobacco litigation.
What that statute was intended to do was, in the case where a State
had, for instance, overpaid a provider and subsequently received a
repayment, that a portion of that repayment that was related to the
percentage of the Federal Medicaid share under the State Medicaid plan
would go back to the Federal Government.
This was not recovered pursuant to any State health care plan. It was
recovered based on litigation brought by the States on a variety of
claims against the Federal Government. And that is the first of two
fundamental erroneous assumptions behind this amendment. And that first
assumption is that 100 percent of the collections that the States have
made were as a result of the Medicaid claims; and, therefore, that the
Federal Government can legitimately assume the right to control its
share or 50 percent of those funds. That assumption is just
fundamentally incorrect.
First, Florida's causes of action included a violation of the State's
RICO statute, the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
statute. Fourteen other States filed a similar RICO claim. Remedies
available to the States under RICO statutes are enormous: disgorgement
of profits and treble damages. I argue that these claims far exceed any
money damages available under the Medicaid claim.
Twenty-eight States filed claims under violations of consumer
protection laws. Remedies include significant monetary penalties per
violation--per sale of each pack of cigarettes--plus disgorgement of
profits. For instance, the Missouri remedy allows for a penalty of
$1,000 per pack of cigarettes sold. The Oregon remedy was up to $25,000
per violation, which could have potentially totaled billions of
dollars.
Thirteen States filed under public nuisance. In Iowa, the remedy
requested was equal to not the profits made through cigarette sales,
but the price of cigarettes sold in each year involved.
[[Page S2888]]
Twenty States filed antitrust claims. Available remedies again
include disgorgement of profits and treble damages.
In three States, the courts dismissed the Medicaid claims--Indiana,
Iowa, and West Virginia. So those States' claims could not have
included a Medicaid component because it had been rejected by the
courts prior to the settlement.
Further, the State of Florida, which did have a Medicaid claim among
all of its other claims, estimates that at most only 10 percent of its
entire settlement could have been attributed to Medicaid.
I ask the Senator from Texas if I can have an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Does the Senator from Texas
yield an additional 5 minutes?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes to the
Senator from Florida. If he can take any less than that, we have other
Members signed up for the time. Thank you.
Mr. GRAHAM. So Mr. President, the first assumption that all this
money was generated by Medicaid claims is fundamentally inaccurate.
The second assumption, which is that unless Washington acts the
States will fritter this money away, is a fundamental assault against
the principles of Federalism: That we are a Nation in which political
power is divided between the States and the Federal Government, and
that we have a respectful appreciation of the responsibility of our
State partners.
In the case of the State of Florida, through the use of the initial
tobacco settlement money, 250,000 children who previously did not have
financing for health care now have that financing. That was proposed by
former Governor Lawton Chiles. Current Governor Jeb Bush has suggested
the establishment of an endowment so that these funds would be
protected in perpetuity and the interest earnings from that endowment
would be used for a variety of children's and seniors' programs. That
not only indicates the care with which the States are using, but the
fact that it is a bipartisan issue, the appropriate use of these funds.
Let us face it, those State officials, those Governors, those State
legislators are just as much accountable to the voters as we are. And
should they act in a way that the voters consider to be inappropriate,
they will suffer the consequences of those actions.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. Let me complete my final comments, and then I will yield.
Mr. HARKIN. OK.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what we have at stake here is that the
Federal Government is dealing with the wrong issue at the wrong time.
It is time for the Federal Government to move on. The way in which the
Federal Government should move on is by pursuing its own litigation
against the tobacco industry rather than trying to steal a portion of
the State settlement.
I was, therefore, very pleased that the President, in his State of
the Union Message, indicated that it was the intention of the Federal
Government to pursue precisely such a course of action.
Let me say, Mr. President, that for those of us, like Senator Harkin
and others, who joined last year in an effort to craft a bipartisan
tobacco bill, we recognize that the most significant way in which we
will reduce teenage smoking is to increase the price of cigarettes.
Every other technique to reduce teenage smoking pales in comparison
with increasing the price. The Centers for Disease Control has
estimated that for every 10-percent increase in the price of
cigarettes, there will be a 7-percent reduction in smoking by
teenagers.
The Federal Government's potential claims against the tobacco
industry are much greater than the States. The Medicare Program is much
larger than Medicaid. The Federal Government has all the array of
antitrust and RICO claims which the States so successfully pursued.
What we need to be encouraging the administration to do is to
aggressively carry out the direction of the President to effectively
bring action against the tobacco industry. And those will be the funds
that will be 100 percent under the control of the Federal Government
for the purposes that it considers most appropriate.
My own feeling is that we ought to use a substantial share of those
Federally derived funds from successful litigation against the tobacco
industry to add to the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, and then to
use a portion of those to assist in financing what the American people
desperately want, which is a prescription drug benefit, a major share
of which will go to dealing with the illnesses generated by tobacco
use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRAHAM. So Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership that the
Senator from Texas has provided. I appreciate her generosity and time.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment
offered to earmark a portion of the tobacco settlement proceeds for
health and anti-smoking programs. The use of the money for these
purposes goes to the very heart of my support for the global settlement
a year ago and my reason for sponsoring a bill to implement the
settlement.
It was never my intention or understanding that this money would be
used for building roads, prisons, or to simply inflate the government's
coffers. It was my understanding and intent that the money would be
used primarily to fight the evils of the tobacco industry and to keep
3,000 kids a day from starting to smoke.
I am also a strong proponent of states' rights. In considering this
amendment, it is my understanding that no federal approvals are
required, but only that reports be filed demonstrating that the funds
are being used in programs designed to achieve the public health goals
of the litigation. This information is important for Congress and the
Administration to have so that we can continue to evaluate the need for
federal legislation addressing any issues not covered by the settlement
agreement. If the states are successful in achieving what the
litigation and settlement set out to achieve, then there will be no
need for additional action. If not, we can revisit the issues.
I do not perceive this amendment as requiring federal approval of all
state spending or programs, but as an informational requirement. I am
certainly open to further discussion on how to best ensure that the
money is being spent as intended, to keep kids from smoking.
I hope that we will continue the dialogue on this very important
issue and that we can reach consensus on how to ensure that the
settlement funds are used to protect kids, if not today, then as the
bill progresses to the House and conference.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a number of
provisions in the supplemental appropriations bill.
First, I strongly oppose the offsets included in this bill, which
will take money away from programs that help the most vulnerable
Americans.
Before I discuss the specific offsets, let me begin with a reminder--
emergency supplemental funds do not need to be offset. This is the law
and it is grounded in the understanding that Congress needs to act
expediently when disaster strikes. Emergencies are just that,
emergencies, and they require swift action and the ability to release
funds quickly. We do not need offsets to provide essential assistance
to Central America, our farmers, or U.S. steel workers.
Nevertheless, a series of offsets have been proposed that will hurt
the most vulnerable Americans, low-income children and families and
immigrants. Included in their offset package, are proposals to defer
$350 million in Temporary Assistance to Needy Funds (TANF), a $285
million cut in the Food Stamp Program, and a $25 million recision in
INS programming which will reduce INS' ability to provide immigration
benefits and services. A $40 million cut in INS border enforcement is
also being proposed.
