John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the Senate is not in order.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the request is that we would vote on the tabling of the Ashcroft amendment now, at the conclusion of that there would be 10 minutes for the Senator from Texas to speak, at which point the manager for the majority, Senator McCain, would be recognized. That is my request.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the vote on the tabling of the Ashcroft amendment, the Senator from Texas be afforded 10 minutes to speak, at which point the vote on whatever might occur.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to table the Ashcroft second- degree amendment No. 2427, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 3 minutes and then I will yield the rest to my colleague from Massachusetts. We heard an argument here today that the price is too high and that we should not have this increase on the price of cigarettes because it is unfair to working people. I talked earlier about the impact on working people of not having this increase. But we heard quoted during the course of the monolog this morning a statement by the CBO. I would like to put in the Record the ``Congressional Budget Office Proposed Tobacco Settlement,'' a statement of April 1998, in which they say: Based on a review of the empirical evidence, CBO concludes that price increases would have a significant negative effect on consumers' demand for cigarettes and, depending on the ultimate increase in price, could be a highly effective way of reducing smoking in the United States. That is the Congressional Budget Office. Every single independent analysis--and I am talking independent analysis, not hidden analyses that are really one of the tobacco companies under some pseudonym. We are talking about the health experts of America, the people who do these under peer-reviewed and appropriate methods of independent study. They all suggest if you raise that price you will reduce teen smoking. I think every parent in America understands it. Every kid in America understands it. It is fundamental common sense as well as economics. If the price of something goes up and you have only so much money in your pocket, you decide differently how you are going to spend it. That is why we need to heed the advice of Dr. Koop, Dr. Kessler, all of these experts, and do this. In addition to that, we have heard if you raise the price it will, in fact, increase smuggling. But the truth here again is something different. The Deputy Secretary Treasury, who is responsible for Customs and much of our antismuggling effort, said: The creation of a sound regulatory system, one that will close the distribution chain for tobacco products, will ensure that the diversion and smuggling of tobacco can be effectively controlled, and will not defeat the purposes of comprehensive tobacco legislation. Madam President, that is precisely what the Senator from Arizona and the others who have worked on this bill have done. There is an effective regime in here for antismuggling. There is additional money for enforcement. There are additional requirements of markings on cigarette boxes. There is a licensing of company requirements throughout the distribution chain. There is accountability in the system. And there is the ability to enforce. Moreover, most of the problem of smuggling recently has been American cigarettes going to Europe, because they have the higher price and we have the lower price. So this will, in effect, reduce that and create an equilibrium. I think most of those arguments have, frankly, been misplaced. In the final analysis, this is a vote about our children. We all know the realities. The statistics have been thrown out again and again. We know how many kids start smoking every day. We know how many will die. We know to a certainty how many Americans are dying every year as a result of the habit they gained when they were kids. If people want a tax cut, the greatest tax cut you could get is to reduce the burden of their health insurance, the burden--I yield myself 1 additional minute--the burden of all of the costs of our society as a consequence of this addiction, of this narcotic substance. It is incomprehensible that we should not make it fit into a comprehensive plan of control, which is precisely what is in this legislation. So the vote here is very simple. You can vote to try to save the lives of children or you can vote on the side of all the money that is being spent in those advertisements to protect tobacco companies and keep their profits at the rate they are now at the expense of our children. That is exactly what the vote is on the Senate floor. Every expert says: Raise the price, you reduce smoking of kids. If you don't do that, then you wind up allowing those kids to continue to smoke, to continue to die, to continue to be addicted. I think the choice is very, very clear. I yield the remainder of my time to the sponsor of this amendment, the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota again. How much time remains?

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe I have about 20 minutes left; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator an additional minute.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his extremely articulate and compacted comments. I think it is the House training that permits him to come over and do that. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He has worked on these issues for a long time. I think his voice is one of both reason and enormous credibility. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I particularly thank him for his leadership on this issue. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 2 more minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent to add 5 minutes total time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. KERRY. How much time did the Senator from Rhode Island consume?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have now been listening for a number of hours to the fundamental arguments in opposition to the amendment by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Before yielding to colleagues who are not at this moment here, let me take a moment to say a few words about it. I think any individuals listening to this debate, if they are not aware of some of the history of the Senate or the history of how issues fall on either side here, might say, gee, that is a pretty good point. The Senator from Missouri suggested that this is a big price increase, and it is going to hurt the poor. I simply ask those listening to this debate who measure these things to think about the history of who has defended the poor people and who has defended the interests of the working families of this country. It would be absurd to suggest that the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who has been the champion of the minimum wage, the champion of health care for children, the champion of education for people who don't have access to it, who has consistently fought to protect the interests of working families and of the poor, is somehow now doing something that is totally contrary to those years of commitment and record. Yesterday evening, the Senator from Missouri held up a chart of all of the tax increases that have passed in recent years in the Senate. It is interesting, because if you look at every one of those tax increases, there was an enormous difference, like