[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22969-22987]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     AMERICAN JOBS CREATION ACT OF 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the FSC bill now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.


                      Intelligence Reorganization

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee is here and 
wishes to speak on that measure. We have a number of people on this 
side who have been waiting today to speak. They will not be able to 
speak until he finishes his statement, unless he decides not to give it 
immediately.
  I am going to give a very brief statement on the measure we just 
completed, that Senator McConnell and I worked on, a very short 
statement. Then with the permission of the manager of the bill, the 
chairman of the committee, I will go into a rollcall, so to speak, 
following your statement, who will speak on this side and who will 
speak on your side.
  Mr. President, as I said earlier this week on more than one occasion, 
change is very difficult. Sometimes change is what we have to do. The 
events of 9/11 were very bad, and as a result of that, reluctantly, 
energetically, and enthusiastically, the 9/11 Commission was formed and 
they met

[[Page 22970]]

for a year. They did wonderful work. But for the 9/11 Commission, we 
could not have done the reorganization of this body that we completed. 
As they found, our intelligence oversight was weak. Our homeland 
security oversight was fractionalized. We can and must do better for 
this institution and the country. The legislation just passed does 
that.
  We have recommended four additional ways to strengthen the Select 
Committee on Intelligence, which is no longer a select committee; it is 
an ``A'' committee. We have also recommended the creation of an 
Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence. I thought we should have 
that as the last issue--the appropriations aspect of it. My friend, the 
Senator from Texas, offered an amendment that says there will be an 
intelligence subcommittee of Appropriations. But it is up to the 
Appropriations Committee as to whether they merge Military Construction 
and Defense or come up with something else. But there will be a 
freestanding intelligence subcommittee on appropriations which, as 
Governor Kean says, is in keeping with the spirit of the Commission's 
recommendations.
  We have also consolidated homeland security oversight in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. We have taken 10 committees' 
jurisdiction. From some, we took away five or six items. Significant 
things were taken from these committees. For example, from Environment 
and Public Works, my committee, we took FEMA, which is a very important 
part of what goes on in our country. That is the way it was through the 
10 committees from which we took jurisdiction. We have consolidated 
homeland security oversight in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  We know there are some who think we did too much. We have had 
committee chairmen and ranking members really complain about what we 
did. They said: Why are you doing this? You are taking these things we 
have worked on for 105 years. What right do you have to do that and 
create this monstrous committee? But we felt it was the right thing to 
do--to bring together, the best we could, these homeland security 
functions. We did that.
  There were others who thought we didn't go far enough. I say to them, 
they should have listened to the complaints and the admonitions we 
received from chairmen and ranking members and members of these 
committees. There can be no doubt that the new homeland security and 
governmental affairs committee will be one of the most powerful 
committees in the history of the Senate.
  The committee will exercise its vast jurisdiction effectively under 
the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman. They are 
disappointed; they wanted everything. But they got most everything. I 
am sure they will do a good job there. Remember, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, before we started, was a pretty powerful committee. 
Now it is a committee that is a very powerful committee.
  We would not have gotten here without the support of Senators Frist 
and Daschle. I said at a press conference that Senator McConnell and I 
just had, the next time Senator Daschle calls me and says, I have a 
little job for you, I am going to get a few more details about what 
that little job is before accepting it. I think Senator McConnell feels 
the same way. This has been very hard. I have a few Members on my side, 
chairmen, who are upset at me. But we did the right thing. We did the 
right thing.
  Anyway, I appreciate the support of the two leaders who formed a 
working group for this resolution. I express my appreciation to the 
members of my working group, my task force. They were so supportive and 
did such a good job in helping us get to where we are. I appreciate the 
feedback we got from members of our working group, and all Senators 
were committed to reforming the Senate.
  Mr. President, I want to personally thank Senator Mitch McConnell. It 
has been difficult for him and for me. But I said last night on the 
floor and I will say it again this afternoon--it is true that I 
certainly cannot understand totally the Presiding Officer's feelings 
because he has been in actual mortal combat, and the relationships 
formed there, I guess, are as close as any relationships could be. I 
didn't fight in the jungles in Vietnam as did the Presiding Officer. 
Senator McConnell and I fought in the ``jungles'' of the Senate and, as 
a result of working as we did in the last almost month on this, we 
formed a very close friendship--something we didn't have before. I will 
always remember this time we spent, and I express publicly my 
admiration for the Senator from Kentucky for sticking with the program. 
It wasn't easy to do.
  I have the greatest respect for his staff, Robert Karem, Kyle 
Simmons, Mike Solon, Brian Lewis, and John Abegg. They worked very 
hard. Two people on my staff worked very hard. Rich Verma worked so 
hard. He is a lawyer and we used his negotiation skills on many 
occasions. And then Gregg Jaczko, who has a Ph.D. in physics. We needed 
his scientific background. He understands the legislative process, and 
he has done an outstanding job. I hope everybody in the Senate feels 
good about the work he has done because he has been selected by Senator 
Daschle to be a member of the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
the NRC. His nomination is pending in the Senate now. He did an 
outstanding job working with Robert, Kyle, Mike, Brian, and John.
  I have thanked the members of the 9/11 Commission. I thank the 
families who were impacted by the attacks on our country. We would not 
be in the position we are today without their efforts. We have made our 
country safer as a result of what happened in the legislation that was 
marshaled and passed by Senators Lieberman and Collins, and the work 
done by Senator McConnell and myself is going to make our country 
safer. Serious times call for serious action. That is what we have done 
here. I appreciate very much my colleagues' support.
  Following the statement of the Senator from Iowa, on our side of the 
aisle, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be recognized for 5 
minutes, Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes, Senator Dayton for 10 minutes, 
Senator Jack Reed for 30 minutes, and Senator Landrieu to follow for a 
time of 90 minutes.
  Mr. President, Senator DeWine is the Republican who is the only one 
who has come forward, other than Senator Grassley. Because of the 
gentleman he is, he said he would be willing to wait until Senator Reed 
finishes his statement. I appreciate that very much. Senator DeWine 
wants to be recognized for up to 1 hour. Again, I ask unanimous consent 
that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it the 
Senator's anticipation that we go back and forth?
  Mr. REID. Yes. If there are people who come with relatively short 
statements who are on the majority side, we would fit those in between 
the statements. We want to make sure Senator DeWine, who is being such 
a nice person, doesn't get jammed in the process. He, in fact, has 
agreed to let these others go before him. If a Republican comes over, 
we can do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I have an hour after Senator DeWine?
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be given up to 
1 hour following Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad that we are finally getting up 
the FSC/ETI bill, the JOBS bill as it is sometimes referred to, because 
this bill will create jobs in manufacturing.
  As everyone knows, the World Trade Organization has ruled that our 
Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial income legislation that has 
been on the books for quite a few years is an illegal export subsidy 
and has authorized up to $4 billion a year in sanctions against U.S. 
exports. These sanctions actually began way back in the month of March 
this year. They now are at 12 percent and they are going to increase 1 
percent each month that we do not repeal

[[Page 22971]]

the existing law. By November, they will be at 13 percent, and Senator 
Frist rightly has called these ``Euro taxes'' on our exporters.
  It has been a long road to what I hope will be final passage of this 
legislation. Both bodies passed bills to deal with the Euro taxes. Both 
bodies struggled to get this to conference. Nothing has been easy, but 
we are at last in the final stages.
  Now that we are at the doorway of final passage, we cannot fritter 
away the opportunity to eliminate this tax put on our exports to Europe 
by the European Union.
  American workers, especially those in the manufacturing sector, put 
in the work necessary to make the U.S. the most productive economy in 
the world. We Senators have to employ the same work ethic. We have to 
match our constituents' work productivity. We cannot delay on this 
matter any longer. We cannot leave the job site without finishing our 
work.
  I will inform my colleagues of what happened during the conference 
this week. It was one of the most open and unusual conferences between 
the Senate Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee of the 
House that we have ever had. There were 18 House conferees and 23 
Senate conferees. The conference chairman, Chairman Thomas of the Ways 
and Means Committee, started the ball rolling with a discussion draft. 
The discussion draft reflected the core elements of both bills.
  The main piece complied with our WTO obligation by repealing the 
Foreign Sales Corporation extraterritorial income regime. In its place, 
we provide a deduction for all manufacturers, big and small. That was a 
significant movement toward the Senate position.
  In one move, Chairman Thomas addressed the top Senate priority; that 
is, that all manufacturers receive the benefit of the deduction.
  The next piece of the discussion draft included a package of 
international tax reforms that will make America's manufacturers yet 
more competitive. This package reflects the priorities of both the 
Senate and the House bill.
  Finally, the discussion draft included identical and near identical 
provisions from both bills. Revenue neutrality was another important 
principle of the Senate bill, and I appreciate Chairman Thomas's 
cooperation on this Senate priority. Indeed, it was the bipartisan 
Finance Committee staff that refined the offsets that made this bill 
viable in the first place.
  After presentation of the discussion draft, each Member had an 
opportunity to put forth their priorities by filing amendments for the 
public conference. Finance Committee conferees recognized the 
similarity to the customs of the Senate Finance Committee markup, the 
way we have done it traditionally in the Senate Finance Committee. This 
process was very unusual for a conference. Normally, conferees go 
through a series of meetings and exchange of offers or some other 
elongated process.
  I have been a member of the Finance Committee for nearly 20 years, 
and I can tell my colleagues that in nearly all cases, conferees debate 
the issues in private. Nearly all of the toughest decisions come down 
to private negotiations between the two chairmen. Those decisions are 
reached after conferee input.
  In this conference, however, all discussions were aired publicly. 
Sometimes conferences take months. Sometimes they end without 
accomplishing anything before the adjournment of a Congress. We had 
neither option before us. We were in an unusual and sensitive situation 
because we are coming up now to adjournment of this Congress. Unusual 
situations require then unusual procedures. We had only a few days 
remaining to enact this measure. That is not much time, but we are here 
now before the Senate, and this bill has passed the House of 
Representatives already.
  The bottom line is that we have to move this measure to the President 
of the United States. I am fully committed to getting this bill done 
before we leave for the elections.
  I appreciate the House's willingness to open up this process and let 
transparency occur through the amendment process. I would also like to 
thank my Finance Committee conferees, particularly my friend and 
ranking member, Senator Baucus. We would not be here--in fact, we would 
not have even gotten this bill through the Senate without the 
bipartisan spirit of the Finance Committee members and Senator Baucus's 
efforts in that. That spirit remained in place as we took the final 
steps in the conference committee between the House and Senate.
  Both the House and Senate agreed on the basic structure of the bill 
and on the policy. In addition to the major movement to the Senate on 
the structure of the manufacturing deduction and revenue neutrality, 
many Senate priorities have been addressed. An expanded renewable 
electricity reduction credit is included. This was a high priority for 
Senate conferees Bingaman, Smith, Daschle, Hatch, Baucus, Snowe, 
Breaux, Lincoln, Conrad, Bunning, and Gregg.
  Chairman Thomas recognized this as an important bipartisan mark and 
included section 450 in his mark even though it cost over $2 billion to 
accommodate the Senate on this issue, within the spirit of revenue 
neutrality.
  We have a very good small business package as well included in the 
conference report. The bill before us extends small business expensing 
for another 2 years. The bill contains significant S corporation 
reforms. Even though the subchapter S corporation provisions were House 
provisions, they have historically been Senate priorities. We have 
probably the most comprehensive agricultural and rural community tax 
incentive package ever.
  I thank Chairman Thomas for including these Senate priorities in his 
mark. For everyone, there is a substantial overhaul of the fuel excise 
tax system, with a VEETC proposal, fuel fraud, and also biodiesel 
provisions.
  These provisions will mean more highway money for more States. 
According to Federal statistics for the current fiscal year, 37 of 50 
States will receive more highway money because of the VEETC proposals 
in this bill. There will still be more highway money for all States 
from provisions in this bill by shutting down fraud when people do not 
pay the fuel tax that is required under existing law. VEETC and fuel 
fraud provisions are estimated to put over $24 billion into the highway 
trust fund.
  Now, I point out that this bill does not contain many special 
interest members' provisions. If my colleagues will recall, the JOBS 
bill passed the Senate 92 to 5. In part, the bill received such 
widespread support because many Member items were accommodated when 
this bill first went through the Senate. Literally dozens of narrow tax 
benefits were adopted in committee and also added on the floor. Those 
provisions also unnecessarily caused the bill to be defined as a 
special interest bill. Senator Baucus and I put out a staff analysis 
that showed only a small portion of the bill's revenue was absorbed by 
these individual Members' items. But that did not stop the criticism of 
those items, either by Members of the Congress or by the press writing 
about this bill, emphasizing things that were only a small part of the 
legislation.
  The House bill also, however, contained Member items. They were fewer 
in number, but very significantly defined. Most of those items enjoyed 
some Senate support.
  In addition to the press criticism, the President also made clear to 
me he would not support a bill that is heavily laden with so many of 
these narrow items.
  Neither side got everything they wanted. For example, the House made 
a huge concession by giving up its rate cut for only C corporations. 
They had invested $15 billion for this in small C corporations, and 
another $64 billion for large C manufacturing corporations. They 
relented on this point in order to accommodate the Senate concerns 
about extending the manufacturing rate cut to all manufacturers, 
regardless of whether they were C corporations, S corporations, 
partnerships, or individuals.
  We have heard harsh complaints about the conference bill from Senator

[[Page 22972]]

