[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12543-S12546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ROAD AHEAD ON GLOBAL TOBACCO DEAL
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, as we move toward adjournment in the
first session of the 105th Congress, I want to take a couple of minutes
to look ahead at one of the real big challenges that we have next year.
That issue is tobacco and the so-called global tobacco deal that was
agreed to earlier this year between the tobacco industry, States
attorneys general, and health advocates.
Madam President, we have seen a significant sea change in our
culture's attitudes toward smoking in the last 30 years. The proportion
of adult smokers peaked at 43 percent in 1966 and has dropped
dramatically since then to about 25 percent today. According to the
Federal Trade Commission, demand for cigarettes is forecast to continue
to decline about 0.6 percent a year for the foreseeable future.
However, as adult use has declined, concern has grown about the
number of underage smokers who every day try their first cigarette.
Madam President, 4.5 million kids ages 12 to17 are current smokers,
according to the Department of Health and Human Services; 29 percent of
males age 12 to 21, and 26 percent of females in the same age group
currently smoke, according to reports of the National Center for Health
Statistics. In 1994, the Surgeon General's report found that 9 out of
10 Americans who currently smoke say they began smoking as teenagers.
Many Americans share a common goal to reduce teen smoking dramatically
to break the cycle of smoking as we enter into the 21st century.
Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, too, would like to see
our children smoke free and families free from fear of smoke-related
cancers and disease.
The agreement between the tobacco industry and States attorneys
general was motivated by good intentions, but it resulted in a deal
that is very complicated. In the Senate, several committees have held
numerous hearings
[[Page S12544]]
trying to elicit more information and understanding of the agreement.
Since the Clinton administration was intimately involved in crafting
the June 20 deal, we were hopeful that the President would come forward
with specific recommendations and legislation to describe how the deal
would work.
Unfortunately, the President ducked a historic opportunity for
leadership. Rather than following the regular order of submitting
legislation, he sent us five vague principles. His inaction set back
the work of the Congress considerably.
I remain hopeful that the President and his administration will tell
us specifically what he wants in legislation. For now, though, the
Congress has to do the heavy lifting. We have to make our own decisions
about how the various elements of the deal should be put together.
Through the summer and fall, I met several times with Senate
committee chairmen who have jurisdiction over the major elements of the
deal. They include the Committees of Agriculture, Commerce, Finance,
Labor, Judiciary, Environment and Public Works, as well as Indian
Affairs.
I have requested that, when we reconvene next year, they begin work
and try to find out what the majority in their committees, Republicans
and Democrats, believe are important elements of a comprehensive plan
targeted on reducing teenage smoking. I have asked them to conclude
their work by March 16, 1998, and they have agreed to meet that
timetable.
As they do their work, I am asking them to answer, to their
satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the public, 10 important
questions, which I will have printed in the Record at the end of my
remarks. These questions deal with the whole parameter of the proposed
resolution. For example: What works best to reduce teen smoking? We
have Government programs and we have private programs. What really
works? What is the best method of reducing teen smoking?
Should we increase the price of tobacco? President Clinton mentioned
he thought we should increase the price a dollar and a half. Should
that be done in the form of taxes or in the form of price increases? If
it is done in the form of price increases, do we need to give
exemptions for that to happen? Do we need to make sure tobacco
companies would not make more money than that would allow? Are they
going to be able to make excess profits from the price increase? Do we
increase the price by increasing tobacco taxes? Should the States have
the allowance to be able to increase tobacco taxes, in addition to
whatever the Federal Government would do?
Another big question is, Who gets the money? This is a big dispute. A
few weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala wrote
a letter to the States and said that the Federal Government is entitled
to its pro rata share of the Medicaid money, assuming States were
getting most of their money to reimburse them. The States attorneys
general said no. They went to court and they filed suits. The Federal
Government didn't join in those lawsuits. The States are saying, give
us the money. They took the legal action; the Federal Government
didn't. So who should get the money? We need to make those decisions.
How much money are we talking about? The States attorneys general and
the industry came up with an agreement that said $368 billion over 25
years. The administration said, ``We want a lot more.'' They didn't say
how much more. Should there be additional fines and penalties? These
decisions have to be made. Should the money go to the States and have
it be off budget? They have not made those decisions.
As you can see, these are not easy decisions to make, and there are
more questions. What would be an appropriate antitrust exemption for
tobacco companies? What kind of limitations should they have on
immunity from lawsuits? Should there be a total exemption from class
action lawsuits for the tobacco industry? Should that apply to
individuals as well?
