Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will yield to my friend from California.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee].

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his comments. I thank him for his strong support in the effort to eliminate teenage smoking. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. HARKIN. First, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Lori Turpin, a detailee in the office of Senator Inouye, be granted floor privileges during deliberations on S. 1061.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes, after which time I will then yield to Senator Chafee, the majority cosponsor of this amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor of the pending amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Before I return to the substance of our amendment, I want to address a couple of points raised yesterday. The distinguished chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee suggested that my amendment should not be adopted because it skirts the rules. Well, the rules governing this body clearly permit this Senator or any other Senator to offer an amendment to the House Agriculture appropriations bill once it comes over to us. There was a quotation in AP today of Senator Cochran saying, ``This is an unfortunate effort to go around the rules and procedures.'' How, I ask, can this Senator, be going around the rules when I am in full compliance with the rules of the Senate? Our amendment is fully within the Senate rules. There is no point of order that lies against offering it. And I will point out that offering this amendment at this time is in full compliance with the unanimous-consent agreement worked out with the majority leader during the Senate's consideration of its Agriculture appropriations bill. The distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran, was involved in those discussions also. I did not wait until after the Senate passed its version of the bill and then spring this amendment on the Senate. Before the Senate passed its bill, there was a unanimous consent agreement worked out which plainly provided an opportunity for me to offer an amendment at this point, an amendment that is clearly permitted under the rules. That was all worked out under the rules openly and aboveboard before the Senate passed its Agriculture appropriations bill. If, I submit, the argument of the distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran, prevails and our amendment is defeated on the basis of his procedural argument that this Senator should not be able to rely upon the Senate rules, every Senator should be concerned about the precedent that outcome would set regarding his or her ability to rely upon the Senate rules. Senators who are inclined to vote with Senator Cochran should think again and ask themselves what options under the Senate rules they may be closing off that they may one day critically need. I am not just talking about the rule I am relying on here. I am talking about a whole host of other rules protecting the rights of Senators that could be swept away in the name of expediency, rules that could be eviscerated as mere trifling inconveniences. This procedural argument made by the distinguished chairman is both dangerous and bogus. Let's get to the real issue here. The issue is whether or not kids under the age of 18 should be able to buy tobacco and whether we ought to fund efforts to stop such sales. That is what this vote is about. It is about our kids and protecting them from the ravages of tobacco. With the death toll of over 400,000 a year, smoking is killing more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, fires, homicide, illicit drugs, and suicide combined. And I might add, with the addition of the Byrd language, States will be encouraged to crack down on the illegal sales of alcohol along with the illegal sales of tobacco. Teenage smoking rates are climbing--a 17-year high among high school seniors. Why do we need these FDA rules? Because without the ID checks and a strong rule against underage sales, kids will continue to fall prey to tobacco. This picture says more than a thousand words about why the FDA rules are needed. Here is Melissa on the left, Amy on the right. ``Can you tell which one is 16? If they walked into a store, would the clerk know which one was under 18? To eliminate the guesswork, FDA requires retailers to card anyone who is under 27.'' You could not tell which one of them is under the age of 18. It just so happens the young woman over here, Melissa, is 16 and Amy, over here, is 25. That is why this rule is needed. That is why the court in Greensboro, NC, upheld this rule. Our amendment seeks $34 million in funding, minuscule in comparison to the $50 billion in smoking-related medical costs in our Nation each year. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record the editorial appearing this morning in the Washington Post regarding the upcoming vote.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Go ahead.

Mr. HARKIN. Obviously, we are open for business now. There are other amendments that I have heard about that are out there. So if other Senators have them, now is the time to come over, and perhaps if amendments are offered now and after the caucuses, after the 2:15 time, we could stack a bunch of votes at 5 o'clock. I know Senators like to do that, because they can schedule their time a little bit better. I hope any Senators who have amendments will come over now before we break for our party caucuses or come over at 2:15 and then we can stack the votes at 5 o'clock.

