Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 418, S. Res. 176.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I believe that the least we can do is assure that the tobacco legislation does not become a lottery for trial lawyers at the expense of the American taxpayer. We have been debating this for several weeks. It has been mentioned that we have been debating it for several weeks. Usually, when we debate for 2 or 3 days on a bill, my constituents start calling and saying, ``Why don't you get that wrapped up, over with?'' I have to tell you that those calls are not coming in. There is a fascination with the debate here--a fascination, an interest, and a very deep concern, because this could be the precedent for a whole bunch of other kinds of products. There is an interest in the attorneys' fees because this could set a precedent for other product attorneys' fees. Why are we doing this as part of Federal legislation? Well, if the States would have been able to resolve this all on their own, the Federal Government would not have been involved in it. But that is not the point where we are. We are at the point where the Federal Government is going ahead on its own with a tobacco bill, not a tobacco settlement. We are in the process of taxing folks in the United States who smoke. When we finish taxing those people in the United States, there are some outstanding attorneys' fees that we will be paying out of the Federal funds. We have to be concerned about the money and how much money is going to the attorneys. This is not just a matter of letting the States do their own thing. This is a case where the States said: We need to have your involvement. And of course they do. It is interstate commerce. There are a whole bunch of constitutional issues that come into this that require Federal participation. We are now in this Federal participation. We say: Companies, you reached an agreement, but we don't agree with your agreement. And so we do our own thing and we start at $68.5 billion. We decided that wasn't enough money, and we raised it another couple hundred billion dollars, and maybe a couple hundred million dollars more than that. We are still coming up with ideas for spending money. That is easy. That is a normal thing. When the family has a little extra money, they are always able to figure out ways to spend it. But we are talking about taking some of that money and giving it to people for a job that they did do. But we are saying, if we are responsible for that money, we want to show responsibility for that money, and we think the responsibility for the money says that an attorney shouldn't get more than $1,000 an hour. Again, I can tell from the people who are getting hold of my office that they think $1,000 is a bit too high. In fact, they think it is a whole lot too high for tax money to be collected from tobacco and given out to other people as a precedent for the United States--$1,000 an hour. There are a lot of people in my State who do not make that much in a month. They see that as a lot of money. I see that as a lot of money-- $1,000 an hour. This is just a precedent. That is why we have to talk about it so carefully. We are talking about those terrible tobacco companies. They withheld information. They do have a drug that is addictive. But they are not the only people perhaps out there. I started keeping a list of the things that my constituents, the voters, the folks back home, think that we ought to put on the list next. I get a lot of calls for liquor and a lot of calls about caffeine. What don't we know about caffeine? It is getting to the point on this list now where I thought maybe a project for the Senate might be to, each day, as a part of morning business, bring in a tray similar to a dessert cart that they serve to you at a restaurant that has different products on it, and we would try those products and determine how beneficial or how harmful they were to people and set a new tax on those. This might solve tax simplification for the whole Nation, because by the time we go through all the food products in the Nation and decide what a punitive tax we ought to put on them for information we don't know about them, that leaves a wide range and we will not need any other form of tax, except of course we will be figuring out new ways to spend the money as we go along. The amendment before us would require the lawyers to provide a detailed accounting of their legal work to Congress in relation to the legal actions covered by the underlying bill, including any fee arrangements entered into. Then it would limit the payment of the attorneys' fees to $1,000 an hour. I know people are wondering why that is a limitation. Of course, I am sure they are hearing that there are some out there that are may be getting $88,000 an hour or $92,000 an hour. Then when they are checking, they are finding out that it is the wealthy and the connected lawyers who are being able to line their pockets from the settlements supposedly made on behalf of the American public. This bill would impose one of the most regressive taxes in America history on low- income Americans. Then we have to debate whether it is fair to limit somebody to $1,000 an hour. Mr. President, to put these figures in a little bit of context, last year the average gross receipts for the 100 top grossing law firms in America averaged $18 million. That was for an entire firm--$18 million. If this tobacco bill is not amended, some of the law firms involved in the tobacco settlement will stand to gain nearly $925 million per firm. I would say that is a pretty good raise for relatively little work. It is important that we reach a decision, that we put some limitations on it, and that we keep people from making an unusually large amount from the tax money of the lowest-paid Americans. That is where we are. A thousand dollars is higher than I would like it to be, but we are trying to find a range where people will say that is enough. We will have enough other people who will say that is too much. But I will go with it. We will get a vote that will place some limitation on the way we are handling tax money for the American people. I thank the President. