[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5754-S5762]
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.


                             cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  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 to S. 1415, tobacco legislation:
         Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, Robert Kerrey of 
           Nebraska, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid of Nevada, Paul 
           Wellstone, Richard Durbin, Patty Murray, Richard Bryan, 
           Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Joseph Lieberman, 
           John Glenn, Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, and Max Baucus.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate be brought to a close on the committee substitute?
  The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is absent because of illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

[[Page S5755]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Specter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 42, the nays are 56. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized, under the previous order, for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend that to 
10 minutes, if there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized to speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who have counted out the tobacco 
lobby, for those who said the tobacco giants are now flat on their 
backs and have no strength left on Capitol Hill, I am afraid the last 
vote is an indication that there is still life in that tobacco lobby. 
This vote of 42 to 56 on a motion to bring to a halt the debate and 
bring to a vote the tobacco bill is a sad commentary on where we are 
today.
  This legislation, S. 1415, which is the product of the Senate 
Commerce Committee and the hard work of both Republican and Democratic 
Senators, deserves a vote, not just because it is on the floor today 
but because what this bill sets out to do is so important for this 
Nation. Instead, what we have seen are the opponents of this 
legislation come to this floor over the last 3 weeks, producing 
amendments to grind us down, mire us down in debate, sink us in this 
morass of technicalities and procedures so we never get to this bill.
  Many of my colleagues, Senators, have come to this floor and offered 
very important amendments, interesting amendments. They are not related 
to tobacco and children though. An amendment comes to the floor from 
one of the Senators, ``Let's talk about reforming the Internal Revenue 
Code.'' That is a good idea. We should do that on a regular basis. But 
on this bill? Why on this bill? This bill, which is designed to stop 
the addiction of our children to tobacco products, why should it be a 
forum for this debate on reforming the Internal Revenue Code?
  Another Senator comes to the floor and says, ``Let's talk about the 
problem of narcotics in America.'' It is a terrible problem. It is a 
terrible problem. Everyone agrees with that. Every parent agrees with 
that. Yet, to raise that as an issue on this bill? To suggest, as part 
of this debate, we ought to talk about school vouchers? School 
vouchers, that is an important debate, too. But why in this bill? Why 
in this legislation, this historic piece of legislation that gives us a 
chance, for the first time in this Nation's history, to do something 
meaningful about tobacco, are we being diverted by so many amendments?
  Do you know what the order of business before the Senate is at this 
moment? I can tell you what it is. You may want to write this down. For 
those with scorecards at home, be prepared with your pencils ready. We 
are currently debating the Coverdell amendment to the Durbin amendment 
to the Gramm motion to recommit with two underlying Gregg amendments 
still pending.
  Hard to follow? It is designed to be hard to follow. It is designed 
to tangle us up in procedure so we never get to vote on this bill and 
never vote on this issue.
  The tobacco companies have to be cheering after that last vote, 42 to 
56, so we continue to mire ourselves in this procedural mess and never 
get to the bottom line. What is the bottom line? Let me show you in 
this graph. This is the bottom line. The smoking rates among high 
school seniors in America are at a 17-year high. As I speak today, in 
the Senate gallery we have many visitors and friends and a lot of 
youngsters who are here from schools. You know what I am talking about. 
You know what is happening in your grade schools and in your junior 
high schools and in your high schools--more and more children are 
starting to smoke. I have never in my life ever met a parent who has 
come to me and said: ``Great news, I just got the best news. My 
daughter just called, she started smoking.'' Have you ever heard that? 
I never heard that from any parent. It is a troubling piece of 
information which every parent dreads.

  More and more kids, now over half the high school seniors in America, 
are taking up this deadly habit. Since we started this mindless debate, 
66,000 children in America have started smoking for the first time. 
Tobacco companies have a big smile on their face: More and more kids 
addicted to their products, kids who will spend a fortune over their 
lifetimes on this addiction and ultimately a third of them to be 
victims of an early grave, because of this tobacco addiction. Yet here 
we are on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Here we are with this historic 
opportunity, with bipartisan legislation, to do what is right, to pass 
legislation and say to the tobacco companies, ``The game is over. We 
are no longer going to allow you to appeal to and addict our children. 
We are going to ask you be held accountable, accountable for reducing 
the percentage of children who are smoking.'' And, by overwhelming 
votes, Senators on both sides of the aisle supported my amendment last 
week to hold the tobacco companies specifically liable if kids continue 
to be lured into this addiction. Yet, over the weekend one of the 
leaders here in the Senate says the tobacco bill is all but dead--all 
but dead, after all this work.
  Keep in mind, we are not just talking about another piece of 
legislation in the Senate. We are talking about the No. 1 preventable 
cause of death in America today. Members of the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, who missed this opportunity, will, frankly, have to answer 
for it--perhaps not in the next election, but maybe at a later time--as 
to why at this moment in history, when we had the chance to seize the 
opportunity and do something to help our children, we failed to do so.
  I continue to believe we have a chance to pass this legislation. We 
have Democrats and Republicans alike who believe it is not only right 
but timely. But if we allow this procedural morass to continue, if we 
do not bring to a vote the critical amendments necessary so we can 
bring this bill to final passage, then the clock runs out.
  As I said once before, I guess time is on the side of those who want 
to stop this legislation. But history is not on their side. History 
will judge them harshly. Having been given this opportunity to pass an 
important bill, they missed it. They missed it, to the detriment not of 
their own political careers but of their children. And the money to be 
raised from this bill, the money that comes from a tobacco tax--that is 
right, t-a-x, tobacco tax; call it a fee or what you like, I call it a 
tobacco tax--that money is going in for specific purposes to help 
children: Smoking cessation clinics, antismoking advertising, and 
medical research.
  I will stand in the State of Illinois, or wherever I am called on, to 
defend that vote. I think asking smokers to pay more for their product 
to reduce the sales to children and put money in the Treasury for those 
purposes is a defensible thing to do and not something we should shrink 
away from. I have heard

[[Page S5756]]

all this argument on the other side about this bill: Senator McCain's 
bill is going to create some massive Federal bureaucracy. Not so. Not 
so. This bill basically does, in self-executing ways, what we sought to 
achieve in the beginning, when 42 State attorneys general filed 
lawsuits across the United States saying to tobacco companies: Your day 
is over. You are going to be held accountable. This came to a basic 
agreement about a year ago. We are building on that agreement.

