Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are now in what should be one of our most productive and thoughtful legislative periods this year. Many important items are pending before the Senate, and there is no reason to believe that we cannot successfully address each of them. We must act to protect the nation's children from tobacco, and we must move forward on appropriations and authorization bills. But, there are many other important measures waiting to be brought to the floor. Patients across the country are urging Congress to enact the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' I would like to take this opportunity to share with members of the Senate another tragic story that demonstrates the need for action. This is a story about Mrs. Peggy Earhart of Sun Valley, California. At the age of 63, she was being treated by her HMO for arthritis. Her treatment required her to visit her doctor every six to eight weeks for cortisone injections. During a period of treatment, she noticed a mole on her ankle. She brought this mole to her doctors' attention, but her doctor reassured her that it looked fine and she need not worry about it. Initially, she trusted her doctor's judgment. As the mole changed shape and color, she brought these changes to the attention of her doctor, who looked at the mole again and assured Mrs. Earhart that it was fine. On the next visit, Mrs. Earhart once again pointed out changes in size and color, and again, the doctor did nothing. Worried and exasperated, Mrs. Earhart requested a change of doctor. She filled out the necessary paperwork and waited--and waited, and waited. Six months later, the HMO finally responded, permitting her to see another physician. The first time she saw the new doctor, he examined the mole and immediately referred her to a dermatologist. The dermatologist took a biopsy and found that the ``mole'' was in fact a malignant melanoma. Further tests were ordered, which showed that the cancer had metastasized. It was then too late to treat Mrs. Earhart, and she died a year later. As this tragic story shows, the heart of the issue is providing patients with access to needed health care--a guarantee that patients shall receive the care they paid for with their hard-earned premiums. In talking about the rights of patients, it is no answer to simply say ``Let the Patient Beware.'' Purchasing health insurance is not like buying a car, and it never will be. Patients deserve to know that, if they notice something wrong and report it to their doctor, their health needs will be met. Mrs. Earhart should have been treated by the appropriate specialist, without the long delay that ultimately cost her life. Mrs. Earhart should have had access to an appropriate review procedure that would have allowed her to seek outside help in time. Her family should have been able to hold the health plan accountable for its actions, and for the inexcusable delay that took her life. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides these protections and more. The Senate should act on this bill as soon as possible. It has the strong support of more than 100 organizations, representing millions of patients, doctors, nurses, working families and consumers. Every day we delay, more tragedies like this take place. They shouldn't have to happen to any family, and they won't happen when this needed legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for initiating these responses to our colleague and friend from Texas giving the strong emphasis in terms of the real make- up of this legislation, because he, like I, believes the single purpose of this legislation should be to halt the young people in this country from starting smoking, and then also to do it by the best means that are available to us from a public health point of view; that as a result of a good deal of practical study, we know there are some measures that are effective and will work. We have seen the inclusion of those measures in the legislation. Some, I believe, should be strengthened. But the Senate has made a judgment on this. That was in the earlier debate about the increase in price to bring it up to the recommendations which have been made by our friends and colleagues in the public health community that universally, based upon their experience, believe that we should raise the price to $1.50 a pack and to do that in a more dramatic way than was included in the legislation that is before us; then also to have the effective programs in counteradvertising and the cessation programs; and strengthen the Food and Drug Administration with the help and assistance to programming in schools and local communities and many programs which have been touched on this afternoon included in the legislation. One of the ways that we have is a very important opportunity to also strengthen the general thrust of this legislation and make it more relevant to the reduction of teenage smoking is to provide the disincentives to the major tobacco companies for advertising and targeting the children in this country. I am always interested in listening to my friend and colleague from Texas crying crocodile tears for working families. We will have an opportunity to address those needs of working families as we have in the past in terms of their income, in terms of their health care, in terms of their safety on the job, and in a variety of terms for families with numbers of children, which he has always unfortunately voted in opposition to. But nonetheless part of the whole tragedy that we as a nation have experienced has been the viciousness of the tobacco industry in targeting the children of working families and of the neediest families in this country and those have been primarily the children of the minorities and working families in this country. All we have to do is look again at what has happened in the past years and see what the results of that targeting of more than $5 billion a year have been on the teenagers in this country. We find out the actual explosion in the use of tobacco by those who are black and non-Hispanic was some 80 percent over the period of the last 6 years, 34 percent by Hispanic, 28 percent by white and non-Hispanic, a general rise of some 32 percent. And that has been primarily the children of working families. To suggest out on the floor of the Senate that somehow the primary concern of these workers is going to be the cost of the pack of cigarettes over the interest of having their children stop smoking I think is a real failure to understand what is happening out among working families in this country. To think that they are more concerned about the increase in the cost than they are about making sure that their children are not going to get cancer in the community or that they are going to be free from these absolutely devastating health impacts which, by starting smoking at an early age or any age, are going to occur I think really fails to consider what is happening out among working families in this country and also what this legislation is attempting to do. I want to speak just briefly this afternoon on the Durbin-DeWine provision because I do think it has a very important impact in terms of discouraging the major tobacco companies from the targeting of children. Once again, we are primarily concerned with the targeting of children--the significant and dramatic increase in costs which discourage children, the preventive programs that are included in this legislation devised to discourage children, and to help and assist those children who develop the addiction to free themselves from that addiction, resources available to help communities to free themselves from this targeting of children. And now this very important and significant amendment that is before the Senate, which it will hopefully adopt, that reflects a bipartisan approach, I think is one of the major kinds of improvements and strengthening amendments that can be achieved. Now, Madam President, the amendment which is before the Senate will assess increased sums for noncompliance with the youth reduction smoking targets. In addition, the emphasis will be shifted from the industry-wide assessments to the company-by-company assessments in order to more effectively deter the individual tobacco companies from marketing their products to children. For years, big tobacco has appealed to children through its advertising and promotional campaigns. Before tobacco advertising was banned from television in 1970, cigarette advertising included cartoon characters Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble promoting Winston cigarettes from their Bedrock neighborhood. So the tobacco companies have been targeting kids as young as 12, because they know once the children are hooked on cigarettes, they become customers for life. Prior to the introduction of the Joe Camel advertising campaign, fewer than one-half of 1 percent of youth smokers chose Camel. After a few years of intensive Joe Camel advertising, the Camel share of the youth market rose to 33 percent. The tobacco company pricing decisions also have a dramatic impact on the level of youth smoking. When Philip Morris made a decision to dramatically cut the prices of Marlboro Friday and other companies followed its lead, the industry precipitated a substantial increase in youth smoking. The historical record is irrefutable. The tobacco industry, through its marketing and pricing decisions, has an enormous impact on the level of youth smoking. Madam President, we see in this chart exactly what happened with Marlboro Friday. This chart, as we have seen in the course of the debate, is so compelling, so convincing, so overwhelming in its conclusion that as the price of cigarettes goes up, teenage smoking has gone down. The dramatic increase in the price in the 1980s we demonstrated last week to show the sharp decline in youth smoking. And then we presented what we call Marlboro Friday, where we showed the significant reduction in the real price and then the dramatic spike up in the consumption of youth smoking that we have seen over the period of time. The fact is that as they have maintained their price, this number of young people going up to 32, 33 percent a year is reflected with the dramatic increase in advertising. Take price and advertising, and you can tell the story in terms of teenage smoking. And so we know advertising is a key element in this whole debate as well. Price is a key element in this debate. The Senate has gone on record now that it is holding at the $1.10 price. I still believe that a significant increase in price would have a much more dramatic effect. The public health community believes that as well. The Senate has made that decision on price. But we have now the opportunity to make a decision on another feature of youth smoking, and that is on the degree of advertising that the tobacco industry is going to involve itself in in order to continue to hook children in this country. And that is what this amendment is really all about. It is going to say to the tobacco industry: All right, we are passing this legislation. If you are going to continue to rifle-shot children, if you are going to continue to rifle-shot the children of working families, of minorities, and they are going to exceed a certain standard, you are going to end up paying an additional penalty for that. If you are going to make the effort, that you have stated that you will make, to try not to target children in this country, then you will not have the additional penalty. That is really what this amendment is all about. What the amendment from Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine does is to make sure there is going to be compliance. I think all of us understand that a right around here is not very effective unless you are going to have an enforcement mechanism for that right. What we are basically saying is, if the tobacco industry is going to live up to its commitment and not target children, all fine and well; but if they are not, they are going to find a penalty. It is as simple as that. If they are going to stand by their word, they have nothing to fear from this amendment. Given what we have heard from our good friend from Texas, it is going to be interesting to see how he will vote on this amendment. I wish he had had an opportunity to address it a bit this afternoon and indicated support, because I think it would help to establish a good deal of credibility to the other aspects of his argument. So, Madam President, as we have seen, in fact, 90 percent of current adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. If young men and women reach that age without beginning to smoke, it is very unlikely they will ever take up the habit in later years. And so the industry has conducted its advertising accordingly. For at least a generation, big tobacco has targeted children with billions of dollars in advertising and promotional giveaways that promise popularity, maturity, and success for those who begin this deadly habit. