[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 49 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2390-H2393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TOBACCO REPORT ON TEENS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a number of issues
tonight: first, a very important domestic issue, and that is the
tobacco settlement and some recent information that has come out which
supports, in my opinion, the need or the suggestion that many of us
have made, that we need to move forward quickly and pass a tobacco bill
that is very stringent in its effort to try to get after the problem of
teen smoking in this country. That basically increases the Federal tax
on cigarettes so that the money can be used for these tobacco
prevention programs, particularly among young people.
Then I would like to move on from there and talk about a couple
foreign
[[Page H2391]]
policy issues. But I would like to begin with a report that just came
out again on the issue of tobacco and teen smoking.
Yesterday, the Surgeon General, David Satcher, released a report. It
was prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is
called Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups. The report
is the 24th in a series of tobacco reports that began 34 years ago. It
has some very disturbing information in it.
This report's release also, I might add, Mr. Speaker, could not be
made more timely in light of what is going on in this House of
Representatives on the issue of tobacco settlement.
It is very unfortunate, and I have already said on the floor and I
will say again, that Speaker Gingrich and the House Republican
leadership has opposed tough tobacco legislation. Because of their
opposition and because they are in the majority and control what
happens on the floor of this House of Representatives, tobacco
legislation and the tobacco settlement's future is essentially in
doubt.
It is not clear at all that we will be able to pass a tobacco bill
this year. I want everyone to know, and I think everyone does already,
that myself and other Democrats and the Democratic leadership and the
Democratic caucus in general are very much in favor of a tobacco bill
passing. Because if it does not pass this year, we are going to lose
the opportunity to deal with the problem of teen smoking in the United
States.
Getting back to the report that was released yesterday by the Surgeon
General, it makes a compelling case, I believe, for passing a tough
tobacco bill.
In a letter to Members of Congress that accompanied the report, the
Surgeon General explained, and I quote, smoking is the leading cause of
preventable death in the United States. Certain racial/ethnic minority
populations remain at high risk for using tobacco and often bear a
disproportionate share of the human and economic cost of tobacco use.
Although some recent declines in lung cancer trends are encouraging,
we have reason for great concern about reported increases and rates of
smoking among African American and Hispanic high school students.
That is in the letter that accompanied the report from the Surgeon
General.
The Surgeon General then continues that the report sounds an urgent
alarm. If minority tobacco use continues to increase, we can expect
severe health consequences to begin to be felt in the early part of the
next century. We must use every tool at our disposal to reduce tobacco
use amongst racial and ethnic minorities, especially amongst
adolescents, and to reverse these frightening trends.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this report, and I
actually brought a copy of the report with me this evening, it is a
rather thick report, it is a rather thick document, and there is an
executive summary, but it does give us some very alarming information.
It says that teen smoking rates grew among all ethnic groups in the
1990s. So even though this is about ethnic minorities, the teen smoking
rate grew amongst all ethnic groups in this decade. The smoking rate
amongst African American teenagers grew a staggering 80 percent between
1991 and 1997.
{time} 1930
Approximately 20 percent of African American high school students
smoke today, and that is one out of every five African American teens.
The Surgeon General estimates that if this trend continues, 1.6 million
African American children will become regular smokers and 500,000 of
them will die as a result of that smoking habit.
I think it is important to note that the increase in the 1990s
amongst black children reverses the trend set in the '80s and '70s when
smoking rates actually declined.
Among Hispanic teens, the smoking rate rose by 34 percent over this
same period. Approximately 33 percent, or one out of every three
Hispanic teenagers smokes cigarettes.
Amongst Asian American teens, the smoking rate rose 17 percent
between 1990 and 1995; and the overall rate of teens who smoke in the
Asian American community is estimated to be about 20 percent.
The report also provides information with regard to Native American
teens, the fourth ethnic group examined by the report; and the teen
smoking rate rose by 26 percent amongst that group between 1990 and
1995. Approximately 50 percent or one of every two Native American
teens smokes.
It is also estimated that about 40 percent of white high school
students use cigarettes.
Now, the unfortunate thing about all this is, and we have pointed
this out, myself and other Democrats who have been concerned about this
issue, is that the tobacco companies clearly see the need to increase
smoking amongst teenagers because they are the smokers of the future.
If the teen smoking rates decline, then in another 10, 20, or 30 years
the amount of tobacco use in the country would significantly decline.
So that is the particular reason why the industry targets teenagers. It
is also the reason why we must stop them from continuing to do that
targeting amongst young people.
