Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I was saying earlier before I yielded to the Senator from Arkansas, I was talking about the situation that we had agreed to, that I thought I agreed to. I might just also say that the Helms amendment provides no funds to reduce tobacco smoking in any way. It creates a 3-cent tax on each gallon of ethanol. It puts it in a trust fund to be used for programs within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, but it doesn't allow the money to be spent unless funding is included in some appropriations bill. So it really doesn't provide an alternative source of funding. It just sets up a trust fund that you take money out of ethanol and put in there. But it really doesn't do anything. As I understood it, I had agreed with the Senator from North Carolina that I would not object to a unanimous consent request to have the yeas and nays on my amendment, which was required at that point in time; then he would modify his amendment; and then we would have the yeas and nays on his amendment; and if we could have an up-or-down vote on his amendment, which I thought was fair, and if we could have an up-or-down vote on my amendment, which I thought would be fair. Now I understand that that may not be the case; that now there may be a motion made to table the underlying amendment without a vote happening on the Helms amendment. I think there should be a vote on the Helms amendment to see whether or not people want to take the money out of ethanol and put it into a trust fund which doesn't go anywhere, or whether Senators would rather raise the assessment, as the amendment by Senator Chafee and I, and others, does: to raise the marketing assessment now from 1 percent to 2.1 percent, remove the half a percent that farmers have to pay now, make tobacco companies pay the full 2.1 percent, in order to offset the $34 million needed to fund the FDA's youth tobacco initiative. That really is the essence of the two amendments, and I believe we ought to have a vote on the two amendments. So, therefore, Mr. President, I move to table the Helms amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I understand we have 2\1/2\ minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I just listened to my friend from Kentucky--and he is my friend, I mean that in all sincerity--talking about this amendment not being fair. Madam President, what is not fair is this: Kids all over America walking into gas stations, small retail outlets, not being asked to show an ID, buying cigarettes and getting hooked, getting hooked on tobacco. That is what is not fair. That is what is not fair, and that is what this amendment seeks to prevent. The FDA promulgated a rule. The tobacco companies took them to court. The court in Greensboro, NC, upheld that part of the FDA rule that says FDA can set a minimum age for tobacco purchases and require that retail establishments have to card anyone who appears to be under 27. The Court said FDA can promulgate that rule. The rule is in place. What our amendment does is provide some money to the States and local jurisdictions to enforce the rules and also money to help the private establishments meet their obligations not to sell to minors and to have an ID check on young people so they do not buy tobacco when they are under the age of 18. That is what is fair. States need the funds. This funding for FDA's youth tobacco initiative is supported by 33 attorneys general from around the country who have been part of this tobacco settlement that they are working on. The attorney general of Mississippi, Mike Moore, wrote me a letter supporting this amendment saying it would not interfere or conflict with the proposed tobacco settlement. Lastly, this offset is totally within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. It is supported by both Chairman Lugar and by me, the ranking member. This amendment will not go to the Ways and Means Committee. It is under Agriculture's jurisdiction. It was in the 1990 reconciliation bill and it is today.

Mr. HARKIN. Can we have 5 minutes to discuss my amendment before the vote, from 6:30 to 6:35?

Mr. HARKIN. As I understand the UC, there was to be a vote on the Harkin amendment at 6:35.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, because there is some, I think, misunderstanding here about going to the Ways and Means Committee, which I don't believe is correct, since customs fees are normally within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee in any event. There are in this bill more provisions that deal with authorization in the agricultural area. I have a letter from Senator Lugar here saying that he supports our amendment, and he finds it fully consistent with his views. So this amendment would not be referred to the Ways and Means Committee of the House. There is other language in the bill that is in the authorizing level of the Agriculture Committee. This assessment was created in the reconciliation bill of 1990, under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. It is not a customs fee. I was wondering whether we could have a few more minutes to discuss this issue so we can clear it up.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Alaska stated that this amendment would mean that the bill would be referred to the Ways and Means Committee of the House. However, the amendment that Senator Chafee and I offered is on an assessment that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in 1990, not the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee never had any jurisdiction over this. I am somewhat perplexed as to why this would then go to the Ways and Means Committee, since it was the Agriculture Committee that passed the assessment in 1990.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I asked the Senator to yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I can't hear anything. What is the pending business?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. The teeth have been pulled out of SAMHSA. But nonetheless, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, that SAMHSA applies to the States. The States do their thing. What the FDA initiative goes to are the retailers. The FDA rule goes directly to retailers. And what this money is used for is to go out and contract with State and local jurisdictions to enforce the rules to prevent teen smoking and to help retailers understand what they have to do. And the FDA can absolutely set up penalties for retailers who do not comply, who are repeat offenders in selling tobacco to underage kids. That is not the case under the SAMHSA rules. I am sorry.

Mr. HARKIN. But there are no teeth saying if you don't meet the requirements of law that you lose their block grants. There are no teeth in it.

Mr. HARKIN. A State could conceivably lose its block grant but there are no hard targets that hold the states accountable to enforce laws that cut teenage smoking.

Mr. HARKIN. I would reply to the Senator from Kentucky again in this way. SAMHSA does in fact provide that States should or must enforce this and reduce smoking by passing laws that would do that, to take action to do that. However, there are absolutely no teeth at all in this SAMHSA provision because, if States don't do it, there are essentially no effective penalties that apply.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield further without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. But here is the catch. The tobacco industry was successful in pulling the teeth from this provision. Synar has no teeth because there are no hard targets. It is discretionary whether any State will lose its block grant. That is why SAMHSA is not an enforcement program, no one is going to lose their block grants, because there are no teeth in the targets. If States miss their targets, they are not going to lose their block grants. To my knowledge, no State has.

Mr. HARKIN. If they do not reduce smoking.

Mr. HARKIN. If they do not do so, then the State could lose block grant funding--

Mr. HARKIN. Sets targets for the States to cut illegal sales to minors.

Mr. HARKIN. I might respond to my friend from Kentucky, that, under the Synar amendment it is true that SAMHSA--SAMHSA imposes an--