Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the founding of Winslow Township, New Jersey. Originally a sleepy farming community, Winslow has developed into a unique hybrid, encompassing both rural and urban elements within its 54 square miles. With roots firmly planted in New Jersey's farming community, Winslow has played an increasingly important role in the State's agricultural industry throughout the years. It is Winslow Township's renowned peaches that help make New Jersey fourth in the Nation in production of this crop. Blessed not only with fertile farmland, the Winslow Township area also enjoys a close relationship with two of New Jersey's greatest natural resources, the Pinelands and the Great Egg Harbor River. The magnificent Pine Barrens, a national wilderness preserve, is popular with hikers, nature enthusiasts, and canoeists. The Great Egg Harbor River is also a favorite with canoeists and fishermen, and is home to hundreds of different species of fish, mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. Coexisting with Winslow's natural riches are urban areas of great diversity. Described by its residents as a ``microcosm of America,'' Winslow is ethnically, racially, and socio- economically diverse. The small town belief that fellow residents are actually friends and family has allowed Winslow's different groups to live harmoniously as their community has grown. Different communities and forces have influenced the development of Winslow Township, and the town has profited from them. The rolling farmlands and local winery shape Winslow Township as surely as the new pockets of urban development. Children of New Jersey's most recent immigrants share classes in Winslow's outstanding school system with the great-great-grandchildren of the Italian farmers who helped found the town. Winslow Township may be a small town, but the lessons it offers us in community and modern living are broad in scope. These lessons are simple, for they are all rooted in one common theme and that theme is respect. Respect for the beauty and riches of our environment, from which we can derive both pleasure in recreation and products with which to earn a living; respect for diversity and the lessons we cannot afford to ignore about the larger world in which we live; and finally, respect for community--the civil society in which all Americans make their homes, sustain their marriages, raise their families, hang out with their friends, meet their neighbors, educate their children, and worship their God. Mr. President, I congratulate Winslow Township once again, on their sesquicentennial anniversary.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, we begin this Congress with, I think, two obligations. The first is to change the way we do business, and the second is to cut Government spending. I think reform has been bottled up for years. So, Mr. President, I believe now is the time to adopt a line-item veto and have the line-item veto applied both to tax expenditures and to appropriations. Two years ago, I introduced legislation that would give the President the authority to veto wasteful spending in both appropriations and tax bills. I reintroduced this line-item veto the very first day of this Congress, and its passage has been one of my highest legislative priorities. The separate enrollment approach that I adopted was modeled on the bill offered by Senator Hollings and introduced several Congresses ago. I want to thank and commend Senator Hollings for his leadership on that issue. Therefore, I am pleased to see that our Republican colleagues have come to recognize the wisdom of the separate enrollment approach that Senator Hollings and I have been championing for years. I also want to comment our colleagues across the aisle for taking steps to include tax expenditures in the line-item veto bill they introduced yesterday. The approach our Senate colleagues have taken toward tax expenditures is a significant improvement over the approach adopted by the House. We need to be honest with the American public about the fact that for each example of unnecessary, pork-barrel spending through an appropriations bill, there are numerous, similar examples of such spending buried in tax bills. The Tax Code provides special exceptions from taxes that will total over $450 billion this year, more than double the entire Federal deficit and nearly one-quarter of total Federal spending. Because many of these Tax Code provisions single out narrow subclasses for benefit, the rest of us must pay more in taxes. How serious can we be about balancing the budget if we let billions in tax pork go virtually unchallenged each year? Mr. President, I believe that our fellow Americans would be shocked if they knew some of the ways we spend money through the Tax Code. My favorite special-interest tax loophole is the roughly $100 million we will give away over the next 5 years to allow homeowners to rent their homes for up to 2 weeks without having to report any income. Word has it the provision was put in the Tax Code to benefit a rich homeowner who lived near the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, GA. The lucky man hit the jackpot every year by renting his house to tournament spectators for a small fortune, without having to declare any of this money as income. Then there is the $12 million in tax subsidies that go to help producers offset the costs they incur to mine lead, asbestos, and uranium--deadly poisons we spend millions more to clean up. We also give away a cool $60 million a year to corporations that make electricity using plants and windmills. In addition, we generously allow U.S. citizens who work overseas to exclude $70,000 per year from their income taxes. Over the next 5 years, this loophole will cost the rest of us $8.6 billion. