EDUCATION ON HETH ISSUES, MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD INDICATE TO ME
           THAT IT DOES IN FACT WORK. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE AND GIVE
           MY COLLEAGUES AN EXAMPLE. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES, WE IN
           THIS COUNTRY HAVE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN KEEPING -- MAKING
           OUR STREETS SAFER FROM ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVERS. BACK WHEN I
           WAS IN THE OHIO STATE SENATE I WROTE LEGISLATION TOUGHENING OUR

           STATE'S LAWS ON DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. BUT EVEN MORE
           IMPORTANT THAN THE LAWS THAT WE PASSED WAS THE FACT THAT WE
           WERE ABLE, ALL OF US COLLECTIVELY WORKING TOGETHER, TO BEGIN TO
           CHANGE PUBLIC ATTITUDES. THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY TOUGH LAWS, BUT
           IT'S ALSO BEEN DONE BY VERY EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING BY GROUPS
           SUCH AS THE MOTHERS AGAINST DRIVING DRUNK. IT WAS A NATIONAL
           CAMPAIGN, AND IT MADE A DIFFERENCE. TALK TO KIDS TODAY AND YOU
           WILL NOT FIND MANY WHO BELIEVE THAT DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE

           INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL IS COOL OR A GREAT THING TO DO. THE PEOPLE
           WHO DO IT TODAY ARE TREATED WITH SCORN, AS THEY SHOULD BE. OR
           SEE HOW OFTEN DESIGNATED DRIVERS ARE TODAY TALKED ABOUT AND
           TODAY USED. A CONCEPT THAT 20 YEARS AGO NO ONE HAD EVEN HEARD
           ABOUT. ATTITUDES HAVE BEEN CHANGED, AND THEY HAVE BEEN CHANGED
           BECAUSE OF ADVERTISING, THEY HAVE BEEN CHANGED BECAUSE OF WHAT
           PUBLIC OFFICIALS -- NOT JUST POLITICIANS BUT PEOPLE IN THE

           PUBLIC SECTOR -- HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO AND TO TALK ABOUT, WE
           HAVE ALL TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY BEEN ABLE TO CHANGE THE CULTURE.
           THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN REGARD TO DRINKING AND DRIVING.
           THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW IN REGARD TO TEENAGE SMOKING. I
           THINK WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT A SIMILAR STRATEGY IN REGARD TO
           TOBACCO. WE HAVE TO MAKE HAS MASSIVE NATIONAL INVESTMENT IN
           EDUCATING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE AND IN CHANGING ATTITUDE. WE SHOULD

           FLOODED AIRWAVES WITH THE TRUTH. A POSITIVE ADVERTISING AND
           EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO LEAVE NO DOUBT WHERE AMERICA STANDS ON
           THIS ISSUE. TO LEAVE NO DOUBT WHAT THE FACTS ARE. TOBACCO AND
           THE USE OF IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IT STILL KILLS PEOPLE. AND OUR
           MESSAGE MUST SIMPLY BE THAT. STAY AWAY FROM IT. MR. PRESIDENT,
           WE CAN DO THIS. WE HAVE DONE IT IN OTHER AREAS AND EVERYTHING

           IN OUR LIFE, COMMON SENSE INDICATES TO US THAT IT WORKS. THOSE
           OF US WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, EVERY SINGLE
           ONE OF US USED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TV ADVERTISING TO GET
           HERE. WHY DID WE DO IT?
           WE DID IT BECAUSE IT WORKS. WHY DO ALL THE MAJOR PRODUCTS USE
           ADVERTISING?
           BECAUSE IT WORKS. WHY DO ALL THE NATIONAL EFFORTS IN REGARD TO
           DRUB KEN DRIVING USE THIS VERY MOST CREATIVE TYPE OF
           ADVERTISING?
           BECAUSE IT WORKS. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IN REGARD TO THE

           TOBACCO SITUATION. LET ME TALK FURTHER NOW ABOUT ANOTHER
           ELEMENT, A THIRD ELEMENT IN REGARD TO THIS COMPREHENSIVE
           PACKAGE THAT I THINK HAS TO BE PART OF THE BILL THAT WE FINALLY
           APPROVE. THAT HAS TO DO WITH LIMITING THE ADVERTISING OF THE
           CAB TO COMPANIES. A THIRD -- TOBACCO COMPANIES. A THIRD IDEA IS
           TO REGULATE THE BROADCAST MEDIA IN AN EFFORT TO BLOCK THE PRO
           TOBACCO MESSAGE. MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE BEGUN TO RUN INTO SOME
           CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS HERE WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. THE