Landrieu because the bill does not contain her reservist amendments. I 
would like to set the record straight on that point. The Senate voted 
in support of her amendment in conference. We approved it and presented 
it to the House for inclusion in the conference bill. The House 
rejected that amendment. The conference was open to the public. 
Everyone witnessed the vote. There were no back-room deals on the 
reservist amendment.
  Finally, as a premise, let me note we knew the House would not accept 
as much in revenue offsets.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Indeed, the bill before us is smaller in size by more 
than $30 billion than the Senate-passed JOBS bill.
  There has been some grumbling about how much the bill grew beyond the 
simple repeal of foreign sales corporations' extraterritorial income 
provisions. One of the reasons it grew is because the Finance Committee 
found sufficient offsets, most of which are loophole closers--loophole 
closers Senator Kerry spoke about in the debate, that he wanted to 
close. We did this to allow Members to have enough revenue to offset 
particular Senators' interests in this bill.
  This is also true of Senator Landrieu's reservist amendment. Not only 
did we support it but we found a way to pay for it. We modified the 
foreign housing exclusion for high-income U.S. employees working 
overseas. Unfortunately, the House rejected that offset, and in turn 
the specific amendment.
  I think the Senate is being distracted by too much emphasis upon 
particular specific Member priorities. I believe the core benefits of 
the bill should not be sacrificed to narrow items. The core benefits go 
to manufacturers. It is all about creating jobs in particular, 
particularly about creating jobs in manufacturing in America, where 
there has been some concern expressed in the Senate about outsourcing. 
So that is what this bill is all about. That is not to say we did not 
attempt to include a number of Members' issues from both sides of the 
aisle, and from both bodies of Congress. There was a balance that 
needed to be struck in order to get a compromise out of the conference 
committee. I committed to Chairman Thomas that I would defend the mark 
as a whole. Chairman Thomas made a similar commitment. That commitment 
enabled us to accommodate Member items that had broad support.
  Let's finish the job this week before we leave. There is no excuse 
for allowing partisanship to hold up this bill. I will remind everyone, 
one more time, this bill passed the Senate Finance Committee on a 
bipartisan vote, 19 to 2. Only two Senators, both on my side of the 
aisle, not on the Democrats' side, voted against this bill. Both of 
those Senators, however, put their own special concerns aside for the 
greater good, and are supporting this conference report. This is a 
bipartisan bill that reflects everyone's concerns, both Republican and 
Democrat.
  I will describe once again the history of this bill. The JOBS bill 
was a bipartisan bill from the ground up. The framework was laid by 
Senator Baucus when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 
the year 2002. In July 2002 we had a hearing to address the FSC/ETI 
controversy within the World Trade Organization. We have heard from a 
cross-section of industries that would be damaged by the repeal of the 
extraterritorial income laws we had on the books for the last few 
years. We also heard from U.S. companies that were clamoring for 
international tax reform, because our tax rules were hurting their 
competitiveness in foreign markets. Their foreign competitors were 
running circles around them because of our international tax rules.
  During this hearing, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Hatch 
expressed concerns about how our international tax laws were impairing 
the competitiveness of U.S. companies. After some discussion back there 
in the fall of 2002, we formed a blue ribbon commission to study this 
problem. We all decided that decisive action was more important than a 
commission. During that hearing, Chairman Baucus formed an 
international tax working group that was joined by Senator Graham, 
Senator Hatch, and this Senator, and was open to any other Finance 
Committee Senator interested in participating.
  The bipartisan Finance Committee working group developed a framework 
that formed the basis of the bill that is before us this very day. We 
directed our staff to engage in an exhaustive analysis of the many 
international reform proposals that have been offered. We sought to 
glean the very best ideas from as many sources as possible. Senator 
Baucus and I also formed a bipartisan bicameral working group, with the 
chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, in an 
effort to find some common ground on dealing with the repeal of FSC/
ETI. That effort did not go so well. But it did inspire Senator Baucus 
and this Senator to continue our Senate bipartisan development of a 
FSC/ETI repeal and international tax reform package.
  We continued our efforts in cooperation with Senator Hatch and 
Senator Graham and a few other members of the Finance Committee who 
wanted to do what was fair and right in complying with the World Trade 
Organization ruling. We continued our bipartisan efforts when I became 
chairman--again, in the year 2003. In July 2003 we held two hearings on 
the FSC/ETI and the international reform issues. One hearing focused on 
the effect of our tax policies on business competition within the 
United States and the other on international business competition. 
These two hearings led to the bipartisan Senate bill that passed 
earlier, 92 to 5.
  Let me review what is in the bill before us, because most of it comes 
from our bipartisan Senate bill. The core part of the bill repeals the 
current FSC/ETI provisions that are in our current tax law and were 
ruled out of order by the World Trade Organization because they are 
contrary even to the laws of our own Congress.
  FSC/ETI reduces the income tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and 
exported overseas by as much as 3 to 8 rate points. That is, if a 
corporation's tax rate is 35 percent, the tax rate on export income is 
somewhere between 27 and 32 percent instead of that maximum of 35 
percent.
  It lowered the U.S. corporate rate on goods made in the United States 
and sold overseas to make us competitive because of the fact that the 
European Union and those countries do not export their value-added tax. 
The World Trade Organization has determined that the FSC/ETI is an 
impermissible export subsidy and has authorized the European Union to 
impose up to $4 billion a year of sanctions against U.S. exports until 
we get rid of FSC/ETI, which this bill does.
  Those sanctions begin March 1. They are up as high as 12 percent 
right now. They can go up as high as 17 percent. They can even go 
higher than that if the European Union institutes longer phase-ins.
  Our companies carry this burden because Congress has failed to act 
for 2 or 3 years. That is why we must pass this bill before we leave 
Washington for our campaigning.
  This should be a very serious concern of all Members because the 
sanctions are hitting commodity products such as agricultural goods, 
timber and paper, as well as other manufactured products. Presently, 
about 89 percent of the FSC-ETI export benefits go to the manufacturing 
sector.
  Repeal of FSC-ETI raises around $55 billion over 10 years. If that 
money is not sent back into the manufacturing sector, which this bill 
does, there will be a $50 billion tax increase on manufacturing. It is 
mathematically impossible for it doing anything else.
  That is why the bill before us takes all $55 billion of the FSC-ETI 
repeal money and sends it back to the manufacturing sector in the form 
of a 3-point tax rate cut on manufacturing income; in other words, that 
corporate tax of 35 percent being reduced down to 32 percent.
  This tax rate is for manufacturing in the United States. No company 
that manufacturers offshore will benefit from it. We start phasing in 
those cuts next year. The cuts apply to sole proprietors, partnerships, 
farmers, individuals, family businesses, multinational

[[Page 22973]]

corporations, and foreign companies that set up manufacturing plants in 
the United States.
  In total, this bill provides over $76 billion of tax relief to our 
U.S.-based manufacturing sector to promote factory hiring in the United 
States--$76 billion not lost to the Federal Treasury because it is 
offset.
  This bill also contains another $7 billion for small businesses, 
local communities, inland shipping, and other local business concerns.
  There has been chatter in the press about the short-line railroad 
provision benefiting big railroad companies. That is not true. Short 
lines are the small spurs that run off of the main railway systems and 
generally connect to local community businesses such as our grain 
elevators and our small factories. They connect them to the main rail 
arteries. They are often owned by small rail companies or local 
community businesses. This short-rail provision is vital to farming and 
rural communities across America, as well as secondary cities that do 
not have the benefit of massive public rail systems.
  This bill also contains an agricultural and small business package 
which devotes $5 billion to our home communities.
  As I said before, this is probably the most comprehensive 
agricultural and rural community tax incentive package ever passed by 
the Congress.
  We also include international tax reforms, mostly in foreign tax 
credit areas, and most of which benefit the manufacturing sector.
  The international tax reforms largely fix problems our domestic 
companies face with the complexities of the foreign tax credit. These 
reforms are necessary if we are to level the playing field for U.S. 
companies that compete with our trading partners, particularly those 
companies that are in countries that have value-added tax and they 
don't export that tax like we export our income tax as part of our cost 
of production.
  You will hear arguments that the international reforms provide an 
incentive to move jobs offshore. Read the bill and you will find that 
is not true. We have carefully selected international reforms that do 
not provide offshore incentives.
  Our bill also includes a House version of the Homeland Reinvestment 
Act which will temporarily reduce tax on foreign earnings that are 
brought into the United States for investment here at home instead of 
overseas. The Senate version of this provision is the work of Senators 
Ensign, Boxer, and Smith, a bipartisan measure.
  We included a provision that allows naval shipbuilders to use a 
method of accounting which results in more favorable income tax 
treatment.
  There are enhanced depreciation provisions to help the ailing airline 
industry.
  The bill also expands the new markets tax credit to high outmigration 
counties. These credits help economic development in rural counties 
that have lost over 10 percent of their population.
  We have also included the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act. We have a 
special dividend allocation rule which benefits farm cooperatives.
  We have other farm provisions that give cattlemen tax-free treatment 
if they replace livestock because of drought, flood, or other weather-
related conditions--things all beyond the control of the farmer.
  We included a provision that allows payments under the National 
Health Service Corps loan repayment program to be exempt from tax. This 
is an important measure to enhance the delivery of medical services to 
rural areas that do not have the proper number of health practitioners.
  The bill before us contains several energy provisions that were voted 
out of the Finance Committee that had been previously approved by the 
full Senate in the JOBS bill.
  I have already spoken about VEETC, which is short for volumetric 
ethanol excise tax credit. This provision would add up to $14.2 billion 
of revenue to the highway trust fund over the 6-year life of the 
upcoming transportation bill now pending before Congress. This 
provision alone could create as many as 674,000 new jobs in America.
  The energy tax package also includes a new incentive for the 
production of renewable biodiesel--biodiesel made from soybeans--and 
hence, mixed at a 20-percent mixture with petroleum diesel, clean 
burning, no sulfur in that 20 percent, as an example of being 
environmentally friendly.
  Anyway, the biodiesel provision means jobs in our heartland. 
Renewable fuels have directly generated over 150,000 new jobs. In fact, 
in 2004 alone, this industry will add 22,000 new jobs.
  The bill also includes a provision to accelerate the production of 
natural gas from Alaska and the construction of a natural gas pipeline 
from Alaska to the lower 48 States. According to our own Department of 
Labor's Bureau of Economic Analysis, construction of the Alaska natural 
gas pipeline would create nearly 400,000 jobs in construction, 
trucking, manufacturing, and other service sectors.
  The bill provides all of this tax relief, nearly $140 billion worth, 
and yet is revenue neutral, meaning we reduce taxes over here, close 
corporate loopholes over here, raise a certain amount of money to make 
up for what is less taxation over here. It is revenue neutral--no 
additional money added, no additional dollars added to the national 
debt; not one dime to the Federal deficit.
  The tax relief in this bill is paid for by extending Customs user 
fees, shutting down abusive corporate tax shelters, and attacking the 
abusive tax strategy used by Enron, which we unearthed during my 
Finance Committee Enron investigation.
  Last October, the Finance Committee held hearings on the status of 
these abusive corporate tax shelter activities. During that hearing, we 
received anonymous testimony from a leasing industry executive 
describing how U.S. corporations are able to take tax deductions for 
the pair of sewer lines in the New York subway station.
  Let me explain ``anonymous.'' This meant the person was testifying 
before the committee. We knew who he was, but he was not identified to 
the public. But he knew what he was talking about. We have a situation 
where major corporations, through these abusive tax shelters, are 
claiming tax deductions on taxpayer-funded infrastructure, mostly by 
municipalities located both in the United States and overseas. Imagine 
our surprise on the Senate Finance Committee to learn that the U.S. 
taxpayer is subsidizing the cost of electric transmission lines in the 
Australian outback. No one believes that, but it showed up in our 
investigation.
  I could go on with a lot of other examples, but the bill before the 
Senate ends this corporate tax shelter abuse.
  It was shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that 
we saw the beginning of the exodus of U.S. companies moving their 
corporate headquarters to tax havens overseas, just setting up a shell 
corporation, basically just a mailbox, for the sole purpose of evading 
U.S. corporate taxes. It was the events of September 11, 2001, and the 
ensuing stock market plunge that provided companies with cost-efficient 
ways to get out of the United States. That is one thing, but to get out 
of the United States just to cheat on their taxes and leaving 
everything else in the United States--that is the problem.
  Members may recall the video I played for some members in which a big 
four accounting firm partner said that U.S. companies were resistant to 
this scheme out of some post-September 11 sense of patriotism and 
national duty. This big four accounting firm partner said patriotism 
would have to take a back seat when they see their improved earnings 
per share. Isn't that a nice thing to be talking about within 2 or 3 
months after losing 3,000 Americans in the terrorist attacks on New 
York City and the Pentagon?
  In this bill before the Senate, patriotism is not taking a back seat. 
This bill includes measures to shut down this type of corporate 
expatriations that are there for the sole purpose of dashing from the 
country and stashing the cash, as opposed to those patriotic 
corporations that are staying in America and paying and playing here.

[[Page 22974]]

  I am not pleased with the effective date that came out of the 
conference, but this bill does shut down for the future more of these 
corporate tax shelter abuses that we call inversions. They are done. In 
fact, this bill represents the most comprehensive attack on tax 
shelters since 1986.
  There is a great deal of good in this bill. We can rescue the 
manufacturing sector. We can give companies less reason to outsource 
because the cost of capital--as one of the arguments for outsourcing--
will be less if this bill passes.
  We also end European Union sanctions. By passing this bill we can 
respond to the recent rise in gas prices through our encouragement of 
more renewable fuels, and we can shut down every known corporate tax 
shelter abuse.
  It is time to pass what is a very important bill to aid our 
manufacturing sector, remove tariffs off our farmers' backs, create 
jobs for our workers, and to place the Senate back on its footing, to 
do its job, and move legislation that benefits the American working men 
and women.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand there was an order, and I am allowed to 
speak for 5 minutes.