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have seen an almost endless stream of requests for preferential treatment through the Tax Code. For example, the 1992 tax bill was littered with special exemptions. In that bill, we included a special accelerated depreciation schedule for rental tuxedos at a 5-year cost of $44 million to the rest of us. We also provided special accounting rules for the owners of cotton warehouses and created an special tax exemption for custom firearms manufacturers and importers. Over the years, I have been presented with hundreds of other requests, including exemptions from fuel excise taxes for crop-dusters and tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles. There are obvious reasons why the American public knows so little about these loopholes. They are often written in complicated language and buried deep in the Tax Code. In addition, unlike appropriated spending, which is reviewed every year, once a tax loophole becomes law, it rarely sees the light of day. In fact, according to a recent GAO study, almost 85 percent of the 1993 tax expenditure losses were attributable to tax expenditures that were enacted before 1950, and almost 50 percent of these losses stem from tax expenditures enacted before 1920. Reducing the deficit will require leadership, not gimmicks. In passing a line-item veto bill, we must demonstrate this same type of leadership. Sadly, I note that the line-item veto proposal passed by the House resorts to what I would describe as a mere gimmick. By defining ``targeted tax benefits'' to include only those loopholes that benefit ``100 or fewer taxpayers,'' the House has forfeited an opportunity to address the impact that tax loopholes have on our Nation's continuing budget crisis. Mr. President, obviously, there are plenty examples of the so-called rifle shot tax giveaways. In 1988, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a series of articles which identified billions of dollars worth of tax loopholes in the 1986 and 1988 tax bills. As stated in that series, these loopholes included special provisions for some trucking companies but not others, for some insurance companies but not others, for some utilities but not others, for some universities but not others. Of course these special provisions should be subject to a potential veto. However, these rifle shots are not the only examples of wasteful spending through the Tax Code; there 100 taxpayers. In fact, of all of the loopholes that I described earlier, not even one could be determined to benefit 100 or fewer taxpayers. The income exclusion for home rentals at the Masters Golf Tournament could benefit more than 100 taxpayers. The tax subsidies given to corporations that mine lead, asbestos, and uranium could benefit more than 100 taxpayers. The tax subsidies for electricity production from windmills and plants could benefit more than 100 taxpayers. And, the tax giveaways to citizens who work overseas benefit more than 100 people. Therefore, under the House version of this bill, none of these tax loopholes would be subject to a potential line-item veto if they were created today. In addition to the fact that the House definition of a targeted tax benefit would allow billions of dollar in tax expenditures to go unchecked, that definition leads to a number of practical problems. Under the House version of the line-item veto, in order to veto pork in a tax bill, the President would first have to determine that the loophole would benefit 100 or fewer taxpayers. No one knows how the President would make such a determination. As far as I am aware, no Federal agency keeps track of how many taxpayers benefit from individual tax expenditures. Although this may seem surprising, it is understandable given that many tax expenditures consist of exclusions from income, rather than simple deductions. As a result, information on the number of beneficiaries is not readily available. In fact, of the 25 largest tax expenditures, 14 provide exclusions from income rather than deductions. Although these are large and well known examples, there are other examples of income exclusions for which the information would not be readily available. Therefore, there is no easy way to determine how many taxpayers would benefit from a proposed tax expenditure. In addition, what would happen if the President vetoed a tax loophole only to find out later that he did not have such authority because the provision would have benefited more than 100 taxpayers? Even if one could determine how many taxpayers would benefit from a particular loophole, it would be easy enough for any of the big dollar lobbyists that prowl the Halls of Congress to rework the loophole to make it vetoproof. Clearly, if lobbyists are sophisticated enough to insert a loophole into a tax bill in the first place, they will be more than sophisticated enough to ensure that the language is sufficiently broad that it escape a possible veto. Therefore, the ``100 or fewer'' definition will create a perverse incentive to make bigger and even more expensive loopholes just to avoid the veto. I am pleased to note that the version of line-item veto offered in the Senate does not resort to the same gimmicks that the House used. The language in the line-item veto before us today would make subject to a potential Presidential veto all new and expanded tax expenditures which both lose revenue during the any period of the budget window and have ``the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers when compared to other similarly situated taxpayers.'' Yesterday, Senator Domenici stated that this language would subject to a potential veto all tax expenditures which particular companies, businesses, or taxpayers relative to other taxpayers. I agree that this provision would allow the President to veto new tax subsidies for individual companies and industries such as the ethanol industry, small oil and gas producers, dairy farmers, owners of cotton warehouses, and the