Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I ask that I be added to the list of speakers for the evening.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. SPECTER. I don't want to move to a generation older. I would like to move to a generation younger. When my colleague talked about submitting a resolution, he was very artful, as he always is. He said it will be constitutionally wise and politically necessary. Then he moved on to say that he believes the President has a constitutional duty, although an argument could be made on the other side. As usual, the Senator from Delaware anticipated the next line of inquiry as to whether this military action is an act of war. I believe this is a subject which really could use some elaboration and some discussion between not only the Senator from Delaware and myself but others in this not totally filled Chamber. When the Senator from Delaware refers to the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and the second- degree amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, I believe the Senator from Delaware will be interested to know that the majority leader had looked for an approach where a substitute might be offered by the leader of the Democrats and where a substitute might be offered by Senator Lott. It may well be that Senator Lott would be interested and perhaps agreeable--obviously, I cannot speak for Senator Lott --to having the Biden amendment proposed as he has articulated. There might be an agreement by the majority leader, which I would certainly endorse, to have an up-down vote without a two-stage procedure and without having to go to a cloture vote. For the people who are watching on C-SPAN II, a cloture vote means that there would be a vote to try and limit the debate. It requires a supermajority of 60. This would enable us to vote on the resolution, however it is articulated. There are three items on which I would like the response of the Senator from Delaware. Let me name them and then come back to the one. Let me name them in inverse order. Should we have the vote strictly on a resolution without a two-step procedure, as the Senator from Delaware articulates it? Question No. 2: What are the considerations? What is the argument that he doesn't have to come to Congress, that we are not implicating a constitutional requirement for congressional authorization to undertake this military action, if it is an act of war? Let me deal with the most immediate question; that is this business of a cloture vote. I am, frankly, a little surprised to see the necessity to go to a cloture vote, although I do not question anybody who seeks to. I really do question this particular cloture vote. It might be something that is worth discussing, whether it is appropriate to have a filibuster over the issue of the use of force. A matter of this magnitude which involves a Constitutional authority, separation of powers, a provision of the Constitution of which there is none any more important. So let me specify the question for the consideration of the Senator. Is it appropriate for a filibuster to be staged to bar the Senate from voting on whether to authorize or deny the President authority to use force?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, first, I can confirm the contentious meeting. In fact, I can confirm that the Senator from Delaware was present in many contentious meetings, not only with President Bush but others. Those were the meetings where some light was shed. I was interested to note the generational difference by the Senator from Delaware, and he indeed associated himself with the Vietnam war. I would choose to associate myself with the Persian Gulf war.

Mr. SPECTER. It is a compliment. I suggested to the President that he be very direct on the problems and the risks, because if there is to be public understanding, the public ought to be informed about the risks. When the Senator from Delaware spoke, and he has repeated it today so it is not something I am telling out of a quasi-private meeting, he used the word ``probably,'' as opposed to the word ``possibly.'' The Senator and others including myself all emphasized the point that there had to be public awareness as to what was going on in Kosovo. The President has made a start. He led off his news conference with the topic, but he did not give a 30-minute speech in detail. That would be a short speech considering the complexity of this subject. This which raises the question as to what is the level of public understanding, which I think is a very important factor in letting me go to a second subject, if I may. The first part of this is hypothetical. If the President knew he would get an affirmative vote in a resolution from Congress on the use of force in Kosovo would he be wise to seek it? Would it strengthen his hand to have an affirmative vote? I, as the Senator from Delaware, do not like to deal with hypotheticals, but we have to on some occasions. So I ask my colleague about his view as to whether the President would welcome an affirmative vote if he knew he would get one, and would his hand be strengthened if he had congressional authorization before he took military action.