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Monday, June 1, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco legislation, with several amendments still pending. It is hoped that debate on those amendments can be disposed of in a timely fashion, so that other remaining amendments can be offered and debated. However, no votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. Any votes ordered with respect to amendments, and the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the nuclear waste bill, will be postponed to occur on Tuesday, June 2, at a time to be determined by the majority leader but not before 6 p.m. For the remainder of the week of June 1, the Senate may consider nuclear waste legislation. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998. Mr. President, this bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Kennedy, Jeffords and Hutchinson would fully bring the United States Postal Service under the regulatory umbrella of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has always been my unshakeable belief that the Government must play by its own rules. This important legislation is an incremental step in the effort to ensure that the ``law of the land'' applies equally to all branches of the Government as well as the private sector --and everything in-between. Since I became a member of this distinguished body, I've been advocating legislation geared to improve the safety and health of our nation's workplaces. My sincere devotion to this issue, however, goes back much farther than my work here in Washington. For 12 years, I was an accountant for Dunbar Well Service in Gillette, WY, an oil well servicing company with offices throughout Wyoming. Like most businesses in my home state, Dunbar Well Service is a small business. The payroll consisted of 130 employees. As a result, I wore several hats. One of my roles was safety instruction, which required me to travel the state teaching employees about the importance of workplace safety and health. The company's rigorous safety program even had me collecting samples for drug tests--an extremely effective method of deterring workplace injuries and fatalities, by the way. I saw things with OSHA that I thought needed to be changed. I served in the State legislature. I was told that States can't change that and I understand that. Then I got to come to Washington, and in Washington we can make a difference in the workplace. I went to work on a SAFE Act, one that will provide safety in all businesses. That has been through hearings. It has been through markups in the Labor Committee and is ready to be debated on this floor. I have had hands-on experience in the workplace with safety, and I know that workplace safety and health is everyone's business. And that's the only way it works. It is not a political issue, it is an issue that cannot be divided by a barrier that separates even the public and the private sector. It's everybody's concern, and that is the only way it works. We must ensure the safety and health of all employees because they are the most important asset of any business. It's success or failure rests with their ability to provide efficient care and service to their customers, whoever they may be. Although all Federal agencies must comply with the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health statute, they are not required to pay penalties issued to them by OSHA. The bill I am introducing today is the first step in the effort to eliminate this barrier. It is important to point out that this legislation is not intended to single out the Postal Service. My first look at how ineffective Federal agencies are at making workplace safety and health a priority began when I noted that Yellowstone National Park was cited by OSHA last February for 600 violations--92 of them serious. One of those serious violations was the Park's failure to report an employee's death to OSHA. In fact, Yellowstone has posted five employee deaths in the past three and one-half years. Although there are these and other serious problems noted in the Park's safety and health record, I later found that it pales in comparison to the United States Postal Service's record. After looking at the past 5 year totals for all Federal workplace injuries, illnesses, lost work time and fatalities, I was shocked to see the Postal Service at the very top of the list. It was my initial feeling that the armed forces would be the most hazardous occupation in the Federal Government. That notion was proven wrong. Surprisingly, the Postal Service employs relatively the same number of workers as the Department of Defense. Yet it has double the number of total workplace injuries and illnesses and almost double the number of lost work-time cases as the Department of Defense. What is most troubling about the Postal Service's safety record, however, is its annual workers' compensation payments. From 1992 to 1997, the Postal Service paid an annual average of $505 million in workers' compensation costs--placing them once again at the top of the Federal Government's list. Moreover, the Postal Service's annual contribution to workers' compensation amounts to almost one-third of the Federal program's $1.8 billion price tag. These facts are simply inexcusable and clearly justify the need for legislation. Better