like. However, I am concerned that the version offered by our Republican colleagues may lead to confusion and gaming. Although I believe that the language offered as part of the Republican substitute to S. 4 is very broad, a few of our colleagues have indicated that it might be narrower than the language itself would suggest. In my mind, the term ``when compared to other similarly situated taxpayers'' simply makes explicit a comparison that was implicit in similar language in S. 14. Therefore, in order to clear up any confusion and to ensure that all new tax loopholes are subject to the same scrutiny as other types of spending, I have sent to the desk an amendment that would authorize the President to veto wasteful spending in future tax bills. Mr. President, the language in the amendment that I have offered is not new, nor should it be particularly controversial. This language uses the exact same definition of ``targeted tax break'' as was included in S. 14, introduced by Senator Domenici and originally cosponsor by Senators Exon, Craig, Cohen, Dole, and me. Furthermore, the amendment I have introduced uses the exact same language that our Republican colleagues promised the Nation they would use when they introduced their Contract With America. The language in this amendment, which was introduced in the House by then-Minority Leader Michel, simply states that the President may veto those tax loopholes which have ``the practical effect of providing a benefit in the form of a different treatment to a particular taxpayer or a limited class of taxpayers, whether or not such provision is limited by its terms to a particular taxpayer or a class of taxpayers. Such term does not include any benefit provided to a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general demographic conditions such as income, number of dependents, or marital status.'' By its very terms, this language does not cover those types of tax provisions that provide general benefits. It would not subject a reduction in tax rates to a veto. Obviously, that would be a benefit for all Americans. Similarly, it would not subject an expansion in the standard deduction or the elimination of the marriage penalty to a veto. At the same time, the amendment that I have offered would not effect any of the provisions currently in the Tax Code. My amendment would not allow the President to touch such provisions as the home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for State and local taxes, or the deduction for charitable contributions. Instead, this amendment would only effect new or expanded tax provisions. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to insert into the Record copies of two letters, one from Dr. Rivlin at OMB and the other from Dr. Reischauer at CBO, interpreting the language that I have introduced. As our colleagues will note, these letters make clear that the amendment that I have offered simply places spending through the Tax Code on par with other types of spending. Adoption of my amendment will prevent additional loopholes from creeping into the Tax Code at the same time we are cutting assistance for the poorest and neediest in our society. My amendment would also reduce the danger of gaming the revenue estimating process to avoid a potential veto. Under the current version of the line-item veto, a tax loophole cannot be vetoed unless it is scored as losing money during any part of relevant budget window. However, as we have seen with some proposals such as the backloaded IRA's and neutral cost recovery provision in the House's tax package, by slowly phasing in tax expenditures, they can be estimated to raise revenue during the first 5 years even though they lose billions of dollars over the 10-year budget period. My amendment would eliminate this gaming process. If the President had the power to excise special interest spending, but only in appropriations bills, we would simply find the special interest lobbyists who work appropriations turning themselves into tax lobbyists, pushing for the same spending in the Tax Code. Spending is spending whether it comes in the form of a Government check, or in the form of a special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else. Tax spending does not, as some pretend, simply allow people to keep more of what they have earned. It gives them a special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the responsibility of our national defense and protecting the young, the aged, and the infirm. The only way to let everyone keep more of what they have earned is to minimize these tax expenditures along with appropriated spending and the burden of the national debt so that we can bring down tax rates fairly, for everyone. Therefore, Mr. President, I encourage all of our colleagues to pass a line-item veto bill that includes both appropriations and real tax expenditures. In promised that they would subject wasteful spending to a potential line- item veto whether this spending occurred in an appropriations or tax bill. I believe that the definition that the Republicans promised in their contract, the same definition that was included in S. 14 when it was introduced in this Chamber, is an appropriate way to prevent new wasteful spending projects from creeping into the Tax Code. Mr. President, the line-item veto is not in itself deficit reduction. But if the President is willing to use it, it is the appropriate tool to cut a certain kind of wasteful spending--the pork-barrel projects that tend to crop up in appropriations and tax bills. Although this type of spending is only one of the types of spending that drive up the deficit, until we control these expenditures for the few, we cannot asked for the shared sacrifice from the many that will be necessary to significantly reduce the deficit. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, how much time remains on the side of the proponents?

