[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.

                          ____________________