MAKE THOSE COMMITMENTS ARE ELIGIBLE. ONLY THOSE COMPANIES THAT
           MAKES THOSE COMMITMENTS WILL HAVE STATE SUITS SETTLED. ALL
           OTHER COMPANIES -- ANY COMPANY THAT SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S
           TOO HIGH A PRICE. YOU ARE ASKING ME TO LIMIT MY ADVERTISING WAY
           BEYOND WHAT F.D.A. IS GOING TO TELL ME. YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT
           I HAVE GOT TO ACCEPT EVERY PROVISION IN THIS LEGISLATION. YOU
           ARE TELLING ME I GOT TO PAY FORTH $10 BILLION, AND?
           I DON'T DO THAT I SAY I STILL GOT TO FACE ALL THOSE COURT SUITS

           IN THE STATES. WELL COMPANIES THAT RENEWS TO SIGN THE
           PROVISIONS UNDER THIS BILL GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. SO A TOBACCO
           COMPANY IS FACED WITH THE PROSPECT OF COMING UNDER AN $8
           BILLION LIABILITY CAP, OR NOTHING UNDER THIS LEGISLATION. THEY
           WILL CONTINUE TO FACE LAWSUITS IN THE STATES IF THEY DON'T SIGN
           ON TO THIS $10 BILLION PACKAGE THAT WE ARE DEMANDING OF THEM
           UNDER THIS LEGISLATION. BUT IT EVEN GETS MORE COMPLICATED FOR

           TOBACCO COMPANIES. WE ARE NOT GIVING ANYTHING AWAY BY PUTTING
           AN $8 BILLION CAP. WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING. WE ARE GETTING
           SOMETHING WE CAN'T GET THROUGH OUR OWN LEGISLATION. WE CAN'T
           LEGISLATE NECESSARILY THE ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS THAT GO INTO
           THE F.D.A. RULE WITHOUT RAISING FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTIONS.
           CONCERNS THAT WE COULD NOT PREVENT THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY FROM
           CHALLENGING OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. THAT'S A PROBLEM. THE
           CAP IS OUR WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT PARTICULAR, VERY SERIOUS

           PROBLEM. LET ME REMIND MY COLLEAGUES WHAT THE TOBACCO COMPANIES
           HAVE TO DO TO COME UNDER THAT $8 BILLION NEARLY CAP BEYOND WHAT
           I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED. OF COURSE I HAVE MENTIONED THE
           ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS. I HAVE MENTIONED THE UPFRONT PAYMENT.
           I MENTIONED THEY AGREE TO THE TO CHALLENGE THE TERSE OF
           LEGISLATE, NOT CHALLENGE THE F.D.A. AUTHORITY, NOT CHALLENGE
           THE LOOK-BACK SUU CHARGES. THEY CAN'T CHALLENGE THE RULINGS
           WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THEY ARE MEETING THIS DOWNWARD PRESSURE

           WE WILL BE PUTTING ON THEM ON YOUTH AND TEENAGE SMOKING. THEY
           CAN'T CHALLENGE THOSE LOOK-BACK SUR THERE IS CHARGES. THEY
           CAN'T CHALLENGE PAYMENTS. IF THEY KHA KHENG THAT ITS OVER. THEY
           ARE BACK WHERE THEY STARTED. THEY FALL OUTSIDE THE CAP AND THEY
           ARE SUBJECT TO EVERY SINGLE QUESTION RELATED TO LAWSUITS AND
           LIABILITY THAT THEY WERE FACING RIGHT NOW. LET ME ALSO REMIND
           MY COLLEAGUES THAT THE TOBACCO COMPANIES WILL LOSE THE
           PROTECTION OF THE CAP IF THEY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH ANY BUN OF

           THE TERMS. NOT ALL OF THEM. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS MISS ON ONE
           OF THEM. SO MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET ANY TOUGHER
           THAN THAT. AND THEN EVEN IF THE COMPANIES COMPLY WITH ALL OF
           THOSE PROVISIONS, THEY COULD LOSE THE CAP FOR OTHER REASONS. IF
           THEY MISS THE YOUTH SMOKING TARGETS BY 20% OR MORE, IF THEY ARE
           CAUGHT SMUGGLING OR AIDING OR ABETTING SMUGGLING, IF THEY FAIL
           TO MAKE ANNUAL PAYMENTS WITHIN THE YEAR THAT IT IS OWED, ALL OF