           MORE CONSTITUTION AT LAWYERS LOOK INTO THIS SUGGESTION, THE
           MORE PROBLEMATIC IT BECOMES. BASICALLY IT IS GOING TO BE HARD
           TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE THAN
           COCOMPANIES. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. IN RECENT
           YEARS THE SUPREME COURT HAS STRUCK DOWN AS MANY MANY AS A DOZEN
           LAWS ATTEMPT TO GO REGULATE COMMERCIAL SPEECH. IN EFFECT THE
           COURT IS REMINDING THOSE OF US IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH THAT
           THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS AN
           IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE. AS WE LOOK FOR NATIONAL

           SOLUTIONS TO THE TOBACCO SPAWNED HEALTH CRISIS, WE WOULD DO
           WELL TO REMEMBER THAT CONGRESS CANNOT UNILATERALLY RESTRICT
           SPEECH. SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT WOULD MOST LIKELY APPLY TO ANY
           OF THE PROPOSED LIMITS ON TOBACCO ADVERTISING THE FOUR-PRONG
           TEST ESTABLISHED BY THE 1980 CASE OF CENTRAL HUDSON GAS AND
           ELECTRIC CORPORATION VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. IT IS MORE
           THAN LIKELY, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THE PROPOSED LIMITS WOULD FAIL

           THE TEST LAID OUT IN THAT COURT CASE, UNLESS -- UNLESS WE HAD
           THE AGREEMENT OF THOSE WHO SPEECH WE SEEK TO LIMIT. THOSE ARE
           THE FACTS. UNDER CENTRAL HUDSON GAS, THE FIRST TEST TO
           DETERMINE WHETHER COMMERCIAL SPEECH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
           PROTECTED IS
           
           AS FOLLOWS: IS THE SPEECH FALSE, MISLEADING OR UNLAWFUL?
           MR. PRESIDENT, THE DAYS ARE LONG GONE WHEN TOBACCO COULD RUN
           ADDS SAYING SMOKING IS GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH. THOSE OLD
           ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS CERTAINLY MAY HAVE FAILED THIS COURT
           TEST, BUT I THINK TODAY'S CAMPAIGNS ARE CLEVER ENOUGH AND EMPTY

           ENOUGH NOT TO MAKE ANY FALSE CLAIMS, AT LEAST UNDER THAT COURT
           DECISION. THE SECOND TEST UNDER THAT COURT DECISION IS DOES THE
           LIMIT ON SPEECH SERVE A SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST?
           THIS IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE
           
           THIRD TEST: DOES THE LIMIT AND SPEECH DIRECTLY ADVANCE THAT
           SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST?
           ON THESE TESTS, MR. PRESIDENT, THE WEIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL
           OPINION IS, I AM AFRAID, AGAINST UNILATERAL LIMBS ON TOBACCO
           ADVERTISING. TWO OF AMERICA'S MOST MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS

           HAVE TESTIFIED IN SENATE HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE. FLOYD ABRAMS,
           AMERICA -- ONE OF AMERICA'S LEADING EXPERTS ON THE FIRST
           AMENDMENT LAW TOLD THE COMMITTEE AND I TOLD THE COMMERCE
           COMMITTEE AND I QUOTE, "ANY LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS WHICH WOULD
           PURPORT TO DO BY LAW WHAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WOULD DO BY
           AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF RESTRICTING CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
           COMMERCIAL SPEECH IS, IN MY ESTIMATION, DESTINED TO BE HELD
           UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS A BASIC TENET OF FIRST AMENDMENT LAW

           THAT THE INTEREST IN PROTECTIONING CHILDREN FROM HARMFUL
           MATERIALS DOES NOT JUST NIGH AN UNNECESSARILY BROAD SUPPRESSION
           OF SPEECH DID DIRECTED AT ADULTS." THE SWEEP OF THE PROPOSED
           SETTLEMENTS RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH ARE SIMPLY NOT TAILORED TO
           ITS SUPPOSED AIM OF PROTECTING CHILDREN." AND HARVARD LAWRENCE
           TRIBE, ONE OF AMERICA'S MOST INFLUENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
           TEXTBOOKS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT, AND I

