[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5768-S5776]
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 the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as most Senators are aware, there is a 
signing ceremony at the White House at 5:30 on the highway 
transportation bill, so a large number of Senators will be there for 
that occasion. But we thought it was important we get a vote on the 
drug-related amendment this afternoon. So we have checked with parties 
on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on amendment No. 2451 at 6 
p.m. this evening, and immediately following that vote the Senate 
proceed to vote on the Democratic alternative, with the time between 
now and 6 o'clock to be equally divided on the issue of drugs.
  I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
granting of this consent, the Democratic leader be recognized to offer 
their alternative, and the Coverdell amendment be temporarily laid 
aside for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators--and I know Senator 
Kerry will want to comment; but I want to make it clear what we have 
done here--these two votes will be the two votes that will begin at 6 
p.m., with one right behind the one at 6. They will be the last two 
votes of the evening.
  Following those two votes, we will continue to work on a similar 
agreement, which we have not yet gotten everybody to sign off on, that 
will provide for votes on the marriage penalty and the self-
deductibility of taxes issue by midday on Wednesday. We are working to 
see if we can get an agreement to have a vote at 1 o'clock, followed by 
an alternative that the Democrats would offer.
  We do have a joint meeting in the morning to hear the President of 
South Korea at 10 o'clock. So we will not actually be able to get 
started on the marriage penalty and its alternative discussion until 
about 11 o'clock. But Senators will be notified when the second cloture 
vote will occur and the marriage penalty votes will occur during 
Wednesday's session of the Senate, we assume shortly after the noon 
hour; hopefully by 1 or 2 o'clock.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader for 
his hard work in putting together this unanimous consent agreement. At 
the completion of it, we will have made progress on two of the very 
important key issues associated with this legislation, the drugs and 
tax cut. I also want to thank him for comity in giving the other side, 
obviously, an opportunity to propose their amendment. I am very 
encouraged by this. It seems to me, and the majority leader I hope 
would agree, that there are a couple of substitutes--attorneys' fees 
and the agricultural issues--that are the difference between Lugar and 
the LEAF bill that would keep us from completing action on this 
legislation.
  I want to thank the majority leader, again.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield, I want to say I have discussed 
with him today and with others in the Senate and in the administration, 
the fact of the matter is, we sort of have been locked in this position 
for a week. The important thing was to try to come to an agreement and 
get some votes on these important issues. This gets us started in that 
direction. I think that is important.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think they are two important provisions. Obviously, we 
have had significant debate on both the issue of drugs and tax cuts. 
I'm very pleased that we are going to make progress on both of those 
issues.
  I hope the substitutes--one, I understand by Senator Hatch, and the 
other by Senators Gramm and Domenici would be ready for us to start 
debating and discussing. We also plan to have another amendment on 
attorneys' fees, and then what remains, I think we could hopefully get 
time agreements on the amendments.
  As we go through this process, one, we don't have a lot of time left; 
and, two, we have our up days and our down days. I suggest that all of 
us try to take and keep a steady stream as we work our way through this 
important issue.
  I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his sincere and very valiant 
effort to try and maintain the comity on both sides of the aisle. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the 
minority leader for their efforts, jointly, with

[[Page S5769]]

the Senator from Arizona and others. I am certainly appreciative of the 
fact we are able to proceed forward with a couple of votes here. I 
think this is an important beginning of our efforts to be able to 
really tie down narrowly some of the most contentious issues and to be 
able to lay out, hopefully, an agenda for the rest of the week which 
would really enable us to make some progress.
  As the Senator from Arizona said, there really aren't that many major 
issues. There are some concerns Senators have and there are certainly 
amendments out there, some of which I know the Senator from Arizona and 
I are perfectly prepared to accept in the context of improving the 
bill, that we have before the Senate.