           THOSE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ARE LOCKED IN WITH THIS BILL. SO I
           DON'T KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT'S ABOUT AS
           TOUGH AS IT GETS. FIRST OF ALL, THEY HAVE GOT MORE RESTRICTIONS
           THAN THEY HAVE EVER HAD IN ANY OTHER SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY
           ARE ARE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE MONEY. THEY ARE SUBJECT TO
           DISCIPLINE EACH AND EVERY YEAR WITH REGARD TO AN ARRAY OF VERY
           TIGHT PROVISIONS, AND WHAT THEY GET IN RETURN IS AN $8 BILLION

           CAP ON LIABILITY. SO MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL OPPOSE THE GREGG
           AMENDMENT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE MANAGERS' AMENDMENT A
           PLOCHSE THE ISSUE IN THE RIGHT WAY. IT GIVES PROTECTION ONLY TO
           THOSE TOBACCO COMPANIES THAT GO FURTHER THAN WE CAN LEGISLATE.
           THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED TO LIMIT ADVERTISING IN A WAY THAT WE
           CAN'T LEGISLATE IN THIS BILL. THE OTHER TOBACCO COMPANIES,
           THOSE THAT DON'T SIGN UP WILL HAVE NO CAP, AND WILL CONTINUE TO
           FIGHT IT OUT IN THE COURTS IN ALL THE STATES FOR WHICH THEY

           HAVE BEING CONTESTED. I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO DO ALL WE CAN TO
           REDUCE TEEN SMOKING. THE ADDITIONAL ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS
           AND THE COMMITMENT MADE BY TOBACCO COMPANIES NOT TO CHALLENGE
           THE LAW WILL INCREASE OUR LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. NOT DECREASE
           IT, INCREASE IT. SO MR. PRESIDENT, FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, AS
           WELL INTENDED AS THIS AMENDMENT IS, I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL
           THINK VERY CAREFULLY, VERY CON OCEAN SHUSLY ABOUT HOW --
           CONSCIENTIOUSLY ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS SUBJECT BEFORE THE

           SENATE IS AND WE WILL DO ALL WE CAN TO PROTECT IT, STAY TOUGH
           ON THESE COMPANIES, CAUSE THEM TO DO WHAT WE KNOW THEY MUST DO
           TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND TO COMPLY WITH THE INTENT AND SPIRIT
           OF OUR OBJECTIVES IN THIS LAW. I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR:
           MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND THE REGULAR ORDER IS I
           AM RECOGNIZED, THEN SENATOR MCCAIN IS RECOGNIZED FOR A TABLING
           MOTION?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT.
           

           MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT, A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE SPOKEN TODAY, AND
           I RESERVED COMMENTING ON EACH SPEECH UNTIL THIS TIME, AND I
           RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT TO GET ON WITH A VOTE AND I DON'T WANT
           TO DELAY THAT PROCESS, BUT I DO BELIEVE A FEW POINTS NEED TO BE
           MADE TO CLARIFY THE GROUND, TO BLOW THE SMOKE AWAY, IF I MAY
           USE THAT MET FOR, REGARDING THE ISSUE. LET'S BEGIN WITH THIS
           QUESTION OF IMMUNITY, AND WHETHER OR NOT IMMUNITY IS GRANTED IN

           THIS BILL. IMMUNITY IN THIS BILL HAS BECOME A TERM OF ART, LIKE
           SO MANY OF THE TERMS THAT WE USE HERE IN THE SENATE, IT MAY NOT
           BE THE MOST PRECISE TERM, BUT IT IS THE TERM THAT ACCURATELY
           FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT DEFINES THE EVENT HERE. THE FACT IS
           THAT UNDER THIS BILL THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IS GOING TO BE GIVEN
           A SPECIAL PREFERENTIAL POSITION IN THE ORDER OF AMERICAN

           COMMERCE. A POSITION WHICH NO OTHER INDUSTRY WILL HAVE. A
           POSITION WHICH IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE OF THE TRADITIONAL MANNER IN
           WHICH WE HAVE MANAGED OUR MARKETPLACE UNDER OUR CAPITALIST
           SYSTEM. THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS BILL ON THE ABILITY OF
           INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED BY THE TOBACCO COMPANY ARE
           CONSIDERABLE. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT, AND THEY WELL IMPACT

           PEOPLE. NOW PURE LOGIC TELLS YOU THIS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF THE
           ARGUMENT IS BEING MADE THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET THE
           TOBACCO COMPANY TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE IS IF YOU GIVE THEM
           THESE PROTECTIONS, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING PRETTY DARN
           SUBSTANTIVE TO THESE PROTECTIONS. SO VERY OBVIOUSLY THE
           LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE BEING PLACED ON THE CAPACITY OF THE
           AMERICAN CONSUMER TO RECOVER FOR THE DAMAGE THAT HAS BEEN
           CAUSED TO HIM OR HER BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES ARE SIGNIFICANT