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that the average 14-year-old is exposed to $20 billion in tobacco advertising--$20 billion--at the age of 6--beginning at the age of 6. We wonder why children as young as 12 years old, 14 years old, 16 years old--62 percent of those who have started by the time they are 16 years old have been subject to these billions of dollars of advertising, starting at the age of 6. We are saying now, OK, if you are not going to target the children, you have nothing to worry about. But if you are and your brands are going to be accepted and taken and paid for, even with this increase, you are going to pay a price at the back end. That sounds pretty fair to me. It is just holding them at their word. It is no coincidence that the three most heavily advertised brands are preferred by 80 percent of children: Marlboro, Camel and Newport-- the three most heavily advertised, the three most heavily used. So, once again, we know what is going to happen, I believe, unless we have the Durbin-DeWine amendment. A study published in the February 8, 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association also reported a correlation between the cigarette advertising and youth smoking. It analyzed tobacco advertising in 34 popular U.S. magazines and found that as youth readership increased, the likelihood of youth-targeted advertising increased as well. So these weekly--daily surveys that are taking place by the tobacco industry to find out what children are reading in magazines are then sent on back to the advertisers of the major tobacco industry. And, sure enough, up they come with that appealing kind of advertising to hook those children into addiction. That is happening. That is the issue we are attempting to address in this legislation. We deal with it on some of the restrictions, in terms of advertising, that have been constitutionally upheld in the Baltimore decision, some of the protections that are there, provided under the FDA, but there is an opportunity for us to go far beyond that with this legislation, and that is what we are doing. Two recently disclosed industry documents reveal that big tobacco has a deliberate strategy to market its products to youth. In a 1981 Philip Morris memo entitled ``Young Smokers--Prevalence, Implications, and Related Demographic Trends,'' the author wrote that: It is important to know as much as possible about teenage smoking patterns and attitudes. Today's teenager is tomorrow's regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens. . .. Because of our high share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip Morris will suffer more than other companies from the decline in the number of teenage smokers. There is the cigarette company looking at the teenager, not as a teenager but as part of the profit in the years ahead, over a lifetime--a shorter life, albeit--but over a lifetime of smoking. A 1976 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company memorandum stated that: Young people will continue to become smokers at or above the present rates during the projection period. The brands which these beginning smokers accept and use will become the dominant brands in future years. Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14 to 18 year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. [RJR-T] must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained over the long- term. We cannot have it any clearer--that this is the group that is being targeted. We know they have done so. We know that is how they have increased their market. They have indicated they will not do so in the future. We are saying: If you are not going to do so in the future, you have nothing to fear from this amendment. But we are going to recognize what your track record has been over the historic past, and how you have targeted youth, and we are going to say the least you are going to do is to pay an important penalty if you are going to violate your commitment. That is what this Durbin-DeWine amendment will accomplish. It will accomplish that goal much more effectively than the current look-back provisions in the managers' amendment. It will substantially increase the total amount of the surcharges which companies must pay if smoking levels do not decline in accordance with the reduction targets. It also shifts the payment obligations from a predominantly industry- wide system to a predominantly company-specific system. This will dramatically increase the deterrent influence of the look-back on company policy. In this chart, you see what the relative effect would be with regard to the ``real incentives'' surcharge in the millions under the current McCain legislation and what would happen with regard to the Durbin- DeWine program. Here we find, with regard to the industry-specific, how much more effective this amendment would be in targeting those who really have abused the system most in the past, and to make sure that is not going to happen, to protect our children in the future. The current McCain provisions provide for a maximum industry-wide penalty of $4 billion, or about 20 cents a pack. The company-specific portion is extremely small, amounting to only a few pennies per pack. The Durbin-DeWine amendment provides for substantial company-specific penalties which, in the aggregate, could reach $5 billion per year if the companies continue to flout the law and blatantly target children. The amendment also provides for an industry-wide surcharge of up to $2 billion a year. Through this important amendment we are speaking to the tobacco companies in the only language they understand--money. If they are going to continue to target children, these companies will pay a financial price far in excess of the profits raised from addicting children. But, if they are willing to cooperate in efforts to prevent teenage smoking, the companies may never have to pay a dollar in look-back surcharges. A strong company-specific look-back, such as the one we are proposing, will give the tobacco companies a powerful financial incentive to use their skill in market manipulation to further rather than undermine the public interest in reducing youth smoking. Each tobacco company must be held accountable for its actions on teenage smoking. The stakes involved are nothing less than the health of the Nation's children. For each percentage point that the tobacco industry misses the target, 55,000 children will begin to smoke. One-third of these children will die prematurely from smoking-induced diseases. We are talking about the difference of hundreds of thousands of children between the two approaches that are before the Senate now--one under the proposed legislation and one under the Durbin-DeWine proposal. This, I believe, is just absolutely an essential amendment that will really strengthen the legislation to carry forward its very sound and important public health provisions to protect America's children. Finally, I did want to also mention briefly the very substantial provisions, as my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, pointed out before, with regard to the preventive aspects of this legislation, the very important smoking cessation programs, the prevention programs in school and the prevention programs in communities. We have a number of teenage volunteers in our State, down in New Bedford, MA, and in classrooms around our Commonwealth now, who are going out to various shopping malls to get the owners of the various shopping malls and the various shops to make these shopping malls smoke free. These are young people. These are teenagers who we are asking to participate, to make a difference in their communities, and they are prepared to do so. Counteradvertising--we have seen, even in a State like our own State of Massachusetts, where the tobacco industry was spending 10 times as much as counteradvertising, still, the counteradvertising, talking about the importance of the health implications and the dangers of smoking, had a very important and significant impact in reducing the incidence of addiction--very, very important. The medical research into addiction prevention and cure--as someone who sits on the Health Committee, I know the work that is being done, in terms of addiction and substance abuse and also in nicotine. We know--we have been listening--about how we ought to be concerned about the problems of substance abuse as well. We are concerned about the problems of substance abuse. There are two gateway drugs and smoking is No. 1. The second one is drinking beer. This is a gateway drug. When I listen to our friends who have indicated opposition to this legislation say this isn't the problem that we ought to be dealing with, substance abuse, if you talk to anyone who has seriously worked on the problems of addiction and substance abuse, they will tell you that nicotine is right out there with any of the other kind of addictions that are afflicting the young children in this country, and we can do something about it. The various medical research into the tobacco-related diseases, and there are many--emphysema and the whole complexities in terms of the lungs--there are many, we have resources to try and deal with those issues as well. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from Ohio on the floor. I pay tribute to him for his leadership on this amendment. I commend him for his work in this area. He has been an important leader in protecting the interests of children in our country and society on many different matters. It is just a pleasure to join with him, and I urge the Senate to accept his wisdom and judgment about public policy on this issue. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary leadership of the President of the Fraternal Order of Police in Massachusetts, Officer Elizabeth Gianetti. Officer Gianetti has achieved many ``firsts'' in her outstanding career. She is the first person to hold this position. She was instrumental in its creation in 1993, when the 4,000 law enforcement officers of Massachusetts decided that they needed a statewide organization to represent their concerns. And once the Massachusetts State F.O.P was established, Officer Gianetti was overwhelmingly elected its first president by the local F.O.P. lodges across the state. She is also the first woman in the 83-year history of the national Fraternal Order of Police to head a state F.O.P. chapter. Officer Gianetti comes to this position with an impressive record of achievements in law enforcement and service to the community. She has been a Boston School Police Officer for more than 10 years. In that capacity she has been actively involved in the community, and especially active in working with children through such programs as Boston Medical Center's Children With AIDS Foundation. She has brought her enthusiasm for working with children to her position as state F.O.P. president. This summer, for example, she will coordinate a safety day with the goal of educating children and parents about keeping children safe, including the distribution of bicycle helmets to help prevent accidents and injuries. Elizabeth Gianetti's initiatives with the state Fraternal Order of Police and her work for the people of Massachusetts are truly remarkable. We are proud of her accomplishments, and I know that all Senators join me in commending her fine record of public service.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Bingaman, in introducing the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act. This important legislation will extend coverage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to employees of the United States Postal Service. Few issues are more important to working families than health and safety on the job. For the past 28 years, OSHA has performed a critical role--protecting American workers from on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In carrying out this mission, OSHA has made an extraordinary difference in people's lives. Death rates from on-the-job accidents have dropped by over 60% since 1970--much faster than before the law was enacted. More than 140,000 lives have been saved. Occupational illnesses and injuries have dropped by one-third since OSHA's enactment--to a record low rate of 7.4 per 100 workers in 1996. These numbers are still unacceptably high, but they demonstrate that OSHA is a success by any reasonable measure. Even more lives have been saved in the two places where OSHA has concentrated its efforts. Death rates have fallen by 61% in construction and 67% in manufacturing. Injury rates have dropped by half in construction, and nearly one-third in manufacturing. Clearly, OSHA works best where it works hardest. Unfortunately, these efforts do not apply to federal agencies. The original OSHA statute required only that federal agencies provide ``safe and healthful places and conditions of employment'' to their employees. Specific OSHA safety and health rules did not apply. In 1980, President Carter issued an Executive Order that solved this problem in part. It directed federal agencies to comply with all OSHA safety standards, and it authorized OSHA to inspect workplaces and issue citations for violations. President Carter's action was an important step, but more needs to be done. When OSHA inspects a federal workplace and finds a safety violation, OSHA can direct the agency to eliminate the hazard. But OSHA has no authority to seek enforcement of its order in court, and it cannot assess a financial penalty on the agency to obtain compliance. The situation is especially serious in the Postal Service. Postal employees suffer one of the highest injury rates in the federal government. In 1996 alone, 78,761 postal employees were injured on the job--more than nine injuries and illnesses for every hundred workers. This rate is 23% higher than the overall private sector rate, and 40% higher than the overall federal rate. Fourteen postal employees were killed on the job in 1996--one-sixth of the federal total. Workers' compensation charges at the Postal Service are also high--$538 million in 1997. This legislation will bring down these unacceptably high rates. It permits OSHA to issue citations for safety hazards, and back them up with penalties. This credible enforcement threat will encourage the Postal Service to comply with the law. It will save taxpayer dollars currently spent on worker's compensation costs. Most important, it will reduce the extraordinarily high rate of injuries among postal