Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. So the marketplace is being fundamentally changed for one industry alone, the tobacco industry. That, in my opinion, is obviously a mistake. Why is this being done? Representation as to why it is being done was made by a number of Senators, and I think they are accurate to their theories as to why it is being done. It is being done, to quote the Senator from Rhode Island, because they hope to bring the tobacco companies back to the table by putting in this significant benefit, which is protection from liability, immunity, or a form of immunity at a minimum. It was interesting that the Senator from Utah, who is very familiar with this issue, said that even the caps, as it is presently structured, aren't strong enough to bring--they aren't enough protection to the tobacco industries to bring them back to the table, that they don't do enough, that they don't go far enough. That is an interesting comment, because what we do know is that the tobacco companies are not at the table right now. In fact, we know from the statement of the chairman of one of the tobacco companies that they have walked away from the table, and to quote him, ``There is no process which is even remotely likely to lead to an acceptable comprehensive solution this year.'' So they are not planning to come back to the table. Yet, here we have this deal which has been made, as I mentioned earlier, a deal with the devil, the producers of this product, which kills people and addicts people, and the devil walked away from the table. And now we have the unseemly situation of the U.S. Congress chasing after the devil saying, ``Please take my plan. Please take it. Take it, please. Please, please take this protection that we are offering.'' It really is unseemly. It is inappropriate. More importantly, it doesn't make any sense. Why, if they are no longer participants in this process, would we want to give them a protection which no other industry in this country has today--it makes no sense--on the wish and the prayer that they are going to come back to the table someday in the future? I don't think so. I think it makes absolutely no sense that we should be making such a fundamental change in the way we manage our market, such a fundamental way in the way we manage our jurisprudence system, on a wish and a hope and a prayer that an industry, which has shown itself to be so endemically irresponsible, will for some reason suddenly become responsible and return to the table. I find that to be a concept which holds very little validity. But the most substantive reason to support the amendment which has been offered by myself and the Senator from Vermont and to change the language in this bill--remember the language which we are offering here was the original language of the healthy kid amendment, which was supported by the President. I must say somebody should ask the President why he has changed his position on this because he did support this language initially. He formally and bluntly supported it. But the primary concern here for supporting this language is this. We have an industry which produced a product that they knew killed people, and the evidence is conclusive on that. We have an industry which produced a product that they knew was addictive. Not only did they know it was addictive, but they increased the contents of that addictive part of the process, the nicotine, in order to increase the addictiveness of the product. They produced a product that was addictive, and they knew it was addictive. And then they took this product which killed people, which they knew killed people, which was addictive and which they knew was addictive, and they targeted the sales of it on our kids. This is not an industry which deserves special protection from the U.S. Congress. Call it immunity, call it limited liability, use whatever term of art you want to use, but the fact is, this is an extraordinary step of special protection for an industry which has produced a product which is fundamentally bad, which they knew was bad, and which they targeted on kids. While this Congress refuses to give that type of protection to other industries which are producing products which save lives--we do not give protection to medical devices which save lives; we do not give protections to automobile manufacturers that improve the style of life; we do not give protections to the computer manufacturer that improves the style of life; we don't give protections to the drug manufacturers that improve the style of life--we are going to give protection to the cigarette manufacturer, the tobacco producer that produced a product that kills you, that is addictive, and that was targeted on kids. The choice I think here is pretty clear. We can stick with a system that has worked for 200 years, called the marketplace, where the consumer has the right to go into the court system and defend themselves and get a reasonable recovery, or we can structure a brand new system to protect an industry which has proven itself beyond any test to be a dishonorable industry, which has tried to destroy the lives of many Americans in order to sell its product. From my standpoint, the choice should be simple. I hope the Members of the Senate will join with me and a fair number of other folks and Senator Leahy, who has been a strong advocate--and I very much appreciate his participation as a cosponsor of this amendment--in passing our amendment to eliminate this liability limitation by defeating the motion to table which is going to be made by the Senator from Arizona. I would like to say at this point before we go to the motion, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his courtesy and the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in moving this amendment to a vote. I appreciate their courtesy. They have been more than fair in allowing us the opportunity to bring this forward and do it in a timely manner. I thank them for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 98, the adjournment resolution. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. First off, there is no lawsuit against the Federal Government. So that I don't think is applicable. I don't serve in the legislature of Minnesota. If I did, I certainly would not have agreed, and I would change the law of Minnesota to not allow that settlement to have gone forward should that decision be found to be constitutional, which I don't know whether it will be or not. At this time, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Leahy.