           IF THIS BILL PASSES PASSES. LET ME LIST A FEW OF THEM. THERE
           WILL BE LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY ON MUNICIPAL
           ACTIVE DAMAGES, BECAUSE THERE IS A CAP. THERE WILL BE
           LIMITATIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FOR
           COMPENSATION, DAMAGES, BECAUSE THERE IS A CAP. THERE WILL BE
           PREEMPTION OF ACTIONS BY STATES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND COUNTIES,
           FOR FUTURE CLAIMS. THERE WILL BE IMMUNITY FOR WHOLESALE LETTERS

           RETAILERS INSURE REMEMBERS AND INGREDIENT SUPPLIERS FOR PAST
           AND FUTURE CLAIMS. THERE WILL BE, MOST IMPORTANTLY, A STRUCTURE
           SET UP WHERE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES WILL PICK WHO IS GOING TO BE
           THE WINNER AND WHO IS GOING TO BE THE LOSER ON THE ISSUE OF
           LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM. WHAT AN IRONIC SITUATION. AS I
           HAVE SAID BEFORE OTHIS FLOOR, THE WAY THIS CAP WORKS, IT IS THE
           FIRST PERSON TO THE COURTHOUSE TO GET A SETTLEMENT WHO GETS THE

           MONEY. AND THE TOBACCO COMPANIES SAY THEY ARE THE ONES BEING
           SUED CAN PICK WHO WINS. IF THEY ARE SUED BY THREE DIFFERENT
           GROUPS, A GROUP OF SCHOOL TEACHERS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, A GROUP
           OF KID FROM PENNSYLVANIA, A GROUP OF FRIENDS FROM OHIO AND
           ANOTHER GROUP OF FRIENDS FROM ILLINOIS, THEY CAN SETTLE WITH
           THE FRIENDS OF OHIO AND FRIENDS FROM ILLINOIS AND IF THE CAP IS
           USED UP, THE SCHOOL TEACHERS AND THE KIDS ARE OUT OF IT. THEY
           ARE OUT OF IT FOR THAT YEAR AND THEY MAY BE OUT OF IT FOREVER

           FENDING UPON HOW MUCH OF THE CAP IS USED UP IN THE NEXT YEAR,
           TOO. SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INJURED, WHO HAVE BROUGHT THE
           LAWSUIT, FIND THEMSELVES IN THE IMPOSSIBLE POSITION OR THE
           IRONIC POSITION AT THE MINIMUM, OF HAVING TO GO TO THE TOBACCO
           COMPANIES ON BENDED KNEES AND SAY PLEASE SETTLE WITH ME FIRST,
           SO THAT I CAN GET INTO THE FUND BEFORE SOMEBODY ELSE, WHICH
           MEANS THAT YOU INEVITABLY CREATE NOT AN ADVERSARIAL
           RELATIONSHIP, BUT A SUPPLY CAN'T RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE WHO
           ARE SEE -- SUPPLICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE SUING

           AND THOSE BEING SUED WHICH IS TO THE IN THE TRADITION OF THE
           AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE SYSTEM TO SAY THE LEAST. EQUALLY
           IMPORTANT, THE CONCEPT THAT AN INDUSTRY WILL HAVE PROTECTION
           FROM LAWSUITS IN THE MARKETPLACE IS AN AT THIS THET CALL TO THE
           AMERICAN CONCEPT OF A FREE MARKET. THE PROTECTION THAT
           CONSUMERS HAVE TODAY, NO MATTER WHAT PRODUCT THEY BUY, NO
           MATTER WHAT PRODUCT THEY BUY IS THAT THEY CAN GO INTO A
           COURTROOM IF THEY ARE HARMED BY THAT PRODUCT, AND GET REDRESS.

           THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER WAYS THEY CAN GET REDRESS, TOO. BUT
           THE PRIMARY REDRESS IS THAT THEY CAN GO INTO THAT COURTROOM --
           ONE. PRIMARY REDRESSES -- THEY CAN GO INTO THE COURTROOM IF
           PHYSICALLY DAMAGED, OR IF SOMEONE IN THEIR FAMILY HAS BEEN
           KILLED, AND THEY CAN GET A RECONSIDER ROY IF THEY CAN MAKE
           THEIR CASE. THAT'S THE CALLED THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM. IT IS
           CALLED THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM. WELL, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, THAT
           DOESN'T WORK.
           

           MR. KERRY: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION.
           

