Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I commend her for her incisive amendment, which will aid the children of America and the parents of America. I appreciate very much her effort today. Does the Senator from Delaware wish to say something? I will be happy to yield temporarily.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield 30 seconds, just to not only commend the Senator and thank him for his kind words, but also for his tremendous leadership with respect to the tobacco task force and also to commend the senior Senator from New Jersey for his leadership over many years. I thank both the Senators.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly support the amendment proposed by Senator Conrad, Senator Lautenberg, and my colleagues. The budget resolution before us today does not give us a fighting chance to do what we want to do, but more importantly, what the American people want us to do. That is to reduce teenage smoking in the United States. We know it is a curse. We know it is causing incalculable pain throughout this country in terms of health problems down the road. But this budget resolution does not give us the tools to grapple with the issue of teen smoking. It is illogical, too, as Senator Conrad pointed out so eloquently. All of the major legislative initiatives have specific provisions which require anti-youth-smoking efforts, increased research at the National Institutes of Health, FDA regulatory authority, State regulatory authority, and none of these can be funded from the budget resolution. But there is something that is even more illogical, in my view. I do not want to take a brief for the tobacco industry. But with every one of these major pieces of legislation for the tobacco industry, you must reduce teen smoking by 50 percent, 60 percent, or 70 percent in so many years. Yet, if we take all of the proceeds from the increased tobacco taxes and all the other payments and we don't use them in some way to try to suppress teen smoking through counteradvertising campaigns, to try to get people who are addicted to nicotine over the addiction, there is no way that these goals can be met. We are setting up a test that is bound to fail. We have to recognize that if we are serious about mandating the reduction of teen smoking by significant percentages over the next several years, we have to provide the resources to do that job. This budget resolution does not make such a provision. It does not allow us to take the proceeds of whatever tobacco deal is ultimately reached and use those proceeds to invest in a healthier America, to invest in the health of our children. All of these provisions, which Senator Conrad has outlined, are so absolutely necessary in making any proposed agreement work, and also, fundamentally, to ensure that we reduce teen smoking, we have to adopt a very strong anti-youth-smoking effort. The principal means to do that is a counteradvertising campaign. Every year, the tobacco industry spends $5 billion on advertising, billboards, sporting events, teams, sponsorships, giveaways--hats, jackets, whatever, key chains--a powerful influence on the youth of America. In fact, all of us can think back through our sort of history, and, even if we do not smoke, we know we have been terribly influenced by tobacco advertising campaigns. I was on the floor a few weeks ago talking about the legislation which I had, and it came to me that if I asked anyone who is roughly my age--I will be kind, about 40--if I asked them what LSMFT meant, the light bulb would go right on. If I ask these young ladies and gentleman, they would say it is gibberish. I see the shake of the head. They do not know. LSMFT means ``Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.'' Through literally millions of dollars of advertising over 20 or 30 years, a whole generation, or more, of Americans understood that. We have to reverse that. We have to convince a whole generation of Americans now and in the future that tobacco is dangerous, addictive, and will ultimately kill them. We can't do it just with good wishes here on the floor of the Senate; we have to do it with real resources. This budget resolution will not give us a chance to do that. We have to look seriously at NIH research, because there are opportunities perhaps to develop antidotes to nicotine, to the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. There are ways through science and research. We might have better ways to wean individuals off tobacco smoke. All of these things have to be done if we are going to meet our objective of using this historic opportunity, this historic agreement, to improve the public health of Americans. We also have to ensure that the FDA has the resources to do the job of enforcing on the tobacco industry. We know every year it is a battle here through the appropriations process to fund worthwhile programs for the FDA. We know at the end of the day that there are many worthwhile programs which just do not make the cut, not because they are bad but just because we run out of money long before the public health community runs out of problem. If we do not provide within this resolution for the use of the resources of the tobacco industry to invest in FDA, we are not going to be able to give them the tools to do the job to make sure that smoking is not contagious among young people. Add to that our responsibility to help the States provide an important part of this overall agreement. We expect--in fact, in most of the legislation it is clearly explicitly written--that the States will fund elaborate programs of access control to tobacco through licenses of clerks, thorough investigations and inspections of facilities that are selling tobacco products, ensuring that products don't mysteriously appear in the State without these controls. All of that takes money, and the States are going to look to us and say, ``Listen. You are the folks that have all of the money. You are the ones that are getting the $500 billion over so many years from increased taxes and increased fees and penalty payments. We need this to ensure that we can control access to tobacco products.'' One of the other aspects is thrown in our face constantly when we talk about this tobacco arrangement. That is the possibility, or the probability, the eventuality, of a black market in cigarettes because the price is going up. How are we going to counteract this black market if we do not have the resources at the State level and the FDA level and through other law enforcement means to actually counteract the potential growth of black markets? Once again, I don't see within this budget resolution those types of resources being available. We also have to fund smoking cessation programs. Mr. President, 70 percent of smokers today want to quit. But wanting to quit and being able to beat this addiction are two different things. They cannot do it without resources--without access to counsel, without access to nicotine patches, without access to those items which are going to ensure that they can avoid their present dilemma, which is smoking but wanting desperately to quit. Then, as Senator Conrad also pointed out, every one of these pieces of legislation includes substantial payments to farmers who are likely to lose their valuable crops because tobacco is going to be suppressed in this country--not