yet, this legislation would likely decrease the annual expenditures for workers' compensation because of a reduction in workplace injuries, illnesses, lost time and fatalities. In 1970, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act, eliminating the old Postal Department status as a cabinet office. Twelve years later, the Postal Service became fiscally self-sufficient--depending on market-driven revenues rather than taxpayer dollars. Of course the Postal Service is big. The Postal Service is 43 percent of the world's mail. It has annual profits that exceed $1.5 billion. If the Postal Service were a private company, it would be the 9th largest business in the United States and 29th in the entire world. It is bigger than Coca-Cola, Xerox, and Kodak combined. It has offices in virtually every community. In fact, some of the communities in my State are communities because they are a post office. So it covers the big and it covers the small. When I did the SAFE Act I talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I talked to any group that would talk to me. I talked to businesses, I talked to employers, I talked to employees, I talked to unions, and then drafted a bill. That bill is going through the process. When I noticed this problem, I went through the same process. I have met with those groups--agencies, unions that are involved in this process--and I have to say, I have gotten some very helpful, constructive suggestions from those groups. Those suggestions appear in the bill. I have talked to the Postal Service about it. They have reviewed it. They have asked for additional time to review it. The bill is only five pages long. I don't know how long it takes to review that, so I can only assume that they have no problem with the bill either, although I am sure they are not excited to come under the same rules that everyone else plays under. The point of this legislation is simple. If government makes the rules, Government must play by them. this is the same basic premise adopted by Congress when it passed the Congressional Accountability Act during the 104th Congress. The Postal Service is not above the law and its employees are no less important to its daily operations than the employees of private businesses are to the companies that employ them. When advocating workplace safety and health in this context, I can think of no better place to start than the Postal Service--which calls itself a Federal agency when it is helpful to refer to itself as such. In fact, it's not a Federal agency at all. It's a self-sufficient, quasi-governmental entity. How many Federal agency's employees can collectively bargain under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act? How many Federal agencies don't receive one dime of the taxpayers' money? How many Federal agencies post annual profits exceeding $1.5 billion? The Postal Service exhibits almost every characteristic of a private business. Still, it's reluctant to fully comply with Federal occupational safety and health law. Clearly, that must change. After carefully examining the perspectives of the Postal Service and the unions representing its employees, I have concluded that the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act is necessary legislation. The bill would permit OSHA to fully regulate the Postal Service the same way it does private businesses. In addition, the bill would prevent the Post Office from closing or consolidating rural post offices or services simply because it's required to comply with OSHA. Service to all areas of the Nation, rural or urban, was made a part of the Postal Service's mission by the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act. The quality of the service it provides should not decrease because of efforts to protect and ensure employee safety and health. Along this same premise, the bill would prevent the Postal Rate Commission from raising the price of stamps to help the Postal Service pay for potential OSHA fines. Rather, the Postal Service should offset the potential for OSHA fines by improving workplace conditions which would decrease its annual $500 million expenditure on workers' compensation claims. This bipartisan bill will make the law of the land mean what it says. Congress would only be applying those standards to the Postal Service that it applied to itself three years ago. The Postal Service has the most alarming occupational safety and health record in the Federal Government. It should therefore be the first to be reined in. Every schoolchild is familiar with the words on the New York Post Office that became the motto of the Postal Service, ``Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' Add to that the million and one barriers, complaints, dogs, assaults and other obstacles our postal workers must deal with every day and it is clear that they have more than enough to deal with without having to worry about the conditions of their workplace as well. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary, common sense legislation to show our support for workplace safety and health everywhere throughout the country, in every business and corporation, in both private and the public sector. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi and Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2112 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my request was both on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman. I don't see Senator Bingaman. So we can do it in considerably less time than that providing, of course, that the unanimous consent is that all of our statements be in the Record. But I would like to make a few comments on something that is important to worker safety in this country. That is why I asked it to be in that order.