As numbers like these continue to roll out, in concert with the
documents from the tobacco industry that detail their efforts to target
children, I think Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate
should not ignore reality and block progress and basically join with
the Democrats and particularly with President Clinton in trying to move
tobacco legislation in the few months that we have left in this
Congress.
Now, of course, we know that the opposite is, in fact, happening.
Just last week, Speaker Newt Gingrich felt compelled to defend Joe
Camel, among all things. He went out of his way to make it known in his
opinion that Joe Camel is not the reason why teenagers smoke
cigarettes.
Now, we have document after document and report after report being
released, many of those reports coming out of my own committee, the
Committee on Commerce, and they show the havoc that tobacco has wreaked
on our children in the past and the devastation it is causing today,
and they clearly show that Joe Camel is part of this effort, that Joe
Camel was an effort to essentially target young people. And here we
have the Speaker of our House of Representatives defending Joe Camel.
This, I should add, comes shortly after the Speaker picked up the
mantle of the tobacco industry itself and blasted the bill authored by
his fellow Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
I have said before that I admire Senator McCain for pushing a
relatively tough piece of tobacco legislation. It does not go as far as
I would have it go. I think it does not go far enough on the issue of
liability for the tobacco companies and some of the issues that
Democrats care about. But he is making a bipartisan effort to pass a
tobacco bill that deals with the problem of teen smoking; and he should
be commended for it, not condemned for it.
Speaker Gingrich said that, in talking about Senator McCain, he said
that those people who say that is not a Republican bill, he is talking
about Senator McCain's bill, they are right. So I guess, from what the
Speaker seems to be suggesting, any bill that does not win the tobacco
industry's stamp of approval cannot be called the Republican bill. The
reality is, it is sponsored by a Republican, and it was passed on a
bipartisan basis, and I commend the Republicans who have been joining
with the Democrats to try to move this legislation.
This weekend, still more of Senator McCain's colleagues took to the
airwaves to bash his bill. Again another Republican, Senator Orrin
Hatch, appeared on Meet the Press this Sunday to make it known he, too,
does not approve of the McCain bill.
And at the same time that members of his own party continue to
publicly squabble about tobacco legislation, the Republican majority
leader, Senator Lott, ironically enough, continues to criticize the
President for showing no leadership on the tobacco issue.
I would suggest that Senator Lott needs to check his facts. The
President and congressional Democrats are on the same page. We are all
in agreement that the tobacco companies should not be left off the
hook.
In fact, President Clinton, when this report that I am making
reference to today from the Surgeon General, it was
[[Page H2392]]
actually released at a press event with the President, where he stood
with I think 30 teenagers from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and
he noted the fact that the tobacco industry, in order to survive, has
to attract these young people and how wrong it is for them to attract
young people. And he has been pushing have very hard for tobacco
legislation almost on a daily basis.
To suggest that somehow the President is not supportive of efforts to
move a tobacco bill is simply not true.
What I think is going on here is that the Republican leadership is in
the process of what I call a work slowdown. There are only about 40
legislative days left in the year in which the Republicans basically
have clearly projected their intention to do nothing, and the tobacco
bill could very easily be a victim of that. If we do not move something
quickly to the Senate floor, out of committee in the House of
Representatives, there will not be an opportunity this year to pass a
strong anti-tobacco legislation.
With 3,000 kids a day getting hooked on cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, I
think it is an awfully high price to pay. We need to move on tobacco
legislation.
I know that myself and other Democrats are going to continue to press
this until the Republican leadership agrees to move anti-tobacco
legislation to address the tobacco settlement and to try to make it
possible for us to address the growing problem now of teenage smoking.
No Excuse for Delay in Aid to Nagorno Karabagh
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now move to a couple of
foreign policy issues that I consider very important.
I often talk about Armenia and India because of my position as a
cochairman, the Democratic chairman, of the India caucus and also the
Armenia caucus; and there are two issues, one with regard to each
country, that I would like to address.
With regard to Armenia and the separate Republic of Nagorno Karabagh,
which is next to Armenia, I would like to address the need to expedite
humanitarian assistance that has already been appropriated to Nagorno
Karabagh.
Just by way of background, the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh is a
region which has been populated by Armenians since ancient times and
which is still an Armenian region known as Artsakh to the Armenian
people, but which is claimed by the Republic of Azerbaijan as part of
that country's territory.
As I have mentioned in this House on several occasions, the people of
Karabagh fought, and won, a war of independence against Azerbaijan. A
cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but it has been shaky at best.
The U.S. has been involved in the negotiations intended to pursue a
just and lasting peace in this region but, unfortunately, the United
States' position has sided with Azerbaijan's claim of so-called
territorial integrity, despite the fact that this land has been
Armenian land for centuries and the borders which gave the land to
Azerbaijan were imposed by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
Despite the ongoing pressures on Nagorno Karabagh, the people of that
mountainous land have built a viable, democratic society. In February,
they celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Karabagh movement, the
galvanizing moment in the long history of the Armenian people.
