A BARREL. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE FAIR. I THINK WE ALSO HAVE
           THE RIGHT TO PROPOSE AND PROPOUND SUCH LIMITATIONS TO THOSE WHO
           HAVE COME BEFORE THE CONGRESS ASKING US TO INTERVENE IN WHAT
           PREVIOUSLY WAS LITIGATION OUTSIDE OF THE AMBIT OF E NO TIME AT
           LL. I AM SORRY I HA THIS POINT TO DISCUSS THAT PROPOSAL, BUT IT
           IS BOTH NUANCED IN FAVOR OF THOSE ATTORNEYS WHO REALLY DID THE
           YEOMAN'S WORK IN THIS CONNECTION AND MUCH LESS FAVORABLE TO

           THOSE WHO GOT IN ESSENTIALLY AFTER THE FACT AND WHO WILL BE
           ENGAGED IN SUCH LITIGATION IN THE FUTURE. AND WITH THAT, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I MOVE TO TABLE THE REED AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR YEAS
           AND NAYS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
           THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO TABLE TO

           THE AMENDMENT, 2702 BY THE SENAR FROM RHODE ISLAND. MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON IS
           RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT, I AM INFORMED I THINK LEADERS ON
           BOTH SIDES ARE WILLING TO POSTPONE THIS VOTE FOR ROUGHLY TEN
           MINUTES. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE TAKE PLACE AT 5:10 P.M.?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           HEARING NONE, WITHOUT OBJECTION IT IS SO ORDERED RED LEAD MR.

           PRESIDENT -- MR. REED: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
           

           MR. REED: THE AMENDMENT BEFORE US IS MY AMENDMENT. IT IS FILM
           MANY REASONS WHY THIS IS APPROPRIATE. THE MOST COMPELLING
           REASON IS SIMPLY THE WRECK OF THE TOBACCO -- RECORD OF THE
           TOBACCO INDUSTRY ITSELF. IT IS A RECORD THAT HAS SHOWN OVER
           MANY MANY DECADES A CONSISTENT ATTEMPT TO MARKET TO CHILDREN.
           THERE ARE OBJECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT
           LET ME SUGGEST THAT FIRST, COMMERCIAL SPEECH UNDER THE DOCK
           TRIP OF THE SUPREME COURT, IS NOT AFFORDED THE SAME LEVEL OF
           PROTECTION AS PURE POLITICAL SPEECH. THIS IS CLEARLY A CASE OF
           COMMERCIAL SPEECH. SECOND, THE TEST OF THE LEADING CASE,

           CENTRAL HUDSON, CLEARLY STATES THAT IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
           GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST, IF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ADDRESSES
           DIRECTLY THAT INTEREST, AND IF IT IS DONEY MEANS THAT ARE
           NARROWLY FOCUSED AND NO MORE EXTENSIVE THAN NECESSARY THEN THAN
           IT WOULD PASS THE TEST AND I SUBMIT THIS LEGISLATES DOES THAT.
           THERE CAN BE NO MORE COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST THAN CURBING
           TEENAGE SMOKING. UNDER THE RECORD OF THE F.D.A., THEY HAVE
           DEMONSTRATED THAT IF WE TAKE EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS

           AND PUT THEM IN PLACE, WE COULD ON AN ANNUAL BASIS SAVE 250,000
           CHILDREN FROM AN ADDICTION TO NICOTINE. THAT IS A DIRECT,
           MATERIAL, SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SUBSTANTIAL
           NATIONAL INTEREST AND THIS LEGISLATION. AND FINALLY, THIS
           LEGISLATION IS NARROWLY FOCUSED. I SHOULD ALSO SUBMIT THAT THIS
           LEGISLATION DOES NOT SPRING UP DID HE KNOW VO. WE HAVE A LONG
           RECORD OF TRYING TO CONSTRAIN  ACCESS TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY
           CHILDREN. WE WENT IN THE 1970'S AND 1960 AS AND PUT WARNINGS ON
           CIGARETTES THAT PROVED INEFFECTIVE. IN THE EARLY 1907'S WE

           BANNED TELEVISION ADVERTISING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. THAT IS
           INEFFECTIVE. WE REACHED A CONSENSUS THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE
           JOB DONE, THAT THE WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO, IN ORDER TO
           EFFECTIVELY PREVENT CHILDREN FROM BEING ADDICT TODAY NICOTINE,
           WE HAVE TO HAVE REASONABLE CONTAINS ON ADVERTISING. THIS
           LEGISLATION DOES THAT. I SHOULD POINT OUT MANY STATES IN THE
           UNITED STATES IMPOSE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISING TO
           CHILDREN. FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF UTAH PRECLUDES THE
           PLACEMENT OF BILLBOARD OR OTHER TYPES OF VISIBLE ADVERTISING
           FOR CIGARETTES WITHIN THAT STATE. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN

           MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS, TEXAS, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE LIMITATIONS
           ON HOW CLOSE ONE CAN PLACE A TOBACCO BILLBOARD WITHIN A SCHOOL.
           ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. THEY
           HAVE BEEN TESTED. THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE. WE CAN
           DO IT. AND INDEED WE MUST DO IT. WE HAVE LITERALLY WITHIN OUR
           POWER THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE 250,000 CHILDREN A YEAR FROM THE
           RAFF AJTS OF SMOKING. THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF THE F.D.A. AFTER
           THEIR EXTENSIVE, DETAILED RULE MAKING PROCESS. TO DO THAT, WE

           CAN AND WE MUST INSIST ON THIS TYPE OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY. IT
           WILL PROVIDE A DEVICE THAT WILL LEAD THE COMPANIES I THINK TO
           DO WHAT THEY HAVE YET BEEN ABLE TO DO, AND THAT'S STOP
           MARKETING CIGARETTE PRODUCTS TO CHILDREN. WE SEE IT IN EVERY
           MANNER AND EVERY FORM. I HAVE BEEN, FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS,
           POINTING OUT AN ADVERTISINGMENT, A MAIL SOLICITATION A 16
           YEAR-OLD JUNIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL RECEIVED FROM PROVIDENCE, RHODE
           ISLAND. IT WAS SLICK, SOPHISTICATED. IT WAS BASED UPON A ROCK

           CONCERT HE ATTENDED SELL MONTHS BEFORE. A CONCERT ATTENDED BY
           MANY PEOPLE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. IT WAS NOT COINCIDENTAL.
           DELIBERATE, CALCULATED, FOCUSED ATTEMPT, BY THE INDUSTRY, USING
           THE TALENTS OF ADVERTISING CZECHS ACTIVITIES, FOCUS GROUP
           DIRECTORS, PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND PSYCHOLOGY AND THE DYNAMICS OF
           YOUTH ADDICTION TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY CAN GET THE MESSAGE
           RIGHT IN THE HAND OF A 16 YEAR-OLD THAT SMOKING IS GOOD. NOT
           ONLY GOOD, IT IS SOCIALLY DESIRABLE. WE SHOULDN'T STAND FOR

           THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO STAND FOR IT. WE KNOW THAT FOR YEARS AND
           YEARS AND YEARS THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MISLEADING THE
           AMERICAN PUBLIC. THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE. BUT WHEN WE DISCOVER,
           AS WE DOUGH FROM ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND ALL THIS
           LITIGATION, THAT THEIR TARGET HAS BEEN YOUNG CHILDREN, AS YOUNG
           AS 12 AND 13 YEARS OLD, THAT BECOMES UNCONSCIONABLE. AND THE
           CONSCIENCE OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE CONSCIENCE OF THIS SENATE
           WILL BE TESTED TODAY. WILL WE TAKE EFFECTIVE STEPS TO PRECLUDE
           ACCESS TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR CHILDREN?

           THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND. THIS AMENDMENT WILL
           IN FACT PROVIDE DECISIVE AND EFFECTIVE CONTROLS ON TOBACCO
           ACCESS BY YOUNG PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. WE SHOULDN'T SHRINK
           FROM THIS RESPONSIBILITY. WE SHOULD PASS THIS LEGISLATION TO
           ENSURE THAT WHEN WE FINISH THIS GREAT DEBATE, AND WE LOOK
           AHEAD, WE WILL BE CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE TAKEN EFFECTIVE
           PRACTICAL STEPS TO PREVENT CHILDREN FROM BEING ADDICTED TO

           NICOTINE AND NAB TOBACCO TOBACCO. IF WE DON'T DO THAT, MANY
           MANY YOUNG PEOPLE, ESTIMATES FIVE MORATORIUM PEOPLE UNDER 18
           WILL DIE PREMATURELY, WE CAN CAN STOP THAT IF WE VOTE TODAY,
           SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I RETAIN THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. AND

           YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
           

           MR. NICKLES: MR. PRESIDENT, HOW MUCH TIME IS IN OPPOSITION TO
           THE AMENDMENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA, THERE IS
           THREE MINUTES REMAINING.
           

