Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, as amended, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Ms. Snowe and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 288, S. 1213.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2476, which was received from the House.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague, the majority leader, for doing an outstanding job, as well as the minority leader, Senator Daschle. They have worked very well together this session. We had some real trials and tribulations, but I think, together, they were an outstanding combination. They were able to pass the Nation's important business, such as the budget and historic tax relief. I think this was a productive Congress. Again, I wish to compliment the majority and minority leaders for their effort and leadership. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of questions that I have alluded to in my comments, the 10 questions focusing in on reviewing the tobacco settlement, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a Republican policy paper entitled ``President Clinton's Failing War on Drugs'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, as we move toward adjournment in the first session of the 105th Congress, I want to take a couple of minutes to look ahead at one of the real big challenges that we have next year. That issue is tobacco and the so-called global tobacco deal that was agreed to earlier this year between the tobacco industry, States attorneys general, and health advocates. Madam President, we have seen a significant sea change in our culture's attitudes toward smoking in the last 30 years. The proportion of adult smokers peaked at 43 percent in 1966 and has dropped dramatically since then to about 25 percent today. According to the Federal Trade Commission, demand for cigarettes is forecast to continue to decline about 0.6 percent a year for the foreseeable future. However, as adult use has declined, concern has grown about the number of underage smokers who every day try their first cigarette. Madam President, 4.5 million kids ages 12 to17 are current smokers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services; 29 percent of males age 12 to 21, and 26 percent of females in the same age group currently smoke, according to reports of the National Center for Health Statistics. In 1994, the Surgeon General's report found that 9 out of 10 Americans who currently smoke say they began smoking as teenagers. Many Americans share a common goal to reduce teen smoking dramatically to break the cycle of smoking as we enter into the 21st century. Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, too, would like to see our children smoke free and families free from fear of smoke-related cancers and disease. The agreement between the tobacco industry and States attorneys general was motivated by good intentions, but it resulted in a deal that is very complicated. In the Senate, several committees have held numerous hearings trying to elicit more information and understanding of the agreement. Since the Clinton administration was intimately involved in crafting the June 20 deal, we were hopeful that the President would come forward with specific recommendations and legislation to describe how the deal would work. Unfortunately, the President ducked a historic opportunity for leadership. Rather than following the regular order of submitting legislation, he sent us five vague principles. His inaction set back the work of the Congress considerably. I remain hopeful that the President and his administration will tell us specifically what he wants in legislation. For now, though, the Congress has to do the heavy lifting. We have to make our own decisions about how the various elements of the deal should be put together. Through the summer and fall, I met several times with Senate committee chairmen who have jurisdiction over the major elements of the deal. They include the Committees of Agriculture, Commerce, Finance, Labor, Judiciary, Environment and Public Works, as well as Indian Affairs. I have requested that, when we reconvene next year, they begin work and try to find out what the majority in their committees, Republicans and Democrats, believe are important elements of a comprehensive plan targeted on reducing teenage smoking. I have asked them to conclude their work by March 16, 1998, and they have agreed to meet that timetable. As they do their work, I am asking them to answer, to their satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the public, 10 important questions, which I will have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. These questions deal with the whole parameter of the proposed resolution. For example: What works best to reduce teen smoking? We have Government programs and we have private programs. What really works? What is the best method of reducing teen smoking? Should we increase the price of tobacco? President Clinton mentioned he thought we should increase the price a dollar and a half. Should that be done in the form of taxes or in the form of price increases? If it is done in the form of price increases, do we need to give exemptions for that to happen? Do we need to make sure tobacco companies would not make more money than that would allow? Are they going to be able to make excess profits from the price increase? Do we increase the price by increasing tobacco taxes? Should the States have the allowance to be able to increase tobacco taxes, in addition to whatever the Federal Government would do? Another big question is, Who gets the money? This is a big dispute. A few weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala wrote a letter to the States and said that the Federal Government is entitled to its pro rata share of the Medicaid money, assuming States were getting most of their money to reimburse them. The States attorneys general said no. They went to court and they filed suits. The Federal Government didn't join in those lawsuits. The States are saying, give us the money. They took the legal action; the Federal Government didn't. So who should