employees. Every worker deserves a safe and healthy place to work, and this bill will help achieve that goal for the 860,000 employees of the Postal Service. They deserve it, and I urge my colleagues to provide it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Bingaman, in introducing the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act. This important legislation will extend coverage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to employees of the United States Postal Service. Few issues are more important to working families than health and safety on the job. For the past 28 years, OSHA has performed a critical role--protecting American workers from on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In carrying out this mission, OSHA has made an extraordinary difference in people's lives. Death rates from on-the-job accidents have dropped by over 60% since 1970--much faster than before the law was enacted. More than 140,000 lives have been saved. Occupational illnesses and injuries have dropped by one-third since OSHA's enactment--to a record low rate of 7.4 per 100 workers in 1996. These numbers are still unacceptably high, but they demonstrate that OSHA is a success by any reasonable measure. Even more lives have been saved in the two places where OSHA has concentrated its efforts. Death rates have fallen by 61% in construction and 67% in manufacturing. Injury rates have dropped by half in construction, and nearly one-third in manufacturing. Clearly, OSHA works best where it works hardest. Unfortunately, these efforts do not apply to federal agencies. The original OSHA statute required only that federal agencies provide ``safe and healthful places and conditions of employment'' to their employees. Specific OSHA safety and health rules did not apply. In 1980, President Carter issued an Executive Order that solved this problem in part. It directed federal agencies to comply with all OSHA safety standards, and it authorized OSHA to inspect workplaces and issue citations for violations. President Carter's action was an important step, but more needs to be done. When OSHA inspects a federal workplace and finds a safety violation, OSHA can direct the agency to eliminate the hazard. But OSHA has no authority to seek enforcement of its order in court, and it cannot assess a financial penalty on the agency to obtain compliance. The situation is especially serious in the Postal Service. Postal employees suffer one of the highest injury rates in the federal government. In 1996 alone, 78,761 postal employees were injured on the job--more than nine injuries and illnesses for every hundred workers. This rate is 23% higher than the overall private sector rate, and 40% higher than the overall federal rate. Fourteen postal employees were killed on the job in 1996--one-sixth of the federal total. Workers' compensation charges at the Postal Service are also high--$538 million in 1997. This legislation will bring down these unacceptably high rates. It permits OSHA to issue citations for safety hazards, and back them up with penalties. This credible enforcement threat will encourage the Postal Service to comply with the law. It will save taxpayer dollars currently spent on worker's compensation costs. Most important, it will reduce the extraordinarily high rate of injuries among postal employees. Every worker deserves a safe and healthy place to work, and this bill will help achieve that goal for the 860,000 employees of the Postal Service. They deserve it, and I urge my colleagues to provide it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in congratulating the people of the Republic of Georgia on the 80th anniversary of their independence. Eighty years ago on May 26, 1918, following the collapse of the Russian Empire, the people of Georgia gained their independence and established their own government. Tragically, Georgia's independence was short-lived. In March 1921, the Soviet Army reoccupied Georgia, beginning decades of further occupation, domination and repression. Despite this persecution by the Soviet leadership, the spirit of the Georgian people could not be defeated. Throughout almost seventy years of Soviet rule, the people of Georgia never lost sight of their goal to be free from outside domination and influence. Finally, in 1991, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of Georgia were again able to realize their dream of independence, and their nation now enjoys a bright future. The election of President Eduard Shevardnadze and the election of a Parliament committed to legal reform in 1995 have encouraged economic growth and reforms in human rights. Today, as we celebrate this 80th anniversary of Georgia's independence, we also honor and commend the Georgian people for their courage and commitment in achieving their dream of a nation free again at last and committed to the principles of democracy.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Gregg-Leahy amendment raises very fundamental questions: Why would we consider giving a group of the worst corporate villains in America special protection? Why would we want to make it more difficult for those who have been injured by the tobacco industry's wrongdoing to collect damages? Why should Congress impose a liability cap which will have the effect of redirecting dollars away from smoking victims and into industry coffers? I have heard no convincing answers to these questions from the bill's proponents. More than one year ago, when news of the settlement negotiations between the state attorneys general and the tobacco industry first became public, I expressed my opposition to restricting the liability of tobacco companies. On April 25, 1997, I came to this floor and spoke out against giving the tobacco industry any special protection: It would be unconscionable to deny people poisoned by tobacco their day in court. Each year, millions of Americans learn that they have a disease caused by smoking. In too many cases, it is beyond our power to restore their health. We must never permit the tobacco industry to extinguish their right to justice as well. We have come a long way in the last year. The deal with the industry that was announced on June 20th would have given tobacco companies de facto immunity from suit. In fact, its provisions were designed by the industry to erect enormous barriers in the path of smoking victims seeking compensation. It would have banned all class action suits, which are often the only effective way individuals can litigate against corporate giants. In fact, it prohibited any aggregation of claims. It would have also banned all punitive damages. If ever we have seen an industry against which punitive damages are warranted, it is the tobacco industry. It would have prohibited all litigation by health insurers, such as Blue Cross and Employee Health and Welfare Funds, which incur enormous costs treating tobacco induced illnesses. It would have prevented the introduction of crucial evidence by tobacco victims suing the industry. It would have given absolute immunity to the parent companies of cigarette manufacturers even though those companies are where most of the profits go and the real decisions are made. It would have extinguished all future governmental suits against the industry. And, it would have imposed an annual ceiling on the liability of the tobacco industry. It was truly a draconian litany. Fortunately, these liability restrictions were so extreme that they produced a great public outcry. Public health experts and victims' rights advocates expressed their outrage at this enormous injustice. During the past year, there has truly been a national awakening on this issue. The American people focused on what the tobacco industry has done as never before. The dramatic revelations of corporate misconduct which have emerged from the industry's own files have truly shocked the national conscience. The harshest indictments of the tobacco companies are written in their won words, long kept secret, but now revealed for all to hear. From a 1981 Phillip Morris strategic planning document: Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens . . . Because of our high share of the market among the youngest smokers, Phillip Morris will suffer more than the other companies from the decline in the number of teenage smokers From an R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company document entitled ``Planning Assumptions for the Period 1978 to 1987''. Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14 to 18 year old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-T must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained over the long term. Company records also detail elaborate efforts to chemically treat the nicotine in cigarettes to make it even more addictive than it naturally would be. All the while, these same companies were telling the American people that smoking is just a matter of free choice. All of the special industry protections contained in the settlement were included in the Commerce Committee bill when it was first introduced. To the Committee's credit, in the final days before the markup, the prohibitions on class actions and punitive damages were removed. In the negotiations which produced the Manager's Amendment, the provisions granting immunity to corporate parents and affiliates was finally deleted and many of the evidentiary restrictions were removed. It is now time for the Senate to strip this legislation of the remaining vestiges of these special protections for Big Tobacco. While the remaining special protections may be less extreme, the principle is the same. This industry should not in any way be shielded from the long overdue rendezvous with accountability which awaits it in courthouses across America. Title XIV of the Manager's Amendment provides the industry with an $8 billion per year liability cap limiting the companies financial exposure for both past and future misconduct. I object to any special protection for the industry. I believe the tobacco industry is not entitled to any liability cap. But, I especially object to this particular cap which applies to liability for future as well as past wrongdoing. One of the most important purposes of the civil law is to deter misconduct. Capping liability for future wrongdoing reduces that deterrent and encourages tobacco companies to continue their misconduct. This industry of all industries, based upon its unparalleled record of corporate irresponsibility, should be subject to tougher standards, certainly not more lenient standards, than other companies. Yet, a more lenient standard is exactly what Title XIV will provide for the tobacco industry. Consider the significance of the protection which a liability cap will give the tobacco companies. It provides them with an absolute ceiling on the amount of money they will have to spend each year to compensate their victims. This industry which conspired for decades to conceal the enormous health damages inherent in smoking. This industry which manipulated the nicotine in its products to make them even more addictive. This industry which targeted generations of our children for a lifetime of addiction and early death. There can be no justification for sheltering this industry from the legitimate claims of those who have been injured by its deadly product. To the extent that the proposed liability ceiling is ever reached, it will have the effect of transferring dollars which rightfully belong to victims into the industry's corporate coffers. We are giving preference to CEOs and shareholders above the victims of tobacco induced illness. That cannot be justified. It is ironic to hear some proponents argue that the ceiling is so high it will never be reached. If that is true, it is unnecessary. If it is reached, it will inflict a second injury on those already injured by this industry's gross misconduct. There is another serious problem created by the current Title XIV. The language it uses to settle the state cases is far too broad. It does for more than resolve current claims arising from state expenditures for the treatment of citizens suffering from tobacco induced illness. As written, it could prohibit state and local government from bringing future actions to enforce public health standards and consumer protection laws. It could prevent state and local government from effectively policing future tobacco industry conduct. If this provision is not revised, it will tie the hands of state and local government, and allow the tobacco industry to escape effective regulation. The Gregg-Leahy amendment will remove all of these special limits on industry liability from pending legislation. Congress does not need the consent of the tobacco industry to legislate meaningful protection for America's children. Our sole concern must be what the public health requires, not what the industry desires. The deal with the industry which Title XIV contemplates would set an appalling precedent. It will undermine the moral authority of the federal government as protector of the public health. Today the Senate should declare that it will not allow the tobacco industry to escape its long overdue rendezvous with accountability. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, did my friend and colleague want to make a statement? I know the floor manager is on his feet.