How much power should the FDA have? Should they be able to ban or
regulate nicotine or cigarettes, or control advertising and sales? Is
that something that would require legislative action?
How do we take care of those people who are directly affected by
this, such as the tobacco farmers, the processors, the distributors,
the people that have the vending machines, and so on? They were not
included in the original package. Should they be included in whatever
comprehensive legislation we would pass?
What did the proposed resolution leave out? There are a lot of things
we should consider that weren't included. Should we have a limitation
on compensation for the attorneys in this process? And so on. I could
go on and on about the unanswered questions.
My point is that there is a lot of work to do. If the Congress is
going to move this piece of legislation next year in a comprehensive
bill, then we are going to have to go to work early. So I have asked
the committee chairs to consult with the ranking members and the other
members of the committee to try and come up with what they believe in
their committee of jurisdiction they have strong support for and what
they think should be included in a total package. Then we have, as I
mentioned, six committees that are involved in this legislation
directly--maybe more are indirectly involved--and certainly more. I
didn't include Budget, which is involved. So I'm asking all committees
to make their recommendations, and we will try to put a package
together to see if we can't really have a concerted, aggressive,
energetic effort to reduce teenage consumption of smoking, teenage
addiction to smoking.
I might mention, Madam President, that in addition to smoking, I
think Congress should be tackling teenage addiction to drugs, because
teen drug use, unfortunately, has doubled in the last 5 years. We have
seen enormous increases. As a matter of fact, 11 percent of kids in
junior high now use dangerous, illegal, illicit drugs. Today, 1 out of
10 kids in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade are using illegal drugs on
a monthly basis. The number of kids using marijuana has more than
doubled in the last many years. We have to have a concerted effort, I
think, to reduce teenage addiction to tobacco, but also other drugs as
well.
Madam President, this will not be easy. If you try to see all of the
different pieces of this package and try and put it together, it will
not be easy. But I think that we have what I would say is a bipartisan
agreement that we should reduce consumption and addiction of drugs and
smoking among teenagers. I am very committed to trying to pass a
comprehensive package that will reduce teenage smoking and teenage
addiction to drugs.
I just say to all my colleagues, let's work together and see if we
can't come up with a package we can all be proud of--not just something
that's good for politics, but let's do something that is going to good
policy. It will be good policy if we can get teenagers off drugs and
away from a tobacco addiction. Let's work together to make that happen,
not just try to score points and say who is the most antitobacco, or
the most this or that. Let's work on good policy, something that will
help curb the growth of teenage addiction to tobacco and drugs. I
welcome the contributions of Senator McCain, Senator Hatch, Senator
Lugar, Senator Mack, and others over the past few weeks on this issue.
I think we can work together for the betterment of our children, and
our country.
Madam President, in conclusion, I want to insert a couple of other
things in the Record. One is a summary of a study that was done by the
Federal Government. There was a $25 million Federal study published on
September 10 in the Journal of the American Medical Association
entitled the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The
study concluded that feeling loved, understood, and paid attention to
by parents helps teenagers avoid high-risk activities, such as using
drugs and smoking cigarettes. The study further concluded that
teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to parents and teachers
are much less likely to use drugs and alcohol, attempt suicide, and
smoke cigarettes.
Madam President, I mention this study because it had a lot of common
sense. The study found that the presence of parents at home at key
times--in the morning, after school, at dinner,
[[Page S12545]]
and bedtime--made teenagers less likely to use alcohol, tobacco, and
marijuana.
Ironically, the Government spends millions of dollars on programs to
reduce teen smoking and, frankly, many of them haven't worked. I think
this study shows that loving parents may be the best program that we
can have.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article summarizing
that study, published in the Washington Post on September 11, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 1997]
Love Conquers What Ails Teens, Study Finds
(By Barbara Vobejda)
Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their
parents and teachers are much less likely to use drugs and
alcohol, attempt suicide, engage in violence or become
sexually active at an early age, according to the largest
ever study of American adolescents.
The study, published in today's Journal of the American
Medical Association, concludes that feeling loved, understood
and paid attention to by parents helps teenagers avoid high-
risk activities regardless of whether a child comes from a
one- or two-parent household. It is also more important than
the amount of time parents spend at home, the study found.
At school, positive relationships with teachers were found
to be more important in protecting teenagers than any other
factors, including classroom size or the amount of training a
teacher has.