Taking from one poor, vulnerable community to pay for the needs of
another is unacceptable. We must draw the line here to prevent the
raiding programs that help poor children and families.
In 1996, when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed, Congress gave states the
authority and flexibility to design their own unique
[[Page S2889]]
programs to help low-income families move from welfare-to-work. The
TANF program provides fixed block grants to the states totaling
approximately $16.5 billion annually. TANF is a new program that
supports a wide array of services. States are using their funds to
assist needy families, strengthen job preparation, and promote self-
sufficiency. Across the country, states and social service agencies are
developing and implementing the best strategies to move their clients
from welfare to self-sufficiency.
In addition to giving states the authority to develop their own
assistance programs for low-income families, Congress also gave them
the power to carry forward unobligated TANF funds for future use.
States were expressly given the ability to tap into unspent funds at
any point during the five-year block grant period, to optimize
flexibility and meet their own unique needs and circumstances. In FY98,
states obligated or spent 84% of the total federal funds received.
Nineteen states have obligated 100% of their FY98 TANF funds.
The Republican Leadership seems to have confused ``unobligated'' with
``unneeded.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a
variety of reasons why some states have unobligated funds. Many states
have specifically set aside part of their funds in a ``rainy day''
account. This reflects wise planning. The strong economy and low
unemployment rates which we are currently enjoying may not last
forever. These states will be prepared because they have set aside
sufficient funds to protect themselves if the economy turns downward.
Other states have experienced large caseload declines but require
further state legislative action to reprogram funds from cash
assistance to other investments, such as child care and job training,
which promote work and end dependency. Other states have proceeded
slowly because they chose to engage in careful planning and needs
assessment research before embarking on innovative new efforts to move
people from welfare to work. Now, they are ready to utilize their
funds, and now the feds are trying to take back these funds.
Let me also point out that unobligated funds are not surplus funds.
These funds are essential to the overall success of welfare reform.
Many of the families remaining on welfare face substantial barriers to
employment including lack of educational and workforce skills,
substance abuse, domestic violence, and disability. States anticipate
that greater investments will be required if families are going to
successfully transition from welfare-to-work. As an increasing number
of families with infants and young children move into the work force,
the need and competition for child care, particularly during evening
hours, will continue to expand. Without assistance, many states will
not be able to provide needed services to low-income families.
Now, just a few years after dramatically overhauling the welfare
system, the Republican Leadership wants to take $350 million in
unobligated TANF funds to offset some of the expenses incurred by the
Emergency Supplemental Act. This is unacceptable. Congress told states
to spend their money carefully, to engage in thoughtful long-term
planning, and that they could keep their unobligated funds, and here we
are two years later, changing the rules of the game.
The Republican Leadership also wants to take $252 million from the
Food Stamp Program base appropriations level. Senate appropriators
contend that these funds would otherwise be unspent. Once again, the
Republicans are taking a short-sighted approach. First, assuming these
funds are unspent, they are not unneeded. The current base
appropriations level provides an important cushion to meet
unanticipated need. Second, recently released statistics on hunger and
undernutrition suggest that we need to reinvest in food assistance
programming. Hunger is still an urgent problem. The recent decline in
food stamp use from 28 million to under 19 million does not mean that
hunger is no longer a significant concern. Just a few weeks ago the
Urban Institute reported that one-third of America's children are in
families grappling with hunger and food insecurity.
We cannot let this happen. We cannot take any more money from
programs that help children and needy families. Furthermore, Congress
must uphold its commitment to the states--federal money pledged to the
states should not be taken away, especially when emergency funding is
available without offsets.
Another disturbing aspect of the Supplemental is the inclusion of the
Hutchinson Medicaid Amendment. This issue does not belong in an
emergency appropriations bill. If approved, the long-term cost to
Medicaid of this amendment would be approximately $140 billion. No
serious consideration has been given to the enormous impact that could
have on national health policy. Instead of being used to deter youth
smoking and to improve the nation's health, the language in the
Committee bill would permit states to use these federal Medicaid
dollars to pave roads, to build prisons and stadiums, and to fund state
tax cuts. Those are not appropriate uses for Medicaid dollars. Congress
has a vital interest in how those federal dollars are used.
Fifty-seven cents of every Medicaid dollar spent by the states comes
from the federal government. The cost of Medicaid expenditures to treat
people suffering from smoking-induced disease was at the core of state
lawsuits against the tobacco industry. While the federal government
could legally demand that the states reimburse Washington from their
settlements, I believe the states should be allowed to keep one hundred
percent of the money. However, the federal share must be used by the
states for programs that will advance the goals of protecting children
and enhancing public health which were at the heart of the litigation
and are consistent with the purposes of Medicaid. That would be an
eminently fair and reasonable compromise of this contentious issue.
While there were a variety of claims made by the states against the
tobacco industry, the Medicaid dollars used to treat tobacco-related
illness constituted by far the largest claim monetarily, and it formed
the basis for the national settlement. As part of that settlement,
every state released the tobacco companies from federal Medicaid
liability, as well as state Medicaid liability. Medicaid expenditures
heavily influenced the distribution formula used to divide the national
settlement amongst the states. In light of these undeniable facts, the
dollars obtained by the states from their settlements cannot now be
divorced from Medicaid. States are free to use the state share of their
recoveries in any way they choose. However, Congress has a clear and
compelling interest in how the federal share will be used.
States should be required to use half of the amount of money they
receive from the tobacco industry each year (the federal share) to
protect children and improve public health. At least thirty-five
percent of the federal share would be spent on programs to deter youth
smoking and to help smokers overcome their addiction. This would
include a broad range of tobacco control initiatives, including school
and community based tobacco use prevention programs, counter-
advertising to discourage smoking, cessation programs, and enforcement
of the ban on sale to minors. Three thousand children start smoking
every day, and one thousand of them will die prematurely as a result of
tobacco-induced disease. Prevention of youth smoking should be, without
question, our highest priority for the use of these funds. Reducing
youth smoking would, of course, result in a dramatic savings in future
Medicaid expenditures. The state settlements provide the resources to
dissuade millions of teenagers from smoking, to break the cycle of
addiction and early death. We must seize that opportunity.
The remainder of the federal share should be used by states to fund
health care and early learning initiatives which they select. States
could either use the additional resources to supplement existing
programs in these areas, or to fund creative new state initiatives to
improve public health and promote child development.
Smoking has long been America's foremost preventable cause of disease
and early death. It has consumed an enormous amount of the nation's
health care resources. Finally, resources taken from the tobacco
companies would be used to improve the nation's health. A state could,
for example, use a portion of this money to help
[[Page S2890]]
senior citizens pay for prescription drugs, or to provide expanded
health care services to the uninsured. Funds could be used to support
community health centers, to reduce public health risks, or to make
health insurance more affordable.
For years, the tobacco companies callously targeted children as
future smokers. The financial success of the entire industry was based
upon addicting kids when they were too young to appreciate the health
risks of smoking. It is particularly appropriate that resources taken
from this malignant industry be used to give our children a better
start in life. States could use a portion of these funds to improve
early learning opportunities for young children, or to expand child
care services, or for other child development initiatives.
Congress has an overwhelming interest in how the federal share of
these dollars is used. They are Medicaid dollars. They should not be
used for road repair or building maintenance. They should be used by
the states to create a healthier future for all our citizens, and
particularly for our children.