  I salute them for their initiative in allowing us to reach this 
point. But, will this Senate miss this opportunity, as we missed the 
opportunity to pass campaign finance reform? Will we miss this 
opportunity to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation? This last vote, 
42 to 56, is an indication we have a long way to go. Cooler heads have 
to prevail. Senators on both sides of the aisle have to understand, 
this is more than gamesmanship on some amendment tree; this is 
fundamentally a question about the public health of America and the 
public health of our children.
  What we and the American people are waiting for is leadership, 
leadership here in the Senate to bring action to a close on this 
legislation. While we wait for that leadership, the advertising 
industry is waiting, too, pens poised, ready to write the next 
generation of ads for cigarettes to hook children. That will happen if 
this bill fails.
  The lawyers are waiting, too. The lawyers are waiting with their 
legal briefs in hand to continue the next round of State litigation, 
and that will continue, month after month and year after year, if this 
bill fails.
  The parents are waiting. The parents of America are waiting to see 
whether or not their children will be able to escape this addiction to 
tobacco while they go to school and while they grow up. Passing this 
bill will help those parents.
  And, yes, the tobacco companies are waiting, too. They are waiting to 
see whether the Senate will drop the ball and give them another year of 
obscene profits at the expense of our children.
  The President of the United States and this administration have shown 
extraordinary leadership on this issue. No President in history has 
ever stuck his neck out as far as President Clinton in fighting the 
tobacco lobby. He has taken a lot of grief for it. There have been a 
lot of people who invested a lot of money in opposition to folks who 
supported it. But he was right to do it. Those of us on the floor of 
the Senate who have been fighting this tobacco battle for over a decade 
have dreamed of this day and this opportunity.
  And that is why it is so sad that we find ourselves in this gridlock, 
this procedural gridlock. I am sorry that the motion to close down 
debate and limit the amendments to those germane to the bill did not 
prevail. A similar motion will be offered tomorrow, and I hope that 
motion will prevail. In the meantime, I hope Democrats and Republicans 
will join Senator McCain and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts in a 
bipartisan effort to pass this landmark legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Illinois, I 
understand his frustration. I understand the goals that he is 
attempting to reach, and I agree with him, but I am one of those who 
voted against cloture. In his 15-minute speech, he did not mention the 
farmer, the farmer who could wake up in the morning if we pass this 
bill with some amendments in it and be out of business in 36 months. 
The Senator from Illinois wouldn't mind that, but I certainly do.
  I don't object to smoke-free schools. Ninety percent and better in my 
State, a tobacco State, are opposed to underage smoking. We have no 
problems with that. But be fair to those and help those who have a life 
in front of them based on a legal product. They have had no part in all 
these problems of lies and documents and court cases, but are down 
there living by the sweat of their brow. And we are not talking about 
the farmer.
  Look at this bill that is before us and the amendments that have been 
adopted or that are pending, and you want cloture to be invoked on that 
bill and be the bill that goes out of here? I cannot allow that. I 
cannot in good conscience allow cloture to be voted on that bill and my 
farmers not be taken care of.
  I agree with the Senator from Illinois--of course I do--we have lost 
the target. We have lost the target. Someone figured up the other day 
that if everything that has been introduced and is in this bill is 
taken care of, we will spend 169 percent of the estimated amount of 
money that is going to be raised in the next 5 years.
  Mr. President, I am one of those--and I admit it, it is on the 
record--but I want people to know why I voted against cloture and will 
continue to vote against cloture until we can get some consensus as it 
relates to my farmers.
  The Senator from Illinois said he wants leadership. I think our 
leader is doing one heck of a job. I think he is pushing the point. I 
think he is doing the right thing for the position he is in, and I 
think the leadership on the other side is making one mistake after the 
other after the other after the other, because of what they are trying 
to do--to make a lifesaving piece of legislation into a tax cut bill. 
We need to understand that, and I think the American people will.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that before we have too many cloture 
votes and are criticized for voting no on cloture that we can have 
something that is palatable or even reasonable--even reasonable--that 
we can vote on to do the right thing for those we represent. I 
represent 65,000 small farm families, and I intend to see that, to the 
best of my ability, every one of those are treated fairly. Up to now, 
the answer has been no, and the answer will continue to be no on 
cloture until such time that we can see some daylight as it relates to 
those families that are struggling down in my State of Kentucky. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 2451

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I, of course, am aware of the 
longstanding concern of the Senator from Illinois about tobacco, but I 
think to suggest that some of the amendments that are being discussed 
have some meaning other than their stated purpose is not appropriate. 
The amendment before the Senate is an effort to make sure that any 
legislation that deals with teenage addiction embrace all the 
components of teenage addiction. Yes, smoking, but, yes, drug abuse and 
the smoking of marijuana which, I point out, is five times more 
dangerous than smoking a cigarette--five times.
  The principal drug abuse and addiction on behalf of teenagers is 
smoking, not cigarettes, but marijuana. I have long felt that for us to 
come to the Senate and talk about the dangers of tobacco and the 
addiction of tobacco and be absolutely silent on the question of 
teenage addiction to drugs is unconscionable policy.
  Mr. President, just yesterday on June 8, the President of the United 
States at the United Nations in New York said:

       Ten years ago, the United Nations adopted a path-breaking 
     convention to spur cooperation against drug trafficking. 
     Today the potential for that kind of cooperation has never 
     been greater or more needed. As divisive blocks and barriers 
     have been dismantled around the world, as technology has 
     advanced and democracy has spread, our people benefit more 
     and more from nations working and learning together. Yet the 
     very openness that enriches our lives is also exploited by 
     criminals, especially drug traffickers. Today we come here to 
     say no nation is so large and powerful that it can conquer 
     drugs alone; none is too small to make a difference. All 
     share a responsibility to take up the battle. Therefore, we 
     will stand as one against this threat to our security and our 
     future. The stakes are high, for the drug empires erode the 
     foundations of democracy, corrupt the integrity of market 
     economies, menace the lives, the hopes and future of families 
     on every continent. Let there be no doubt that this is 
     ultimately a struggle for human freedom.

  Those are pretty lofty remarks, but where is the administration in 
support of our attempts to confront these drug cartels, to confront the 
fact that the target of these cartels are kids age 8 to 14 years old--8 
to 14? Yes, tobacco is hazardous, and it has been abusive to health and 
it is increasing. Over the last 6 years, it has increased about 40 
percent.