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has received a fair amount of attention and I believe is fairly well understood by most of the membership, but it is important that we have a substantive discussion of it and an open debate of it over the next couple of hours. As I understand, Senator McCain has allotted that type of a time window. I very much appreciate that. I want to thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in allowing us to put this amendment in order at this time, and certainly I appreciate the manner in which he has managed this bill in such a fair way. The immunity issue is really at the essence of this bill and the public policy which this bill addresses. What we have here is an industry which produced a product which it knew killed people. It is an industry that produced a product which it knew addicted people. In fact, it created additives to that product so it would addict people at a higher rate than were the product sold in its natural state. Then, knowing that it had a product that killed people, and knowing that it had a product that addicted people, it then targeted the sales of that product on our kids. That is an industry which deserves very little in the way of courtesy or support or protection--and that is what this amendment is about, ``or protection''--from the U.S. Congress. Yet, within this bill there is proposed language which would give a historic, unprecedented protection to the tobacco industry from liability on their lawsuits. Now, we have addressed this issue before in this body. In fact, not too long ago there was a sense of the Senate which said there shall be no immunity for the tobacco industry. That sense of the Senate passed the Senate by a 79 to 19 vote. This amendment is the real thing. It is calling to account that sense of the Senate. Now, the question here goes to the manner in which we, as a country, sell products. We are inherently the most capitalist, market-oriented economy in the world. As a result, we have been the most prosperous society in the world economically. What this amendment is about is maintaining a capitalist marketplace approach to the issue of the sale of a product in our society. What this bill does in its present form is institute an antimarket, anticapitalist approach into the process of producing and selling a product in this society. It gives an artificial, inappropriate, legislative protection to an industry from what has been the traditional way in which consumers have a right of redress against that industry. Remember, in our society when a consumer, when John and Mary Jones from Epping, NH, are sold a product that doesn't work, they have a variety of different avenues to address the failure of that product. Should that product harm them, one of their most appropriate avenues is to go to court to bring an action against the producer of that product and to get a recovery. That has been basically one of the essential elements for disciplining the marketplace in our capitalist society. We have not, as has been pursued in other nations, especially those that use a Socialist form of management of their marketplace, we have not had the Federal Government or any government come in and tell a consumer what they can and cannot buy, except in very limited instances. And we have certainly not limited that consumer's ability to recover should they be sold a product that doesn't work or that harms them. The right of redress in the court system, the right of redress for a consumer, is at the essence of having a competitive marketplace and a disciplined marketplace. When you eliminate that right of redress, which this bill does, when you take away the ability of the consumer, of the person who has been damaged, of John and Mary Jones of Epping, NH, to get a recovery for an injury they have received, you have artificially preserved the marketplace. But more importantly, you have given a unique, historic, and totally inappropriate protection to an industry. Now, let's think about this for a minute. Why would the Federal Government at any point in its history want to step in and bar the ability of the consumer to use the judicial method of protecting themselves in the marketplace? There might be instances where that would happen--national defenses might be an example. Under our law, once we did that in the area of people working at nuclear weapons factories. There was a national defense issue. Or it might occur if a product was deemed so beneficial that it was important to protect it. In those instances, of course, we have a situation where the Government raises the visibility of the need to protect the society as a whole over the individual. That has never happened. We have never found a product that was so beneficial. Or if we have, it has only occurred in the rarest of instances, so beneficial that we give that sort of protection. So that is a very unusual protection, to say the least. But what we have here is the granting of a significant, unusual protection of immunity to an industry that produces tobacco, which, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a product that kills people, that addicts kids, and addicts people and is targeted at kids. It is very strange that we should pick that industry for which to give this sort of protection. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment is a second-degree amendment, which simply perfects the amendment I offered, the underlying amendment. I will give a copy of the changes to the other side. I don't think they will find that they change the basic thrust of the original amendment. As I was discussing, the amendment goes to the question of immunity and why we would choose, for the first time in the history of this country, to grant immunity to an industry from lawsuits, which basically changes the whole concept of the marketplace system in our country--why we would choose the tobacco industry to which to give that immunity. It is just beyond comprehension that an industry that produces a product that kills people, which they designed to addict kids, would be chosen as the industry to which we are going to give immunity protection. It makes absolutely no sense. It skews the marketplace. I simply point out to those who might be of a conservative philosophy and may be following this argument that to have done this is an absolute affront to the concept of capitalism and a free market society. Now, there is an attempt in the bill to address the liability that tobacco companies generate as a result of their action--an $8 billion cap. Some will tell us that is a lot of money and that should satisfy everyone as a manner in which to redress the concerns of the consumer, of the individuals, of the kids, of the parents, the mom and pops, who have been damaged by the tobacco companies. And $8 billion is a huge amount of money on an annual cap for recovery on the loss. But it obviously isn't what the market sees as the potential liability here. Otherwise, there would not be a cap in the first place. So by its very definition it is an affront to the concept of a market-type approach to the selling of products in this country. Equally important is the way this cap works. It gives a disproportionate amount of power to the tobacco companies to decide who the winners and losers are, because it is essentially a race to the courthouse. The tobacco companies, under the proposal in this bill, would control who gets to the courthouse first. If they decided the XYZ lawsuit was more amenable to them to settle than the ABC lawsuit, or Mary Smith's lawsuit was less desirable to them, for some reason, than Hank Jones', they can settle the ABC lawsuit, the XYZ lawsuit, and the Mary Smith lawsuit, but they cannot settle the Hank Jones lawsuit, they can make him litigate. And, by the time he is finished, they have settled these other ones and, poof, the $8 billion is gone. So not only does it have the total irony of perverting the marketplace, it has the irony of giving the tobacco industry the capacity to choose who the winners and losers are in the process of determining people who are suing them for being caused physical damage. Can you think of anything more ironic? You have been damaged, your health has been destroyed, or maybe someone in your family has died as a result of the tobacco industry's actions, or some child was addicted and that child dies and the tobacco company gets to choose whether or not that person is going to be a winner under the lawsuit process. How unbelievably ironic and absurd that is. But that is the way this cap works. This is just one of the many, many technical problems with the concept of a cap, because what I think it reflects is the idea that when you put an artificial cap into a huge, dynamic economy like the United States', you are basically creating all sorts of unintended consequences that don't flow naturally in a capitalist system. Much more appropriate is that you allow the capitalist system to proceed in its usual and orderly course. Now, others will say, well, if you don't have immunity, then you inevitably drive these companies into bankruptcy. To begin with, we don't have any idea that that is true. What we know is that these industries are extraordinarily profitable. We know that, right now, they are pursuing major buy-backs. Philip Morris, an $8 million buy- back; RJR, a buy-back of its stock. When you start buying back your stock as a corporate leader, you are saying your stock is undervalued. If your stock is undervalued, it is the ultimate test that in the future you have a better chance of progressive sales and a strong market force for your industry. So the concept that if they don't have immunity, they are going to end up going bankrupt, I think the marketplace has discounted and rejected that and said that is not going to happen. In fact, there is a tremendous earning capacity out there, and we already know there is a tremendous capacity to pass on to the consumer, because that is the theme of this bill--to pass on to the consumer a significant part of the cost. As long as they can pass through that cost, it doesn't impact them at all, doesn't impact their capacity at all. So from a substantive standpoint, bankruptcy doesn't make any sense as a defensive argument to this. But just from a purely logical standpoint, it even makes less sense. Think about it this way. We are saying that to save the industry from bankruptcy we have to put on this cap. But at the same time, we have to tax it. The reason we are taxing it is to discourage people from consuming the product. And the logical extension of that is that if you are successful in taxing people and managing to discourage them from using the product, you are going to reduce utilization, which one presumes would inevitably lead to the collapse of the industry and potentially bankruptcy. So the bill, by its very nature, is inherently saying that the options of bankruptcy are there, but they are going to do it on a different system--through the tax system. Yet, they won't allow the marketplace to make that decision. They won't allow the marketplace to decide whether or not this industry survives, which is the way, traditionally, we have done it in this country. We don't traditionally say to an industry, well, you are about to go bankrupt, which is something that this industry can't say, certainly in light of what it is doing with stock values--so we, the Federal Government, are going to step in and give you unique protection; we are going to give you liability protection. And we certainly don't say it to an industry that has produced a product that kills people and has addicted them. For those people who don't believe this industry knew their product was addictive, I will cite a few quotes. We have here quotes from the Brown & Williamson documents, disclosed as a result of the Minnesota case, and from documents of RJR. Brown & Williamson in 1978--that is a long time ago; this wasn't just yesterday: Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e., its addictive nature, and that nicotine is a poison. These folks knew a long time ago that they were selling an addictive product that killed people. This is a quote from RJR: Tobacco companies are basically in the nicotine business. . .Effective control of nicotine in our products should equate to a significant product performance and cost advantages. That is a