                Amendment No. 2634 to Amendment No. 2437

  (Purpose: To stop illegal drugs from entering the United States, to 
provide additional resources to combat illegal drugs, and to establish 
           disincentives for teenagers to use illegal drugs)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at this time, I send the Democratic 
alternative to the desk on behalf of Senator Daschle and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Coverdell 
amendment is set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for Mr. Daschle, 
     for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2634 to amendment No. 2437.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be equally divided.
  Mr. KERRY. Just to inform Senators and others about what is happening 
here, we will vote on the Coverdell amendment and we will also vote on 
a Democratic alternative. The Democratic alternative covers many of the 
provisions of the Coverdell amendment with respect to drugs, beefing up 
our Customs enforcement, beefing up the Coast Guard, providing for 
capacity to be able to do a better job of drug enforcement, but it does 
so in a way that does not strip from the tobacco legislation the 
capacity to perform what we set out to perform under the health 
provisions.
  We have maintained the minimum expenditures with respect to the 
counteradvertising and cessation programs and thereby kept a floor of 
those things we hope to achieve within the original tobacco 
legislation. I think that is the most important distinction.
  In addition to that, there are a few other distinctions with respect 
to the needle program. There is a 1-year moratorium rather than a total 
stripping of that provision. In addition to that, there are a few other 
corrective measures with respect to testing and other aspects.
  Finally, I might add with respect to the vouchers--because that is, 
obviously, constitutionally and otherwise such a contentious issue 
within the Senate--the Democrat alternative provides for the capacity 
for any victim of a drug-related crime or violent crime within a school 
system to be able to be properly transferred to another school, but 
without the guise of creating a whole new program with respect to 
education that would involve both private schools, parochial schools 
and the kind of support structure for those schools that obviously has 
divided the Senate so much in other legislation. We believe it is a 
more temperate, reasonable approach to the issue that allows us to do 
the best of what is in the Coverdell proposal with respect to drugs, 
but also maintain the best of what is in the tobacco legislation.
  That is a fundamental summary, if you will, of the distinctions 
between the two approaches, both of which will be voted on shortly 
after the hour of 6 o'clock.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Biden, as a cosponsor of the alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator 
Coverdell's and Senator Craig's amendment. These two Senators have 
focused attention on a critical issue for the next generation of 
Americans.
  We are here today to discuss the McCain bill, which seeks to combat 
teen smoking. Now, I doubt whether anyone in this Chamber would argue 
with the notion that teen smoking and use of tobacco products should be 
curtailed. But I want to focus our attention on the fact that there are 
other arguably more serious problems that our young people are facing 
today and seem to be turning a blind eye to.
  I have been told for months that this antitobacco effort is aimed at 
one goal and one goal only. That is, making sure our children don't 
smoke and stop if they have started. If the real motivation for this 
bill were, in fact, to address the problems facing our young people, 
then someone please tell me why we are not here today addressing other 
serious problems that teenage Americans are facing--even more serious 
problems, problems that impact their life in a more direct manner. Why 
are we not dealing with the problem of teenage drug use which has been 
on the rise in recent years? Why are we not dealing with the 
frightening problem of juvenile violence, which is a throwoff from drug 
use? Why are we not dealing with the problem of teen drinking, with 
alcohol-related fatalities on the rise around American college campuses 
and high schools?
  Teenage drug use today leads to ruined lives and overdose deaths 
every single day in this country. Underage alcohol drinking leads to 
drunken-driving fatalities every single day in this country.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported two-
thirds of eighth graders have experimented with alcohol and 28 percent 
have been drunk at least once. Two-thirds of eighth graders have been 
drunk at least once.
  A recent study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse says that 
the earlier people start drinking, the more likely they are to become 
alcoholics and addicted.
  Let's put this in the proper perspective. We are debating a $1 
trillion bill that is aimed at preventing children from starting to 
smoke. Yet, how many billions of dollars are we proposing to combat 
those other ills that plague our children, which are, in my opinion, 
more direct and more immediate?

  I would like to focus today on the biggest of these problems now 
facing America's young people, which is the crisis of illegal drugs. 
While tobacco use by teenagers is a problem, illegal drug use by 
teenagers is much more than a problem, it is a crisis. And if our 
mandate is to protect our Nation's children, then we must not ignore 
our illicit drug crisis. I believe we should take this opportunity to 
address the problem of the illegal drug crisis in America.
  Illegal drugs and drug-related crimes are ripping apart the fiber of 
families and communities, weighing down our education and health care 
systems, overburdening the resources of law enforcement, prosecutors, 
courts, and prisons. Drugs are literally changing the nature of the 
country our children and grandchildren will inherit. It is a crisis.
  Drugs are altering the very definition of what it means to be a child 
in this country today. They alter the experiences that children have in 
school, and they are altering children's perception of the world around 
them.
  Drugs are now a pervasive part of what it means to grow up as an 
adolescent in this country. If you are not a teenager who engages in 
drug use, you will be one who will be confronted by others who are drug 
users and presented with the temptation.
  I do not think anyone in this Chamber, as much as they might dislike 
tobacco use, could stand up with a straight face and say the same 
things about the evils of smoking cigarettes that I have just said 
about drug use. Drug use is a problem of an entirely different 
magnitude, and it is unbelievable to me that we are not addressing that 
problem today.
  Let's look at the hard numbers that demonstrate the recent rise in 
illegal drug use among teenagers while Congress has continued to ignore 
the problem--and we have ignored it.
  Surveys released recently have uniformly shown that drug use is on 
the rise by our young people. Among