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Could I request permission before that happens to drop in a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 603, 610, 615, 626 through 633, 635 through 641; all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; and the nomination of Joan Dempsey reported by the Intelligence Committee today. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act of 1998. Mr. President, this bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Kennedy, Jeffords and Hutchinson would fully bring the United States Postal Service under the regulatory umbrella of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has always been my unshakeable belief that the Government must play by its own rules. This important legislation is an incremental step in the effort to ensure that the ``law of the land'' applies equally to all branches of the Government as well as the private sector --and everything in-between. Since I became a member of this distinguished body, I've been advocating legislation geared to improve the safety and health of our nation's workplaces. My sincere devotion to this issue, however, goes back much farther than my work here in Washington. For 12 years, I was an accountant for Dunbar Well Service in Gillette, WY, an oil well servicing company with offices throughout Wyoming. Like most businesses in my home state, Dunbar Well Service is a small business. The payroll consisted of 130 employees. As a result, I wore several hats. One of my roles was safety instruction, which required me to travel the state teaching employees about the importance of workplace safety and health. The company's rigorous safety program even had me collecting samples for drug tests--an extremely effective method of deterring workplace injuries and fatalities, by the way. I saw things with OSHA that I thought needed to be changed. I served in the State legislature. I was told that States can't change that and I understand that. Then I got to come to Washington, and in Washington we can make a difference in the workplace. I went to work on a SAFE Act, one that will provide safety in all businesses. That has been through hearings. It has been through markups in the Labor Committee and is ready to be debated on this floor. I have had hands-on experience in the workplace with safety, and I know that workplace safety and health is everyone's business. And that's the only way it works. It is not a political issue, it is an issue that cannot be divided by a barrier that separates even the public and the private sector. It's everybody's concern, and that is the only way it works. We must ensure the safety and health of all employees because they are the most important asset of any business. It's success or failure rests with their ability to provide efficient care and service to their customers, whoever they may be. Although all Federal agencies must comply with the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health statute, they are not required to pay penalties issued to them by OSHA. The bill I am introducing today is the first step in the effort to eliminate this barrier. It is important to point out that this legislation is not intended to single out the Postal Service. My first look at how ineffective Federal agencies are at making workplace safety and health a priority began when I noted that Yellowstone National Park was cited by OSHA last February for 600 violations--92 of them serious. One of those serious violations was the Park's failure to report an employee's death to OSHA. In fact, Yellowstone has posted five employee deaths in the past three and one-half years. Although there are these and other serious problems noted in the Park's safety and health record, I later found that it pales in comparison to the United States Postal Service's record. After looking at the past 5 year totals for all Federal workplace injuries, illnesses, lost work time and fatalities, I was shocked to see the Postal Service at the very top of the list. It was my initial feeling that the armed forces would be the most hazardous occupation in the Federal Government. That notion was proven wrong. Surprisingly, the Postal Service employs relatively the same number of workers as the Department of Defense. Yet it has double the number of total workplace injuries and illnesses and almost double the number of lost work-time cases as the Department of Defense. What is most troubling about the Postal Service's safety record, however, is its annual workers' compensation payments. From 1992 to 1997, the Postal Service paid an annual average of $505 million in workers' compensation costs--placing them once again at the top of the Federal Government's list. Moreover, the Postal Service's annual contribution to workers' compensation amounts to almost one-third of the Federal program's $1.8 billion price tag. These facts are simply inexcusable and clearly justify the need for legislation. Better yet, this legislation would likely decrease the annual expenditures for workers' compensation because of a reduction in workplace injuries, illnesses, lost time and fatalities. In 1970, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act, eliminating the old Postal Department status as a cabinet office. Twelve years later, the Postal Service became fiscally self-sufficient--depending on market-driven revenues rather than taxpayer dollars. Of course the Postal Service is big. The Postal Service is 43 percent of the world's mail. It has annual profits that exceed $1.5 billion. If the Postal Service were a private company, it would be the 9th largest business in the United States and 29th in the entire world. It is bigger than