get the money? We need to make those decisions. How much money are we talking about? The States attorneys general and the industry came up with an agreement that said $368 billion over 25 years. The administration said, ``We want a lot more.'' They didn't say how much more. Should there be additional fines and penalties? These decisions have to be made. Should the money go to the States and have it be off budget? They have not made those decisions. As you can see, these are not easy decisions to make, and there are more questions. What would be an appropriate antitrust exemption for tobacco companies? What kind of limitations should they have on immunity from lawsuits? Should there be a total exemption from class action lawsuits for the tobacco industry? Should that apply to individuals as well? How much power should the FDA have? Should they be able to ban or regulate nicotine or cigarettes, or control advertising and sales? Is that something that would require legislative action? How do we take care of those people who are directly affected by this, such as the tobacco farmers, the processors, the distributors, the people that have the vending machines, and so on? They were not included in the original package. Should they be included in whatever comprehensive legislation we would pass? What did the proposed resolution leave out? There are a lot of things we should consider that weren't included. Should we have a limitation on compensation for the attorneys in this process? And so on. I could go on and on about the unanswered questions. My point is that there is a lot of work to do. If the Congress is going to move this piece of legislation next year in a comprehensive bill, then we are going to have to go to work early. So I have asked the committee chairs to consult with the ranking members and the other members of the committee to try and come up with what they believe in their committee of jurisdiction they have strong support for and what they think should be included in a total package. Then we have, as I mentioned, six committees that are involved in this legislation directly--maybe more are indirectly involved--and certainly more. I didn't include Budget, which is involved. So I'm asking all committees to make their recommendations, and we will try to put a package together to see if we can't really have a concerted, aggressive, energetic effort to reduce teenage consumption of smoking, teenage addiction to smoking. I might mention, Madam President, that in addition to smoking, I think Congress should be tackling teenage addiction to drugs, because teen drug use, unfortunately, has doubled in the last 5 years. We have seen enormous increases. As a matter of fact, 11 percent of kids in junior high now use dangerous, illegal, illicit drugs. Today, 1 out of 10 kids in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade are using illegal drugs on a monthly basis. The number of kids using marijuana has more than doubled in the last many years. We have to have a concerted effort, I think, to reduce teenage addiction to tobacco, but also other drugs as well. Madam President, this will not be easy. If you try to see all of the different pieces of this package and try and put it together, it will not be easy. But I think that we have what I would say is a bipartisan agreement that we should reduce consumption and addiction of drugs and smoking among teenagers. I am very committed to trying to pass a comprehensive package that will reduce teenage smoking and teenage addiction to drugs. I just say to all my colleagues, let's work together and see if we can't come up with a package we can all be proud of--not just something that's good for politics, but let's do something that is going to good policy. It will be good policy if we can get teenagers off drugs and away from a tobacco addiction. Let's work together to make that happen, not just try to score points and say who is the most antitobacco, or the most this or that. Let's work on good policy, something that will help curb the growth of teenage addiction to tobacco and drugs. I welcome the contributions of Senator McCain, Senator Hatch, Senator Lugar, Senator Mack, and others over the past few weeks on this issue. I think we can work together for the betterment of our children, and our country. Madam President, in conclusion, I want to insert a couple of other things in the Record. One is a summary of a study that was done by the Federal Government. There was a $25 million Federal study published on September 10 in the Journal of the American Medical Association entitled the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The study concluded that feeling loved, understood, and paid attention to by parents helps teenagers avoid high-risk activities, such as using drugs and smoking cigarettes. The study further concluded that teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to parents and teachers are much less likely to use drugs and alcohol, attempt suicide, and smoke cigarettes. Madam President, I mention this study because it had a lot of common sense. The study found that the presence of parents at home at key times--in the morning, after school, at dinner, and bedtime--made teenagers less likely to use alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Ironically, the Government spends millions of dollars on programs to reduce teen smoking and, frankly, many of them haven't worked. I think this study shows that loving parents may be the best program that we can have. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article summarizing that study, published in the Washington Post on September 11, be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to congratulate my colleague, Senator Enzi, from Wyoming, for that statement. I wish more Senators would spend more time doing their homework on Federal judges. I think it is obvious in this case he has done a lot of homework on the judge. We should all do more, and he is certainly entitled to express that sentiment on the floor and he is entitled to a rollcall vote. I will certainly support him in that effort.