These problems with the supplemental need to be fixed. Congress
shouldn't let emergency assistance get bogged down by these extraneous
provisions. A clean supplemental should be approved as quickly as
possible so that this aid can go out quickly to those in greatest need.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to
the amendment offered by Senators Specter and Harkin that is based on a
``Washington Knows Best'' policy. Under this amendment, every
Governor--each year--for the next 25 years would be required to submit
a plan to Washington asking for permission on how to spend fifty
percent of the state's own money. I'm voting ``no'' to this
``Washington Knows Best'' amendment.
My state of Iowa stands ready to receive $1.7 billion over the next
25 years for its share of this landmark settlement. Iowa began a
thoughtful process years ago to establish a framework to guide the
state on how to utilize these new resources should the state succeed
with its case against the tobacco industry. Two years ago, after much
state and local deliberation, the Iowa Legislature passed laws
establishing a governing framework. Now that success has come for Iowa,
it is prepared. Among top priorities for the use of these new funds are
increased medical assistance and programs to reduce teen smoking.
Furthermore, Iowa's Governor Vilsack enthusiastically advocates a
number of new initiatives for combating teen smoking, including an
initiative to spend $17.7 million of its settlement money on tobacco
prevention and control programs. I am confident in the leadership of
our Governor and State Legislature in deciding how to best spend its
resources for the well-being of Iowans.
The states are entitled to the full amount of their settlement. Years
ago, the states began to organize their case against the tobacco
industry. They sought assistance from the federal government in their
efforts, but received none. The states took on all the risk, and
invested all of the time, money and energy. They have been rewarded for
their commitment to the case with a landmark settlement. It is unfair
for Congress, at this very late stage, to dip into the state's multi-
billion dollar settlement. What's more, last year Congress made
attempts at a federal settlement but failed. Congress is in no position
to interfere with what the states have independently accomplished.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of Senator Hutchinson's bill
to protect the states' claims on the funds from the settlement that
they negotiated with the tobacco industry, I oppose the Harkin-Specter
amendment.
I am not a lawyer, and maybe that's why I'm not particularly
impressed by all the legal hairsplitting we've been hearing from the
government's lawyers about their claim to these funds. But you don't
have to be a lawyer to recognize unfairness when you see it.
In fact, I think my little granddaughter would recognize the story
that's unfolding in Washington today: it's called the ``Little Red
Hen.'' As my colleagues probably will recall, this story is about some
people doing all the work and other people, who didn't lift a finger to
help, wanting to share in the product of that work.
In this case, we have the states who initiated lawsuits against the
tobacco industry, who took all the risks, who received no assistance
from the federal government in making their claims, and who ultimately
succeeded in negotiating the historic Master Settlement Agreement last
November. Now that the work has been done by these 46 little red hens,
and the other four who negotiated individual settlements, the federal
government wants to sweep in and take over.
Mr. President, I do not think what we have here is an attempt to
assert legal rights, but an attempt to assert control. Quite simple,
the federal government wants to direct the spending of these funds by
the states, despite the fact that this effort is likely to provoke more
litigation, which in turn will only prevent the funds from being used
to benefit the health or welfare of any state's residents. I do not
think the federal government has the law on its side, and I know it
doesn't have the equities or even common sense on its side.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from Idaho Attorney General Al Lance, objecting to the
attempted money grab.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Office of the Attorney General,
Boise, ID, January 13, 1999.
Hon. Larry Craig,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Idaho tobacco settlement monies.
Dear Senator Craig: You are no doubt aware that Idaho
settled its lawsuit against the tobacco defendants. Under the
settlement agreement, Idaho is set to receive annual payments
totaling $711 million over the first 25 years of the
settlement. Now that the settlement is complete, it is my
understanding that the Clinton Administration intends to lay
claim on a significant portion of settlement monies for its
own use. This is wrong. I ask that you help Idaho protect
itself from this money grab by supporting appropriate federal
legislation.
Idaho was one of 40 states that filed suit against various
tobacco defendants, alleging violations of various state
statutes. In Idaho's complaint we sought reparation for
damages incurred by the State, as well as civil penalties,
costs, and fees as a result of the defendants' actions. We
alleged as damages the increased Medicaid costs attributable
to tobacco use, which Idaho has spent, as well as the
increased insurance premiums attributable to smoking that the
State has paid for its state employees. We sought civil
penalties under our consumer protection laws.
Section 1903(d) of the Social Security Act provides that a
State must allocate from the amount of any Medicaid-related
recovery ``the pro-rata share to which the United States is
equitably entitled.'' Relying upon this statute, it is our
understanding that the Health Care Financing Administration
will be taking the position that Idaho's settlement payments
represent a credit applicable to Idaho's Medicaid program,
regardless of whether the monies are received directly by the
State's Medicaid program. This should not be so.
It is not equitable for the federal government to take the
fruits of the states' efforts. This is particularly true in
this case. Idaho filed its suit, took significant risks, and
fought for significant changes in how the tobacco industry
will market its products. What did the Clinton Administration
do in this regard with the federal government's vast
resources? Nothing.
I have great confidence that Idaho's Legislature will
properly determine how Idaho's tobacco proceeds should be
spent. I am sure you share that trust as well. That will not
happen, however, if the federal government is allowed to take
that money and spend it as it pleases. I ask for your
assistance in making sure that does not happen.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Lance,
Attorney General.
Mr. CRAIG. I wholeheartedly agree with Attorney General Lance's
confidence that the Idaho state legislature is quite capable of
properly determining how Idaho's share of the tobacco settlement should
be spent.
It is my strong hope that the Senate will defeat this amendment and
allow my state's legislature, and those of the other 49 states, to make
these decisions without interference.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have a difficult decision before us. I
believe most, if not all of us, hope the states will do the right thing
and spend the tobacco litigation money to stop underage smoking, reduce
adult smoking, and provide critical public health services. I know I am
unequivocally committed to those objectives and will
[[Page S2891]]
therefore support the Specter-Harkin amendment to ensure they do so.
That said, I want the states to have the greatest degree of
flexibility and discretion in allocating these settlement funds to the
health needs of their residents as possible. This amendment does just
that. It broadly requires states to spend 20 percent of the settlement
on programs to reduce the use of tobacco products, including
enforcement, school education programs, and advertising campaigns. It
also requires 30 percent to be spent on public health.
If we do not reduce smoking and stop at least some of the 3,000 new
kids per day from smoking, the federal taxpayer will end up the loser.
That is why we should have a voice in directing use of these funds. The
Medicare Trust Fund is financially solvent only until 2009, so we need
to do everything possible to reduce overall health care costs. If one
state does not reduce the deadly impact of smoking, the federal
taxpayers will foot the bill. So, all American taxpayers have a big
stake in reducing smoking. They have the right to push all states to
save their tax dollars by reducing health care costs.
Still, the Specter-Harkin amendment targets only a portion of
settlement dollars; just that portion that could be attributed to the
federal share of Medicaid. Because Medicaid is a federal-state
partnership and the settlement includes claims arising out of this
program, federal taxpayers have a valid claim to make in how those
settlement dollars are spent.
