Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5620-S5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT

The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know where the bill before the
Senate goes next, but obviously I have joined with Senator Gramm in
trying to make a statement about this bill. In the process of trying to
do that, there are many ways to make statements and there are many ways
to talk about what is in a bill, what is out of it, what is not in the
bill, to argue about what its value is, what its ultimate goal is, and
what it might achieve.
There is another way, and that is to offer an amendment or
amendments. There are a lot of amendments pending. As I indicated, I
don't know how many of them are serious. I have five or six myself that
I think are serious that in due course I will offer. I would like to
discuss, from the standpoint of those who are wondering about the
Gramm-Domenici amendment to cut taxes on a very deserving group of
Americans, what it is all about.
When you raise taxes on anybody in the United States, you have to ask
yourself a very fundamental question of what you ought to do with the
taxes you raise. Now, if America were undertaxed and we were taxing
Americans--be it a cigarette tax that at $1.10 a pack would yield over
time $750 to $800 billion, or whether it is an income tax or sales
tax--you have to ask yourself, if America is being taxed too much
already, shouldn't something very high on the list of considerations
for what to do with the increased revenue be a consideration of
lowering the taxes on Americans?
Obviously, there have been some arguments already, and there will be
more about the amendment which we offered which, hopefully, will be
modified, that says let's give back some of the taxes we pick up here
to Americans who are suffering the penalty of a Tax Code that punishes
people for being married and earning a living by both spouses working.
For they, in most cases, pay more in taxes than if they both had the
identical jobs, at the same annual earnings, and were not married and
filing separate returns--one of the most onerous, ill-conceived uses of
the Tax Code.
How in the world can we run around, as policymakers, and say we favor
the family and then add a burden of taxation to spouses, who are part
of a family, by taxing them more because they are married and working
than if they were single and working? That has to be an absolutely
absurd policy in light of the problems we have in this country that are
family oriented, and many of them have to do with income of families.
Secondly, it is obvious that every cent of a cigarette tax that we
all of a sudden came up with and has been debated on the floor as a tax
that should be $1.10, maybe $1.50, maybe 75 cents, and then for
somebody to come to the floor and assume that whatever the level is,
every penny of it ought to be spent for new programs--now, that isn't
the way it is said; it is said, new programs to do some great things.
Well, I think everything the Government tries to do and spends money
on ought to be things we really believe are important things, important
aspects, important events, important projects. Now we are reinventing a
bunch of new ones, and then we are saying to the States: You spend your
money in very specific ways.
I don't care who agreed to the ways that we are going to send this
money back to the States to be spent, it seems to me the question has
to be asked first, How much is needed to direct a program that has a
probability of success in terms of making our young people alter their
smoking habits and quit smoking? And nobody can say that you need a
huge portion of this tax bill to run advertisements on that, to have
programs in our schools or wherever to try to inhibit that. That can't
come close to spending the amount of money that is in this bill.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is my first speech in a couple of
days. I am sorry. I will yield soon. In fact, I will yield the floor.
Mr. President, the point is that nobody can stand up on this floor
and say we knew when we started talking about cigarette taxes and how
much it would yield precisely how much ought to be spent for some
American programs that would help alleviate the smoking problem, or
even research more into the cause of cancer and try to cure it. Nobody
knows what is the right number, but everybody knows that as much money
as this bill will raise is not needed for that.
Anybody in their right mind would look at how much is coming in and
how much you need to do precisely the kind of things that people say
this bill ought to do, and it is not close to the amount of money that
is coming in. So that leads you to a conclusion, in my humble opinion,
that you ought to give some of this money back to the taxpayers of the
country.
I cannot believe we are so unconcerned about the taxpayers of this
country that we would sort of block off this $700 billion in new
revenues--if that is what it is over 25 years--and say, look, the
American people and their tax-paying requirements have nothing to do
with this new tax imposed on them. Why not? Why do we say that? We are
adding to the tax ``take,'' and we give no benefit to the American
people for these new taxes we are going to raise.
Back to my argument. One way to try to send a message and distinguish
between various approaches, which I choose to call tax and spend it
all, or another group who would say tax and give some of it back to the
American people who already feel, in many instances--and they are
right--that they are paying too much in taxes.
Now, that is why the Gramm-Domenici amendment is important. I have
already stated its precise purpose is to try to ameliorate the negative
tax treatment on married couples, both of whom work, from a Tax Code
which penalizes that versus the same two people making the same amount
of money, but not married, and are part of a family--they pay less.
So the purpose is good, but the message is completely different. The
message is, when you have this much new revenue, shouldn't you give
some of it back to the taxpayers of America? Nobody is going to be able
to come to this floor, with our ability to proliferate in producing
charts, and tell the American people with any credibility that every
single dollar coming in on this tax has a nice precise niche that it
should be spent for, all of which is aimed at helping to try to get
kids to stop smoking cigarettes. Or I am willing to add one--doing
research and trying to prevent the diseases that come from smoking.
Take the two together and you could not produce a credible chart
showing how every penny in this bill must be spent for that or you are
not doing your job.

So I believe that, sooner or later, we deserve an opportunity to have
an up-or-down vote on the proposition that I have just described here
today. It is very simple. One, do you think you should change the Tax
Code as it pertains to the marriage tax penalty and

[[Page S5621]]