[[Page S5770]]

eighth graders--now, these are really children--the proportion using 
illegal drugs in the prior 12 months has increased by 56 percent since 
1992. Now, these are children. Overall teenage drug use has doubled 
since 1992. One-half of 17-year-olds now say they could buy marijuana 
within an hour.
  Marijuana-related emergency room incidents rose 32 percent last year 
as a direct result of higher drug impurities and marijuana laced with 
PCP.
  The Drug Abuse Warning Network has data that says that heroin-related 
emergency room episodes increased a whopping 27 percent in 1997. Now, 
these are heroin-related episodes among teenagers--up 27 percent in 1 
year. Cocaine-related episodes increased by 21 percent. We are not 
talking about the population as a whole; we are talking about 
teenagers.
  And between 1993 and 1994, the number of overall drug-related 
incidents rose by 17 percent for individuals between the ages of 12 and 
17--12 years old.
  In 1993, one out of three juveniles detained by police were under the 
influence of illicit drugs at the time of their offense, and this is 
according to statistics from the U.S. Justice Department. This 
represents a 25 percent increase in crimes committed by young people--
teenagers.
  It is plain to see that the Clinton administration has been asleep at 
the wheel on the illegal drug problem. The President is focusing much 
more of their time and energy on the use of tobacco.
  Just look at what the administration's Office of National Drug 
Control Policy has said about tobacco use by teens versus illegal drugs 
by teens. The drug control strategy of this administration is laid out 
in so-called performance measures of effectiveness. That is a very 
high-sounding thing we are going to do. But in this document, the 
administration discloses that they have more ambitious goals about 
lowering teenage smoking and tobacco use than they do about lowering 
teenage drug use.
  They state that their goals are to reduce youth tobacco consumption 
by 25 percent by 2002 and by 55 percent in 2007. Now, for drug use, 
they hope to get down about 20 percent by 2002, which is 5 percent less 
than tobacco, and 50 percent by 2007--again, 5 percent less than 
tobacco. So it is clear in black and white that the administration's 
10-year national drug control strategy is focused on tobacco and not on 
drugs.
  While this President is busy taking on tobacco, a National Guard 
counterdrug program has been decreased by $32 million since 1997. This 
is the very program that helps local sheriffs, who simply cannot afford 
to own helicopters, planes, and the pilots to go with them. They are 
fighting drugs on a local level.
  With the President's approach, total smoking will not decrease at 
all; the children will be smoking marijuana and not tobacco. This 
administration cares more about tobacco use than it does about illegal 
drugs. In my opinion, this is a serious misplacement of priorities.
  Let me emphasize that I don't even have faith that what the McCain 
bill proposes to do--supposedly in the name of reducing teenage tobacco 
use--will even work. It rests on the twin pillars of an advertising ban 
and a price increase in order to accomplish a decrease in teen tobacco 
use.

  They propose doing away with tobacco advertising, and the sponsors 
argue that all these flashy, colorful tobacco ads cause kids to smoke. 
Well, there has never been, as far as I know, an ad for illegal drugs 
or marijuana in this country; yet, the youth of the Nation are using it 
more and more every day. They seem to have found out about it without 
it being advertised.
  Secondly, the McCain bill proposes to raise the price of tobacco 
products drastically, from roughly $2 to $5 for a pack of cigarettes, 
and that the youth of this country, the teenagers, are price sensitive. 
They think that raising the price would cause these teenagers to stop 
smoking. What it will do is provoke, quickly and surely, a massive 
black market so that schoolchildren will be able to buy smuggled 
cigarettes out of the back of a truck.
  I have some more news. If they think raising the price of a pack of 
cigarettes will slow down cigarette smoking, why hasn't drug use been 
totally eliminated? The price of marijuana and cocaine on the black 
market is astronomical.
  Therefore, the two pillars upon which the McCain bill rests its 
attack on teen smoking--an ad ban and a high price--are already in 
place with respect to illegal drugs. What have they done there? Not 
anything.
  Instead of focusing on these flawed approaches to fighting the 
problem of teen smoking, we should be looking at legislation that 
proposes new and innovative approaches to fight the crisis of illegal 
drug use by our Nation's young people. The hard facts show that there 
is no mission more vital to our Nation's future than doing more to 
protect our children and teenagers from the ravages of illegal drugs.
  Let's not ignore this problem because it is more politically popular 
these days to be against tobacco and to talk about it. This tobacco 
bill is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the fact that the 
Clinton administration has been out to lunch on the drug war for 6 
years.
  It starts from the top. The President joked about his own use of 
drugs. But drugs are no laughing matter, and they are destroying 
hundreds of thousands of young people in this country. They are the 
scourge of the schools and playgrounds. This amendment is about the 
safety and health of the next generation. It is about the future of 
this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and the remainder of any time I 
might have.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has said I may yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the 
tobacco bill. As we all know, under the present circumstances, we don't 
seem to be making much progress. On the other hand, I have been here 
long enough to know that sometimes we go through these phases where we 
come to situations where we have sort of a partisan battle on how we 
should proceed, and then finally, after we do that for a while, we 
recognize that we both ought to sit down and try to reconcile our 
differences and join together to make sure we do not let this 
opportunity pass that we have before us, where we could do so much to 
help, on the one hand, stop teenagers from starting to smoke and, on 
the other hand, help those who are addicted to tobacco and do what we 
can to ensure that they are taken care of.
  One of the most sticky problems we have is what to do as far as how 
to compensate the victims of tobacco. We tried initially to have a 
system set up where the amount of money that would be subject to 
lawsuits and claims would be capped. That was killed with the Gregg-
Leahy amendment. I have been involved in a number of issues over the 
years involving these kinds of matters, not the least of which was 
examining the situation with respect to asbestos, black lung disease, 
and other matters. And it seemed to me and to others that we ought to 
look at it as an opportunity to find a solution other than through the 
court system.