prohibited, not outlawed--but certainly we hope the demand will begin to shrink for tobacco products as fewer people smoke, particularly fewer young people smoke. Every one of these bills has it. Both sides of this aisle are trumpeting their support for the farmer. They are not going to let these innocent victims of this industry be left adrift without any resources, cut off from a lucrative economic crop and left to their own devices. Yet, once again, within the confines or context of this resolution, there is no resource to do the job. We have to do something. Frankly, this amendment makes so much sense. It allows for the funding of all of these provisions. It allows for other important uses of the tobacco settlement, too. But at a minimum it allows us to do what we have to do, and I am supportive, not only of this effort but overall of developing strong and tough tobacco legislation. We have an opportunity, a historic opportunity, for the first time in many, many years, to put America on the path of sense and sanity when it comes to smoking policy. We can, we hope, empower a generation of young Americans with the knowledge and with the support to stop smoking. If we do that, we will reap a tremendous benefit in a healthier America and a healthier society. Yet, without these resources we cannot, in fact, go forward because this budget resolution does not give us the opportunity and the flexibility to go ahead and do, again, not only what I want to do, what I assume the vast majority of my colleagues want to do, but what our constituents demand that we do: Use these historic opportunities, when the industry has recognized its past mistakes, when the industry is attempting to change its culture, when we have for the first time the support not only of the American people but the cooperation, to a degree at least, of the industry, to ensure that we prevent young people from smoking. The fear is we will have debates on this floor about all of these legislative materials and all of the different aspects of the proposed agreements, but, ultimately, when it comes down to the bottom line, when we have to put our money where our words are, there will be no money because this resolution takes that option off the table for us. So I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment, will join us in the continued effort to ensure that we have good, tough tobacco legislation, but legislation that not only will say the right things but have the money and resources to do the right things. My colleague from New Jersey, I think, is going to speak in a moment. I think he is present. While he is coming forward, let me just say that we have before us a very challenging set of issues. This is a critical one, getting this budget resolution in a shape where it will support sound legislation on the floor. There are other issues, too, that will come up before us. Many aspects of this proposed settlement are controversial, not only between the two contesting parties, the tobacco industry and those who are trying to protect the public health, but also controversial by their nature. I talked a little bit about the need for adequate resources to fund smoking cessation advertisements that will actually go out and convince young people not to smoke. That will become particularly crucial if some provisions we have in the legislation are stricken down because of the first amendment. As you realize, most of these legislative initiatives contain language which essentially asks that the industry give up their first amendment rights to advertise in exchange for immunity protection. There is always the threat that someone--perhaps not even in the tobacco industry, perhaps a third party, like convenience stores--would come out and suggest that these restrictions are contrary to the first amendment. In this regard, we would really definitely, most definitively, need resources to keep up an effective counteradvertising campaign. So for these reasons and many others, we must, I think, support this amendment, and we must, in fact, ensure that we have the dollars as well as the legislative language to prevent teen smoking. If we do that, then we will achieve the historic conclusion to these debates. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Democratic leader for his efforts to ensure that this debate reaches the full spectrum of issues that concern American education. I believe there is one thing we can all agree upon: The problems of American education are multiple, and to conduct a debate that would focus exclusively on one remedy and not allow other voices, other approaches, is, to me, relinquishing our responsibility to deal principally and responsibly with education policy in the United States. There are proposals by my colleagues with respect to class size. Again, we are seeing evidence from States like Tennessee, where it makes a real difference in performance in education. Yet, we are not allowed to talk about those issues in this debate. If we are going to approach this issue with the idea of helping American education rather than the idea of promoting one particular ideological version, we have to allow for open, robust debate that incorporates all of the amendments my colleagues are proposing. And the idea to carry on without the debate, to me, is not worthy of this body.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 177th Anniversary of the beginning of the revolution that won Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire. I was proud to join with fifty- one of my colleagues in sponsoring Senate Resolution 171 which designates today ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' The strong ties between the United States and Greece extend back to the birth of this nation. Indeed, the Founding Fathers looked to the principles formulated by the Greek philosophers when composing the governing documents of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson stated, ``to the ancient Greeks . . . we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' America owes much to the Greeks for all they have given us, then and now. The Greeks have been members of my state's communities for over one hundred years. Over 6,000 residents of Rhode Island claimed Greek heritage in the last Census. When they first came to the state they worked in the factories and on the shores. Today, the descendants of these first immigrants continue to prosper and enrich the state and rest of the country through their contributions to banking, medicine, the tourism industry and the arts. Although today we commemorate the Greek victory over 400 years of domination by the Ottoman Empire, we must also remember that Greece is still not able to celebrate complete peace and freedom. Almost twenty- four years ago, Turkey invaded Cyprus and today 35,000 troops continue to occupy over 40% of the island and inflict human rights abuses on the 660,000 Cypriots. Recently, I was proud to sign on as a cosponsor of a concurrent resolution which calls for the U.S. to encourage the end of restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people in the occupied area of Cyprus. We must continue to work to resolve the Cyprus problem and reduce the tensions that exist between Greece and Turkey. But, for today, let us celebrate the anniversary of Greek Independence, the richness of the Greek heritage and the legacy of democracy that country gave to the world.