[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5670-S5681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S.
1415.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1415) to reform and restructure the processes by
which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and
distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by
minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2433 (to Amendment No. 2420), to
modify the provisions relating to civil liability for tobacco
manufacturers.
Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2434 (to Amendment No. 2433), in
the nature of a substitute.
Gramm motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Finance with instructions to report back forthwith, with
amendment No. 2436, to modify the provisions relating to
civil liability for tobacco manufacturers, and to eliminate
the marriage penalty reflected in the standard deduction and
to ensure the earned income credit takes into account the
elimination of such penalty.
Daschle (for Durbin) amendment No. 2437 (to amendment No.
2436), relating to reductions in underage tobacco usage.
Lott (for Coverdell) modified amendment No. 2451 (to
amendment No. 2437), to stop illegal drugs from entering the
United States, to provide additional resources to combat
illegal drugs, and to establish disincentives for teenagers
to use illegal drugs.
Amendment No. 2451
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we are returning to the tobacco
legislation, by previous order, and specifically to the amendment that
I introduced last evening along with Senator Craig of Idaho and Senator
Abraham of Michigan, which is now commonly called the drug amendment.
To put this in context, Mr. President, the point that we are making
is that you cannot talk about teen addiction and be silent on the No. 1
teen addiction problem, which is drug abuse. So the purpose of this
amendment is to make certain that any legislation being considered by
this Chamber about teen addiction and teen problems must also include a
title to deal with the raging epidemic in our country--teenage drug
abuse.
Mr. President, in the last 6\1/2\ years, teenage drug abuse has
increased by 135 percent. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean
that 10 more youngsters are using drugs than were 6 years ago? No. It
means that almost 2 million teenagers are using drugs today that were
not 6\1/2\ years ago.
This is a massive problem and it is a consequence, unfortunately, of
altered Federal policy. We decided early in this administration that
the battle against drug abuse would be altered, changed, downsized. The
drug office was virtually closed, interdiction facilities were
drastically reduced, the Coast Guard was diminished in the Caribbean,
and we quit talking about the problem. Simultaneously, we entered into
new trade agreements with Mexico, which enormously increased the amount
of travel between the two countries, upwards to 4 million vehicles now.
So that interdiction apparatus was down and the transportation across
the border was up, and we quit talking about the problem. Well,
consequently, massive amounts of new drugs came into the country, and
because they were coming in such quantities, the price fell. So we had
a product that was everywhere, inexpensive, and very, very dangerous.
You can go into any school in the Nation and ask students and they
can tell you the name of all these designer drugs; they can tell you
exactly where to buy them, and in most cases, it doesn't take over 30
minutes. As I have said, the price plummeted 50, 60, 70 percent.
Dropped interdiction, increased border crossings, flooded the market
with drugs, the price falls, and the targets are kids, age 8 to 14
years of age. What happened? It doubled and almost tripled drug abuse
among teenagers.
Today, in high schools across the country, one in four are using
drugs regularly. In junior high, it is 1 in 10. We now have almost 2
million more kids caught up in this lethal snare, drug abuse. To be
specific about the numbers, in 1979 at the peak of the last epidemic,
14.1 percent of the entire teenage population ages 12 to 17 was using
drugs regularly. The Nation said we can't tolerate this. And from the
President to the sheriff, the whole Nation began to fight this
epidemic. And what happened?
By 1992, we had reduced drug use among this population by two-thirds.
Instead of 3.3 million teenagers using drugs, we drove it down to 1
million. This is very important because it demonstrates that we can
correct this problem. There are some in our society, and very powerful
people, who would like Americans to believe you can't do anything about
this. That is an utter absurdity. We have proven, and very recently,
that you can attack this problem and make a difference. But in 1992, as
I said a moment ago, we quit talking about the problem. And so today, 2
million-plus are back using drugs regularly. It is a very, very
disturbing situation. It just sort of snuck up on us.
A lot of our parents are not talking to their children about this
problem, which is very unfortunate, because we know that if parents are
talking to their children about this issue, the odds of the children
using drugs are cut in half. It is cut in half. But if you went into a
classroom, and there are 100 students out there, and say, ``How many of
you talk to your parents about this problem?'' you would be lucky if 10
[[Page S5671]]
held up their hands. There is just not that interplay, which explains a
little bit here this recent survey. It is most interesting. Forty-three
percent of parents believe their teens could find marijuana easily.
Sixty percent of the teenagers said it is easy to find. Thirty-three
percent of the parents thought their children viewed marijuana as
harmful. But only 18 percent of the kids thought it was harmful. It is
just a complete disconnect going on here. Forty-five percent of parents
felt teens had a friend who smoked marijuana. But if you ask the kids,
71 percent know somebody smoking marijuana. It is just a total
disconnect.
So one of the purposes and reasons of this amendment is to assert
Federal policy, bold Federal policy that attacks this drug epidemic at
every level--at the border, in our communities, in our law enforcement
agencies--everybody. It substantially increases funding for
interdiction and for education, and it attacks it at every level. If
this is put into play, within 24 months there will not be a poll that
has 21 percent thinking their teenage children knew someone who
experimented with marijuana while 44 percent of the teens said they
actually had. This disconnect will be ended in America, and you will
begin to drive the numbers of teenagers using drugs down. But not if we
bring a major bill about teenage addiction to the Senate and before the
American public and never mention drugs and just totally be silent on
it as if that is not a problem.
Teenage drug abuse is the No. 1 teenage problem. It is No. 1. Myself,
my colleague from Idaho, and my colleague from Michigan felt this
almost is damaging if it is so much focused on teenage smoking, which
is a problem, but it is a fourth problem. The first one is teenage
drugs. So you would almost be saying, ``Look, we are accomplishing
something here,'' and looking completely away from the fact that we are
in the midst today in this country of one of the most singular alarming
epidemics we have ever faced: teenage drug abuse.
I am going to yield, because I see the Senator from North Dakota is
prepared to talk here in a minute on the bill.
But one of the saddest things about this whole teenage drug abuse
epidemic is that in the last epidemic, in the 1960s and 1970s, most of
those teenagers were 16 to 20 in age. Now they are 8 to 14. The cartels
have focused. We talked about tobacco focusing on teenagers. It is an
unconscionable policy. But the narcotic cartels are totally focused on
a young teenage market 8 to 14, as vulnerable a market as could be.
We will pay an unbelievable price--and are--if we do not attack this
problem forcefully with the Nation's will, and boldly; not deja vu,
just another day. We have to turn this thing around.
Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to speak on a number of
subjects this morning. I am going to talk about a Web site contest that
I sponsored in North Dakota on this question of tobacco. I am going to
talk about the marriage penalty debate that we have ongoing. Then I am
going to file a cloture motion on behalf of the leader.
First of all, I want to say to my colleague from Georgia that there
are some of us who agree that dealing with drugs as part of this
legislation makes some sense. We hope we are able to work together and
see if we can't find a formula that works so it can be included here.
We know there are others who do not think it is appropriate to include
it here, and we respect their views. But some of us do believe it is
appropriate to deal with the question of other drugs in this bill.
Hopefully, we can find a way to be successful at the end of the day.
There is no question that it is a serious problem, just as tobacco is a
serious problem that imposes enormous health and financial costs on
society. Illegal drug use is also creating enormous difficulties.
When we are in Washington, my wife and I live eight blocks from the
Capitol. From the steps of the Capitol, we can look right down the
street that leads to the house we live in here in Washington. In 1991,
my wife was abducted at gunpoint by a crack addict. I tell you, I will
never forget the trauma it caused our family. It is an epidemic in many
parts of our country. I am proud to say it is not an epidemic in North
Dakota, but even there we have a problem.
I think all of us who are serious about improving the lives of people
we represent want to address this problem in this bill if we possibly
can. So I thank the Senator from Georgia for the effort he has made.
Mr. President, I sponsored a Web site contest for kids from my State
on the question of tobacco use. I asked them to create electronic
pages, or electronic posters, to help spread the word that tobacco use
causes problems. We just had an outpouring of kids from around the
State who entered the contest. One of the winners was Justin Grueneich
of Ellendale, ND. His Web site said, ``Smoke Is No Joke.'' He is right.
His Web site was packed with statistics and information.
One of the things that impressed us was, we found there was more
information there than we have heard on the Senate floor. He actually
found facts that we haven't heard in the debate on the Senate floor.
So Justin did a superb job.
Another person who did excellent work was Anne Erickson, a senior at
Cavalier High School. She was very creative. Her graphic design was
great, and her messages were right on target. She wrote, ``To smoke or
not to smoke, there is no question.'' She also posted that in addition
to being unhealthy, smoking was also unattractive.