                          Disaster Assistance

  I take this time first to thank all the Senators who voted for S. 
Res. 454, expressing the sense of the Senate that disaster assistance 
ought to be emergency spending and not taken as an offset out of any 
other program, especially the farm bill.
  The vote was overwhelming, 71 to 14. Once again, as we have in the 
past, the Senate has spoken very loudly and clearly that when a 
disaster strikes, wherever it is, this is an emergency. It ought to be 
taken out of the whole pot of Government money rather than invading a 
program and taking money out it as an offset.
  Again, I have the deepest sympathy for all the people who got hit by 
the hurricane in Florida and other States. They ought to be 
compensated. That is a true emergency. It is a disaster. But we have 
had disasters in other parts of the country. We have had floods, 
tornados, droughts, all kind of things. Just because it is not a big 
hurricane does not mean it is not just as devastating. It is. It makes 
no sense why we should have to then offset, take money out of existing 
farm programs, to pay for agricultural disaster assistance. But that is 
the position of President Bush and of the House leadership. We do not 
require offsets to respond to the hurricane disaster, and we should not 
do it for any other disaster.
  Seventy-one Senators again spoke and said emergencies are 
emergencies. Disasters require emergency spending.
  I have to point out that last night in the debate in St. Louis the 
President said he had fought for strong conservation provisions in the 
farm bill. I was there when the President signed the farm bill in May 
2002, and he touted the conservation title and how much he supported it 
and that one of the main reasons he was signing it was because of the 
strong conservation title.
  Yet today, his people, the President's own people from the White 
House and OMB, are up here telling the members of the House and 
Senators that in order to respond to the droughts, flooding, tornados 
and other disasters we have had around the country, that the disaster 
payments have to be taken out of the farm bill and that the place to 
take them is from conservation.
  Yes, you heard me correctly. The President of the United States, who 
so loudly last night said he fought for a strong conservation title in 
the farm bill, today, his people are up here and saying to take money 
out of conservation to pay for agricultural disaster assistance.
  I am sorry, can someone please join the dots for me? What is 
happening? The President is saying one thing, but his people are up 
here doing exactly the opposite. Does the President not know what his 
people are doing up here or have they not informed him or what is going 
on?
  The farmers and ranchers of this country, as well as Americans who 
support conservation, ought to know that there is a provision soon 
coming before the Senate that will take money out of conservation to 
pay for disasters. It is wrong. Seventy-one Senators just spoke and 
said it is wrong. Yet the White House is insisting that disaster money 
has to be taken out of conservation.
  The White House and the House insist on provisions that basically 
take money away with hand and give it back with the other and say to 
farmers and ranchers: You are better off. It is a cruel hoax for 
agricultural producers. Farmers who receive disaster payments should 
not suffer the loss of other farm bill benefits. Nor should our 
Nation's farmers as a whole, the majority of whom will not receive any 
disaster payments, be forced to bear the cost of disaster assistance by 
having farm bill benefits taken away to be transferred to a disaster 
program for only some farmers.
  Why should the farmers in Pennsylvania have their conservation 
funding taken away from them to transfer to farmers in Nebraska or 
Wyoming or Colorado or Oklahoma or Texas or wherever the disaster may 
be. The White House did not say to do that for Florida's hurricane 
losses. They did not say to take money away from Alaska or Ohio or 
places like that to go to Florida. No, and they should not have. We 
should all pitch in as we have before, the whole country, to respond to 
the hurricane recovery. We pitch in because it is a disaster and 
emergency and so we fund it as an emergency, not by taking funding away 
from other vital programs. Yet for agricultural disaster assistance 
responding to droughts, or floods or other disasters, the White House 
and the House leadership are telling farmers and ranchers they will 
have to bear the cost of it by losing conservation funding from the 
farm bill.
  I am sorry, it is not right and not fair. And 71 Senators said it is 
not.
  Again, I ask the President: Please, Mr. President, you touted the 
conservation program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for just 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, you touted the conservation program. Last 
night you said you fought for a strong conservation title in the farm 
bill. And now you are taking money out of conservation to pay for 
disasters. Please, Mr. President, I am telling you, get ahold of your 
people who are at OMB--your people. They work for you. Get them on the 
phone right now and tell them, this agricultural disaster money ought 
to come out of emergency assistance, just like you proposed for the 
hurricanes, and not out of farmers' own pockets.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I understand there is a unanimous consent 
agreement. I ask unanimous consent it be modified so I may be 
recognized now according to the time allocated under the unanimous 
consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

  Mr. REED. Madam President, as a preliminary point, let me say I had 
the privilege yesterday to go up to Walter Reed Army Hospital to visit 
soldiers who have been injured in action defending this country and 
also to visit the rehabilitation facilities there. And any time you go 
to Walter Reed, you are inspired by the courage, the selfless service, 
and the sacrifice of these outstanding young men and women. But I want 
to relay something I think is particularly appropriate but is not often 
said.
  As I was leaving the room of an injured soldier from the 509th 
Parachute

[[Page 22975]]

Infantry Regiment, his parents--his mother and father--were there, and 
his father stopped me and said: Senator, I want to make sure you know 
something. The people in this hospital are extraordinary. They have 
treated my son with extraordinary care. He is my child, but all the 
people I have known here in this hospital treat my son as if he was 
their child.
  That is an extraordinary compliment to the men and women of Walter 
Reed, the Army Medical Corps, the doctors, the nurses, the technicians, 
the occupational therapists, the janitors, the clerks. And it is not 
just Walter Reed, it is Bethesda, it is the Air Force Health System.
  I do not think we spend enough time thanking those valiant soldiers, 
sailors, and air men and women for what they do. And certainly those 
soldiers who have suffered and are being treated, rehabilitated, we owe 
them more than we can ever repay. We have to match their courage with 
wise and thoughtful policy.


       Operational Deployment of the Ground-Based Missile System

  Madam President, I am going to spend a few moments talking about a 
policy which I do not consider to be the wisest and the most 
thoughtful, and that is the President's likely declaration, within a 
few days, of the operational deployment of the ground-based missile 
system. We have constructed a test bed in Alaska. We are trying to 
assemble a system that will work to protect this country. I think 
operational testing is in order. In fact, I would hope that the 
administration would actually follow the law more rigorously and 
provide for a scheme of operational testing. But that is not the case.
  To declare this immature, technologically challenged system as 
deployed and operational today is a political judgment, not a military 
judgment. I think we should refrain from blatant political judgments 
when the security of the United States is in the balance.
  Simply stated, this system is so immature and technologically 
challenged that they canceled the last test. And it defies me to 
understand how, after cancelling the test, you can turn around and say: 
It will work. It is operational. It defies common sense. It defies 
logic. It is something I think, again, that simply is a political 
statement.
  Now, intercept tests are the critical means by which a missile 
system, any military system that is technologically sophisticated, must 
be validated, must be tested. It is the only way we can truly assess 
whether a system will work, whether it meets a minimum criteria for 
deployment, to put it in the hands of American fighting forces.
  The last intercept flight test of the system was conducted almost 2 
years ago in December 2002. It was a failure.
  Six days after the test failed, the President announced that the U.S. 
would deploy the missile defense system by the end of 2004. It is 
almost like watching a piece of military equipment crash and burn and 
then suddenly say it is operational. Again, it defies logic. It defies 
common sense.
  Since the time of the last test failure in 2002, there have been 
seven other planned tests. They have all been canceled. Again, we are 
not able to test this system. How in good faith can we say it is 
operationally workable? The tests have been postponed, deferred. None 
of these tests have taken place.
  None of the major components of the system, neither the new 
operational interceptor, nor the operational radar, nor the operational 
battle management system have ever been tested at all against a real 
test target. Yet the President will say, I assume in a few days, this 
system is capable of protecting the United States.
  In addition to all these test delays and cancellations, the 
administration has essentially eliminated any effective oversight over 
the missile defense test program, avoiding standards and laws that have 
been on the books for at least 20 years.
  Years of hard experience have shown that it is much more expensive to 
fix a problem with a military system after you have built and deployed 
it than it is to fix it before it is deployed. Because of this, more 
than 20 years ago, Congress passed laws which required all major 
defense systems to undergo a full set of realistic operational tests 
prior to spending large amounts of money on full production and 
deployment of the system. These tests were to be judged by an 
independent test authority called the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation. This law is still in effect today.
  Thanks to this law, we have been able to avoid some of the mistakes 
we made in the 1970s and the 1980s, where we declared systems deployed 
and operational without adequate testing. These are high-profile 
systems, like the B-1 bomber, the Sergeant York gun, and the Bradley 
Fighting Vehicle. We were able to make certain corrections to the B-1 
and the Bradley. They were eventually fixed at a cost of billions of 
dollars. The Sergeant York gun was unable to be fixed. That was 
canceled. But we wasted billions of dollars by deploying these systems 
prematurely.
  If the missile system is truly as important as the administration 
thinks, then we should take the time to test this system to make sure 
it works instead of trying to convince people, by press release, that 
it does work.
  The missile system has been exempted by the administration from the 
oversight of the independent Director of Operational Testing, and they 
have plunged ahead with full-rate production of the program with no 
independent testing at all. Incredibly, the administration has no plans 
to ever conduct realistic independent operational tests on this missile 
defense system. This avoids 20 years of law, practice, and indeed 
common sense. The politics of deploying a missile defense at any cost 
prior to the election has trumped any desire to make sure the system 
actually works and, if history is any guide, will likely result in the 
waste of a large amount of money to fix the system after it has been 
deployed.
  If we can--and I think we should, indeed, with deliberate speed--
deploy a system that is operationally effective, we should do that. But 
to take a system where the major components haven't even been tested 
and say it works is being intellectually dishonest and deceptive to the 
American people.
  On August 18, Secretary Rumsfeld described the missile defense 
deployment as the ``triumph of hope and vision over pessimism and 
skepticism.'' Actually it is a triumph of best wishes over reality. And 
hope is not a plan. We found that out in Iraq. Only a system that is 
rigorously tested, where improvements are made test by test by test, 
will get us to where we want to go and must be, a system that we are 
confident will work if it is called upon to defend the country.
  Now this lack of testing is not a result of any lack of funds. The 
administration has lavished funding on this system. The budget request 
for fiscal year 2005 is $10.2 billion. It is the largest single-year 
budget request for any weapons program in the history of the United 
States. For perspective, the fiscal year 2005 budget request for 
missile defense is more than the Army's total research and development 
budget for this year. And we know we have an Army engaged in combat, in 
trying circumstances, that needs to develop new approaches, new sensors 
for the troops, new observation devices, new ways to deal with 
insurgencies in built-up areas, new ways to deter and defend against 
improvised explosive devices. Their budget is a fraction of the budget 
that is being lavished upon this system. It is twice the budget for the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland 
Security, and it is nearly twice the Department's allocation for the 
Coast Guard--two times Coast Guard, two times Customs and Border 
Protection.
  The ultimate costs of this system are unknown because the 
administration steadfastly refuses to provide to Congress any 
information on how much missile defense they want to buy and how much 
it will cost. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office 
indicate the Bush administration's Missile Defense Program could exceed 
$100 billion. Nowhere is that $100 billion being factored into ongoing 
defense budgets as we move forward over

[[Page 22976]]

the next 5 to 10 years, and it will have to come from somewhere. Again, 
we need a system, but we have to be honest about how much it will work 
and how we are going to pay for it. That honesty is not present today.
  The other factor--and this is interesting--in contrast to the numbers 
that are being allocated for the Coast Guard and the Customs Service is 
that an intercontinental launch against the United States is probably 
less likely than other means of detonating a weapon of mass destruction 
in the United States. First of all, there are only two countries that 
currently have the capability: Russia and China. The Bush 
administration points--and I think rightfully so--with concern to North 
Korea. But that country has never successfully launched any missile 
capable of reaching the United States. Furthermore, North Korea has 
observed a self-imposed moratorium on long-range missile testing for 6 
years since their last test failed in 1998.
  But even if North Korea develops such a capacity, why would they 
launch a missile against the United States? Our early warning 
satellites will pick up the launch. It will tell us definitely and 
decisively where it is coming from, and we will retaliate swiftly and 
with devastating force that will likely destroy that regime. Why would 
they want to do that, particularly if they could attack us by other 
means, perhaps concealing a weapon of mass destruction in a container 
that comes to the United States since only a small percentage are 
opened?
  Again, the budget for the Customs Service and the Border Protection 
Service is a fraction of what we are spending on this particular 
threat.
  Now, that is not just my conceptual view. In December 2001, the U.S. 
intelligence community completed an assessment of the foreign ballistic 
missile threat to this country. The assessment was entitled ``Foreign 
Missile Development and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015.'' 
Their conclusions:

       [T]he intelligence community judges that U.S. territory is 
     more likely to be attacked with [weapons of mass destruction] 
     using nonmissile means, primarily because such means: Are 
     less expensive than developing and producing ICBMs; can be 
     covertly developed and employed; the source of the weapon 
     could be masked in an attempt to evade retaliation; it 
     probably would be more reliable than ICBMs that have not 
     completed rigorous testing and validation programs; and 
     probably would be much more accurate than emerging ICBMs over 
     the next 15 years.

  This is what the intelligence community said in 2001 looking forward 
to 2015. Yet since that time, the Bush administration has spent 
billions of dollars more on the development of this untested, unproven 
missile defense than it has on protection of our ports and borders 
where the real threats are likely to come from.
  We should be very careful about making sure we take scarce dollars 
and apply them to the most likely threats. Some have said: Well, don't 
make those comparisons. We to have defend against every threat. 
Frankly, the simple contrast between the money we are spending on 
missile defense versus the Coast Guard and border patrol seems to be 
directly in contradiction to the intelligence community estimate of 
what the most likely threat would be. That is not wise policy.
  There is also a huge opportunity cost for us. While we are lavishing 
money on this system, there are other programs--for example, the 
Department of Energy program called the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative--which are not being adequately funded. This Department of 
Energy program is designed to help secure loose nuclear materials that 
are around the globe so that terrorists don't get their hands on them. 
And what is the most vital threat to the United States today? A 
terrorist group could obtain nuclear materials or a nuclear device, 
smuggle those materials into the United States, and attack us here. 
That is what the intelligence community assumes is the most likely 
threat. Yet we are not going to the source and securing and eliminating 
the nuclear material that is too abundant in the world.
  There is another program that the administration is proposing, which 
is the airborne laser program, another part of this elaborate construct 
of missile defenses. The airborne lasers are designed to shoot down 
ballistic missiles in their first stage as they blast off and start 
going into space. This program has been plagued by problems throughout, 
problems which have delayed the program by a year, reduced the laser 
power by more than half, and have many wondering whether this program 
is doomed to fail.
  By the way, using the same criteria of missile defense--i.e., test 
failures followed by numerous cancellations--I wonder why the 
administration doesn't declare the airborne laser operational. It works 
perhaps as well as our national missile defense.
  During the same time the administration has been spending far less on 
security for our Nation's ports, it has been spending a great deal of 
money on the airborne laser. The Bush administration's fiscal year 2005 
budget proposes a $50 million cut to the 2004 level of U.S. port 
security funding, the grant funding that we use to help our ports all 
across this country. Yet there they are still investing extraordinary 
amounts, almost a half a billion dollars, in the airborne laser. So 
while it is a risky, possibly doomed program, the money keeps flowing 
while we do not have adequate resources to protect our ports.
  The other aspect of this dilemma is that the administration has never 
been able to open up this process to a transparent approach, where 
scientists can look at this data. Of course, we are going to protect 
the security and the proprietary information here, but they have been 
overly secretive. And the reason is obvious: it doesn't seem to work, 
and they don't want that information out as they are getting ready to 
declare it operational.
  They also never really had the opportunity or the will to have 
realistic tests. All of these tests have been carefully scripted. All 
of these tests have relied upon nonrealistic scenarios. The incoming 
missile has a homing beacon on it to help guide the interceptor to it. 
They don't use realistic decoys, which any country attacking the United 
States, you would have to assume, would have decoys as well as a real 
warhead. And there is no element of surprise. A real enemy missile 
attack would not be scripted, would not have a convenient homing beacon 
on the target, would likely have realistic decoys and would be a 
surprise attack.
  Frankly, if we had warning of the pending attack, we would take 
preemptive action immediately, take out the missile on the launch pad.
  During the entire time of the Bush administration, there has been 
essentially no progress made toward the goal of realistic missile 
defense tests against realistic targets.
  An effective missile defense is something we should all work for. But 
a missile defense that is based upon a press release and not tested is 
not an effective missile defense. Saying it is operational doesn't make 
it operational. What makes it operational is rigorous testing under 
realistic circumstances. This administration has never done that.
  I believe we should proceed forward with all deliberate speed to 
develop and deploy a missile system. I don't think we should allow 
ourselves to make a political judgment and declare it operational by 
press release and not validation through testing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the FSC 
bill. Some may view this as a tax bill, and it is; some have called it 
the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and I think that is fair; I am 
sure it will do that.
  But let me say to the Members of the Senate, my colleagues, what this 
bill could have been, what this bill should have been, and what it was 
when it left here, when we sent it to the conference committee. What it 
should have been, what it could have been, what it was was the most 
important public health bill to be considered by this Congress.
  Before the FDA provision to regulate tobacco was stripped out by the 
conference committee, it was the most important public health bill to 
be considered by this Congress. It was the most