Researchers also found that young people who have jobs
requiring them to work 20 or more hours a week, regardless of
their families' economic status, are more likely to use
alcohol and drugs, smoke cigarettes, engage in early sex and
report emotional distress.
The findings are the first wave of data from a $25 million
federal study known as the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health, which surveyed 90,000 students in grades 7
through 12 across the country. Researchers also conducted
interviews with more than 20,000 teenagers in their homes and
with 18,000 parents. The results will continue to be analyzed
in increasing detail over the next decade, researchers said.
The first analysis of the massive data not only confirms
what other studies have shown--that family relationships are
critical in raising healthy children--but teases apart more
precisely what elements of family life are most important.
While the amount of time spent with parents had a positive
effect on reducing emotional distress, for example, feeling
``connected'' to parents was five times more powerful. And
this emotional bound was about six times more important than
was the amount of various activities that teenagers did with
their parents.
Though less important than the emotional connection, the
presence of parents at home at ``key times''--in the morning,
after school, at dinner and at bedtime--made teenagers less
likely to use alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. The data did
not cite any one period of the day as most important.
``This study shows there is no magical time,'' said Robert
W. Blum, head of adolescent health at the University of
Minnesota and one of the principal researchers.
The study also found: Individual factors in a teenager's
life are most important in predicting problems. Most likely
to have trouble are those who have repeated a grade in
school, are attracted to persons of the same sex, or believe
they may face an early death because of health, violence or
other reasons. Teenagers living in rural areas were more
likely to report emotional stress, attempt suicide and become
sexually active early. Adolescents who believe they look
either older or younger than their peers are more likely to
suffer emotional problems, and those who think they look
older are more likely to have sex at a younger age and use
cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana. The presence of a gun at
home, even if not easily accessible, increases the likelihood
that teenagers will think about or attempt suicide or get
involved in violent behavior.
The researchers, most of whom are associated with the
University of Minnesota or the University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill, said the study underscores the importance of
parents remaining intensely involved in their children's
lives through the teenage years, even when they may feel
their role is diminishing.
``Many people think of adolescence as a stage where there
is so much peer influence that parents become both irrelevant
and powerless,'' said J. Richard Udry, professor of maternal
and child health at UNC-Chapel Hill and principal
investigator of the study. ``It's not so that parents aren't
important. Parents are just as important to adolescents as
they are to smaller children.''
The study did not compare the influence of peers to that of
family. But the authors did suggest steps parents can take:
Set high academic expectations for children; be as accessible
as possible; send clear messages to avoid alcohol, drugs and
sex; lock up alcohol and get rid of guns in the home.
Udry led a team of a dozen researchers, whose work was
funded by Congress in 1993 to learn more about what can
protect young people from health risks. The study was
sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, which is part of the National Institutes of
Health.
The researchers went to great lengths to assure teenagers
that their answers would remain confidential. On sensitive
topics involving sex and drug use, for example, teenagers
listened to tape recorded questions and answered on a lap-top
computer.
Overall, the study found, most American teenagers make good
choices that keep them from harm. But a significant minority
report a range of problems.
About 20 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys, for
example, said over the past year they had felt significantly
depressed, lonely, sad, fearful, moody or had a poor appetite
because of emotional distress.
Researchers said they were not sure why adolescents who
work 20 hours or more a week are more likely to have
problems. But Udry speculated that it may be because they are
surrounded by an older group and ``have more money to spend
to get into trouble.''
In its examination of schools, the study looked at
attendance rates, parent involvement, dropout rates, teacher
training, whether schools were public or private and whether
teenagers feel close to their teachers and if they perceive
other students as prejudiced.
But only one of those--whether students felt close to their
teachers--made a difference in helping teenagers avoid
unhealthy behavior.
``Overriding classroom size, rules, all those structural
things, the human element of the teacher making a human
connection with kids is the bottom line,'' Blum said.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a
Republican policy paper entitled ``President Clinton's Failing War on
Drugs'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
President Clinton's Failing War on Drugs
Throughout the Clinton presidency, America has been
witnessing increases in illegal drug use among our nation's
younger generation. This sharp reversal from the steady
progress made against illegal drug use throughout the 1980s
and early 1990s is the inescapable result of the Clinton
Administration's retreat in the war against drugs. The
Clinton Administration has de-emphasized law enforcement and
interdiction while relying heavily on drug treatment programs
for hard-core drug abusers in the hopes of curbing drug
usage. Result: backward momentum.