help families and married couples out who are being penalized because
of this Tax Code? And, two, do you think that, with this large new tax
being imposed, you ought to give about a third of it back to the
taxpayers of this country? We want the public to just focus, very
simply, on those two issues.
This bill will permit us to do both. I have no doubt, Mr. President,
that what is left over is more than adequate. In fact, I am not sure I
would vote to spend all of the money that is left over for the program
described in this bill. Nonetheless, that is not at issue with
reference to the Gramm-Domenici amendment.
The issue is a simple proposition: Do you think the marriage tax
penalty ought to be fixed? Secondly, do you think when you have this
huge new tax increase, you ought to give some of it back to the
American people? We want to vote on that. That is a way of
distinguishing between the feelings of various Senators about a new tax
bill that is essentially, in its current form, tax and spend versus
another approach that says tax--which may be helpful, we are not sure--
and give some of it back to the American people. Under that is the very
interesting proposition that there probably is no fairer thing to do
with better, positive American policy than to fix the marriage tax
penalty while you are at it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am interested to hear these comments by
Senator Domenici. Just a short time ago--a month ago--Senator Coverdell
proposed an amendment on the budget resolution that would have repealed
the marriage penalty or marriage tax, and a budget point of order was
lodged against it. The Senator from New Mexico, apparently, for reasons
that are not clear, voted against waiving the Budget Act. Now the
Senator from New Mexico will say that he didn't want to waive the
Budget Act. The fact is that if the Budget Act had been waived, the
marriage penalty would have been repealed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. No. That is a fact. That is what the vote was on the
budget resolution. It was not carried by a vote. It was rejected 38-62;
38 Republicans felt strongly that the marriage tax should be repealed.
Those who voted against it were Senators Bond, Chafee, Coats, Cochran,
Collins, D'Amato, DeWine, Domenici, Gorton, Grassley, Hagel, Jeffords,
Lugar, Mack, Snowe, Specter, and Stevens.
Mr. President, I have a letter sent to Senator Lott and Senator
Daschle. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Dear Senators Lott and Daschle: As the Senate continues to
consider tobacco legislation, the nation's Governors want to
make clear that we will oppose any amendments that would
effectively reduce the $196.5 billion in tobacco settlement
funds dedicated to states and territories to settle state
lawsuits. Naturally, the federal government is free to
prioritize how it will use those tobacco revenues generated
by S. 1415 not reserved for the states and territories--a
total that will exceed $300 billion over twenty-five years.
These federally prioritized uses of tobacco revenues,
however, must not cut into the state settlement pool.
If national tobacco legislation is intended to settle the
state and territories' lawsuits against the tobacco industry,
they must receive a portion of the new tobacco revenues
sufficient to resolve their claims. S. 1415 dedicates $196.5
billion to the states and territories over twenty-five years,
a total consistent with the level negotiated by the state
attorneys general with the tobacco industry in the original
June 20, 1997, agreement. Preserving this state settlement
pool, free from federal recoupment efforts, is one of the
Governors' highest priorities related to S. 1415.
Reducing the size of the state tobacco settlement pool will
significantly jeopardize all states and territories,
including those that have individually settled their own
lawsuits. Such a decision would force the Governors to
reconsider our position on the state financing section of the
overall bill.
Sincerely,
Governor George V. Voinovich, State of Ohio; Governor Roy
Romer, State of Colorado; Governor Thomas R. Carper,
State of Delaware; Governor Lawton Chiles, State of
Florida; Governor Bob Miller, State of Nevada; Governor
Michael O. Leavitt, State of Utah; Governor Howard
Dean, M.D., State of Vermont; Governor Jim Edgar, State
of Illinois; Governor Frank O'Bannon, State of Indiana;
Governor Terry E. Branstad, State of Iowa; Governor
John Egler, State of Michigan; Governor Mel Carnahan,
State of Missouri; Governor Jeanne Shaheen, State of
New Hampshire; Governor David M. Beasley, State of
South Carolina; Governor Tommy G. Thompson, State of
Wisconsin; Governor Benjamin J. Cayetano, State of
Hawaii; Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., State of North
Carolina; Governor Edward T. Schafer, State of North
Dakota; Governor John A. Kitzhsber, State of Oregon;
Governor Pedro Rossello, Puerto Rico; Governor Don
Sundquist, State of Tennessee; Governor Gary Locke,
State of Washington; Governor Christine T. Whitman,
State of New Jersey; Governor Cecil H. Underwood, State
of West Virginia; Governor John G. Rowland, State of
Connecticut; Governor E. Benjamin Nelson, State of
Nebraska; Governor Mike Huckabee, State of Arkansas;
Governor Gary E. Johnson, State of New Mexico; Governor
Zell Miller, State of Georgia; Governor Tom Ridge,
State of Pennsylvania; Governor Pete Wilson, State of
California; Governor Parris N. Glendening, State of
Maryland; Governor Marc Racicot, State of Montana;
Governor Jim Geringer, State of Wyoming; Governor
Lincoln Almond, State of Rhode Island; and Governor
Angus S. King, Jr., State of Maine.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico clearly feels
that the money needs to go to the Federal Government. I feel, and I
think conservative Republicans feel, it should go back to the States
who incurred the expenses. If the Senator from New Mexico doesn't want
the money to go to the States, then he will continue to see two things
happen--the money never coming to the Federal Government because the
States will continue their lawsuits and the settlements--at least in
the last four States--of as much as $6.5 billion, as in the case of
Minnesota; and none of that money will go to the Federal Government.
Not a penny. The fact is that the money will go back to the States to
repay the huge tax bill they are paying now; $50 billion in citizens'
tax dollars are going to pay, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid
expenses, for tobacco-related illnesses.
Now, there are some who want this to come to the Federal Government
so that the appropriators and the Budget Committee can assign the funds
to wherever they want. I want a significant amount of that money to go
to the States. They are the ones who have been paying a big part of the
bill. If the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Texas want to
kill this bill, then there will be 37 States that go to court,
beginning the day after this legislation dies, and they will fight this
out in court. They seem to win every time. They don't even go to a jury
trial, Mr. President.
The tobacco companies settle, and guess what they do? They agree to
smoking cessation programs and they agree to all the huge bureaucracies
that have been pointed out. They go to reimburse Medicaid expenses.
They pay for antitobacco advertising because the States that get the
money believe that in order to stop kids from smoking, you don't just
raise a tax--although that is important. You don't just raise revenue,
but you have to do other things as well.
So I hope my colleagues will pay attention to the letter from the 36
Governors--I am sure the other 14 will be joining--as to how they feel
about legislation that doesn't repay them for the expenses that they
incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses.
I see that my colleague from Massachusetts wants to speak as well.
Let's dispense with this myth about this being a ``big tax bill.'' What
it is is a much smaller tax bill than the tax bill that the American
people are already paying in the form of Medicare and Medicaid expenses
in order to pay for tobacco-related illnesses. And with children
smoking going up, guess what, Mr. President? That tax bill goes up. It
will get bigger and bigger. So if you want to worry about big tax
bills, there is a huge tax bill we are paying right now. We will be
paying a much larger tax bill if this trend of kids smoking continues
to grow.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I will be very brief. I know the Senator from Oklahoma
wants to speak momentarily. How long does he think he will go?

[[Page S5622]]

Mr. NICKLES. I was going to speak for a few minutes. I feel that I
would like to respond to a couple of comments made by the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wanted to say for the
Record, so that the Record is absolutely clear here, the Senator from
New Mexico said that we are going to get a vote and we ought to be able
to get a vote in order to properly allow the American people to receive
back some of the money that is in this bill that he has charged is
somehow being very badly spent.
I think it is important to understand that, No. 1, the division of
the money, the revenues, that come in from this bill, was not arrived
at in some sort of hasty or unthought-out way. It is not representative
of a casual wish list. This is a reflection of what the Governors and
the settlements originally arrived at as a notion of those concerns
that ought to be addressed through any tobacco legislation.
Second, they are a reflection of the Commerce Committee that voted 19
to 1 to send this legislation to the floor with a framework that
articulated the broad outlines of how money would be spent and,
finally, through a fairly arduous negotiation process which measured
very carefully the needs.
The Senator said he would challenge anybody to come to the floor and
suggest they could defend that every penny in here is being spent as
wisely as possible. That is not a hard challenge to fail on. I am not
going to try to do that, nor would anybody.
Can we find some money here appropriately to try to address the
question of the tax cut? We said yes. That is not the debate here. This
is not the choice that he presented to the Senate, a choice either
between those who want to give something back to people who want to pay
a marriage penalty and those who do not. That is not the choice; it is
a choice between two different approaches to doing that. We believe
that we have the right to have an opportunity to have ours also voted
on, that they ought to be voted on at the same time. That is what the
division is over here.
I think it is important to reflect on the fact that 40 percent of
these funds go back to the States in the most direct way, a reflection,
I think, of the need of the Governors to be given the opportunity to
make decisions about how they can best deliver back their portion of
the Medicaid expenses, which is what we are refunding.
In addition to that, money is not just spent in a supercilious way,
the way the Senator suggested on a whole lot of Government programs
that do not already have a track record of accomplishment. Public
health, NIH--I might say it was the Senator from Florida, Senator Mack,
a Republican, together with Senator Frist, who fought very hard for the
notion that there ought to be adequate research funds here. NIH and
research are 22 percent of these funds.
In addition to that, farmers--I think both sides are competing over
how to better take care of the farmers. That reflects some 16 percent
of the expenditures, leaving you with only 22 percent that goes to
public health--22 percent--that is then divided among
counteradvertising, cessation programs, and other kinds of efforts to
try to reduce teenage smoking.
The Senator from Missouri was on the floor a little earlier, and he
was trying to suggest that there are alternative studies and the
Canadian experience that somehow suggests an outcome different from
what we get by raising the price here.
I simply say for the record--very quickly, because I don't want to
tie the Senate up now--that I know we want to have a vote, that the
methodology of the Cornell study that he referred to was very
specifically found flawed, and it was found flawed both in the number
of people that they examined and the manner that they examined them.
When that flaw was corrected for the appropriate acknowledgment of that
flaw, in fact, the Cornell study came out consistent with almost all
other studies with respect to the impact of price on smoking.
It is interesting to me that those who want to come to the floor and
criticize the relationship of price to discouraging kids from smoking
completely choose to ignore all of the memoranda of the tobacco
companies themselves, that for 20 years have said they know they lose
smokers when the price goes up. Their own memoranda say it. You can't
have it both ways, it seems to me. The fact is, there is a correlation.
On the Canadian experience, the Canadians specifically, as they saw
an increase in their price, there was a decrease in the amount of
smoking, and there was an equilibration ultimately between their prices
and ours.
The Canadian experience, in fact, documents that the pattern of youth
smoking in Canada confirmed the sensitivity of youth to price changes.
In 1981, Canada had a youth smoking rate that was about 50 percent
higher than that in the United States. Over the next decade, they
raised their prices by over 100 percent and teen smoking fell by almost
one-half.
Mr. President, we need to deal with the facts here. I hope that the
Senate will do so as we vote over the course of the next days.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 2438

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in an effort to move things forward, I move
to table the Durbin amendment No. 2438, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

YEAS--29

Allard
Breaux
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Hagel
Helms
Hollings
Kyl
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Robb
Roth
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--66

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Lott

NOT VOTING--4

Biden
Hatch
Inouye
Specter
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2438) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since the last amendment was not tabled, I
ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated; that the
amendment be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, all without further action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2438) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2451 to Amendment No. 2437

(Purpose: To stop illegal drugs from entering the United
States, to provide additional

[[Page S5623]]

resources to combat illegal drugs, and to establish
disincentives for teenagers to use illegal drugs.)