[[Page S5757]]

  What about drug abuse? What about these points the President made to 
the world? It has increased 135 percent in the last 6\1/2\ years--135 
percent. And his team, the President's team the day following these 
remarks is blocking votes on trying to make a component of teenage 
addiction embrace and confront drugs. It is OK to talk the talk, but 
you have to walk the walk.
  Mr. President, this administration does not have a good record on the 
issue of teenage drug addiction. It does not have a good record. It 
came into office--if we are talking about the troubles of drug abuse--
it came into office, and it closed down the drug office, for all 
practical purposes. It came into office and it massively reduced 
interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and on the border. As a result, 
Mr. President, massive amounts of new drugs are flowing into the 
country almost unfettered.
  As a result of that, the price of these drugs has collapsed, utterly 
collapsed, and for some of these drugs, the price has dropped 70, 80, 
100 percent--not 100--70 percent. So no message--more kids are unaware 
of the fact that drugs are dangerous. In fact, several years ago--2 
years ago--that number was at the lowest ever. The number of children 
who perceived drugs to be dangerous to them was at an all-time low. So 
why are we surprised, if they do not think it is dangerous, that 
suddenly the use of it would just skyrocket and go up 135 percent?
  Mr. President, framing what has happened here is important: Quit 
talking about it; dismantled interdiction; closed the drug czar office; 
massive amounts of new drugs in the country; no message to kids or 
parents about the dangers of drugs--boom, a new epidemic, a new 
epidemic. One million-plus new teenagers caught up in drugs.
  Mr. President, there are 1.1 million prisoners in America today. Over 
800,000 of them, 800,000 out of 1.1 million, are there on drug-related 
charges--indirect or direct. And $67 billion a year it is costing this 
country.
  The No. 1 problem for teenagers, according to teenagers, according to 
parents, according to all statistics--and not by a slim margin; by an 
enormous margin, 2, 3, 4 to 1--they have said that is the No. 1 problem 
our kids face, smoking marijuana, getting in the drug culture, the No. 
1 problem. It is accessible everywhere, and it is cheap. The other side 
says, ``Oh, this is not appropriate to be talking about this on the 
tobacco bill.'' What in the world does it take to be appropriate?
  Five times more dangerous to smoke it, mind-altering, 800,000 
prisoners, $67 billion a year, the principal problem of teenage 
addiction, and we just heard the Senator from Illinois: ``This is a 
poison pill amendment.'' The logic defies me, absolutely defies me.
  He talked about school choice. What he is talking about is three 
paragraphs in this amendment that says if a child becomes a victim of a 
crime, including drug-related, that the school system could move the 
child to another school.
  Mr. President, I will give you an example. First of all, we have a 
letter from the all-knowing NEA, which says, ``This amendment''--this 
is the drug amendment provision--``to allow Federal tax dollars to be 
used to provide private school vouchers is a cynical attempt to use the 
recent tragic violence in our schools to advance a political agenda.''
  What they are talking about is the ability for a local school to take 
this teenage girl, who was assaulted at her school, sexually assaulted, 
in an abandoned locker room in De Kalb County--this amendment would 
allow this school system to move her to another school. That is what 
the ruckus is about over there. Heaven forbid that we would make it 
possible for one of these victims of a violent crime to be moved to a 
safer location. That is what he is talking about when he talks about 
the nonrelated issue of school choice. He is talking about this girl 
and the right for a school system to try to protect the victim of a 
violent crime. ``But this is not a serious attempt to make the bill 
better. There's not any relevance here.''
  Fourteen thousand teenagers die every year as a result of teenage 
drug use. Once again, in the drug culture, the chances of 
rehabilitation are very limited. That is why you have to have massive 
campaigns to educate. The administration and the Congress have already 
understood this because they are trying to launch a national campaign 
now. And I applaud them for it. It is just too little. If we are going 
to get this drug epidemic under control we have to get serious.

  There was an article in the paper June 2, a pretty interesting 
article, Mr. President. I will just read a few select remarks from it.

       As commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard for the last 4 years, 
     Admiral Robert E. Kramek played a key role in the war on 
     drugs, serving as coordinator for U.S. interdiction efforts. 
     But in leaving the post last week, after 41 years in the 
     service, the 58-year-old admiral could not hide a sense of 
     frustration and dismay about what he described as partisan 
     bickering, pork-barrel politics that have hamstrung the 
     United States in its fight against illegal narcotics. He 
     said, ``If we want to win the war on drugs, we've got to have 
     the will to win.'' He said, ``While politicians have 
     described the war on drugs as a high priority and a matter of 
     national security, they have failed to fund it adequately, 
     preferring instead to pour billions of dollars into other 
     things.'' He said, ``Funds spent on interdiction represent 10 
     percent of the antinarcotic budget. Today [this is the 
     admiral] I have two-thirds of the money, half of the ship 
     time, half of the aircraft flight hours I need,'' the admiral 
     said. ``And you can't get there from here. You can't make a 
     50 percent reduction in demand in the flow of drugs into this 
     country over the next 10 years with what we're committing to 
     the battle.''

  The amendment that the other side does not want us to vote on, that 
some on the other side say is not relevant, the amendment responds to 
the admiral. The Coast Guard appropriation for interdiction would be 
doubled with this amendment. In other words, exactly what the admiral 
said he did not have the amendment gives him. It gives him the ship 
time to get back in the waters instead of being in mothballs. It gives 
him the aircraft and the surveillance that he needs to shut down the 
Caribbean.
  The Caribbean got shut down in the 1980s, Mr. President. It got shut 
down. It was pouring into the United States. The will was put together, 
and in the 1980s it was locked off. It is not locked off anymore. It is 
pouring through the Caribbean again, pouring through the Caribbean.
  Now the amendment also doubles the interdiction budget of U.S. 
Customs. It doubles the interdiction budget of the Department of 
Defense. It strengthens the civil and criminal penalties for custom 
violations and doubles the number of border agents by the year 2003.
  Now, why all the interdiction? Because part of the reason that our 
teenagers, who are the target of these cartels, are being so affected 
by these drugs is that they are everywhere and readily accessible and 
cheap. If these interdictions are successful, the price goes up and the 
availability goes down. Price goes up. The other side is talking about 
the fact that price affects purchasing. It works that way in drugs, 
too. If the floor of the price drops out, you can buy marijuana as 
cheaply as a pack of cigarettes, what do you think will happen? The 
price affects not just tobacco, it affects drug use, too. And we have 
allowed the price to just plummet, too much of it, too accessible, too 
cheap.
  So the admiral is absolutely correct. If we are going to stop this 
epidemic, it is going to require a nation demonstrating the will. If 
the President is serious in his statement about our nations of the 
world coming together to confront the evil empires, then he needs to 
have a message sent over here to his team and say we want drug 
addiction to be a part of this effort.
  I find it curious, I have to tell you just at the outset, as to how 
you could have ever gotten into a debate about teenage addiction and 
been absolutely silent on the No. 1 problem, addictive problem, 
teenagers are facing. I find it incredulous. Then to make matters even 
worse, some lame argument that it isn't relative. First of all, the 
majority of the teenagers using it, smoke it. It is a product that is 
smoked, just like tobacco. The only difference is it is five times more 
dangerous. National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institutes of 
Health say:

       Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the 
     same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These 
     individuals 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 tobacco smokers. This may be due 
     to

[[Page S5758]]

     the marijuana users' inhaling more deeply and holding the 
     smoke in the lungs.