Coca-Cola, Xerox, and Kodak combined. It has offices in virtually every community. In fact, some of the communities in my State are communities because they are a post office. So it covers the big and it covers the small. When I did the SAFE Act I talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I talked to any group that would talk to me. I talked to businesses, I talked to employers, I talked to employees, I talked to unions, and then drafted a bill. That bill is going through the process. When I noticed this problem, I went through the same process. I have met with those groups--agencies, unions that are involved in this process--and I have to say, I have gotten some very helpful, constructive suggestions from those groups. Those suggestions appear in the bill. I have talked to the Postal Service about it. They have reviewed it. They have asked for additional time to review it. The bill is only five pages long. I don't know how long it takes to review that, so I can only assume that they have no problem with the bill either, although I am sure they are not excited to come under the same rules that everyone else plays under. The point of this legislation is simple. If government makes the rules, Government must play by them. this is the same basic premise adopted by Congress when it passed the Congressional Accountability Act during the 104th Congress. The Postal Service is not above the law and its employees are no less important to its daily operations than the employees of private businesses are to the companies that employ them. When advocating workplace safety and health in this context, I can think of no better place to start than the Postal Service--which calls itself a Federal agency when it is helpful to refer to itself as such. In fact, it's not a Federal agency at all. It's a self-sufficient, quasi-governmental entity. How many Federal agency's employees can collectively bargain under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act? How many Federal agencies don't receive one dime of the taxpayers' money? How many Federal agencies post annual profits exceeding $1.5 billion? The Postal Service exhibits almost every characteristic of a private business. Still, it's reluctant to fully comply with Federal occupational safety and health law. Clearly, that must change. After carefully examining the perspectives of the Postal Service and the unions representing its employees, I have concluded that the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act is necessary legislation. The bill would permit OSHA to fully regulate the Postal Service the same way it does private businesses. In addition, the bill would prevent the Post Office from closing or consolidating rural post offices or services simply because it's required to comply with OSHA. Service to all areas of the Nation, rural or urban, was made a part of the Postal Service's mission by the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act. The quality of the service it provides should not decrease because of efforts to protect and ensure employee safety and health. Along this same premise, the bill would prevent the Postal Rate Commission from raising the price of stamps to help the Postal Service pay for potential OSHA fines. Rather, the Postal Service should offset the potential for OSHA fines by improving workplace conditions which would decrease its annual $500 million expenditure on workers' compensation claims. This bipartisan bill will make the law of the land mean what it says. Congress would only be applying those standards to the Postal Service that it applied to itself three years ago. The Postal Service has the most alarming occupational safety and health record in the Federal Government. It should therefore be the first to be reined in. Every schoolchild is familiar with the words on the New York Post Office that became the motto of the Postal Service, ``Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' Add to that the million and one barriers, complaints, dogs, assaults and other obstacles our postal workers must deal with every day and it is clear that they have more than enough to deal with without having to worry about the conditions of their workplace as well. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary, common sense legislation to show our support for workplace safety and health everywhere throughout the country, in every business and corporation, in both private and the public sector. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the honor of closing up today and sending everyone on their way back to their homes with the joyous news that there is highway money. I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend and travel 1,200 miles across Wyoming's vast open spaces, and we will appreciate that highway money. It truly has been a landmark achievement. I want to congratulate the senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for his outstanding efforts on that bill. He did some early drafting and formulas that have helped tremendously in this. I have also appreciated his guidance since I have been here. Now we are heading back to our respective States. The Tobacco Legislation The other thing that we have done this week is spend some time debating the tobacco settlement, debating how we can get teens to quit smoking, debating how we can solve the problems of tobacco. I hope that all Senators go back to their States and talk about this landmark piece of legislation that is before us--landmark in that it will be the largest tax increase in my memory, a tax increase that will be placed on a separate segment of the people. I am going to stop right here and mention that I have not taken any money