As we know, the tobacco industry has tried to present smoking as cool
and attractive and sophisticated. She wasn't buying it.
So thank you, Anne, for seeing through those advertising gimmicks by
the industry.
Six fifth graders from Dakota School in Minot joined forces and
created a Web site they called ``The Healthiest Web Site in North
Dakota.''
Congratulations to Cierra Bails, Christina Leyrer, Mikey Perron, Jr.,
Nicole Rogers, Jessica Sarty, and Nicki Taylor for their excellent
work.
These fifth graders designed a colorful and informative Web page that
included links to North Dakota facts and laws on tobacco. They did
really a great job in reminding kids that buying tobacco is illegal and
it is unhealthy.
Now, younger students also entered the contest and published
electronic posters on the Internet. I brought some of them here to the
floor to share with my colleagues today. These are from third graders
at North Hill Elementary School in Minot, ND. These are very young
children, some as young as 7 years old. This one was done by Annie
Kirchofner. It has a very simple message. Fruit is healthy, yes to
grapes and apples, no to cigarettes. That is Annie Kirchofner.
Devin Blowers doesn't think that smoking is cool. He says, ``Smoking
is bad for you. Be cool. Don't smoke.'' And then he has down here this
alligator figure. I guess this is his alternative to Joe Camel, and he
has sunglasses on the top of his head here and he says ``Yuk'' to
tobacco.
That is pretty good for 7- and 8-year-old kids. They certainly have
the message.
Courtney Sluke, another third grader, produced this poster: ``Do not
smoke.'' She is saying to her friend, ``Hey, you should not smoke.''
Again, a third grade student from Minot, ND.
The next was Nicole Belgarde. She had a very interesting message. She
says, ``Don't always take the advice off T.V.'' That is a pretty good
message. She realizes. Here is the television and it is sending the
message that ``Smoking is cool.'' And a fellow youngster is picking up
that message saying ``Smoking is cool'' and she is countering it
saying, ``No, smoking is not cool.''
Alex Deck gets right to the point. He says, ``Smoking is bad.'' He
has the universal symbol here, the crossing out of the cigarette, and
he has this little figure who is chanting ``Smoking is bad.''
Bryan Moe, he also was able to get right to the heart of it. He says,
``Don't smoke cause you might die.'' He put the victim right in his
deathbed. He was on top of this. And he has X's for his eyes. Pretty
tough message. If you smoke, you die. That poor victim is right on his
deathbed.
The first place winner--the first place winner is Amanda Roise. She
[[Page S5672]]
shows that price does matter. I really like very much what she did.
Now, remember, these are 7- or 8-year-old children who designed
these. And these are electronic posters. It is just amazing; these kids
posted them on the Internet after we had a call statewide: Send us your
ideas. And really we got a tremendous response from all around the
State.
Her theme is, ``Don't waste your money on cigarettes.'' And here they
have a price of $2.95 and a customer saying, ``I don't have enough.''
And here is a sign ``Don't do drug.'' She ran out of room so she put
the ``S'' down here. ``Don't do drugs.'' And it is a store, obviously,
and one of my favorites is she has excellent coloring, wonderful
coloring. These are Cheerios boxes, and I like to eat my Cheerios every
morning, so I thought this was especially good. Amanda Roise, the first
place winner in our contest for electronic posters.
Congratulations to all of the winners and all of the contestants. We
are going to be having fun with this when we go back home presenting
the awards to not only these very young children but older ones as well
who participated in this web site contest. Gee, we have had so much fun
with this. I can tell you, we had a number of distinguished judges make
the determinations, and my thanks to them as well.
Mr. President, I wanted to direct my main remarks this morning to the
question of the marriage penalty because that has become an important
part of the debate here as to what alternative we ought to pursue in
addressing the marriage penalty. I thought it might be helpful to
discuss for a moment what the marriage penalty is, who is really being
hurt by it, and what we could do to address it in some rational way.
Let's put up the first chart that shows the question of who really is
facing the marriage penalty. This is according to the Congressional
Budget Office, and it shows that 51 percent of noncorporate filers in
this country are singles. So, of course, they don't face the marriage
penalty. Of all the noncorporate filers, 51 percent are single people.
They don't have a problem with the marriage penalty. And 3.5 percent
are joint returns that are unaffected by the so-called marriage
penalty, so we don't need to focus on them.
Then when you look at the rest, what you find is that 24.5 percent,
in fact, face the marriage penalty; that is, they pay more taxes
because they are married than if they were filing separately.
Interestingly enough, 21 percent get a bonus by being married; that is,
they pay less by being married than they would pay if they filed
separately as single individuals.
I want to indicate that the Democratic alternative to the Gramm
amendment focuses its relief on those taxpayers who are actually being
penalized. That seems to make sense. Unfortunately, Senator Gramm's
offering deals not only with those who are actually being penalized but
he also gives relief to those who are getting a bonus. I am not quite
sure what logic there is to that, but that is, in fact, what the
amendment of the Senator from Texas would do, and as a result there are
insufficient resources to help those who are really hurt by the
marriage penalty. What sense that makes escapes this Senator.
What we have done is instead of diluting the relief that would go to
couples paying a marriage penalty, we focus on those who are paying the
marriage penalty. It seems to me that tax fairness would require that
married couples with equal incomes ought to be taxed equally. That
seems to be a basic kind of concept, one that makes common sense.
The Democratic alternative recognizes, as did the Congress in 1981
when it enacted the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, that to eliminate or reduce the
marriage penalty, it is necessary to draw a distinction between one-
earner and two-earner couples. As in 1981, the most efficient way to
provide relief to couples who are incurring a marriage penalty is to
allow a percentage of the earned income of the spouse with the lower
earnings to be, in effect, free from income tax. Because the
alternative offered by the Democrats is targeted on low- and moderate-
income couples, we can make this two-earner deduction more generous
than the one that was enacted in 1981. At that time, they provided the
10-percent deduction. Our alternative, when fully phased in, will
provide a 20-percent deduction from the lower earner's income. This
represents a much more potent assault on the marriage penalty than
either the 1981 provision or the proposal offered by the Senator from
Texas.
Let me direct my attention for a moment to the proposal of the
Senator from Texas. His proposal is a one-size-fits-all approach that
scatters the modest relief that it provides to all joint filers,
whether they actually incur a marriage penalty or not. He gives it to
those who have a bonus from being married instead of focusing on those
who actually are penalized by being married. As a result, he gives much
less help to those who actually are paying a penalty. Again, the logic
of his approach I do not think holds up under scrutiny.
In fairness, there is marriage penalty relief in the Gramm proposal,
but there is also a considerable tax cut for people who are already
getting a marriage bonus. I just do not think that makes sense. The
Senator from Texas would spend about half of the revenue he is all too
willing to take away from health research and public health efforts in
order to spend the money on tax relief for people who already enjoy an
advantage under the system and, in the process, shortchanges the
couples who are actually being penalized.
The next chart demonstrates the weakness of the Gramm approach in
comparison to what we are offering. This looks at the alternative that
we are proposing on the Democratic side to cut the marriage tax penalty
more than the Gramm proposal does for most families. This would be in
2002, when fully phased in. The first example is for a couple earning
$35,000 a year, split, with one member of the couple getting $20,000 a
year of income and the other, $15,000 a year of income. The Gramm
amendment would provide a tax deduction of $1,650. Our proposal would
provide a deduction of $3,000--far more generous, because it makes much
more sense, in order to provide actual relief to those who are being
penalized by the marriage penalty.
The second alternative is a couple earning $50,000, evenly split
between the two. Again, the Gramm amendment, the one-size-fits-all
approach, gives a deduction of $1,650. That doesn't really make much
sense because, again, he is conferring benefits not only on those who
are being penalized by the marriage penalty but he is conferring
benefits on those who are already getting a bonus, those who are being
given favorable treatment. He treats them all alike. Those who are
helped, those who are hurt--he treats them all alike. We say you ought
to focus the resources you have on those who are hurt, so we say a
$5,000 tax deduction for that couple who has $50,000 a year of income,
evenly split between the two.
By the way, this is precisely the situation in which the largest
marriage penalties occur, yet Senator Gramm treats them the same way as
the others. And, in addition, he is giving that same benefit to couples
who are actually advantaged by being married because of their tax
circumstances under the current Tax Code. Again, the Gramm approach
just does not stand up under much scrutiny.
I think if we analyze what has happened here, the fact is that we
know who the taxpayers are who face a marriage penalty and we know that
some penalties are harsher than others. Why should we opt for an
approach that treats everybody the same, especially when it is
substantially more expensive than a tailored approach that responds to
the marriage penalty in a proportional way on a couple-by-couple basis?