night and day, between who was protected by Senator Kennedy and the Democrats on this side of the aisle and who was protected by the Republicans. That is not the debate today. I don't want to go back through that entirely, except to say that the record is absolutely clear that in every one of the tax proposals of our friends on the other side of the aisle, people at the upper-income level made out better, and it was Senator Kennedy and Democrats and others who fought to protect the working American. It was only after our efforts in the major budget agreement of last year that a single mother earning $40,000 managed to get even some tax benefit, and that tax benefit went from zero to $1,000 because we stood up and fought for that person. That is not the fight today, except, Mr. President, to the degree that we are talking about where some people are coming from. We are talking about the lives of children. That has been lost in all of the debate over the last 3\1/2\ hours. We are talking about the lives of America's children. We know to a certainty that 6,000 kids will try cigarettes every single day, 3,000 of those kids will continue to smoke, and 1,000 of those children will die early as a consequence of a tobacco-related disease. That is what we are talking about on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is an insult to suggest that the parents of working families or the parents of the poorest people in America don't care as much about their kids having access to tobacco as other families. It is an insult to suggest that they are happy with the charts that show over the last years, there has been an 80-percent increase among black and Hispanic, people of color, an 80.2-percent increase in their use of cigarettes in 1991, and in non-Hispanic and nonblack, it has only been 22 percent. Why is that? I will tell you one of the reasons why, because the tobacco companies specifically targeted low-income communities. They went after them. It is a sad part of the history of this entire effort that we now know, as a result of courageous attorneys general around the country who have sued the tobacco companies, who have gotten documents from the tobacco companies, we now know specifically about this targeting. We know that they targeted young people. They specifically set out to create addicts. What this debate is about is how you stop that. How do you get kids to stop smoking? How do you keep them away from cigarettes? Again and again, in the last 3\1/2\ hours, we have heard Senators say, ``Oh, all it is going to do is raise the price. Why aren't they doing'' this; ``Why aren't they doing'' that; ``No cessation programs, no research.'' That is not true. That is just not true, Mr. President. The fact is that in this legislation, there are a number of things that take place--cessation, research, counteradvertisements, penalties, licensing to restrict youth access. It is unlawful for kids to buy the cigarettes, to possess the cigarettes. There is a lot of the strengthening of the law with respect to those things that will make a difference in kids' lives. One other thing also makes a difference, Mr. President--how much it costs. Sure, kids spend 100 bucks, 150 bucks sometimes on a pair of sneakers, whatever, but it is usually not a cash transaction. It is usually a very specific transaction where parents have helped them to be able to do that. It is the cash they have in their pocket. It is the pocket change, pocket money, whatever they can scrounge up that they spend on something like a cigarette that they are not allowed to buy, and most of their parents don't want them buying. If the price goes up, their disposable income is less available to buy cigarettes. We know this. This is not conjecture, as has been alleged. This is known as a matter of a number of studies, all of which show that for every 10-percent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes, youth smoking will drop by about 7 percent. So the 40-cent difference that we are talking about in Senator Kennedy's amendment is not just 40 cents. It is not just money. It means that 2.7 million fewer kids will become regular smokers, and that about 800,000 or so over a period of years will not die as a result of that. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about lives here. It is a matter of fact, also, that Dr. Koop and the Koop-Kessler commission and the Institute of Medicine have actually recommended an immediate $2 increase. I just ask anybody in America: Who do you believe? Do you believe Dr. Koop, the former Surgeon General of the United States, who had the courage to talk about these issues to the Nation, or do you believe the advertisements of people who have an interest of making millions and millions of dollars in the same way they have over the years, people who were willing to lie and lie and lie to the American people about what the impact was, even when they knew what the impact was; people who are willing to target our children and say, ``This is the next generation of smokers. We have got to suck them in. We have got to get them addicted.'' That is the fight on the floor of the U.S. Senate--who is going to protect our children and who is willing to let the companies off the hook? The fact is the studies show that if you raise the price--now, is raising that price a little bit tough on some working folks who buy the cigarettes? The answer is yes. I am going to be honest about that. But you know, it is a lot tougher when their kid gets cancer, and it is a lot tougher when the country has to pick up the costs of 400,000 people a year dying as a result of this addictive substance. It is a known fact that 86 percent of all of the people who smoke started when they were young, they started as kids. So if you want to reduce the cost of our pulmonary sections of our hospitals, if you want to reduce the cost of kidney-related tobacco diseases, or heart diseases, emphysema, cancer, the way you reduce the cost is by reducing the number of people who have access to it. Now, isn't it strange, in Europe, even after we raise the price, it will still cost more for a pack of cigarettes in European countries than here? What do they know that we do not know? It seems to me that we ought to be responsible in this effort. I know my colleagues are here now and want to speak. There is more to say. But I will reserve that time. I want to give them ample opportunity to be able to speak. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island and after that, portion it out.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, that is exactly what we are trying to find out. I will accept the Senator's word, obviously, that he is going to try to wrap up around 2 o'clock and allow other people to debate. So we will afford that. I thank the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate full well that questions, in a way, have educated the Senate, and all we are trying to do is find a way. Obviously, some other colleagues planned their day, since we tried to do this outside sort of the rigorous assertion of the rules, if you will. That said, would we be able to rely on and could we perhaps enter into an agreement now that the Senator would finish at 2 o'clock at which point we would have an opportunity on our side to be able to allow a number of people to speak for a little period of time to try to balance it out a bit?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator further yield without losing his right to the floor?