from the tobacco companies. When I was campaigning, I desperately needed some funds, but I didn't feel that it was right to do that. My comments are not based on that. It is concern out of what we debated this last week, the constitutionality of whether we have the right to solve this problem in this body for every person in the Nation, whether we can set that kind of a precedent. I am sure that if people have been watching, they have been a little confused about the amount of time it has taken to debate it. I want to assure them that it will take considerably more time to debate this issue. This would probably be more appropriate in six bills, coming from six different committees. It was tried that way, and it was determined that it needed to be in one bill. Each of those bills would require as much debate as we had this week. We are going from a premise that these companies need to be punished. Lately, documents have shown that they have withheld information from their consumers--the people using the product--that shows that nicotine is definitely addictive, that it does affect their health, that it is going to hurt them. Consequently, there is a desire across this Nation to punish those companies. But as several of my constituents who smoke have said, ``Let's see, they abused my body for years, and now you want to punish them by taxing me?'' And we do this in the name of reducing teen smoking. We all want to reduce teen smoking. We hope they realize that 3,000 kids a day start smoking and they are going to kill themselves, and 1,000 of them for sure in that day will be killed sooner. And we say raising the price of cigarettes will do that. I have been traveling Wyoming. I have been asking people about the price and how that would affect them. I have been going to schools when I am out there and asking about that price. And the general consensus is, yes, for a little while it will make a difference. But they refer me to other kinds of drug use that is expensive, more expensive, and increasingly expensive, and that use is going up. I saw a college report from the George Washington University which was looking at the fact that they have increased the requirements on smoking on campus, and yet the number of kids smoking has gone up. At a university, they are supposed to be more intellectual perhaps. I know they believe they are. But they are still smoking more. So they are not thinking through the problem. But they asked them why. Part of it is rebelliousness. Part of it is because their parents did it. There are a number of reasons. None of the answers suggested included that the price would make a difference. Kids today are paying outlandish amounts for a pair of tennis shoes. I sold shoes for 28 years. Would you believe they are paying 50 bucks for a pair of tennis shoes? I said that just to see if you were paying attention. Do you know that there are tennis shoes out there for 150 bucks and the kids are buying them? It is the kids that have the money to buy them. There are more kids working today, making money, and they are not using that money to help support their family. It is money that they get to spend. They are spending it on things like $150 tennis shoes. So an increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes will bother them for a little while but not as a long problem. Who winds up with the money in this bill? We have heard some comments here that in the highway bill there may have been some money taken from veterans. That was money never passed by Congress, never budgeted by Congress, never funded by Congress, and wasn't even in the President's budget this year to have that money. I don't know why it isn't in this smoking bill. Everything else is. Everything else is--even things that are not remotely related to smoking. If you ever had an idea for a project, this is a bill you can put it in. We will just kick the price of cigarettes up just a little bit. That will solve everything. It started out at $368.5 billion, went to $516 billion, and perhaps now is at $800 billion. We could match the regular U.S. budget in the trillions with this, eventually. We can just add in some other programs. We are talking about compensating farmers. That will be the big debate when we get back. And the farmers ought to be involved in this debate. But we are talking about perhaps $20,000 an acre. And they get to keep the land? We are talking about vending machine owners. The machines run $1,500 to $2,500, maybe $3,500. We are talking about compensating them $13,000 per machine? That is where their current value of future lost revenue is--the amount of money they could have made off that machine, as though it was our fault that they bought the machine, as though it was our fault that smoking was bad for people. Those are debates we will have when we get back, and those debates will take awhile. The FDA is being given explicit authority in this. They need to probably have some explicit authority. But their budget already under our budget is increased significantly. Now, under this bill, we increase it 10 times more, $34 million to $340 million, a huge increase. We are expecting those people to gear up and utilize that money. It looks like we are forming an additional bureaucracy. I also want you to watch the dollars. In Wyoming, for years we have been talking about increasing the price of the tax on cigarettes by 15 cents. When I was in the State legislature in Wyoming, we talked about that. We usually talked about putting that money to health needs. Even talking about putting it to the health needs, it raised approximately $8 million a year. I have to focus on the difference here between billion and million. In the States, a