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the New England Governors recently passed a resolution calling on Congress to adopt legislation to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service this year. As a strong supporter of national and community service, I am heartened by the New England Governors' enthusiasm for AmeriCorps, the National Senior Service Corps, the Learn and Serve program, and other Corporation for National Service initiatives. It is my hope that the Corporation for National Service reauthorization legislation will be considered by the Senate this year. Mr. President, I ask that the New England Governors' resolution be printed in the Record. The resolution follows: Resolution No. 140 Whereas, the citizens of New England have benefited in a variety of ways from the important contribution made by the service programs of the Corporation for National Service in partnership with the states of the region; and Whereas, New England states have profited from the power and promise of citizen service and traditional volunteers through the efforts of 90,000 New Englanders who serve our states each day through AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and the National Senior Service Corps programs of the Corporation for National Service; and Whereas, New England states have been assisted by the Corporation for National Service programs that use service as a strategy to improve the quality of life in the region; and Whereas, AmeriCorps members and National Senior Service Corps volunteers have improved education achievement, enhanced our environment, made our neigbhorhoods safer, and addressed other human needs; and Whereas, the students in Learn and Serve America have been afforded the opportunity to serve their communities and reflect on the meaning of that service; and Whereas, AmeriCorps and the other programs supported by the Corporation for National Service have provided critical resources to our states; and Whereas, the proposed reauthorization legislation, entitled the National and Community Service Amendments Act of 1998 will devolve more authority and greater flexibility to states in the implementation of programs funded by the Corporation for National Service; and Whereas, the existing distribution of AmeriCorps grant funds, two-thirds for AmeriCorps State and one-third for AmeriCorps National, is retained in the proposed legilation; and Whereas, New England has benefited substantially from the law's existing allocation of state funds which redistribute one-half through formula and one-half through national competition; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Governors of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, through their New England Governors' Conference, Inc., urge their respective Congressional delegations and the Congress to support the National Community Service Amendments Act of 1998, reauthorizing the Corporation for National Service, to support the bill's devolution provisions that add authority and flexibility to states and state commissions, to support the bill's directives that AmeriCorps State funds provide Governor-appointed state commissions more control over program selection, and particularly to support the bill's continuation of the existing 50/50 state funds disitribution division between formula and nationally competitive AmeriCorps grant funds. Adoption certified by the New England Governors' Conference, Inc. on February 24, 1998.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield again, as I understand it, there are 45 States that have adopted local State laws. Even within those States, they are not fully complying with the strictures of the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act. As a result, even in the States that did what we thought they would do, we still need Federal oversight. As a result of that, I hope we will elect to pass this measure. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Aren't we missing the point when we look at HCFA and try to blame them for the complicated issues that we have asked them to enforce? We are missing the point. Who is really suffering, if we do this, are the thousands of families in the country that won't have access to good health care. It is our responsibility to ensure that HCFA and the States provide real access to the hundreds of thousands of families that need good health care around the country. We just heard yesterday at a hearing about the struggles and travails of a young mother who was trying to get good care for her daughter in the context of Kennedy-Kassebaum, and without good enforcement she would not realize these benefits. I think you are absolutely right, Senator, in terms of the message we are sending. It is not, ``HCFA, get your act together.'' It is to thousands of families we are not going to enforce the right that we thought we gave 2 years ago.

Mr. REED. My question, if I may, Senator----

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may address the question to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may address an additional question to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. REED. I understand that last week the Labor Committee had a hearing on this issue, and it came with great evidence that we need to do more to enforce effectively this bill. And it seems to me that, in the context of that hearing, this provision to strike out needed money is absolutely the wrong approach in terms of ensuring that American citizens have all the benefits of the bill that we all passed, which we all thought would be a major breakthrough in health care in the United States. I wonder if that is the case, and, in fact, did the Labor Committee indicate that these issues were necessary to be enforced?

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his remarks. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Children should not be left out of the health care quality debate. I rise today to introduce legislation that provides common sense consumer protections for children in managed care. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Murray are cosponsors of this legislation. Not one of us can deny that managed care plays a valid role in our health care system. Managed care's emphasis on preventive care has benefits for young and old alike. And HMOs have resulted in lower co- payments for consumers and higher immunization rates for our children. But all too often these days we read a story in the paper about a child whose unique health care needs have not been met. While the problems are clear, it is difficult to say how big a problem we have on our hands. However, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. And when it comes to our children, we should not take risks. While there has not been a great deal of child-specific research in this area, one recent study by Elizabeth Jameson at the University of California compared the experiences of chronically ill children in California's Medicaid program to those in private managed care. There was an interesting irony in the study's findings--low income children in public programs receive age appropriate care that is consistent with recognized clinical guidelines, while those in private health plans often do not. The study also found that: some managed care