Backward Momentum From Day One: Drug Abuse Under Clinton
Two national annual surveys show that drug abuse by our
nation's youth has continued to increase since President
Clinton came to office. The most recently released Parents
Resource Institute for Drug Education--the so called
``PRIDE'' survey--and the University of Michigan's
``Monitoring the Future'' both offer cause for alarm.
The Monitoring the Future Study reveals that illicit drug
use among America's schoolchildren has consistently increased
throughout the Clinton Administration:
For 8th graders, the proportion using any illicit drug in
the prior 12 months has increased 56 percent since President
Clinton's first year in office, and since 1993 it has
increased 52 percent among 10th graders and 30 percent among
12th graders.
Marijuana use accounted for much of the overall increase in
illicit drug use, continuing its strong resurgence. All
measures of marijuana use showed an increase at all three
grade levels monitored in 1996. Among 8th graders, use in the
prior 12 months has increased 99 percent since 1993,
President Clinton's first year in office. Among 10th graders,
annual prevalence has increased 75 percent--and a full 121
percent increase from the record low in President Bush's last
term in 1992. Among 12th graders it increased 38 percent
since 1993.
Of particular concern, according to the survey, is the
continuing rise in daily marijuana use. Nearly one in every
twenty of today's high school seniors is a current daily
marijuana user, and one in every thirty 10th graders uses
daily. While only 1.5 percent of 8th graders use marijuana
daily, that still represents a near doubling of the rate in
1996 alone.
The annual prevalence of LSD rose in all three grade levels
in 1996. In short, since President Clinton assumed office,
annual LSD use has increased 52 percent, 64 percent, and 29
percent among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders respectively.
Hallucinogens other than LSD, taken as a class, continued
gradual increases in 1996 at all three grade levels.
The use of cocaine in any form continued a gradual upward
climb. Crack cocaine also continued a gradual upward climb
among 8th and 10th graders. In short, since President Clinton
assumed office, annual cocaine use is up 77 percent, 100
percent, and 49 percent among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders
respectively.
The longer-term gradual rise in the of amphetamine
stimulants also continued at the 8th and 10th grade levels.
Since 1993, annual heroin usage has increased by 129
percent, 71 percent, and 100 percent for 8th, 10th, and 12th
graders respectively. That is, for 8th and 12th graders, use
[[Page S12546]]
of heroin has at least doubled since Clinton first took
office.
now is not the time to take a back seat
According to some experts, the age of first use is a
critical indicator of the seriousness of the drug problem
because early risk-taking behavior statistically correlates
to riskier behavior later. For example, the Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
estimates that a young person who uses marijuana is 79 times
more likely to go on to try cocaine than one who hasn't used
marijuana.
The most current survey on drug use--the so called PRIDE
survey--shows a continuing and alarming increase in drug
abuse by young kids. While the increase in drug use among
older students has remained flat this year, illegal drug use
among 11 to 14 year-olds has continued on a dangerous upward
path. According to the President of PRIDE, ``Senior high drug
use may have stalled, but it is stalled at the highest levels
PRIDE has measured in ten years. Until we see sharp declines
in use at all grade levevls, there will be no reason to
rejoice.'' With respect to younger students, the survey found
that:
A full 11 percent of junior high students (grades 6-8) are
monthly illicit drug users.
Junior high students reported significant increases in
monthly use of marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers,
hallucinogens and heroin, specifically: Annual marijuana use
increased 153 percent since Mr. Clinton's first year in
office; cocaine use increased 88 percent since Mr. Clinton's
first year in office; and hallucinogen use increased by 67
percent since Mr. Clinton's first year in office.
president clinton's mistaken priorities: failed enforcement of drug
laws
A recent analysis by Robert E. Peterson, former drug czar
for the state of Michigan, revealed:
In 1994, a person was more likely to receive a prison
sentence for federal gambling, regulatory, motor carrier,
immigration or perjury offense than for possessing crack,
heroin, or other dangerous drugs under the federal system.
The time served for drug possession in less than half that
of federal regulatory and tax offenses, less than a third
that of mailing obscence materials, and equivalent to
migratory bird offense sentences.
In 1995, a federal trafficker could expect seven months
less on average drug sentences than in 1992.