  But it is not relevant? What a puzzle. I have been trying to figure 
the logic. Just try to match that paragraph with the suggestion that 
this amendment is not relevant to this issue. Nonsense. It is the No. 1 
issue. No. 1 for parents, for teenagers, for our society, for this 
country. It is an epidemic.
  We had a lot of discussion about the fact that tobacco is focused on 
youngsters--and that is horrible--but the cartels are totally focused 
on teenagers, age 8 to 14. It is the first war that has ever been waged 
against kids that we are in the middle of.
  So we suggest an amendment, if this legislation becomes law, that 
says 20 percent of the resources, 20 percent, are to be focused on the 
Nation's No. 1 problem. I think that leaves 80 percent to deal with 
what is, among families and teenagers, the eighth most serious problem.

  I see the coauthor of this amendment has arrived on the floor. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Idaho.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, 
June 10, between the hours of 3 and 4 p.m, Anson Chan, the chief 
secretary of Hong Kong special administration regional government, be 
given floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to stand on the 
floor today with my colleague from Georgia who is the primary author of 
the important amendment that is before the Senate. He has done such an 
excellent job of laying out what everyone in America knows to be the 
No. 1 issue facing our young people and literally facing the American 
culture, and that is the drug culture and the impact it is having on 
the lives of an awful lot of our citizens and especially our young 
people.
  Neither he nor I belittle the concern that 3,000 young Americans 
start smoking every day. But 3,000 young Americans that start smoking 
don't die every day. But about 40 of our youngest and sometimes our 
brightest die every day because of an overdose of drugs or because of a 
crossfire of a gang shooting that was drug-related. That adds up to 
about 14,000 young Americans.
  Yet this legislation we have before us, S. 1415, 753 pages that our 
colleagues tell us will cause young citizens in this country to smoke 
less and live a better life, has not one word in it about illicit 
drugs, the drug traffic, and what we as a citizenry and those of us as 
policymakers ought to be doing, where we can, to stop the rapidly 
increasing flow of illicit drugs into this culture.
  My colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, and I join together. By 
this amendment we are saying if you are really sincerely concerned 
about what goes on amongst our young folks today that may in some way 
damage them, then you ought to be voting for this legislation because 
the Senator from Georgia, like myself, and I know like the Presiding 
Officer at this moment, have on many occasions gone before grade school 
and high school groups to talk about the state of affairs of our 
country and the importance to those young people of what goes on in our 
country, and we have asked the question, Is cigarette smoking a 
problem. Yes, a few hands go up. They are concerned about it. Others 
are not because they are smoking. But when you ask about drugs, when 
you ask about the character of them, the nature of them, the 
availability of them, all hands go up, or nearly all hands, because 
young people know better than anyone else what is going on amongst 
their peer group. They are frighteningly concerned because oftentimes 
it impacts the life of a friend or it disrupts in a massive way a 
friend's family.
  Yet today this Senate is silent on the issue. This administration has 
retreated in a dramatic way from the war on drugs that was launched by 
the administrations of President Reagan and President Bush.
  Let me give some very interesting statistics. While there are not as 
many pot smokers as tobacco smokers at current rates, if the current 
rate continues, in but a few short years there will be almost as many 
marijuana, pot, weed smokers amongst our youth as there are tobacco 
smokers. There has been a 25 percent, 38 percent, and 31 percent 
increase in the number of children who have smoked a cigarette in the 
last 30 days, in the month of May. In comparison, there has been 175, 
153 and a 99 percent increase, respectively, in the number of children 
who have tried a joint of marijuana in the last 30 days in the 8th, 
10th and 12th grades, respectively.
  That is an American tragedy. We know it. Yet, we have allowed this 
administration and, frankly, we have allowed the Congress to be 
relatively silent on the issue. That is why the Senator from Georgia 
and I could be silent no longer. It is critically important that we 
speak out, that we begin to shape more clearly policy that will work 
toward interdiction. As the Senator has just spoken to, the Coast 
Guard, dramatically cut back, with ships in mothballs--they are not out 
in the Gulf of Mexico, where they were for a good number of years, 
stopping the flow of illicit drugs moving into the market.
  There is a 70 percent flow of drugs coming across our southern 
borders, and we are silent to it. Well, yes, in all honesty, there has 
been a limited amount of interdiction. Yes, there was an effort on the 
part of this administration as it related to the money laundering in 
Mexican banks. But just the other night, on television, there was 
attention addressed to three Mexican brothers operating south of the 
border, in Tijuana, talking about the multihundreds of millions of 
dollars in cash-flow and the intimidation and the deaths that they can 
bring down on citizens who get in their way because they are the kings 
of drugs flowing up the west coast. We know who they are. Their 
pictures were shown on television. But we do limited amounts of things 
against them. Are we frightened of them? No. It is just a retreat from 
the scene. It is the attitude of, well, we will fund a little bit of 
therapy if somebody gets hooked on drugs. But somehow we don't want to 
engage in a war to save our children.
  I was once a smoker. I am not proud of it, but I was. But I quit, I 
guess when I matured enough to know that it wasn't good for me and 
smart enough to know that it wasn't the right thing to do. But you 
know, if I would have been hooked on a major drug like cocaine, I might 
not be here today. The great tragedy of young people and drugs is that 
it kills them. Young people, while smoking cigarettes may be the cool 
and stylish thing to do amongst their peers, grow up and mature. There 
is a reverse peer pressure that begins to develop, and in great numbers 
we see young people quitting in their twenties and early thirties. They 
can quit because they are not dead. But if they are hooked on cocaine 
or heroin, which is the follow-up to marijuana, they are dead. That is 
how they quit. We know it.
  We saw the great tragedy out in California of the great humorist a 
few weeks ago whose wife could not get off cocaine. She finally killed 
that humorist and then took her own life and left two small children. 
That is the story of drugs, the tragedy of drugs. The other side is 
saying that we have a bitter pill here: We are trying to destroy a 
tobacco bill. Quite the opposite: We are trying to make it a good piece 
of legislation that truly does something against this phenomenal drug 
culture in our society. That is what we ought to be debating. Those are 
the real issues.
  Let me give you some fascinating statistics. Young people are young 
people, and for those of us who are now adults, but, more importantly, 
for those of us who have raised teenagers, we know a lot more about 
kids than we used to know, especially if we have raised our own. We 
know that if you put a challenge against them, oftentimes they will 
meet the challenge. Well, guess what? The American public knows that, 
too. And so when they were recently asked, just in the last week, in a 
nationwide survey--not funded by a tobacco company, funded privately--
the question was asked: Which of the following do you believe is the 
most responsible for young people initially beginning to smoke? Ten 
percent of the American public said Hollywood, television, popular 
culture.