Mr. BRADLEY. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, how much time remains on the side of the proponents?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the subject matter is unrelated to the pending amendment?

Mr. BRADLEY. If the Senator will yield, the amendment that is before the Senate at this time includes the 10-year window. So, if you are voting for the Bradley amendment you are voting for what would be the Exon amendment.

Mr. BRADLEY. The amendment is not time limited. It would apply to a tax expenditure whenever--it could be 15 years. There is no 10-year limit. It is forever.

Mr. BRADLEY. No. I do not think so. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, again, I would like to, if I can, having listened to some of the comments, try to take a few minutes to clarify what I believe the language means. Before any tax loophole would be subject to a line-item veto, under the language of the pending bill, it would have to meet two criteria: First, the loophole would have to be estimated by the Joint Tax Committee to lose revenue within the period specified in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget. Now, Mr. President, although this provision is subject to budgetary gimmicks, I believe it is clear. It says that if a tax expenditure loses money in the next 5 years, it would be included. What my amendment seeks to do is to broaden this to a 10-year period; to say that you cannot put a tax expenditure in the code and make it effective in year 6, 7, and 8. You cannot put a tax expenditure in the code claiming that it will raise revenue, as some inevitably will in the first couple of years, when in fact it will lose enormous amounts of revenue in the second 5 years. So I am concerned--and seek to rectify with this amendment--that the budget window here creates a possibility for gaming. For each tax bill, we receive estimates from the Joint Tax Committee, the detailed revenue gains and losses for each fiscal year covered by the current budget resolution. If a given tax loophole was estimated to lose revenue during any of these years, it would meet this first part of the definition. If it loses revenue in the first 5 years under the bill, it would be included as an item that could be vetoed. The second criterion is, the loophole would have to have ``the practical effect of providing more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated taxpayers.'' While the first part of this part of the test is fairly clear, I think some Members of the Senate have questioned what the phrase ``when compared with other similarly situated taxpayers'' means. My view is that this language makes explicit what was implicit in the earlier versions of this phrase. All tax expenditures are judged relative to a given baseline that applies to all other taxpayers, and this language simply makes this comparison clear. So, for example, if tomorrow we pass the $10,000 tax credit for all Members of Congress, that loophole would be subject to a Presidential veto. First, because it would lose revenue in the next 5-year period. And, second, the loophole would provide a limited group of taxpayers; that is, Members of the Congress, more favorable tax treatment; that is, the $10,000 tax credit, when compared to other similarly situated taxpayers; that is, all taxpayers that are not Members of Congress. As a real example, a few years ago Congress approved a loophole that provided that Neither the United States nor the Virgin Islands shall impose an income tax on non-Virgin Islands source income derived by one or more corporations which were formed in Delaware on or about March 6, 1981, and which have owned one or more office buildings in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. There it is, a tax expenditure. Word has it that this loophole was designed to benefit a single, well-connected, millionaire and his Virgin Islands company. That was his loophole. Again, this loophole under the bill before us would be subject to a potential line-item veto. First, it would lose revenue in the next 5 years. Second, the loophole would provide a particular taxpayer; that is, the single Virgin Islands company, with more favorable tax credit; that is, forgiveness of tax on all non-Virgin Islands source income, when compared to other similarly situated taxpayers; that is, other taxpayers that either were nonincorporated in Delaware on March 6, 1981, or do not own an office building in the Virgin Islands. Now, Mr. President, a few Members have suggested--incorrectly, I believe--that the term ``when compared to similarly situated taxpayers'' will cause the definition of ``targeted tax break'' to be interpreted narrowly. This suggestion is based on I think the flawed reasoning that ``similarly situated'' means ``identical.'' Such interpretation would mean that no tax loophole would ever be subject to veto. Instead, loopholes for Members of Congress, loopholes for individual companies in the Virgin Islands, and numerous other loopholes would all be free from a potential veto because all identical taxpayers would get the same benefit. The debate on this floor evidences the clear intent of the supporters of this bill to subject tax loopholes to a Presidential veto, and therefore it includes the tax loophole for the Members of Congress, it includes the tax loophole for the Virgin Islands corporation, and it includes other new and expanded tax loopholes. I think that is, frankly, what the bill says. That is what this amendment says. The disagreement is not over that. The disagreement is the budget window. And in the bill before us, there is a big possibility for gaming by saying if there is a tax loophole that will not lose revenue until the second 5 years, it is not subject to veto, and that is what this amendment attempts to correct. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BRADLEY. I am fine with 2 minutes.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from Arizona two brief questions. One is: The language that is embodied in this amendment, does the Senator intend to fight for this language in the conference?