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk in the
second degree, which is the so-called Coverdell-Craig drug amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Mr. Coverdell,
for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Faircloth, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment
numbered 2451 to amendment No. 2437.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I only do so to note to
my colleagues that this is the third Republican amendment now in a row.
And I am hopeful we can continue to alternate back and forth, but I
will not object.
Mr. LOTT. I thought we just voted on the Durbin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LOTT. Was there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no objection.
Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, pending now is the
drug amendment. I hope Senators will begin to debate this very
important amendment. I know that there are very strong feelings on this
amendment also. However, no further votes will occur tonight. I expect
the debate on the amendment to continue through tomorrow's session.
The minority leader filed a cloture motion on the committee amendment
earlier today. That cloture vote will occur on Tuesday, at a time to be
determined after discussion between the two of us and after
consultation with others in terms of schedule. So there will be no
votes in Friday's session of the Senate.
However, Senator Daschle and I are looking at bills that are
relatively noncontroversial or noncontroversial that we may be able to
take up tomorrow during the day. And the vote would be scheduled in the
group on Tuesday morning when we vote, at a time we will notify the
Members later on on Tuesday.
Now, again, I hope we can reach agreement tomorrow to provide for a
vote on this amendment, hopefully prior to the cloture vote; but all
Senators will be notified about the voting schedule. I urge the
Senators who have been working on the marriage penalty tax to continue
to work to get an agreement on that amendment so that we can have a
vote on it. We will try to see if we can reach agreement perhaps to
consider another bill on Monday. But we will continue on amendments to
the tobacco bill beginning after the cloture vote is defeated on
Tuesday morning.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
Mr. DASCHLE. Does the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield, Mr. President.
Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader noted that tentatively the vote, the
cloture vote, is scheduled for Tuesday. There are only two ways that
could occur. One would be for us to seek unanimous consent for the vote
to be postponed until Tuesday; or, secondly, that we are not in session
on Monday, which would then make Tuesday the next business day when the
cloture vote would ripen.

I am hopeful that the majority leader and I can find a way with which
to resolve the schedule that will accommodate both sides. So I hope
that perhaps we might tentatively announce that the vote will be held
on Tuesday, but certainly if we are in session, I am not prepared at
this point to agree to a unanimous consent request that would move it
to Tuesday until we have been able to talk through the balance of the
schedule.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond. I thought that Senator
Daschle and I had talked about it and had an agreement that we would do
it on Tuesday morning. I realize we have to get consent to do that. The
alternative is, as he said, that we not be in session on Monday, which
is, I guess, a possibility, but it is pretty hard to complain about not
making progress when we are not in session working on something.
The other alternative is to come in at an early hour; and
approximately an hour after that time, the vote occurs then, which
means that the vote could be at 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, Monday afternoon,
which, for Senators coming from California and Utah and Washington
State, that presents a real problem because their planes do not get
here until about 4:30.
So I was hoping we could take that time Monday to make some progress
on some other issue or have debate on this issue and have the vote that
everybody will be here for at 9:30. But it would be fine with me that
we have it earlier in the afternoon. But I just assume that both sides
will have problems with that. We will talk about it further, and we
will hotline the Members on exactly what time they can expect that
cloture vote to occur.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would ask the majority leader if he intends to
bring up the highway corrections bill, because if he does, I have an
amendment I would like to offer. It is a very simple amendment, very
direct amendment. And I cannot do that unless it is brought up.
Mr. LOTT. We would not bring it up without Members being on notice
who have an interest in it. That technical corrections bill does need
to be done. I believe it is supported on both sides of the aisle and by
the administration. We need to get that done, and we would need to do
it by unanimous consent. But if the Senator has reservations, he will
be notified about it. But we will get it done, and we would want to do
it without a modification.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I say to the majority leader, I also am very
anxious to get it done, but in the spirit of being able to offer
amendments. And unless I am able to offer an amendment, I would have to
object to----
Mr. LOTT. I say to the Senator, it is important we get these
technical corrections done, because some legitimate, honest mistakes
were made and several important projects could be affected. And we need
to do it as soon as we can. But unless we can get unanimous consent, it
will not be done. It has already passed the House. So we will have to
find a way--I am working with Senators on our side, too, as I know
Senators are working over there, to clear up concerns.
There are other ways to address those concerns. And we are trying to
get that worked out. We need to get it done. We need to do it by
unanimous consent. And I, in fact, have met with one Senator this
afternoon and discussed how to address a legitimate concern he has. So
we will work with the chairman.
Did the chairman want to respond to this at all?
Mr. CHAFEE. No. What I have been trying to do is narrow down the
problems that have come up. And I had down on the list to see the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia. As you said, we want to get
this thing done. I think we can get it done and take care of problems
by explaining them or getting to them in some fashion. So I look
forward to meeting with the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now yield the floor so the manager of the
bill can speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just briefly, I would like to congratulate
the Senator from Illinois on the significant vote. In fact, a number of
Senators experienced an epiphany late in the vote because of his
persuasive powers. So I congratulate the Senator on his vote.
I just want to make it clear, Mr. President, we intend to move
forward. We will have a vote on the Gramm amendment. We may have a
Daschle amendment. I happen to think it is fair that we go back to what
we originally started doing--one amendment on either side. I think that
is the fair way that most legislation has been conducted on the floor
since I have been here.
We intend to move forward. We intend to reach a conclusion. I hope
that

[[Page S5624]]