Possession of 128 pounds of cocaine, 128 pounds of
marijugana, 3 pounds of heroin and/or 1.5 pounds of crack
earned only eight months in prison. Six in ten of these
federal criminals served no time at all in 1992.
The average federal setence imposed for drug offenders
increased by 37 percent from 1986-1991, but has declined 7
percent from 1991-1995.
returning to a serious strategy
In 1993 the Clinton Administration promised to ``reinvent
our drug control programs'' and ``move beyond ideological
debates.'' What that amounted to was de-emphasizing law
enforcement and interdiction and expecting dividends from
``treatment on demand.'' Two years later, a congressional
leadership task force developed the principles for a
coherent, national counter-drug policy and a five-point
strategy for future action. The task force called for: Sound
interdiction strategy; serious international commitment to
the full range of counter-narcotic activities; effective
enforcement of the nation's drug laws; united full-front
commitment towards prevention and education; and accountable
and effective treatment with a commitment to learn from our
nation's religious institutions.
Illegal drug use endangers our children and our economy and
disproportionately harms the poor, yet President Clinton has
accumulated a record of callous apathy. America cannot afford
a ``sound bite'' war on drugs. Only a serious commitment to
enforcement and interdiction efforts will produce results.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list
of questions that I have alluded to in my comments, the 10 questions
focusing in on reviewing the tobacco settlement, be printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Assistant Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 6, 1997.
To: Committee chairmen.
From: Senator Nickles.
Re Ten questions to focus on in reviewing tobacco settlement.
(1) What works best to reduce teen smoking? What sort of
government-run programs, if any, work to reduce teen smoking?
If there are some that work, is it best they be designed and
run at the Federal level, or the state level? In addition,
are there other things we can do to help parents and families
create the conditions that support a child in his or her
vulnerable years, that encourage a child not to start smoking
or experiment with drugs?
(2) Should we increase the per-pack price; by how much; and
how should we do it? Should the funding mechanism be an
increase in taxes, or an industry-coordinated price increase?
Does Federal action bar States from moving on their own to
increase their tobacco taxes, if they so choose?
(3) Who gets the money? Should the payments contemplated
under the global agreement go directly to the states, go
directly to caregivers who treat patients, or be collected
and disbursed by the Federal government in existing programs
such as Medicaid or Medicare--or should we create a whole new
set of programs? Is it appropriate to give billions of
dollars to advocacy and interest groups?
(4) How are we to treat this in the Federal budget? Should
the deal be on or off budget? Should any new spending be
subject to the existing discretionary spending caps and pay-
as-you-go rules? Should tobacco industry payments and/or
penalties be deductible as ordinary business expenses,
subject to capitalization as assets, or simply nondeductible?
(5) What are the implications for States? Should anything
agreed to by Congress and the President, or entered into by
the tobacco companies voluntarily, pre-empt State laws or
regulations that may be more stringent? Should Federal action
rewrite state laws on liability and immunity, or remove
pending tobacco cases from state courts to Federal courts?
How are states supposed to reconfigure their budget and
health programs, and how much money, if any, are they
supposed to give to Washington? Does the agreement treat
States equitably?
(6) What's an appropriate anti-trust exemption for tobacco
companies? How large an anti-trust exemption should be
granted to the tobacco companies to operate in concert to
execute some of the requirements of the agreement?
(7) How far should we go on liability and immunity? Is it
constitutional, or fair, to eliminate individuals' rights to
class-action lawsuits and punitive damages? Are the level of
payments, fines and penalties an appropriate trade-off for
the industry receiving legal protection in the future? What
precedent does this set for other liability issues facing
Congress?
(8) What new powers should be given to the FDA? How much
authority, if any, should Congress grant to the FDA to
regulate, or ban, nicotine, or control advertising and sales?
(9) How should we take care of those directly hurt by the
deal? Under the agreement, farmers will see demand for their
product decline. Machine vendors are put out of business.
Retailers are required to remodel their stores to put
cigarettes out of sight. If a global deal is to be
implemented, what is the fairest way to take care of these
people?
(10) What did the deal leave out that needs to be included?
Negotiators left out dealing with drugs, tobacco farmers,
immense fees paid to a few lawyers--but what else wasn't
thought of that the majority on our committees believe is
important? And what, if any, unintended consequences will
occur? For example, if tobacco usage does decline, as
advocates of the agreement insist, then possibly money paid
under the agreement might decline too. Who, then, would pay
for all these new initiatives?
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield the floor.
____________________