  I am here today to talk about an amendment that Senator Sessions, 
Senator Enzi, and I plan to offer in the Senate--in fact, it has 
already been placed on file--to see what we can do to try to find a 
more humane system to solve this very difficult situation. Hours, days, 
and weeks have been spent arguing about liability, per-pack tax levels, 
States rights, and other issues.
  But why are we really here?
  No. 1, to reduce teen smoking; and, most importantly, to assure that 
teens don't start smoking, because we know if they don't start smoking, 
the odds are they never will smoke. Also, to strengthen the public 
health program and to ensure that victims of smoking are compensated 
fairly. That is what I would like to concentrate on today. The 
amendment that we have will bring logic to the system of compensating 
individuals.
  As I mentioned earlier, throughout my time in Congress I have 
authored legislation to prevent smoking, supported increasing cigarette 
prices and requiring manufacturers to disclose the

[[Page S5771]]

ingredients in cigarettes, and worked to reverse the impact of tobacco 
on the health of Americans. In fact, the present bill contains a 
substantial amount of the language that came from our committee in 
these areas. It has been adopted by the McCain bill. We have some very 
good provisions in the basic bill. We have a foundation to build upon. 
I have done all of these things hoping that together we could end the 
blight that cigarettes have brought to the lives of millions in this 
Nation.
  Any legislation that Congress approves must ensure that families and 
individuals harmed by tobacco receive compensation in a timely and 
equitable manner. I fear, though, that this legislation we are finally 
considering will not achieve that goal. I am sure it won't. That is why 
I am here today.
  With this bill, States are granted funds to begin to pay the health 
costs associated with smoking. Individuals, however, are left on their 
own to seek justice through the court system. You can only imagine the 
consequence of 50 million people bringing lawsuits. That is the number 
of potential claimants that you have. I know many lawyers out there are 
only all too ready to participate in this action. With up to 40 percent 
of the compensation going directly into their pockets, on the average, 
the lawyers in this Nation are happy to see this situation occur. But I 
am not sure that is the most equitable and fair way of doing it. 
Billions of dollars are at stake, and millions of people's lives are at 
stake.
  But if the legal profession benefits, who loses? Those truly 
deserving of compensation--smokers and their families facing serious 
health consequences from smoking--will be left counting pennies. Our 
amendment attempts to hand these funds to those Americans who must 
recover from the tragedy of their addiction, and their families.
  Our amendment would set up a compensation system designed by a 
bipartisan commission to award compensation to tobacco victims. This is 
not a situation where blame has to be determined--the tobacco companies 
admit to the linkage of smoking to illness. All we are concerned about 
here is how we should compensate.
  Also, there is a certain logic in one of the problems with bringing 
the court suits. It is a thing called ``assuming the risk,'' where the 
individuals have had years of looking at labels which tell them that it 
is a danger to their health. That creates a problem in the tort system 
as to how you award compensation.
  The asbestos cases, as I mentioned earlier, provide us with an 
example of what may happen if we rely only on the judicial system to 
resolve the millions of claims against the tobacco manufacturers. As I 
will show later, it shows you what kind of system came about from the 
asbestos cases because of the horrendous mess that occurred in the 
courts. In the asbestos situation, only hundreds of thousands of 
lawsuits were brought, and they brought the system to a stoppage. They 
created a catastrophe. When you think that tobacco could result in 
millions of cases, you can only imagine what would happen in the court 
system if this were allowed to continue with this as the only option.
  With asbestos, Federal judges struggled with an overwhelming backlog 
of lawsuits filed across the country on behalf of the asbestos victims. 
Many of these victims contracted fatal lung disease in working with the 
product.
  I add as a side note, because there is somewhat of a linkage here, 
that those who suffered from asbestosis and smoked ended up with a much 
worse situation. So we even have a linkage in that respect.
  Many victims died before the courts considered their case. These 
people never received the compensation they deserved in these cases. We 
cannot let this happen again in the tobacco case.
  Lawsuits over asbestos claims have been mired in the Federal and 
State courts for over two decades. These lawsuits are few compared to 
the millions that will arise related to tobacco. In fact, 200,000 
asbestos cases were filed in which compensation has been paid.
  Another 200,000 cases are pending, and another 200,000 are projected 
to be filed in the future. Many of the 200,000 claimants who have 
received compensation have only received about 10 cents on the dollar 
of what they deserve. It is not getting any better for the remaining 
claimants.
  I shudder to think how long victims of tobacco will need to wait to 
make it through the courts. Must we again allow individuals to die, 
waiting for their cases to be heard or settlement to be reached?
  No, and we have the solution. No lengthy depositions, years waiting 
to get to courts, weeks of trial and so on. But first of all, let me 
talk a little bit about what happened in the asbestos situation.
  First of all, when the cases were brought the system came pretty much 
to a screeching halt, there were so many cases filed. Then awards were 
granted, heavy damage awards for the first victims. And what happened? 
The companies were driven into bankruptcy. Finally, in order to allow 
those companies to at least continue in business, a trust situation was 
set up so they are run by a trust. A certain amount of the available 
profits were made available for compensation to victims. However, also, 
to allow you to see how appropriate this kind of system might be in 
this case, they also were allowed, if they were not happy with 
compensation through the commission proposal, to sue.
  In the meantime, which has been a couple of years now that this 
system has been in effect, only one person has gone to the court after 
going through the compensation commission.
  Similarly, our amendment will create a commission to review the 
research and documents of the tobacco companies that they have long 
kept secret and compile a list of diseases linked to smoking and 
develop the compensation that these individuals deserve for their 
injuries. An individual harmed by smoking can simply apply to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services for compensation and receive it 
in an expedited manner.
  Also, we have it worded such that we want to make sure--although we 
are talking billions of dollars here, that could rise up to many, many 
billions, up to $25 billion that could be held in trust for this 
purpose--we would make sure that those who are most harmed would be 
considered first. The compensation may be so huge, as far as all of the 
individuals who may be affected, that you want to make sure those who 
are permanently disabled or those who are terminally ill would be fully 
compensated before you get into the lesser harmed individuals.
  The amendment also gives these individuals the ability to appeal the 
decision that was reached if they feel it is appropriate.
  The program is funded by voluntary contributions from the tobacco 
manufacturers. If they refuse to participate, as was in the original 
part of the bill, they would be subject to the current use of the 
courts to get the injured parties their just compensation.
  The method we have developed would put compensating funds in the 
hands of victims and not their lawyers. As the asbestos cases show, 
individuals received less than 40 cents on the dollar of the 
compensation for the harm they incurred. The lion's share of the money 
went to make lawyers very wealthy. Why should we do so again? Our 
approach will avoid costly lawyers' fees and get the compensation to 
people who deserve it the most.
  The asbestos cases will also illustrate what will happen if we rely 
on lawyers and the courts to strangle the tobacco companies. The 
asbestos companies eventually went bankrupt, as I mentioned earlier, 
because of a few earlier judgments that gave claimants such large sums 
of money. Unfortunately, after companies went bankrupt, individuals who 
had their suits settled or a judgment reached received only 10 cents on 
the dollar for damages suffered. A majority of the harmed individuals 
received almost nothing. In fact, people suffering almost identical 
symptoms from asbestos exposure received vastly different awards, 
depending on the jury that heard their case.
  These lessons outline for me the importance of the approach we are 
taking to provide proper compensation to tobacco victims. The amendment 
will allow the claims to be sorted through and the funds distributed in 
a timely manner. With this we avoid the huge backlog of cases in our 
state and federal courts. We grant compensation before the injured 
parties are no longer