Mr. BRADLEY. And the language in question does, according to the Senator's own reading, yield some tax expenditures being subject to the line-item veto?

Mr. BRADLEY. How much time remains?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I think this amendment is about the budget window. I think the underlying bill, plus the amendment that is offered, really means the same thing when it comes to similarly situated. I that no tax loophole would ever be subject to veto because similarly situated would have to be identical. Instead, new loopholes for Members of Congress, loopholes for individual companies--such as in the Virgin Islands, as in the example I gave--or numerous other loopholes would all be free from potential veto. I know that is not the intent of the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor of the proponents of this bill. I thank the Senator. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would add as cosponsors Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Exon of Nebraska, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, and Senator Simon of Illinois. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Harkin, to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to forbid tobacco companies to deduct their advertising and promotional expenses when calculating their taxes. I have already discussed the huge toll--in both economical and human terms--which tobacco wreaks on this country. And I have already introduced a bill increasing the tax on all tobacco products by a factor of five. Mr. President, the Harkin-Bradley bill complements my earlier bill by ensuring that Federal Government acts consistently when it comes to tobacco. Why do I say the Government acts inconsistently with regard to tobacco? Because on the one hand, it allows tobacco companies to deduct their advertising and promotional costs on their taxes. These tax exemptions are the equivalent of direct Government payments. In terms of lost revenues to the Federal Treasury, they are no different from cash payments to AFDC recipients. And we're not talking a small amount of money--in 1992, these deductions were worth approximately $1.7 billion a year to tobacco companies. On the other hand, the Government spends millions and millions of dollars to try to offset the harmful effects caused by tobacco use. We are giving more than $1.7 billion to the National Cancer Institute for research this year alone; this includes $114 million specifically for lung cancer. We require warning labels to be placed on cigarette packages to inform our citizens of the direct links between tobacco use and respiratory and lung diseases and possible birth defects. We provide millions of dollars for public health campaigns to warn people of the danger of tobacco, and to help them to quit. These are directly contradictory policies. First, we give the tobacco companies a tremendous tax incentive--a Government handout--essentially encouraging them to advertise and promote tobacco products. Then, we turn around and spend a billion or two trying to unravel the harm that we have helped to cause, to reduce the health devastation we have contributed to, by funding research on tobacco use and to fund campaigns to discourage and end its use. And think about those advertising and promotional campaigns which we are helping to finance. Many of them are targeted at our youth, who often may ignore well-intended and wise warnings about mortality, and instead obey the behavior of their own peer groups who believe that smoking is cool. Approximately 90 percent of all smokers begin in their teens or younger. The tobacco companies know this and specifically target younger age groups in their advertising. And the Federal Government helps to pay the bill for them to do so. Mr. President, virtually all of the health care bills which were considered last session placed great emphasis on prevention. We know we can reduce health care costs if we encourage our citizens to avoid unhealthy choices, and to exercise regularly, to eat right, and design our health care system to focus on preventive care and not wait until someone is sick to treat them. Yet cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. This bill takes action now to put meaning into all the rhetoric about prevention. And at the same time, it will save the Federal Government an estimated $1.7 billion a year in foregone tax expenditures, once it is fully implemented. Mr. President, this bill is health care reform that is right on target. It doesn't control prices, limit choices, or require any new Government intervention in health care. It addresses only those who are directly responsible for the largest preventable cause of death in the United States--the tobacco companies themselves. Mr. President, the Government should speak with one voice on this problem, and that voice should unequivocally say: ``Tobacco use will harm you.'' We will not subsidize the seller; we will not underwrite the smoker; we will support efforts to stop; and we will dedicate our resources to preventing Americans from ever starting. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that we speak with one voice by supporting this bill.