Senator Gramm calls our approach a figleaf. I think moderate-income
families who are struggling on two incomes would welcome our figleaf
when they compare it with the pine needle the Senator from Texas would
provide. The fact is, ours is far more generous to those who are
actually experiencing a marriage penalty. If we are going to call it
marriage penalty relief, we ought to target it to those who are
actually facing a marriage penalty.
I think it is also important to say that when the Senator from Texas
asserts that this bill which is moving through Congress is regressive
and imposes a harsh penalty on those who are
[[Page S5673]]
at the lowest end of the income continuum in this country, that there
is another side to the story that he is not telling. The fact is,
smoking is a huge tax on low-income Americans. An average pack-a-day
smoker will spend more than $25,000 on cigarettes over his lifetime. An
average pack-a-day smoker will have an additional $20,000 in medical
costs over his or her lifetime. And the average low-income American,
both smokers and nonsmokers, will pay his or her share of the $4.7
trillion in costs that smoking will impose on society over the next 25
years. That is something that has been left out completely by the
discussion of the Senator from Texas.
He talks a lot about tax increases, but he does not mention the
hidden tax that is being imposed on members of this society every year:
$130 billion that this industry is imposing in costs on society--$60
billion in health costs, $60 billion in lost productivity, and $10
billion in other costs. The fact is, low-income workers' payroll taxes
are paying for about $18 billion a year in Medicare costs; low-income
workers' income taxes are paying for about $12 billion a year in
Medicaid costs. Those are hidden taxes that low-income people are
paying each and every year because of the costs being imposed by the
tobacco industry in this society. The fact is, low-income workers are
also paying higher health insurance costs and getting lower wages as a
result of the costs to our health care system of smoking.
Again, let me stress the bottom line: $4.7 trillion in costs being
imposed on this society over the next 25 years. The biggest tax cut
that we could give low-income Americans is to reduce that cost. The
McCain bill will cut smoking by about a third. That would produce
savings of about $1.6 trillion for this society from the $4.7 trillion
price tag imposed on us by the tobacco industry. That is the smart way
of helping low-income Americans. Obviously, when we couple that with
the proposal of the Democrats to focus on the marriage penalty, not to
be giving the same treatment to those whether they are hurt or helped
by the current tax system, we have a potent combination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office describing what causes
the marriage penalty and what causes the marriage bonus, so people
might see how it comes about, the situations in which people are
adversely affected by the marriage penalty, and how others benefit by
being married and actually pay less taxes than they would pay if they
were filing as singles.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--FACTORS DETERMINING WHETHER COUPLES FACE MARRIAGE PENALTIES OR
BONUSES, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditions leading Conditions leading
Tax parameter or feature to marriage penalty to marriage bonus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Exemptions ($2,550 None................ One spouse cannot
for all individuals, use full single
regardless of marital exemption but other
status). spouse would have
positive taxable
income if taxed as
an individual.
Standard Deduction ($4,000 Combined use of two One spouse cannot
for singles, $6,700 for single deductions use full single
couples). exceeds value of deduction but other
married deduction. spouse would have
positive taxable
income if taxed as
an individual.
Tax Brackets (Lower brackets Spouses have more Spouses have unequal
for singles are 60 percent nearly equal incomes; as
as wide as those for incomes; as married singles, income of
couples; top bracket starts couple, more of higher-earning
at same income for all). combined income spouse taxed at
taxed at higher higher rate.
rate; high earners
have more income
subject to top tax
rate.
Earned Income Tax Credit Low-earning parent Low-earning
(Parameters same regardless married to spouse childless person
of filing status). whose income causes married to parent
loss of some or all with no or very low
of earned income earnings.
tax credit.
Phaseout of Personal Spouses have more Spouses have unequal
Exemptions (Starting income nearly equal incomes; as
for singles equals two- incomes; as married singles, more
thirds of that for couples). couple, more of income of higher-
total income falls earning spouse
in phaseout range. subject to
phaseout.
Limitation on Itemized Spouses have more None.
Deductions (Starting point nearly equal
same regardless of filing incomes; as married
status). couple, more of
total income falls
in limitation range.
Other Fixed Dollar Either marriage does Marriage increases
Limitations (For example, not increase limit limit and one
income limit for individual or increase is less spouse adds less to
retirement accounts, than spouse adds to measure subject to
thresholds for taxation of measure subject to limit than the
Social Security). limit. increase in limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Cloture Motion
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, I
would like to close by sending this cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The cloture motion
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to
read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the modified
committee substitute for S. 1415, the tobacco legislation.
John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid, Paul
Wellstone, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Richard Bryan,
Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, J. Lieberman, John
Glenn, Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, and Max Baucus.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his indulgence and
his patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suspect this most recent cloture
motion has the potential of engendering some controversy. It puts into
rather tenuous circumstances the amendment we are discussing, because
if we cannot vote--if cloture were secured, this amendment would not be
in order, along with a number of other very core components of the
debate about this very contentious legislation. So I hope that is being
thought through very carefully by all parties concerned, that this is a
very significant piece of legislation that has an enormous effect on
our country and there are some very important amendments that cloture
could arbitrarily remove from the debate.
I will leave that to the leadership and another day.
Amendment No. 2451
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, returning to my amendment for a few
minutes--I see Senator Graham has been waiting--I will take a couple of
minutes and then yield the floor. But I want to reiterate the
importance of this amendment that puts teenage drug addiction in the
mix.
I have said repeatedly throughout the debate that I think it is
unconscionable policy to be talking to the country about teenage
addiction and skip the No. 1 problem of teenage addiction, which is
drug abuse. It almost is an extension of the silence that we have
witnessed over the last several years about this problem. This Senator
does not intend to allow that silence to occur here. In other words,
the idea being we will pass a bill that deals with teenage smoking and
somehow will have comfortably addressed teenage addiction problems is
the wrong message. It certainly should be part of the message that we
are dealing with teenage smoking, but we cannot--I repeat--cannot
ignore the teenage drug issue which is, of course, related to smoking.
I point out here, someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have
many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These
kids may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis
and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead
to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by
marijuana smoke. Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar
inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed
are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be
due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in
the lungs.
A very large component of teenage drug abuse is directly related to
the smoking of the most prominent drug abused by teenagers, which is
marijuana. When they smoke marijuana, the effects and damage are far
greater.
Again, I reiterate, as I will repeatedly, you cannot talk about
teenage addiction without the two. You have to talk about teenage
smoking of tobacco, but you cannot be silent on the smoking of
marijuana or the other drug-related abuses.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[[Page S5674]]
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I look forward at the appropriate time to
discuss the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because I agree with
his premise that there is a relationship between tobacco smoking and
the use of drugs. I have spent a great deal of my time in public office
trying to increase our ability to deal with illicit use of drugs, both
in terms of effective enforcement at all levels of government and those
things that will reduce the likelihood of persons desiring to use
drugs.
Let me say the most fundamental relationship between the tobacco
issue that we debate today and the amendment of the Senator from
Georgia is that virtually no one starts with the use of illicit drugs.
Tobacco is the gateway to the use of illicit drugs. So our ability, by
effective legislation or otherwise, to substantially reduce the number
of persons who commence the process of experimentation, use and then
addiction to tobacco will make one of, if not the most, fundamental
contributions to the reduction of the use of illicit hard drugs. That
is an issue that we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail
later.
My concern today is a series of ads that are being run, ads that are
being run either under the specific sponsorship of the tobacco industry
or by organizations which we know are supported by the tobacco
industry.
Typical of these ads is one in which there is a lady, a waitress who
is looking into a television camera and is stating how much her cost of
smoking will increase if legislation such as that proposed by the
Senate Commerce Committee were to become the law.
There are other ads that make the same point through other appealing
messages. There is a fundamental error in those ads. There is a
fundamental deception. There is the latest example of the manipulation
for which this industry has become so well known. What is that error?
What is that fraud? What is that manipulation? It is the assumption
that the status quo is an option. It is the assumption that we can roll
back the events of the last several years and go back to 1970 and
everything will be as it was then; that that lady in the ad will not be
threatened with the possibility of higher prices for her cigarettes.
The fact is that the status quo is not an option. There are two basic
options that are before us as we continue this debate, and I think that
it is important that we reassert what our real alternatives are.
Our alternatives are either comprehensive, and I believe as Senator
Chafee and Senator Harkin and I have believed for many months, that it
also must be bipartisan, health-oriented national legislation. That is
one alternative.