million is a lot of money. Out here, a billion is not much. But that 15 cents a pack raises $8 million. We are told that $1.10 a pack will raise $6 million. It doesn't sound like very good math. It sounds like the usual Washington program where it comes back here, we keep a bunch of it, and we send a little bit back. If that is the case, the State would do it better. It would have more money for the States. I am going to mention two final concerns that I have on this. When we passed the budget bill, we talked about the need to help Medicare with money that came from the tobacco. That is what we were going to do with all of the money from the tobacco settlement--put it into Medicare, shore that up. It is in bad financial shape. That would give us some more time to work on it. There is very little provision in this bill for doing anything for Medicare. We should take care of Medicare. That would be a medical use for the money. That would be money that nonsmokers have been paying in to pay for smokers' problems that increase the cost of Medicare. The final need that we have to have in the bill is a provision where we don't spend the money until we have the money. It disturbs me a lot that we are talking about putting an industry out of business but relying on ever-increasing revenues from this business going out of business. Somehow the basic counting instincts here just do not balance. We really have to be sure that the money gets collected before it gets spent if we are going to decrease the revenues. So there are a lot of concerns there. I hope my colleagues will go home to their States and discuss with the people there the complexities of this bill. I don't know that there has been that complex a bill before. We are not going to probably break it down into six separate bills. So there will be a long debate on it when we get back. Share your ideas. Share your concerns. And we will get with that when we come back.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I further ask that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of the Durbin amendment No. 2438 pending to the tobacco legislation.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 98. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, June 1st, immediately following the prayer the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 99 submitted earlier today by Senator Lott.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed in the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on May 22, 1998, by the President of the United States: No. 1, the Treaty with Czech Republic on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Treaty Document No. 105-47; No. 2, the Inter-American Convention on Sea Turtles, Treaty Document Number 105-48. I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Yes. Does the Senator feel that the $1.10 or $1.50, as it is $1.50 right now, would have the amount of money the FDA needs to do the kind of enforcement we have been putting on them? Does the Senator think that when we talked about in the Labor Committee, which I am on, the $34 million amount for the FDA and all of the things that would do, and that this bill has considerably more money in it than that for the FDA, does the Senator think that we are doing overkill, perhaps, with the FDA? Will they be able to adequately use the amount of money that we are talking about in this bill for that agency alone? It is a considerable expansion of that agency. Do you think that our agencies are set up in a manner that they can escalate the amount of spending that they are very good at, but can they escalate the amount of spending they are doing to meet these new amounts that are coming in, particularly with the FDA, which is critical to this?

Mr. ENZI. The feature of this month's magazine is actually called ``Smoke Signals,'' and it is about the terrible rise in smoking on university campuses. Now we are above the teenage level. We are talking about a group who are more educated than other people. It would seem that they ought to know more about smoking than the others. Obviously they don't, because even though the rules of the university are increasing, the amount of smoking is also increasing. They have done a fairly extensive interview session with students from the university to find out what the causes are, why it is going up. It ranges from rebelliousness to all-out addiction, to a number of other things. I ask if the Senator would be willing to have the article from the magazine printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I was fascinated to note that one of the people interviewed in this, one of the professors at GW is the person who founded ASH, the Action on Smoking and Health group, that I know from my days as mayor of Gillette has been very active in discouraging smoking, and their advocacy has been on antismoking ads. I ask the Senator if he reflects a little bit on what the effect of the antismoking ads might be. They went to ads; they went to billboards. I have a plastic sign in my office that thanks visitors for not smoking. They also had a number of very clever slogans. I am not sure whether the Senator might have heard them. Some of them were very disgusting and had people in disgusting situations that were smoking, all to curb, particularly, teen smoking. I think that has had some effect. It had some effect on members of my family. I think that it did help to cut down some of the teen smoking. But I would like to ask you what you think the effects on doing the antismoking would--how well those would work on particularly teenagers as opposed to, or in conjunction with--whichever way you would care to answer it--a rise in price of tobacco?