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes, if I could, please. Madam President, I, first of all, thank our leader, Senator Daschle, who has been a strong supporter of this particular amendment, a strong defender of the health of the young people of this country and their families, and my colleagues who have all spoken here, and spoken very eloquently and compellingly. I thank my friend from Massachusetts, our floor manager, John Kerry, Kent Conrad, the chairman of our task force, and Frank Lautenberg, who is one of the great leaders on the issue of tobacco. I am enormously grateful for Senator Durbin's comments as a leader not only in the Senate now but also in the House of Representatives. And the eloquence of Bob Graham earlier today and the compelling arguments that he made, I thought, were enormously convincing. Jack Reed of Rhode Island has been a strong member of our task force and a strong defender of public health. Tom Harkin, who has been in and out and has spoken frequently on this issue at different times, and many others, I can go down the list of so many in our caucus. I also thank our friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, for his very strong support on this issue. I commend him for making his statement. He is someone who has been strongly committed to children on different health matters over the years. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank others of our Republican friends who voted for this in the Budget Committee, as well as in the Finance Committee. We are very hopeful that in just about 20 minutes or so, when the roll is called, that a majority of the Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats alike, are going to vote with the American people, with the families of America and for the children of America. There will not be a single vote in the U.S. Senate this year that will be more important to 275,000 children than the vote that we are going to have 20 minutes from now. We have the opportunity to make a major difference, a lifesaving difference for those 275,000 children. The overwhelming, uncontroverted evidence that has been demonstrated during the afternoon of yesterday, last night and in the course of today is the fact that this kind of amendment that we are offering today that will have bipartisan support can make the greatest difference in the public health of the people of this Nation than any other action that we will take in the course of this year. That is a fact, Madam President. It is the most important vote that we will have this year on public health for the families of this country, and we will have it in just a few moments. We don't have to go over the facts. We know what will happen if this amendment is successful. More than 750,000 young people will not involve themselves in smoking; 250,000 will not develop cancer of the lungs; 250,000 will not develop heart disease because of smoking; 250,000 of them will not develop emphysema, and the list goes on with diseases that result from smoking in this country. Who are we talking about? We talk about children in this country, but let's be very clear about who those children are. We are talking about children who are as young as 12 years of age. Sixteen percent get started at 12 years of age; 37 percent are 14 and younger; 62 percent are 16 years of age and younger. These are the individuals who are targeted by the tobacco industry. I listened to those crocodile tears of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how distressed they are about what is happening to working families. I give them reassurance, they will have a nice chance to vote for an increase in the minimum wage later on, and we will see how distressed they are about all those working families that they are agonizing about and so distressed about because this is a regressive tax. The reason it is a regressive tax is because it is the tobacco industry that has targeted the needy and the poor and the working families of this country. It is the tobacco industry that is to blame. It isn't these families. How elite and arrogant it is for those on the other side of the aisle to cry these crocodile tears for working families and their children who are going to get cancer and they don't want to pay those taxes. Those working families care about their children. They care about them no less than those who come from a different socioeconomic background. How arrogant can you be? How insulting can you be to make that argument on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Finally, Madam President, there can be no argument about what has happened over recent times, the explosion--the explosion--of use of tobacco by teenagers. It is a national disgrace. It is a national disgrace, and we are faced with these facts. You can talk about smuggling all you want. You can talk about it all you want. These are the facts. This is the issue. Public health is the issue, the fact that it is an 80-percent increase among the black youths in this country, 35 percent by Hispanic youths, 28 percent of the white youths of this country, 32 percent year after year after year after year because of the policies of the tobacco industry. And we can do something about it on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The question is, Will we do so? The question comes back, If we have to defend ourselves again, all you have to do is--there is one simple chart. We all had our statements and our charts. This one says it all. What this chart says very simply and is expressed very clearly by Philip Morris in a memo of 1987-- listen to this: The 1982-1983 round of price increases prevented 500,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. This means that 420,000 of the nonstarters would have been Philip Morris smokers. We were hit hard. We don't need that to happen again. There it is on the chart. There it is in 1982. This is the spike in the increase of price, and that is the drop in terms of teenage smoking.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 1 more minute. I say this is demonstrated right here as clear as can be. What we have seen is, as the price has gone up over a period of years, teenage smoking has gone down, except in 1982 when we had the wars, then we had the drop, and we see that incredible spike and the leveling years with $5 billion a year in tobacco advertising, getting those children, holding those children, addicting those children in this country. Madam President, now is the time. Now is the time to speak up for the children of this country. Now is the time to speak out about public health. We have not heard all morning long, all last night, all yesterday, we have not heard the opposition give the name of one notable, credible public health official who denies what we have stated hour after hour about the dangers for the children of this country--not one. They can't answer it.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is why this amendment should be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator restate that please?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota for his excellent presentation and his compelling arguments and for the persuasiveness of his argument. The fact of the matter is on this issue the American people are on our side. The question is going to be in the next hour and a half or 2 hours whether the Members of this body are going to be on the side of the children of this Nation and on the side of the parents of this Nation in taking the kind of important steps that are recommended virtually by every public health official that has studied this issue over a long period of time. We have placed in the Record the various studies and the various support material. The fact of the matter is, although there is some progress that will be made under the proposal that is before the Senate, what will happen if there is no change at all, if there is no change at all, is that we obviously will not see any reduction in youth smoking. With the proposal that is before the U.S. Senate now, we will see a 34-percent reduction in youth smoking as a result of the increase in the cost of cigarettes. With the $1.50 increase, a 56 reduction. The attorneys general established as a goal a 60-percent reduction. The Commerce Committee established as a goal a 60-percent reduction. Our particular proposal will go to 56 percent and with the kind of look-back provisions we will obviously be able to achieve this goal. That is what this issue is about. We will have the opportunity, as the Senator from Minnesota has stated, to save 750,000 American children from smoking, and we will have the opportunity to save some 250,000 to 300,000 lives of children. This is the most important public health issue. It is important for us to look at what is happening to the young children of this country over the period of the last 5 years. Look what has happened since 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997. Over this period of time, we have seen the absolute explosion in the utilization of cigarettes by young people in this country. The target of the tobacco industry, as demonstrated by their own material, has been with the youth of this country, and particularly with the minorities of this Nation. All you have to do is look at these statistics from 1991 through 1997. There is an 80-percent increase in black and non-Hispanic use of cigarettes, 80- percent increase. This is what is happening in the United States of America. Among Hispanics, it has gone up some 34 percent over the period of these past 6 years. Among white, non-Hispanic young people in our country, some 28 percent. This is an average rise, since 1997, of 32 percent--32-percent increase. What all of that means in terms of addiction, what all of that means in terms of the dangers with substance abuse, this is a gateway drug. Members of the Senate are talking about doing something about substance abuse. You have a chance to do it in an hour and a half by doing something about curtailing the use by our teenagers of these cigarettes. This is a national tragedy. We have an opportunity in an hour and a half to do something about it. You can have the various questions whether it really makes much of a difference if we move ahead with an increase in price or does it really make very much difference in terms of the young people of this country. Let's take a look at what the record has been from 1980 to the present time on the issues of price and the issues of teen smoking. We can have study after study after study, but, Mr. President, for those opposed to this amendment, I hope they would be able to refute what this chart demonstrates, and demonstrates very convincingly. Here we have in the early 1980s and 1982, we have a sharp increase in the costs, the real price of cigarettes, and a sharp decline, considerable sharp decline in teenagers smoking. This is what Philip Morris said about that, and we are not talking about an academic study. We are not talking about medical economists. We are not talking about Members of the Congress and the Senate who just want to see an decrease in smoking because we somehow think there might be some reduction in teenagers smoking. This is what the industry said in the Philip Morris memo from 1987 that was in the Minnesota trial: ``The 1982, 1983 round of price increases prevented 500,000 from starting to smoke''--that is indicated in this line here--``500,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. This means 420,000 of the nonstarters would have been Philip Morris smokers. We were hit hard. We don't need that to happen again.'' ``We don't need that to happen again.'' No wonder out in the waiting room, in the reception room, I can't get in there because of the tobacco lobbyists--high-priced tobacco lobbyists. They don't want this to happen again. And it can happen. It can happen. It can happen in an hour and a half from now if the Members of this body are going to put the public health first in this debate on the issue that we have at hand. Here the chart shows the increase in the price and the reaction as a result of the statistic--the reduction in teenage smoking--and the tobacco industry acknowledging the relationship. So we have, as we went through the period of the 1980s, the increase in the real price, and we saw a rather significant increase in the real price going up during this period of time, and we see the corresponding reduction in terms of the teenage smoking. Until when? Until when? Until 1991. Then what happened to the real price? The real price went down and the real price went down on what they call Marlboro Friday, when the Nation's largest tobacco company, Philip Morris, fired the newest salvo which reversed the decade-long use in smoking. They slashed 40 cents off the brand of Marlboros, the most popular brand among children. The strategy was designed to protect prices. If Philip Morris reduced prices by 50 percent in Massachusetts, and a month later, R.J. Reynolds--the second largest tobacco company, which manufactures Camels--had a corresponding reduction. So we have the major tobacco companies going down, the major price going down. Look on this chart what has happened in terms of youth smoking, escalating, going up dramatically. Price decline, youth smoking increases; price increase, youth smoking goes down. We have seen that continue over a long period of time. We could say what happened in here over the period for the last year or two, we have seen little blips going up, 10 cents, to cover the costs of various settlements they have had, an increase of 35 percent. It would not really reflect on this chart. Now what we have seen in here is $5 billion in tobacco industry advertising, an explosion in advertising. It makes our case, Mr. President. It makes our case for the proposal that we have at hand. Increase the cost and the price of cigarettes, do it in a significant time with a shock treatment of 3 years. The way that we saw it this time, it is going to have a dramatic impact on young people. Increase the antitobacco advertising, which is in this bill; develop the cessation programs, which are in this bill; strengthen the look-back