I am proud of my home state of Washington. It has already made a
commitment to public health and smoking reduction. The Specter-Harkin
amendment only reinforces what my state has done. Once again Washington
state is a leader on protecting public health and saving the premature
death of five million of today's children. I have attached a letter I
received from the Western Pacific Division of the American Cancer
Society urging me to support this amendment for these very reasons, to
support the ``health of our kids and our families.''
I also continue to support Senator Hutchinson's work to ensure the
states receive the credit they deserve. They have scored a major
victory for public health. The success of the Attorney's General in
their settlement with the tobacco companies is unprecedented. I applaud
them and especially Washington's Attorney General, Chris Gregoire, who
has been a champion in this cause.
The federal government must not rely on the states to do all of its
work for them. It is the responsibility of the federal government to
recover Medicaid funds and I will urge the Administration to move
forward with necessary litigation. The federal government must seek
restitution from the tobacco companies for the years of lies and
deception that have resulted in the premature deaths of millions of
Americans. Smoking-related illnesses are still the number-one killer of
Americans.
I am pleased Senators Specter and Harkin could find the appropriate
balance between the rights of the states to enjoy their well-deserved
settlement funds and the rights of federal taxpayers to ensure those
funds are spent to protect the public health and reduce their future
tax obligations under Medicare and Medicaid by reducing the cost of
tobacco-related illnesses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time do we have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 11 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to go at this time?
Because if not, Senator Voinovich was next in line for our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is controlled by the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator
from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as a former Governor, I introduced my
own tobacco recoupment legislation. I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of Senator Hutchison's and Senator Graham's bipartisan
legislation.
Under this settlement, the tobacco companies agreed to pay 46 States,
including Ohio, $206 billion over 25 years. Four other States
previously won a $40 billion settlement. Ohio was slated to receive
$9.8 billion over 25 years, beginning with $400 million in 2000 and
2001.
I just want you to know that the Nation's Governors are adamantly
opposed to imposing restrictions on State funding. I have distributed a
letter from the chairman and vice chairman of the National Governors'
Association. It will be on the desk of all of the Senators expressing
their adamant opposition to the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Governors' Association,
March 17, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader and Senator Daschle: As the Senate
moves forward with consideration of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill, we write to inform you of
the nation's Governors' strong support for language now
included in the bill that would protect state tobacco
settlement funds. In addition, we are adamantly opposed to
any amendments that would restrict how states spend their
tobacco settlement money. The settlement funds rightfully
belong to the states, and states must be given the
flexibility to tailor the spending of the tobacco funds to
the needs of their citizens.
There is a proposal under consideration, the Harkin/Specter
amendment, to require states to earmark 20 percent of the
settlement funds for smoking cessation programs, and an
additional 30 percent for health care programs. Governors are
adamantly opposed to any restrictions on the tobacco
settlement funds, but even more so to this proposal, because
it obligates state tobacco settlement funds to federal
programs or to specific state programs only if approved by
the Secretary of HHS.
Furthermore, although the nation's Governors agree with the
goal of substantially reducing smoking, we are strongly
opposed to earmarks on smoking cessation on the basis that it
represents unsound public policy. There are already four
major initiatives that are going into effect to reduce
smoking.
1. The price of tobacco products has already increased
between 40 cents and 50 cents per pack. Additional price
increases may come over time as companies attempt to hold
profit margins and make settlement payments. These price
increases will substantially reduce smoking over time.
2. The tobacco settlement agreement already contains two
major programs funded at $1.7 billion over ten years
dedicated to reducing smoking. $250 million over the next ten
years will go towards creation of a national charitable
foundation that will support the study of programs to reduce
teen smoking and substance abuse and the prevention of
diseases associated with tobacco use. An additional $1.45
billion over five years will go towards a National Public
Education Fund to counter youth tobacco use and educate
consumers about tobacco-related diseases. The fund may make
grants to states and localities to carry out these purposes.
3. The settlement agreement has a significant number of
restrictions on advertising and promotion. The settlement
prohibits targeting youth in tobacco advertising, including a
ban on the use of cartoon or other advertising images that
may appeal to children. The settlement also prohibits most
outdoor tobacco advertising, tobacco product placement in
entertainment or sporting events, and the distribution and
sale of apparel and merchandise with tobacco company logos.
Further, the settlement places restrictions on industry
lobbying against local, state, and federal laws. Over time,
these restrictions on tobacco companies' ability to market
their products to children and young adults will have a major
impact on smoking.
4. States are already spending state funds on smoking
cessation and will substantially increase funding as the
effectiveness of programs becomes established. Many states
have already invested years in program design, modification,
and evaluation to determine the best ways to prevent youth
from taking up cigarette smoking and helping youth and adults
quit smoking. Governors and states are highly motivated to
implement effective programs. We see the human and economic
burdens of tobacco use every day in lost lives, lost wages
and worker productivity, and medical expenditures for
tobacco-related illnesses.
All of these initiatives are likely to substantially reduce
tobacco consumption. It would be foolish to require large
expenditures over the next 25 years to such programs without
a good sense of how these initiatives will reduce the current
level of
[[Page S2892]]
smoking. Any additional expenditures for smoking cessation
must be carefully coordinated with these other four major
policy initiatives as they will cause smoking behavior to
shift dramatically. Furthermore, while there have been some
studies on the effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation
programs, the ``state of the art'' is such that we just do
not know what types of programs are effective. States are
still in the process of experimentation with effective
methods of preventing and controlling tobacco use; there is
no conclusive data that proves the efficacy of any particular
approach.
Governors feel it would be wasteful, even counterproductive
to mandate huge spending requirements on programs that may
not be effective. Governors need the flexibility to target
settlement funds for state programs that are proven to
improve the health, welfare, and education of their citizens
to ensure that the money is wisely spent. Furthermore, the
federal government must maintain its fiscal commitment to
vital health and human services programs, and not reduce
funding in anticipation of increased state expenditures.
We strongly urge you to vote against the Harkin/Specter
amendment and support flexibility for states to tailor the
spending of the tobacco funds to the needs of their citizens.
Sincerely,
Gov. Thomas R. Carper,
Chairman, State of Delaware.
Gov. Michael O. Leavitt,
Vice Chairman, State of Utah.
Mr. VOINOVICH. The proposition is clearly unsupportable, for the
following reasons:
First of all, States filed complaints that included a variety of
claims--consumer protection, racketeering, antitrust, disgorgement of
profits and civil penalties for isolations of State laws.
Medicaid was just one of the many issues in many cases. Furthermore,
State-by-State allotments were determined by the overall health care
costs in each State and not based on Medicaid expenditures--not based
on Medicaid expenditures.
Medicaid was not even mentioned in some cases. As a matter of fact,
in Ohio the Medicaid claim was thrown out of court. The Federal
Government was invited to participate in the lawsuits, but the Federal
Government declined. States bore the risk of initiating the suits and
the burden of the unprecedented lawsuits against a well-financed
industry. It was not until after the States prevailed that the Federal
Government became interested.
The tobacco settlement negotiated between attorneys general and the
tobacco companies is completely different from the agreement that
failed to pass in the 105th Congress.
With the failure of that legislation, the States were forced to
proceed with their own State-only lawsuit and settlement.