Mr. HARKIN. If I might just ask the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. It would gut the whole program. To answer the Senator's question, we always come in for emergency funds. But here is what happens. When you don't fund the LIHEAP Program enough, what happens is family--let's face it; the average family gets about 215 bucks. It's what, around 30 percent, I think, of their heating bill. But what happens--and we know this from experience in my State of Iowa especially--when they don't know if they are going to get the money to pay their heating bills--and you know elderly people are very proud. They don't want to be on welfare and most of them are not on welfare. They are getting Social Security, very small Social Security checks. What they do is they turn the heat down and they put their shawls on, they put on coats, they wear coats around the house. And then what happens. Well, they get ill and then they have to go to the hospital, and they go to the emergency rooms. We have found this time and time and time again. That is what poor people, and especially elderly people, will do when they don't know if they are going to get their heating money. And so again, the crisis is real for these people, very, very real. As I pointed out, last year we had--and I have called for an investigation of it--in some States, a 25-percent increase, and I do not think there is any need for it other than the demand was there, it was very cold, and a lot of these elderly people simply could not pay these prices. Lastly, let me sort of respond philosophically to the Senator from Arizona. I couldn't help but notice the comment that this was a program of the liberal welfare state; like a lot of programs of the liberal welfare state, it just goes on and on and on even when the need is not there. Well, I could ask the Senator from Arizona, what about the Pell Grant Program? That was a program of the Lyndon Johnson Great Society just as well as--well, not LIHEAP; that came later, but the Pell grant was a program from under the Great Society, and the need was there and the need is still there for the Pell Grant Program. So I would submit to the Senator from Arizona that this is not a program of the liberal welfare state. It is a program of a caring and compassionate and fair state. We are, as I said the other day, fulfilling our obligation under the Constitution of the United States. A lot of people do not realize this, but twice in the Constitution the word ``welfare'' is mentioned--twice--first, in the preamble when it says, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.'' ``Promote,'' it does not say just stand by. It says ``promote the general Welfare.'' That is why we established the Constitution. So that is the first place it is mentioned. And then in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Article I is, of course, Congress and what Congress is supposed to do. Section 8 outlines the responsibilities of Congress: To borrow money, regulate commerce, to establish post offices and roads, provide and maintain a Navy, et cetera, et cetera. Here is the first paragraph of section 8 of article I of the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. It is our obligation, first, to promote the general welfare and then, using the powers that we have to lay and collect taxes and disburse those moneys, to provide for the general welfare of the people. That is what we are talking about. Whether we are talking about Pell Grant Programs or whether we are talking about heating energy assistance programs for the elderly and the poor, we are fulfilling our obligation as a caring and compassionate state to promote the general welfare and to use our taxing and spending powers outlined in the Constitution of the United States to provide for the general welfare of our people. So, no, this is not a program of a liberal welfare state. It is a program of a caring and compassionate and fair state, just as the Pell Grants Program is. These are good programs. We should not be robbing one that hits at the poorest, those with the lowest incomes of our people--70 percent of these families have less than $8,000 a year income--to use that to try to help other low-income people to get an education. Don't tell me there are not other sources of funds here. There are. I might submit that we now have this B-2 bomber we are building that cannot even sit out in the rain, $1 billion a copy, and now we have to build special hangars for them because they cannot sit outside. We can't forward deploy them. All this is coming out now. We are going to put money in that, but we are going to take money out of the heating energy assistance programs to help other poor people get an education? I am sorry, that doesn't quite compute for this Senator. So I am hopeful--and I know the Senator from Arizona means well. As I said, I support half of what he is talking about, in terms of getting the Pell grants up. I just think his sources of getting the money are just not good for this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise--and I am sure this is no surprise to anyone--in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Arizona. Again, I would concur with what my distinguished chairman said. About half I agree with; half I do not agree with in terms of the Senator's comments. We are all in favor of increasing Pell grants and making sure everyone is covered, but I would say this committee, under the able leadership of Senator Specter, has done a great job of increasing the Pell grants to historically high levels--a maximum grant of $3,000, up from $2,700 last year. Certainly you always perhaps could have more. But I haven't heard from any institution of higher learning or anyone that is involved in the Pell grant program saying that this is insufficient. I think what I have heard is that they are very, very happy with what this committee has done in meeting these requirements and getting the level up. In taking the cut out of LIHEAP for this, though, talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul, because we are talking about the same kind of universe. We are talking about low-income families. Again, just to reiterate and reaffirm what the chairman said, the LIHEAP Program has gone down 50 percent in the last decade. We started out at about $2.1 billion in 1985 and it is down now to $1 billion--a 50-percent drop in the amount of money, yet the eligible population for LIHEAP has grown by about 30 percent--33 percent in that same period of time. So the eligible number has gone up and the pie piece has gone down. Over 70 percent of the families receiving LIHEAP assistance have incomes