provisions, which are in this bill; do the kind of prohibition on advertising that is in this bill, and you have the combination of elements that will work to bring a significant reduction in teenage smoking--a significant reduction in teenage smoking. Mr. President, we must have learned from the past. We have a pathway here that is outlined by the history of this industry, and the things that have been effective--not just studies, not just testimony, not just surmise, but real facts, Mr. President. Over that long period of time, we have the incontrovertible case that has been made here yesterday, last night, and this morning, again, that cannot be answered. We will hear answers like, oh, well, we will develop a smuggling industry; we can't do this because we don't know where the money is going to be expended; we can't do this because we will have this or that kind of a problem. There is an issue before the Senate: Can we do something with regard to seeing a significant, dramatic reduction in terms of teenage smoking? The answer to that is, yes, by supporting our amendment that virtually every public health official in this country supports--not only Dr. Koop, not only Dr. Kessler, but the Cancer Society, the Lung Society, and every public health group across the Nation, Republican and Democrat alike. That is the issue that we have. Now is the time to make that judgment. We will have the opportunity to do that in a short period of time. Mr. President, I see others who want to address the Senate. I yield at this time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a new grandchild for our good friend and colleague from New Jersey was born early this morning. That is joyous and good news. In the midst of this tumultuous debate, we can all join in wishing him congratulations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Arizona, who, as I understand, was trying to work out a decent process so that we might debate this during the course of the evening, and then at least work out some process where we could have a fair allocation of balance in terms of time as we debated it tomorrow. I hope those who support that position would, if we don't get a formal agreement, at least follow that process tonight and also in the morning. Then the leaders and those who are interested in either extending debate, or amendment, or whatever they want to, will proceed and will obviously have the right to do it. I want to thank the Senator from Arizona, who was trying in his conversations with us to work out a process so there could be an adequate time for debate and discussion, and also balance in terms of time between those who favor this position and those who are opposed to it. I want to express our appreciation to all of our Members for the opportunity of raising this issue with my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has been one of the really important leaders here in the Senate on the tobacco issues; also, our friend and colleague, Senator Conrad, who has been the chair of a task force on the tobacco-related issues, and has been really tireless in terms of developing a command of this issue, and has also been tireless in trying to work out bipartisan support, not just on this issue but on other issues as well; our friend, Senator Durbin, who has been so involved in this issue, in particular on the price, as well as a number of my other colleagues; my colleague from Massachusetts; Senator Reed; and so many others. I am grateful to all of them. We look forward over the period of these next several hours and hopefully at a time during tomorrow morning to be able to present this issue to the U.S. Senate. We are very mindful that only a few hours ago, just a few yards from where we gathered this evening, we had the good opportunity to be with Dr. Koop, who is really the foremost public health official in this country and who has been such a leader in protecting the children in this Nation on this issue, as well as many others. I think that all of us who were gathered there were impressed that Dr. Koop was speaking on behalf of all of the public health community. It was really a singular voice in which he spoke for all of the public health communities. We can spell out the reasons why as we get into the debate and discussion on this issue. He was speaking not as a partisan, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, but for all Americans, because that is what his service has been to this country as our Surgeon General. He has been the defender of the public health, and also as one who is a keen analyst as to what has been the real strategy of the tobacco industry over the period of these past years, who recognized what their strategy was in order to meet their financial requirements, that it was going to have to make a particular appeal to the children in this country. He spelled that strategy out long before it became evident as a result of the various publications of various documents that have been made available to the American people during the process of the various State suits. He is really one of the great giants. I took the opportunity at that time to thank him for his strong support of an amendment that was going to raise the price of a package of cigarettes to $1.50, because this would mean anywhere from 750,000 to 900,000 young people who would not be engaged in smoking and anywhere from 250,000 to about 300,000 young people children who would not die a premature death. I thanked Dr. Koop on that occasion for the families. I thanked him for the children who would not have the addiction. I thanked him for their parents because their children would not be addicted. I thanked him, for all Americans, for his willingness to take a stand on this issue. Mr. President, the amendment we are bringing here this evening is not an issue which is strange to the Members of this body over the period of these past weeks and months. I think all Americans have probably had the opportunity to listen to the public health community, represented, as I said, by Dr. Koop, and Dr. Kessler, and the representatives of many of those that have been afflicted with the kinds of illnesses and diseases that have been caused by addiction. We have heard the uniform appeal--the uniform appeal of all of those who have really studied this issue in any detail--that if we are going to have a significant impact on reducing the addiction of children in our country, the best way to do this is by having an increase in the cost per pack of cigarettes, and to do it in a timely way. By ``in a timely way,'' we mean doing it rapidly. We have devised this amendment to be a stepped-up process over a period of 3 years. There are others who have favored a $1.50 increase a pack in a 2-year period. We have accepted that particular challenge and followed their guidance. This amendment, more than any other proposal or amendment that is going to come in this Chamber, is motivated by protecting the children of this country. That is the reason behind this amendment, clear and simple. If you are interested in public health, you support this amendment. If you are interested in protecting children, you support this amendment. If you are interested in doing something about the problems of addiction and children, you support this amendment. If you are interested in trying to provide some limitation on children being involved in gateway drugs, you support this amendment. For all of these reasons and many more, this is a compelling amendment, and it is supported overwhelmingly by the American people, by families all over this Nation, Republican and Democrat, North and South alike. We will have the charts available that will indicate what the various data reflect. That is important and useful perhaps for some. But what we are motivated by and why we are offering this amendment is because of public health. Those who have studied this issue in terms of children believe that this is the first and most important step we can take to reduce the smoking addiction of children. This chart, Mr. President, points out very quickly and easily for the benefit of the Members the number of children who will be deterred from smoking by an increase of $1.10, 3 million; $1.50, 3,750,000. The difference of the proposal that is in this Chamber will be 750,000. That is what we are talking about by accepting this particular amendment. We will come back to elaborate on that in a while. We are talking about the number of children whose lives will be saved by the cigarette price increase. We are talking about 125,000 who will have an early death. I think one of the questions we are going to be asked sometime during this debate is, well, this is fine and well that you talk about increasing the cost per pack to $1.50, but how do we know this is really going to have the impact that you are stating here this evening? We will have a chance again either later tonight or tomorrow to go through a number of the public health reviews and the studies and the testimony that has been taken by a number of the committees over the period of these past weeks. We have had a number of committee hearings on this very issue. But perhaps one of the most impressive factors has been what happened with the significant price increase in our neighboring country of Canada that moved up to a $5 per pack price increase in 1991 and what happened to youth smoking over that period of time. You see the dramatic reduction of youth smoking as a result of the significant increase in the price of cigarettes. I hope we will not have to take a great deal of time to review that particular phenomenon. It is irrefutable. It is absolutely irrefutable. The public health information is irrefutable; that with a dramatic and significant increase in the price we see a significant reduction in youth smoking. This is one of the clearest examples to demonstrate what we hope will be achieved. We have set a goal of a 60-percent reduction in youth smoking over 5 years by increasing the price per pack of cigarettes. That is a national goal, and that has been one that has been stated and reaffirmed by many, even those who do not support this particular proposal. The only way we will get the 60-percent reduction over the 5- year period is by going to $1.50 per pack. That is basic and that is fundamental. But I just mention here that after a period of time we saw there was a growth in terms of the black market in Canada. Mr. President, 85 percent of the Canadian people live proximate to the United States. There was an increase in smuggling, and there was a decision that was made by the Government of Canada to basically leave it up to the Provinces as to whether they were going to maintain their increase in the higher cost per pack. So they left it up to the particular Provinces, and the result from leaving it up to the Provinces is in the Provinces that maintained the higher cost, we saw the continuation of a significant reduction in youth smoking--a significant reduction. We will have a chance perhaps, if necessary, to go Province by Province, but, nonetheless, that was the result. We cannot make the case any clearer than has been made, that this particular amendment is the amendment that deals with children; this particular amendment is the amendment that deals with addiction. If you are interested in trying to do something in the interest of public health, this is the amendment, with all due respect to the other amendments. We understand the relationship that they have to each other, and I am a strong supporter of the other provisions of the legislation. With the dramatic proposals that we are making here on the increase in the cost, when you have the other programs that are built in to deter individuals from beginning smoking and the other reductions in advertising, all of it has a symbiotic effect that will have an important impact on children. We are doing everything we can. The basic support for the proposal we are advocating today is a culmination of everything that has been recommended to us by the public health community. We have taken their recommendations and now are bringing them to the Senate. We know the American people are for it. The question is going to be, are we going to have the support of the Members or is the power of the cigarette and tobacco industry, which has been reflected in so many ways over the period of recent months and in recent years, going to be again demonstrated in this Chamber in terms of resisting these issues. Senator Conrad, who has held hearings with regard to the issues of smuggling and what will the impact of this be on the tobacco industry. All of these issues are important, but make no mistake about it, Mr. President, those of us who are advocating this amendment are advocating it for a very fundamental reason, and that is to protect children in our country and in our society, and we believe that the kinds of protections we are offering here are the kinds of protections that are going to have the most important impact for our country. We offer this amendment which is really one we believe the Senate should move towards and be willing to accept. We can go back in terms of the time and understand what is really happening out there in America, the impact that tobacco has on the young people of this country. I see my colleagues from New Jersey and North Dakota are here and ready to address this issue, but let me just take a few moments to go through the way children become involved in the addiction of tobacco. Smoking begins early, Mr. President. 