Mr. SPECTER. Which is one of the grave difficulties of having a resolution which prohibits Presidential action, but tries to accommodate to some special circumstance. In the articulation of the circumstances, it renders it absolutely meaningless and gives such latitude to the President, which may well be more latitude than he has under the Constitution. I come back for purposes of a question, which I am about to ask, what the Senator from Delaware has had to say about the many occasions where force has been used, where acts of war have been undertaken. I agree totally that simply a recitation of those occasions does not establish a constitutional norm. One of the grave difficulties is that as the Congress sits silent, the Senate sits silent again and again and again. There has been such a total erosion of the constitutional requirement that the Congress has the authority to declare war. The situation as to emergency, which is used so frequently to justify Presidential action, is totally absent here. This may be the clearest kind of case which we have seen where there has been time for a Congress to deliberate, to consider, and to act. I believe that the missile strikes in December of 1998 against Iraq should have required prior congressional authorization. But an argument can be made, tenuous as it is, that we are still operating under the resolution for the use of force from January of 1991. I think it is wrong, but one can make that argument. When you talk about Libya, you may talk about the element of surprise, injecting some element of emergency. I do not want to get involved as to whether that is justifiable or not. But if you take the present circumstance, where the situation of Kosovo has been building up for days, weeks, and months, and where there has been ample opportunity for the issue to be considered by the Congress and where the President has not taken the case to the American people, and where debate in the Senate only draws three Senators--we are honored the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has joined us. I join what the Senator from Delaware has had to say about the debate we had on the War Powers Act in 1983, where I asked then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Percy, a series of questions as to whether Korea was an act of war, or Vietnam was an act of war, developing at that time a requirement for constitutional authorization. We then had a very spirited debate with the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Delaware, the then-Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, and many others on January 10 and 11 in 1991. That is the kind of consideration we ought to have now. I believe it is possible we can articulate a resolution like the resolution of the distinguished Senator from Delaware so you do not have the prohibition and all these exceptions clauses where we do not know what we are talking about. If you have a resolution denying the use of funds and then exceptions, it is totally unintelligible. If we have to delay the budget resolution, this matter is of sufficient importance that we can do the budget resolution next week. We might impede upon the recess. We can get that done and have the kind of debate we need. I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding and for the erudition which he has brought to this subject, as he teaches constitutional law and talks about this substantive matter to acquaint the American people as to what the constitutional law requires. I yield back to him so he can go on with his speech. I want to hear the substance as to why he thinks we ought to be undertaking these military strikes as a matter of national security, as a matter of national policy, as a matter of vital national interest, especially in the context where he says that the American people are not really informed, they are not really in a position to be supportive of this matter at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. When the Senator goes over the sections, they are so comprehensive as to make any prohibition meaningless.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield on this point.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator would yield for a follow-up question, when the Senator from Delaware spoke at the meeting last Friday, he referred to the issue of the likelihood of casualties. When I had an opportunity to speak, I did, too. We both made the same point, although you made yours with more emphasis, which is not uncharacteristic. I suggested to the President----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I broach this subject gingerly, as we have shared many hours together on the train ride from Washington to Wilmington, where he departs. He should go to Philadelphia, but he gets off at Wilmington. I sent the Senator a note, as he was in the middle of his discourse and I would not want to interrupt him if he chose to proceed with the line he had. However, there are a number of subjects that I think would be useful to discuss with the distinguished Senator from Delaware because he and I have discussed foreign policy, as well as many other subjects, on many occasions. We have agreed on many subjects--not always--and on many of our judgments. The first subject that is on my mind is on the use of force in Kosovo. Specifically, the level of public understanding and support which is present at the moment. Senator Biden and I, along with 29 others, attended a meeting in the Oval Office on Friday to discuss the situation in Kosovo. The general concern uniformly present, was the level of public understanding of this issue and the level of public support, and the question of how much public support we needed in order to undertake these airstrikes. That would be the first subject on which I would be very interested in the views of the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. SPECTER. It may be we can move ahead and structure a freestanding resolution which has been discussed, maybe two resolutions, one by Senator Daschle on behalf of the Democrats, one by Senator Lott on behalf of the Republicans, and vote. But let me come to the question that I think is by far the most important, which the Senator from Delaware had broached. That is the question about whether there is a constitutional requirement for congressional authorization. As I look at the proposed military action, what has been described constitutes an act of war. The Constitution gives the President extensive authority, as Commander in Chief, but gives the Congress the sole authority to involve the United States of America in war--to have a declaration of war. That constitutional authority by Congress has been very, very significantly eroded. Korea is perhaps the best example. I had occasion recently to pick up Margaret Truman's biography on President Truman and, seeing at least her version as to what President Truman faced in 1950, I wondered if the positions I have taken have been correct. But I stand by them, that there ought not to be the use of force without congressional authorization. The use of force was authorized prior to the Gulf war in a historic debate which occurred on this floor back on January 10, 11 and 12 of 1991. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Delaware when he says the Members of Congress like to avoid votes on these issues. We faced an imminent airstrike last February in Iraq, February of 1998, and we chose not to decide the issue. At that time airstrikes were not made. In December of 1998, the Congress had ample opportunity to decide the question about airstrikes which did occur in mid-December over Iraq. Again, the Congress decided not to take up the issue. When we took up the issue of use of force in 1991, it came in a very unusual procedure, where the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, raised a procedural point the day we swore in Senators who were elected or reelected in November of 1990, so we took up the question. So my view--and I have expressed it a number of times on this subject--is that however the matter is resolved, it ought to be resolved by the Congress. This subject has not really had the appropriate kind of discussion and debate. So, I now ask the question in a specific form to the Senator from Delaware. What are the arguments in favor of the President's position not to require congressional authority? Does the Senator from Delaware agree with the proposition that I have articulated, that the Constitution does require Congressional authority before military force is used in bombing in Kosovo?