both the majority leader and Democratic leader will consider trying to
bring this to closure next week. We have had now 2 weeks of extensive
debate and amending on the issues.
It seems to me outstanding are the tax issues that Senator Gramm and
Senator Daschle may have; the issue of attorneys' fees is going to come
back up, I believe; and, of course, then there is the agricultural
issue outstanding. But aside from that, Mr. President, I do not think
there is a lot of new ground to be plowed. I think we need to move
forward. I believe we will move forward. And I am still confident--I am
still confident--that we will bring this issue to conclusion sooner
rather than later, to coin a phrase.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment before
us, the amendment that has been offered by myself, Senator Craig from
Idaho, and Senator Abraham from Michigan.
I will take just a few minutes to frame in general terms the purpose
of this amendment. And then my colleague from Idaho will address the
amendment and outline its details.
My good friend from Idaho will not be here tomorrow so he will be
making a major presentation this evening, and then tomorrow I will
return to elaborate further on the amendment.
Let me first try to put it in focus. We are talking about teenage
addiction, and have been for the last several months, specifically on
the floor, over 2 weeks. I have been struck by the fact that a major
piece of legislation would be brought to the floor of the Senate,
proposed by the administration, to deal with teenage problems, and
addiction specifically, and be totally silent on the issue of drug
addiction.
The majority of drug abuse among teenagers--the majority--is by
smoking, smoking marijuana, which is a more lethal and damaging drug
than tobacco. Yet, this legislation was silent on the issue.
The amendment is designed to end the silence. Teenage drug abuse is
the No. 1 teenage problem--No. 1 by any measurement, teenagers, their
parents, or empirical evidence. For us to have dealt with this issue
and to have remained silent would have been unconscionable.
If I can for a second outline the scope of the problem. In 1979, 14.1
percent, or 3.3 million teenagers age 12 to 17 were involved with
consistent drug abuse.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator for a clarification on his amendment,
which I had a chance to read.
The Senator was kind enough to support my amendment to vote against
the motion to table and yet there is language in his amendment which
suggests that my amendment is made null and void by your new amendment.
Is that the Senator's intention?
Mr. COVERDELL. No, it is not.
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to clarify that. So the Senator still supports
my amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL. That is not my intention, to obviate.
Mr. DURBIN. It is not your intention.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. COVERDELL. Let me continue, for the Nation to step forward with
the powerful will to drive down teenage drug abuse by two-thirds--two-
thirds--for those people who think this is a problem for which nothing
can be done, I remind everyone listening that when the Nation decides
to commit itself to resolving this drug epidemic, it can make headway.
For example, in 1979, 14.1 percent were using it. By 1992, it had been
driven down to 5.3 percent--2 million less youngsters were using drugs.
But then something went wrong, something has gone badly wrong.
Since 1992, drug abuse by this same class of teenagers has increased
135 percent. I repeat, 135 percent. What does that mean? That means
that drug abuse has more than doubled since 1992. Drug abuse is now
affecting 2 million teenagers. It has increased by over a million. This
is a devastating indictment on contemporary drug policy in the United
States.
The Nation's will must be rejuvenated. This amendment will do that.
When this administration took office, we quit talking and hearing about
drugs. The drug czar's office was collapsed. Gratefully, it has now
been reopened. It was collapsed. The Coast Guard was diminished.
Interdiction was cut in half. The country was flooded by drugs. The
price of these illicit drugs dropped by 50 to 80 percent, so they
became accessible at every corner and to any school in the Nation. If
you don't believe that, just go to the school and ask the students.
They can tell you the designer names of the drugs. They can tell you
exactly how long it takes, and it is usually no longer than 30 minutes.

So we should not be shocked that drug abuse is skyrocketing and is a
new epidemic among teenagers. It is even made more sad by the fact that
in the 1960s and the 1970s, the last drug epidemic we suffered, higher-
aged teenagers, 15 to 20, were involved in the drug crisis. Now the
target is age 8 to 14.
We have been asking the President repeatedly to set forth the goals
of his administration during his administration to arrest this
epidemic. The response is that they will lower drug use among teenagers
back to the level at which they took office, 10 years from now, in the
year 2007, 2\1/2\ Presidencies away. Our goal is to get it back to
where it was when they took office. This is unacceptable. We cannot
wait 10 years.
So this amendment is a bold interdiction. It focuses on interdiction.
It improves the antinarcotic struggle by Customs, by DOD, Department of
Defense, by DEA, by the FBI, by the Coast Guard. It dramatically
increases the funding of the interdiction budget. It stiffens penalties
and it creates a communication program to communicate to parents and
students about the dangers of the drug epidemic in which they live
today.
It is our intention, myself and my coauthors, that whatever passes
the Senate, will have an antidrug component. It will not be silent on
the Nation's No. 1 problem for teenagers. That is unacceptable. It will
be an expression to reignite the Nation around the will to confront
this epidemic and these narcotic mafia who are the most serious and
dangerous the Nation has ever--I repeat, ever--confronted.
I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who have joined me in this
effort. We are going to have a vigorous debate about it.
I yield the floor at this time in deference to others who wish to
speak.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be brief tonight. I will speak at
greater length about this amendment tomorrow. I want to thank my
colleagues. I am pleased to join Senators Coverdell and Craig on this
amendment.
Tomorrow I will be citing some statistics, Mr. President, that reveal
the extent to which the young people of this country confront an ever
increasing and alarming rate of drug usage.
We obviously are attempting, in the context of this tobacco bill, to
address one of the problems and challenges facing young people, but I
think as I talk to at least the families in my State, as high as any
challenge or problem that they see confronting their kids, particularly
children starting as early as seventh and eighth grade, is the illicit
use of drugs, and, unfortunately, the growing number of individuals who
are making those drugs available to our young people.
Our amendment is designed to begin the process of addressing that in
a far more aggressive fashion than has been the case during the recent
4, 5, 6 years. We have seen, as I think most of the Members of this
Chamber know, that during the last 5 years, the use of drugs among
young people has gone up after a lengthy period of decline. And it is
important, I think, as we confront the issue of tobacco, that we
likewise confront the issue of drugs.
I join both of my colleagues in saying that I fervently believe no
legislation should leave this Chamber absent provisions that are strong
and tough antidrug provisions. So I thank my colleagues and I will
speak more about it tomorrow. I am glad it is now before the Senate so
that we can proceed on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the time has come for the

[[Page S5625]]

Senate to begin debate on a portion of the legislation before us that I
think, if accepted by this body, will be the most significant thing
that we can possibly do.
Mr. President, even before the bill before us was brought to the
floor of the Senate, the question of tobacco has been, for many months,
one of the major issues of public debate, if not the major issue in
some quarters.
The Clinton administration, in particular, has crusaded for
legislation supposedly aimed at preventing America's teens from taking
up a deadly habit, arguing that the need for this legislation is so
strong that questions of cost and constitutionality, or the ordering of
social priorities, are left by the wayside. Even raising such questions
is to invite the accusation of being a tool of the big tobacco
companies. How dare you stand in the way of this legislation.
Not long ago, Mr. President, I was in Idaho speaking to a group of
high school students. This was just as the tobacco issue was starting
to break out at the top of most news stories. I asked these kids what
the biggest problem facing them and their peers was and what that
problem was doing to their lives. When I mentioned tobacco, I'll be
honest with you, I was a bit surprised. I was surprised that a lot of
hands didn't go up because that is what the media had been talking
about, what the front pages were telling us. In fact, Mr. President,
only a few hands went up. But when I asked about illegal drugs, almost
every hand went up. There was hardly a young person in any one of those
high school groups that I spoke to that didn't see drugs as a major
problem.
Mr. President, you come from a relatively rural State, as do I, and,
remember, teenage drug abuse is supposed to be a problem of the big
inner-city schools. But the school I was talking to was a school of 250
in rural Idaho. Yet, nearly every hand went up because every one of
those students knew someone in their age group who was misusing or was
involved in illegal drugs, and they were concerned about that young
person's future. They were concerned about the effect it would have on
their friends' lives. Well, someone might say that these are kids, what
do they know? We are the adults; we are the United States Senators, and
we are supposed to have a more mature view of the problems that face
the citizens of our country. Yes, I would hope that we as adults would
be able to make mature and considered judgments on these questions. But
in sensing that drugs present a bigger threat to them now than does
tobacco, I think these kids are right. Yes, we should do everything
reasonable that we can possibly do to discourage young people from
taking up smoking.