of less than $8,000 a year; 7 out of every 10 have incomes-- that is not individuals--family incomes less than $8,000 a year, and 44 percent of the households receiving it are elderly, over age 65. So that is the universe we are talking about. The Senator from Arizona said this is a program that's outlived its usefulness; the energy crisis is gone. Well, it may be that for those who are making more money it is gone, but my figures show that the prices of natural gas, electricity, if you adjust for inflation, are about as high now as they were in 1979. But if you look at the universe of people who are getting LIHEAP, their inflation-adjusted incomes have not gone up. So they are basically in the same position they were in, or like families were in, when the energy crisis hit in 1979. As Senator Specter said, 50 percent of these families in LIHEAP use natural gas, 15 percent use electricity, 35 percent use oil, propane, wood, and coal. So for these families the energy crisis still exists, and it especially exists when the weather gets the coldest. The Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber, and as we found out last year when we had some extremely cold weather, we found anomalies in the upper Midwest where in some States the cost of propane and oil spiked, went up 25 percent during the coldest times of the year as compared to some other States. In other words, in those areas where it was the coldest, where it was needed the most, the price went up the highest.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for this colloquy, just yield for a question. Even taking the Senator's figures, if the real prices have dropped by a third, the fact is that since 1985 the LIHEAP Program has come down 50 percent. So we are spending half as much money today. Of course, in real terms it would be even less than that, if you adjusted for inflation. I am just talking about the actual dollars. It's $2.1 billion in 1985, it's $1 billion now. So, even if the cost--I ask the Senator to think about this and see if my reasoning is wrong here--even if the cost of energy has come down by a third, if in fact the amount of money we are putting in the program has come down by over a half, does that not compute out to the fact that there is less money going into the program today and that less money is there to meet the heating needs of those families who are getting the money?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to concur with what the chairman just said about this amendment. Obviously, all of us are very concerned about the lack of, shall we say, appropriate funding levels for research into the causes and interventions and cures of Parkinson's disease. This is something that I have been very close to for the last several years. I know that both Senator McCain and Senator Wellstone have been leaders on this issue in the Senate. And I congratulate them and commend them for their leadership on the issue of proper funding for Parkinson's research. There have been some recent breakthroughs in the causes of Parkinson's, some recent breakthroughs in genetic tracing, some recent breakthroughs in possible interventions, early interventions for those who are detected early with the onset of Parkinson's disease. This is a quantum increase. It is not out of bounds. Certainly the incidents of Parkinson's disease in this country and around the globe warrants the type of investment in research that the amendment anticipates. It remains to be seen whether or not we can accommodate this huge increase within the confines of the conference. I can assure the authors of the amendment that this Senator, and I am sure that Senator Specter, will do what we can to maintain this type of a level for Parkinson's research. What the disposition will be on the House side, obviously, we have no control over that. But I want to commend both Senator McCain and Senator Wellstone for their leadership on this issue and hope that we can do what we can in conference to keep the funding level up for Parkinson's research. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. I think if we might, the Senator from Indiana would go ahead and make some remarks and at least at the beginning outline what his amendment is about. That will certainly alert offices. If we do not hear, in a decent amount of time, that some people are objecting to a time limit, we will go ahead with an agreement.

Mr. HARKIN. I withdraw that.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Keep in mind the $34 million FDA needs is just a drop in the bucket compared to the $50 billion in annual smoking-related medical costs in our Nation. As I close, I want to bring the discussion back to the central issue. That is, whether we will stand up to big tobacco and stand up for America's kids. If we cannot even take this modest step, $29.1 million, what kind of message does that send? We talk a lot around here about protecting kids. Well, it is time to quit talking and do something about it. Let's do what is right for our kids, right for law enforcement, right for the future. Let's pass this amendment and give our kids what they deserve--better health and a brighter future. Again, I point out that this amendment is in full compliance with the rules. This Senator is offering the amendment parliamentarily to the House-passed bill as it came over here under the unanimous-consent agreement reached with the majority leader prior to the Senate going out in early August. How much time is remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the arguments made by my friend, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee. However, let me point out that, first of all, no point of order lies against my amendment. Therefore, it is in full compliance with the rules of the Senate. I know of no one who would say that something ought to be defeated because it is in compliance with the rules. I, through my staff, consulted the Parliamentarian's office about researching any precedents for the procedural situation of my amendment on the bill. My staff was told it would be virtually impossible to research precedence because offering an amendment in this posture is clearly within the rules and would not be identified as having set a precedent. By the same token, I believe that adopting my amendment would not set any precedent whatsoever. We are simply using the rules. Now, the fact is that, as the chairman said, most of the time bills are passed in the House and they come over and we substitute, in the beginning, before the process, the House-passed bill, and therefore we work on one bill, and when third reading is made, that is the end of it. But