           QUOTE, "THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON TOBACCO ADVERTISING WOULD
           RAISE VERY SERIOUS FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTIONS IF THEY WERE TO BE
           ENACTED INTO LAW BY CONGRESS." MR. PRESIDENT, THE FOURTH AND
           FINAL TEST UNDER THIS SAME CASE
           
           ASKS THE FOLLOWING: IS THE LIMIT ON SPEECH NO MORE EXTENSIVE
           THAN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL. ON THIS, TOO, THE CRITICS
           WILL NOTE THAT IF THE SAME GOAL OF REDUCING SMOKING CAN BE
           ACHIEVED WITHOUT RECOURSE TO SPEECH LIMITS, THEN THE

           CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS OF THE SPEECH REGULATORS WOULD FAIL. LET
           ME STRESS, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY
           OPINION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE MEASURES. THAT WOULD
           BE A SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER SPEECH, ANOTHER DAY. WHAT I AM TALKING
           ABOUT IS THE IMMENSE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS POSED FOR US AS A
           SENATE BY THE LIKELY OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
           BASED ON THESE PREVIOUS DECISIONS. IT IS LIKELY THAT THE
           SUPREME COURT WOULD FIND THESE UNILATERAL MEASURES

           UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ALLOW THE TOBACCO COMPANIES -- I BELIEVE
           THE TOBACCO COMPANIES, FRANKLY, MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD LOVE THAT.
           THEY WOULD LOVE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. WE SIMPLY MUST NOT ALLOW
           THEM TO DO THAT. WE MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR
           
           GOAL: WE ARE TRYING, MR. PRESIDENT, TO SAVE CHILDREN'S LIVES.
           WE ARE DRIVING TOWARD THE END ZONE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THESE
           TOBACCO COMPANIES. WE MUST NOT -- MUST NOT LET OURSELVES GET
           TRAPPED INTO INCURRING USELESS PENALTIES ON THE WAY. THIS FIGHT

           IS TOO IMPORTANT. WE CANNOT LET IT BE REDUCE TODAY PASSING
           LEGISLATION THAT WILL NEVER BE ENFORCED. OUR GOAL IS TO PASS
           EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION. NOT LEGISLATION THAT WILL TIE UP OUR
           ANTISMOKING MEASURES IN COURT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
           WHAT WE SHOULD BE ABOUT IS RESULTS. WE SHOULD BE ABOUT SAVING
           LIVES. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT. LET ME TURN, MR.
           PRESIDENT, TO THE FOURTH ELEMENT IN THE PROPOSED TOBACCO

           LEGISLATION AND THAT IS THE LOOK-BACK PROVISION. ANOTHER VERY
           IMPORTANT PROVISION THAT NEED TO BE INCLUDED. IN MY VIEW, MR.
           PRESIDENT, THE LOOK-BACK PROVISION IS A KEY COMPONENT OF ANY
           SOLID, EFFECTIVE ANTITOBACCO LAW. IT IS A WAY TO HOLD THE
           TOBACCO COMPANIES LIABLE FOR THE BOTTOM LINE ON THIS EFFORT TO
           RESDUSE TEEN SMOKING. PUT SIMPLY, MR. PRESIDENT, THE LOOK-BACK
           PROVISION SAYS TO THE TOBACCO COMPANIES, GO WE FAIL TO HAY
           CHIEF OUR GOAL OF SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN TEEN SMOKING, YOU --

           YOU, THE TOBACCO COMPANIES -- WILL PAY. YOU WILL PAY AND YOU
           WILL PAY A LOT. WE THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WILL SERVE AS A
           DETERRENT. WE THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WILL EFFECT THE FUTURE
           CONDUCT BY TOBACCO COMPANIES. BUT ON THIS ONE TOO, MR.
           PRESIDENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS ARE SORT OF RAINING ON
           OUR PARADE. THEY POINT OUT THE KIND OF LOOK-BACK PROVISION WE
           NEED MAY WELL RUN A FOUL OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF

           SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. THEY COULD HOLD THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY
           LIABLE NOR ACTIONS AND RESULTS NOT STRICTLY UNDER THE
           INDUSTRY'S CONTROL AND THUS BE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE.
           BUT I THINK THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND INDEED TO THAT OF
           THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEM THAT I TALKED ABOUT A MOMENT AGO,
           THE SOLUTION IS RELATIVELY CLEAR. THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE
           ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS BY ITSELF, BUT IT CAN DO THEM IN THE
           INDUSTRY AGREES TO THEM VOLUNTARILY. THIS ACTION MR. PRESIDENT,