[[Page S5772]]

with us. We ensure that tobacco victims will be given their due without 
lawyers taking a major cut. Finally, all injured parties will be 
guaranteed a source of funds and all similar claims will be treated 
equally.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to carefully consider our 
amendment as an alternative to insure that individuals harmed by 
tobacco manufacturers will receive the full compensation they deserve 
in a timely and efficient manner. For our country, we cannot allow a 
repeat of the asbestos catastrophe, and most especially for the people 
that were harmed by the tobacco manufacturers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the time remaining until 6 
o'clock.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I will ask unanimous consent a 
memorandum from the National Governors' Association, which is opposed 
to the Coverdell-Craig-Abraham amendment, be printed in the Record.
  Let me just say the Governors are deeply concerned about the 
financing mechanism which violates the financing that they are 
obviously concerned about with respect to the State expenditures on the 
cessation programs and other efforts with respect to the antismoking 
effort.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a statement of the national 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to the 
Coverdell amendment be printed in the Record.
  I would just summarize. While they say it has a laudable goal of 
augmenting the ability of the Customs Service to interdict contraband 
coming across the border, they are deeply concerned about some 
antilabor schemes that strip Federal agents of their rights as 
employees. It also has significant language with respect to the 
bargaining process which would be changed without a hearing.
  So I ask unanimous consent that both of those memoranda be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1998.
     To: Washington Directors, Health Reps, and State Contacts w/o 
       DC offices.
     From: Jennifer Baxendell.
     Subject: Tobacco Amendment.