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator has gone through a discussion as to what Senator Lott may have intended by the cloture motion, by the amendments pending, and by--as the Senator from Delaware characterizes it--our arcane procedure.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we face a matter of utmost seriousness as events are evolving with respect to Kosovo and the massing of a large amount of Serbian troops about to strike imminently, according to all reports. Ethnic cleansing is already being undertaken in the form of brutal attacks on people in Kosovo. Large numbers of people--according to media reports; and since confirmed--were lined up, asked to kneel, pistols placed behind their heads, and executed in cold-blooded murder. This follows a pattern of ethnic cleansing which has gone on for many years in Bosnia. The United States is considering, in conjunction with NATO forces, air attacks. In the context of what is likely to go on in Kosovo, these are in fact, acts of war which call for authorization by the Congress of the United States under the U.S. Constitution. We have seen in modern times this constitutional mandate violated by unilateral action by the President, arguably under his authority as Commander in Chief. It is true that he has substantial authority as Commander in Chief to act in times of emergency, but when Congress has an opportunity to deliberate and to consider the issue, it is the congressional authority and congressional responsibility to act if the United States is to be engaged in war. Presidents are traditionally reluctant--unwilling really--to come to the Congress to ask for authorization because they do not want to make any concessions about what they consider to be their unilateral authority as Commander in Chief. That, in fact, was the tact taken by President Bush when he declined to come to Congress to ask for a resolution authorizing the use of force in 1991. However, debate was undertaken. We had historic debates on this floor on January 10, 11, and 12. Finally, a resolution was passed in the House and passed in the Senate. The resolution which passed here was by a very narrow margin of 52-47. But the hand of the President was strengthened immeasurably by the congressional action. We have seen the brutal historical fact of life that a war cannot be maintained--such as the Vietnam war--without public and congressional support. There was a Senate briefing yesterday by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlining a number of the issues relating to possible military action in Kosovo. This morning, President Clinton met with a large group of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives in a session which lasted approximately 2 hours, going over a great many of these issues. I believe it is fair to say that although there has been some dissent, most of those in attendance stated that they believe that acting against Serbia, a sovereign nation, in the context of this case does constitute an act of war and should require congressional authorization. I commend our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, for taking steps today after that meeting occurred to try to bring this issue to a vote. There is an amendment pending on the supplemental appropriations bill stating that there should not be airstrikes taken by the administration without prior congressional authority. I believe this is a very sound proposition. In my view, it is very important that there be a national debate, and that there be an understanding by the American people of precisely what is involved if we undertake airstrikes in Kosovo. This is not a matter where the airstrikes can be limited to missile strikes which do not put Americans in harm's way. If there are airstrikes with aircraft, considering all of the factors at play here, there is a very, very serious risk of casualties. That is something which none of us takes lightly. Certainly the American people are very reluctant, as the American people should be, to see those kinds of risks undertaken; and the Congress is very reluctant--really, unwilling--to take those risks unless there is a clear statement of what our national interests are. And if they warrant that kind of military action. The Constitution gives the sole authority to involve the U.S. Military in war to the Congress of the United States. One of the problems with this issue is that too often when confronted, there is a tendency on the part of the Congress--candidly--to duck. In February of 1998 when missile strikes were imminent against Iraq, they never came to pass. The Congress had an opportunity to debate and act on the issue and decided not to act. Last fall, and again this past December, we had missile strikes against Iraq and, again, the Congress of the United States had an opportunity and authority to face up to that issue and decided not to act. Now, with the imminence of military action in Kosovo, in my view, it is imperative that this issue be debated by the Senate. It has been debated by the House of Representatives and they had a narrow, but favorable vote--a close vote--supporting peacekeepers, conditioned on a peace agreement being entered into. The agreement has not since happened, so that resolution is really irrelevant at this point. But it is my hope that when the President addresses the Nation this afternoon at 4 o'clock, as he is scheduled to do, that will trigger a very extensive national debate. That is not the kind of debate that is going to be triggered by one Senator in an empty Senate Chamber speaking on C-SPAN 2, but the American people need to know what is involved. They need to know that there are risks involved, and there has to be the formulation of a national judgment to undertake this risk if we are, in fact, to move forward. I have found in my contacts with people from my State of Pennsylvania that the people do not yet understand Bosnia, do not understand why we are there. We have the bitter experience of Somalia, when we saw the television picture of American soldiers being dragged through the streets, and we beat a hasty retreat. We ought not to undertake military action in Kosovo unless we are prepared for the eventualities. I think it is a very useful matter to have the issue formulated in the Senate, to have debate on Monday and Tuesday, to follow up on the President's presentation, and to make a determination as to what our national policy should be. While bearing in mind that it is the role of the Congress to authorize the use of force if, in fact, it is to be undertaken. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has been tied up in committee. He has requested 1 minute. I am anxious to see how the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will handle the single minute. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding with this amendment, I have been asked to make this statement on behalf of the majority leader. This morning, the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. Under the order, there will be 90 additional minutes for debate on the pending Specter amendment, No. 77. All Senators are, therefore, notified that the first vote this morning will be at approximately 11 a.m., if all debate is used. Following that vote, additional amendments are expected, and Senators should anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session. Any Senators intending to offer amendments to this legislation are encouraged to notify the managers so that they can be scheduled for consideration. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Amendment No. 77

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I found on my desk this morning a ``Dear Colleague'' letter entitled, ``Oppose the Specter-Harkin Amendment That Seizes $123 Billion in State Funds.'' Instead of outlining the provisions of the Specter-Harkin amendment, I would just refer my colleagues to this ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by the opponents, and tell them that the amendment is exactly contrary to what is in this ``Dear Colleague'' letter, so that by reading the letter, they can just conclude the opposite, and they will have a statement of what the pending amendment is. Before dealing in detail with the ``Dear Colleague'' letter, or this misstatement, permit me to outline in very general terms that the pending amendment has been offered by the chairmen and ranking members of the two Senate committees which are charged with authorization of appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the authorizing committee, and Senator Kennedy, the ranking member, are cosponsors of the amendment which has been offered by Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility for appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the subcommittee which I have the honor to Chair. We must survey--the four of us in our positions as chairmen and ranking members--the health needs of America in a very, very constrained budget. We have seen the budget resolution, which has come out of Budget Committee, and the limitations on discretionary funding. Our subcommittee has the responsibility for funding not only the Department of Health and Human Services, but also the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, where so many vital programs for worker safety are involved. So our responsibility is a very heavy one. As we have observed, the settlement with the States is in excess of some $200 billion over a 25- year period. The thought immediately came to mind that these funds, which have been obtained from settlements on tobacco issues, could be used and should be used in very large part, frankly, if not entirely, for health purposes. In the Appropriations Committee meeting, an amendment was offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, to have the Federal Government relinquish all claims to these funds, and have these funds paid entirely to the State governments. I can understand the popularity of this kind of an amendment. It is backed by all 50 Governors; it would be shocking if it weren't. It is backed by all 50 State legislatures; it would be shocking if it weren't. It is backed by all State attorneys general; again, it would be shocking if it were not. I support the proposition that there ought to be minimal strings, minimal requirements mandated by the Federal Government, especially in the context where we mandate requirements and do not fund them. Last week, we passed the Ed-Flex bill to give flexibility to the States. But I submit to you that it is fundamentally different to say that where there are Federal appropriations for a specific purpose, there ought to be latitude for State governments and local governments to figure out how to spend those funds, contrasted with saying that all of $200 billion-plus ought to go to the States to spend as they choose, when some States have already made an announcement that they intend to use these funds, at least in part, for highway construction or for debt retirement. When a settlement is reached on matters of this sort by State governments and officials representing the States, those funds realistically are impressed with the trust, where the claims are brought because of damages due to public health, due to tobacco. There is a specific purpose that the lawsuits were started, and that was to redress public claims on these important areas. Even without a Federal direction limiting, in some way, or articulating a portion of these funds to go for medical purposes, it is my legal judgment that those funds are impressed with the trust. I would not be surprised to see that, if the State governments undertake spending on items far afield, they may face a class action or taxpayer suits or people who have been injured by tobacco seeking to impress that trust. We had a hearing in the appropriations subcommittee this Monday. Our subcommittee took up the issue on an emergency basis to try to see if we could find some area for resolution. We heard testimony from the Governor of Kentucky and the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, Texas, and Iowa. Those four witnesses all emphasized the desirability of having some resolution of this issue so that they could make plans for their budgets. I agree with that proposition. A very forceful letter was filed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, strenuously objecting to having the money paid over to the States, because the Federal law gives her the authority to make an allocation as to how much of those funds should be deducted from the Federal obligation to the States on Medicaid. The States have the obligation under Federal law to sue to collect on claims that Medicaid has. And the States have the authority--and exercise the authority--to release the tobacco companies from liability