pretty cynical statement. It reflects the fact that the tobacco industry knew they were selling an addictive product. Nicotine is the addicting agent in cigarettes. The evidence is beyond question. They knew that it was a poison, that it killed people, and they knew it was addictive. Second, there are some who may say, ``Well, they don't really target kids.'' That is very hard to defend also because the facts speak for themselves from their own documentation. They look on kids as their source of future revenues. This is from the RJR documents of 1974: Let's look at the growing importance of the young adult in the cigarette market. In 1960, this young adult market, the 14-24 group, represented 21 percent of the population . . . they will represent 27 percent of the population in 1975. They are tomorrow's cigarette business. How cynical could you be? Let's first produce a product that kills you, let's make it addictive, and then let's target it at kids.

Mr. GREGG. I would like to complete my statement, and then I will yield. In 1974, ``Marlboro dominates in the 17 and younger age category, capturing over 50 percent of the market.'' Obviously, Philip Morris knew that Marlboro was making money in that area. I will not read the next statement, but it has the same context. Kids were the target. So we have here, as I mentioned earlier, the concept that we are going to be giving immunity, for the first time in our history, to an industry. What industry do we pick? Do we pick the people who are making heart valves so you can live longer? Do we pick an industry that makes hip joints to make you live longer? Do we pick the industry that is making a drug that will maybe make your life easier? Do we pick an industry that makes cars so you can get places faster? No. We pick an industry which targets kids with a poisonous product that they made addictive. And they knew it all along. The last argument that we hear is, We can't do this bill unless we have the tobacco companies cooperate, and we can't have cooperation unless we have some sort of immunity for the tobacco companies, unless we give them this historic new authority and protection. First off, that is not true. The vast majority of the advertising controls that we think are needed can be done without the tobacco companies' participation. Yes, there are some issues of the first amendment that we can't step over. But for the most part, we can do a great deal to limit their access, especially to kids. Second, we can compete with them. We can produce our own advertising programs, which compete much more aggressively than they can in the marketplace. Of course, that is the traditional American way: Make the point, make it effectively, that tobacco kills. But, most importantly, I think it ought to be pointed out here that we are making a deal with the Devil and the Devil walked away from the table. There is no tobacco company participation in this process any longer. Here we are offering them the most significant legal protection probably in the history of the country in exchange for them being willing to give us some limited ability to limit their advertising activities, and they are not even at the table to accept the offer. In fact, they have walked away from the table. They said they don't want to have anything more to do with this process. The quote from the head of RJR is: The extraordinary settlement, reached on June 20th last year, that could have set the Nation on a dramatically new and constructive direction regarding tobacco, is dead. And there is no process which is even more remotely likely to lead to an acceptable comprehensive solution this year. With that statement, he walked out. He said, I am not going to participate in this and tobacco is not participating in this anymore. So you have this almost pathetic situation where the U.S. Congress is passing immunity and giving this outrageous new authority to the tobacco companies to protect them from lawsuits. The tobacco companies have walked away, and the U.S. Congress is sort of chasing after them on bended knee, saying, ``Please, tobacco companies, please, tobacco companies, please take our offer.'' My goodness. First, we make a deal with the Devil, and then we chase after him asking for him to take our deal. I mean it is just ridiculous, it is inappropriate, it is not becoming of the Congress, and it is wrong. The language which Senator Leahy and I have proposed here is essentially the same language which was in the original HEALTHY Kids bill, which was endorsed by the White House. I regret that we have not received White House support for reinserting this language. I regret that the leadership within this Congress has not supported the insertion, although on the House side I note, I believe that the Speaker supports no immunity language, although I don't want to speak for him. I have read reports to that effect. But the point is that this is not dramatic language, it is not outrageous language, it is the language that was in the original HEALTHY Kids bill, and it essentially says no immunity. It says what this Senate said back when we passed the sense of the Senate 79 to 19: No immunity for the tobacco industry, because they don't deserve it, it is wrong, and it is inconsistent with the capitalist system.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator for a question. The Senator from Massachusetts had a question. And then I will yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. GREGG. No, I would not. I happen to think the use of the word ``immunity'' is correct. The fact is that we are setting up a new structure here where, for the first time, we are giving product liability protection to an industry which clearly doesn't deserve it. The term ``immunity'' has become a term of art relative to that discussion. From my standpoint, the term of ``immunity'' properly defines that. If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to define it in a more narrow sense and say, ``We are giving them product liability protection but we are not giving them immunity,'' that is the Senator from Massachusetts's definitional approach, and that is fine. But the point is the same. We are creating a unique, unusual, significant action which changes the jurisprudence that has dominated the marketplace in this country for 200 years.