[[Page 22977]]

important children's health bill to come before this Congress. 
Tragically, the conference committee stripped out the FDA provision 
that would have, for the first time, put the marketing of the sale of 
tobacco under the same terms and conditions as the sale of every other 
product in this country. In this bill, which has so many things in it, 
there just wasn't room, according to the conference committee, for this 
FDA provision.
  This is a sad day for the Congress. This Senate voted on an 
amendment, 78 to 15, to include the tobacco buyout that helped tobacco 
farmers, which I supported and continue to support, coupled with, for 
the first time, having the tobacco controlled like every other product 
in this country and regulated by the Government. This bill we have in 
front of us represents a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity 
to help our children, our grandchildren, and the public health. Two 
thousand children a day in this country start smoking; 400,000 people a 
year die of tobacco-related diseases. Yet we failed in this bill; we 
turned our back on this historic opportunity.
  I truly believe that in public life, as well as in life as 
individuals, we are judged not only by what we do, but also by what we 
fail to do. I think we ultimately are held accountable for what we 
don't do. So I intend to vote no on this bill. I intend to vote no on 
cloture because of the failure of the conferees to include this 
historic provision. We had the opportunity and missed the opportunity 
to close this loophole in the law, to deal with this anomaly in the 
law. Every product that comes on the market is regulated. When you walk 
in the supermarket today and you buy a product, every single product is 
regulated. The ingredients are on the package. If there is a claim that 
is made, that has to be substantiated. Every single product, except 
one, and that product is tobacco--cigarettes and smokeless tobacco; 
they are exempt. King tobacco is exempt in the law today. That is 
wrong.
  This bill, as we sent it out of the Senate, in the wisdom of the 
Senate, would have changed that. Yet the conferees stripped out that 
provision. So we should vote no on cloture and on the conference 
report.
  This was a historic opportunity that will not come again. The 
coupling of the tobacco buyout and the coupling of the FDA-controlled 
tobacco--we will not have the opportunity to do that again. This bill, 
in fact, contained the tobacco buyout. I support that. If this bill 
passes, the tobacco buyout will be done and we will no longer have the 
opportunity to couple these together. We will have lost that--let's be 
candid--political opportunity to put these two together. So we have 
lost that chance and that opportunity.
  A yes vote on this conference report, a yes vote on cloture says it 
was OK to strip that out. A yes vote says it is OK to turn our backs on 
our kids once again on this issue. A yes vote says it is OK, the status 
quo is fine, and business as usual is fine.
  How long are we going to tolerate this? How long are we going to say 
tobacco is different than every other product in this country? How long 
are we going to say tobacco should not be regulated? How long are we 
going to say when one goes in and buys products on the market, every 
other product is regulated, one knows what they are buying but not 
tobacco? Why should tobacco be different?
  Some Members may say, I cannot vote against this bill; there is too 
much in it. It has too much for my State, too many good things.
  There are a lot of good things in there. There are things for my home 
State of Ohio. There are some things in there that are not that good, 
but there are some good things in that bill, and I know that.
  I have been in politics and Government for 30 years. I have been in 
the Senate for 10 years. I have cast a lot of votes. When people say, I 
cannot vote no, when people say I have to do it, I say this to them: I 
have been in politics for 30 years, and they do not have to do 
anything. There is nothing that compels anybody to vote any way on any 
bill. The longer one is doing this, I think the more they realize that.
  So I say to my colleagues, they do not have to vote for this bill. 
They do not have to vote for cloture. There is nothing that compels 
them to. It is the wrong vote.
  Sometimes one has to look at the big picture. Sometimes I think my 
colleagues have to stand back from what would appear to be the 
parochial interests and look at the big interests, but I would maintain 
that if they look at the interests of their State and look at the 
interests of the people of their State, not to mention the interests of 
the people of their country, they will come to the conclusion that 
voting no on the motion on cloture, no on this bill is the right thing 
to do.
  Look at my home State of Ohio. Yes, there are good things in here for 
Ohio, but I will read to my colleagues the statistics from Ohio. I 
share them with my colleagues as an example of what their State is 
probably like as well.
  Here are the statistics from the State of Ohio: 22.2 percent of high 
school students smoke; 12.8 percent of the male high school students 
use smokeless or spit tobacco. The number of kids under 18 who become 
new daily smokers each year is 36,800. The number of kids who are 
exposed--this is all just Ohio, now. The number of kids who are exposed 
to secondhand smoke at home, 919,000; packs of cigarettes bought or 
smoked by kids each year in Ohio, 36.3 million; adults in Ohio who 
smoke, 2,251,000. That is 26.6 percent.
  How about deaths from smoking? Adults who die each year from their 
own smoking, that is 18,900 just in my home State of Ohio. Kids now 
under 18 and alive in Ohio who will ultimately, if they continue to 
smoke, die prematurely from smoking, 314,000. Adults, children, and 
babies who die each year from others' smoking, that is secondhand 
smoke, is estimated between 1,800 to 3,200.
  If we do not care about people, what about dollars and cents? Well, 
annual health care costs in Ohio directly caused by smoking, $3.41 
billion. That is ``billion.'' Portions covered by the State Medicaid 
program, that is what you and I pay if you are a resident of Ohio, 
$1.11 billion, and it goes on. Smoking-caused productivity losses in 
Ohio, that is $4.14 billion; resident State and Federal tax burden from 
smoking-caused Government expenditures, that is $534 per household.
  Those are the figures. I look at this vote and I try to balance the 
fact that there are some good things that might be in here for my State 
versus what we could have achieved, what we could have done, and it is 
a pretty easy choice.
  The conference committee had no business scuttling the will of the 
Senate and throwing out the FDA provision. It was wrong. They should 
not have done that.
  I ask unanimous consent to use a few items in my speech. I am looking 
at them right now. They are some packages of cigarettes, a macaroni and 
cheese carton, yogurt, as well as a Sports Illustrated Magazine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. I will explain a little bit to my colleagues what the 
bill we sent to the conference committee would have done, because I 
want to explain the gravity of this. I will talk a little bit about the 
nature of what the tobacco companies can do that nobody else can do.
  I will start with macaroni and cheese. We all buy it. If one has 
kids, they buy it, anyway. We all know what it is. I ask my colleagues, 
when they go home tonight, to look at the carton of macaroni and cheese 
and read what is in it. I am not going to bother to read everything 
that is in it but it has everything. It has calories, salt; then there 
is a whole long list of enriched macaroni, durum wheat flour, citric 
acid, sodium phosphate. It goes on and on. The thing one has to do is 
have pretty good eyes. If one is my age, they have to hold it back a 
little bit to make sure they can read it well, but it is there, and it 
can be read. Everything one wants to know, and probably more; every 
health item in the world.
  The same company makes Marlboros. Try to figure out what is in here. 
If you do not smoke, go buy one, anyway, and

[[Page 22978]]

take a look at it, or pick it up if you do not want to support the 
tobacco companies. Take a look. There is nothing on here. There is a 
Surgeon General warning but there is not a whole lot on here. One 
cannot tell what is on here.
  Do my colleagues know why? Tobacco is exempt. Nobody regulates them. 
Nobody requires them to list what is in here. The same company: One 
makes macaroni and cheese and one makes Marlboros. Why? Because it is 
not in the law. How long are we going to put up with this? It is wrong.
  Now I will turn to the claims that cigarettes make. Marlboro Lights, 
well, that must mean something. I am sure it means something, but we do 
not know what it means. Yogurt, light yogurt. When you see light 
yogurt, it means something. When you turn it around, it says one-third 
fewer calories, and it better be one-third fewer calories. Definable, 
measurable; it means something. If it is on cigarettes, it doesn't mean 
anything. It may mean something. I don't know what it means. Again, no 
Government regulation. Cigarette companies are exempt. A loophole this 
law would have closed, now they stripped it out and it will not close 
it now. Tell me that is right. Explain that to the American taxpayer. 
Explain that to American citizens. Why? No explanation. There is no 
logic behind that.
  How about the claims of cigarettes? ``Premium Lights.'' Again we are 
back to the ``lights.'' ``All of the taste, less of the toxins.'' The 
average person who buys cigarettes probably thinks this means 
something. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. We will never know. We will 
never know as long as this Congress continues to refuse to regulate the 
tobacco industry. We will never know. The American consumer will never 
know whether, when the cigarette companies put claims on here like 
``all of the taste, less of the toxins,'' that is really true or 
whether ``less of the toxins'' means anything. Most people would think 
it would. Maybe that is healthier or not as dangerous, but we don't 
know that and we never will know it until this Congress changes the 
status quo.
  Here is another one. This is Eclipse, ``20 Class A cigarettes,'' it 
says. Here is what it says on the back, and again who knows if this is 
true:

       Scientific studies show that compared with other 
     cigarettes, Eclipse may present less risk of cancer, 
     bronchitis, and possibly emphysema, reduces secondhand smoke 
     by 80 percent, leaves no lingering odor in hair or clothes.

  That is important. Then, of course, they add:

       All cigarettes present some health risk, including Eclipse.

  That is nice of them to say. Again, how do we know the accuracy of 
this claim? But again the average consumer picks this up and feels a 
little better with this. There is nobody to test it, nobody to regulate 
it.
  Some people say: Mike DeWine, adults ought to know no cigarette is 
safe. So buyer beware. Who cares?
  I don't think that is the right attitude because I believe some 
adults do rely on less tar, less this, lighter, and scientific studies 
have shown that.
  But what about kids? It is here that the cigarette companies reach 
the low point, absolutely the low point where nobody can defend them. I 
will challenge anybody to come to this floor and defend what they are 
doing. I have a whole bag of these. This is what they are doing. The 
cigarettes I am holding in front of me are not focused on a 57-year-old 
Camel smoker, I will guarantee. I don't see any 57-year-old Camel 
smokers smoking this stuff. These are aimed at kids. Let me read it to 
you:
  Camel Mandarin Mint:

       A blend of menthol and citrus flavor.

  This is Liquid Coconut Flavor, Liquid Zoo:

       An exotic blend of coconut flavored tobacco for a sweet, 
     fresh taste and aroma.

  Camel Beach Breezer:

       Sultry, smooth and swingin'.

  Oh, this one, this is the old one, I guess; this is a
  Camel Kauai Kolada:

       Hawaiian hints of pineapple and coconut.

  There we go. It goes on and on.
  This is really exotic. This is Mocha Taboo:

       Inviting and surprising, Mocha Taboo will entice you with 
     its sweet indulgence, while leaving you with a refreshment 
     that's unmistakably menthol.

  And again, Liquid Zoo flavored cigarettes:

       An exotic blend of coconut flavored tobaccos for a sweet, 
     fresh taste and aroma.

  I invite my colleagues, if any Senator wants to, to come up later and 
actually smell these; it will not permeate the entire Chamber, but if 
you get close you can smell them. This is something kids would like. 
This is clearly targeted at kids, and this is what they are selling. 
Nothing stops them from selling this. This bill would at least stop 
them from selling this trash. It is not prohibition. But these products 
are designed for one reason and one reason only--to get kids hooked. It 
is an entry level drug. You entice them, you get them in, start them on 
this, and move them to something else. There is no other reason. When 
we vote for this conference report and condone what the conferees have 
done, we are saying it is OK to allow this to continue.
  This is Sports Illustrated. Any kid in this country who likes 
sports--I have had a whole household full of them, and I still have one 
at home--reads Sports Illustrated. This is a new edition, ``Smashing In 
St. Louis.'' Everybody reads Sports Illustrated. Why should kids be 
subjected to full-page ads in Sports Illustrated, full-page, color, 
inviting ads? There it is.
  We have tolerated this for too long in this country. I had a Senator, 
when we were discussing this off the floor, tell me that he didn't 
trust the FDA. I have had people tell me that. I guess my reaction to 
that would be, do you trust the people who are trying to hook our kids 
with this stuff? Do you trust them? Do you want them to continue to try 
to hook our kids with this stuff? I hope not.
  People would say it is too late, this bill is already done. I agree, 
this bill is done. But we should be sending a message and we should be 
saying we are not going to tolerate this Senate passing this bill, this 
FDA reform, sending it on to the House, and then having it stripped out 
of this conference report. It is too serious an issue. It is too 
important.
  I am not the only one who feels that this is a public health vote of 
immense importance. I have a letter from the American Lung Association 
dated October 7. I would like to read it in part:

       Dear Senator DeWine: How can the Congress give $10 billion 
     to tobacco growers without requiring anyone to exit the 
     tobacco farming business and fail to do anything for public 
     health? This in unconscionable.
       Over 440,000 people die prematurely from tobacco-related 
     illness each year and two thousand children become addicted 
     regular smokers every day. Nearly 90 percent of lung cancer 
     and 80 to 90 percent of emphysema and chronic bronchitis are 
     caused by tobacco use. Despite this deadly assault on lung 
     health, tobacco products are the most unregulated consumer 
     products on the market today....
       Please implore your colleagues to change course and include 
     the FDA oversight of tobacco in the FSC bill.
       Tobacco companies continue to aggressively market their 
     products to our children, cynically targeting ``replacement 
     smokers'' for those who die or quit smoking. New flavored 
     cigarettes including R.J. Reynolds' Camel Exotic Blends Kauai 
     Koloda with ``Hawaiian hints of pineapple and coconut'' and 
     Kool Caribbean Chill and Mocha Taboo are aimed at young 
     people. The tobacco companies make health claims of ``reduced 
     carcinogens'' or ``less toxins'' without any oversight of the 
     veracity of the statements or their impact on health.
       FDA regulation of tobacco would:
       Ban flavored cigarettes.
       Stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children and 
     adolescents.
       Require changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction 
     or elimination of harmful chemicals, to make them less 
     harmful or less addictive.
       Restrict advertising and promotions that appeal to children 
     and adolescents.