I was once a smoker myself, and I know that it is not easy to quit. I
fought it hard and I fought it for a long time. And I haven't smoked in
8 years. I am proud of that and so is my family. But if these kids do
start smoking, the real danger they will face will be 10 and 20 and 25
years out, before which let us hope they mature, that they have a
reason to think about their life and their health, and they quit like I
did, and they become parents who discourage their children from
smoking.
Smoking may kill teens later in life, but illegal drugs are killing
them today. Whether we are talking about overdoses, car accidents, or
the violence associated with the drug trade, illegal drugs present a
clear and immediate danger to every young person who tries them, to
their families, and to their communities. Talk to the parents of a
child they have just lost to an overdose of drugs, and they didn't
realize until it was too late that their child was on drugs. No family,
no socioeconomic family in every strata, or at any level, is immune.
Not one kid will likely die this year because he or she lit their first
cigarette. But thousands of Americans will die because they started
using drugs this year. Kids who started using drugs today may not get a
chance to mature out of that habit, as I did and as thousands do.
I expect there are very few parents who would not care whether their
kids decided to start smoking. Most of them care a great deal. However,
if they were asked whether they would be more concerned about their
teens starting to smoke or becoming a user of marijuana, crack, or
heroin, how many parents would say they would take the dope over
tobacco? Well, we know what they say. We have seen it in the polling.
Let me tell you, Mr. President, the polling is dramatic. The polling is
very clear. The parents of today in the highest of percentages say, Get
the drugs away from our kids. It is the No. 2 issue. And way down at
the bottom of all of those issues that parents are concerned about, as
it relates to their kids, is smoking. Yet for the last 2 weeks, this
Senate has been focused on that issue. Why? Because it is politically
popular. We are going to bash those big tobacco companies because they
lied to the American people, and we are going to save teenagers from
smoking, and we are going to raise taxes to an all-time high to do it.
We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, No. 1, No.
2, and No. 3, in any poll you take, on the average parent's mind today
is the kids associated with drugs, the kids associated with gangs, the
kids being killed in car accidents; and way down at the bottom, but on
the list of 10 or 12 items, is smoking.
That is one reason I question the administration's priorities
tonight. In the abstract, I suppose that if drug use continued at the
steady decline of the ``just say no'' Reagan and Bush era, if we could
honestly say we had the drug dealers on the run, we might start to ask,
Well, what is the next thing on the list of national priorities that
this Congress ought to become involved in? But that is not what we see.
The drug policy of the Clinton administration has been by every measure
except theirs a miserable failure. From an early slashing of the
funding for the White House antidrug office, to the administration's
effort to have it both ways on clean needles for addicts, to their
effort to lower penalties for crack cocaine to equal those of powder,
to the President's grossly irresponsible ``I wish I had inhaled''
comment on MTV, this administration has sent all the wrong signals. And
guess what? Those signals have been picked up by the young people of
this country, and the predictable results have occurred.

Two national annual surveys show that drug abuse by our Nation's
youth has increased steadily since the Clinton administration came into
office.
The University of Michigan December 1997 Monitoring the Future Study,
and the 1997 Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education, and the so-
called PRIDE Survey each offer cause for alarm.
The Monitoring the Future Study reveals that illicit drug use among
America's schoolchildren has constantly increased throughout the
Clinton administration.
Mr. President, here comes the figures of alarming proportion.
For eighth graders the portion using any illegal drug in the prior 12
months has increased 71 percent since the year President Clinton was
first elected. And since 1992, it has increased 89 percent amongst 10th
graders, and 57 percent amongst 12th graders. That is any illicit drug.
The numbers go straight through the roof since President Clinton came
to office. Reagan, Bush--numbers declining. Everybody laughed at Nancy
Reagan when she said ``Just say no.'' But she stood on a moral pedestal
along with George Bush and Ronald Reagan, and they stood as powerful
leaders and examples. We have a President who chuckled, and said,
``Well, I wish I had inhaled.'' Sorry, Mr. President. You sent all the
wrong signals.
Marijuana use accounted for much of the overall increase in illicit
drug use continuing its strong resurgence amongst eighth graders. Use
in the prior 12 months has increased 146 percent since 1992.
The year President Clinton was first elected to office, amongst 10th
graders, the annual prevalence has increased 129 percent amongst 12th
graders it has increased 76 percent since 1992.
Those ought to be figures that are spread in banner headlines in
every major newspaper in this country. And they go unnoticed except in
our schools, except with school administrators and counselors, and most
importantly with parents, who say it is the No. 1 issue facing their
children and them as parents.
Of particular concern, according to the survey, is the continuing
rise in daily marijuana use amongst 10th and 12th graders. More than
one in every 25 of today's high school seniors is a current daily
marijuana user, with an 18.4-

[[Page S5626]]

percent increase since only last year, while only 1.1 percent of eighth
graders used marijuana daily in 1997. That still represents a 50-
percent increase since 1992.
Since President Clinton was first elected, annual LSD use has
increased over 52 percent, 68 percent, and 50 percent amongst 8th
graders and 10th graders and 12th graders, respectively. More than one
in 20 seniors in the class of 1997 used cocaine this year, a 12.2-
percent increase over just last year. That is cocaine. That is the drug
that kills. Crack cocaine also continued a gradual upward climb amongst
10th and 12th graders. In short, since 1992, annual cocaine use is up
87 percent, 147 percent, and 77 percent amongst 8th, 10th and 12th
graders, respectively.

The longer term gradual rise in the use of amphetamine stimulants
also continued within the class of 1997, increasing over 7 percent
since last year. Since 1992, annual heroin usage--heroin is on the
resurgence--has increased by 83 percent, 141 percent, and 92 percent
for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders.
America, these are our kids, and they are using heroin. This
administration doesn't talk about it.
The most recent PRIDE Survey shows a continuing and alarming increase
in drug abuse amongst young kids. Illegal drug use amongst 11- and 14-
year-olds has continued on a dangerous upward spiral.
According to the president of PRIDE, senior high drug use may have
stalled, but it is stalled at the highest levels that PRIDE has
measured in 10 years.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for
30 seconds to a minute so that I might clarify the issue that arose
about obviating.
Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield, but I would not lose any floor
right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Modification To Amendment No. 2451

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment numbered 2451.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The modification is as follows:
At the end of the Durbin amendment, insert the following:

TITLE --DRUG-FREE NEIGHBORHOODS

SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Neighborhoods
Act''.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor back to the Senator
from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that modification.
It does clarify an important point.
Mr. President, according to PRIDE--those are the folks out there on
the front line trying to stop kids from using drugs--senior high school
use may have stalled, but it has stalled at the highest level PRIDE has
measured in 10 years.
Until we see sharp declines in the use at all grade levels there will
be no reason to rejoice.
With respect to young students, the survey found a full 11 percent of
junior high students--that is grades 6 through 8--are monthly users of
illegal drugs. Junior high students reported significant increases in
monthly use of marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers, hallucinogens, and
heroin especially.
Can you imagine that, Mr. President? We are talking about junior high
kids. Heroin, drug of choice?
Annual marijuana use has increased 153 percent since Mr. Clinton
first took office. Cocaine use is up 88 percent.
Why aren't we spending weeks on the floor of the Senate debating
this, because it is the No. 1 issue amongst parents. The kids know it.
They know their friends are being killed by it. They are laughing at
the fact that they think we are going to legislate them away from
tobacco.
Hallucinogen use has increased 67 percent since Mr. Clinton took
office.
Now, in the face of this clear and present danger to our Nation's
youth, how can this administration justify their obsession with
tobacco? That is because there are 100 groups lined up to help them. It
is a popular political issue. I agree with them on the premise. But I
think they missed the point. They missed the point that the young
people of America are talking about. They might answer. ``Well, teen
rates of smoking are also going up.'' That is true. But if we look at
the facts on teen tobacco use, also found in the Monitoring of the
Future Report that I have been quoting, we see the same pattern as on
drug use--a steady decline in the Reagan-Bush years with a steady climb
since 1992. In other words, what our President says to America and
America's youth counts. When he makes light of his flirtation with
marijuana, they make light of it, too. That is a great tragedy.
Let us ask the question: Instead of hiking increases in teen smoking
to justify massive, intrusive, expensive legislation that will mostly
target adult smokers, shouldn't the administration admit that teen
smoking increase is yet another symptom of their failed drug policy?
Shouldn't they admit that having given kids a wink and a nod on drugs,
other bad habits would also appear more acceptable? Anybody who has
raised teenagers knows that.
Let's take a concrete example. Recently, an article appeared in the
New York Times. ``Young Blacks Link Tobacco Use to Marijuana.'' Strange
relationship. I am quoting the New York Times relating to a dramatic
increase in tobacco use amongst minority teenagers. According to this
article, experts believe that part of the explanation for increased
tobacco use amongst these teens is because they are already using
marijuana. And that tobacco prolongs the effect of marijuana smoking.
If so--and I recognize that there are certain complex factors here--
this is a case where tobacco use may be directly linked to our failing
drug policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1998]

Young Blacks Link Tobacco Use to Marijuana

(By Jane Gross)

