[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.

                          ____________________