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that takes a bold step toward reducing the devastating health and financial effects of tobacco use in this country. Mr. President, in both 1991 and 1993, I rose before this Chamber to talk about the destructive effects of tobacco use and to introduce legislation that would begin to redress these effects. Since my 1993 statement, almost 1 million more people have died from tobacco-related illnesses. The time to stop this travesty is now, and to do that I am introducing legislation that will raise the Federal excise tax on tobacco by a factor of five, which translates to an increase of $1.00 per pack of cigarettes. Over 30 years after the 1964 Surgeon General's report sounded the health alarm for smoking, approximately one-quarter of the Nation's adults remain addicted to cigarettes. Smoking now kills an estimated 419,000 Americans every year--more than alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined. Furthermore, environmental tobacco smoke--smoke from other people's cigarettes--causes tens of thousands of additional deaths. This year, one out of every five Americans who dies will die from tobacco use. If these statistics were not staggering enough, each year a growing number of teenagers start smoking, even though selling cigarettes to minors is illegal. Virtually all new users of tobacco are teenagers or younger, and every 30 seconds a child in the United States smokes for the first time. The efforts that have been waged by public health officials against youth smoking have been dwarfed by the billions spent by the industry on advertising aimed at children and teenagers. The addiction of children to tobacco, and consequently the long-term effects, is a moral disgrace. A spokesman for the Tobacco Institute, a lobbying group for the tobacco industry, was quoted as saying with regard to smoking: This is a day and age when we ultimately have to recognize that adults are going to indulge in the legal pleasures that others don't approve of. My response to the industry is: This legal pleasure kills more than one out of three long-term users when used as intended. This legal pleasure has been determined to be a major cause of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, low-birthweight babies, strokes, and a variety of other diseases. This legal pleasure is as addictive as cocaine or heroin. They are right that I don't approve of the effects of this legal pleasure, and for good reason. Furthermore, this legal pleasure contributes substantially to health care costs every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health care expenditures caused directly by smoking totaled $50 billion in 1993, and $22 billion of those costs were paid by Government funds. According to a former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, smoking is the largest single drain on the Medicare trust fund. One of the most effective things we can do to control health care costs is to end smoking. I view tobacco taxes as compensation for a portion of the health care costs burden we are forced to bear, thanks to smoking. It is more than fair to ask smokers to share some of the costs which they help to create. been raised substantially in recent years, and therefore that it is unfair to raise it again. This is a misconception. Despite the fact that the average price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by more than $1.10 since 1982, only 8 cents of this increase is due to a rise in the Federal excise tax. And even the dollar-per-pack increase which I am proposing will generate only about $12 billion a year in additional income--far less than the $50 billion in health care costs caused directly by tobacco in 1 year. But this bill has an even more important goal than recovering health care expenditures. It will help decrease tobacco consumption significantly. Conservative estimates predict that a 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce overall smoking by about 4 percent. And for kids, who are more price sensitive than adults, the impact is even greater--every 10-percent increase in cigarette prices decreases demand among children and teenager by as much as 14 percent. Mr. President, despite the many advantages of this legislation, I am not blind to the fact that there are those whom it will impact negatively--particularly, tobacco farmers. By no means do I think that the potential losses to these farmers are an adequate justification for making no efforts to reduce tobacco consumption. But because I realize the impact of an increased excise tax on these farmers, my bill puts 3 percent of all revenues it generates into a special trust fund to be used to help tobacco framers substitute new crops in place of tobacco. Mr. President, these days everyone is looking for a way to reduce Government spending on health care. Almost all of the actions under consideration will be painful. In contrast, increasing the tobacco tax is one of the wisest and most beneficial ways of addressing this problem. It will save billions of dollars in health care costs, not only for the Federal Government but for private insurers and citizens across the country. It will save countless lives. It will decrease unnecessary suffering. It will discourage millions of children and teenagers from ever becoming addicted to tobacco. And poll after poll has found that public support is high for a significant hike in the tobacco tax--and this support is consistent across people from all geographic and economic backgrounds. Mr. President, this bill is good