The other alternative is not the status quo. The other alternative is
a continuation of the pattern of State-by-State litigation, a pattern
which has already increased the price of cigarettes in America between
17 to 20 cents per pack to pay for the settlements that have been
reached thus far in only four States--Mississippi, Florida, Texas and
Minnesota.
It is projected that if the increase in cigarettes that will be a
result of the other 46 States successfully pursuing litigation against
the tobacco industry is at the same per capita level as these first
four States, Mr. President, that the cost per pack will go up by an
additional dollar or to a level higher than that which is being
proposed by the Senate Commerce Committee.
So the option that we have is not one of whether there is going to be
an increase in the price of cigarettes; the question is whether it will
come through a comprehensive, bipartisan, health-oriented national
legislation, or whether it will come by a series of State-by-State
litigations augmented by the kinds of litigations that are now being
brought by Blue Cross-Blue Shield as an example of insurance carrier
litigation, being brought by labor unions on behalf of their members
and, Mr. President, I believe eventually will be brought by the Federal
Government to secure its appropriate compensation for the additional
cost that it has paid for tobacco-related illnesses through programs
such as Medicare, the Veterans' Administration, CHAMPUS--the health
care program for military personnel and their dependents--and a variety
of other programs in which the Federal Government is either the total
or a substantial contributor to their financing.
The choice is either we do this through comprehensive, bipartisan,
health-oriented national legislation, or it occurs on a State-by-State,
litigation-by-litigation basis.
My personal feeling is that by every criteria that we have used to
assess what is the public interest, that the public interest would be
better served by a comprehensive, bipartisan, health-oriented national
legislation.
What are some of those interests? Our most fundamental interest, the
issue that has brought us here today and for the last several days and
will for several more to come, has been our concern over teenage
smoking. We know that every day 3,000 American youth, under the age of
18, commence the process that will eventually lead to the regular use
of tobacco. We know that of that 3,000, that a third--1,000--will
become so addicted to tobacco that they will die, that they will die
prematurely of a tobacco-related affliction.
That is the fundamental objective of this legislation, to reduce this
unnecessary carnage of America's youth and adult population because of
the continuation of a youthful introduction to tobacco.
Which of the two approaches is most likely to achieve the objective
of reducing youth smoking? We know some things, Mr. President, as to
what is the effective combination of initiatives. We know that the most
effective plan will be a broad-based, comprehensive public health-
oriented plan. It will include items such as the funding of smoking
cessation programs and the funding of education programs on the
consequences of the use of tobacco. It will include limitations on
marketing and promotion. It will include penalties against the industry
and individual companies which fail to meet national standards for the
reduction of teenage smoking. It will include, and probably most
significantly, a substantial increase in the price of cigarettes,
because it is that increase in price that will have the greatest
deterrent effect on the use of cigarettes.
The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that in the initial
stages of an increase in price, that for every 10-percent increase in
price, there is a 7-percent reduction in use. Those relationships begin
to change as you reach higher levels of price increases. But the
legislation that the Senator from Arizona has presented to us is
projected to have, by the price alone, a reduction in teenage use of in
the range of 40 to 50 percent.
It is also important, Mr. President, that that price be instituted on
a shock basis. If the price increase is gradual, incremental, drop by
drop, then it is more likely to be absorbed, become the norm, and set
the foundation for acceptance of the next increase. But if that price
increase is dramatic--is imposed quickly--it will have the greatest
affect in terms of achieving our objective of reducing teenage smoking.
It is obvious that on all of those counts, comprehensive, bipartisan,
public health-oriented national legislation will better achieve our
objective of reducing teenage smoking than will the pattern of State by
State, litigant by litigant courtroom action that will be the
alternative to a national, comprehensive, bipartisan public health-
oriented resolution of this issue.
On the standard of enforcement, much is made in these ads that the
tobacco industry is promoting that there will be a burgeoning of black-
market sales if there is a substantial increase in the price. The fact
is that by a legislative settlement--which among other things will
provide the funds for those areas of enhanced enforcement that may be
necessary, a national settlement that can contain provisions for
strengthening our enforcement, a national settlement that will result
in less variation State to State in terms of the price of cigarettes,
and therefore less likelihood of black-market sales domestically within
the United States--that a national legislative settlement will reduce
the potential of black-market activities to a substantially greater
degree than the alternative of State-by-State litigation.
We also know that, on the issue of tobacco farmers, there is great
recognition of the necessity to provide some
[[Page S5675]]
transition. That transition is contained in every serious piece of
legislation that has been introduced in the national Congress.
There will be a debate over which of those alternatives is preferred,
but the fact that it is a recognized part of a national, comprehensive,
bipartisan health-oriented tobacco resolution is unanimously agreed to.
But, Mr. President, that has not been included in the State-by-State
settlements, and will not likely be included. Only a relatively small
number of States are directly affected by the issue of tobacco farmers
and, therefore, could not be expected to include, in their settlements
with the tobacco industry, funding for tobacco farmers.
If there is going to be a transition, it has to be done at the
national level, not at a State-by-State level. So the interest of that
constituency and that important part of this overall complex issue will
be much better served by national legislation than they will be by a
State-by-State settlement.
Finally, having a rational distribution of the funds, yes, this is
going to raise a substantial amount of money. It may raise more money
on the State-by-State basis, it may impose higher costs on the
industry, and eventually on the users of this product than national
legislation, but in either event there will be a substantial amount of
funds raised by either national legislation or by State-by-State
litigation. But it is at the national level that we will have a better
likelihood of being able to allocate the funds to important programs,
such as research in our national health institutes so that we will
learn more about the consequences of past tobacco use and an effective
means of avoiding such use in the future.
It is less likely that the States will be equitably treated through a
series of State-by-State matters as opposed to doing it on a national
basis. There will not be the funds likely to be available for effective
counteradvertising, which will require a national program just as the
national program that the Federal Government is now underwriting as it
relates to advertising against the use of illicit drugs.
So, Mr. President, based on our principal objective, which is the
reduction of youth smoking, and other important subissues of this
current effort, including appropriate use of the funds, enforcement
against black marketing, the effect on tobacco farmers, it is much more
likely that we will achieve our objectives through a national
legislative settlement than what is the real alternative, which is for
us to do nothing and then allow the course of action which is already
in place, State by State, private, soon to be, I hope, Federal
litigation against the tobacco industries to be the alternative.
So, Mr. President, as we conclude this week's debate, I hope as we
return next week we will be prepared to focus on what the real options
are and get the business of America done and stop the carnage of
American children that is resulting every hour we delay in this effort
to mitigate the carnage of American youth that occurs as they take up
the use of tobacco.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jason Westin of my
staff be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the
consideration of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question? I compliment the
Senator on his outstanding statement and thank him for all of his
diligence and hard work on the whole issue of cutting down on teen
smoking. I know the Senator from Florida has made that one of his key
principles, which is in this bill. Really, the essence of this bill is
to cut down on teen smoking. I appreciate all of the work he has done,
and with Senator Chafee and with me on this.
I know Senator Chafee will be speaking next. We hope to engage in
some colloquy here on the Senate floor to talk about some of the issues
that have come up that are extraneous--important issues, but extraneous
to the bill.
I just want to basically ask the Senator from Florida--before I know
Senator Chafee will make his opening statement--about that aspect,
about the other issues that seem to be coming up on this bill and
whether or not we could address those later on and just keep the focus
on the main issue here.
Mr. GRAHAM. Senator, I agree with your statement. We have one
principal objective with this legislation, and that is to reduce
teenage smoking, to reduce this unconscionable level of death and
damage that is inflicted upon our young people by their early addiction
to tobacco.
There are other issues that are being suggested--from reforming the
tax law to an enhanced enforcement effort against illicit drugs--which
are all important issues, and many of us have supported and advocated
and led the charge on those issues on other days and in other forums.
Our concern is--and I will not impugn the motives of any of the
advocates of those other provisions--that some outside, and maybe a few
inside, this Chamber would be pleased at the objection of these
``tantalizing but extraneous issues'' because they would see them as a
means of delay, obfuscation, and, eventually, defeat of comprehensive
national legislation.
What stuns me is that they don't also see what the alternative is.
The alternative is not that defeat here will mean the American public
will throw up its hands and say, ``I guess we have to accept the fact
that 125 American young people will take up smoking every hour of every
day of the 365 days of the year.'' That will not be the alternative.
The alternative will be that the American public, having disdained of
our ability to deal with this problem, will go to their States, will go
to their labor unions, will urge their insurance carriers to enter the
fray, as they have in other States, and we will have a 50-State
shootout in the courts on this issue.