Mr. GREGG. Certainly.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, do I now have the floor?

Mr. GREGG. I think that is probably a reasonable statement from the Senator from Arizona, who has a fine reputation in this institution, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. If I have the representation of the Senator from Arizona that sometime on Thursday, hopefully early in the day, we will get this amendment up, it will have a reasonable amount of time and will not be subject to second-degrees, to the extent if that is in the capacity of the Senator from Arizona, and the representation from the other side that that is possible, I am perfectly happy to go forward.

Mr. GREGG. I yield.

Mr. GREGG. I think that is probably true. The Senator from New Mexico is accurate. The normal manner is to offer my amendment at this time, since I have the floor. I am willing to wait until Thursday to do that if I get assurance----

Mr. GREGG. I will not yield the floor, but I yield for a question. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico for a question.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, since I have the floor, I understand there is some comity here on amendments back and forth. But what I would like is to get an understanding, as we move through this process, that those of us who have amendments which have some impact on this bill and which need some time to be debated are going to get a commitment for time and a place when they will be brought up. I can offer my amendment at this time. It is not my inclination to do that, if I can get an understanding without losing the floor that I am going to get a time to bring up my amendment. I ask the leader of the bill if he would be willing to agree--and opposing side--if they would be willing to agree that the amendment on immunities, which I think everybody is familiar with and is sponsored by myself and Senator Leahy, would be available to be brought up at a time specific on Thursday so that there will be a reasonable lead time here, and that time would be at 10 o'clock, assuming that is agreeable to everybody and we have 3 hours on that amendment and no second- degrees be in order and we proceed to vote on it. Without that sort of an assurance, I am going to offer my amendment at this time.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object. Is the unanimous consent request propounded?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, possibly later today we will begin on this floor the debate and voting on the language relating to the tobacco settlement. This is obviously a fairly significant piece of legislation. It has the potential to represent one of the most complex pieces of legislation ever considered by this body--at least certainly in my time in Government. It also represents, potentially, one of the largest tax increases that this Congress will consider assessing. It represents a dramatic step in a number of different areas of law in which this Congress has toyed with but has never really fully participated. I want to talk about one specific area of that issue, which is the area of granting to a manufacturer of a product in this country product liability protection, or immunity, as the term has become known. There are a lot of products made in this Nation today, a lot of products made for the purpose of improving the lives of people, a lot of products made for enjoyment, products that are made to get us through a day, and products like tobacco. Most of these products--in fact, the vast majority of these products--have no special protection should they be produced in a manner that harms someone. And if an individual in our country is harmed by the use of a product, they have recourse through our court system. It is a very integral part of the free marketplace that an individual who buys a product have the ability to go into court and address the safety of that product as it affected that individual. Why is that critical? Because a long time ago we rejected the concept of caveat emptor in this country--that if you sell somebody a product, the person who buys the product assumes all the risk. In order to discipline the marketplace, in order to make sure we had a safe marketplace where things being sold in our country in the capitalist system would have some discipline in the quality of those items, we have developed a large amount of case law that allows an individual who thinks they have been impacted or can prove they have been impacted by, or harmed by, a product sold to them has a right to go into court and proceed to get recovery for that harm, if they can prove it. It is one of the really core elements that makes our marketplace work. It is one of the core elements that makes our Nation function as a dynamic economic engine. When we start addressing that issue of what rights an individual has in relationship to purchasing a product, we have to be very sensitive to the importance of maintaining the capacity of an individual to get redress in the court system. I say that in reference to the tobacco bill coming at us in an action that I think is absolutely inexplicable from the standpoint of maintaining a disciplined marketplace and from the standpoint of protecting individuals, which grants to the tobacco companies of this country--and internationally for that matter-- protection from lawsuits where they have harmed individuals. Why is this so outrageous, such an act of incomprehensibility from my standpoint? Because the product we are talking about here--tobacco--has three characteristics. First, we know that it kills people, and the tobacco companies that produced it knew