  That was from the American Lung Association.
  This is a letter from the American Thoracic Society:

       Dear Senator DeWine: Congress is about to give the Big 
     Tobacco the one thing they want, continued access to the most 
     attractive market for their deadly products--our children. 
     Don't let Big Tobacco continue to peddle their products to 
     our children.
       The best way to protect our nation's children from the 
     continuing disease and addiction caused Big Tobacco and their 
     deadly

[[Page 22979]]

     products is by granting the Food and Drug Administration 
     (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco.
       The bipartisan compromised reached in the Senate FSC bill 
     would have granted the FDA the authority needed to regulate 
     tobacco and reduce underage smoking throughout America. 
     Unfortunately, during conference the supporters of Big 
     Tobacco struck the one provision that would have given our 
     children a fighting chance against the pervasive marketing 
     power of tobacco companies.
       If Congress fails to give FDA the authority to regulate 
     tobacco, our children will pay the price. Children will pay 
     the price through a lifetime of addiction to tobacco 
     products. Children will pay through the diseases associated 
     with tobacco addiction--lung disease, heart disease and 
     cancer. Children will pay the price, literally, with their 
     lives.

  Here is another letter from the Ohio Children's Hospital Association:

       Dear Senator DeWine: I write today to express the terrible 
     disappointment felt among Ohio's children's hospitals that 
     Congress has lost an opportunity to protect the health of 
     America's children. This is a shameful waste of a rare 
     opportunity to take the bold action needed to reduce a 
     staggeringly dangerous health risk that hurts kids and 
     increases the cost of health care.
       Ohio has been working hard to reduce youth smoking, and 
     children's hospitals have long been at the frontlines of this 
     battle to protect our children from the devastating tool that 
     tobacco exacts. But, for every step forward we take (youth 
     smoking in Ohio is down recently), we face a barrage of new 
     and cunning attempts by the tobacco industry to regain its 
     foothold with Ohio's children. The tobacco industry is 
     spending more than ever to market its products in ways that 
     appeal to children. As a depressing example, we now face the 
     prospect of candy-flavored cigarettes.
       Across the country, every day 2,000 more children become 
     regular smokers, one-third of whom will die prematurely as a 
     result.
       FDA regulation of tobacco products represents the best tool 
     for combating the tobacco industry's reckless assault on our 
     children's health. We need the FDA to have the authority to 
     subject tobacco products to the same rigorous standards we 
     impose on other consumer products, including ingredient 
     disclosure, truthful packaging and advertising, and 
     manufacturing controls.

  Here is a letter from the American Heart Association:

       To the Members of the U.S. Senate: On behalf of the 
     American Heart Associations' 22.5 million volunteers and 
     advocates, I write you to express our deep dismay over the 
     Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) conference vote that failed 
     to grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to 
     regulate tobacco products. This represents a squandered 
     opportunity to protect the public against dangerous tobacco 
     products, a failure to protect our children from the 
     marketing of tobacco products, and also the adoption of the 
     wrong tobacco buyout plan. How can Congress explain such 
     neglect for our nation's health?
       Tobacco use is responsible for more than 440,000 deaths 
     each year, with more than one in three from heart disease or 
     stroke. Each day, 4,000 youth try their first cigarette and 
     2,000 become regular daily smokers. This FDA legislation 
     offered our best chance to reverse that trend and reduce the 
     senseless death and disease that results from tobacco use.

  Finally, a letter from Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:
       Dear Senator DeWine: We were profoundly disappointed by 
     yesterday's decision by the House/Senate conference on the 
     FSC legislation not to include provisions establishing FDA 
     regulation of tobacco products. An historic opportunity to 
     protect the Nation's children and the nation's health was 
     lost.
       Enacting FDA regulation of tobacco products is the single 
     most important thing Congress could do to reduce cancer, 
     heart disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and a host of 
     other diseases. It is the single most important thing 
     Congress could do to improve the health of our children and 
     protect our children from unscrupulous marketing by an 
     industry that produces a product that kills one out of two 
     long-term users. Close to 90 percent of all tobacco users 
     start as children. First and foremost, it is our children who 
     were ignored and who are the big losers by the decision not 
     to include FDA in the FSC/ETI legislation.
       The tragedy is not only that an opportunity to prevent 
     disease has slipped through our fingers, but also that 
     literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of kids, one 
     addicted, eventually will die of these tobacco-related 
     diseases. And these deaths will be needless. They will occur 
     because of the actions of the House/Senate Conferees who 
     failed to include FDA in the original Conference draft and 
     who voted not to add it to the final bill. Tobacco use is 
     also a leading cause of premature birth. If congress had 
     given FDA authority over tobacco products, Congress could 
     have dramatically reduced the number of children born 
     prematurely with serious medical programs due to tobacco use.
       Rarely does Congress have the opportunity to take an action 
     that will improve the lives and well being of millions of 
     Americans. This was such an opportunity. Tobacco companies 
     market candy flavored cigarettes, promote their products in a 
     myriad of ways that make them more appealing to children, 
     hide the truth about the dangers of their products and fail 
     to take even the most minimal steps to reduce the number of 
     Americans who die from tobacco use. By the decision not to 
     include the FDA provisions adopted overwhelmingly by the 
     Senate in this bill, Congress is doing nothing to stop them.
       Yesterday's vote by the FSA conference committee against 
     FDA authority over tobacco is a big victory for the tobacco 
     industry that will carry a heavy price in lives lost and kids 
     addicted to tobacco. The Nation will also pay a price in 
     growing cynicism about government when Congress appears 
     willing to trade tax breaks for kid's lives. We urge all 
     Senators and Members of Congress to oppose the FSC Conference 
     Report until the FDA provisions are included.

  In conclusion, I think if you gave the average American a list, maybe 
if you give them a quiz and you said here is a list of macaroni and 
cheese, peanut butter, granola bars, milk, cheese, cigarettes, bottled 
water, and asked them to check which one of these products the 
Government does not regulate, check which one of these products the 
maker of the product doesn't have to list the ingredients, which one of 
these products was not tested, which one of these products the maker of 
the product can put a claim on and not have to substantiate, which one 
will the average American pick?
  You would think they would pick the one product that by design or if 
it is used as intended, admittedly we all know is dangerous to your 
health.
  I don't think so. It defies common sense. No one in their right mind 
would pick that product. No one in their right mind, if we were 
starting all over again, would say, That is the product we are not 
going to regulate; we are not going to list the ingredients on that 
product; that is the worst product we are going to allow the 
manufacturer to make any claim they want--lighter, better, safer, 
whatever they want to say. Yet that is the status of the law today.
  By approving this conference report and by saying, yes, we are going 
to move forward with it--that will be the vote tomorrow--we are 
acquiescing in that. We are saying it is OK to give up the opportunity 
we had, the best shot we have had in years to change the status quo and 
to say we are not going to tolerate this anymore; we are not going to 
put up with this anymore. The time is here to change that. It defies 
common sense.
  There are historic votes in this Chamber. This is a historic vote. 
This is a historic time. This was a historic opportunity to make a 
difference and to change things.
  I often think, as a public official and as an American, we do not 
want to be on the wrong side of history. We all have our own list of 
things that if we were here or if we were involved in this debate 10 
years, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago we would not have 
wanted to be on a particular side. I don't want to be overly dramatic, 
but Members do not want to be on the wrong side of this debate. We may 
lose this time, but there will be a day when the American people rise 
up and say they have had enough, and this Congress hears it and this 
Congress takes votes to finally regulate this product, as we do every 
other product, and finally say we have had enough. We are going to make 
the tobacco companies list what is in the product, list the 
ingredients, come clean with the American people and say, This is what 
is in it, and hold them to the same standard we hold for a company that 
makes peanut butter of macaroni and cheese, a granola bar, a bottle of 
water or milk. They should not be above the law.
  Someday that will happen. I say to my colleagues, that day will come. 
That day may not be this session of Congress, but it will come. People 
do want to be on the right side of history. We will regulate them. We 
will bring them into the mainstream.
  This is a very dangerous product. We are not going to go to 
prohibition. That has not worked in this country. It did not work with 
alcohol, and it will not work with cigarettes. That is not what this 
debate is about. This debate is about common sense, about doing

[[Page 22980]]

what is rational, about doing something that makes good common sense.
  I conclude by urging my colleagues to vote no on this bill, to vote 
no on cloture, to send a message strongly and loudly that we have had 
enough, and it is time to bring tobacco into the mainstream of the law. 
No longer should they be outside the law. A ``no'' vote tomorrow is a 
vote for safety and the health of our kids. It is a vote or the safety 
and the health of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour is late in the afternoon on a 
Saturday, and I know there are many different matters of interest, 
primarily sports taking place across this country at the universities 
and high schools across our Nation. Young people are out there, parents 
are out there, families are out there, but I hope there are some who 
had the good opportunity to listen to my friend and colleague from Ohio 
State who spoke so clearly and eloquently as to what the real challenge 
is for this institution, the Senate, in protecting the children of this 
Nation.
  The Senator laid out the kind of persuasive and irrefutable case that 
helped gain 78 Members of the Senate who supported the DeWine-Kennedy 
proposal earlier this last month, but the amendment was dropped, as the 
Senator from Ohio pointed out, in the course of the consideration of 
the underlying legislation.
  There are public leaders who are talking about children all over this 
country. They talk about children being our future. They are our 
future. As the Senator from Ohio points out, we have missed the golden 
opportunity to make an extraordinary difference in the lives of their 
children and families.
  We hear a great deal, as we should, about family values. This 
legislation is as much a part of family values as we could have, to the 
extent that legislation is bound in family values. We know that 
basically family values start with parents, work through their 
children's relationship with each other and their parents, and their 
own common sense about their responsibilities as young people for 
themselves and for their families and for others. Family values 
involves caring about what happens not only to our children and our 
immediate families but also to children whose lives we can impact.
  This legislation which was supported by the overwhelming majority of 
this Senate, could make such an extraordinary difference to children 
today, tomorrow, and to the future. As has been pointed out, we have 
missed that extraordinary opportunity.
  For that reason and for other reasons which I will outline briefly in 
a few moments, I intend to vote no on the conference report and no on 
cloture.
  This country has had a very full education about the dangers of 
smoking. I can remember the 1964 Surgeon General's report that talked 
about the dangers of smoking and youth. That was a wake-up call to 
parents all across this country. Then we had Surgeon General Koop, who 
was an extraordinary Surgeon General.
  Last night the President of the United States was asked about any 
mistakes he might have made in public life, and we did not hear any. I 
freely admit one of the important mistakes I made was voting against 
Everett Koop to be Surgeon General because we saw through his life and 
through his commitment not only as the Surgeon General but afterwards, 
as well, that once he made that judgment that cigarettes were addictive 
and cancerous, he spent a great part of his life educating families all 
across this country. This Nation owes a great deal to his work and his 
commitment and his education to families.
  That was a wake-up call for America. We went on through the period of 
the 1980s when we had Dr. Kessler, head of the FDA, who drafted the 
regulations which were circumvented by the tobacco industry, and put 
aside those regulations that were the result of hours and hours and 
hours and hours and weeks and weeks and weeks, and days and days and 
days and months and months and months of careful, scientific testimony, 
those for and against it.
  Nonetheless, he came through with outstanding recommendations. We 
incorporated those recommendations as a point of reference to put them 
into effect because they have been tried and tested and they should 
have been put into effect to provide the protections for the young 
children of this country.
  Then we had--I can remember, and I bet most families can remember--
that extraordinary day when we had the presidents of all the important 
tobacco companies who testified in front of my friend and an 
extraordinary Congressman, Henry Waxman, who all raised their hands and 
swore--swore--to the Lord on high that they, as the chief executives of 
the tobacco companies, did not believe cigarettes were addictive and 
did not believe they were dangerous to your health, in complete 
conflict with all the evidentiary science at that time.
  Well, we heard so many of them recant that testimony later. It has 
all been part of a parade, a parade of distortion and misrepresentation 
by the tobacco companies and their representatives to not the older 
members of our society but to the children in our society in order to 
bring them in and start them smoking and get them on the path to 
addiction.
  I have been fortunate to be the chairman of the Health Committee in 
the Senate. I am ranking member now. How many days, how many weeks, how 
many months of hearings we have had about the problems young people 
have with their addiction, their attachment to dangerous drugs. 
Cigarettes are right up there. As the science would say, they are as 
addictive as heroin and cocaine. That is the science. That is not just 
an opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts, that is the science. It 
is as addictive as cocaine and heroin, yet we allow that to take place.
  Then we had the comprehensive legislation in 1998 to try to deal with 
a range of different tobacco issues. The basic core part of the DeWine-
Kennedy legislation on FDA was here before the Senate essentially at 
that time for 6 weeks and no one contested its importance. Go back and 
read the record. No one really questioned that if we were going to have 
a comprehensive tobacco bill at that time that particular provision 
deserved at least support. There were no amendments on that, none. All 
these voices now: Oh, well, we can't have the FDA, absolutely not. We 
don't need more regulation--we did not have a single amendment on that, 
none; no amendments.
  I had the good opportunity to effectively reintroduce that 
legislation with the majority leader, Senator Frist, who did so much in 
the drafting of the original legislation, one of the important leaders 
in this body on health care policy. This provision is basically very 
mainstream, if that gives assurance to some people. It is a very 
mainstream proposal, but it does the job in terms of protection.
  So we had this proposal that was considered in the Senate, and was 
accepted, that would make such an extraordinary difference. As I was 
mentioning, the very simple fact is, this product, which is so 
addictive, so dangerous to the children of this country, not only to 
the children themselves but also to their families, is something that 
we should have addressed.
  But this administration and, quite frankly, the leadership on that 
Ways and Means Committee, our Republican leadership, said: Absolutely 
not. We are not going to tolerate it. We are not going to accept it. We 
will not let it happen. And it did not.
  I pay respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because 
the progress that we made has not been just a partisan effort. The good 
Senator from Ohio has been a leader. There have been many. The Senator 
from Oregon, Mr. Smith; the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe; John 
McCain from Arizona; Orrin Hatch from Utah; Senator Chafee from Rhode 
Island; and many others have been willing to stand on this issue. This 
has not been a Republican or Democratic issue. But this administration 
has made a different judgment than those good Republicans who supported 
this effort in here and also a number of them supported us in the 
conference.

