[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.
____________________