and know that it kills people. Second, we know that it is an addictive product, and the tobacco companies that produced it knew it was addictive and, in fact, structured the product in such a way by putting a certain amount of nicotine into it, that they produced an even more addictive product than had they simply gone forward with pure tobacco. Third, the tobacco companies intentionally, purposefully, with the idea that they would create a larger marketplace, targeted the sale of their product on children. So we have a product that kills people, and the manufacturer of that product knew it; we have a product that was addictive, and the manufacturer of that product created it so that it would be addictive and knew it was; and we have a product where the companies that produced that product targeted children to try to produce a larger marketplace and a lifetime user once they get that child addicted-- knowing that it would kill the children as they grew older. Knowing that. And we have picked this product, with those three incredible characteristics that are applied to the tobacco industry, to be the first product to receive major protection--or we may pick this product. Hopefully, we won't. The bill coming before us chooses this product to be the first product to receive major product liability protection--to say to the companies that have produced this product that kills people, is addictive, and was targeted on kids: you will not have to pay the full cost of the harm you have created because the U.S. Congress is going to protect you, the tobacco industry, from the liability that the marketplace would force on you were we to go directly to the capitalist system which has dominated our country for over 200 years. It is an absolute outrage that we are considering pursuing this course of action as a Congress. Equally significant, I think, is the fact that we are doing this in a manner where we are claiming that we are actually harming the tobacco companies. This argument is being made in the marketplace of ideas around here that this tobacco bill is somehow, in some way, an attack on big tobacco, when with the immunity language in it, it is just the opposite--it is a protective blanket. It is an iron curtain of protection for big tobacco. And it is ironic that we put this immunity language on the table at the same time the tobacco companies have said they no longer will participate in the development of this settlement. This immunity language was originally designed because we said if we didn't have immunity--or somebody said it; I didn't say it--it was said that if immunity did not exist for the tobacco industry, the tobacco industry would not come to the table and limit its advertising directed specifically at children. Now the tobacco industry has said: The heck with you guys. We don't like the bill, we are walking out, and we will have no more to do with this. So you don't limit us in any way on our advertising. And still we go forward with a bill that gives them immunity. And for the immunity, what do we get? A tobacco industry that has walked away from the table. To begin with, we made a deal with the devil--or somebody made a deal with the devil. Now the devil has walked away from the table, and we find that this Congress is thinking about following the devil on its knees and saying: Please, Mr. Devil, take immunity, take it; we want to throw it at you even if you won't give us anything for it. It is beyond comprehension that we are considering pursuing this course of action, but we appear to be considering that. I just wanted to highlight that at this point because I think the debate has gotten a little topsy-turvy. It is a little topsy-turvy when a bill is giving, for the first time in the history of our Nation, and in the jurisprudence history of our Nation, product liability protection of immense value to an industry that has produced a product that is inherently deadly and is addictive and is targeted on kids--the first time we are going to do that, and that bill is, for some reason, perceived as being antitobacco. It is not antitobacco. It is actually very protobacco. Let's remember something else here as we think about this. We don't give this type of protection out easily around here. It took 6 years, I think it was--maybe longer--for us to give just a narrow little amount of protection to the airplane manufacturing industry for small planes because our airplane industry had been wiped out for small planes and nobody could buy a small plane made in the United States back in the mid-1980s. The whole industry had been wiped out by product liability litigation. So we put a little sliver of protection in order to resurrect that industry. That industry does not produce an inherently deadly product that is addictive and that is targeted on kids. It took us 6 years to produce that little sliver of production. That is the only product liability protection passed by this Congress since I have been here. We don't give product liability protection to the doctor who develops and creates a new valve for somebody's heart which gives that person an extra amount of life, or a new hip design that allows a person to have the freedom to walk again. We don't give any protection to those individuals. If those valves don't work and regrettably a patient is harmed, there is a lawsuit, and there is recovery. We don't give any protection to innumerable, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of products that are lifesaving products that are produced for the purposes of bettering the life of an American citizen, or citizens around this world, whether it is a drug product, whether