health policy. It is good economic policy. And it is key to helping our children and teenagers achieve a tobacco-free future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, yesterday in Montclair, NJ, four people were gunned down and a fifth was wounded when a man entered a postal substation and opened fire. Montclair is a wonderful community. It is like so many other towns in New Jersey where neighbors know each other, care for one another, and are proud of the community spirit that they share. That should not change, even in the wake of this tragedy. What occurred yesterday also reminds us that there are no town borders around violence. Montclair, West Caldwell, Franklin Township, Piscataway--it finds us all. It is always senseless. It is always painful. I offer my deepest sympathy to the families and friends and neighbors of each of the victims of yesterday's violence. I have just talked to the mayor and the police chief and they have apprehended the individual they think could be responsible. I applaud them for their action. My sympathy goes to the families of these victims.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I offer my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from Indiana on the bill that has come before the Senate, the new line-item veto bill. Many of the provisions in the line-item veto bill that is before the Senate are provisions that were embodied in the original bill that I introduced and the distinguished Senator from Indiana cosponsored. The Dole bill does include a sunset provision, as I understand it. After 5 years we will be able to see whether this bill actually does tip the balance between the executive and the legislative branches of Government. It, as I understand it, also includes separate enrollment, which is the way the bill deals with the constitutional question in addition to the sunset. The bill, as I understand it, also includes tax expenditures and does so in a way that is broader than the original that the President can veto tax expenditures that have the practical effect of benefiting a particular taxpayer or limited class of taxpayers when compared with other similarly situated taxpayers. While there is some ambiguity, I take this provision to have a broad interpretation. I might offer an amendment during the course of the debate to clarify that this provision should be interpreted broadly, or I might through the course of the debate, in hearing what other Senators say about it and my own interpretation of the amendment, decide not to offer such an amendment. But I do think that it is a step far in the right direction. This is really an opportunity to bring tax expenditures into the line- item veto in a significant way, and allow the President of the United States not only to veto those pork projects that are in the appropriations process but also to look at every tax bill that often is dotted with special interest provisions or attempts to expand special interest provisions that are already in the Code and strike those lines with a line-item veto. So, Madam President, when we have the cloture vote on Wednesday, I intend to vote for cloture. And I hope that we will be able to dispense with this bill by the end of this week and move on to other matters. I think this is an important measure. I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from Indiana who has been a good colleague throughout this process. I compliment him on the bill that has come before the Senate. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill to take violent criminals off the Pentagon's payroll. I was an original cosponsor of S. 205, the first bill to address this problem. I congratulate Senator Boxer on introducing this improved version that introduces an element of compassion for the families of those taken off the payroll. I was shocked to learn that our Government spends more than $1 million per month on salaries and benefits for military personnel who have been convicted of violent crimes. This is morally wrong. This is an insult to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. And this is bad fiscal policy. Mr. President, it is morally wrong to pay salaries to murderers, rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals. Imagine, the families of victims and, indeed, even victims themselves pay tax dollars that end up in the pockets and savings accounts of the very people who victimized them. In some cases, these violent criminals even continue to receive pay after they are released from prison. This situation is also an insult to the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They work hard and make many sacrifices to give us the best military in the world. Their efforts are degraded when we pay the same salaries to convicted felons that we pay to them. Finally, it is bad fiscal policy to waste taxpayer money in this way. How can we justify paying $1 million a month to convicted criminals when we are at the same time cutting back on payments to needy children? We just spent 5 weeks trying to one-up each other on our commitment to balance the Federal budget. How can we ever hope to do so if we squander millions of dollars not on incarcerating criminals, but rewarding them? As the Dallas Morning News stated in a February 5, 1995, editorial, ``this change is a no-brainer. Congress should act quickly to end this travesty.'' I could not agree more.