  You know, it is true. When that handsome or attractive television 
star or movie star walks out in prime time

[[Page S5759]]

with a cigarette in their hand, that is cool; that is something, those 
viewing say, I ought to do. Yes, when President Clinton said he didn't 
inhale and then later on MTV he jokingly said he might have on a second 
try, guess what happened? Marijuana usage amongst teenagers bottomed 
out and headed up, because the leader, the icon of America's culture, 
kind of shrugged it off as no big deal. But the tragedy of no big deal 
is that, step one, marijuana smoking leads to step two, a search for 
cocaine, which can lead to death. The numbers have dramatically changed 
during this administration. I am amazed that they aren't out on the 
front line with us attempting to lead a war against drugs.
  Well, back to the question: Who most influences young people to 
initially start smoking? Thirteen percent say the parent example--in 
other words, a power figure, an important figure in your life. If your 
parents smoke, you are likely to smoke.
  The tobacco industry and their advertising--if you listened to the 
debate from the other side on the floor, you would be convinced that 
they alone caused 3,000 kids a day to start smoking. The American 
public says that maybe 6 percent of the cause is laid at the feet of 
the tobacco companies. I am not going to let the tobacco companies off. 
Yes, we now know that they targeted young people by their advertising, 
and that is wrong, and we ought to try to stop that. But the public 
knows that it didn't work that much.
  Guess what. No. 1 factor: 59 percent say influence of peers and 
friends. If you have ever raised a teenager, you know that that is 
absolutely correct. It is the pressure of those whom they associate 
with, those whom they go to school with, those whom they play with; 
that is the real influence. If the friend is smoking, then there is a 
great pressure for you to smoke. Worst of all, if the friend is using 
drugs and thinks it is cool, and you are in that group, as a teenager, 
there is phenomenal pressure on you to go along, to be cool, to be part 
of the crowd.
  Well, the statistics go on. But, most importantly, the American 
public has not been fooled by the rhetoric on the floor from the other 
side that somehow this massive tax increase, this massive expansion of 
Government programs, is somehow going to stop teenagers from smoking 
and make the world a safer and healthier place, because when they were 
asked, in this same poll, basically what the impact of this legislation 
would do and what it really was, 57 percent of them said it was a 
massive tax increase and a major increase in Government. And then they 
asked the question about raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by 
better than double--$2.50 when everything is added in at the furthest 
extension of the bill--is that more likely or less likely to stop 
teenagers from smoking? Sixty-seven percent of Americans said it was 
less likely. Strangely enough, Mr. President, if you do the math and 
you raise cigarettes to that amount, all of a sudden marijuana becomes 
less expensive in a relative sense. Kids are paying three times or four 
times the price of tobacco for a joint of marijuana. Yet, we are being 
told that if you just jack up the price somehow they quit smoking. Yet, 
marijuana usage in a 30-day period in this last month of May was up 157 
percent amongst eighth graders. It sounds like a lot of spendable 
income to me. Yet, that is not taken into consideration.

  So my colleague from Georgia and I said that somehow we have to 
change this. We have to work with our colleagues here in the Senate to 
change it. How long can we go with these figures and statistics and 
death rates smacking us in the face and saying it is not a problem, it 
is not a problem if 14,000 young people die directly or indirectly 
related to drugs on an annual basis? That is a national crisis by any 
definition deserving a national effort of magnitude against it. That is 
what the Coverdell-Craig amendment does.
  As my colleague from Georgia was speaking and talked about doubling 
the interdiction budget for U.S. Customs, doubling the interdiction 
budget for the Coast Guard--in other words, ships out of mothballs and 
back in the water--the Department of Defense put some effort there 
because they have been pulled back. As my colleague from the State of 
Idaho who is chairing at this moment knows, we have seen a major effort 
out in our State with drug-free communities and a drug-free 
neighborhood effort. We help there. While that has been a marvelously 
successful voluntary effort bringing in business and educators in our 
State, we help them out by some block grants giving flexibility to do 
more in the local communities by millions of dollars nationwide to 
encourage the successes in Idaho and other communities to have those 
successes across the board everywhere. Does it make a difference if 
national leaders and local leaders and State leaders are standing up 
telling their young people not to get involved in drugs? You bet it 
does. Our First Lady, Nancy Reagan, was oftentimes joked about because 
she said ``just say no.'' Yet, because she was and is a national leader 
and a national image of great respect, the young people responded.
  There is value in saying no and not shrugging it off and laughing and 
saying, ``Maybe I ought to have tried to inhale.'' But it is very 
important that leaders of this country say no.
  Our legislation helps leaders at the local level and the State level 
say no. Why should teenagers convicted of drug crimes or associated 
with drug purchases have a driver's license? If you are caught drinking 
at an illegal age in the State of Idaho, you don't have a driver's 
license. Shouldn't it be the same? Our bill provides for that 
incentive, and it ought to.
  But the real arena is our schools. This legislation makes allowable 
the use of Federal funds to provide school choice for grades K through 
12 for students who are victims of school violence related to drugs, 
and includes drug-related crimes, creates incentives for States to 
provide an annual report card for parents and teachers listing 
incidents of crime. In other words, it lifts the awareness of drugs in 
the community and in the school system to get parents involved along 
with their educators to build a drug-free school environment. That is 
what we ought to be talking about--and a smoke-free environment. Let me 
add that. That is important, too, because we want to get kids away from 
tobacco.