       The Coverdell-Craig-Abraham anti-drug proposal will be the 
     first amendment voted on next week after the cloture vote is 
     completed. A summary of the amendment is attached.
       Without entering into the merit of the amendment itself, 
     its financing mechanism violates our principle of opposing 
     any amendment that reduces the pool of $196.5 billion over 25 
     years reserved for the states. The Coverdell amendment is 
     estimated to cost between $2 and $3 billion annually, which 
     is to be financed through the trust fund. This earmark would 
     be taken off the top of the trust fund, shrinking the amount 
     of money against which the 40% of the revenue reserved for 
     the states would be applied.
       Please contact your Senate offices again in opposition to 
     reduction of the state settlement pool. The McCain bill 
     provides the federal government with over $320 billion in new 
     tobacco revenues over 25 years with which to finance 
     Washington's prioritized investments.
       Call me at 202-624-5336 with questions/feed back. Thanks.
                                  ____



                                 National Legislative Program,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1998.

 Statement of Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the Fraternal 
           Order of Police on Coverdell Amendment to S. 1415

       The more than 272,000 rank-and-file members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police want to make absolutely clear our 
     vehement opposition to language contained in an amendment 
     offered by Senator Coverdell and others to S. 1415, the 
     ``Universal Tobacco Settlement Act.''
       This amendment, which has the laudable goal of augmenting 
     the ability of the Customs Service to interdict contraband 
     coming across the border, contains an anti-labor scheme to 
     strip Federal agents of their rights as employees and thwart 
     bargaining partnerships between rank-and-file agents and 
     management by giving the Secretary of the Treasury the carte 
     blanche power to nullify collective bargaining agreements.
       It also gives the Secretary additional retaliatory powers 
     against officers who do not kow-tow to management's every 
     whim by enabling the unheard of power of transferring--
     permanently--up to five percent (5%) of Customs officers 
     employed to new duty stations. This not only removes 
     experienced interdiction officers--and does so for 
     potentially political reasons--it also uproots families. This 
     is simply unacceptable.
       Perhaps the most blatantly offensive language in the 
     amendment is the ``sense of Congress'' that collective 
     bargaining undermines the war on drugs at our border. This 
     patently untrue. Is it the sense of Congress then, that the 
     officers who are charged with keeping narcotics out of 
     country, preventing drugs from reaching our neighborhoods and 
     schools, would somehow be parties to agreements that 
     undermine that responsibility? Many of the bargaining issues 
     discussed at the table are critically important to the 
     success of the law enforcement mission--officer safety, hour 
     and wage issues. If Congress wishes to strengthen the ability 
     of our officers to fight drugs on our border, they would do 
     well to endorse and strengthen the commitment of the Treasury 
     Department to agreements reached between labor and management 
     at the bargaining table. This language in amendment does not 
     make any ``sense'' at all.
       The amendment also includes language which gives the 
     Treasury Department the ability to nullify any agreement that 
     might have been reached if negotiations continue for more 
     than ninety (90) days and impose their own ``last offer.'' 
     This is absurdly unfair. No matter what happens, the Treasury 
     Department will ``win'' in the collective bargaining process, 
     and this amendment will substantially weaken the ability to 
     Customs officers to negotiate on an equal playing field.
       This amendment contains a poorly concealed attempt to strip 
     away the rights of law enforcement officers, and the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, cannot support Senator Coverdell's 
     proposal unless he strikes the anti-labor language it 
     contains.
       Law enforcement officers have, arguably, one of the 
     toughest jobs in the nation. They alone are charged with 
     keeping the streets and neighborhoods of this country safe 
     from crime and drugs. Every day, police officers put their 
     lives on the line--life and death decisions are in the job 
     description. To restrict the ability of these officers to sit 
     down and talk with their employers about workplace issues--
     when the work they do is to prevent drugs from making it into 
     the United States--is counterproductive to the law 
     enforcement mission and common sense.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me summarize, if I may, what the 
Democrat alternative, the amendment which Senator Daschle has 
submitted, seeks to accomplish here. First of all, the alternative 
antidrug amendment does not jeopardize the funding for public health. I 
think this is critical to understand. The Coverdell amendment will take 
more than 50 percent of the public health money and strip that away so 
as to deny the capacity of the tobacco legislation to accomplish the 
cessation programs, the State assistance programs, the 
counteradvertising and other efforts, in order to reduce the number of 
kids smoking.
  What we seek to achieve in the Daschle alternative is we remove the 
section in the Coverdell amendment that would have eliminated the 
floors for funding of public health programs from the tobacco trust 
fund, which would have also diverted that money for other purposes.
  Second, we include tough money-laundering provisions that provide 
critical assistance to State and Federal law enforcement in order to 
combat drug problems by enhancing the Federal prosecutors' ability to 
combat international money laundering and to seize the assets of drug 
kingpins and others who have engaged in illegal activities, which, I 
might add, would significantly augment our ability to fight drugs as 
well as provide additional economic assistance to some of the 
antitobacco efforts. In addition to that, we provide the States with 
additional funding to drug test, and we provide drug treatment for 
inmates.
  None of that is in the Coverdell approach. So it is clear, there are 
significant differences in how one can do a better job of fighting 
drugs. We believe the money-laundering provisions in the Democrat 
alternative are significantly stronger than in their approach.
  In addition, we have what we believe are significantly improved 
versions of some of the antidrug initiatives set forth in the Coverdell 
legislation without the liabilities carried in the Coverdell amendment. 
First of all, there are additional resources for interdiction. There is 
an increased budget for U.S. Customs, increased budget for the Coast 
Guard, and increased budget for the Department of Defense. But, instead 
of grabbing that, robbing Peter to pay Paul, stealing from the trust 
fund, so to speak, and denying us the