[[Page 22981]]

  There has to be responsibility. There should be some accountability 
around here somewhere. We are elected as officials. We make judgments, 
we make choices, and we ought be held accountable for them. That was a 
decision that was made by the administration not to include it. If this 
administration said to include it, it would be in that bill tomorrow 
when we vote on it on the floor of the Senate. We had the support of 
some of the tobacco industries, with the Philip Morris industry.
  Tomorrow, when the Senate addresses the underlying legislation, we 
are also going to voice vote and send back to the House of 
Representatives the DeWine-Kennedy FDA legislation. The Senate will 
pass that. We will send it back to the House. We have not given up 
hope.
  Senator DeWine and I have not given up hope that perhaps in some 
lameduck Congress, perhaps when the glare of the campaign in the last 4 
weeks of the campaign--I would have thought it would have been a pretty 
good issue because people, parents, care about this, to indicate 
support for it. But, in any event, perhaps after the glare of the 
campaign is over, in a postcampaign time, when we meet, perhaps we can 
get a different reaction. So we take some hope and we want to give the 
assurance to those who have given us strong support that we are not 
giving up and we are not giving in.
  Mr. President, I have a few letters that I will mention, and then 
there are a few final items I want to talk about. We have a detailed 
presentation on exactly what this legislation does. I want to make sure 
that is in this part of the Record. I ask unanimous consent that be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       I started smoking when I was 12 years old. My mother 
     smoked, and my friends told me it would make me ``cool.'' 
     Since my mother was always at the hospital with my father, 
     helping him while he was losing his battle against cancer, 
     there was no one around to notice that I had begun smoking. 
     That was in 1973. I smoked until Jan. 1, 1990, when I was 28 
     years old, and I have been smoke-free for almost 14 years. 
     Quitting was probably the hardest thing I have ever done, but 
     it was definitely the smartest. My mother smoked until she 
     got diagnosed with lung cancer in 1994, which is also the 
     year her only grandchild was born. They removed part of her 
     lung, and since she believed she had ``beat'' the cancer, she 
     began smoking again. Five years and five CT scans later, they 
     found another tumor in her lung, this time inoperable and 
     supposedly untreatable. The doctors gave her six to ten 
     months to live. Knowing how short her time was, 1999 turned 
     out to be an extremely painful year for all of us. Over the 
     next four years, my mother suffered terribly, often unable to 
     eat and using a stomach tube, constantly taking medication 
     and losing lucidity, often too tired and too weak to be with 
     her little granddaughter, whom she completely adored. We 
     watched her waste away to 80 pounds, the cancer having 
     invaded her bones, causing her to fall, taking away her 
     independence, which she always valued highly. She died on 
     April 21, 2003, the day after Easter, at only 67 years old. 
     She was my best friend, and my daughter's, too. I miss our 
     daily phone calls, and I will miss her warm, inviting 
     presence this holiday season, as I do every single day. My 9 
     year-old daughter has seen what horror cigarettes can cause; 
     I doubt that she will ever forget that cigarettes took her 
     ``Nonni'' away from her, but she is coming to the age where 
     social pressures will be on her to conform to the ``crowd.'' 
     I hope that she will be strong, and that there will be enough 
     education in her school to help her to learn how to deal with 
     people who try to coerce her into using this drug, among 
     others. Thank you for allowing me to share my story.--
     Lorraine T., Ipswich MA, November 10, 2003.
                                  ____

       My father never liked to dance much. Yet, as we stood 
     hugging, watching my best friend dance with her father at her 
     wedding, Dad promised to dance with me at my wedding.
       At age 39, he had a stroke that left him paralyzed on his 
     left side. He was able to regain most of the use of his limbs 
     through years of hard work. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to 
     quit his addiction to cigarettes.
       One month before his 50th birthday, he died from a tobacco 
     related heart attack. He didn't live to fulfill his promise 
     to dance with me at my wedding.--Donna M., Melrose MA, 
     January 12, 2004.
                                  ____

       Today is like every other day I miss my mom so much, I look 
     at my kids and realize ``nanny'' is not here to see how cute 
     they have become. I am a only child and lost my mom 3 years 
     ago to lung cancer. I can remember the moment the doctor told 
     me she was going to die, and in the same breath she said ``I 
     truly believe what the tobacco companies are getting away 
     with is criminal.'' I have from that day on not been able to 
     understand why they are allowed to sell something that has 
     killed so many, and is going to kill so many more. It is 
     heartbreaking to see a young teen smoking, Sometimes I say 
     something, yes they think I'm crazy. However there life to me 
     is so precious. No I may not know them, but I wish they would 
     listen. If they saw their mom or dad gasping for breath, if 
     they saw their moms pelvic bones vividly sticking out would 
     this change their minds and make them want to quit? I hope 
     so, I don't want any more families to feel this pain and 
     utter loneliness that I have had to endure. My children are 
     the ones who get me through the bad days. They warm my heart 
     taking away the sadness. I have taught them early on how bad 
     and deadly tobacco is, and they also know that's why 
     ``nanny'' is no longer here, and how much she loved them! 
     Thank you.--Linda F., Middleboro MA, September 23, 2003.
                                  ____

       In November 2002 we learned that my mother, Gloria, had 
     stage four lung cancer. What started as pain in her hip and 
     was explained away as arthritis pain was actually bone 
     cancer--yes, it had already spread from her lungs before she 
     knew she even had it. Mom had quit smoking what seems like a 
     very long time ago . . . yet, it came back to haunt us.
       She fought a fight I never knew she had in her. An 
     agonizing fight that I hope her story will prevent someone--
     or many someones--from ever having to fight. She lost all of 
     the weight she had struggled to lose most of her adult life. 
     She lost her hair. She lost her appetite. She lost sleep. She 
     lost her freedom--unable to get around without pain, unable 
     to drive, often unable to be alone. There were so many things 
     that she lost . . . too many to mention.
       But, what she did not lose was her faith. And it was her 
     faith that carried her through those long months.
       Mom fought for a year. She fought to the end. She died last 
     October with one regret. That she would not live to see her 
     new Granddaughter.
       Her Granddaughter was born 8 months and 23 days after Mom 
     passed away. She is now 4 weeks old (today!) and it is my 
     hope that she will never breathe someone's secondhand smoke. 
     That she will never have a friend who takes up smoking. And 
     that she will never have to watch someone she loves die from 
     such a horrible, preventable thing as lung cancer. I will 
     share Mom's picture with all of the children I know. I will 
     show them her smiling face. . . . even at the end when she 
     smiled because she knew that she was going to be going home 
     soon. And I will tell them of how much she loved children. 
     And how she never, never wants to hear that they have taken 
     up smoking. I will tell them that the reason she is so thin 
     in the picture is because she was sick. I will show them the 
     pictures when she had lost most of her hair. I will tell them 
     how much I miss her. And I will make them promise me--and 
     Mom--that they will never, never smoke or be around anyone 
     who is smoking. I LOVE YOU MOM!--Sarah Z., South Easton MA, 
     October 4, 2004.
                                  ____

       I have now been a smoker for over 8 years. I am only 24 
     years old. I already have a severe smokers cough that only 
     gets worse with the cold weather. I live in New England. I 
     sometimes read the side of the packs with the Surgeon 
     Generals warnings. They say that smoking can cause babies to 
     be low birth weight. Well two years ago I had a daughter. I 
     did not smoke all the time when I was pregnant but I guess 
     you still could have called me a smoker. My daughter was 8 
     pounds she was definitely not under-weight. Now don't get me 
     wrong I am not saying this to be proud. Every time I look at 
     her I wonder if I did any other damage to her. I am so 
     ashamed of myself. Yet right now I am dying for a smoke. This 
     is such an addiction I don't think that I will ever overcome 
     it, I want to and God knows how I have tried. I want to be 
     around when my daughter grows-up, to see her get married and 
     to see any future grandchildren I might have. If I keep up 
     this way I am not going to see any of it, it is so 
     depressing.
       Well the only thing I can say is that if there were 
     stricter regulations when I was a minor I probably never 
     would have started smoking. I know that sounds cliche but you 
     can't miss something you never had . . . now I have had it 
     and I cannot go without it. I feel like a junkie even though 
     I am not. I will be scorned by the non-smoking community. I 
     will be the pariah for the smokers. I only wish that I could 
     quit.
       I hope someone will not smoke once reading this . . . but 
     then again I am only one person . . . barely able to make a 
     difference. Maybe just once before it's too late. Just to 
     quit for my little daughters sake . . . she does need to know 
     . . . mommy cares what she thinks.--Tori H., South Boston MA, 
     November 12, 2003.

  (Mr. Warner assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, here is a letter from Lorraine T. from 
Ipswich, MA. I will include the whole letter, but I will just read 
parts of it:


[[Page 22982]]

       My mother smoked until she got diagnosed with lung cancer 
     in 1994, which is also the year her only grandchild was born. 
     They removed part of her lung, and since she believed she had 
     ``beat'' the cancer, she began smoking again. Five years and 
     five CT scans later, they found another tumor in her lung, 
     this time inoperable and supposedly untreatable. The doctors 
     gave her six to ten months to live. Knowing how short her 
     time was, 1999 turned out to be an extremely painful year for 
     all of us. Over the next four years, my mother suffered 
     terribly, often unable to eat and using a stomach tube, 
     constantly taking medication and losing lucidity, often too 
     tired and too weak to be with her little granddaughter, whom 
     she completely adored. We watched her waste away to 80 
     pounds, the cancer having invaded her bones, causing her to 
     fall, taking away her independence, which she always valued 
     highly. She died April 21, 2003, the day after Easter, at 
     only 67 years old. She was my best friend, and my daughter's, 
     too. . . .
       My 9 year-old daughter has seen what horror cigarettes can 
     cause; I doubt that she will ever forget that cigarettes took 
     her ``Nonni'' away from her, but she is coming to the age 
     where social pressures will be on her to conform to the 
     ``crowd.'' I hope she will be strong, and that there will be 
     enough education in her school to help her to learn how to 
     deal with people who try to coerce her into using this drug, 
     among others. . . . Lorraine T., Ipswich MA.

  Here is another letter from Donna M., from Melrose, MA, of this year:

       My father never liked to dance much. Yet, as we stood 
     hugging, watching my best friend dance with her father at a 
     wedding, Dad promised to dance with me at my wedding.
       At age 39, he had a stroke that left him paralyzed on his 
     left side. He was unable to regain most of the use of his 
     limbs through years of hard work. Unfortunately, he wasn't 
     able to quit his addiction to cigarettes.
       One month before his 50th birthday, my Dad died from a 
     tobacco related heart attack. He didn't live to fulfill his 
     promise to dance with me at my wedding.

  Here is a letter from Linda F., of Middleboro, MA:

       Today is like every other day. I miss my mom so much. I 
     look at my kids and realize ``nanny'' is not here to see how 
     cute they have become. I am an only child and lost my mom 3 
     years ago to lung cancer. I can remember the moment the 
     doctor told me she was going to die, and in the same breath 
     she said ``I truly believe what the tobacco companies are 
     getting away with is criminal.'' I have from that day on not 
     been able to understand why they are allowed to sell 
     something that has killed so many, and is going to kill so 
     many more.

  Then the letter continues.
  This is from Sarah Z. from South Easton, MA, October 4, 2004:

       In November 2002 we learned that my mother, Gloria, had 
     stage four lung cancer. Mom fought for a year. She fought to 
     the end. She died last October with one regret. That she 
     would not live to see her new granddaughter. Her 
     granddaughter was born 8 months and 23 days after Mom passed 
     away. She is now 4 weeks old (today!) and it is my hope that 
     she will never breathe someone's secondhand smoke. That she 
     will never have a friend who takes up smoking. And that she 
     will never have to watch someone she loves die from such a 
     horrible, preventable thing as lung cancer.

  And Tori H, South Boston:

       I have now been a smoker for 8 years. I am only 24 years 
     old. I already have a severe smoker's cough. It only gets 
     worse with cold weather. I live in New England. I sometimes 
     read the side of the packs with the Surgeon General's 
     warnings. They say smoking can cause babies to be low birth 
     weight . . . I did not smoke all the time when I was pregnant 
     but I guess you could have called me a smoker . . . My 
     daughter was 8 pounds; she was definitely not under-weight. 
     Now don't get me wrong--I am not saying this to be proud. 
     Every time I look at her I wonder if I did any other damage 
     to her. I am so ashamed of myself. Yet right now I am dying 
     for a smoke. This is such an addiction. I don't think I will 
     ever overcome it. I want to and God knows how I have tried. I 
     want to be around when my daughter grows up, to see her get 
     married and to see any future grandchildren I might have. If 
     I keep up this way I am not going to see any of it; it is so 
     depressing.

  The letters go on, and they make the case. If there are any who think 
this is a partisan issue, look at what the Bush administration's 
Department of Justice filed in the final proposed findings of fact of 
the United States in the tobacco litigation brought by the Federal 
Government against tobacco companies.
  This is the current administration's finding, page 21: Cigarette 
smoking, particularly that begun by young people, continues to be the 
leading cause of preventable disease and premature mortality in the 
United States. For children and adolescents, one out of three will die 
of smoking-related disease. As part of a scheme to defraud, defendants 
have intentionally marketed cigarettes to youth under the legal smoking 
age and falsely denied that they have done so.
  We could go on. I have their brief notes right here about what is 
happening. These are the statistics in terms of the young people who 
get started smoking. It begins early. When adults who are daily smokers 
began smoking: 89 percent by the age of 18; 62 percent by the age of 
16; 37 percent by the age of 14; and 16 percent by the age of 12.
  You can ask why. Well, just look at this chart. This is advertising 
in billions of dollars. These are billions of dollars of advertising 
and how this has gone up and has continued in 2003 and 2004. That is 
targeted, as these various ads demonstrate: Winston, three young people 
out in the surf with a surfboard. The sun is setting. Additive free. 
Naturally smooth. Leave the bull behind, just pick up a Winston.
  This is from Elle magazine, all targeted toward young people: Camel, 
Turkish blends. And there you see the advertisement, all focused on the 
youth.
  Here is Rolling Stone: Stir the senses, Salem. All to appeal to the 
young people.
  And it has great success because, like any narcotic, you get them 
hooked at that age, and it is very difficult to stop.
  My friend from Ohio mentioned the costs for the taxpayers as well. We 
are motivated because of our concern for the children and children's 
health and the family's health. But if that doesn't move you, just look 
at the annual cost in the United States: the Medicaid payments, $23 
billion; $20 billion in Medicare payments; other Federal payments, $8 
billion; smoking during pregnancy, $4 billion; total health cost, $75 
billion. And if you add lost productivity to that, you are talking over 
$150 billion a year in direct costs to the American taxpayer.
  This makes sense, obviously, and is the most important for the 
children so they aren't going to be addicted and their health is going 
to be protected. It is for the other members of the families as well so 
that those young people who are eventually going to be parents are 
going to be protected. But if that doesn't get you and the pocketbook 
issues don't get you, you can see that you are paying billions and 
billions of dollars.
  These are the conclusions about the activities of tobacco companies 
even by this Justice Department.
  This is why this is so important and an opportunity missed.
  Let me conclude on this subject by referring to the letters of 
support we received from some groups:

     Dear Senator Kennedy, Congress has an historic opportunity to 
     embrace responsible legislation that will help to reduce 
     suffering and death caused by the tobacco. The House-Senate 
     conferees should include the DeWine-Kennedy language. On July 
     15, the U.S. Senate took an unprecedented step towards 
     granting the Food and Drug Administration effective 
     authority. The Senate passed the DeWine amendment. The 
     overwhelmingly bipartisan amendment linked the FDA with the 
     tobacco buyout. Our organizations view this approach as 
     critical to accomplishing our goal, securing FDA authority 
     over tobacco products. Tobacco use kills more than 400,000 
     Americans each year. Across our Nation, more than $75 billion 
     in health costs and, according to the Centers for Disease 
     Control, tobacco use by pregnant women alone costs $400 
     million to $500 million. And every day another 2,000 children 
     become regular smokers. A third will die prematurely as a 
     result. Now we have an opportunity to do something about it. 
     Yet tobacco products are virtually unregulated. For decades 
     the tobacco companies have marketed to our children, deceived 
     consumers about the harm their products caused, and failed to 
     take any meaningful steps to make their products less 
     harmful. The DeWine-Kennedy language would finally end the 
     special protection enjoyed by the tobacco industry to protect 
     our children and the Nation's health. This legislation meets 
     the standards long established by the public health community 
     for a strong FDA regulation bill that protects the public 
     health. It would give the FDA the necessary tools and 
     resources to effectively regulate the manufacture, marketing, 
     labeling, distribution and sale of tobacco products.