           GIVES US, PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH PUBLIC
           HEALTH, AN INCENTIVE TO INSIST ON A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION AND
           NOT A PIECEMEAL APPROACH. ACTING UNILATERALLY WE CAN PUNISH THE
           TOBACCO INDUSTRY. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL
           TO BE SAID FOR THAT. THEIR PRODUCT HAS DESTROYED THOUSANDS OF
           THOUSANDS OF LIVES. BUT IF WE ACT NOT UNILATERALLY BUT INSTEAD
           APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION, THEN WE CAN HARNESS ALL OUR

           EFFORTS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND WE CAN HOLD
           THE TOBACCO COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR HELPING TO REDUCE TEENAGE
           SMOKING. MR. PRESIDENT, IN CONCLUSION, AMERICA'S ATTENTION IS
           ENGAGED BY A CHILDREN HEALTH CRISIS CAUSED BY TOBACCO AND
           ILLEGAL DRUGS. THIS IS A RARE AND UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR US
           HERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO CREATE POSITIVE CHANGE.
           CHANGE THAT MANY IN FACT SAVE LIVES. WE OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN
           PEOPLE TO WRITE TOBACCO LEGISLATION THAT REPRESENTS THE BEST

           THINKING ON WHAT WILL REALLY WORK TO GET KIDS TO TURN AWAY FROM
           TOBACCO AND TO TURN AWAY FROM ILLEGAL DRUGS AND TO TURN TOWARD
           A MORE PROMISING FUTURE. I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGHOUT
           THIS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THE BILL WE PASS LIVES UP
           TO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE AND EXPECT. I MUST ALSO SAY
           THAT I HOPE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BECOME MORE
           ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS STRUGGLE. THIS FRANKLY IS AN ISSUE OF

           GREAT NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. ONE THAT CRIES OUT FOR MORE
           PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP. NOW MR. PRESIDENT, EVEN AFTER WE PASS
           A BILL IN THE SENATE, THERE WILL STILL BE A LOT OF WORK LEFT TO
           BE DONE ON THE LEGISLATION. AND FRANKLY, AND CANDIDLY, IT WON'T
           GET DONE UNTIL EVERYONE SITS AT THE TABLE AND GETS READY FOR
           SOME VERY HEAVY LIFTING. THIS INCLUDES THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
           SENATE AND HOUSE, OF COURSE, AND LEGISLATION THE PRESIDENT OF
           THE UNITED STATES. THE PRESIDENT CAN MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN

           THIS PROCESS ONCE HE BECOMES FULLY ENGAGED. FINALLY, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I REMAIN OPTIMISTIC THAT WE CAN PASS A STRONG AND
           COMPREHENSIVE BILL. NOT JUST TO REDUCE TEEN SMOKING, BUT ALSO
           TEEN DRUG USE. LAST YEAR'S SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE STATES THE
           ATTORNEY GENERALS AND TOBACCO COMPANIES HAS GIVEN USE ONCE IN A
           LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY. AS THIS LEGISLATION MOVES THROUGH
           CONGRESS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO STAY FOCUSED. WE HAVE TO STAY

           FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES. LET'S VOW TO
           PUT TOGETHER COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION THAT REALLY WORKS. LET'S
           DO IT NOW, AND LET'S GET IT DONE. MR. PRESIDENT, IT WILL NOT BE
           EASY. I AGAIN WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE MAJORITY LEADER
           FOR HIS LEADERSHIP AND FOR HIS COURAGE IN BRINGING THIS BILL TO
           THE FLOOR. I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE ALL WHO HAVE WORKED ON
           THIS BILL AND ON OTHER BILLS. SENATOR MCCAIN WHO HAS WORKED ON

           THIS BILL AND BRINGS THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR. SENATOR HATCH AND
           OTHERS WHO WORKED ON OTHER BILLS AND OTHER APPROACHES WE ARE
           ALL GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NEXT WEEK TO HAVE OUR SHOT AT
           THIS THING. WE ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TO
           TRY TO FASHION A GOOD BILL. THE MAIN THING THOUGH, MR.
           PRESIDENT, IS THAT WE KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING. THAT WE KEEP IT
           MOVING HERE IN
{END: 1998/05/15 TIME: 10-00 , Fri.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}