  The thing I fear most in all of what we do or may not do is that we 
are hiding in the myth that has been perpetrated by some, including the 
former Director of the Food and Drug Administration, that if you just 
jack up the price of a pack of cigarettes the problem goes away. Yet, 
every nation that has tried that in the past--and Canada is a perfect 
example--lost their market because the market went into the black 
market. When there is a desire in the public arena for something and 
you restrict the ability of the public to get to it, they will find a 
way. Thirty percent of the sales in Canada went into the black market. 
They had to lower the tax to get the sales back to control the product.
  My point is very simple. If we do that in this country and 30 to 40 
percent of tobacco and cigarette sales move into the black market, then 
that cool dude on the street that is selling your kids marijuana or 
cocaine is going to open his coat and say, ``Oh, you can have some 
cigarettes, too. I am your local cigarette vendor, but I also have 
marijuana and cocaine. What is your choice?'' Wouldn't that be a human 
tragedy if that is what this legislation, S. 1415, results in?
  I am not saying that is the intent. I am saying that is how the 
market reacts. The statistics and facts show that in Canada, in Europe, 
and in Germany, that is exactly what happened. Yet, we are so naive to 
think you just jack up the price as high as you can possibly get it. 
Oh, sure, you are going to get hundreds of billions of dollars from the 
lower income, 30 percent of the socioeconomic scale of this country, 
and you are going to spend that in all kinds of programs. The trial 
lawyers are all going to get billions of dollars. But what about the 
kids? What about the kids?
  You can't tell the tobacco industry to quit advertising without their 
consent. It is something called the first amendment in our country. 
They said they would voluntarily do that if we would control this a 
little bit. This Senate has chosen not to do so. So we will not get 
their consent. They will not become involved. But the great tragedy is 
our kids will be the victims still. While it may curb a few of them 
from smoking, we are silent--deathly silent--to the issue of drugs.

[[Page S5760]]

  I am extremely proud to stand on the floor today with my colleague 
from Georgia to offer the most comprehensive anti-teen-drug amendment, 
to my knowledge, that this Senate has put forward. I don't plead with 
my colleagues from the other side. I challenge them to get aboard, to 
quit looking at the dollars and the political game being played, and 
come with us into good, effective public policy that mans the front 
lines once again in the war against drugs, that allows national 
leadership and State and community leadership to unite to say that 
perpetuating a drug culture among teenagers of our country is an evil 
we will not tolerate. That is what our amendment does so very clearly.
  So to the other side, don't call it a bitter pill. How dare you? I 
don't blame you for being embarrassed about the President's record. The 
country ought to be. But we don't have to live with that record. We can 
walk beyond it. This amendment allows that to happen. This is not a 
bitter pill, nor is it a placebo. It is the beginning of a major and 
comprehensive effort to deal with the reality of our time. That is that 
there is the growth of a drug culture in our society that is killing 
America's youth in greater numbers than we ever dreamed possible. It is 
time that we stop it.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. COVERDELL. There are so many numbers that we talk about here. We 
often talk about how complicated it gets. But when the Senator talks 
about the magnitude of this issue, I think there are two figures that 
have been spellbinding to me, and it fits so much with what the Senator 
is saying.
  What all this means is that today one in four--that is 25 percent--of 
high school students are using drugs now regularly--one in four. Most 
of them are smoking it. They smoke it. But they say it is not 
relevant--1 in 10 junior high schools students. When the Senator was 
talking about the number of students that are affected by this, the 
number of deaths, 25 percent of the high school population in the 
United States and 10 percent of the junior high population in the 
United States.
  I just wanted to make that point.
  Mr. CRAIG. The last 30 days, 8th, 10th, 12th graders, using 
marijuana, up on the average of 100 percent. That is a dramatic figure 
that you speak to.
  Out in my State of Idaho--rural, big public land State--two major 
raids last year of huge magnitude, to interdict marijuana, and still it 
remains, by everybody's figures--and we don't have those figures--the 
No. 1 cash crop in this country being driven by this huge market in 
this country. And that is in this country. And we are not getting that, 
let alone getting the huge flow of cocaine and heroin coming in from 
the outside along with marijuana, 70 percent of the flow across our 
southern borders.
  The Senator from Georgia dealt with that with greater money for 
Border Patrol and interdiction. When we look at what is going on in 
Mexico today and their attitude in relation to this, it is a huge money 
machine for them, and it permeates down through their system, and it 
corrupts it. And it will corrupt ours, because there is the constant 
effort to corrupt. So that those who are of the profiteers can gain 
access through to the innocent, the children.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for his effort and his energy in 
this area. He brought my attention to this issue, and it was obvious to 
me in a very short time that we had to deal with this. We will be back, 
successful or unsuccessful here. This is something I think neither of 
us will rest on until we have a much clearer, stronger public policy in 
this area and we engage our Government in probably one of the most 
significant wars--against our very culture and our people, our young 
people, our future--that we have ever seen before.
  I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, working off the remarks of the Senator 
from Idaho, which I appreciated very much--not only his cooperation in 
joining in the amendment in the first place but the energy and 
intellect that he has brought to the discussion since that time--as he 
was talking, I was reminded of a meeting that occurred, probably, now, 
some 2 years ago.
  I was encouraged to stop by a female youth detention center in the 
middle of my State. I really didn't expect that much from the meeting, 
but they gathered about 20 of the inmates. Their ages were 12 to 16. 
They were each given the assignment to tell about their own experience 
and what happened. As they walked--I was quite taken with the courage. 
It is not an easy thing. First all, the circumstances were pretty 
rough; and then they have to sit there and talk about it. But they did. 
They walked around the room. They were in the detention center for 
prostitution, assault and battery, attempted murder, car theft--and you 
name it--all related to an addiction to drugs. All of it.
  It was very moving, the damage and their realization of it. I asked 
them, in the meeting, if they could say whatever they wanted to say to 
the rest of the youth of the Nation, what would they say? Really quite 
remarkable. They all said essentially the same thing in different ways. 
They said, ``Don't use drugs. Do not believe you can control them''--
which is the point my colleague was making. ``The drugs will control 
you. And do not use drugs to be anybody's friend, because if somebody 
is encouraging you to use drugs, they are not your friend.'' They all 
had a sense of how dramatically their lives had been changed. One young 
girl said she was afraid to leave the institution; she just knew she 
was going to have difficulty breaking away from it.