Yonkers, April 21.--In the search to explain the spike in
smoking among black teen-agers, a range of theories has
evolved, from the proliferation of tobacco advertising in
minority communities to the stress of adolescence to the
identification with entertainment idols who appear with
cigarettes dangling from their lips.
Teen-agers themselves, and some experts who have studied
adolescent smoking, add another, less predictable explanation
to the mix of factors: the decision to take up smoking
because of a belief that cigarettes prolong the heady rush of
marijuana.
``It makes the high go higher,'' said Marquette, a 16-year-
old student at Saunders Trades and Technical High School here
who, like other students, spoke about her marijuana use on
the condition that only her first name be used.
At Washington Preparatory High School in South-Central Los
Angeles, Tifanni, also 16, said she took up cigarettes two
months ago because, ``If the marijuana goes down and you get
a cigarette, it will go up again.''
Black teen-agers like Marquette and Tifanni are not
unusual, according to interviews with dozens of adolescents
around the country and various national surveys. These
surveys show that blacks begin smoking cigarettes later than
white teen-agers, but start using marijuana earlier, a
difference experts say they cannot explain.
The surveys also show a sharp rise in both cigarette and
marijuana use among teen-agers in recent years, evident among
all races but most pronounced among blacks. White teen-agers
still smoke cigarettes at twice the rate of blacks, but the
gap is narrowing, signaling the end of low smoking rates
among black youths that had been considered a public health
success story.
It is not clear how much of the increase in smoking among
black teen-agers is due to the use of cigarettes with
marijuana, and experts say advertising has been the main
factor. But the marijuana-tobacco combination is notable
because it is the reverse of the more common progression from
cigarette and alcohol use to illegal drugs.
Many black teen-agers said in interviews that they were
drawn to cigarettes by friends who told them that nicotine
would enhance their high from marijuana, which has been lore
and practice among drug users of all races for decades. And
this is apparently no mere myth. Many scientists who study
brain chemistry say the link between cigarettes and marijuana
is unproven but likely true.
``African-American youth talk very explicitly about using
smoking to maintain a high,'' said Robin Mermelstein, a
professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the
principal investigator in an ongoing study of why teen-agers
smoke for the Federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. ``It's a commonly stated motivator.''

[[Page S5627]]

Dr. Mermelstein said that in focus groups with 1,200 teen-
agers around the country, about half the blacks mentioned
taking up cigarettes to enhance a marijuana high, but no
white teen-agers volunteered that as an explanation for
smoking. ``Cigarettes have a totally different functional
value for black and white kids,'' she said.
Even so, Dr. Mermelstein and others say that does not
diminish the greater impact of advertising and other media
messages in minority neighborhoods. ``Kids are
extraordinarily aware of the entertainment media,'' Dr.
Mermelstein said. ``They are very reluctant to see the link
between any of these and their behavior. But the influence is
undoubtedly there.''
Tiffany Faulkner, a 15-year-old at Ida B. Wells High School
in Jamaica, Queens, said, ``Tupac smoked and he's my man,''
referring to the slain rap star Tupac Shakur. ``But I didn't
smoke because of him,'' she said. ``I have my own head.''
Brand loyalty, however, suggests youths are more moved by
the advertising than they realize, or are willing to admit.
In general, Marlboro and Camel have white characters on
billboards and are the brands of choice among white teen-
agers, while Kool and Newport use minority images and are
favored by African-American teen-agers, as they are by their
parents. Outside Brighton High School in Boston, for
instance, every black student in a group of smokers chose
Newports. ``They're the cool cigarette,'' said Joey Simone,
18, a smoker since she was 11.
A 16-year-old Chicago girl who tried cigarettes briefly
said she is certain advertising is the key. ``When I was
little I would see pictures of people standing around with a
cigarette and it looked like fun,'' said Coleco Davis at
DuSable High School. ``They were all having a good time and
it didn't look like it could hurt you.''
This wave of new black smokers, drawn to a habit that kills
more people each year than all illegal drugs combined, has
researchers worried, because once teen-agers have experienced
the booster rocket effect of cigarettes prolonging a
marijuana high they often find themselves addicted to
tobacco.
``Because I was getting high, I needed it,'' said Mary, 16,
a student at Norman Thomas High School in Manhattan. ``The
cigarettes made me more high. Now it's become a habit. I feel
bad because there's nothing I can do to stop.''
The crescendo of concern about teen-age smoking is behind
pending Federal legislation that would raise the price of
cigarettes, control advertising to young people and penalize
manufacturers if there is not a gradual reduction in
adolescent smoking. That legislation took center stage in
Washington just as a new study earlier this month showed a
steep rise in the smoking rate among black youths.
The nationwide Federal study showed overall smoking rates
had increased by one third among high school students between
1991 and 1997. Most alarming to experts was the sharp rise
among black youths: 22.7 percent in 1997, up from 12.6
percent six years earlier.
Charyn Sutton, whose Philadelphia marketing company
conducts focus groups for Federal research agencies, said she
first heard about the current progression from marijuana to
cigarettes--what she calls the ``reverse gateway effect''--
during focus groups in 1995 involving black middle school
students. Ms. Sutton already knew about blunts, cigars
hollowed of tobacco and filled with marijuana. But now the
teen-agers told her that a practice familiar to the drug
cognoscenti as early as the 1960's and 1970's was popular in
the schoolyard of the late 1990's--enhancing the high of a
joint with a cigarette.
She tested what the teen-agers told her by talking to
addicts in recovery, who concurred. And to be sure that the
pattern she was seeing in Philadelphia was not a local
anomaly, she interviewed young African-Americans across the
nation. And, she said, she discovered that they were doing
the same thing.
The enhancing effect that teen-agers describe is consistent
with what is already known about the working of nicotine and
THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Both spur production
of dopamine, a brain chemical that produces pleasurable
sensations, said George Koob, a professor of neuro-
pharmacology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla,
Calif. ``It makes a lot of sense,'' Dr. Koob said.
At the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funds most
of the world's research on addiction, Alan I. Lesher, the
director, went a step further, saying the anecdotal findings
cried out for rigorous investigation. ``This is a reasonable
scientific question,'' he said. ``And if enough people report
experiencing it, it merits consideration.''
Researchers elsewhere have also taken note of strange
glitches in substance abuse data comparing blacks and whites.
For instance, Denise Kandel, a professor of public health
and psychology at Columbia University's College of
Physicians and Surgeons, found that while most substance
abusers progressed logically from legal to illegal
substances, ``the pattern of progression is less regular
among blacks and nobody really knows why.''
In 1991, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 14.7 percent of students said they had used
marijuana in the last 30 days; by 1995, the latest year for
which data is available, that rate had jumped to 25.3
percent. Among white youths, the rate increased to 24.6
percent from 15.2. Among Hispanics, it shot up to 27.8 from
14.4 and among blacks to 28.8 from 13.5, vaulting them from
last place to first in marijuana use by racial group.
The C.D.C. cigarette study, which tracks use through 1997,
shows a parallel pattern. Among white students, 39.7 percent
said they smoked cigarettes, up from 30.9 percent six years
ago. Among Hispanic students, more than one third now say
they smoke, up from roughly a quarter. Among black youths,
22.7 percent list themselves as smokers, compared with the
12.6 who said they smoked in 1991. Worst of all were the
smoking rates for black males, which doubled in the course of
the study, to 28.2 from 14.1.
The progression from marijuana to cigarettes among black
youths was the most provocative finding in interviews in
recent days with high school students in New York City, its
suburbs, Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston, who consistently
raised the issue without being asked. But their comments
raised several other troubling issues, as well.
The students were perfectly aware of the health hazards of
cigarette smoking. A 17-year-old at Norman Thomas High School
in Manhattan said she was quitting because she might be
pregnant. A 15-year-old at Saunders said she did not smoke
during basketball and softball season but resumed in between.
But most paid no mind to the danger.
And despite laws prohibiting sales to anyone under 18,
virtually all the teen-agers said they purchased cigarettes
with no trouble at delis and bodegas.
The Federal legislation to curb teen-age smoking depends in
large measure on steep price increases as a deterrent.
Sponsors of the bill say that raising the price by $1.10 per
pack would reduce youth smoking by as much as 40 percent. But
talking to high school students suggests this prediction is
optimistic.
The adolescents said overwhelmingly that they would pay
$3.60 a pack--the current $2.50 charged in New York plus the
additional $1.10 envisioned in the legislation. A few said
that $5 a pack might inspire them to quit, or at least to
try.
But faced with that high a tariff, 17-year-old Robert Reid,
a student in Yonkers, had another idea. ``At that price,'' he
said, ``you might as well buy weed.''