16 percent of adults who are daily smokers began smoking--and these are the cumulative figures--by age 12. Just think about it. By the age of 12, 16 percent; by the age of 14, 37 percent. By 16 or under, we are talking about 62 percent. These are the children who become addicted. These are the children who do not have the benefit of being able to make a balanced and informed judgment about going ahead and involving themselves in the use of tobacco. We are talking about very young children who begin the utilization of tobacco and move on through. By the age of 16, 62 percent of those who eventually are going to become addicted have already started down that path, and they are the ones who have been targeted by the tobacco industry for marketing--for addiction. It is for these children that the studies demonstrate that the increase in the costs of tobacco, because of the limitations in their purchasing power, will be a very, very powerful and important disincentive to these young people. Added to the other features of the program, it will be a serious disincentive for them to get started smoking. Mr. President, I will wind up now to let my colleagues speak. I hear often: Isn't this really a disservice to those families who may be involved in smoking, that they will have to pay, really, a disproportionate share because we will have an increase in the costs of these cigarettes? I must say, that is an argument that you hear out here occasionally on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but the fact is I don't hear that back home in my State of Massachusetts. People, even in blue-collar areas, who perhaps smoke more than others in a community, are saying we are not less concerned about our children than those who may come from a different socioeconomic background. Those working families are concerned about their children. Time in and time out, when you ask working families, ``Do you want to do something about reducing the opportunity for your children to start smoking,'' their answer is yes, and overwhelmingly yes. Because they understand, as all of us understand, that these children, once they get started down the path towards addiction, find it extremely difficult if not impossible, to begin to get control. Mr. President, I will yield the floor now. I look forward to our continued discussion of this. I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators Harkin and Wellstone as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Arizona, as I remember, had the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join all of my colleagues in thanking our friend and colleague and chairman of our task force, Senator Conrad, for the enormously informative presentation that was made in support of our proposal before the Senate now, which is to raise the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $1.50. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Kerry, for his comments and for all the work he has done, as well, in bringing us to where we are in this legislative session, so that we are having an opportunity to debate these issues on the floor of the Senate and having an opportunity to express a judgment about these matters this afternoon, again tomorrow, and the remainder of this week. This is enormously important. Perhaps, in many respects, it is the most important measure that we will have before the Senate in this term--certainly one of the most important public health issues that we will have before the Senate. I think it is important that the American people give focus and attention to this issue and, in particular, to the amendments we are now discussing and debating on the increase of the per pack cost of cigarettes. I also mention our colleague and friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain. I, too, want to join in expressing appreciation for the fact that we had the opportunity to get to this legislation through his leadership. Now we have an opportunity to strengthen and improve it. We are grateful for his leadership. Mr. President, I want to just take a few moments to respond to the issue that Senator McCain spoke to when we were making the presentation about the importance of increasing the price per pack by $1.50. Senator McCain at that time talked about, what is magical about $1.50? What is really the difference between that and $2 or $2.50 or $3? Mr. President, I think it is important to understand why we do have the $1.50. It is, as I mentioned earlier, and as Senator Lautenberg and Senator Conrad have pointed out, the recommended figure by not just the majority, but the entirety of the public health community, to be essential if we are going to have some impact in reducing cigarette smoking by teenagers in this country and also to achieve the goal that was established by the attorneys general in their own proposal. They established a 10-year goal of 60 percent. That was in the initial proposal made by the attorneys general--the 60 percent. In our Committee on Labor and Human Resources, which had the consideration of this legislation for a short period of time--we had the jurisdiction because of the responsibility that the committee has regarding the Food and Drug Administration, and we had a markup on the legislation--we had a majority of the members who said, ``We don't want to see a reduction of 60 percent, we want a reduction of 80 percent.'' If we are going to accept that, then we have to find out how we are going to get and reach that particular goal. That is really the fundamental issue. It doesn't do much good to say we are going to set a goal of 30, 40, 50, or 60 percent and then not take the steps to be able to achieve it. The attorneys general went with 60 percent. The goal established out of the Commerce Committee was 60 percent. So it is fair enough to ask ourselves, will we reach that goal of 60 percent with the proposal of the Commerce Committee? And what we are saying is that we will not. You won't reach that with $1.10. You will get maybe into a 34, 36 percent reduction, but you are not going to get the 60 percent reduction, which has been the goal--and I think a worthwhile goal--to see that 60 percent of the young people in this country are going to stop smoking over a period of 10 years. We will be able to reach that with $1.50. I will come back and explain that in greater detail in a few moments. We will be able to reach that and give the authority for that. The chairman of the Commerce Committee says we will get there, and if we don't get there on the front end, we will get there on the back end by the requirements we have on the look-back provisions. But I think it is fair to say that with the look-back provisions, and the capping of the payments on the look-back provisions of some $4 billion, that the best estimate, even if you are going to have the violations of the look-back provisions, you are only talking about perhaps 15 or 20 cents more per pack. So you get up to maybe $1.30 or $1.35. But you still are not getting to where the health economists and professionals say you have to get in order to have the significant reduction. That is really the issue that is before the Senate. That is the question that we are going to decide on tomorrow. What is the justification for not taking the recommendations of the public health community? What is possibly the reason for not doing so? There are those who can say, ``Well, if you do so you are going to pay for the industry itself.'' Senator Conrad just responded to that. I come back to the excellent testimony we had before the Judiciary Committee and before the task force that responds to that which estimates that even with $1.50 as Jeffrey Harris, who is probably the most thoughtful and competent unbiased health economist who has studied this for the longest period of time, has estimated that even with an increase of $1.50, that by the year 2003 the profits for the industry will be in excess of $5 billion just on the domestic sales of product here in the United States, a very, very generous profit for this industry--a generous profit for the industry even at $1.50. What is possibly the reason not to support the recommendation of the public health community which says we ought to go to $1.50 a pack if we are serious about stopping young people from smoking? That is overwhelming testimony. That is overwhelming presentation. It is overwhelming evidence. It has not been rebutted. It won't be rebutted. It hasn't been rebutted tonight. It won't be rebutted tomorrow. And it has not been rebutted by any of the publications, including the tobacco industry itself. It has not been rebutted. We will come back to what the tobacco industry has been doing. So this is the issue. Why wouldn't we want to do it? What is going to be the argument against it? I don't find the arguments very persuasive. I do not hear them. It is just, ``Well, we have a better way of doing it.'' But we are taking a very significant chance. Why do that when we have such overwhelming and powerful evidence this amendment can make a significant difference, and based upon the human tragedy that is taking place among our teenagers every single day across this country? It isn't a problem that is becoming less important. It is becoming more important. It isn't an issue that is resolving itself. It is becoming more acute. That is the question that we can ask. We in this body tomorrow can take a major step in improving the quality of life for young people in this country for years ahead. The overwhelming majority of the American people are for it. The powerful special interests of the tobacco industry are against it. And we are going to find out here on the floor of the Senate when that rollcall is going to be there whether we are going to stand with the families and stand with the children of this country and stand with the future, or whether we are going to stand with an industry that has been so discredited in terms of its representations and presentations in this whole discussion and debate and over the period of this past year. That is the issue. I don't think we can have many that are more clearly defined than the one we have before us and will have before us tomorrow. According to University of Illinois Professor Chaloupka, the Nation's leading authority on the impact of higher cigarette prices on teenage smoking, a $1.50 per pack increase in cigarette prices will reduce the teenage smoking by 56 percent over 10 years. A $1.10-a-pack increase, on the other hand, will reduce youth smoking rates by only 34 percent. In fact, the $1.15 increase will only return youth smoking to its 1991 level because of the recent surge in teenage smoking rates. That is clearly unacceptable. FDA Commissioner David Kessler has called smoking a ``pediatric disease with its onset in adolescents.'' In fact, studies show that over 90 percent of the current adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. It makes sense for Congress to do what we can to discourage young Americans from starting to smoke during these critical years. A $1.50- a-pack increase over 3 years is the right medicine. A $1.10 increase won't do the job. Youth smoking in America has reached epidemic proportions. According to a report issued last month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking rates among high school students soared by nearly a third between 1991 and 1997. Among African-Americans, the rates have soared by 80 percent. More than 36 percent of high school students smoke, a 1991 year high. With youth smoking at crisis levels and still increasing we cannot rely on halfway measures. Congress must use the strongest legislative tools available to reduce youth smoking as rapidly as possible. Mr. President, let's take a look at what has been happening to the teenagers in this country over the period of the recent years. Tobacco use, as mentioned, is a ``pediatric disease with its onset in adolescents.'' It is no coincidence that teenage smoking has continued to increase since the early 1990s. The industry has systematically reduced its prices on cigarettes and increased its spending on marketing and promotional strategies targeted at youth. A significant date in this cynical manipulation is April 2, 1993, a day which will live in infamy in the tobacco industry. On that day, often called ``Marlboro Friday,'' the Nation's largest tobacco company, Philip Morris, fired the opening salvo in the new price strategy which reversed a decade-long decline in youth smoking in the United States. Philip Morris slashed 40 cents off the price of Marlboro, its most popular brand of cigarettes among children. The strategy was defined to protect its profits against generic and discount brands which were capturing an increased share of the market. Let me show this chart which gives the overall changes about what is happening with teenage smoking here in the United States. In 1991, it increased 27 percent; in 1993, 30 percent; in 1995, 34.5 percent; in 1997, 36.4 percent; a yearly average of a 32-percent rise since 1991. This is going up so rapidly that we have to ask ourselves what are we going to do to try to slow it down? What can we do to possibly stop it? And the goals that have been set by the attorneys general and by the Commerce Committee is 60 percent. Let's try to do that. The best way is with the $1.50. Teenage smoking on the rise. Just look at who has been the targets of the tobacco companies. Blacks and non-Hispanic increased 80.2 percent. They have been targeted by the industry. They have been successful. Hispanic, up 34 percent, and white and non-Hispanic, 28 percent. They have been the targets of the tobacco industry effort to expand their market to bring these young people into addiction to be the source of profits for future years. The tobacco industry looks at a child, and, says, ``This is my profit for the future years. See what I can do to get that child addicted.'' You say, ``How can you say that, Senator? How can you make a statement like that on the floor of the