           MR. GREGG: NO, I AM GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I KNOW THE
           SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS HAS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. I AM
           NOT GOING TO GET BACK INTO THIS AGAIN. I AM GOING TO MAKE MAY
           I. MY STATEMENT. I MAINTAINED A FAIR AMOUNT OF RESERVATION HERE
           SO I DIDN'T EXTEND THIS DEBATE FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD. I WOULD
           LIKE TO GET US TOO A VOTE.
           

           MR. KERRY: FAIR ENOUGH. MIGHT I ASK IF THE SENATOR WOULD GIVE
           ME SOME IDEA OF THE LENGTH OF TIME HE EXPECT TO SPEAK.
           

           MR. GREGG: I EXPECT TO SPEAK FOR ANOTHER TEN MINUTES.
           

           MR. KERRY: I THANK THE SENATOR.
           

           MR. GREGG: SO THE MARKETPLACE IS BEING FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED
           FOR BUN INDUSTRY. FOR ONE INDUSTRY ALONE. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.
           AND THAT, IN MY OPINION IS OBVIOUSLY A MISTAKE. NOW WHY IS THIS BEING DONE?
           THE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO WHY IT IS BEING DONE WERE MADE BY A
           NUMBER OF SENATORS AND HI IT IS ACCURATE AS TO THEIR THEORY
           ABOUT WHY IT IS BEING DONE, IT IS BEING DONE TO QUOTE THE
           SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, BECAUSE THEY HOPE TO BRING THE

           TOBACCO COMPANIES BACK TO THE TABLE BY PUTTING IN THIS
           SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT, WHICH IS PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY.
           IMMUNITY. OR A FORM OF IMMUNITY, AT THE MINIMUM. IT WAS
           INTERESTING THAT THE SENATOR FROM UTAH, WHO IS VERY FAMILIAR
           WITH THIS ISSUE, SAID THAT EVEN THE CAPS AS IT IS PRESENTLY
           STRUCTURED AREN'T STRONG ENOUGH TO BRING -- THEY AREN'T ENOUGH
           PROTECTION TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRIES TO BRING THEM BACK TO THE
           TABLE. THEY DON'T DO ENOUGH, DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH. THAT'S AN
           INTERESTING COMMENT. BECAUSE WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE

           TOBACCO COMPANIES ARE NOT AT THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. IN FACT, WE
           KNOW FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF ONE OF THE TOBACCO
           COMPANIES THAT THEY HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THE TABLE, AND TO
           QUOTE HIM, "THERE IS NO PROCESS WHICH IS EVEN REMOTELY LIKELY
           TO LEAD TO AN ACCEPTABLE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION THIS YEAR." SO
           THEY ARE NOT PLANNING TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE. AND YET HERE
           WE HAVE THIS DEAL WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AS I MENTIONED EARLIER,
           THE DEAL WITH THE DEVIL, THE PRODUCERS OF THIS PRODUCT WHICH

           KILLS PEOPLE AND ADDICTS PEOPLE, AND THE DEVIL WALKED AWAY FROM
           THE TABLE, AND NOW WE HAVE THE UNSEEMLY SITUATION OF THE UNITED
           STATES CONGRESS CHASING AFTER THE DEVIL SAYING PLEASE, TAKE MY
           PLAN, PLEASE TAKE IT, TAKE IT, PLEASE, PLEASE TAKE THIS.
           PROTECTION THAT WE ARE OFFERING YOU. IT REALLY IS UNSEEMLY. IT
           IS INAPPROPRIATE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE
           WHY, IF THEY ARE NO LONGER PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS, WOULD
           WE WANT TO GIVE THEM A PROTECTION WHICH NO OTHER INDUSTRY IN

           THIS COUNTRY HAS TODAY. IT MAKES NO SENSE. ON THE WISH AND A
           PRAYER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE SOMEDAY IN
           THE FUTURE, I TONIGHT THINK SO. I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK IT
           MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING SUCH A
           FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE WAY WE MANAGE OUR MARKETS, SUCH A
           FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE WAY WE MANAGE OUR JURISPRUDENCE
           SYSTEM ON A WISH AND A HOPE AND A PRAYER THAT HAND INDUSTRY
           WHICH HAS SHOWN ITSELF TO BE SO ENDEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, WILL

           FOR SOME REASON SUDDENLY BECOME RESPONSIBLE AND RETURN TO THE
           TABLE. I FIND THAT TO BE A CONCEPT WHICH HOLDS VERY VALIDITY.
           BUT THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE REASON TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT WHICH
           HAS BEEN OFFERED BY MYSELF AND THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT, AND TO
           CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL -- REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE WHICH
           WE ARE OFFERING HERE WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE
{END: 1998/05/21 TIME: 15-30 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}