it is a medical device product, or whether it just happens to be an automobile. We don't give any product liability protection. But the first product liability protection we are going to give, if we pass this bill, will be to an industry that is producing and that has produced a product that for years--maybe generations even--it knew was deadly, it knew was addictive, and at least in the last 10 or 20 years it has targeted on kids for sale. It is beyond comprehension that we would consider doing that. As we move forward in this bill, I certainly hope that we will reconsider that proposal, because what are we getting for that immunity protection? Absolutely nothing. The tobacco companies walked away from the table. We have gotten nothing. And I hope that we would reconsider that. There will be a lot of talk about the fact, well, there is protection. It isn't really protection because there is a $6 billion, $8 billion--we don't know. We haven't seen the final language. The language is being written right now. It is being shifted around--I note for the press that might be listening, if there is any listening-- shifting the language all around this bill, because it will be very difficult to target the immunity language in this bill. They are intentionally trying to make it procedurally very difficult to go after this language. But they keep shifting the numbers around, too. But the number is almost irrelevant because you are dealing with an industry that has the capacity to produce the profit to pick up the number. You would have to put out a fairly astronomical level to have any significant impact on the profitability over the long term of this industry. You are giving this industry, as long as you give them immunity, the right to go out in the marketplace and sell this product and target it on kids. That is what you are doing. You are giving them the right to sell a product that kills kids, kills people, is addictive, and is targeted on kids. It is just absolutely inexcusable that we would consider doing this. I certainly hope to be able to offer amendments that strip this out of the bill. It will be difficult because there are a lot of parliamentary games going on around here right now. But it would be my hope that we could accomplish that. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may have.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I know there are a number of Members who wish to speak, so I will keep my comments brief. But first I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, Chairman Roth, for bringing forward this really excellent bill to try to address what have been some extraordinary abuses which have been testified to before his committee and testified to in other arenas. In my own case, I held a meeting in New Hampshire--a number of meetings, and found that we have had over 75 cases involving complaints involving the Internal Revenue Service since I have been in the Senate, which is an extremely high percentage. We held a number of meetings. In one of the meetings, we had a presentation that was really disturbing--two presentations, in fact. The first was a fellow who practiced tax law and tax preparation for over 27 years who brought in a memo, an actual memo that he had taken off the desk of an agent. And the memo stated very bluntly that the IRS agents in that arena, in that area, were to collect a specific amount of dollars. Not only were they to collect a specific amount of dollars, but they were to collect a specific amount of dollars every month. In fact, it went further. It said how much they were supposed to collect every day, almost down to every hour--how much money the agents in that area were supposed to collect. It was not collection on the basis of people who legitimately owed taxes; it was collection on the basis of a quota system. It was outrageous that such a memo should exist or such direction should occur with this agency. The second instance, which was even more disturbing because it led to a death, involved a fairly well known case now in New Hampshire of Mrs. Barron and Mr. Barron. Mrs. Barron's husband was essentially driven to suicide as a result of the abusive and totally inappropriate tactics that the Service, and a specific member of the Service, used in pursuing Mr. Barron for collection of taxes that were owed. It was so terrible and so outrageous that it did lead to Mr. Barron's death and has disrupted and destroyed really Mrs. Barron and her family. As of today--in fact, I believe it will be announced today-- Mrs. Barron has now finally received, after 5 or 6 years, some slight recompensation from the Internal Revenue Service in that they have dropped all action against her and against her husband's estate, and stated that they will no longer pursue the liability which they originally alleged was due and which drove this family into such despair. The manner of the collection was just horrific. The way in which they proceeded was horrific. Of course, we have seen testimony before the Senate committee on which Chairman Roth has been holding hearings which reflected agents coming into slumber parties and forcing young children to get dressed in front of them, at gunpoint essentially, and throwing a household into chaos in that manner. Even a former majority leader of this Senate, Senator Baker, was subject to what amounted to extortion as a result of the activities of what I think was then a rogue agent pursuing Senator Baker. The instances go on and on. And almost every Member of this Senate, I suspect, has cases in their home State of abuse, of action taken by specific agents which went beyond anything which we