to the Federal Government. That is provided for under existing Federal law. So for those who say that the Federal Government can bring lawsuits, it simply is not so, because those claims have all been released. It may be, Mr. President, that we are in an area where largely, if not entirely, the States will recognize the duty to use these settlement proceeds for tobacco-related purposes. The distinguished attorney general of Pennsylvania, Mike Fisher, who testified on Monday, outlined a program for the use by Pennsylvania of $11.3 billion. I believe that, in conjunction with our distinguished Governor Tom Ridge, there will be a program to use these funds for tobacco-related purposes. But it is not sufficient to say that States may recognize this obligation, because States may not recognize the obligation, as we have already seen from preliminary indications of spending these funds on unrelated purposes--debt reduction and highway construction. In a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that has been circulated today, which I referred to earlier, the statement is made: The Specter-Harkin amendment will require every Governor-- each year--for the next 25 years to submit a plan to Washington asking for permission on how to spend fifty percent of the State's own money. That is flatly wrong. It is true that there is a 20-percent requirement for smoking cessation education to try to dissuade youngsters from smoking and a 30-percent requirement on medical plans. But there is no need for Governors to submit a plan to Washington asking for permission on how to spend that money, that 50 percent. That is a matter where the Governors only have to tell the Department of Health and Human Services how the money was spent after in fact it is spent. They don't have to submit a plan, and they don't have to ask for prior authorization. The ``Dear Colleague'' letter further says: This is a classic ``Washington Knows Best'' policy, an unprecedented Federal power grab. In a sense, it is complimentary to call it an ``unprecedented Federal power grab.'' Considering all the Federal power grabs that have been recorded historically, this is really a gentle nudge to the States, saying that here we have funds realized from a tobacco settlement with a statement of policy that 50 percent ought to be used for a specific purpose. On the 50 percent, it is actually on the low side. The facts show that some 50 percent of the funds involved here come from Medicaid, so that the percentage could have been substantially higher. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that we will have a statement of congressional policy on this vote today which will, in a very gentle way, without regulations, without the requirement of submitting the plan to Washington, simply say to the Governors that at least 50 percent ought to be used for tobacco-related purposes, such as education to discourage children from smoking, where we see a very high rate of juvenile smoking and overwhelming statistics of deaths resulting from juvenile smoking--where we have a reasonable amount allocated for that educational purpose, and a reasonable amount--some 30 percent--allocated not only for public health measures but also for aiding smoking cessation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting my amendment from the American Lung Association dated March 17, 1999, and a letter of support from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids dated March 18, 1999, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time has been consumed?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator. Does the Senator from Hawaii, who was on the floor first, seek recognition on this issue?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in that case, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island on this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, in response to the comments by the distinguished majority leader on the obligation under this amendment to submit a plan, it is simply not so; States do not have to submit the plan to the Federal Government. All the States have to do is submit a ``report'' which shows how the funds ``have been spent.'' So there is no obligation to submit a plan. When the distinguished majority leader talks about the temerity of the Federal Government, there is enough temerity on all sides to go around. But that is not the issue here. The States brought the lawsuits, because that is what the law requires, and the States have an obligation to abide by the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who makes the allocation. Here we have litigation which has brought a settlement on tobacco- related causes. This is a modest approach on spending, indicating broad standards for State compliance, and only 50 percent related to tobacco. If no legislation were enacted on specifics, these funds would certainly be impressed with the trust. When the majority leader talks about spending the funds for juvenile detention, that is very important. But that is simply not related to tobacco. When there is talk about using it for debt reduction of the States, that is very important. But it is not related to tobacco causes. These are funds produced from a tobacco settlement, and if the States do not use these funds in this way, my legal judgment is that these funds are impressed with a trust enforceable by any citizen of the State. But this is an accommodation which will allow a reasonable amount of the moneys to be used for tobacco-related purposes. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in conclusion--the most popular words of any speech--this proposal is a very modest approach on a multibillion- dollar--$200 billion--settlement that has been brought by the chairmen and ranking members of the committees in the Senate charged with allocating funds for Health and Human Services. There is no plan which has to be submitted by the Governors. That is repeated again and again. All the Governors have to do is say how they will spend the money. I agree with the principle of leaving maximum flexibility to the States when we make allocations. But this is for a generalized purpose, and that is all we are asking for here. In light of the very substantial budgetary shortfalls, this money ought to be used, at least in part, 50 percent for the purposes of solving the problems caused by tobacco. I yield the remainder of my time.