We will move toward our objective, but not nearly as effectively as
if we accept the responsibility and the opportunity to probably make
the greatest contribution to the enhancement of public health of
Americans that has occurred in this century by the adoption of this
legislation.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, over the past several days it seems to me
that the Senate debate on the tobacco bill has taken a very unfortunate
turn. It is a turn away from what I strongly believe are the purposes
and objectives of the legislation. I want to remind my colleagues that
the very name of the bill that we are dealing with is the National
Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act. I want to accent the
``Youth Smoking Reduction Act'' portion of the title.
Now, the purpose of this tobacco legislation is to fundamentally
change the way tobacco products are marketed and sold in this country.
Clearly, there is an epidemic sweeping the Nation. That is the rapid
growth of teenage smoking and tobacco use. The Centers for Disease
Control, as has been said many times on the floor, estimates that every
day 3,000 young American children, teenagers, take up smoking and that
one-third of these 3,000 will die prematurely because of smoking-
related diseases.
Thus, if you multiply that out, it is a million children a year, a
million young American children under the age of 18, who join the ranks
of adult smokers, and more than 300,000 of them will die prematurely.
Over a 25-year period, that amounts to 8 million Americans dying early
because of smoking. That is more Americans than were lost in all the
major wars that our Nation has been involved with.
As has been pointed out also frequently, tobacco use is the largest
preventable cause of death in America today. In other words, if we want
to look where can we do something about preventing deaths in our
country, and should we tackle alcohol or should we tackle accidents or
should we deal with illegal drugs or automobile accidents--yes, all of
those are important, but none of them compares with the reduction in
fatalities that would occur if we could eliminate smoking among the
young people.
The statistics are chilling. Tobacco-related deaths are four times
the number of Americans who die every year from alcohol-related deaths.
Tobacco-related deaths kill 9 times the number who die from accidental
deaths and 44 times the number of Americans who die from illegal drugs.
In America
[[Page S5676]]
alone, 419,000 deaths occur as a result of tobacco-related illnesses,
diseases. Nearly half a million every year in our country die from
tobacco-related diseases.
So, obviously, the way to prevent and discourage young people from
taking up tobacco is in the beginning and doing all we can to encourage
adults to cease smoking.
Some of the amendments before us would take us far afield from that
purpose. In other words, the objective of the exercise is to reduce
teenage smoking, prevent it if possible, and to encourage adults to
give up smoking. But these amendments we have before the Senate now go
far afield from that.
Let me begin with the drug amendment currently pending. This
amendment would take $3 billion annually out of this bill to combat
illegal drugs, which means we will have $3 billion less per year
available for the war on tobacco. Now, we already have a war on drugs,
and we are spending billions of dollars every year to combat the
serious problems of illegal drugs. This may be a meritorious amendment.
Maybe we should spent $3 billion more fighting drugs. But this isn't
the place to do it. If there is an antidrug amendment to be brought up,
bring it up as a freestanding amendment. See if the money is there
somewhere to fund this initiative. If it is all that important, let's
find the money for it. But it doesn't belong on this bill.
Now, the next one, Mr. President, the marriage penalty tax relief
proposal. Now, maybe that is a good proposal, but it has no place in
this legislation. Correcting a bias in the Tax Code may make sense, but
not on this bill. As the fiscal year 1999 budget process advances, we
will have a chance to consider the marriage penalty. Indeed, the Senate
budget resolution which we adopted here has $30 billion provided for
tax cuts. That is the place where marriage penalties should go if it is
that important. The budget resolution reported from the House Budget
Committee calls for $100 billion in tax cuts. There is ample
opportunity to do something about tax cuts and the marriage penalty.
Now, I know one of the arguments for doing a tax cut in this bill is,
it is enunciated they want to return some of the money that will be
paid in the form of higher cigarette prices paid by smokers. It is said
that the great majority of smokers are in the low-income or the middle-
income group and that we ought to do something for them. Somehow that
has a twist to it that isn't really sensible. I reject the argument
that these individuals somehow need to be reimbursed. The fact is,
because of the smoking of individuals in America, we all are paying
vastly higher taxes than we ever would otherwise. We are paying higher
Medicare costs, we are paying higher Medicaid costs, we are paying
higher private health insurance premiums, because smokers insist on
smoking, and they are the ones in whom, unfortunately, so many smoking-
related illnesses occur.
The fact of the matter is, smoking is a hidden tax on all taxpayers.
The direct medical costs of treating smoking-related illnesses exceed
$60 billion a year. We are all paying that--higher premiums on our
health insurance, as I mentioned before. The current Federal excise tax
on cigarettes does not begin to approach offsetting these additional
costs. Thus, in my judgment, it is perfectly proper that smokers pay
more than they are currently paying in taxes on cigarettes.
Now, let me conclude by making a simple point. Here, the original
McCain bill provided an increase in revenues of $65 billion. How is
that money to be spent?
It was to be spent with $26 billion going to the States. This is over
5 years--$26 billion to the States. NIH is to get $14 billion plus. In
other words, cessation and prevention programs were to receive $14
billion. Agriculture, $10 billion over 5 years. This is the total; it
comes to $65 billion.
But now what is happening, Mr. President, is a whole series of things
have been added on. Yes, the States stay at $26 billion. In comes
illegal drugs, $15 billion, and marriage penalty, $15 billion.
Veterans--we adopted that already--is at $3 billion, agriculture at $18
billion, public health at $14 billion, and NIH at $14 billion. In other
words, the spending equalling the revenue--the revenue being $65
billion over 5 years, and suddenly it is up to $105 billion. Obviously,
the traffic can't bear that. That is not what the taxes are going to
produce. So something has to give.
Mr. President, I remember this: There is a strong constituency for
the States. Oh, yes, they want their money. The marriage penalty is
very enticing and veterans has already been adopted. In agriculture,
there is a strong constituency. What is going to fall out is the NIH
and the public health programs.
Mr. President, I think that is terribly unfortunate. And we see here
what is going to lose. When we talk about health-related programs, we
are talking not only about NIH, which is a separate thing, but there
are cessation, prevention/education, counteradvertising, antismuggling,
and youth access restrictions. Those are the things that are so
important if we are truly concerned with reducing smoking amongst our
young people, as the very name of this legislation provides. These are
the things that will go out if we adopt these other proposals,
attractive though they may be, for marriage penalty and antidrug
activities.
Mr. President, the point is there won't be resources for these
programs that are so important. So I don't think that is where we want
to be at the end of the day. I don't think we want to end up with these
programs losing out because we have adopted the others. If the others
are all that important--the antidrug provisions, illegal drugs, the
marriage penalty relief--there will be a chance at another time to
address those. But in this legislation let's stick with the objective,
which is to reduce teenage smoking, prevent it from occurring in the
beginning, and do all we can to encourage those who are smokers to give
up that unfortunate habit.
So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the antidrug and
the tax cut amendments. They are not about tobacco; they should not be
in this bill.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I listened with great interest to the
comments of the Senator from Rhode Island about these two amendments. I
urge him to think about the end game and not just look at this vote or
this amendment at this time. Like everybody else around here, people
are assuming that if we have a bad bill at this point--which we do--or
if we add an amendment here or there, that is going to become law.
Somebody needs to think about how do we get to an end result that will
achieve the things we want.
If there ever is a bill, it will have a teenage smoking cessation
campaign and it will have a drug abuse cessation campaign. It is very
appropriate that we tie these two together. It will have additional
help for health programs that have been affected by smoking. NIH,
obviously, would be a major beneficiary, and it should be. We need
research on the health problems caused by smoking. Medicaid and
Medicare--that would be the end result. Somebody better think about how
do you ever get an end result. If we don't add something on marriage
penalty, tax relief, and on drugs, there won't be a bill. There will
not be a bill.
I want to remind everybody how we got to this point. First of all,
Senator McCain, the manager of the bill, chairman of the Commerce
Committee, had hearings; his committee met. They reported the bill out.
I think it was 19 or 20-1. Republicans and Democrats voted for it. All
of them had to sort of hold their noses, knowing there were too many
things in here that were the wrong thing to do, and they had gone too
far. They had some problems, but they got it done. It was a Republican
chairman and every Republican but one voted to report it out of that
committee.
I want the record to show, once again, that I am the guy that called
up this legislation for it to be considered. But I am here to say that
at this point it looks to me like it is over because of the games that
are being played. Now, efforts were being made this very morning to
work out a reasonable compromise on the tax cut proposal by Senator
Gramm. We were going to have to have a good debate and a vote on
[[Page S5677]]
this drug-related amendment. There were going to have to be additional
votes on the attorneys' fees issue. There is going to have to be votes
on the substitutes, if offered, by Senators Hatch, Gramm and Domenici.