in a democracy should tolerate. Thus, this bill is absolutely appropriate because this bill puts the taxpayer back on a level playing field. Instead of treating the taxpayers as if they are guilty until proven innocent--just the exact opposite of the way our culture proceeds--this bill puts the burden back on the Internal Revenue Service, where the taxpayer can present a reasonable case. In addition, this bill says to the spouse, who is just a bystander, that they will not end up being treated unfairly or abused as a result of the misdeeds of their husband. And in most instances where the spouse simply signs the return, the innocent spouse language in this bill is very, very appropriate. And the chance to recover from the IRS for damages which are caused as a result of excessive activity on the part of agents who may act outside the reasonable course of collection of taxes is also very appropriate in this bill. So this is truly a strong bill. It is dedicated to the purpose of trying to rein in the Internal Revenue Service management activities and make the Internal Revenue Service a more responsible agency as it deals with our citizenry. Because the bottom line, quite honestly, in our tax collection service, in our tax collection system as a democracy, is that people have to have confidence; they have to have confidence in the system. They have to have confidence that when they pay their taxes, they are paying, No. 1, their fair share and, No. 2, they are going to get fair treatment in the manner in which their taxes are reviewed. And as people lose that confidence, we will lose compliance. What we have seen basically is that people have lost their confidence in the manner in which the Internal Revenue Service pursues the collection of taxes in this country. This bill will hopefully move a large step down the road towards reestablishing faith in the collection process that we pursue in this Nation for our tax obligations. It does not get to the underlying problem, of course, which is that the tax laws have become far too complex, far too intricate, have gotten to a point of legal mumbo jumbo that very few people can understand what the tax laws actually say or can even comply with them without the assistance of professionals. That issue we also need to address as a Congress. We need to simplify, make fairer, make flatter our tax system; make it a more comprehensible and understandable tax system. Pending doing that, which I hope we will do in the next year or so, this bill is a major stride forward in giving the taxpayers fairer and better treatment under the Internal Revenue Service procedures and allowing taxpayers to be treated like citizens of a democracy rather than citizens of a police state. Mr. President, I yield back such time as I may have.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to women, men, and their families who are fighting the scourge of breast cancer. As many of my colleagues may remember, last Spring, I submitted S. Res. 85, with my fellow Senator from New Hampshire, recognizing the family and friends of breast cancer patients in the struggle to cope with this disease. The Senate passed my Resolution by unanimous consent and expressed their overwhelming support for individuals who provide strength and support for loved ones fighting breast cancer. I come to the floor today to again note the importance of this expression and to recognize a very important organization in my home state of New Hampshire that is spreading this message to breast cancer patients across the country. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 1998, 178,700 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States and 1,600 cases will be diagnosed among men. These numbers more than triple in size when you consider the family and friends who are also impacted by the disease. With each and every one of these cases comes family and friends who are looked upon to provide the caring and loving needed to overcome such a terrifying disease. The Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation, in Dover, New Hampshire, has done an excellent job of expressing this notion to the people of New Hampshire and beyond. With their campaign titled, ``It's My Fight, Too,'' the Foundation has let individuals afflicted with breast cancer know that they are not alone in their struggle. It is important for the family to understand that their feelings are shared by others in their same situation and that they should find strength in numbers. Awareness campaigns like ``It's My Fight Too,'' are extremely important to foster an environment where support for both the individual with breast cancer and their family and friends is encouraged. Awareness is the key to allowing people to understand and identify with those suffering around them. We can all, as community members, provide support and strength to those in need. As Mother's Day approaches, the Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation will be holding their annual event to recognize the important women in our lives who may or may not be suffering from this disease but who never the less, need to know that breast cancer is not just a women's disease but a struggle that can be fought by all of us together. Their event, ``Family and Friends Against Breast Cancer, It's My Fight Too, A Night of Hope, Song and Love'' will bring people from across the Northeast together to express the same support the Senate expressed with the passage of S. Res. 85. I commend the efforts of the Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation and encourage organizations across the country to follow their leadership and example.