States must be given the flexibility to tailor their spending to the
unique needs of their citizens. And States will spend their funding on
a variety of local needs--health, education, welfare, smoking cessation
programs.
Many Governors, through their state-of-the-State speeches or proposed
legislation, have already committed publicly to spending these funds
for the health and welfare needs of their citizens.
The majority of the Governors have already made commitments to create
trust funds and escrow accounts that will ensure that the tobacco
settlement funds are spent on health care services for children,
assistance for growers in the States that will be affected, education,
and smoking cessation.
Two major programs--this is really important--in the settlement are
already dedicated to reducing teen smoking and educating the public
about tobacco-related diseases. Two hundred and fifty million dollars
will create a national charitable foundation to support the study of
programs to reduce teen smoking and substance abuse and prevent
diseases associated with tobacco use. An additional $1.5 billion will
create a National Public Education Fund to counter youth tobacco use
and educate consumers about tobacco-related diseases.
In addition, the settlement agreement has significant restrictions on
advertising and promotion--such as bans on advertising and lobbying
against local, State, and Federal laws--which will have an impact on
youth smoking. In other words, the tobacco companies can no longer
lobby against legislation that will deal with cessation of use of
tobacco.
States are already spending State funds on smoking cessation. They
don't need the Federal Government to put a mandate in place. There is
simply no way that States can spend 20 percent of these funds on
smoking cessation programs. These programs cannot absorb this level of
funding. As smoking levels decline, as expected under the settlement,
it will become impossible for States to spend this level of funding
effectively.
This amendment forces States to spend an incredible--listen to this--
$49 billion on just one objective: Denying them the ability to use
these funds to best meet the needs of their citizens. The notion that
the compassion and wisdom of Washington exceeds that of our State
capitals is not only wrong, it is offensive. The Governors and the
local government officials in this country care as much about smoking
cessation as the Members of this Congress.
I will never forget during welfare reform the people who were telling
us that we didn't care as much about people as the people in
Washington. They said it would be a race to the bottom. The fact of the
matter is, it is a race to the top.
Mr. President, I think we should overwhelmingly defeat this
amendment. It is not appropriate for this piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 7 minutes 37
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield Senator Brownback up to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the author of this amendment from Texas, as
well as our colleague from Florida.
The idea that we would tell the States how to spend this money from
this litigation is absolutely wrong. It is just wrong on its face. The
people who are proposing it, I respect their motivation; they are
trying to reach out and save lives and to stop these health problems. I
think their motivation is appropriate, but the direction and the
apportionment that is taking place on the States is the wrong way to do
it.
In every State in the country that has been a part of this
litigation, there is now ongoing a healthy and vigorous debate about
how best to spend the tobacco settlement funds. It is happening in
Kansas, my State. I am being contacted by the Kansas Legislature in
very strong terms. ``Do you not think that we care about what happens
to the people here? Do you not have enough problems in Washington to
deal with, that you have to tell us what to do with this? We are the
ones who brought this litigation forward.'' They are quite offended
that we would try to direct them and tell them what to do with these
funds that they pursued in litigation and that they need. They are
offended as well because they think we don't believe they know what is
best for Kansans.
I agree with them. I laud my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison,
in what she is doing. I note, as well, that in Kansas in the debate and
in the funding proposal that we have, 50 percent of all the funds to
Kansas are going to children's health care program funds for prevention
and cessation. We are putting in 50 percent which was enacted in the
legislature. But we should not require them to go to HCFA after they
have appropriated the money and see if they agree or see if they are
going to have to do something different.
With almost unprecedented unanimity, every State Governor, Attorney
General, and State legislature has directly backed the Hutchison-Graham
language. In fact, in many cases it is the No. 1 Federal issue for the
106th Congress by a number of these groups. I applaud my colleague. The
debate is happening at the right place now. We should not impose a
``Washington knows best'' approach.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Texas for her outstanding
leadership on this issue. As has been stated by all the speakers,
basically this is an amendment to tell the States how to spend money
that they achieve through a settlement with the tobacco industry. Not
only money, but a huge amount of money--$40 billion--just on
[[Page S2893]]
tobacco use reduction advertising and programs.
To contrast that with the advertising budgets of private enterprise
in this country, ``Advertising Age'' said U.S. companies spend a total
of $208 billion on advertising all of their products last year. The top
100 advertisers spent a total of $58 billion last year. In California
and New York, this would mean $5 billion worth of ads to each of those
States; in Pennsylvania, $2.25 billion worth of ads; and in my State,
$700 million worth of ads.
Mr. President, this would be one of the most massive advertising
campaigns in the history of the country, probably the most massive in
the history of the country--public or private. Because advertising
rates in my home State are not particularly high, that could translate
into over 1,000 days of nonstop TV commercials. That is almost 3 years.
And we think political campaigns go on too long.
Contrast this with all Federal Government drug control spending of
$16 billion. Members get the picture. If the Specter amendment were
approved, we would have the Federal Government spending more money, by
far, attacking a legal product than the Clinton administration
currently spends in its war on drugs. There is $40 billion targeted at
tobacco use, $16 billion against illegal drug use. It makes a person
wonder if it would be better to simply pay America's 40 million smokers
$1,000 apiece to quit. Send them $1,000 checks each, to quit. It would
be a lot cheaper than what we have before the Senate.
As has been stated by other speakers, the National Governors'
Association has strongly committed itself to supporting antitobacco
programs in the respective States. The States know better how to spend
this money and will do so efficiently through existing State
mechanisms. If the Federal Government dictates how the States should
spend the money and the mechanisms are not there, the States will have
to create them--creating even more bureaucracy.
The final outrage is that this amendment requires the elected
Governors of the States to report to Secretary Shalala on how they are
going to spend their money. This is truly an egregious effort by the
Federal Government to dictate to the States how they ought to spend
money that they are entirely entitled to under any system of justice.
Let me repeat: This calls for a $40 billion advertising campaign
against a legal product, yet the Federal Government currently spends
only $16 billion in its illegal drug enforcement effort.
The Hutchison proposal is the correct one. This amendment should be
defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes
11 seconds, and the Senator from Texas has 40 seconds.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry. Rather than just waiting here, whose
time is being used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania is
running. If neither side is yielding time, time will have to be
deducted equally between both sides.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless the Senator gets unanimous consent,
time will be deducted equally.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that my 40 seconds be
reserved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my chairman and friend from
Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue.
Again, let's cut through all the arguments, all the smoke and the
haze, if you will. What is this about? It is about public health. It is
about cutting down on youth smoking. That is what it is about.
Now, my friend from Florida--with whom I wanted to engage in a
colloquy, but I understand he had to go to a committee meeting--pointed
out that a lot of the States sued on different bases--RICO,
racketeering, prices--but 32 States, including Florida, included
Medicaid. As any good lawyer can tell you, it is the old ``spaghetti
theory'' of suing. You just throw the spaghetti at the wall, and
whatever sticks, that is what you go on. They just threw a bunch of
stuff in there when they sued to recoup from the tobacco companies.
But it is interesting to note that, in the final settlement, the
States waived their rights in the future to sue to reclaim any moneys
under Medicaid. Why was that put in there? I will tell you why. Because
the tobacco companies wanted it in there, because it not only precluded
the States from suing, it precludes the Federal Government from
recouping Federal shares of money for the health costs that we pay out
in Medicaid to take care of people who are sick and dying of tobacco-
related illnesses. That is what this is all about.