At that point, perhaps cloture could begin. That is not what has been
happening.
Yesterday, Senator Daschle filed a cloture motion and, frankly, I did
not appreciate the way that was being done. We are not ready for
cloture on this. We have some other issues that have to be considered
before cloture would ever be invoked. And now, for the information of
all Senators, the junior Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, has
filed a cloture motion on the pending committee amendment to the
tobacco bill. Now, who else is going to file a cloture? We have a good
man back here in the cloakroom, Tiny; maybe he can file cloture on this
bill. Is everybody going to wander in and file a cloture? Do we want
two cloture votes on Tuesday, or one every day, or do we want a bill?
Frankly, Mr. President, I am offended by this. I consider it a breach
of the good faith that we have worked in within this Chamber. I was not
notified this was going to happen until 5 minutes after 11. I never had
a discussion with my counterpart on the other side, and then Senator
Conrad files his cloture motion at about 11:20. I resent it. I don't
appreciate it. It is counterproductive and it is killing this bill. So
I truly regret this action by our minority colleagues.
As all Senators know, rule XXII, the cloture rule, is one of the most
rigid of our rules, as far as imposing an arbitrary schedule for the
consideration of a bill. Amendments and even dictating the convening
time of the Senate with respect to the time of a cloture rollcall vote
are locked in under this rule. The bill before us would require eight
cloture motions--that is an important point--to be invoked and each of
the eight cloture items to be disposed of with up to 30 hours of debate
on each.
They are as follows: cloture on the Commerce Committee amendment;
cloture on the bill, S. 1415; cloture on the motion to proceed to a
House revenue bill; cloture on the substitute amendment to insert the
Senate text into the House revenue bill; cloture on passage of the
House revenue bill; cloture on the motion to insist on the Senate
amendment required to send the bill to conference; cloture on the
motion to request a conference with the House on disagreeing
amendments; and cloture on the appointment of conferees.
I am not the only guy in the Senate who knows where all these cloture
motions can be filed. Of course, that is assuming you get cloture,
which then would require 30 hours and hundreds of amendments. This is a
very complex, very important piece of legislation, no matter what your
viewpoint is, for or against. Everybody has to acknowledge that it has
many moving parts, is very complex, and there are many opportunities
for amendments to be offered and for mischief to be caused. It could
take forever or, in fact, never, as far as this bill being completed,
unless we have some modicum of cooperation on both sides of the aisle
and some effort to be fair to Senators that do have amendments that
they think should be offered.
So I am disappointed. But if this is the way we are going to proceed,
if it is going to be done this way, then I will join the ranks of those
that are going to use every procedural parliamentary tool to work
against this legislation, and we can just go ahead and admit that it
was a good thought.
We tried our best. It didn't work. I think that is unfortunate. But
the way that this is set up now, that is exactly where we are.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the majority
leader has taken the floor to criticize what has occurred this morning.
I notified the majority leader last night of our intention to file
cloture again. We have been on the bill 42 hours, 39 minutes as of
11:53. Eight days we have been here debating. We have sought some
cooperation from our colleagues on the other side in terms of reaching
some agreement on how we can proceed on amendments. We have attempted
to do that. We were getting nowhere. It was only after we filed cloture
last night that we were able to get a vote finally on the Durbin
amendment.
The majority leader talks about fairness being the criterion by which
we judge a Senator's right to offer an amendment. In the name of
fairness, we need to offer Senators their opportunity to come to the
floor to offer amendments. I wish we would use the same standard. Let's
use the same standard for the tobacco bill as we used for the Coverdell
bill, as we used for all other bills that we have had before the Senate
this year. We were arguing fairness when Senators were denied the
opportunity to offer amendments. In fact, somebody said, ``Can you
believe they are offering a tax amendment on the Coverdell bill?'' We
said, ``Well, this is a tax bill.'' But we were accused of destroying
what harmony there may have been to reach some agreement. And Senators
on this side of the aisle were precluded from offering amendments on
the Coverdell bill even though it was a tax bill, because they said
this is an education bill. Do you remember that debate? Because it was
``an education bill,'' we were not supposed to offer tax amendments.
But it was a tax bill.
Now we have the tobacco legislation, and our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are saying we want to offer a tax amendment. We are
saying this is a tobacco bill. They say it doesn't matter. We are going
to offer this tobacco amendment, and you are not being fair unless you
ensure that we have a right to offer tax amendments.
I am just asking, let's play fair. Let's use the same standard. That
isn't too much to ask. Once we have agreed on what that standard is,
let's accommodate Senators on both sides who have amendments they wish
to offer. We have a tax amendment. We don't understand why it would be
that difficult for us to come to some agreement about having a vote on
two competing ideas on the same exact issue. Let's have our debate.
Let's lay the amendments down. Let's have a vote back to back on the
amendments, and let's move on. We will have an amendment to the
amendment that has now been offered by the distinguished Senator from
Georgia. We laud him for many of the things that are incorporated in
his amendment. There are some concerns that we have. If we can't work
through those, we will certainly have an alternative there as well.
But it seems to me that we have a double standard here, Mr.
President. When it was in circumstances in the past, we had one set of
rules. Now, with circumstances with this bill, there is another set of
rules. Let's play by the same rules. Let's work together and see if we
can't find some resolution of this problem. I think that can be done,
but we have a ways to go.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened with interest and great
attention to the words spoken by the majority leader. He used the
phrase, ``Let's keep in mind the end game.'' I go back to what my
colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and Senator Chafee just spoke
about before the two leaders took the floor. What is the ``end game''?
It is right here. This is the end game. The number of high school
students smoking is going up at a precipitous rate, higher than ever.
The end game of this bill is to cut down on teenage smoking. That is
the end game.
The majority leader says if there is no marriage penalty tax in there
and no illegal drug money, then there is going to be no bill. I hope I
still have some rational reasoning power. I have to ask, Why? Why is
that? The majority leader didn't expound on why that would be. You mean
to say that we are holding these teenagers being addicted every day--
3,000 teenagers every day being addicted to tobacco--hostage to the
marriage penalty tax provision or illegal drug money? Holding them
hostage? Yet, the majority leader says there will be no bill unless we
have this. I don't understand that. The committee-reported bill didn't
have them in it. The committee-reported bill that was reported out by a
huge vote under the leadership of Senator McCain didn't have that in
it.
And the majority leader went on to say--I don't understand where he
is
[[Page S5678]]
getting his figures--that we are going to have money for research, we
will have money for cutting down teenage smoking. I don't know where he
is going to get the money. Look, I am using the same chart that Senator
Chafee used just a minute ago. Here is the original McCain bill: $65
billion over 5 years for public health, NIH, health research, States,
and agriculture. Add it up--$65 billion. If we keep the States at $26
billion, we keep agriculture, we add in illegal drugs, the Coverdell
amendment, the marriage penalty, and veterans, we are up to $65
billion, and we have no money for NIH and no money for public health,
period.
Does the majority leader mean to say that he is going to bring
another bill on the floor to magically find some money floating around
someplace for NIH research and for public health for cutting down on
teen smoking? I am sorry. The facts are simple.
If you put in the $15 billion on the illegal drugs, the $15 billion
on the marriage penalty, the veterans' $3 billion, agriculture $18
billion, you can forget about public health and NIH. There is no money
left, unless, of course, the majority leader is going to come back on
the floor with a provision to raise the price of tobacco to even more
than $1.10 a pack. Maybe the majority leader would like to raise the
price of cigarettes to $1.50 a pack or $2 a pack. That might get you
the money. But with the $1.10 a pack you have in there now, you are not
going to have the money, period.
So I just do not understand what the majority leader can possibly be
talking about and where he could possibly be finding all of this money
that he is going to have.
The majority leader said he was offended. Enough happens around here
to offend each and every one of us every single day of the year, I
suppose. But I have learned after 13 years here--14, I guess--that you
can't be too offended too much by what goes on around here.
I guess you have to look at the reality of the situation, and the
reality is very simple. There are those in this body who do not want a
tobacco bill, period. They do not want the tobacco companies to have to
shell out this money. They don't want to have a bill that will provide
for an increase in the price of cigarettes per pack. That is
legitimate. That is their viewpoint. They are welcome to it. They can
defend it all they want. Maybe they have good reasons they can defend
it. But that is the reality of the situation.
For example, the Senator from Texas, I believe, propounded the
amendment on the marriage penalty tax, doing away with that. I
believe--I think I am correct--that he even said if this amendment was
adopted he would still vote against the bill.