  Then it continues:

       The public health community worked in good faith to achieve 
     this much-needed bipartisan legislation that protects the 
     public

[[Page 22983]]

     health and can be enacted in this session. We remain 
     concerned that opponents of an effective FDA will seek to 
     weaken the provision prior to final passage. Our organization 
     will work. Please support.

  Those include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American 
Academy of Nurse Practitioners, American Academy of Pediatrics, 
American College of Cardiology, American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American College of 
Preventive Medicine, American Heart Association, American Lung 
Association, the Medical Association, American Women's Medical 
Association, the Public Health Association, the School Health 
Association, the Children's Defense Fund, and the Campaign for Tobacco 
Free Kids.
  I thank them in particular.
  The FSC conference report that we are being asked to consider ignores 
fundamental issues that broad bipartisan majorities of the Senate have 
strongly supported. On vital matters concerning the protection of 
children's health, preserving the overtime rights of workers, and 
defending American jobs from outsourcing to foreign lands, the cynical 
actions of a few have blocked the will of the majority.
  The House conferees were more interested in protecting big tobacco 
companies' profits than they were in protecting children. They would 
rather create tax incentives for multinational corporations to move 
millions of American jobs overseas than save millions of our kids from 
a lifetime of addiction and premature death.
  We were not the ones who chose to link tobacco issues to this tax 
bill. That was a decision made by the House Republican leadership. But 
it is absolutely irresponsible to address a quota buyout for tobacco 
farmers, as this conference report does, while ignoring the urgent need 
for FDA authority to prevent cigarette companies from entrapping our 
kids. The conferees have left us no choice but to oppose passage of 
this conference report.
  The importance to our children of authorizing the FDA to regulate 
tobacco products cannot be overstated. Smoking is the number one 
preventable cause of death in America. It kills well over 400,000 
Americans each year, and nearly all of them started smoking as 
children. They are seduced by the tobacco companies before they are 
mature enough to recognize the enormous health risks of smoking, and 
become addicted while still teenagers.
  We feel so strongly about this issue because FDA authority is the 
most important legislation Congress can pass to protect our children 
from the number one preventable cause of death in America--smoking. We 
cannot in good conscience allow the Federal agency most responsible for 
protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the 
enormous health risks of cigarettes.
  The stakes are vast. Each day, 5,000 children try their first 
cigarette. Two thousand of them will become daily smokers, and nearly a 
thousand will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. The fact 
is that more than 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking as 
teenagers.
  Smoking can cause lifelong dreams to go up in smoke. Smoking can mean 
your hopes for an active life--of hikes with your children, and bike 
riding and long walks--are beyond your reach. You simply don't have the 
lung capacity and the stamina to do what you wish you could do. It can 
mean that your hope of enjoying your grandchildren and appreciating 
your retirement are gone, as you suffer from tobacco-induced disease 
and an early death. The most recent studies document the fact that 
smokers, on average, die 10 years earlier than non-smokers. That is 
what can happen to your lifestyle when you start smoking as a teenager.
  How many addicted smokers today are glad to be smoking? How many 
Americans with smoking-induced lung cancer or emphysema are glad to be 
smokers? How many addicted smokers can look their children and 
grandchildren in the eyes and say they are proud to smoke cigarettes. 
How many wish they could easily put out that last cigarette, and never 
look back? I think we all know the answers to these questions. That is 
why this issue is so important.
  The Senate amendment which passed with the support of 78 Members set 
forth a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation. It created a new 
section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of tobacco products, 
with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised 
by tobacco use. It was sensitive to the concerns of tobacco farmers, 
small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But, it clearly gave 
FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth smoking and to 
reduce addiction to this highly lethal product.
  The Senate amendment also provided financial relief for hard-pressed 
tobacco farmers, much more generous relief than is contained in the 
conference report. It incorporated bipartisan legislation introduced by 
thirteen tobacco-state Senators led by Senator McConnell, to buy back 
tobacco quota from farmers. It would have provided $12 billion to 
financially vulnerable tobacco farmers and tobacco communities. The 
money to fund the buyout would come from an assessment on tobacco 
companies. This proposal was a legitimate buyout plan designed by 
tobacco-state members for the benefit of their tobacco farming 
constituents. Instead, the House designed proposal in the conference 
report forces tobacco farmers to settle for more than $2 billion less 
than they would have received if the Senate proposal had been accepted. 
For example, it will pay North Carolina farmers $800 million less than 
the Senate amendment. It will pay Kentucky farmers $500 million less. 
That is a very substantial difference. For small farmers who actually 
tend the land themselves, it is a 25 percent cut in what they will 
receive. So in reality, the farmers are losers too. Only the tobacco 
companies who will pay billions less are winners.
  The heart of the Senate amendment was the FDA provision--which would 
lead to fewer children starting to smoke, and to fewer adults suffering 
with tobacco-induced disease and now that provision is gone. Public 
health groups told us it was the most important legislation we could 
pass to deal with the nation's number one health hazard.
  We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that 
target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug 
Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, 
distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The 
tobacco industry currently spends over eleven billion dollars a year to 
promote its products. The amount has actually grown dramatically since 
the Master Settlement Agreement was signed.
  Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to 
start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity 
of the health risk. The industry knows that 90 percent of smokers begin 
as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood.
  Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' 
own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children 
into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the 
Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the 
substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people 
to use tobacco products.
  If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the 
power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children 
wherever it will be seen by children. The Senate-passed legislation 
would give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes 
smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of 
children. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising 
``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First 
Amendment.''
  FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. 
Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children 
under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and 
frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale

[[Page 22984]]

of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the 
purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self-
service displays and vending machine sales, except in adult-only 
facilities. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real 
penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This 
is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy 
cigarettes.
  The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, 
studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of 
children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were 
received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its 
proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which 
cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those 
regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing 
youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no 
sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi-
year rulemaking process on the same issues. The Senate legislation 
would give the youth access and advertising restrictions already 
developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued 
under the new statute.
  The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette 
and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These 
warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical 
problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the 
authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to 
keep their impact strong.
  Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that 
it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco 
companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. 
No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under 
oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. 
Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the 
discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this 
addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for 
their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers 
chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even 
more addictive.
  The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing 
misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These 
companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far 
less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product 
design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they 
actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous 
authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest 
disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.
  Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the 
FDA have the authority to effectively regulate them for the protection 
of the public health. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted 
to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that 
cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people 
without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to 
take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their 
addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are 
unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to 
reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent 
that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking 
should not be unnecessarily compounded.
  Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they 
plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. 
The Senate legislation would require manufacturers to submit such 
``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be 
marketed. No health-related claims would be permitted until they have 
been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential 
to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the 
public into a false sense of health safety.
  Tobacco use kills more Americans every year than AIDS, alcohol, car 
accidents, murders, suicides and fires combined. Nearly 90 percent of 
lung cancer cases, nearly 1 in 3 cancer deaths, and 1 in 5 deaths from 
heart disease are tobacco-related. Tobacco use results in $75 billion 
in annual health care costs and $157 billion in total cost. 
Unfortunately, smoking will remain the number one preventable cause of 
death in America until Congress is willing to do what it takes to bring 
this health crisis under control. Congress must vest FDA not only with 
the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full 
authority to do the job effectively.
  The Senate legislation would give the FDA the legal authority it 
needs--to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which 
targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to 
help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less 
toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco 
industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.
  If the conference report is approved in its current form, we will 
have lost a golden opportunity to address this critical health issue. 
Congress will have put the well-being of our children last, behind a 
long parade of special interests clamoring for their tax breaks. It is 
not enough to just pay lip service to what is right for our children. 
You have got to be willing to fight for their health and their future. 
You have to make it a top priority.
  While we are extremely disappointed that FDA authority over tobacco 
products is not in the conference report, this legislation will, I am 
confident, become law in the not too distant future. It is clearly an 
idea whose time has come. It passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan 
vote last summer. I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to pass 
a freestanding FDA bill this weekend and send it to the House as a 
reaffirmation of our support. It is a powerful statement of this body's 
commitment to protecting the health of our children, and seeing this 
legislation through to enactment. The battle goes on, and we will 
prevail.
  They have been spectacular spokespersons for children and children's 
health and we are indebted to that organization.
  The list goes on. There are 68 March of Dimes organizations. Every 
organization in public health is behind this proposal.
  Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio. I join him in 
letting families know we are not going to let up, give up, or give in. 
This was a very reasonable measure, a reasonable response. As he has 
pointed out, it is the most important public health legislation this 
Congress, or any recent Congress up to the Congress of 7 years ago, 
when we passed the CHIP program, with the difference this would make in 
terms of children and children's health. We missed this opportunity. We 
are not giving up and we are not giving in. We want to let those who 
are opposed to us know we are coming at them and we are going to keep 
after this until we get the job done.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, another provision was included in the 
bill that passed the Senate and was dropped by the conference as well. 
We had the dropping of the FDA provisions--which I believe in and of 
itself is enough to oppose this legislation--but we also know there was 
another provision that related to how we were going to treat American 
workers that was dropped.
  Since this legislation initially was drafted, in order to respond to 
the World Trade Organization which found some tax provisions worked in 
such a way as to violate various international agreements, it was about 
a $5 billion fix that was needed. Instead, we have a $140 billion 
solution for a $5 billion fix. Do you hear me? The rest of those are 
tax goodies for special interests. So since this was allegedly a jobs 
bill, we thought we would add an amendment

[[Page 22985]]

to it. The principal sponsor was my friend and colleague Senator 
Harkin, who provided such extraordinary leadership on this overtime 
issue. We added this provision that would effectively declare the 
proposal of the administration that dealt with denying workers overtime 
who worked more than 40 hours a week, that we would effectively vitiate 
the administration's proposal. Since the underlying legislation dealt 
with workers and the impact on manufacturing and jobs, this was a 
related matter.
  It is useful to remind ourselves how often this institution has 
addressed the question of the proposal by this President in terms of 
overtime. We have voted three times in the Senate to reject the 
administration's proposal to deny overtime. We rejected it on September 
10, 54-45; it was a bipartisan effort. On May 4, 52-47. Also on May 4, 
99-0. So we acted on that and we added to it.
  You can say, well, the House of Representatives has not faced this 
issue. Our answer to that is the House has faced this issue. They voted 
October 2, 2003, 221-203, effectively to vitiate the Bush overtime 
proposal. They voted September 9, 223-193. So that is two times in the 
House and three times in the Senate. We had it in the conference and, 
nonetheless, this administration said no.
  The administration has said no to an increase in the minimum wage for 
7 million Americans who are working at minimum wage. They said no to an 
extension of unemployment compensation for workers who paid into the 
unemployment compensation fund. And they have said no to eliminating 
the ban on the elimination of overtime.
  I watched the debate, like many other Americans, last night, and I 
listened to one of the questions that my friend and colleague, the next 
President of the United States, answered in talking about the lost 
number of jobs. He indicated that under this administration they had 
lost 1.6 million jobs. Lo and behold, today, with all the fact-checkers 
all over the country, they said that is not right; John Kerry should 
have said they only lost 800,000 jobs. Do you want to know why? The 
other 800,000 have been added in the public sector. I thought this 
administration was adding jobs in the private sector. They have failed 
in the private sector. They are trying to sharpshoot on that issue, and 
it doesn't go.
  Let's look at where we are now in the last month with the 
administration's economy. They had announcements yesterday that 96,000 
jobs had been created last month. It is interesting to note that a 
third of those jobs are temporary. What does that mean? Temporary jobs 
pay 40 percent, on average, less than regular jobs. Yes. What else? 
Temporary jobs don't give you benefits. Very few, if any, give you 
health insurance, let alone pensions. We have a third temporary jobs, 
and a third government jobs, and a third private jobs out of the 
96,000. So it is not a good time in terms of the American economy.
  I want to point this out again and come back to the issue of 
overtime. As I mentioned, we had passed those provisions in the House 
and in the Senate. Now the administration continues to want to 
implement them. Who are the people affected most by overtime? The 
people who are affected the most by overtime are interesting: Nurses 
are affected by overtime; nursery school teachers, the ones who are 
going to work with the children in nursery schools and programs in the 
Head Start Programs; clerical workers; computer programers, et cetera. 
These are the ones. Nurses, of course, are first responders.
  It is almost as though this administration doesn't understand how 
hard American families are working in the United States of America. 
This is an extraordinary chart. This chart demonstrates that Americans' 
work hours have increased more than in any other industrialized country 
from 1970 to 2002. It is effectively up 20 percent. The next nearest 
country is Canada, up 16, and Australia is up 3.2 percent.
  Americans are working harder and harder, and they are having an 
enormous difficulty in keeping pace. They cannot even keep economic 
pace, in terms of what they have to buy. One of the few benefits, of 
course, is the question of overtime. What happens when you eliminate 
overtime? Let's remind the workers who are out there who may be 
watching; let's remind them of something they know all too well. If you 
have overtime protections, your chances of working more than 40 hours a 
week are only 19 percent. But if you don't have overtime protections, 
your chances of working more than 40 hours a week are 44 percent. That 
is for 40 hours a week. If it is 50 hours a week, your chances of 
working are three times more if you don't have the overtime protections 
than if you do.
  Make no mistake on what this is about. This is about exploiting 
American workers, treating them on the cheap. That is what this is 
about.
  Well, Senator Kennedy, how can you say that? Let me give a couple of 
examples why we can say it.
  When the Bush rule was in the making, the Department of Labor asked 
for comment on the proposed regulation. In looking through the records, 
this is what we find out: Here is when the rule to eliminate overtime 
was being considered. The administration solicited the views of a 
number of different groups and industries. Now we have the National 
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies supports the section:

       . . . of the proposed regulations that provides that claims 
     adjustors, including those working for insurance companies, 
     satisfy the FLSAs administrative exemption. . . .