Some say we should not mandate to the States how to spend their
money. We are not trying to do that. The basis of this is public
health. At least a portion of the Federal moneys--not even all of it--
ought to go to smoking cessation programs and for a variety of other
public health programs.
The Senator from Pennsylvania knows as well as I do--we sit on the
Appropriations Committee as chairman and ranking member--we have a lot
of public health needs out there. We are getting shortchanged. I know
States have needs for highways, bridges, sports arenas, prisons and
things like that; but I daresay they did not bring these suits against
the tobacco companies because the tobacco companies weren't building
enough highways or sports arenas or prisons or anything else. What they
brought it on was the health problems that tobacco companies are
causing their people.
Well, I might also point out that, in the previous settlement with
the Liggett tobacco company, some States did give back their portion of
that settlement to the Federal Government, covering the Medicaid
portions of those costs. I don't have the exact figures, but I believe
Florida was one of those States--Florida, Louisiana, and Massachusetts
were the three States that returned some of that money. So that is
really what this is about.
I know the Governors have weighed in on this, both Democrats and
Republicans. Well, I can understand their point. They are trying to get
as much money as they can for their States; that is their
responsibility. But it seems to me that we have to look at the national
picture and what this is all about. It is about health care and cutting
down on teen smoking. That is what this is really about.
To cut through all the smoke and haze, let us do our responsibility
to the Federal taxpayers, to the Medicaid Program, and give some
guidance and direction--not explicitly saying how the States have to
spend it; let them use their wisdom--but give them guidance and
direction and say that at least 20 percent has to be used for smoking
cessation and 30 percent for a broad variety of other public health
measures, including helping tobacco farmers switch from that crop to
others. It is the only decent thing to do.
I reserve the time I have. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 4 minutes 31
seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield that back to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since all time has been used, except for
maybe 5 minutes--40 seconds for the opponents and 4\1/2\ minutes or so
for the proponents--I would like to use leader time to state my
position on this issue.
This morning I happened to be listening to one of the Washington, DC,
all-news radio stations. There was an ad on there done by the
Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, speaking
about the importance of tobacco cessation campaigns. Now, I wondered
who paid for that, how that was being supported. Why was a Lieutenant
Governor--a candidate for Governor--being used in this ad? It relates
to this whole debate. I think probably the State of Maryland is paying
for that campaign, or maybe it is a campaign unrelated to all this. But
the point there is that there is already a lot being done, and there is
going to be
[[Page S2894]]
a lot more done in the smoking cessation campaigns by the States.
Mr. President, this is a very fundamental argument. It goes to the
heart of the broader question: Does the Federal Government have the
great wisdom reposing here in the Secretary of HHS, or do States have a
certain modicum of wisdom of their own?
Frankly, I trust the Governor of Pennsylvania and the legislature in
Pennsylvania. I trust the Governors of Iowa and Illinois, and the
legislature in Ohio, and in my own State, to make the best decision for
the people in that State. There are those here who think the Federal
Government has to review this, the Federal Government has the answer,
the Federal Government must direct how this money is spent. I don't
agree with that. That is the fundamental argument here on this issue
and on a lot of others, as well.
First, a little history. How did this all begin? Well, whether you
agree with it or not, or whether I like it or not, it began in my State
of Mississippi. An attorney general developed this lawsuit and, to
their credit, they did a fantastic job. The Federal Government wasn't
involved. The Federal Government could not find a way to get involved.
They did it. It was Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Washington State, all
across the Nation. The States, through their attorneys general and
their lawyers, did the job and they got settlements. They got the
money. They won the issue.
Now, the Federal Government shows up and says, oh, by the way, give
me that. The truth of the matter is, there are many people in this city
who think all of that money, or somewhere between 50 and 77 percent of
that money, should come to Washington, even though the Federal
Government did nothing to win this settlement. They weren't a positive
force. But they have the temerity to show up and say the law requires
this or that and they want that money. I want to emphasize again that
you are talking about a very substantial portion of that money.
Now, I want to submit for the Record--I don't know if there are
already in the Record--a letter I received from the National Governors'
Association, signed by Governor Carper of Delaware, a Democrat, and
Michael Leavitt, the Republican Governor of Utah, addressed to Senator
Daschle and myself.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record,
along with a letter I received from Secretary Shalala.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Governors Association,
March 17, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader and Senator Daschle: As the Senate
moves forward with consideration of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill, we write to inform you of
the nation's Governors' strong support for language now
included in the bill that would protect state tobacco
settlement funds. In addition, we are adamantly opposed to
any amendments that would restrict how states spend their
tobacco settlement money. The settlement funds rightfully
belong to the states, and states must be given the
flexibility to tailor the spending of the tobacco funds to
the needs of their citizens.
There is a proposal under consideration, the Harkin/Specter
amendment, to require states to earmark 20 percent of the
settlement funds for smoking cessation programs, and an
additional 30 percent for health care programs. Governors are
adamantly opposed to any restrictions on the tobacco
settlement funds, but even more so to this proposal, because
it obligates state tobacco settlement funds to Federal
programs or to specific State programs only if approved by
the Secretary of HHS.
Furthermore, although the Nation's Governors agree with the
goal of substantially reducing smoking, we are strongly
opposed to earmarks on smoking cessation of the basis that it
represents unsound public policy. There are already four
major initiatives that are going into effect to reduce
smoking.
1. The price of tobacco products has already increased
between 40 cents and 50 cents per pack. Additional price
increases may come over time as companies attempt to hold
profit margins and make settlement payments. These price
increases will substantially reduce smoking over time.
2. The tobacco settlement agreement already contains two
major programs funded at $1.7 billion over ten years
dedicated to reducing smoking. $250 million over the next ten
years will go towards creation of a national charitable
foundation that will support the study of programs to reduce
teen smoking and substance abuse and the prevention of
diseases associated with tobacco use. An additional $1.45
billion over five years will go towards a National Public
Education Fund to counter youth tobacco use and educate
consumers about tobacco-related diseases. The fund may make
grants to states and localities to carry out these purposes.
3. The settlement agreement has a significant number of
restrictions on advertising and promotion. The settlement
prohibits targeting youth in tobacco advertising, including a
ban on the use of cartoon or other advertising images that
may appeal to children. The settlement also prohibits most
outdoor tobacco advertising, tobacco product placement in
entertainment or sporting events, and the distribution and
sale of apparel and merchandise with tobacco company logos.
Further, the settlement places restrictions on industry
lobbying against local, state, and federal laws. Over time,
these restrictions on tobacco companies' ability to market
their products to children and young adults will have a major
impact on smoking.
4. States are already spending state funds on smoking
cessation and will substantially increase funding as the
effectiveness of programs becomes established. Many states
have already invested years in program design, modification,
and evaluation to determine the best ways to prevent youth
from taking up cigarette smoking and helping youth and adults
quit smoking. Governors and states are highly motivated to
implement effective programs. We see the human and economic
burdens of tobacco use every day in lost lives, lost wages
and worker productivity, and medical expenditures for
tobacco-related illnesses.