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am kind of fascinated that on our desks, every day throughout the session, we get a copy of whatever bill is being debated, even if it is the same one being debated the day before; and if we take it back to our office, another one miraculously appears the next day, in spite of the amount of paper involved with that and, as a plug for a computer, don't you think it would cut down on the amount of paper if we could utilize a computer on the floor? That is not really my question. This is a 753-page bill that is appearing on our desks. I know that you are aware that this isn't even the bill we are debating.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, I have to agree. I want to ask, since this is 753 pages, and there is another newer version that is 482 pages--

Mr. ENZI. I recognize you do not have a laptop in which you can store all this vast information; you are using strictly the computer there. But I have some concerns, and I would like to know what you think on these concerns. When I was out in Wyoming this last weekend, one of the State Senators there brought me the question--he said, ``Now during the last session of the legislature, we looked at putting a 15-cent a pack''-- that is 15, not 50--``cent a pack tax on cigarettes in our State. And that would raise $8 million a year for us. And now I hear Congress talking about''--and at the time his knowledge was only on the $1.10, not the much higher $1.50; it was $1.10 a pack--``and out of the $1.10 a pack,'' which of course will be levied on Wyoming just the same way the 15-cent a pack would be levied, ``our State will get $6 million.'' He is a little bit concerned about where all the revenue might be going. How could there be a miscalculation of that magnitude on the amount of funds that would be delivered by this? He has done extensive research into it. And I have to say that causes some concern for me, too--when 15 cents a pack will produce $8 million and $1.10 will only produce $6 million. I guess maybe you might interpret that the $1.50 increase is to bring that up to $8 million for us. But that sounds like a poor way to do business. Could it be that the $1.50 costs so much to collect, coming back here, so much gets held by the bureaucracy, that we are only going to get $6 million bucks out of $1.10?

Mr. ENZI. The bill we are debating is the 753-page one, which miraculously appears on our desks, even though the 482-page bill, which has significant revisions in it, isn't available to us without a special request, and this appears to be the official version. But whether it is 753 pages or 482 pages, it is a great deal for us to cover, even with all of the help of our staffs. So I am curious as to whether the Senator feels that there is an adequate coverage of all types of tobacco done in this? We keep talking about cigarettes. When I was growing up, there was a period of time when my dad thought cigarettes were pretty high, so he rolled his own. It is kind of a western tradition. You get a little pack of Bull Durham and some cigarette papers. Today, people would probably think you were using illegal drugs if they saw you doing that. We are phrasing this in that form, anyway. People might go back to rolling their own. But they take this thin piece of paper and put a little dip in it--I watched him do this so many times, but I have not smoked--and then he put the tobacco in there and he had to lick the piece of paper and fold it over, and that thin paper would then stick, and it would have the semblance of a somewhat cruddy cigarette. I suspect that even though cigarettes are not healthy, they were probably more unhealthy. The advantage was that we saved the little canvas bag that it came in, filled it with sand, and used that as a sinker on our fishing lines in the canyon near our home and fished for trout. The tobacco bag worked well for catching trout. It was years later that I learned what it was probably doing to his lungs and eventually did do to him. I wonder if you feel that this adequately covers all of the types of tobacco and places an equivalent tax on them. We talk about the black market, but what we are talking about here is a shift from one type of tobacco to another to get a lower price, and even some exclusions, apparently, for small manufacturing companies. So is this just going to force people to ``unbundle'' their companies--that is one of the words we use around here--and form a whole bunch of small companies that manufacture this to avoid the tax? I watched people work loopholes on tax bills when I was the chairman of the Senate revenue committee in Wyoming. I knew when we were holding hearings that there was someone out there who, at the moment we were debating the bill, already knew the loophole and they were anxious to go out and benefit from that. They weren't going to share that with us. So do you feel there is going to be some kind of a shift done on this to the other kinds of tobacco as well as to the black market?