But it has not been easy. The people of Karabagh are victims of a
cruel and illegal blockade maintained by Azerbaijan. Karabagh's only
connection to the outside world is via the Republic of Armenia, which
is also the victim of blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey; and
front-line Karabagh defense forces are constantly under attack from
Azeri snipers violating the cease-fire, as I witnessed firsthand during
my visit to the region just in January of this year.
The humanitarian and infrastructure needs of this area are severe,
and I also witnessed that firsthand.
Now, last year, this Congress played an extremely positive and
constructive role in helping the people of Karabagh. I want to praise
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations for providing for the first
time direct aid to Karabagh in the amount of $12.5 million for
humanitarian assistance.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, none of that aid has yet been provided to
Karabagh, and that is why I am addressing the House tonight on this
issue. I am very concerned that some elements in the administration
have misinterpreted the clear intent of Congress that the aid is
destined for the people of Karabagh and, instead, are suggesting some
of the funds should be diverted to Azerbaijan.
I will be circulating a letter to Brian Atwood, the Administrator of
USAID, the Agency for International Development, urging that the funds
be provided immediately; and I am also demanding the entire $12.5
million be provided to Karabagh as it was intended by Congress. I hope
my colleagues will join me in this appeal as we go around and try to
get co-signatures for this letter over the next few days.
It is true that USAID did send a need assessment team to Nagorno
Karabagh earlier this year pursuant to the language in the Foreign Ops
bill. While the team has reported its findings to Congress, we are
still waiting for the aid to be provided.
Give us the aid. It needs to be provided. These people are hurting,
and they need the help.
USAID officials have suggested that humanitarian aid will be
committed in the near future; but, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize
this aid was appropriated by Congress last fall. So we are talking 6
months for humanitarian assistance that is desperately needed, and
there is no excuse for this delay.
While working to get the aid that has already been appropriated to
its intended recipients in Karabagh, I am also urging the Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs this year
to build upon its historic achievement in the fiscal year 1998 bill to
earmark assistance to Nagorno Karabagh at $20 million, an increase, and
make it even more clear that aid is intended for disbursement within
Nagorno Karabagh.
I also hope the subcommittee will consider broadening the scope of
assistance to Karabagh to include the rebuilding and reconstruction of
infrastructure damaged during the war. I know there are some true
friends of Armenia on that subcommittee, and I am hopeful of support
for these much-needed funds.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that, having twice visited this mountainous
republic, I can attest that it is indeed a functioning society, a fact
also attested to by members of the USAID team that visited Karabagh to
conduct a needs assessment pursuant to this year's fiscal year 1998
bill.
Unfortunately, the State Department has apparently interpreted the
provision of aid to the ``victims of the Karabagh conflict'', and they
have interpreted this language of ``victims of the Karabagh conflict'',
contrary to the intent of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
Export Financing and Related Programs, as referring also to expanding
existing funds for Azerbaijan's needy.
While I am concerned about the needy people of Azerbaijan, two things
are important to point out: First, U.S. assistance is already being
provided to Azerbaijan's needy through nongovernmental organizations,
with tens of millions of American funds having been provided over the
past few years. And, second, and I regret to say, the government of
Azerbaijan has done very little to help the needy population in its
rural areas, despite the huge revenues being generated for Baku for
development of the Caspian Sea oil reserves. This is a fact that even
our own State Department acknowledges.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to again stress the importance of
maintaining the current ban on government aids to Azerbaijan until that
country lifts its blockade of Armenia and Karabagh. This ban was
enacted as part of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, and it is a good
law.
Now, Congress, unfortunately, is re-examining the issue of the
prohibition on aid to Azerbaijan as part of an effort to enhance U.S.
engagement in the region. While I am all for greater U.S. engagement in
the Caucasus, we must not tinker with this provision. That is Section
907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Unfortunately, some in Congress, the administration and the oil
industry are
[[Page H2393]]
looking to curry favor with Azerbaijan by lifting or at least easing
the ban on aid to Azerbaijan. And for the ban on aid to be lifted,
Azerbaijan need only lift the blockades of Armenia and Karabagh. Until
then, there should not be any consideration of asking the United States
taxpayers to support the dictatorship in Baku.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about this matter, and I
think we need to seriously address the fact that this aid has not been
coming to Nagorno Karabagh and that, hopefully, if we continue to tell
the State Department that they are not doing their job in providing the
assistance, they will do so forthwith.