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
Let me read two paragraphs from the article:

It is not clear how much of the increase in smoking amongst
black teen-agers is due to the use of cigarettes with
marijuana, and experts say advertising has been the major
factor. But the marijuana-tobacco combination is notable
because it is the reverse of the more common progression from
cigarette and alcohol use to illegal drugs.
Many black teen-agers said in interviews that they were
drawn to cigarettes by friends who told them that nicotine
would enhance their high from marijuana, which has been lore
and practice among drug users of all races for decades. And
this is apparently no mere myth. Many scientists who study
brain chemistry say the link between cigarettes and marijuana
is unproven but likely true.

One other paragraph:

The students were perfectly aware of the health hazards of
cigarette smoking. A 17-year-old at Norman Thomas High School
in Manhattan said she was quitting because she might be
pregnant.

But that is the only reason she was quitting.

A 15-year-old at Saunders [High School] said she did not
smoke during basketball and softball season but resumed in
between.

The article also talks about the effects of the kind of antitobacco
measures that are being discussed on the floor including pushing the
price of cigarettes to $3.50 to $4 to $5 a pack. Adolescents
overwhelmingly said they would pay $3.60 a pack. The current charge in
New York is $2.50. An additional $1.10 would move that to $3.60, and
the teenagers did not see that as a problem. Now we are talking about
the legislation that is being debated on the floor right now. According
to the article:

A few said that $5 a pack might inspire them to quit, or at
least to try.
But faced with that high a tariff, 17-year-old . . . a
student in Yonkers, had another idea. ``At that price,'' he
said, ``you might as well buy weed.''

In other words, he was saying you might as well smoke marijuana
because they are going to end up being about the same price. I don't
think anybody on the floor of this Senate has thought about that. But
the kids are thinking about it. Let us think about those words, Mr.
President: ``At that price, you might as well smoke weed.''
It is always easy for the partisans of big government to come up with
big spending, big bureaucracy plans, that whether or not it actually
impacts the intended target, in this case teenage smoking, it is sure
to have all sorts of unintended but predictable side effects. For
example, how big of a tax increase are we looking at? Well, we don't
know for sure. Why shouldn't we be looking

[[Page S5628]]

at this as a big regressive tax, and I think I can say, in all
fairness, the biggest regressive tax in American history? How effective
will it be in actually curbing teenage smoking or, for that matter,
adult smoking? How much more attractive will it make others? By that, I
am talking about illegal drugs such as marijuana, especially to young
people.
Well, that teenager from Yonkers said it: If you are going to raise
tobacco to that price, you just might as well smoke weed. Have we
learned anything at all from the black market of other nations? That
has been discussed by some of my colleagues on the floor in the last
several weeks, and they have used it as an example and it bears
repeating because it shows a reaction to the marketplace.

In Canada, by 1992, a pack of cigarettes cost about $4.50 in U.S.
dollars, probably about $6.75 in Canadian dollars, while the price in
the United States was $2. The result: the loss of billions of dollars
in tax revenue and up to 40 percent of the Canadian market supplied by
smuggling, black market, illegal, under the table, vended in the alley,
out of the backs of cars, vended by the black market of drug dealing.
Canada rolled back its tobacco taxes in 1994, and Sweden recently
dropped its tobacco tax over 25 percent. Do we really want to repeat
their mistakes? We are about to start. When cigarettes in Mexico cost
about $1 a pack, where do you think the border will be? Or, more
importantly, how can we protect the border? The movement will be
significant.
Does anyone think this would not be a tremendous windfall for
organized crime or for cross-border drug trade in Mexico, which is
already at epidemic proportions? How many funding streams is that?
Well, taxes, we know that. And if those funding streams that we are
asking for to fund all of this dry up, then how do we pay for the
programs? Because they will surely dry up. Other nations have found
that to be the case. And they have had to back off, to up their moneys,
to up their cash flow again to fund the programs that they were going
to feed off of the taxes they raised from tobacco.
As a Republican, I think this big government approach is just the
wrong way to go, especially when we have no real assurance that these
programs will do any good.
We need to take a hard look at drug use. And, yes, the teen tobacco
use situation in this country that we find is critical. We need to look
at it in a practical and a principled way. The bottom line should be
this: If the Clinton administration won't lead on drugs--and at this
point I would say their credibility on drugs has been fatally
compromised--then it is the Congress that should lead. We should lead.
That is our job--to create public policy that makes sense for the
American people. That is why my colleague, Paul Coverdell of Georgia,
and I are offering this amendment which would ensure that the drug
crisis is not ignored as we attempt to address the tobacco problem.
This amendment collects a number of initiatives that would make a
serious impact on illegal drugs. It takes a three-pronged approach:
attacking the supply of drugs by strengthening our ability to stop them
at the border, providing additional resources to fight drugs that reach
our neighborhoods, and by creating disincentives for teens to use
illegal drugs.
Let me talk about some of those provisions that are embodied in our
amendment. Let me first talk about the one on supply, the supply side
of the drug problem, because we all know it is a supply-demand
equation. We cannot rely just on treatment programs for those who have
already started to abuse drugs. And you know there is a bit of that
attitude--well, yeah, if they get hooked on them, we will treat them.
The problem is sometimes they get hooked on them, and they get killed
or they die before they can get to treatment. We must stop drugs from
getting to our kids in the first place, or make every effort to try to
stop it.
One key step in fighting the drug supply is increased resources for
the interdiction of those drugs; in other words, law enforcement. Fund
them, put them on alert, make it a No. 1 priority. This is the area
where the administration has been most irresponsible. Slashing the
Coast Guard's antidrug budget, with the result--and you know what the
result was--a major disruption in the rate of decline. The number of
seizures for drug shipments turned back before they reached the United
States--listen to these figures; it happened on the President's watch
after he slashed the interdiction money--declined by 53 percent. We are
talking interdiction, at the border or out in the water; a 53-percent
decline in interdiction from 1992 to 1995.
So, what does our amendment do? We give the Coast Guard, the Defense
Department, the U.S. Customs Service, the resources they need to target
that interdiction before drugs reach the American streets. Our
amendment does exactly that, and that is our intent. Our amendment also
includes the Drug-Free Borders Act, which attacks the 70 percent of
illegal drugs that enter our country across the Mexican border. Mr.
President, 70 percent of the problem is right there on that very
identifiable border. These provisions would increase the penalties for
crimes of violence and other crimes committed at our borders and enable
the INS to hire thousands--yes, thousands--of new Border Patrol agents.
But our amendment does not just stop at the border; it also
strengthens the hand of law enforcement in fighting drug dealers at
home and abroad. For example, our amendment increases the resources
available to DEA and the FBI. We also think parents deserve to know if
convicted drug dealers have moved into their neighborhoods. Our
amendment requires released Federal convicts, convicted of major drug
crimes, to register with local law enforcement personnel, who can then
put their communities on notice. Why not? Those are the folks who have
been killing our kids by selling drugs. Why not let the communities
know if they are back in those communities? These are only some of the
provisions in our amendment that attack the supply of drugs.
We also focus on the demand side of the problem by supporting local
efforts to protect our neighborhoods, businesses, and schools from
drugs and provide incentives for young people to stay straight. Our
amendment includes a provision addressing needle exchange programs. At
a time when drug use, particularly heroin use, is increasing, this
program clearly undermines our effort to fight illegal drugs. What
program? The current program. The Clinton program. The green light to
subsidizing needle exchange programs. That is the green light for drug
use. The House has already passed legislation to stop this, H.R. 3717,
by a strong 287 to 140 vote. The Senate should do the same. Our
amendment includes just exactly this. I hope the Senate can support it.
Another section of our amendment is the Drug-Free Student Loan Act.
It restricts loan eligibility for students who use drugs. This would
target substance abuse without creating Federal mandates or authorizing
new spending. It puts the kids on notice: ``We ain't going to tolerate
it anymore. Be straight, you will get your education. You can have a
loan for it. But, use drugs and you are falling out of favor with the
public.''
The Drug-Free Teen Driving Act in our amendment would encourage
States to be at least as tough on driving privileges for those who use
drugs and drive as those who are drunk drivers. Stop and think about
the inconsistency today. You get caught a drunk driver, you get your
license pulled. Drug abuse? No. No. We are not addressing that. This
amendment does. Same treatment.