in this case, we passed the bill prior to the House passing it. The rules clearly allow that any bill that comes over from the House taken up by the Senate is amendable. That is all this Senator is doing. It sets no precedent whatsoever. Second, I point out that I did not need a unanimous-consent agreement to offer my amendment. I could have done it without any unanimous consent agreement whatsoever. The only reason the unanimous consent was entered into is I was accommodating to the majority leader that night, who wanted to get the bill done. I want to make it clear that I didn't need unanimous consent to offer this amendment. Third, there was a lot of confusion at the time that I offered this amendment that, by offering it, it would go to the House, it would be blue-slipped by the House, would go to the House Ways and Means Committee, all of which I thought at the time was spurious. But I think some Members were swayed by that. Even in light of that, this amendment got 48 votes. I now point out that no such argument can be held on this, because this will not go back to the House. It will go right to conference. Therefore, it cannot be blue-slipped. It will not go to the Ways and Means Committee in the House. So, therefore, there was some confusion about that at the time. Next, there was a feeling by some that the offsets I had were not appropriate. So we changed the offsets, as I said in my initial opening comments, to accommodate certain Senators who didn't feel I had the right offsets. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand I have 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. During previous consideration of the appropriations bill on agriculture I offered an amendment, along with Senator Chafee and others to protect America's kids and crack down on illegal tobacco sales. We would do it by providing full funding for the FDA's youth tobacco use prevention initiative. That amendment was debated and received a strong bipartisan vote of 48 Senators, but some of my colleagues expressed concerns about certain aspects of the amendment. Those concerns seemed to focus primarily on the nature of the offset and on whether the FDA initiative should be funded before the outcome of the pending tobacco settlement is known. I have, in good faith, modified my amendment in two important respects that I believe fully address both concerns. First, this amendment contains an entirely different offset. It would reduce spending by the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation on automated data processing and information technology equipment during fiscal year 1998 by $29.1 million, just enough to allow full funding for the FDA initiative. Second, to clear up any uncertainty about the relationship of the FDA initiative to the pending tobacco settlement, this amendment contains a sunset provision that would become effective if funding for FDA youth tobacco use prevention activities becomes available as a result of the tobacco settlement. I want to make it clear there is nothing in my amendment having to do with tobacco marketing assessments or tobacco farmers or anything that could remotely be called a revenue measure that could conceivably interest the Ways and Means Committee of the House. I also add the amendment includes language suggested by Senator Byrd that would have the FDA encourage States to coordinate their enforcement either under the youth tobacco use prevention initiative with enforcement of laws against underage drinking. I want to commend and thank Senator Byrd for that addition. As I said in the debate earlier, the two go hand in glove. You find kids using illegal tobacco, you find them illegally buying alcohol at the same time more often than not. With that background, Mr. President, I hope we can zero in on what this is all about. Plain and simple--this amendment is about protecting America's kids from killer tobacco. With a death toll of more than 400,000 a year, smoking kills more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, fires, homicides, illicit drugs, and suicide combined. This is an epidemic, and we know where it starts. It starts with kids. It starts with illegal underage smoking. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began at or before age 18. Put this in perspective: The Senate last took up this debate 40 days ago with my previous amendment. Since that time, another 120,000 young Americans got hooked on tobacco and began smoking; 40,000 of those will die because of it. That is the toll just in the past 7 weeks. At current rates, 5 million American kids under age 18 who are alive today will be killed by smoking-related disease. And teenage smoking rates are still climbing. Smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high. The statistics on smoking among young women and girls is just shocking. Smoking among 8th grade girls jumped over 60 percent from 1991 to 1996, with rates of smoking now higher for 8th and 10th grade girls than for boys. Now, briefly reviewing what this amendment will fund at FDA. FDA needs $34 million to carry out enforcement of rules setting a minimum age of 18 for tobacco purchases and requiring photo ID checks. In its initiative, FDA is signing contracts with State and local jurisdictions for cooperation in carrying out enforcement of these rules. The FDA initiative also includes funding to provide information to retailers and the public about the rules to help retailers comply with the rules and not sell tobacco to kids. This excerpt from an FDA brochure shows why it is necessary to have a photo ID check. FDA has $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997 that it is using to fund contracts with 10 States. The $34 million will allow FDA to provide money to all 50 States to help them prevent youth tobacco use. This is not some big new bureaucratic program. The bulk of the money goes to the States and local jurisdictions. Of the $34 million, $24 million will go to enforcement and evaluation, and $10 million will be used to educate retailers and the public about the rules so retailers can comply. The point of the rules is not to punish anyone, it is to protect kids. I add that these photo ID check and minimum age rules were fully upheld by the Federal district court in Greensboro, NC. This funding request is part of the President's budget request for the Food and Drug Administration. I have a letter from Vice President Gore expressing the administration's strong support for my amendment. I ask unanimous consent the letter, dated August 28, 1997, from the Office of the Vice President, be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy, and Wyden.