U.S. Senate?'' Listen to what the Philip Morris memo says in 1987 at the Minnesota trial. The `82-`83 round of price increases prevented 500,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. This means that 420,000 of the nonstarters would have been Philip Morris smokers. We were hit hard. We don't need that to happen again. This isn't a statement made by the Senators from Massachusetts, North Dakota or New Jersey. Here it is in the words of the tobacco industry. Listen to what they say about an increase in price. The `82-`83 price increase prevented 500,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. This means that 420,000 of the nonstarters would have been Philip Morris smokers. That is their percent of the market. We were hit hard. We don't need that to happen again. Well, they will have a chance to have it happen to them again tomorrow at noontime when we do what the cigarette companies dread the most, give them an increase in price. That is what they dread the most. We will hear, oh, my goodness, all this fluttering around over this tax bill--can we afford it; it is regressive, and all the rest. If you want to stop teenagers from smoking, there it is, according to the industry itself. And now, Mr. President, we see what has happened. Every parent in this country ought to be concerned about the explosion in the numbers of teenage smokers in this country with an extraordinary rise, the fastest rise we have seen really in the history of any kind of documentation about kids smoking. Now, you can say let's look again at what was really the reason for this. Well, Mr. President, I suppose it is all summarized best by this Philip Morris memo. We can see now what they were talking about when you look at what has happened to the real price--the impact on teen smoking from 1980 to 1995. Here is the steep increase in the price, and here is the decline in the teenage smoking. That is what Philip Morris was talking about--the `1982-83 increase in the price and the decline in the teenage smoking, right there. There it is, Mr. President. And that represents the 420,000 Philip Morris potential smokers who didn't get started--in just that short line here. But now let's look at what has happened with the price over the rest of the period of time. We had the gradual increase. And we will hear more about that. That is basically the monitoring and increasing of what? You say, Senator, well, it is just the price that is going up. How could they possibly--why would they do that? Well, there is no question the price was on the rise all through here and look what was happening with teenage smoking, Mr. President. Look what was happening with teenage smoking. As the prices were going up here, the number of teenage smokers was coming down here. We are challenged: Well, who are these public health officials? Where are these studies? What kind of findings is Dr. Koop referring to? Just look at this record. Just look at this record as to what is happening out there in the countryside, the dramatic increases in the number of kids that are going ahead and smoking and look in the more recent times. And then look what happened where you have the increase in the price and the decline here. And then we see the drop, the real price right here corresponding to the dramatic increase and leveling off. See the drop here, Mr. President. You see the drop in the real price and the explosion of teenage smoking. How many times do we have to make this case? Well, you know something. People can say, ``Well, look, it is flattened off.'' This hasn't flattened off. Well, what happened in the interim? What happened in the interim is the explosion of the tobacco industry in advertising, $5 billion a year in advertising. And that has made sure that these kids continued on with their smoking. They monitor this carefully, what the price and the necessary advertising is. They take the focus groups; they do their polling; they do their marketing surveys. And then they know exactly what to do, how to calculate this, and that is what they are doing. This whole group, increasing 30 percent a year during all of this period of time, are the kids that are being addicted to smoking. As we found out in our Judiciary Committee, we are a Nation that is concerned about what we are going to do about the problems of substance abuse, and just about every professional will tell you that the gateway in terms of the use of heroin, cocaine, the other substance abuse starts with smoking--and starts with teenage smoking. And they can draw you a correlation about where those kids start getting off the straight and narrow path almost by the time they begin to smoke as kids. That record is out there. I will put some of that in the Record and reference it tomorrow morning, Mr. President, but that is a fact and they can demonstrate that to you. That makes the case about as well as it can be made. I don't know how much more convincing you have to be. I do not hear the response from our colleagues and friends who are opposed to this. According to Jeffrey Harris, health economist at MIT, who is the most experienced, thoughtful and knowledgeable, and certainly the most experienced in terms of these issues, the profit even with $1.50 for the industry itself will be $5.1 billion--$5.1 billion--$5.7 billion under the McCain bill; with no legislation, $6.3 billion. Very, very profitable industry. And another $2 billion to $3 billion per year from international cigarette sales and from nontobacco products--Miller, Kraft, Nabisco. We are talking about economic dynamite when we are talking about these companies. And they shed these crocodile tears if we propose putting on a $1.50 per pack. The thing we do know, Mr. President, is that we will have a significant impact in reducing teenage smoking. Why take a chance? Why take a chance of not doing this job right? Why take a chance of not taking the steps that are necessary to move ahead to make a difference for all of these kids? I do not understand it. We have heard about some of the reasons why we should not do it. I think the Senator from North Dakota stated it well. If we do it, the arguments have been made, they won't be profitable. That has been responded to. If we do it, we are going to get into questions of smuggling. We will have to deal with this issue. And as Senator Conrad had pointed out, the smuggling is not taking place in the countries with the highest costs, which you would normally think. Countries where smuggling is the greatest is where the prices are, in some instances, a quarter or a third of the higher price, but fail to have effective law enforcement provisions. So you can say, ``Well, what are you going to have in terms of law enforcement provisions?'' Mr. President, others will speak to this. But just to mention briefly: Closed distribution systems; require licensing of everyone in the cigarette distribution chain, manufacturer or wholesaler, distributor and retailer; all cigarettes manufactured for export must be clearly marked so they can be easily identified; additional law enforcement resources for Customs and ATF. We hear excellent responses from those who have responsibilities for smuggling, and they have answered to that. So we know we are going to have minimal impact on the profits of the industry. We know it can work effectively on smuggling. And we know what group in our society is going to benefit the most. Let me just continue about the teenagers and some of the things that happen to these teenagers. Philip Morris reduced prices by 50 cents in my own State of Massachusetts and New York, both of which had recently increased their cigarette tax. This is some 3 years ago. A month later, R.J. Reynolds, the Nation's second largest cigarette company, which manufactures Camel cigarette, responded by matching Philip Morris price cuts on its most popular brands with teenagers, and the price cuts came at the same time the Federal tax was being increased from 20 to 24 cents a pack and a larger tobacco increase was being considered to fund the Clinton administration's proposal for health care reform. In addition to the price cuts, the tobacco industry continued to spend on advertising, promotional giveaways, T-shirts, coupons, sports gear, buy-some-get-some-free offers to increase sales. And, as I mentioned, much of this advertising was targeted to children and adolescents, promising popularity, excitement, success, for those who begin to smoke. It is no coincidence, then, that the price cuts and increased advertising aimed at kids led to the rise in teenage smoking. I just show that, time in and time out, if you lower the price and you increase the advertising, you increase the teenage smoking. That is as clear as it is that we are standing tonight. You just cannot argue with those facts; they are indisputable. And, still, we are having to make this case for the increase, for $1.50. The $1.50 per pack will address these problems. We will see this dramatic reduction in teenage smoking. It has been stated by those who have studied and reviewed this. The amendment we are proposing provides for the cigarette price index of $1.50 a pack for the next 3 years. The $1.10 increase over 5 years in the managers' amendment is not adequate to achieve the youth smoking reduction goals. If you had the $1.10 in 1 year, even $1.10 in 2 years, you would have some impact. But $1.10 over 5 years is not going to have the kind of impact, even with the look-back provisions, that those who support that proposal are supporting, particularly if you are talking about reductions of 60 percent. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to reach 60 percent, you have to have the increase in the price, and it has to be fast. And you have to have the corresponding counteradvertising measures and other supports, and a look-back provision that is going to be worthy of the name. But just to say we are establishing a goal and then not to have the real teeth in that proposal I think diminishes what we are stating is our goal and what should be our goal, and that is to pass legislation that is going to do something about kids smoking in our country and around the world. By raising the price by $1.50 instead of $1.10, we will prevent an additional 750,000 children from smoking over the next 5 years. That will mean 250,000 fewer premature deaths from tobacco-induced diseases. What other step could we take here in the U.S. Senate, what could we possibly do in this session, so we could say we will save the lives of 250,000 children in the action of a single day? You don't find it. We won't have it. It is not there. But it will be tomorrow. We will have that kind of impact. And that is the issue. Public health experts have overwhelmingly concluded that the increase of $1.50 is the minimum price increase necessary to achieve our youth smoking reduction. Dr. Koop, Dr. Kessler, the Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, the ENACT Coalition, Save Lives Not Tobacco Coalition, have all stressed the importance of a price increase of at least $1.50 per pack--some for $2, most for $1.50. And even those that were for $2 believe $1.50 with adequate look-back can achieve the goal. It is the single most important step we can take to reduce youth smoking. More than a third of the Members of the Senate have already cosponsored bills proposing $1.50 increase, because, as our colleagues know, the Budget Committee endorsed a $1.50 increase on a bipartisan vote, 14 to 8, in March. Last Thursday, a bipartisan majority of the Finance Committee voted for a cigarette price increase of $1.50. Too many young people are at stake for us to ignore the advice of all of our public health experts. Those efforts were bipartisan. Just as Dr. Koop speaks for Republicans and Democrats, those efforts were bipartisan in the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee. It should be bipartisan tomorrow. The American people have had enough of the tobacco industry's distortions and denials about the addictiveness of nicotine. They have had enough of the industry's cynical marketing of cigarettes to children. They have had enough of the industry's decades-long coverup of the health risks associated with smoking. This is an industry which once argued that cigarettes are no more addictive than Gummy Bears. This is an industry that used Joe Camel in advertising, blatantly designed to hook children on smoking. Now they ask us to believe that a $1.50 increase will lead to the bankruptcy of big tobacco and a rampant black market for illegal cigarettes. That argument by big tobacco has no more credibility than any of the other false arguments that have been made over the past 30 years and more. Over the years, big tobacco has proved itself to be the master of the big lie. Congress should have learned this lesson long ago, and it is time to trust the Nation's public health leaders, not big tobacco's public health prevaricators. The tobacco companies have known these facts about addiction. For years they have been fully aware that they need to persuade children to take up smoking in order to preserve their future profits. That is why big tobacco has targeted children, the billions of dollars in advertising and promotional giveaways, their promise of popularity, excitement, and success for young men and women who take up smoking. The recent documents released in the Minnesota case against the industry reveal the vast extent of the industry's marketing strategy to children. In the 1981 Philip Morris memo entitled ``Young Smokers, Prevalence, Implications, Related Demographic Trends,'' the authors wrote that it is important to know as much as possible about teenage smoking patterns and attitudes. ``Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer and the overwhelming