  Cigarettes are a tough problem. But there isn't anybody in a youth 
detention center over it.
  Mr. President, as has been stated here repeatedly, this amendment is 
a very bold statement about what this Nation is going to do about drug 
use. I am not going to name the individual here I was talking with 
several months ago. Suffice it to say, the individual was the head of 
one of our Nation's most powerful agencies. I said, ``Are we guilty of 
just taking on this drug epidemic in a kind of day-to-day, you just 
kind of keep the wheels turning, but have been unable to understand, as 
in the Persian Gulf, that this Nation needs to be bold and forceful and 
come down on this with a hammer?'' He paused for a moment, and he said, 
``We are guilty. We are not paying enough attention. We are not getting 
bold.''
  That makes all those men and women out there on the front lines--two 
of whom were killed a couple of weeks ago, overwhelmed at the border, 
shot and killed. All those people out there--I am not talking about the 
teenagers for a moment, but the people trying to help them--get the 
feeling that we don't care. I am sure the debate they have listened to 
here on this amendment has not encouraged them: ``This is not 
relevant.'' This is relevant. This is destroying lives as we stand here 
and talk. The chance of recovery once the addiction occurs, once 
somebody is on this stuff--getting them off of it is murder. Our best 
shot is that they don't get on it in the first place.
  So, yes, we need advertising to dissuade people from smoking. In 
fact, we have been doing a lot of that. This Nation has improved the 
statistics about tobacco. All of you have seen it. You walk outside, in 
this new culture, and you see a gaggle of people outside the building 
smoking in front of the building. When you walk into a restaurant, we 
just take it for granted, but the hostess says, ``Smoking or 
nonsmoking?'' The flight attendant says, ``This is a no-smoking 
flight.'' Everywhere we go, in our culture, we are beginning to get a 
message: Tobacco is not healthy.
  We are making progress, and we should continue doing it. And I do not 
fault the underpinnings of the bill to improve the advertising. But it 
is flawed thinking, to think we can go to the Nation and say it would 
really help teenagers, and we would have been silent on the No. 1 
addiction problem and the one that is undermining our society, the one 
that is so difficult to correct, if somebody does get snared on this.
  One of the provisions in this amendment gives Customs the authority 
to, up to 5 percent of their force, be able to move it, irrespective of 
collective bargaining agreements. There is a flurry of worry on the 
other side because of that. Why is this language in the

[[Page S5761]]

amendment? Because Customs has to have the authority, from time to 
time, to alter the nature of who is present at a point of entry. They 
have to mix it up. So, we have this amendment which--as I said, it is 
limited up to 5 percent, to give them some flexibility to be able to 
maneuver who is at a given post at a given time.
  It is almost as if every NEA, Fraternal Order of Police, lets them 
dominate this war. For heaven's sake, we don't want a rape victim to be 
able to be moved or someone who is a victim of a drug crime, we don't 
want to give a school district the ability to move that student to a 
safe-haven school.
  Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes and describe in more 
detail exactly what the amendment does.
  No. 1, it stops the flow of drugs at our borders, and it doubles the 
resources for U.S. Customs, doubles the resources for the U.S. Coast 
Guard and doubles the resources for the Department of Defense. It also 
increases the antinarcotic capacity of the FBI by 25 percent and the 
Drug Enforcement Agency by 25 percent. In other words, I am responding 
to the gentleman I talked to a moment ago. It is a bold statement. It 
responds to what the admiral, who I quoted, said, that the Nation 
doesn't have the will to fight this battle. This says the Nation does 
have the will and is going to fight it. Then the accountability will be 
up to the admirals. We are going to give them the materiel to fight the 
fight, and then they better win it.
  It strengthens the civil and criminal penalties for Customs 
violations and doubles the number of border agents by the year 2003.
  It protects our neighborhoods and schools from drugs.
  It has a title dealing with drug-free teen drivers, providing $10 
million per year in grants for States that institute voluntary drug 
testing for teen driver license applicants and for States that enact 
and enforce laws that crack down on drivers who use drugs. Only five 
States do that, Mr. President. Only five States have expanded DUI to 
drug driving. So this legislation encourages an expansion of drug 
driving.
  Drug-free schools: It makes it allowable to use Federal funds to 
provide compensation and services to K through 12, kindergarten through 
high school students, who are the victims of school violence, including 
drug-related crimes. It creates incentives for States to provide an 
annual report card to parents and teachers listing incidents of school 
violence, weapons possession or drug activity, and makes voluntary 
random drug testing programs an allowable use of Federal funds.
  The drug-free student loan provision: It restricts loans for students 
convicted of drug possession, 1 year for first offenders, 2 years for 
second offenders and indefinitely for third. It restricts loans for 
students convicted of drug trafficking, 2 years for first offenders and 
indefinitely for second offenders. It resumes loan eligibility on an 
expedited basis for students who satisfactorily complete a drug 
rehabilitation program that includes drug testing.
  Drug-free workplace: It authorizes $10 million per year in SBA 
demonstration grants for small- and medium-size businesses to implement 
drug-free workplace programs and provides technical assistance for 
businesses through SBA.
  Drug-free communities: It authorizes $50 million per year to 
encourage communities nationwide to establish comprehensible, 
sustainable and accountable antidrug coalitions through flexible 
matching grants, and it allows up to $10 million of these funds to be 
used each year to encourage the formation of parent-youth drug 
prevention strategies.
  Mr. President, there is data that strongly suggests that if parents 
talk to children about the drug issue, the chance of their children 
becoming users are cut in half--cut in half. But if you ask students by 
survey or in person whether they are talking to their parents about 
these problems, they are not. Only about 10 percent of the knowledge 
that students learn about drugs are coming from the parents. That 
dialog is not occurring, which also explains why what parents think 
about the drug epidemic is different from what children think, and 
children are far more knowledgeable, unfortunately, about the drug 
epidemic than their parents.