All of these initiatives are likely to substantially reduce
tobacco consumption. It would be foolish to require large
expenditures over the next 25 years to such programs without
a good sense of how these initiatives will reduce the current
level of smoking. Any additional expenditures for smoking
cessation must be carefully coordinated with these other four
major policy initiatives as they will cause smoking behavior
to shift dramatically. Furthermore, while there have been
some studies on the effectiveness of alternative smoking
cessation programs, the ``state of the art'' is such that we
just do not know what types of programs are effective. States
are still in the process of experimentation with effective
methods of preventing and controlling tobacco use; there is
no conclusive data that proves the efficacy of any particular
approach.
Governors feel it would be wasteful, even counterproductive
to mandate huge spending requirements on programs that may
not be effective. Governors need the flexibility to target
settlement funds for state programs that are proven to
improve the health, welfare, and education of their citizens
to ensure that the money is wisely spent. Furthermore, the
federal government must maintain its fiscal commitments to
vital health and human services programs, and not reduce
funding in anticipation of increased state expenditures.
We strongly urge you to vote against the Harkin/Specter
amendment and support flexibility for states to tailor the
spending of the tobacco funds to the needs of their citizens.
Sincerely,
Gov. Thomas R. Carper,
Chairman, State of Delaware.
Gov. Michael O. Leavitt,
Vice Chairman, State of Utah.
____
Washington, DC,
March 15, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to express the
Administration's strong opposition to the provision approved
by the Senate Appropriations Committee as part of the FY 1999
supplemental appropriations bill that would prohibit the
Federal Government from recouping its share of Medicaid funds
included in the states' recent settlement with the tobacco
companies. The Administration is eager to work with the
Congress and the states on an alternative approach that
ensures that these funds are used to reduce youth smoking and
for other shared state and national priorities.
Under the amendment approved by the committee, states would
not have to spend a single penny of tobacco settlement funds
to reduce youth smoking. The amendment also would have the
practical effect of foreclosing any effort by the Federal
Government to recoup tobacco-related Medicaid expenditures in
the future, without any significant review and scrutiny of
this important matter by the appropriate congressional
authorizing committees.
[[Page S2895]]
Section 1903(d) of the Social Security Act specifically
requires that the States reimburse the Federal Government for
its pro-rata share of Medicaid-related expenses that are
recovered from liability cases involving third parties. The
Federal share of Medicaid expenses ranges from 50 percent to
77 percent, depending on the State. States routinely report
third-party liability recoveries as required by law. In 1998,
for example, states recovered some $642 million from third-
party claims; the Federal share of these recoveries was $400
million. Over the last five years, Federal taxpayers recouped
over $1.5 billion from such third-party recoveries.
Despite recent arguments by those who would cede the
Federal share, there is considerable evidence that the State
suits and their recoveries were very much based in Medicaid.
In fact, in 1997, the States of Florida, Louisiana and
Massachusetts reported the settlement with the Liggett
Corporation as a third-party Medicaid recovery, and a portion
of that settlement was recouped as the Federal share.
Some also have argued that the States are entitled to reap
all the rewards of their litigation against the tobacco
industry and that the Federal Government can always sue in
the future to recover its share of Medicaid claims. This
argument contradicts the law and the terms of the recent
State settlement. As a matter of law, the Federal Government
is not permitted to act as a plaintiff in Medicaid recoupment
cases and was bound by the law to await the States' recovery
of both the State and Federal shares of Medicaid claims.
Further, by releasing the tobacco companies from all relevant
claims that can be made against them subsequently by the
States, the settlement effectively precludes the Federal
Government from recovering its share of Medicaid claims in
the future through the established statutory mechanism. The
amendment included in the Senate supplemental appropriations
bill will foreclose the one opportunity we have under current
law to recover a portion of the billions of dollars that
Federal taxpayers have paid to treat tobacco-related illness
through the Medicaid program.
The President has made very clear the Administration's
desire to work with Congress and the States to enact
legislation that resolves the Federal claim in exchange for a
commitment by the States to use that portion of the
settlement for shared priorities which reduce youth smoking,
protect tobacco farmers, assist children and promote public
health. I would urge you to oppose efforts to relinquish the
legitimate Federal claim to settlement funds until this
important goal has been achieved.
Sincerely,
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
Mr. LOTT. The Governors say:
. . . we are adamantly opposed to any amendments that would
restrict how States spend their tobacco settlement money.
They point out that 20 percent of the settlement funds, under this
amendment, would have to go for smoking cessation, and then another 30
percent for health care programs. But also what the States do has to be
approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Why? What do
they have at HHS that the various States don't have, and why can't they
decide on their own what is best for their people?
They say in their letter they are opposed to earmarks on smoking
cessation on the basis that it represents unsound public policy.
They then go on to say that there are many things already being done.
In fact, the settlement agreement contains two major programs funded at
$1.7 billion over 10 years dedicated to reducing smoking, and $250
million over the next 10 years will go toward the creation of a
national charitable foundation that will support the study of programs
to reduce teen smoking. An additional $1.45 billion over 5 years will
go toward the National Public Education Fund to counter youth tobacco
use and educate consumers about tobacco-related diseases.
So there is a great deal already being done. There is a significant
number of restrictions in the settlement with regard to advertising and
promotion of smoking. The States are already, on their own, spending
funds for the smoking cessation campaign.
The Governors need flexibility. That is what they say. In one State,
perhaps, they need more money for smoking cessation. Fine. Perhaps they
need more money for child health care. I think under this amendment
that would be fine. But in another State perhaps they need it for HOPE
scholarships, like Governor Engler in Michigan has been talking about.
Or perhaps in another State, like my own, they want to use these funds
for juvenile detention facilities, which, by the way, would be smoke-
free. But there is a real need there. Let the States make those
decisions.
Again, I want to point out that in the letter from Secretary Shalala
she notes that the Federal share of Medicaid expenses ranges from 50 to
77 percent. And they don't want anything to happen here that would not
allow them to come back around later and try to get more, or large,
chunks of this money.
I think that is typical Federal Government arrogance: ``We have the
solutions. We have the greater knowledge.'' I fundamentally reject
that. I think the people closer to the problems are closer to the
people, whether it is the farmers, or the children, or health care
needs of the children in their States. I represent one of the poorest
States in the Nation. We have tremendous needs for our children based
on problems of poverty. We have needs across the board. We know what
those needs are better than some all-powerful Federal Government.
So I just want to urge that this amendment be defeated.
I don't think, by the way, that every year for the next 25 years the
States should have to submit their plan to the Department of Health and
Human Services. Maybe the next Department will be headed by a
Republican-appointed Secretary of HHS. ``Frankly, I don't care, my
dear.'' I think the States can do this on their own. The Federal
Government wants the money. Or, if they don't get the money, they want
to control it.
That is one of the reasons I am glad to serve in the Senate today--so
I can fight just such ideas as this, that the Federal Government has
the answers and should have the control. We should reject this
amendment and allow the States to do what is best for their people.
They know what the needs are. They will provide the right decision.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has been tied up in
committee. He has requested 1 minute. I am anxious to see how the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will handle the single minute.
I yield 1 minute to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator, and the Chair.
Mr. President, let me just add my voice in support of the Specter-
Harkin amendment. Basically, as we all know, the States have waived the
Federal Medicaid rights. So they understand that there are Federal
interests. I think it is pretty understandable to all of us, because we
understand how the Medicaid Program was established.