[[Page S5773]]

ability to accomplish the fundamental goals of the antitobacco 
legislation, we seek to authorize that from the general revenues, which 
is really a more fair and more thoughtful way, in our judgment, to be 
able to try to deal with the problem of a drug war.
  We have significant additional measures with respect to drug-free 
borders. We do so without attacking some of the entities that are a 
critical component of the drug war: Customs agents, police, and others. 
We increase the civil and criminal penalties for customs violations, 
and we raise the number of border agents by 2003 to 15,000. In other 
words, 15,000 additional border agents by the year 2003.
  We give the Customs Service flexibility to address urgent drug 
interdiction needs, working with the front-line employees to identify 
the problems and to collaborate in finding effective solutions to those 
urgent needs. The Coverdell approach basically declares war on our own 
agents and begins to try to accomplish a certain ideological agenda 
with respect to labor unions that we think is inappropriate and 
unnecessary here.
  We, furthermore, provide $10 million per year out of the general 
revenues to States that institute voluntary drug testing for teen 
drivers' license applicants or crack down on drivers who use drugs. So 
we have a strong provision in our approach to deal with the problem of 
drug testing for teen drivers.
  In addition to that, we have a section on drug-free schools, but we 
do not add the poison-pill provision of school vouchers by the backdoor 
which would literally threaten to scuttle the entire tobacco 
legislation. All of us here know that no issue has been more 
contentious for a lot of different reasons. It is part of really what 
has divided the U.S. Senate so significantly and so unfortunately 
throughout the debate on education.
  There are many people on our side of the aisle--I know on both sides 
of the aisle--who desperately want to improve the public school system 
and to recognize that we have some very significant problems in the 
public schools of this country. But increasingly, all we talk about in 
the Senate are either vouchers or money. We are sort of polarized. We 
are locked into this gridlock of discussion where one side is fighting 
for vouchers so 1,000 kids may get saved in the school system and the 
other side winds up saying, ``We have to have more money,'' but in 
between all of the issues of curricula, standards, testing, finding 
good principals, hiring another 2 million teachers and how we are going 
to do that, a host of other things get lost.
  What the Coverdell amendment fundamentally does is take us right back 
to that very narrow debate where all we are going to do in response to 
the laudable goal of trying to take the victim of a violent crime or of 
a drug-related crime and move them to another school, instead of doing 
that within the public school structure, all of a sudden here is 
another voucher plan to provide the opportunity for that person to move 
to a parochial school, religious-based school or to a private school. 
If that were part of some comprehensive program to deal with all the 
schools of this country and the 90 percent of our children who are in 
public school, perhaps it might meet with less resistance on the floor 
of the Senate. But under the circumstances, it is a backdoor effort 
within the tobacco bill to try to do something that the Senate has 
already struggled with so significantly.
  Moreover, we create, as does the Coverdell legislation, the same 
financial incentives for States from general revenues. Unlike the 
Coverdell amendment, we take it from the general revenues; they take it 
from the tobacco trust fund. And we provide an annual report card to 
parents and teachers listing incidents of school violence, weapon 
possession or drug activity, and we also encourage the implementation 
of certain disciplinary policies.
  In addition to that, we provide $10 million to States for parental 
consent drug testing of children, as does the Coverdell amendment, but 
we do that without coercing parents into allowing that testing by 
denying access to extracurricular activities, such as athletics, for 
those who are unwilling to subject their children to such testing. We 
think both from a fairness and commonsense point of view that is more 
in keeping with the spirit of how the relationship between parent and 
school ought to work.
  Like the Coverdell amendment, we provide drug-free student loans. We 
restrict the loans for students convicted of drug possession. We 
restrict the loans for students convicted of drug trafficking, and just 
as the Coverdell legislation does, we resume loan eligibility on an 
expedited basis for those students who satisfactorily complete a 
program that includes drug testing.