  The other day I mentioned one statistic of, ``Do your children know 
someone who uses marijuana?'' The percentage of parents who think that 
is the case is 20 percent. When you ask the students, ``Do you know 
someone who smokes marijuana?'' Yes, over 70 percent. There is a 
disconnect out there, and that disconnect is hurting us. That is what 
this provision is meant to get at. We have to get parents talking to 
their children.
  One of the ads being used now from the drug czar's office shows a 
little girl sitting at a desk, and she is being talked to by a voice. 
The voice says: ``There is a pack of matches there. Do you use 
matches?''
  The little girl says, ``Oh, no, they are dangerous.''
  ``How do you know that?'' the voice says.
  ``My mommy told me so.''
  Then they say, ``Well, are drugs dangerous?''
  And the girl just sits there and looks at the camera. Inference: 
Mommy is not talking to the little girl about drugs.
  These provisions begin to highlight this dialog.
  Ban free needles from drug addicts. This has been very controversial, 
a dispute in the administration, the drug czar's office arguing there 
should be no needle exchange program. It almost came about, but the 
drug czar caused a change.
  I was given this pamphlet earlier this afternoon. It is published by 
the Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program of Bridgeport, CT. This is the 
kind of thing that a needle exchange program would move toward.
  The brochure says: ``Shoot smart; shoot safe. Tips for safer crack 
injection.''
  I have to tell you, Mr. President, the Federal Government should have 
nothing to do with anything associated with this kind of activity.
  ``Get your stuff ready. Have a cooker, water, syringe, citric or 
ascorbic acid, cotton or alcohol wipes ready.''
  It is your ABCs on how to use a needle. It goes through every step.
  ``Get a vein ready. Tie off a good vein and clean with alcohol wipe. 
Never share a syringe or cooker.''
  Just all your tips.
  This legislation makes it absolutely clear that there will be no 
needle exchange program. It would be banned, and it ought to be.
  As I mentioned a little earlier, the Drug Enforcement Agency would 
receive an antinarcotic budget increase of 25 percent. The Federal 
Bureau of Investigation would receive an increase in the drug 
enforcement budget by 25 percent. It would require the registration of 
convicted drug dealers and provides $5 million per year in incentive 
grants to States that require convicted drug dealers who target kids to 
register with local law enforcement.
  That is the nuts and bolts of the amendment that we are discussing 
this afternoon, an amendment that has been criticized as being not 
relevant to the subject or issue.
  From the outset, I have been stunned that this legislation would be 
silent on teenage drug addiction. Myself, Senator Craig and others 
decided that could no longer be the case.
  If we are going to talk about teenage addiction, we have to simply 
make sure that in the center of this debate is the subject of teenage 
drug abuse. Why? Because teenage drug abuse is the No. 1 problem--No. 
1--because it is costing our society $67 billion a year; because it has 
resulted in 800,000 U.S. prisoners in jails, in prisons, State and 
Federal; because it has caused, and continues to cause on a daily 
basis, the most violent, hostile attack on our citizenry and its 
property.
  As bad as smoking a cigarette is, it does not cause a mind to pick up 
a gun and murder someone. But drug abuse does. That is why we have seen 
this surge of violent crime among our youth that everybody is so 
alarmed about--drug based. And as we have wondered about the increase 
in mindless crime, just senseless and brutal--drug based. Drugs alter 
the mind, and they cause inexplicable activity and hostility that the 
rest of society bears the brunt of.
  Relevant? You bet. And this Senator, for one, any time you talk about 
teenage addiction, which I am glad we are talking about, we are going 
to talk

[[Page S5762]]

about drug addiction because it is part of it. And it is smoke driven, 
the only difference being that it is five times as dangerous to smoke 
this stuff as tobacco.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at this point in the debate, it is 
appropriate to ask one very simple question: Why are we here? Why have 
Members of the Senate spent months of their time focusing on this 
issue? Why, with a busy schedule, and few legislative days left this 
year, are we occupying the Senate's time with this bill?
  The answer to this question is equally simple--the most important 
thing the Senate can do this year is to make significant inroads in 
cutting youth smoking.
  If you accept this simple premise--that the goal of a tobacco bill 
should be about reducing teen smoking, then the decision on how to vote 
on the Coverdell amendment is clear. The amendment should be opposed.
  Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear. I support increased 
appropriations for drug enforcement and drug interdiction. I represent 
a State that has experienced major crises related to drug trafficking 
and drug use. And I know better than most, as a member of the Senate 
Caucus on International Narcotics Control, the importance of fighting 
the scourge of drugs in America.
  Last year, I joined my House colleague and fellow Floridian John Mica 
in establishing a new High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area in Central 
Florida. I was also an original co-sponsor of the Drug Free Communities 
Act. I have co-sponsored a bill with Senator Grassley that will 
establish a national strategy to attack money laundering. I have fought 
to increase funding for our counternarcotics efforts time and time 
again.
  Just next week I will be holding a field hearing in Miami on the 
current interdiction efforts in the Caribbean. I know how serious the 
drug threat is, and I have been and will be committed to doing whatever 
it takes to keep drugs away from our children.
  I support many of the measures in the Coverdell amendment. And if the 
United States Senate ever gets serious about addressing this issue, 
perhaps funding these measures through general revenues, I would 
support them wholeheartedly.
  In fact, we will have an opportunity to vote on an alternative which 
addresses the drug problem by authorizing funds to increases the number 
of border patrol agents, Coast Guard officers, and money for the 
Department of Defense to increase interdiction. And we will be able to 
augment these programs without gutting anti-tobacco efforts.
  Mr. President, let's stay focussed, stick to the purpose, and send a 
message to parents right now that we are serious about reducing teen 
smoking.
  If we adopt the Coverdell amendment, here's what happens: five 
million smokers will not receive smoking cessation services. Those who 
argue that the tobacco taxes are regressive should remember that 
cessation and other public health programs are targeted toward helping 
those who will actually pay the tax.
  Over 20 million children will not receive the benefits of effective 
counter advertising to discourage them from taking up the deadly habit 
of cigarette smoking.
  Fifty million children will not participate in school-based 
prevention programs.
  States will not have the funds to develop their own anti-smoking 
programs which are so vital in protecting our children.
  We will not have the benefit of future biomedical advancement through 
increased funding for NIH research.
  In addition, we have solid scientific evidence to suggest that if we 
stop kids from smoking, they may never take up the use of illicit 
drugs, such as cocaine and marijuana. This ``gateway effect'' has been 
well documented.
  Let's look at the findings of the Surgeon General's 1994 report, 
``Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People''--ninety-eight percent of 
all cocaine users smoked cigarettes first.
  Among 12 to 17 year olds--those who smoke are 114 times more likely 
to use marijuana and 32 times more likely to use cocaine.
  By contrast, less than one percent of those children who never smoked 
end up using cocaine or marijuana.
  Mr. President, if we are interested in cutting drug use among our 
children, we should pass this tobacco bill now, and leave the funding 
to States and public health intact, and then come back and fund the 
real anti-drug initiatives in the Coverdell proposal and the Democratic 
alternative amendment. There is simply no reason why we cannot and 
should not do both. Our kids are worth it.
  This is simply the greatest opportunity, and perhaps our only 
opportunity to take a huge step toward reducing youth smoking. This 
bill is our best chance to have a significant impact on the Nation's 
public health. We shouldn't blow it.
  Mr. President, those who attempt to gut this bill through funding 
extraneous programs--are going to be on the wrong side of history. For 
all of these reasons, I urge the rejection of the Coverdell amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for the next 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________