plans impose restrictions on referrals to pediatric specialists and subspecialists for children with complex conditions; and, an increasing number of providers in managed care plans are attempting to treat complex pediatric conditions for which they have little experience. The bill I am introducing is an attempt to address these issues by providing common sense protections for children in managed care. It is this simple: if we don't have health plan standards, there's no guarantee that we are providing adequate care for our children. Our bill, The Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act, provides common sense protections for children in managed care plans-- protections regarding access, appeals and accountability. These protections include: access to necessary pediatric services; appeal rights that address the special needs of children, such as an expedited review if the child's life or development is in jeopardy; quality programs that measure health outcomes unique to children; utilization review rules that are specific to children with evaluation from those with pediatric expertise; and child-specific information requirements that will help parents and employers choose health plans on the basis of care provided to children. Mr. President, there is overwhelming public support for the ideas embodied in this legislation. According to a February 1998 survey by Lake Sosin Snell Perry and Associates and the Tarrance Group, 89 percent of adults surveyed favor having ``Congress require HMO's and other insurance companies to allow parents to choose a pediatrician as their child's primary care physician.'' And 90 percent favor having ``Congress require HMO's and other insurance companies to allow parents of children with special health care needs, like cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, or severe asthma, to choose a pediatric specialist to be their child's primary care physician.'' The poll also shows that people are willing to pay additional premiums adequate protections for children. I am pleased that this legislation has the support of many groups, including the National Association of Childrens Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the Childrens Defense Fund, Families USA, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, The Arc of the United States, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Mental Health Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Emergency Room Physicians. Mr. President, the time is now for Congress to act. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, and to pass comprehensive managed care legislation that meets the needs of all of our citizens, including our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, ten years ago the Rams of the University of Rhode Island, shocked sports fans throughout the country when they beat the #3 seeded Orangemen of Syracuse and advanced to the Sweet Sixteen in the NCAA men's basketball tournament. It took a few years, but the giant slayers from little Rhody are back. Last weekend, the Rams shocked the basketball world again, defeating the indomitable, #1 seeded Jayhawks of Kansas. With a win tonight over Valparaiso, URI will advance to the Elite Eight. But, Mr. President, don't sell this team short. They may be smaller than their opponents. They readily admit that. But they know how to win, just ask anyone from Lawrence, Kansas. I should add, Mr. President, with regard to tonight's game, that beyond the match-ups on the floor, there will be a contest on the sidelines. As many have commented, URI Coach Jim Harrick will do battle with his son, Jim Jr., an assistant coach at Valparaiso. At stake will be family bragging rights that will last a very long time. In this game, however, I'd bet on the elder Coach Harrick. Indeed, Mr. President, I expect to be back on the Senate floor next week to talk about the Rams and the Final Four.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Children should not be left out of the health care quality debate. I rise today to introduce legislation that provides common sense consumer protections for children in managed care. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Murray are cosponsors of this legislation. Not one of us can deny that managed care plays a valid role in our health care system. Managed care's emphasis on preventive care has benefits for young and old alike. And HMOs have resulted in lower co- payments for consumers and higher immunization rates for our children. But all too often these days we read a story in the paper about a child whose unique health care needs have not been met. While the problems are clear, it is difficult to say how big a problem we have on our hands. However, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. And when it comes to our children, we should not take risks. While there has not been a great deal of child-specific research in this area, one recent study by Elizabeth Jameson at the University of California compared the experiences of chronically ill children in California's Medicaid program to those in private managed care. There was an interesting irony in the study's findings--low income children in public programs receive age appropriate care that is consistent with recognized clinical guidelines, while those in private health plans often do not. The study also found that: some managed care plans impose restrictions on referrals to pediatric specialists and subspecialists for children with complex conditions; and, an increasing number of providers in managed care plans are attempting to treat complex pediatric conditions for which they have little experience. The bill I am introducing is an attempt to address these issues by providing common sense protections for children in managed care. It is this simple: if we don't have health plan standards, there's no guarantee that we are providing adequate care for our children. Our bill, The Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act, provides common sense protections for children in managed care plans-- protections regarding access, appeals and accountability. These protections include: access to necessary pediatric services; appeal rights that address the special needs of children, such as an expedited review if the child's life or development is in jeopardy; quality programs that measure health outcomes unique to children; utilization review rules that are specific to children with evaluation from those with pediatric expertise; and child-specific information requirements that will help parents and employers choose health plans on the basis of care provided to children. Mr. President, there is overwhelming public support for the ideas embodied in this legislation. According to a February 1998 survey by Lake Sosin Snell Perry and Associates and the Tarrance Group, 89 percent of adults surveyed favor having ``Congress require HMO's and other insurance companies to allow parents to choose a pediatrician as their child's primary care physician.'' And 90 percent favor having ``Congress require HMO's and other insurance companies to allow parents of children with special health care needs, like cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, or severe asthma, to choose a pediatric specialist to be their child's primary care physician.'' The poll also shows that people are willing to pay additional premiums adequate protections for children. I am pleased that this legislation has the support of many groups, including the National Association of Childrens Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the Childrens Defense Fund, Families USA, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, The Arc of the United States, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Mental Health Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Emergency Room Physicians. Mr. President, the time is now for Congress to act. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, and to pass comprehensive managed care legislation that meets the needs of all of our citizens, including our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my legislation S. 1755, legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to deny tobacco companies any tax deduction for their advertising and promotional expenses when those expenses are directed at the most impressionable group in our society, children. In a recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Doctors C. Everett Koop, David Kessler, and George Lundberg wrote, ``For years the tobacco industry has marketed products that it knew caused serious disease and death. Yet, it intentionally hid this truth from the public, carried out a deceitful campaign designed to undermine the public's appreciation of these risks, and marketed its addictive products to children.'' Numerous studies have implicated the tobacco industry, their advertising and promotional activities, as a major cause in the continued increase in youth smoking throughout the United States in recent years. Research on smoking demonstrates that increases in youth smoking directly coincide with effective tobacco promotional activities. My legislation, S. 1755, addresses this key element in an ongoing public debate about controlling youth smoking in the United States. My legislation could stand on its own, or it can easily be incorporated into comprehensive legislation, which is beginning to be considered here in the Senate. With or without congressional action on the Attorney General's proposal and suggested settlement which took place last summer, it is time for Congress to act now to stop the tobacco industry's practice of luring children into untimely disease and death. I am pleased to have join me as cosponsors Senator Boxer, Senator Chafee, and Senator Conrad. I also want to recognize the leadership over many years of my colleagues, Senator Tom Harkin, along with former Senator Bill Bradley, who have in the past called for the total elimination of tax deductions for tobacco advertisers. While I concur with Senator Harkin that the deduction is a questionable use of our tax dollars, I would also like to emphasize that my legislation does not go that far. My legislation is designed to eliminate this deduction if it is used deliberately, explicitly, and consciously to attract young people, children, to smoking. Limiting the access of children to smoking is a critical part of any comprehensive tobacco settlement. My approach is a constitutionally sound way to do this. We have had discussions about the first amendment and the fact that the industry and others claim that only voluntary controls would be permissible under the first amendment. But it is quite clear under the first amendment that Congress has the authority and ability to limit tax deductions. So my legislation not only gets at one of the major issues involved in the debate over tobacco, it does so in a way which is completely consistent with the Constitution. Now, the advertising restrictions I am talking about are generally those that were agreed to by the industry in their discussions with the Attorneys General. These restrictions have been incorporated in legislation which Senator Conrad introduced, and I joined as a cosponsor, along with 29 other Senators. S. 1638, provides for and codifies those restrictions that will go a long, long way in preventing youth access to smoking. Now, under my legislation, if the manufacturers do not comply with these restrictions, if they choose to conduct the kind of reckless advertising campaigns they have in the past, then they would forfeit the deductibility of these expenses. Now, these restrictions are appropriately tailored to prevent the advertising and marketing of tobacco directed at young people in our society. These restrictions are very similar to those proposed by the Food and Drug Administration. Indeed, they are very close to those agreed to by the industry in the June 20 proposed settlement. Key components of these restrictions are, first, a prohibition on point-of-sale advertising, except in adult-only stores and tobacco outlets; second, a ban on outdoor advertising; third, a prohibition on brand-name sponsorship of sporting or entertainment events; fourth, a prohibition on the use of human images, cartoon characters and cartoon- type characters in their advertising; fifth, no payments for ``glamorizing'' tobacco use in performances or in media that appeals to minors; sixth, requiring black and white text advertising and labeling so as not to heighten the appeal of cigarette products on the shelf; seventh, a prohibition on tobacco product identification on entries and teams in sporting events; finally, a prohibition on Internet advertising. These are very sensible, very thoughtful restrictions and, I must emphasize, should be essentially agreed to by the industry as their way of meeting the challenge of limiting access to cigarettes by young people in this society. On numerous occasions, the industry has said: Well, unless we get full immunity, we will not voluntarily give up our right to advertise to children. Well, today I am offering an alternative that I think would persuade them that they should stop this advertising to children. This enforcement mechanism does not rely on their voluntary compliance. It simply recognizes the bottom line of these companies and says: If you want to persist in advertising to minors, then you will forfeit the ability to deduct these expenses from your tax bill. Now, Mr. President, the importance of this issue is enormous. The facts speak for themselves. Today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco. One out of every three of these individuals will die prematurely because of their tobacco addiction. Three-fourths of present smokers today want to quit, but they can't because it is an addiction. Less than a quarter are able successfully to quit. Tobacco is costly in terms of lives lost and in terms of the amount of resources consumed every year in this society, which literally goes up in smoke. It is estimated that in the United States alone over $100 billion a year is expended in health care costs and lost productivity. Each pack of cigarettes sold generates about $3.90 in smoking-related costs to society. Tobacco accounts to more than $10 billion in costs a year to the Medicare system and $5 billion each year in terms of costs to the Medicaid system. In my home State of Rhode Island, the smallest State in the Union, health expenses related to smoking were estimated at about $186 million in 1996. These are staggering totals. The cost of smoking and lives lost and resources consumed is a serious, serious issue in this country. This problem clearly starts with children. Ninety percent