The really compelling interest that was successful in the States that
brought about the settlement in the first place related to the health
hazards that individuals were afflicted with. This seems to me to be an
eminently fair and reasonable balance between the Federal interests and
the State interests. It seems to be focused in the areas of health
care, and also the prevention of smoking. I think that is basically
what the families of this country want. It makes a good deal of common
sense. It is consistent with what this whole battle has been about, and
this is a well targeted, well thought out, and a very compelling
amendment to be able to do so.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Supplemental is the
inclusion of the Hutchinson Medicaid Amendment. This issue does not
belong in an emergency appropriations bill. If approved, the long-term
cost to Medicaid of this amendment could be as high as $125 billion. No
serious consideration has been given to the enormous impact that cost
could have on national health policy. Instead of being used to deter
youth smoking and to improve the nation's health, the language in the
committee bill would permit states to use these federal Medicaid
dollars to pave roads, to build prisons and stadiums, and to fund state
tax cuts. Those are not appropriate uses for Medicaid dollars. Congress
has a vital interest in how these federal dollars are used.
Fifty-seven cents of every Medicaid dollar spent by the states comes
from the federal government. The cost of Medicaid expenditures to treat
people suffering from smoking-induced disease was at the core of state
lawsuits against the tobacco industry. While the
[[Page S2896]]
federal government could legally demand that the states reimburse
Washington from their settlements, I believe the states should be
allowed to keep one hundred percent of the money. However, the federal
share must be used by the states for programs that will advance the
goals of protecting children and enhancing public health which were at
the heart of the litigation and are consistent with the purposes of
Medicaid. That is what the Specter-Harkin amendment would accomplish. I
am pleased to be an original cosponsor of it. It is a fair and
reasonable compromise of this contentious issue.
While there were a variety of claims made by the states against the
tobacco industry, the Medicaid dollars used to treat tobacco-related
illness constituted by far the largest claim monetarily, and it formed
the basis for the national settlement. As part of that settlement,
every state released the tobacco companies from federal Medicaid
liability, as well as state Medicaid liability. Medicaid expenditures
heavily influenced the distribution formula used to divide the national
settlement amongst the states. In light of these undeniable facts, the
dollars obtained by the states from their settlements cannot now be
divorced from Medicaid. States are free to use the state share of their
recoveries in any way they choose. However, Congress has a clear and
compelling interest in how the federal share will be used.
In exchange for a waiver of the federal claim, states should be
required to use half of the amount of money they receive from the
tobacco industry each year to protect children from tobacco and improve
the nation's health. If the funds are used in that way, this investment
will dramatically reduce future Medicaid expenditures.
Under the Specter amendment, at least twenty percent of a state's
recovery would be spent on programs to deter youth smoking and to help
smokers overcome their addiction. This would include a broad range of
tobacco control initiatives, including school and community based
tobacco use prevention programs, counter-advertising to discourage
smoking, cessation programs, and enforcement of the ban on sale to
minors. Three thousand children start smoking every day, and one
thousand of them will die prematurely as a result of tobacco-induced
disease. Prevention of youth smoking should be, without question, our
highest priority for the use of these funds. The state settlements
provide the resources to dissuade millions of teenagers from smoking,
to break the cycle of addiction and early death. We must seize that
opportunity.
An additional thirty percent would be used by states to fund health
care and public health programs which they select. States could either
use the additional resources to supplement existing programs in these
areas, or to fund creative new state initiatives to improve health
services.
Smoking has long been America's foremost preventable cause of disease
and early death. It has consumed an enormous amount of the nation's
health care resources. At long last, resources taken from the tobacco
companies would be used to improve the nation's health. A state could,
for example, use a portion of this money to help senior citizens pay
for prescription drugs, or to provide expanded health care services to
the uninsured. Funds could be used to support community health centers,
to reduce public health risks, or to make health insurance more
affordable.
For years, the tobacco companies callously targeted children as
future smokers. The financial success of the entire industry was based
upon addicting kids when they were too young to appreciate the health
risks of smoking. It would be particularly appropriate for resources
taken from this malignant industry to be used to give our children a
healthier start in life.
Congress has an overwhelming interest in how the federal share of
these dollars is used. They are Medicaid dollars. They should not be
used for road repair or building maintenance. They should be used by
the states to create a healthier future for all our citizens.
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding this time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, in response to the comments by the distinguished
majority leader on the obligation under this amendment to submit a
plan, it is simply not so; States do not have to submit the plan to the
Federal Government. All the States have to do is submit a ``report''
which shows how the funds ``have been spent.'' So there is no
obligation to submit a plan.
When the distinguished majority leader talks about the temerity of
the Federal Government, there is enough temerity on all sides to go
around. But that is not the issue here. The States brought the
lawsuits, because that is what the law requires, and the States have an
obligation to abide by the decision of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, who makes the allocation.
Here we have litigation which has brought a settlement on tobacco-
related causes. This is a modest approach on spending, indicating broad
standards for State compliance, and only 50 percent related to tobacco.
If no legislation were enacted on specifics, these funds would
certainly be impressed with the trust.
When the majority leader talks about spending the funds for juvenile
detention, that is very important. But that is simply not related to
tobacco. When there is talk about using it for debt reduction of the
States, that is very important. But it is not related to tobacco
causes. These are funds produced from a tobacco settlement, and if the
States do not use these funds in this way, my legal judgment is that
these funds are impressed with a trust enforceable by any citizen of
the State. But this is an accommodation which will allow a reasonable
amount of the moneys to be used for tobacco-related purposes.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe that this amendment is the
worst of all worlds. It would require every State every year for 25
years to submit a plan about how it is going to spend its own money.
What happens if a State legislature is not in session and the Secretary
of HHS says, ``I don't think your plan meets my standards for tobacco
cessation or health programs,'' and the State legislature is then in
the position of losing Medicaid funds and having to call a special
session to either change its programs to meet the requirements of the
Secretary of HHS, or take the hit, or not serve its own people under
Medicaid?
Mr. President, this is State money, it is not Federal money. There is
no relationship between Medicaid in many of these State lawsuits.
I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in conclusion--the most popular words of
any speech--this proposal is a very modest approach on a multibillion-
dollar--$200 billion--settlement that has been brought by the chairmen
and ranking members of the committees in the Senate charged with
allocating funds for Health and Human Services. There is no plan which
has to be submitted by the Governors. That is repeated again and again.
All the Governors have to do is say how they will spend the money. I
agree with the principle of leaving maximum flexibility to the States
when we make allocations. But this is for a generalized purpose, and
that is all we are asking for here. In light of the very substantial
budgetary shortfalls, this money ought to be used, at least in part, 50
percent for the purposes of solving the problems caused by tobacco.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Texas to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator
from Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S2897]]
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 29, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]
YEAS--71
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--29
Akaka
Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 77) was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is not my intention to object, but
there is a matter to clear up with the leadership, if I may have 30
seconds.
Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. My preference is to continue the quorum call. I
understand it has been agreed to by my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is
recognized to offer an amendment relative to Kosovo.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that matter
be set aside and that the Senator from Arkansas be recognized for up to
15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
____________________