Our amendment includes the Drug-Free Workplace Act. This section
provides incentives for employers to implement antidrug programs in the
workplace, such as clear antidrug policies, drug testing, and
employees' assistance programs. We also assist schools in the fight
against drugs by allowing them to use Federal funds for drug testing
programs and victims' assistance. Our amendment also provides
incentives for States to create an annual report card to parents and
teachers, listing incidents of school violence and drug activities.
Another critically important part of our amendment would back up
communities in their fight against drugs. We would authorize matching
grants funds

[[Page S5629]]

to support communities' efforts to establish comprehensive,
sustainable, and accountable antidrug coalitions.
Senator Coverdell and I recognize you cannot do all of this from the
top down, that you have to work with the grassroots and help it grow
from the bottom up. These and other provisions in our amendment are
commonsense measures to protect our young people from the growing
menace of drugs. They would counter the wrongheaded policies of this
administration and start sending the right signals to America's youth.
This amendment does not set up new bureaucracies nor impose new
mandates. It supports law enforcement's attack on the suppliers of
drugs. It also supports local efforts to control drugs in
neighborhoods, schools, and businesses. Nothing can be more important
than supporting these local efforts, because they are the front line in
the war on drugs. And right now, with the efforts in communities to be
drug free, they are the only line, the only real line that is working.
We do not need the hammer of the Federal Government to force
communities to take action. As I have mentioned, they are already at
it. All they need is a few resources and our help.
Let me give an example of something that is happening in my State
that I am so proud of. It is called the Enough Is Enough campaign. It
is a community-based drug prevention campaign driven by the private
sector. No government dollars or controls are involved. Why? The
problem became so bad in the Clinton years, the communities had to take
it on. They said, ``If we cannot get help from the Federal Government,
we will do it ourselves,'' because they saw the numbers going up and
they saw the deaths occurring.
Most people in Idaho agree that this program is the most effective
antidrug, drug awareness campaign they have ever seen. It builds on the
systems within every community that influence and involve specific
groups of individuals. It recognizes that each system has a special,
specific role to play in the prevention that is necessary and that it
involves all of the community. It unites these systems. It includes the
media and the public and private sectors behind a common goal--to equip
our children to walk drug free through a drug-filled world. It focuses
on community teamwork to fight the drug culture and regain the quality
of life for our children. Enough Is Enough is the largest community-
wide drug prevention effort in Idaho's history. Antidrug advocate
Milton Creagh has delivered his challenge to communities all over the
State. More than 100,000 people have already participated in the
program, and additional community coalitions are being formed every
day.
This program is proof that the Federal Government does not have all
the answers. In fact, the Federal Government can do a lot of harm by
forcing wrong programs and wrong incentives on local communities and
citizens. Instead, we should provide encouragement, support local
antidrug initiatives, and that is the philosophy behind our amendment:
Get our law enforcement involved, stop the stuff at the border.
In offering the amendment to the antitobacco bill, I have been
arguing that the danger posed by illegal drugs is greater and more
immediate and more deadly than any immediate problem that tobacco poses
on teenage America.
It is my strong belief that the bill before us tonight must not
ignore the drug crisis that threatens our youth, America's future.
Having said all that, however, I do not mean to suggest that we
should ignore teenage smoking. Let me repeat that for the Record,
because I am quite sure there are some who will say, ``Well, Coverdell
and Craig are trying to switch the focus.'' No; we are trying to
refocus. We are trying to do fine focus. We are trying to get this
Government pointed in the right direction. In fact, as I have already
pointed out, there is a connection between youth smoking and drug use.
There are a number of commonsense antismoking measures we should
seriously consider, but I would like to draw my colleagues' attention
to the one thing in particular we know to be effective in combating not
just teenage smoking, but drug use, violence, suicide, sexual behavior,
and emotional disturbances.
In an area that is fairly underrated and where the Clinton
administration definitely has been a part of the problem, the one thing
is parental involvement in their children's lives. A recent Washington
Post article entitled ``Love Conquers What Ails Teens, Studies Find''
summarized the results of a Federal study known as the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health based on a survey of 90,000
students grade 7 through 12 and published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association:

Teenagers who have a strong emotional attachment to their
parents and teachers are much less likely to use drugs and
alcohol, attempt suicide, engage in violence, become sexually
active at an early age.

That is what the Post reported.
Though less important than the emotional connection, the presence of
parents at home at key times in the morning, after school, at dinner,
at bedtime make teenagers less likely to use alcohol, tobacco and
marijuana.
Mr. President, the Federal Government cannot mandate family cohesion,
but I cannot think of a better argument for passing S. 4, the Family
Friendly Workplace Act. That would encourage a host of comptime-
flextime options for America's parents. Why am I talking about this
when we are trying to stop teenagers from smoking, when we have an
amendment on the floor about teenage drug abuse that we are trying to
curb? Because it ought to be a part of the package. We ought to
understand and not be so naive as to say that it is the total
environment in which the child lives.
I mention it only tonight for our Senate to understand that we cannot
do it; we are blocked on the floor; it is not the right thing
politically; somehow the unions oppose it. Why don't we wake up? Why
don't we understand that Government can, in fact, by its inaction, be
an impediment?
Those are the conclusions I have drawn, and that is why I am a
cosponsor with Senator Coverdell of this, what I believe to be the most
important part of this total legislation.
Mr. President, in the coming days, the Senate will be faced with a
stark choice: We can be panicked down the road of least resistance to
passing a big Government antitobacco bill that won't do the job but
will become a permanent tax and regulatory nightmare, or we can pass
some commonsense legislation that will help States, localities,
communities, and, most of all, parents take charge of their children's
future. We can mount a strong antismoking campaign, and we can assist
States to do so.
Really, when it comes to controlling our borders, when it comes to
stopping the massive new flow of drugs into this country, stimulated by
an administration that just doesn't want to face the issue, then it is
time the Congress speak, and we can speak clearly and decisively if we
vote, pass, and add as a major component to this tobacco legislation
the Coverdell-Craig teenage antidrug amendment.
It sets us in the right direction. It is a quantum step toward
dealing with teenage drug use that, by everyone's measurement, is
moving at an astronomical rate, taking lives in unbelievable numbers.
We hear the statistic, 3,000 kids start smoking every day, and that is
true, but thousands try drugs and get hooked and thousands die within a
very short time.
Thank goodness that in your adult years, if you are a smoker,
sometimes common sense hits you like it hit me, that it was the wrong
thing to do, that it wasn't healthy, that it was socially unacceptable,
and that it was not going to cause me to be a good influence over my
children, and I quit. But I doubt seriously that in my youth, if I had
been hooked on drugs, I might not have had the opportunity to quit.
I hope this Congress awakens to the real issue, and I think my
colleague from Georgia and I are bringing the real issue to the floor
of the U.S. Senate. We will debate it tomorrow, and we will debate it
Monday. I hope that we have a resounding vote in favor of the
Coverdell-Craig amendment, that it become a part of this total package,
and that we deal with it in a fair and responsible way, then find and
bring about the funding necessary to ensure that we can put our Coast
Guard back to interdiction, that we can stop the flow at the borders,
that we can go

[[Page S5630]]

after the pusher on the street, and that we can show our young people
that starting or experimenting with drugs is not only unacceptable as a
part of the American culture, but that we will insist they quit for
their safety and for their future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________