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2159, the foreign operations bill. I further ask consent there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, and immediately following that debate or yielding back of time the conference report be considered as adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12 noon under the same terms as previously agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to express my profound disappointment in the action the President took on November 1 of this year when he used his veto pen to line-item veto $900,000 from the VA- HUD appropriations bill. This money was set aside for the final planning and design of a new national veterans cemetery to be built at Fort Sill in Lawton, OK. While I am disappointed, I know my disappointment pales in comparison to the shock and frustration that the veterans of Oklahoma and their families have expressed to me and my staff regarding the President's action. The shock and frustration expressed by veterans living in Oklahoma who have selflessly served our country and their families comes because the President's veto will further delay a national cemetery that has been in one stage of planning or another since 1987 when the Department of Veteran Affairs stated its intention to build a new national cemetery in Oklahoma. I hope my colleagues will bear with me as I review what the veterans of Oklahoma and their families have gone through over the past 10 years. Efforts to establish a national veterans cemetery in central Oklahoma date back to 1987. That year the Department of Veterans Affairs, in a report to Congress, identified central Oklahoma as an area in need of a national veterans cemetery because of Oklahoma's large veterans population and an official acknowledgment that the Fort Gibson cemetery in eastern Oklahoma would soon be full. The Oklahoma congressional delegation did not make this determination, Oklahoma's large veteran population did not make this determination the VA made this determination. The VA then embarked on a 4-year selection process and narrowed the potential cemetery sites to three: Fort Reno, Edmond, and Guthrie. The Congress, in accordance with the 1987 report, appropriated $250,000 in fiscal year 1991 for the purpose of conducting an environmental impact statement on these three sites to determine which site best met the needs of our veterans and was suitable for construction of a cemetery. In late 1993, the VA officially announced Fort Reno as its preferred site, and Congress, in 1994, appropriated another $250,000 for the initial planning and design stages of the cemetery. Unfortunately, in that same year a land dispute arose over the Fort Reno site. After a year of trying to work out an agreement on the property at Fort Reno no resolution could be found. On January 23, 1995, the VA issued a press release announcing that it was no longer committed to the Fort Reno site because the land dispute could not be resolved. In that same press release Jesse Brown, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, made the following statement: I am reiterating VA's commitment to provide a new national cemetery for the veterans of this region. We will look for other potential sites and expedite the selection decision. Thankfully, another piece of property was soon found at Fort Sill that could be used for a cemetery, and true to Secretary Brown's statement the process was expedited. The VA, using money left over from the initial environmental impact statement, conducted another study of the piece of property identified as a potential cemetery site at Fort Sill. The second environmental impact statement was completed on the property at Fort Sill and it was deemed suitable for a cemetery. Again, acting on the VA's commitment of 1987 to build a national veterans cemetery which was reiterated in January 1995, by Secretary Brown, the Congress adopted an amendment that I offered to the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill that called for the transfer of that property at Fort Sill for the establishment of a new national veterans cemetery. I recently spoke to the Army and was informed that this land transfer is progressing very well and ought to be complete by mid-January of 1998--that's about two months away. This year I worked with my good friend, Senator Bond, chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, to include $900,000 for the final planning and design of the cemetery. It was included in the bill that was passed by the Senate and included in the conference report. As I stated earlier, about a week ago, the President used his veto pen to line-item veto this project. This project was the only VA project that was line-tem vetoed this year. Besides being disappointed at the President's action, I don't understand it. The cemetery project is completely within the budget agreement that was hammered out this year. The cemetery project was identified by the VA as a project it wanted. I do want to let the administration and the veterans of Oklahoma know that I am committed to this project and I intend to work with the administration and the VA to see that the veterans of Oklahoma get a new national veterans cemetery in a timely fashion. Ten years has already been a long time to wait. The veterans of Oklahoma and their families have endured much as they served our country, I intend to see to it that the establishment of a new national veterans cemetery does not become yet another test of that endurance. Mr. President, I believe the President made a mistake. He made a mistake in several items that were vetoed in the MilCon bill and he made a mistake in this case. The VA had made a commitment to build this cemetery. The veterans who served our country so well are entitled to be buried in a national veterans' cemetery. The Veterans' Department said maybe the new cemetery in Oklahoma should be a State cemetery. However, the veterans of Oklahoma have stated they want to be buried in a national veterans' cemetery, and I am committed to that. I know the veterans of Oklahoma are committed to that. We have had a commitment from this administration and this administration should not renege on it. They should not go back on their word to the veterans of Oklahoma, as evidenced by the President's veto. I think it was a mistake. It just so happens the President does not have a Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. I will be meeting with the Acting Secretary and the President's nominee to be Secretary and hopefully we will come to an understanding very quickly that this is a commitment that will be completed. We need to uphold the commitment we made to the veterans of Oklahoma that we will have a national cemetery built.