majority of smokers first beginning to smoke while still in their teens and the smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris. Furthermore, it is during the teenage years that the initial choice is made.'' If nothing is done to reverse this trend in adolescent smoking, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 5 million of today's children will die prematurely from smoke-caused illnesses. Five million of today's children will die from smoke-caused illnesses. The American public has had enough of the daily tragedy of death and disease caused by tobacco use. The tobacco industry has literally had a license to kill for many decades. Now the license is being revoked and Americans are demanding dramatic action by Congress to drastically curb youth smoking. This Congress will be judged, in large measure, by whether or not we respond effectively to that challenge, and increasing cigarette prices by $1.50 is the most effective way to reduce teenage smoking. The public health community agrees it is the minimum increase needed to achieve 60 percent over 10 years. The $1.50 has the broad support of the health community, and it deserves the broad support of the U.S. Senate as well. In conclusion, I want to mention again what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment will do for the young people of this country. We have the $1.10 increase over a 5-year period that is in the measure that is before us this evening. The measure that we offer will raise the price of cigarettes by $1.50. The number of children whose lives will be saved by the cigarette price increase by $1.10, over what it would otherwise be, will be 1 million; increasing cigarettes by $1.50, an additional 1.25 million. There is for every 10 percent, some 7-percent increase in reduced teenage smoking. The difference from the $1.10 and the $1.50 is 750,000 in terms of those teenagers who will smoke--750,000. Mr. Koop said today the new studies would bring it up to 900,000. But we are talking between 750,000 to 900,000 children, of which some 300,000 of those will die prematurely. We can save those children. We can save the 750,000 who would otherwise smoke, and we can say to the 300,000 young people, the children in America today, ``We can save your lives as well.'' The question is, Are we willing to take that step to raise the cost by $1.50? I certainly hope we will, Mr. President. I point out that even raising it by $1.50, we will be where most of the European countries are. Even with the $1.50 increase, the United States will be at $3.59; France at $3.50; United Kingdom at $4.40; Denmark at $5.10; and Norway at $6.82. We will be right in the middle of the industrial nations of the world. Let me say, the tobacco industry makes profits on all of those countries. The tobacco industry makes generous profits from all of these countries that are a good deal higher than even the $3.50, as well as from the other countries. Mr. President, this actually is a modest step, a very modest step, but one that is necessary in order to protect the young people of this country. I hope we will do so tomorrow when the roll is called.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under this amendment, employers cannot lay off American workers and then import foreign workers to fill the same jobs. Believe it or not, it is perfectly legal today for an employer to lay off qualified American workers and replace them with foreign workers under the H-IB program, and unscrupulous employers have taken advantage of this loophole in the law. In recent weeks, we have seen announcements of layoffs from many of the biggest U.S. companies, and many of these companies have asked Congress to increase immigration quotas so they can bring in more workers from abroad. We owe it to those laid-off U.S. workers to make sure their employers do not bring in foreign workers to fill their jobs. On April 13, the Wall Street Journal reported: The past couple of weeks have seen a steady drum beat of layoff announcements in industry sectors that until recently have complained about personnel shortages. The article included a long list of high-tech computer companies laying off thousands of workers. For example, on April 13, Intel Corporation announced plans to cut 3,000 jobs. Earlier in the month, Compaq Computer announced that it plans to lay off 15,000 workers as part of its merger with Digital, and the list goes on. Not all of these lost jobs are the same jobs that would be filled with foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. But we must be certain that no employer turns around and brings in a H-1B worker to fill a job from which American workers were laid off. Stephen Schultz of Modesto, CA, an engineer, was laid off in November of last year. While he was looking for a new job, his former company called him back to train the foreign worker they had brought in to replace him. Mr. Schultz filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, complaining that he had been laid off and displaced by the foreign worker, but this offensive practice is currently legal under the current law. There is nothing the Labor Department can do about it. And that is plain, fundamentally wrong. This amendment addresses that injustice. My amendment would give those laid-off workers a fighting chance. It says, ``You have just been laid off. You are trying to feed your family. You are struggling to find a new job. So we will not compound your suffering by letting your former employer bring in a foreign worker to replace you.'' As I mentioned earlier, I commend Senator Abraham for acknowledging the problem. But, as I mentioned, the layoff protections in the pending legislation, I think, do not do the job. They offer little help to working Americans who lose their jobs in today's changing labor market. But under this bill, employers don't have to promise that they have not--and will not--lay off U.S. workers as a condition of their participation in the program. Under this bill, the only time that an employer can be penalized for replacing U.S. workers with foreign workers is if the employer also violates other requirements of the H-1B program. That is under the Abraham proposal. It is not bad enough for an employer to lay off U.S. workers, but then they replace them with foreign workers. The employer has to underpay them to have some other violation of the law before the Labor Department can act. We believe that we should not displace American workers with foreign workers who are doing the same job--and we have language which effectively is the same in both bills; ours has a different triggering mechanism--we believe that we should not displace Americans with foreign workers who are doing the same job. That is what my amendment will do with regard to the layoff proposals. Under the current bill, the engineer that I mentioned who was laid off in Modesto would have a case only if the employer who laid him off violated some other requirement of the program. He could be laid off, so to speak, as I understand the Abraham proposal, and they could hire another worker for his identical job, pay him less and, as in this particular case, if this person who was laid off wanted to, he could come back and train his replacement, and that American worker would virtually have no cause of action. Under the current bill, an employer can lay off 1,000 American workers and bring in 1,000 H-1B workers to replace them as long as the employer pays them the same wage, and it is OK. Some argue that employers are unlikely to go through the effort to lay off an American to replace with a foreign worker. They cite studies to suggest foreign workers are actually paid higher wages than their American counterparts. If that is the case, then the employer should have no problem attesting, as a condition of their participation in the visa program, that they have not and will not lay off U.S. workers. The fact is, employers do lay off American workers and replace them with foreign workers. That happens to be the information that we have. They want foreign workers because such workers are less likely to complain if their hours are extended and their working conditions are not as good. The Labor Department inspector general found that 75 percent of employers in the program could not even document that the wage they paid the foreign worker was the proper prevailing wage, and unscrupulous U.S. employers also want foreign workers because they are less likely to protest long hours and harsh working conditions. If they do, they know they may lose their jobs and have to leave the country. An American software developer called my office recently and asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal by his employer. He spoke of how the high-tech firms are abusing their foreign workers. He said, ``I had a good talk with an H-1B worker. He told me he was so anxious to work in this country that he would accept any salary. Even a pitifully low salary by our standards was high in his country. He has been here for 6 months and working 80-plus hours a week. The company knows they can pick up a well-educated foreign worker who will work many more hours for half as much salary. I have seen this, en masse, first hand.'' The unscrupulous employers who engage in these flagrant abuses put honest employers at a severe competitive disadvantage. Mr. President, what happens is, the American worker is displaced and that impacts that American worker. But if they get some foreign workers and then work them harder and longer, they have a competitive advantage over a company that just has American workers, and that threatens those American workers. The other company that has foreign workers is competing with the company that has American workers, and they are not meeting their responsibilities. All we are trying to do is make sure that all play the game by the same rules by which so many companies are willing to play. We want to make sure we are not creating abuses, which have been recognized in the past, and we want to make sure that, since we are expanding this program, we are going to give American workers first shot; we are not going to displace American workers, and we are going to give them the first shot at those jobs. Also, we are going to work out a training program over the period of this legislation so that at the end of the 5 years, we will have in place a training mechanism so that these jobs-- the 80 percent which go to families earning less than $75,000, good jobs--will be going to Americans because they are going to have the training to do so. That is effectively what we are saying, Mr. President. We need to address the abuses. We need to protect the workers. We should outlaw the abuses to protect the vast majority of American employers who play by the rules. We are protecting the American businessmen who are playing by the rules. They are playing by the rules because they are paying a fair salary for these computer experts and they are respecting them for their working conditions and are out there competing fair and square, while someone who is unscrupulous brings in the foreign worker in these circumstances and, in too many circumstances, displaces the American worker and has that worker working longer hours and under more difficult conditions. You have one worker who has already lost his or her job, and if you get several workers, they are going to be able to compete on an uneven playing ground with the American firm. All we are saying is, No. 1, you can't displace an American worker with a foreign worker; No. 2, you have to at least attest that you have made a reasonable effort to hire an American worker; and, No. 3, we are going to work out the training program so that at the end of this program, in a period of years, we are going to have sufficient training so that Americans are going to be qualified to get those jobs, which are good jobs. That is what this issue is really about, Mr. President. I did not want to leave the impression, but in my earlier comments, on which my staff has corrected me, if the foreign worker is paid less than Abraham, then the Abraham layoff does kick in, assuming a worker complains. My point is, under Abraham, they can lay someone off as long as they meet the other rules of the program. They can still lay off the American worker. They see a layoff as a freebie, a free ride for employers who want to bring in the foreign workers. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in my amendment we are basically saying let the best and the brightest come into the United States on the basis of their extraordinary contributions in our research facilities or universities or other places. But the fact of the matter is that most of jobs for which employers seek H-1B workers pay $75,000 or less, and 75 percent of them are $50,000 or less. Those are good jobs for Americans. We are saying: Make sure you are going to offer it to an American before you are going to apply to hire a foreign worker. We prescribe in our amendment that recruitment standard is whatever the industry does normally when recruiting workers. If employers follow that procedure, all they have to do is attest that they have followed those procedures and they are protected. These are good jobs. Americans are qualified for these jobs, and we ought to put American workers first. That is what this amendment is about. Mr. President, before we vote, I would like to thank Senator Abraham for his courtesies in this debate, and his staff, Lee Otis, Stuart Anderson and Cesar Conda. I would also like to thank my own staff, Michael Myers, my staff director, and Sandy Shipshock, who has worked diligently for many months on my staff as a Pearson Fellow from the State Department. I am deeply grateful for their help.