           MR. NICKLES: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
           AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. FIRST LET ME JUST SAY TO THE
           PROPONENTS, IF THEY WANT TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO BAN
           ADVERTISING OR THE DEDUCTION OF ADVERTISING FOR TOBACCO
           PRODUCTS, THEY CAN DO SO. BUT TO TURN IT OVER TO THE F.D.A. I
           THINK MAY BE SOME. WORST TAX POLICY WE HAVE SEEN. THIS BILL
           ALREADY HAS SOME. WORST TAX POLICY WE HAVE SEEN IN THE
           LOOK-BACK PENALTIES I HAVE STATE ADD COUPLE TIMES ARE CLEARLY
           NOT WORKABLE. IN I READ THIS AMENDMENT RIGHT, ADVERTISING IS

           DEDUCTIBLE UNLESS IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH F.D.A. REGULATIONS.
           WHAT ARE THE F.D.A. REGULATIONS?
           WELL, YOUR VIOLATION OF F.D.A. REGULATION IT IS YOU HAVE A BALL
           CAP THAT SAYS MARLBORO ON IT. AVENUE STAFF MEMBER THAT WENT TO
           A CAR RACE OR SOMETHING THAT HAS A BALL CAP THAT SAYS MARLBORO.
           WELL, THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION. I DON'T KNOW IF A BALL CAP
           UNDER THIS F.D.A. REGULATION THIS THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF
           THE ADVERTISING RESTRICTION. THEY WOULD LOSE DEDUCTIBILITY OF
           THEIR ADVERTISING EXPENSES. NOW, AGAIN, IF PEOPLE WANT TO BE

           MORE DIRECT, LET'S BE MORE DIRECT. JUST SAY I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
           TO DISALLOW ALL ADVERTISING EXPENSES FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS. I
           EXPECT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE THAT. THEY PROBABLY WILL HAVE THIS
           ON THIS BILL. BUT TO SAY YOU CAN HAVE THE DEDUCTION UNLESS YOU
           DON'T COMPLY WITH F.D.A. REGS IN TREATING F.D.A. REGS AS
           SACROSANCT, AS IF THEY MAKE SENSE, SOME OF THEM DON'T MAKE
           SENSE. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS AN F.D.A. REG THAT SAYS PEOPLE
           SELLING TOBACCO MUST CHECK I.D.'S UP TO AGE 27. A LOT OF PEOPLE

           AREN'T AWARE OF THAT. THAT'S PART OF THE SAME F.D.A. REGULATION
           THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WORKABLE. IT IS
           LEGAL TO BUY CIGARETTES IF YOU ARE OVER 18, BUT F.D.A. CAME UP
           WITH A REGULATION THAT SAYS WE ARE GOING TO MANDATE THAT YOU
           CHECK IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE UP TO AGE 27. AND THEY ALSO HAVE
           RESTRICTION ON ADVERTISING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE A T-SHIRT.
           YOU CAN'T HAVE A BALL CAP. OR TOBACCO COMPANIES YOU N'T
           ADVERTISE DURING THE RACES. THIS IS AUTO RACING TIME.
           INDIANAPOLIS 500. MY FRIEND FROM INDIANA IS HERE. MY GUESS IS

           THERE IS A TRACK RUNNING AROUND THE -- CAR RUNNING AROUND THE
           TRACK THAT HAS MARLBORO, MAYBE SOMEBODY SAID WAIT A MINUTE
           THAT'S DIRECTED A AT YOUTH. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR NOT, BUT
           IF THEY DID IT, IF THEY SPONSORED A SPORTING EVENT THEY WOULD
           BE IN VIE LAIFGS OF THIS PROVISION AND LOSE DUBITL OF
           ADVERTISING. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE F.D.A. MAKING TAX
           POLICY. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE F.D.A. DECIDING WHAT IS
           COMPLIANCE OR WHETHER A PERSON OR COMPANY IS ALLOWED TO TAKE
           THE DEDUCTION. IF SENATORS DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOBACCO

           ADVERTISES, THEY WANT TO BAN IT, LET THEM INTRODUCE THAT ON A
           FINANCE BILL OR A TAX BILL, BUT LET'S NOT TURN THAT KIND OF
           AUTHORITY OVER TO F.D.A. I THINK THIS BILL IS ALREADY GRANTED
           F.D.A. TOO MUCH AUTHORITY, INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO TOTALLY
           BAN NICOTINE WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL PRIOR APPROVAL, WHICH I
           THINK IS A MISTAKE, AND I THINK THE I.D. CHECKUP TO AGE 27 IS A
           MISTAKE, I THINK THAT'S F.D.A. OVERREACHING, AND I THINK THE
           BAN ON BALL CAPS AN T-SHIRTS IS OVERREACHING. I DON'T WANT THEM

           TARGETING TRAIRNKS EITHER, BUT I THINK TO TURN -- TAIRNKS
           EITHER, BUT I THINK TO TURN TAX POLICY TO THE F.D.A. IS A
           MISTAKE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
           

           MR. REED: WHATEVER TIME I HAVE LEFT I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. REED: FIRST OF ALL I WANT WANT TO LET THE SUGGESTION THAT
           THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHECKING IT AT A RETAIL STORE ATS
           THAT NOT PART OF THE REGULATION.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND TIME HAS
           EXPIRED.
           

           MR. REED: THANK YOU.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE QUESTION IS NOW ON THE MOTION TO
           TABLE THE REED AMENDMENT, 2702. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
           
{END: 1998/06/15 TIME: 17-15 , Mon.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}