Judd Gregg: “what this amendment says is it is the sense of the Senate that we won't grant immunity. Really this is a very simple…”

“what this amendment says is it is the sense of the Senate that we won't grant immunity. Really this is a very simple vote for people. You can either come down on the side of setting the worst precedent I can imagine, which would be that the first major product liability reform in this country would be immunity, total absolute immunity, for all intents and purposes, granted to tobacco companies in exchange for their paying us money which we could obtain, if we decided to go that route, through some other policy without having to grant immunity. The same amount of revenue can be generated a number of other ways without their agreement for advertising restraints, which means little to us, because we can address the advertising in other forums. For those two reasons, we grant immunity and, in the process, give a product which, as I mentioned a number of times, is inherently harmful, addictive, and aimed at our children and kills you, protection from lawsuits. It makes no sense. Thus, I think the Congress should speak on this. I know a number of committees in the Congress are addressing this issue right now. They are negotiating through the process. But I believe we should as a Congress, as a Senate, speak on it early so that we lay out the framework of this debate early. If Members feel there is some value from giving immunity, let them vote that way. From my point of view, there is no value in giving this type of immunity.”