Positive Developments in U.S.-India Relations
Mr. PALLONE. Lastly, this evening, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity
today to visit in New York with the President of India. Some of my
other colleagues were there, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton). Each of us had the
opportunity to talk for some time with the President, and I wanted to
comment on his historic visit to New York.
He was there to receive an award, I believe at a reception this
evening; and he also spent some time at the United Nations. But he, in
my conversations with the President, was very optimistic about what has
been happening in terms of India and U.S. relations. And those of us
who are members of the India caucus, again which I mentioned that I co-
chair, are very pleased because we see more and more positive
developments in terms of U.S.-India relations.
{time} 1945
Just to mention a few things, just a few weeks ago, one of our former
colleagues who is now the U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, visited
India along with Rick Inderfurth, who is the Assistant Secretary of
State for South Asia, and also some other U.S. officials as part of the
first delegation that the President sent to India since the new
government was formed just about a month ago. And that trip I commented
on last week was a very good trip because it really enhanced good
feeling, if you will, between other two countries.
But one of the things that the President of India said today that was
very good about the trip or that he appreciated about this trip by Bill
Richardson was the fact that the U.S. representatives, including
Ambassador Richardson, viewed India independently from the other South
Asian countries. In other words, in the past, India has felt that U.S.
foreign policy looks at India vis-a-vis Pakistan or vis-a-vis
Bangladesh or some of its other South Asian neighbors and does not see
it as its own country with its own place, if you will, an important
place in world affairs. And that clearly has changed.
When Ambassador Bill Richardson went to India, he made it quite clear
that India is a priority of U.S. foreign policy, and it is a priority
viewed independently, if you will, because of India's own status in
world affairs.
Now, that is not to say that Ambassador Richardson and the others
during this visit did not want to increase the dialogue between India
and its neighbors in South Asia. Quite the contrary. They stressed
during the trip, and the media reported the fact, that they stressed
the need for India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue and try to
improve their relations. And in fact, today when I spoke to the
President of India, he was very optimistic that that indeed would
happen, that sometime in the next few weeks or the next few months that
the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan would meet at the Prime
Minister level possibly, at the trade meeting of the SAARC group in
July, or maybe even sooner than that, and that this dialogue between
the two countries to try to reduce tension and bring not only Pakistan
and India but all the countries of South Asia together again
economically, politically and maybe even eventually militarily, that
this dialogue would continue. So that was a very optimistic aspect of
my conversation today with the President that I wanted to mention to my
colleagues this evening.
The other thing that the President of India stressed at the meeting
today was the need for U.S. support for India to become a permanent
member of the U.N. Security Council. Obviously, a big part of his trip
today to New York related to the United Nations, and the United Nations
is a focal point of India's efforts these days to become a permanent
member of the Security Council.
Myself and a number of other members of our India caucus have, in
fact, sponsored a House resolution where we express the sense of this
Congress that India should be a permanent member of the Security
Council, and we are hoping that eventually we can get that resolution
passed, but we are also hopeful that the State Department will
eventually come around to that point of view.
Again, the President of India was appreciative of the fact that the
United States is pushing for an expanded Security Council, but he would
like to see the U.S. directly support India's bid for a seat, as would
I.
The last thing I wanted to mention in this regard is that when I
spoke to India's President today, he was also very much of the vein,
and I certainly agree, and I think it has been shown in the last 2
weeks as well, that the trade and business and investment relationship
between our two countries, between India and the United States, is also
going to move progressively forward.
There was some concern, I think, on the part of American
businesspeople that with the new government, the BJP government as we
call it, that they might not be as willing to move forward to encourage
U.S. investment and more trade or might put up some barriers to U.S.
articles, certain U.S. materials or articles coming into India. But
that has sort of been put to rest in the last 2 weeks.
India's Finance Minister was in Washington just a short time ago, and
he made it quite clear that the new government wants to move forward in
terms of U.S. investment, particularly in infrastructure, that the
market reforms would continue, that privatization would continue. And I
mentioned to the President of India today that this was very important
to the United States, and he was of the opinion that we had nowhere to
go but forward in terms of increasing our trade and business
relationships.
So once again, I just wanted to say in conclusion this evening that
what has been happening since the new government was elected in India
in March has been very positive in terms of U.S. relations. I believe
very strongly that the United States needs to think of India as a
priority of its foreign policy and that we need to expand business and
trade opportunities with India and basically have our countries work
together in almost every area, whether it is political, diplomatic,
economic, or even military. And I think we are clearly moving in that
direction in terms of the developments that have taken place in the
last month between our two countries.
____________________