of adult smokers began to smoke before they were 18 years old. The average youth smoker begins at the age of 13 and becomes a daily smoker by the age 14\1/2\. You have young people as early as 13 beginning to smoke and within a year and a half many of them are hooked for the rest of their lives. Each year, 1 million American children become smokers, and one-third of them will die from lung cancer, emphysema, and similar tobacco- related illnesses. Unless current trends are reversed, 5 million kids who are 18 and younger today will die prematurely because of smoking. You know, there has been a lot of attention has been paid to smoking, and we are finally seeing some positive results. There are many signs that adults are beginning to realize the dangers of smoking. In my home State of Rhode Island, the adult rate of smoking is stabilizing. But, shockingly, smoking among high school students has increased by 25 percent. This is not an accident--the tobacco industry has targeted its advertising to lure children to smoke. It is a dilemma that companies face, when every year your customers die--and many die because of your products--you have to find replacements. For generations, the industry has targeted efficiently the children of this country. Mr. President, this is a real nationwide public health crisis. I have a chart that depicts ``students who reported smoking,'' prepared by the University of Michigan. They found that daily smoking among seniors in high school increased from 17.2 percent in 1992 to 22.2 percent in 1996. It continued to climb to 24.6 percent in 1997, representing a 43 percent increase in daily smoking among our Nation's high school seniors over the past 5 years. At a time when we are all appalled at the health consequences of smoking, we are seeing an increase in smoking among high school seniors. It is far too easy for children to buy these products. It is against the law in every State in this country to sell tobacco products to minors. Yet, it has been estimated that children buy $1.26 billion worth of cigarettes and other tobacco products each year. More and more, we are learning that these children are beginning to smoke because of industry advertising and promotional efforts. A recent study by John Pierce and some of his colleagues in a Journal of the American Medical Association article found clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can decisively influence children who have never smoked before, to begin smoking. Among the findings, they found that tobacco industry promotional activities in the mid-1990s will influence almost 20 percent of those who turn 17 years of age each year to try smoking. At least 34 percent of youth experimentation with cigarettes is attributed to the advertising and promotion efforts of the tobacco industry. They surveyed nonsmokers who were in high school, and they found that among nonsmokers, 56 percent had a favorite cigarette advertisement. They have been programmed--preprogrammed, if you will--to begin to smoke. Eighty-three percent of those nominated either Camel or Marlboro as their favorite ad. In fact, Camel was the favorite among children ages 12 and 13. Again, it is no wonder, because, as we all know, companies rely on cartoon characters like Joe Camel, giveaways of hats, T-shirts, and key chains, and promote recreational activities and sporting activities, targeting much of their efforts toward young people. Industry advertising is consistent with the history of the tobacco industry, in terms of trying to deceptively promote their products, to make of their products appear to be something they never were and never will be. They are spending huge amounts of money to do so, and they have been doing it consistently. This is an industry whose record is one of irresponsibility toward children in our society. They have said in the settlement with the Attorneys General that they want to change their culture. They recognize the bad old days and they want to do something different. I think we have to seriously question whether or not this will take place, whether or not they will do this, unless we impose significant restrictions on their ability to influence the young people of this country. Now, the story of the tobacco industry is, in many cases, a story of advertising in the United States. If you approach someone my age and ask them, ``What does LSMFT mean?--and I see Senator Torricelli here, who probably would say of course he knows--younger people might think that it is gibberish. We all know that it means ``Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.'' Now, to pull that out of your subconscious, if you are 40 years or older, just like that, is because it was drummed into us persistently through tobacco advertising. It was a little jingle or acronym that kids would recognize. Then, of course, we all remember, going back years, the slogan ``sold American.'' All of these are part of our culture. All of them program young people in particular to be receptive and welcoming to the suggestion that they should smoke. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.) If you go back to the 1950s, the industry at that time was trying to suggest that tobacco was a healthy product. They advertised, for example, ``More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.'' Of course, they have someone that looks like a doctor with a cigarette. And the suggestion is pretty clear: These are good for you. If doctors smoke them, they must be great for you. We all know that is absolute nonsense. We know, and the industry knew then, that smoking could cause serious health problems and not would benefit your health. In 1953, another tobacco company had a slogan: ``This is it. L&M filters are just what the doctor ordered.'' This line of suggestion led consumers to the misleading conclusion that smoking was good for you. Again, we today know as they knew then that this is precisely what a doctor would tell you not to do. But their deception and their advertisements live on. I do not know if they have really changed their culture. Today, we have Winston ads which are attempting to sound like tobacco is a health food, with promotional claims saying ``no additives.'' Of course, tobacco contains formaldehyde and chemicals that would kill you, and will kill you, if you smoke cigarettes long enough. We also have the Camel advertisements. They have abandoned Joe Camel, the cartoon character, but now have ``Live Out Loud''--a very attractive ad, designed to appeal not to any rational decision about smoking. It is designed to be suggestive, particularly to young people, that this is a sexy thing to do, that it is an adult thing to do, it is something that has style and panache, the things young people want to have in their lives, to be grown up. So we have an industry now that is still catering to the young people of our country. Recently released documents from the tobacco industry trial shed much more light on what has been taking place for years. And the conclusion is inescapable. These companies have been targeting the young people of America. News reports recently disclosed that an RJR researcher named Claude Teague wrote in a 1973 memo, ``if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long-term we must get our share of the youth market.'' Documents obtained through the Mangini litigation further document