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, could we have order?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, our colleague from Nebraska, I think, made the same request yesterday, and maybe some of the same comments were made yesterday. If we didn't have additional ideas to make the legislation better, I would agree with him, because I think the House passed some good legislation. I think we can make it better. Chairman Roth mentioned a couple things we can do. We had good hearings. Actually, the hearings that promulgated a lot of the IRS reforms happened in the Senate, not in the House. Our House colleagues, as the Constitution provides, initiates revenue measures. So they have acted and they have acted promptly. I congratulate Chairman Archer, who I think does an outstanding job as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The House has done good work and passed a good, bipartisan bill. Likewise, we can do good work in the Senate and pass a bipartisan bill. We might do better. We might add and build upon what the House has in their legislation. We heard from a lot of things. Mr. Dolan, the acting Commissioner of the IRS, had some suggestions, brought out some points. We had witnesses who talked about IRS abuse. I think we can build upon some of the changes that the House has advocated and make a better bill, but it may take a little bit of time to do it. I would like to do it and do it right. Again, I appreciate what our colleague from Nebraska is saying, but I would very much like and happen to agree with the chairman, I think we would be better off if we allow the Finance Committee to mark up the legislation, make some improvements, and pass legislation that, again, will, hopefully, receive bipartisan support and the President's signature as well. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments. One pertains to the IRS proposal. I think Senator Kerrey's assessment of the House-passed language is correct. It is good language. But I certainly agree with the chairman of the Finance Committee. We had outstanding hearings conducted in a very fair, bipartisan way that said we should do more. I think Chairman Roth said we want to do more, demand to do more, and I think we can do better. The House passed a very good bill. We passed a better bill. I tell my colleagues. We want to continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass really good IRS restructuring reform in this Congress. I hope and expect we will.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Finally, Mr. President, let me conclude on the DOD authorization bill. We just had a resounding vote of 90 to 10 on the Department of Defense authorization bill on which Senator Thurmond has worked, and many other colleagues have been working on for a long time--a year. They put in a lot of work. They have a good bill. It is a bill the President should sign. I urge the President to sign it. On the depot issue, which has been very contentious amongst a few States, I think we came up with a fair compromise. I think we came up with a compromise that allows States to compete, and to compete fairly. So I compliment all Senators involved. I urge the President to sign the Department of Defense authorization bill to allow our military people to receive the cost-of-living adjustment, and to allow authorization to go forward on many very important military projects all across our country.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also want to make a comment concerning Senator Bond, and the outstanding work he has done in the Environment and Public Works Committee to pass the highway bill. We need to pass one this year. The Senator from Missouri has been working with Senator Baucus and others in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe it has unanimous support in the Environment and Public Works Committee to pass a reauthorization bill, or at least passing an extension for 6 months to allow the States to continue contracting. They came up with a way that said, ``Well, we are not going to have one side win on the formula issue, or another side.'' I think it is a good compromise until we pass a 6-year bill, which we tried to do. I might mention that we had four cloture votes on whether or not we would take up the highway bill, and it was basically filibustered because people wanted to add campaign reform and unrelated issues. That is unfortunate. That is history. Now we have to move on. We only have a few days to do it. I compliment my colleague from Missouri, and others who have worked with him, and I urge our House colleagues to work together with us to make sure we get this passed. Let's pass this before we leave. I think it is vitally important to the highway programs in every single State in the Nation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Tomorrow, at 9:40 a.m., the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the confirmation of Judge Gilman of Tennessee, to be followed by up to 4 hours of consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense Authorization Act. As under the order, a vote on the adoption of the conference report will occur at the expiration or yielding back of time. Therefore, Members can anticipate that vote at approximately 2 p.m. on Thursday. The Senate may also consider and complete action on any of the following: Amtrak reform, the D.C. appropriations bill, FDA reform conference report, the Intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate, with the first vote occurring at 9:40 a.m.