So what kind of games are being played around here? I don't take
offense at that; I just simply point it out for the reality of the
situation. The reality is that we have a battle going on on this Senate
floor, a big battle, and it is a battle between those who want to stop
3,000 kids a day from starting to smoke, 1,000 who will die from it,
and those who say business as usual; the tobacco companies, that is OK;
let them go ahead; it is a legal product.
We don't have to do anything to them. And if we just add all these
amendments on, it is going to fall of its own weight.
That is the game being played around here. It's a game that is played
all the time. That is just sort of the way the Senate operates. What I
guess we have to do is continually point out what is in fact being
done.
Now, let's talk about at least illegal drugs. We all want to stop
illegal drugs. I have been here 13 years, 14 now. It seems like every
year we have a bill to do something about illegal drugs: We are going
to beef up the Border Patrol; we are going to raise the penalties; we
are going to have mandatory sentencing. Year after year after year we
go after illegal drugs because it makes nice headlines and we know that
100 percent of the American people are against it so it is kind of an
easy thing. It makes you feel good. You can hit at illegal drugs. It
gets popular support. It gets in the newspapers. That's all well and
good.
But, Mr. President, what are we talking about? When you are talking
about death and illness to the youth of America, illegal drugs doesn't
hold a candle to tobacco. And here are the figures. I welcome anyone to
dispute the findings by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If someone would like to take the Senate floor and dispute this, please
let me see the data you have. But the data we have from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention says, ``Tobacco kills more Americans
than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs
and fires combined'' every year. Here is tobacco over here: 418,000
deaths in 1 year. Here is illegal drugs, 9,463. What's important? Year
after year we come here going after illegal drugs, and we let the
biggest killer and destruction of youth in America go by--tobacco. Let
it go by every year. And we are about to do the same right here by
loading on all these amendments.
Now, the marriage penalty needs addressing. I think I would agree
with others who have said it before, yes, it needs to be addressed.
Yes, it is an unfair tax. But we are going to have a tax bill later
this year. It is not going to take effect until next year anyway.
Address it at that time.
Illegal drugs, we can address that at another time. Keep our eye on
what the majority leader said, ``the end game.'' Is the end game of
this bill to go after homicides or illegal drugs? No. It is go after
tobacco. That is the end game. And the end game is to make sure that we
have the money to fight it.
That is what this is all about. It is not just about getting tobacco
companies to put a lot of money into the Federal Government. If that is
all that was happening, I would be opposed to it. What it is about is
saying to the tobacco companies you have for years through your
advertising, through covering up the health risks, you have for years
hooked a whole generation of Americans on tobacco. You know that it is
carcinogenic. You know that nicotine is addictive. You know that it
causes emphysema and cancer and heart disease. And yet through your
slick advertising year after year you hook more young Americans.
We know what the tobacco companies have known for years, that smoking
begins early, that by age 18, 89 percent of all adult smokers have
started smoking. We know that. Tobacco companies know that. Oh, they
have said for years, no, no, we advertise for brand selection, to get
people off of one brand and onto another. Hogwash. They know that if
they can hook someone when they are young, they have them later on.
As I have said many times, Joe Camel never appealed to me. Joe Camel
does not appeal to someone my age. Neither do all these slick
advertisements of young people on the beach and having a lot of fun and
they are all looking healthy and they are out there. They don't appeal
to older people. The Marlboro gear that you can get with your coupons,
that doesn't appeal to older people. They are after young people. How
many older people do you see wearing the Joe Camel beach togs. You
don't see that. How many older people do you see wearing Marlboro gear.
You see teenagers wearing it but not older people.
The tobacco companies systematically for years have been targeting
young people because they knew if they got them hooked young, they got
them later on.
What we are saying today is no, tobacco companies, don't dump a lot
of money into the Federal Government so we can take care of the
marriage penalty, illegal drugs, this and that. We are saying, we are
telling you that you are going to have to pay money in so that we can
put the money out for public health, to help take care of those people
you hooked years ago, to bring money in so we can put it into NIH on
research, so we can put money into the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on research on how to cut down on smoking, how to keep kids
from smoking, have smoking cessation programs and prevention programs
in all of our schools.
That is what we are after right here. NIH Health Research. End game:
NIH health research, smoking cessation programs, smoking prevention and
education in our schools, counter advertising, which we know is very
effective and which the tobacco companies probably dread more than
anything else, antismuggling, and youth access restrictions.
This is the comprehensive bill that we are talking about. You add in
the
[[Page S5679]]
add-ons that are now before us and all of this is gone. Every single
one of these is gone because you don't have the money for them unless
again can someone please get on the floor and tell me where are we
going to find the money if in fact we adopt all of these extraneous
provisions.
So that is what the end game is about. It is saying to the tobacco
companies it is time for you to cough up, cough up enough money to take
care of those you have addicted through your advertising and that you
did not warn about the health aspects even though you knew what the
health aspects were going to be. It is time for you to cough up enough
money for research in heart disease and lung cancer and emphysema and
all the illnesses that tobacco plagues us with. It is time for you to
cough up enough money so we can go out to our schools and we can have
prevention programs and education programs for our kids. It is time for
you, tobacco companies, to cough up enough money so we can have counter
advertising, not the slick ads that tell you how good smoking is but
ads that really tell you how death and illness will occur if you do in
fact take up smoking.
That is what this money is all about. It is not about the marriage
penalty or illegal drugs or anything else. It is about taking care of
the youth of America who have been hooked on tobacco. For the life of
me, I don't understand why it is the majority leader can say that if
these add-ons are not adopted, the tobacco bill is dead. I would like
to see a vote out on the Senate floor. I think we ought to vote on the
amendment by the Senator from Texas on the marriage penalty. Let's vote
it up or down. Let's vote on all these amendments. Let's just vote on
them. And then let's have a final vote on this bill and see where we
come down. Let's cut out the games. Let's cut out all this game
playing.
I bet the tobacco industry CEO's today, Mr. President, are slapping
each other on the back and they are laughing all the way to the bank,
gleefully watching us hack away at the programs designed to prevent
young people from smoking and to help those smokers quit who have
already taken it up.
They must be really happy watching us go through all of this when
they know that tobacco is the biggest killer of youth.
This is the end game right here. This is the end game. I have used
this chart before on the floor. Two young, attractive women coming in
to buy cigarettes. Which one is 16? You don't know. You don't know
which one is 16. Melissa and Amy--it turns out Melissa is 16 and Amy is
25.
We want to keep Melissa from taking up tobacco, and if Amy has taken
it up, we want her to quit. That is what the end game here is all
about. It is not about marriage penalty or anything else. To those who
say it is, to those who say, as the majority leader said, that if we
don't have these extraneous measures on here the bill is going to die,
I say, come out and explain to the American people why it is we had a
bill reported from the Commerce Committee under the leadership of
Senator McCain that came out with one dissenting vote, out of
committee, and we cannot have a vote on that bill here on the Senate
floor; why it is we are going to have all these extraneous measures,
and they have to be adopted, according to the majority leader, or the
bill will not pass? These were not in the committee bill, and it passed
out of committee with only one dissenting vote.
So, I don't know what the majority leader is talking about, unless
what the majority leader is talking about is that he really wants this
bill killed, that he wants no tobacco bill, that he wants to load it
down with a number of amendments that will surely mean the end of any
tobacco legislation this year.
I hope that is not the case. As I said, I do not know what the
majority leader had in mind. All he said was if these amendments are
not adopted, the bill is dead. I don't know what he means by that.
Hopefully, in the coming days, he will explain himself further in that
regard.
Mr. President, our charge is clear and simple here. Our charge is
only one--cut teen smoking. We know what does it. The Senator from
Florida, Senator Graham, spoke about it. It has to be a comprehensive
bill encompassing a rapid and significant increase in the price of
tobacco; and, second, smoking cessation and education programs,
research, and counteradvertising. If you do all of those, you will cut
teen smoking. You can save those lives. You will save a lot of illness
in America. That is what we have to be about.
Senator Chafee and Senator Graham and I have worked very hard on this
legislation in a bipartisan manner going back several months. I think
we can still, hopefully, have a good bipartisan bill come out. The
committee bill was bipartisan. I am sorry to see that we have gotten
now into this partisan wrangling over the marriage penalty, or motions,
cloture motions and things like that. I think our leader, Senator
Daschle, had it right. We ought to have one set of rules and we ought
to abide by those rules. Whatever those rules are for one bill, we
ought to attach them to the other bill.
I think the best course of action for us here is to vote on these
amendments, move on, and vote on final passage. Let's exercise the
Senate's will. We have been on the bill long enough. Hopefully, we can
finish it next week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senator
Coverdell and Senator Craig in offering the Drug Free Neighborhoods Act
as an amendment to the tobacco bill.