these efforts. A presentation from a C.A. Tucker, vice president of marketing, to the board of directors of RJR Industries in 1974 concluded: ``This young adult market''--let me stop for a moment. ``This young adult market''--if you ask me who is the young adult--I would say a young adult is 24, 25, 26. What does the industry think a young adult is? This young adult market, the 14-24 age group . . . represent(s) tomorrow's cigarette business. That same presentation said: For Salem, significant improvements have been made in the advertising, designed for more youth adult appeal under its greenery/refreshment theme. These include: More true-to-life young adult situations. More dominant visuals. A greater spirit of fun . . . for Camel filter, we . . . will have pinpointed efforts against young adults through its sponsorship of sports car racing and motorcycling. That is a 1974 memo. Contemporary advertisements for another brand, Kool, has the same strategy, same approach; exciting young themes; auto racing; green, cool, clear colors; excitement; vitality; robust--all of the things that ultimately are the exact opposite of long-term cigarette smoking; again, very attractive; deliberately targeted to attract a wide audience, but certainly to attract young people to smoke. The Mangini documents also indicate that RJR had been secretly conducting extensive surveys on the smoking habits of young people for years and years. A 1990 document on ``Camel Brand Promotion Opportunities'' states that, ``(t)arget smokers are approaching adulthood . . . their key interests include girls, cars, music, sports, and dancing''--again, heightening the appeal to the youth market. You can see it reflected in advertisements. What could be more exciting and dramatic than a race car driver? In 1982, the chairman and chief executive officer of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Edward Horrigan, testified before the House Commerce Committee that, ``(p)eer pressure and not our advertising provides the impetus for smoking among young people.'' And this is a consistent argument that the industry makes: It is not advertising, it is just peer pressure among young people wanting to be like their buddy. That was 1982. A 1986 memo on the new Joe Camel advertising campaign--Joe Camel, a product of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company--said: Camel advertising will be directed toward using peer acceptance/influence to provide the motivation for target smokers to select Camel. Specifically, advertising will be developed with the objective of convincing target smokers that by selecting Camel as their usual brand they will project an image that will enhance their acceptance among their peers. What could be more cynical? What could be more hypocritical than standing before the House Commerce Committee, and saying, ``It is not our advertising, it is peer pressure,'' and then conducting campaigns that are deliberately designed to create that peer pressure? As I said before, if you look at these documents, they persistently refer to the ``young adult smoker.'' So the industry will say, ``Well, of course we are trying to get customers, but they are young adults.'' But their vision of the young adult is much different than my vision, and I think any reasonable person, because it became a code word for teen smokers. For example, a 1987 document discussing ``Project LF'' Camel Wides, states, ``Project LF is a wider circumference non-menthol cigarette targeted at younger adult male smokers, primarily 13-24 year old male Marlboro smokers.'' Another document suggested, as a way of operating within advertising restrictions, ``transfer(ing) Old Joe (Camel's) irreverent, fun loving personality to other creative properties which do not rely on models or cartoon depictions.'' Again, the beat goes on. The excuses change. The rationalizations change. The characters change. Old Joe Camel takes a seat on the bench. But another fun-filled, irreverent theme designed similarly to attract young people takes its place. Given this record, I am deeply skeptical that this industry will truly reform. Unless we have strong provisions which make it in their economic best interests to change, they will not change. That is, once again, why I think this legislation is very, very important. This industry spends a huge amount of money each year to try to hook kids on tobacco. We know from the documents and from the research, that this is one of the major motivating factors. We know that advertising plays a pivotal role in the decision of young people to smoke. We know they try to use peer pressure. We know that for years they have tried to attract generation after generation of young people to smoking. We know the advertising pays off. Eighty-six percent of underage smokers prefer one of the most heavily advertised brands--Marlboro, Newport, or Camel. The barrage of advertising has a devastating and deadly effect on our children. One of the advertising campaigns that has been most subject to scrutiny in the last few years has been the Joe Camel campaign by R.J. Reynolds. When they began this campaign Camel's market share among underaged smokers was 3 percent. Within 3 years of Joe Camel, the cartoon character, the giveaways, the promotional items, underage market share jumped to 13 percent--13 percent who would likely become long-term smokers. Although Congress banned television advertising in 1970, the companies routinely get around it through the sponsorship of televised sporting events. Marlboro did an analysis of an automobile race they sponsored. Again, it is against the law to advertise on TV. It was found that the Marlboro logo was seen 5,093 times during this televised broadcast race, accounting for a total of 46 minutes of exposure during a 93- minute program. That is probably better than if they were buying 30- second spots to sponsor the show directly. Data from the Federal Trade Commission shows how much the industry spends, which has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. In 1975, the industry spent $491 million. In 1995 alone, tobacco manufacturers spent $4.9 billion--$491 million in 1975; by 1995, $4.9 billion. On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission released their most recent numbers from 1996 showing that advertising expenditures increased 4 percent over 1995. The industry spent in 1996 over $5 billion. We are helping, however, because the industry is able to deduct these expenses. Generally, they can deduct 35 percent of these expenses through their business operations. In 1995, this subsidy--our contribution to hooking kids--amounted to $1.6 billion in lost revenue to the Federal Treasury. This is not an insignificant amount of money. In fact, year by year, the amount of tax expenditures on advertising that the industry has won through this provision of the Internal Revenue Code has increased. In effect, we are subsidizing them to conduct Joe Camel campaigns. We are subsidizing them to build peer acceptance and peer pressure for young people to smoke. In 1995, the cost of the cigarette advertising deduction covered the total amount the industry spent on coupons, multipack promotions, and retail value-added items, like key chains and giveaways, in addition to point of sale. In fact, many of these items are the things that kids like the most--the jackets, the