  That is from the National Association of Mutual Insurance, June 25, 
2003.
  On April 23, 2004:

       Insurance claims adjustors generally meet the duties 
     requirements for the administrative exemption, whether they 
     work for an insurance company or the other type of company. . 
     . .

  There is the industry's interest. There is the administration's 
answer.
  Here is another group that got exemption. Here is the overtime for 
funeral directors and embalmers:

       [T]he National Funeral Directors' Association believes that 
     funeral directors and embalmers who have successfully 
     completed a course of study . . . licensed by the state in 
     which they practice are professional employees.

  Then we have:

       Licensed funeral directors and embalmers . . .

  It is almost the same direct language for industry after industry, 
right down the line. This was not an issue for simplification. This was 
looking out for special interests. And who is paying the piper? It is 
going to be the workers, working longer and harder for less.
  As a result, this is what happens in this country:
  In the last 3 years, we have seen 800,000 more children who are 
living in poverty. The total percent of those living in poverty in the 
United States has grown, but the number of children is 800,000 more 
living in poverty; 12 million children hungry or on the verge of 
hunger; 8 million Americans unemployed. Nearly 3 million have lost 
unemployment benefits since the Republicans ended the program. Seven 
million low-wage workers waiting 7 years for a minimum-wage increase. 
These are men and women of dignity. They work hard, play by the rules. 
They are primarily women. The income of low-income single mothers has 
gone down by three percent every year in the Bush economy.
  There are 7 million who have been waiting for an increase in the 
minimum wage. Bush 1 supported an increase in the minimum wage. This 
did not use to be a partisan issue. It was so interesting in the course 
of this session, when I offered the increase in the minimum wage, when 
we had what they call the welfare reform proposal, the TANF proposal. 
What did the Republican leadership do? They pulled the bill so we could 
not even get a vote on it. Imagine that. They would not even let the 
Senate of the United States vote on it. I offered it again on the State 
Department reauthorization bill because the Republican leadership would 
not give us an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage. What did they 
do? They pulled that bill, too. They do not even let us get a vote in 
the Senate on the issue of increasing the minimum wage.

[[Page 22986]]

  Sixty percent of those who receive the minimum wage are women. One-
third of those have children. This is a civil rights issue, a 
children's issue, a fairness issue. Americans understand if someone is 
going to work 52 weeks of the year, 40 hours a week, they should not 
have to live in poverty. But do my colleagues think we have an 
opportunity to do something about it? No.
  Still, we are taking away the--we have 4.3 million more Americans in 
poverty than when the President took office and we have 2.6 million 
fewer Americans who have a pension under Bush's watch.
  On the issue of overtime, I will take a moment of the Senate's time 
to relate the concerns of one worker who will be affected by the new 
regulation. He says:

       My name is Randy Flemming. I live in Haysville, KS--outside 
     Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's 
     Metrology Lab.
       I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served 
     in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979.
       I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time, I've 
     been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've 
     raised a son who now has a good career and children of his 
     own. There are two things that helped make that possible.
       First, the training I received in the Air Force made me 
     qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main 
     attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I 
     think it's still one of the main reasons young people today 
     decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job 
     opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the 
     recruiting ads on TV.
       The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to 
     give my son the college education that has opened doors for 
     him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those 
     college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10 percent or 
     more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, 
     but we'll be counting on my overtime to help get her a 
     college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family 
     overtime pay has made all the difference.
       That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? 
     I came to talk about an issue that is very important back 
     home and to me personally as a working man, a family man and 
     a veteran. The issue is overtime rights.
       The changes that this administration is trying to make in 
     the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain 
     with the men and women in the military and would close down 
     opportunities that working vets and their families thought 
     that they could count on.
       When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a 
     deal that I thought was fair. They got a good chunk of my 
     time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. 
     There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give 
     up my right to overtime pay.

  This was the threat that was going to be under the initial 
regulations and rules by the Department of Labor that said the training 
in the military would count as professional training for the first time 
in the history, if you got the training in the military. Then they 
pulled those regulations back and they changed the language around. 
Interestingly, all they had to do was just say, for veterans it did not 
count. But the Department of Labor would not do that, and many of the 
veterans groups still feel that they are threatened by the existing 
rules and regulations.
  And then he continues:

       You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well, I think that 
     what these new rules do is create a military penalty. If you 
     got your training in the military, no matter what your white 
     collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many 
     hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's 
     not bait and switch, I don't know what it is. . . .
       I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union 
     contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But 
     we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one 
     that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard 
     to get rid of our union.
       And for all those who want to let these military penalty 
     rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you 
     think it's okay for the government to renege on its deal, I 
     think it should be your job to tell our military men and 
     women in Iraq that when they come home, their service to 
     their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime 
     pay.

  I am still very concerned about those provisions. The administration 
says it has addressed it. It did not address it the way the veterans 
want.
  We should not be about cutting off overtime when we are having the 
economic challenges we are facing in this country today. It is the 
wrong economic policy. It is unfair and it was wrong for the 
administration to cut this out.
  There is one final point I want to make on the proposal we have 
before us.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is one other provision of this 
underlying conference report I want to address. A top worry of many 
Americans is that their jobs may be shipped overseas. We have heard for 
years about manufacturing jobs being sent to other countries. Today, 
millions of Americans with other types of jobs face that risk, too. 
Every day we hear new stories about jobs in health care, financial 
services, information technologies going overseas in this high-tech 
age.
  Yet, the Bush administration says shipping jobs overseas is a good 
thing. It was in the President's own annual economic report:

       When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it 
     makes more sense to import it than to make it or provide it 
     domestically.

  The President's chief economic adviser Gregory Mankiw has even said 
that shipping jobs to other countries is ``probably a plus for the 
economy in the long run.''
  Treasury Secretary Snow has also defended corporations sending jobs 
overseas, saying they need to do what they need to do. He said anything 
that makes a company more competitive, including offshoring jobs, is 
good for corporate shareholders, it is good for their consumers, and it 
is good for their employees.
  As recently as July, John Marburger, the President's science adviser, 
said that shipping jobs overseas is not necessarily a bad thing. 
American workers deserve better than this. They deserve better than to 
have their jobs exported with the President as the cheerleader in chief 
waving goodbye.
  Shipping jobs overseas is a problem that is only going to grow. 
Experts project 3.4 million jobs, with total wages worth more than $150 
billion, could be sent overseas in the next 11 years, including more 
than a half-million computer jobs and more than 600,000 business and 
management jobs. Lou Dobbs on CNN is keeping a running tally of 
companies that have sent jobs overseas. He is now at almost a thousand 
companies.
  Many jobs that have already gone overseas have been in manufacturing. 
This is a loss that has taken a heavy toll on our economy. We have lost 
nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since this Bush administration 
took office. It is a nationwide problem affecting almost every State in 
the Union. Forty-seven of the 50 States have lost manufacturing jobs 
under this President. For example, Ohio has lost 165,000 manufacturing 
jobs; Pennsylvania has lost 150,000 jobs; Massachusetts, my home State, 
has lost 84,000 jobs; Texas, the President's home State, has lost 
170,000 manufacturing jobs.
  The loss of these manufacturing jobs is especially serious because 
they pay good wages and benefits, and each manufacturing job creates 
close to three other jobs in other sectors of the economy.
  As this chart indicates, for every 100 jobs in retail, they create 88 
more jobs; for every 100 jobs in business services, they create 154 
jobs; for every 100 jobs in manufacturing, 291.
  The Bush administration wants to ignore this serious problem, too. 
They have suggested cooking the books to create the appearance of job 
growth in the manufacturing sector. They want to count flipping 
hamburgers and other fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs to make up 
for the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs under President Bush's 
watch.
  Providing more tax breaks for multinational corporations is the wrong 
thing to do, and that is exactly what this bill does. For any of those 
Members who are interested in the particular details, they ought to 
just read Senator Bob Graham's excellent presentation on this very 
point. He has addressed the Senate frequently on it, and has identified 
it.

[[Page 22987]]

  I have not the time this afternoon to go into it, but I want to give 
assurance to the Members on this, that we are providing in this 
legislation tax breaks for multinational corporations. It is more than 
the loss of the $40 billion in tax revenue which has been added in this 
jobs bill that could be used for many better purposes that is 
troubling. What is most disturbing is the fact that many of these 
international provisions will actually encourage companies to shift 
even more American jobs to low-wage countries.
  The international provisions should have been removed from the bill 
and the tax dollars saved should be used to increase the tax benefits 
for domestic manufacturing. It makes no sense to expand the value of 
the foreign tax credits which multinational corporations receive.
  Under the legislation, these companies would pay even less in U.S. 
taxes on the profits they earn from their business abroad than they do 
today--$40 billion less. This will create further incentives for them 
to move jobs abroad, undermining the intent of the legislation.
  From the perspective of preserving American jobs, one of the worst 
features of this corporate tax law is a special tax subsidy for 
multinationals known as deferral. If a U.S. company moves its operation 
abroad, it can defer paying U.S. taxes on the profits it makes overseas 
until the companies choose to send those profits back to America.
  In essence, it allows the corporation to decide when it will pay the 
taxes it owes the U.S. Government. That is a luxury that companies 
making products and providing services here at home do not have. This 
is an enormous competitive advantage which the Tax Code gives to 
companies doing the wrong thing, eliminating American jobs, over 
companies doing the right thing, preserving the jobs in the United 
States. That feature alone ought to be enough to have Members of this 
body vote no at the time of the consideration of the conference report.
  I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair. I will reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. President. I make a few points regarding the FDA 
issue and the regulation of tobacco. I voted for the FDA provision in 
this bill. I voted in conference to include FDA regulation of tobacco. 
But the House refused to accept it.
  I voted for this, despite the growing problems that are coming to 
light about the FDA falling down on its current responsibilities.
  Just in the last few months, the FDA has come under investigation, 
including from my own committee, regarding the way its failed regarding 
drugs causing suicide in children.
  And where was the FDA regarding the recent Vioxx catastrophy and how 
it causes heart attacks? Just yesterday, it was revealed by my Finance 
Committee that it looks like the FDA pressured employees to suppress 
negative findings regarding Vioxx.
  And, in today's paper, we read about what looks like the FDA falling 
down on the job in regard to the Flu vaccine crisis.
  So, I hope some around here aren't trying to mislead the American 
people into thinking that FDA regulation is some kind of panacea for 
smoking.
  I heard one Senator from the other side say that we sided with the 
tobacco companies when the FDA provision failed. Well that's 
interesting.
  That's surely what opponents would like you to think. But, there's a 
dirty little secret involved here. Or, at least it's a secret vis a vis 
the public.
  The fact is, the tobacco companies are divided on whether there 
should be FDA regulation. In fact, the largest tobacco company actually 
supports FDA regulation, and has been lobbying heavily and pouring 
money into the effort to get it.
  Why? Well, for one thing, a great deal of its business is overseas, 
and it will therefore be immune from FDA regulation. This will give it 
a competitive edge against its competitors. So, the tobacco companies, 
or at least the biggest one, is much more in favor of FDA regulation 
than against it.
  Therefore, anybody trying to frame this as tobacco vesus kids, or 
tobacco versus health groups, is just flatly misleading the public.
  But, even for those of us who pushed for FDA oversight, our legs were 
cut right out from under us during the negotiations. And guess who cut 
the legs right out from under us? The leadership of the Democratic 
party cut the legs right out from under us. That's who.
  The leader of the Democratic party, Senator Kerry, went down to North 
Carolina to talk to tobacco farmers. Guess what he said? He said he'd 
support a tobacco buyout with or without FDA regulation.
  So, it looks to me like the senior Senator from Massachusetts didn't 
communicate very well with the junior Senator from Massachusetts--or 
vice-versa.
  Moreover, we had the democratic Senate campaign chairman saying the 
same thing last week. He said he didn't need FDA regulation with a 
tobacco buyout.
  And, he even had his candidate for the North Carolina Senate seat up 
here lobbying right over in the conference committee room to get this 
buyout through, with or without FDA. Can you believe that?
  And, to add insult to injury to the Democratic Senators from 
Massachusetts, and Iowa, the Senate Democratic leader even signed the 
conference report.
  So, obviously, when the House leadership knew the votes were there in 
the Senate for a buyout without FDA, they weren't about to agree to it 
in conference, and there's no way we could have successfully pushed it.
  Now, what more does it take from their own leaders to undermine what 
the Democratic Senators from Iowa and Massachusetts wanted to do? Seems 
to me the need to get their own house in order before criticizing 
others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we still have a number of speakers. Under 
the order which we had set up, in which we would go back and forth with 
the majority and minority, it is now the majority's turn.
  It is my understanding Senator Stevens, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, is on his way here to give a very short 
statement. I am wondering if that is, in fact, the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will change places with you so you can 
make the unanimous consent request.
  As I understand it, Senator Stevens has asked for 5 minutes to make a 
speech before I make mine.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding we are also ready to move to the 
Defense Authorization conference report.
  Mr. HATCH. Then, as I also understand it, the order should be Senator 
Warner to make his unanimous consent request, Senator Stevens for 5 
minutes, then I for whatever time I need, and then Senator Landrieu for 
whatever time she wanted.
  Mr. REID. I thought it was going to be Senator Warner for 5 minutes, 
Senator Stevens for 5 minutes, and then Senator Landrieu for an hour 
and half.
  Mr. HATCH. If we can do it the way I suggested, it would be very 
acceptable.
  I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
  Mr. REID. The order has already been established. As soon as we 
finish with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens, Senator Hatch will take 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatch). The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________