I fervently believe that we must do everything we can to reduce
teenage smoking. But we are not here to deal with one issue a year. We
are here to deal with the priorities of our constituents and our
country. So I think we also must address the serious problem of teenage
drug use in America today as well.
In my view it is crucial, given our continuing struggle in the war on
drugs, that we send an unwavering and unambiguous message to all
Americans, and to our children in particular, that the use and sale of
illegal drugs is dangerous, wrong, and will not be tolerated.
As the father of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by
recent trends in drug use. Indeed, since 1992 Washington has been
losing important ground in the war on drugs. Let me cite just a few of
the alarming statistics:
First of all, over the past five years, the average number of Federal
drug defendants prosecuted has dropped by almost 1500 cases from the
1992 level. And the average number of drug convictions has gone down by
a similar amount since 1993.
The drug interdiction budget was cut by 39 percent from 1992 to 1996
and drug surveillance flights were cut in half.
The impact on our kids has been serious. In the last six years, the
percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an
illicit drug has risen by more than half.
Incredibly, 54 percent of the Class of 97 had used an illicit drug by
graduation.
For 10th graders during that same time, drug use has doubled.
And--perhaps worst of all--nearly 20 percent of our 8th graders use
illegal drugs.
Faced with this bad news, this year the Administration finally
submitted a comprehensive long range National Drug Strategy to
Congress.
Unfortunately, it took them nearly five years to take this step. And,
as the numbers show, our children have been paying the price.
That is why today we are offering the Drug Free Neighborhoods
amendment. This amendment addresses the alarming trends in drug use
among teenagers. Let me describe briefly what this amendment entails:
First, it provides additional resources for drug interdiction
programs in the U.S. Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the
Department of Defense. It would double the interdiction budget for each
of these departments.
Second, this amendment provides additional resources to combat drugs
that reach our schools and neighborhoods. For example, it authorizes
$50 million per year for the Drug Free Communities Act. It also
promotes drug free schools by allowing federal funds to be used for
voluntary random drug testing programs--and to provide school choice
for K-12 students who are victims of drug-related school violence.
[[Page S5680]]
Third, the amendment increases disincentives for teens to use illegal
drugs through the Drug Free Student Loans Act. This act would deny
student loans to those convicted of drug possession. In addition, the
amendment's Drug Free Teen Drivers Act, would provide grants to States
that enact and enforce laws to crack down on teen drivers who use
drugs.
Finally, this amendment would ban taxpayer funding for needle
exchange programs. In my judgment, Washington must constantly reinforce
the message to our kids that drugs are dangerous, and drug use is
unacceptable.
Federal funding of needle programs sends the wrong message. And the
statistics gathered from programs in Vancouver, Montreal, Zurich and
Manhattan all clearly show that these programs significantly increase
drug use. Every program studied has shown a significant increase in the
use of narcotics among those receiving free needles--every study.
Mr. President, we owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families
struggling to protect their children from the scourges of drugs and
drug violence to stay tough on the criminals who prey on their
neighborhoods.
Washington has to renew the war on drugs. We must provide needed
resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't
acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison--for a long time.
Our kids deserve no less.
Mr. President, let me close by just commenting briefly on the
majority leader's earlier remarks. There are, obviously, a lot of
issues that are on this floor. I don't want to attempt to address every
one of them. But I think the point the majority leader is trying to
make, as he outlined some of his thinking as to the final version this
legislation might take, is a very important point for us to remember,
which is that the tax dollars we are talking about here are not coming
from tobacco companies. They are coming from taxpayers. They are coming
from citizens. They are coming from people, for the most part, in
lower-income categories. So I think we do have a responsibility to
determine, if we are going to increase taxes on working families in
this country, exactly how those resources ought to be spent.
The notion that we cannot, in any sense, change any of the formula
for the expenditure of those resources or we are somehow undermining
this legislation, I think is an incorrect conclusion. This bill, like
every other bill we have, is about priorities. In offering the
amendment that we are offering, that the majority leader spoke to in
his comments, we are trying to establish as a priority of this Congress
that we will do more in the battle against illegal drugs.
There may be some Members--I am not sure in which States--but there
may be some Members in some States where illegal drug use is not a
significant problem in their communities, where they are not hearing
from their constituents about this, where this is not a serious
problem. Maybe that is the case. I do not know. I cannot speak for
other States, but I can speak for my State, and when I go around my
State I hear families in virtually every corner of Michigan talking
about the problems, the threat to their kids, of drugs.
If we are going to tax the families of this country to the tune of
billions of dollars a year--not the tobacco companies but the
families--billions of dollars a year, and the notion we are not going
to do anything about illegal drugs, that this is somehow inappropriate
on this legislation, that the majority leader is wrong to come to the
floor and say there needs to be a drug component here--I don't know
what State that represents, but it doesn't represent mine.
I think the majority leader is right on target, and I think this
amendment is a critical part of this legislation. I think it makes
sense for us to do this now. We are not going to have many more
opportunities to do this, and I think we will be sending a terrible
message to the people of this country and our kids if we pass this
legislation and say we are worried about tobacco and we are worried
about smoking, but drugs can wait for another day. In my State, that
won't sell. Maybe it will in other places. The majority leader is
right, Senator Coverdell is right, Senator Craig is right, and I am
happy to join them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the
remarks of the Senator from Michigan. I think his comments on the
appropriate nature of this amendment as it relates to teenage drug
abuse is absolutely correct.
I was taken aback by the suggestion by a couple of our colleagues
that somehow teenage addiction to drugs was something that ought to be
left for another day. I suggest my colleagues need to ask Americans
what they think the most important teenage problem is today. When you
ask American families, not CDC or some think tank, but you ask American
families what they think the No. 1 teenage problem is, it is drug
abuse--No. 1, and there is not even a close 2.
The Senator from Iowa has a chart from CDC that shows the numbers of
deaths. Of course, that is over a lifetime of the entire population. It
shows substantial more deaths related to tobacco than to drug abuse on
an annual basis. I don't dispute the numbers, but I do dispute the
point he is trying to make. He is trying to say that tobacco is the
most significant problem, and I guess just measured against deaths, he
is correct. But I wonder if he would be interested in looking at
America's prison population, the millions of Americans in prison today.
There is just one little kernel, one nugget that would be of interest
to him, and that is that 80 percent--80--8 out of 10 prisoners in
America are in prison on a drug-related charge, direct or indirect--80
percent of the prison population.
Drugs are fueling havoc in our cities, in our States and communities
because they fuel crime and they fuel violent crime, disconnected
mindless crime. We all know that the nature of criminal activity,
particularly among our juveniles, is becoming more violent. We have had
a lot of discussions about it. It is drug driven. The fact that we are
talking about addiction and silent on the most pressing problem facing
teenagers, in my judgment, isn't even debatable; it is unconscionable.
The Senator from Michigan alluded to it when he said we will be
sending the wrong message, it will be sending a message, ``Well, we've
gotten to the most prominent, most difficult problem for teenagers
because we have passed a program dealing with teenage smoking.''
Teenage smoking is up. It is up about 40 percent, and it needs
attention. Drug abuse among teenagers is up 135 percent and escalating
as we stand here, fueling not only enormous personal disruption, family
disruption, but community disruption as it expands itself into criminal
behavior.
Not long ago, I was at a youth detention center in my State. It was a
female center. There were about 20 young people aged 12 to 16. They
were in this detention center for prostitution, assault and battery,
auto theft, attempted murder, and the root of every one of the crimes
was drugs. The real reason they were there was drugs. You can walk into
any school, I venture to say in any State, and you ask the children
what the No. 1 problem is--alcohol, cigarettes, drugs? Ninety-five
percent, drugs.
If we are going to talk about addiction of teenagers, we have to talk
about the combined problem. Yes, tobacco. It is not healthy for them to
use tobacco products, and we want to direct our guns at that. But the
most important problem, Mr. President, for teenagers is drugs. It is
almost an extension of the message coming out of this city for the last
6 months: We don't want to talk about drugs; we will shut the drug
czar's office; we will cut the interdiction in half. And we are
surprised because suddenly we are in an epidemic of teenage drug abuse?
The message was silence. To let a teenage addiction bill come through
this Senate and be silent on drugs is unconscionable.
I, along with my colleagues, Senator Craig of Idaho and Senator
Abraham of Michigan, are not going to allow that to happen. We are
going to talk about teenage addiction, yes; we are going to talk about
tobacco, but we are going to put drugs in the mix because it is the No.
1 problem.
[[Page S5681]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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 (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________