T-shirts, and the hats. The things that are trendy among young people are effectively paid for by the tax deduction. Over the last few decades, the industry has changed some of their tactics, but their goal remains the same. With the demise of television advertisements--I must point out at this time that there are some commentators who suggest that the reason the industry was so cooperative in ending television advertising at that time, the late 1960s, was because there were good antismoking commercials on TV that began to have an effect--that people, when confronted with a good countercampaign, begin to think twice. But, nevertheless, the industry is off the air. But what they have done is shift their approach. You can see from this chart, which depicts various categories of advertising, that biggest jump--from 1985 to 1995--was in the area of specialty items. These include shirts, caps, sunglasses, key chains, calendars. In 1985, the industry spent $211 million. By 1995, they were spending $665 million. Again, these are the types of promotional items that are most appealing to young people. The industry has increased their expenditures on public entertainment. Public entertainment includes the sporting events and other public events, which mean exposure to a wide audience, but is significantly comprised of children. Spending has declined in newspaper and magazine advertising. Once again, this is a changing strategy, but a very consistent goal; to fill the ranks of dying smokers each year with a new generation of Americans. Now, let us put this in perspective. The industry is spending $4.9 billion on advertising. That is double the Federal Government appropriations for the National Cancer Institute and four times the appropriation for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In 1995, the tobacco industry spent, as I said, $4.9 billion on advertising, 40 times the amount we are spending on lung cancer research. There are issues before us with respect to the Constitution, the first amendment. Indeed, I think my legislation is within our province. Clearly, it does not run afoul of the first amendment, which none of us in this Chamber would like to do. I believe the restrictions in Senator Conrad's bill would stand constitutional muster. It is clear these provisions, removing the deduction, stand strongly in support of the first amendment. Mr. President, we have to act, and we have to act promptly. There are literally thousands of children each day who are becoming addicted to tobacco. They will die prematurely. We can save many of them if we act. The industry has demonstrated through many, many years that they are dedicated to the bottom line and are indifferent to the health of the American children. It is our responsibility to protect the children of this country. We should have no illusion. They will only stop targeting children when it costs them money. We should ensure, at a minimum, that we do not subsidize their appeal to children, we do not support their efforts to target children, and that we will disallow their deduction if they do not change their practices and begin to advertise responsibly to the adults of this country and not the children of this country. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to formally introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to deny tobacco companies any tax deduction for their advertising and promotional expenses when those ads are aimed at America's most impressionable group, children. This bill addresses a key element in our ongoing public debate on tobacco: the industry's ceaseless efforts to market to children. My legislation can stand on its own, or can easily be incorporated into a comprehensive tobacco bill. With or without congressional action on the state attorney generals' tobacco settlement, it is time for Congress to put a stop to the tobacco industry's practice of luring children into untimely disease and death. I am pleased to be joined today in introducing this legislation with Senators Boxer and Chafee, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this effort to protect America's children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to formally introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to deny tobacco companies any tax deduction for their advertising and promotional expenses when those ads are aimed at America's most impressionable group, children. This bill addresses a key element in our ongoing public debate on tobacco: the industry's ceaseless efforts to market to children. My legislation can stand on its own, or can easily be incorporated into a comprehensive tobacco bill. With or without congressional action on the state attorney generals' tobacco settlement, it is time for Congress to put a stop to the tobacco industry's practice of luring children into untimely disease and death. I am pleased to be joined today in introducing this legislation with Senators Boxer and Chafee, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this effort to protect America's children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I concur with the analysis of Chairman D'Amato with respect to this legislation and also commend the Senator from Florida. This is a legislative initiative that puts further precision into the granting of startup contracts. It puts in factors that are critical to the whole consideration of when we should support at the Federal level a local initiative. As the chairman said, one of the major criteria is local support, which is measured most effectively in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the population density and leadership they anticipate in this new startup. All of these are important additions to existing criteria, which the Senator retains. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Sara DeCosta of Warwick, RI. As a member of the U.S. Women's Olympic Ice Hockey Team, Sara and her teammates made history this year by winning the first-ever gold medal awarded in women's ice hockey at the 1998 Olympic Winter Games in Nagano, Japan. Sara's efforts were a great part of the drive to bring home the gold. Her world class talent and solid determination helped team USA rise above the best in Women's Ice Hockey. Sara and her teammates proved that years of discipline, hard work, and tough sacrifices can pay off. Their magnificent display of sportsmanship and pride lifted our hearts and hopes. Truly, Sara and the U.S. Women's Olympic Ice Hockey team exemplify the best America has to offer and their success serves as a gleaming reminder of what can be achieved through bold determination and persistence. Mr. President, Sara's victory is not just about hard work and discipline. It proves that if you believe in your own abilities you can succeed, no matter what outdated gender stereotypes would dictate. Sara has served as an example to the state of Rhode Island and the country. Her dedication and enthusiasm will inspire others to look beyond the traditional path and to reach for the stars to bring home their own personal gold medals. I congratulate Sara, the other eight players who are alumnae or students in Rhode Island's schools and the rest of the Women's Hockey Team. We can be proud of this group of young women for their commitment to follow their dreams. Sara DeCosta and her teammates are an inspiration to us all.