  Just like the Coverdell amendment, we authorize $10 million per year 
in SBA demonstration grants, but unlike the Coverdell amendment, once 
again, we do not strip the capacity of the tobacco legislation to work. 
We do not take away the cessation programs or other youth activities 
and youth-access efforts that are contained within the tobacco 
legislation in an effort to restrict the access of our young people to 
cigarettes.
  I might add this is, I think, one of the most important things to 
remember when we reflect on what we are trying to achieve here. I used 
to be a prosecutor. I was the chief prosecutor and administrative 
officer for one of the 10 largest district attorney's offices in the 
Nation. I was part of the effort in the years when we created the first 
drug task forces and we created the first priority prosecution efforts 
and major violator efforts. I have tried cases that have sent people to 
jail for the rest of their life. I am proud of that record.
  I have fought hard in the Senate to continue that kind of, I hope, 
conscientious antidrug effort. So I don't want to be somehow viewed as 
less concerned than my friend here with whom I work on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, on our subcommittee, on the issue of drugs.
  I don't think we have a legitimate drug war in the United States. I 
have said that for a number of years. If you don't have adequate 
treatment, if you don't have adequate education, if you don't have 
adequate enforcement, if you don't have the capacity for swift and 
certain punishment, if you don't have the ability to put the people in 
jail who ought to be or sufficient capacity to keep the ones off the 
streets who ought to be kept off the streets, you are not serious. But 
you certainly are not serious if you don't have drug treatment on 
demand. Only about 26 or 30 percent of all drug addicts in the United 
States of America get treatment after 20 years of talking about this 
issue. That is not contained sufficiently in this legislation, and it 
ought to be.
  What we have to stop doing is these scatter-shock, helter-skelter 
efforts that do little Band-Aids here and little Band-Aids there and 
somehow pretend, ``Boy, have we done something to fix the drug war.'' 
We haven't. Nor is this going to do it. But, most importantly, what it 
is going to do is strip away the ability of the tobacco bill to do what 
it is intended to do, which is to get kids to stop smoking. That is the 
gateway drug to marijuana and ultimately to harder drugs.
  If we are serious about a drug plan for America, we shouldn't be 
trying to augment the Coast Guard or augment the Department of Defense 
at the expense of the kids who are at the earliest stage of their life, 
who we are trying to teach and give the value system and the self-
esteem and the structure with which to be able to make a decision, not 
to pick up a cigarette. The values that allow a kid and the strength of 
character that comes to a kid, that brings that child to the point of 
not picking up a cigarette are the same values and the same foundations 
that help that child decide not to do the other things that peer 
pressure forces them toward or that modernity in American life thrusts 
on them. So it doesn't make sense to strip away that capacity in this 
bill.
  The Senator from Georgia will say, ``Well, it doesn't automatically 
do that; all it does is authorize these numbers.''
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. And that is true. I want to finish the thought and then I 
will be happy to yield to my friend. It is true all it does is 
authorize it. We all know what happens when the appropriators 
ultimately get those pressures put in front of them, and you have 
Department of Defense, Coast Guard or other kinds of antidrug efforts 
competing against something that we have never

[[Page S5774]]

done before in America, which is sufficiently empower our antismoking 
efforts, sufficiently try at that early entry level to keep kids from 
being hooked.
  I respectfully suggest to my colleague, this is well intentioned, and 
I know he is sincere in his passion about wanting to stop drugs and is 
caring about this, and I agree with him completely that the efforts to 
date are insufficient. No question about it. But I also believe very 
strongly that we ought to approach this in a commonsense way.
  I yield to my friend for a question without losing my right to finish 
my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I advise the Senator, of course I have not seen his 
amendment and the vote is scheduled at 6. I would like to make a 
comment, and I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 10 minutes 
to respond to the remarks the Senator has just characterized.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from Georgia, if I can, I don't 
want to be the bogeyman with respect to his request, but the leadership 
has carefully scheduled this because of the expectation of Senators to 
be in certain places. I know the time was equally divided----
  Mr. COVERDELL. Up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will happily yield to my friend in a 
moment. And I would agree to the unanimous consent request for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. But will that be equally divided?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am trying to catch up with you.
  Mr. KERRY. I might add, we are just trying to catch up with their 
side. The time was equally divided up until now. And the Senator from 
North Carolina and the Senator from Vermont both spoke using all of the 
time of that side. So we are just trying to catch up on our side.
  Mr. COVERDELL. All right. I ask unanimous consent that we have 15 
minutes equally divided.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 15 minutes equally divided. I have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. So, Mr. President, the bottom line is, as I said, really 
whether or not we are going to try to approach this--maybe the Senator 
and I could agree that the goals of our amendment are indeed worthy, 
and he would like to wrap them into one, and we could have one vote 
accepting our amendment. I would like to do that. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. First, let me say that I appreciate that so much of 
the Coverdell-Craig-Abraham amendment has been wrapped into this 
amendment we have just heard described. I have not had a chance to see 
the amendment. There are some nuances.
  What the Senator from Massachusetts characterizes as vouchers and 
choice, I characterize as common sense to handle a child that has been 
the victim of a crime. And I do not agree that that should be 
characterized as a voucher. It does not deal with the needle exchange 
permanently. It only deals with a couple years. But much of the 
amendment is the same.
  So then the core question--they both authorize funding, and, as I 
understand it, it is at similar levels. So the question is, what does 
the authorization fall against? And where are the pressures?
  The Coverdell-Craig amendment authorizes against a new revenue stream 
which comes from an increase in the price of tobacco. The Daschle 
amendment--I believe it is the Daschle amendment--from the other side 
authorizes against the current budget or the caps, so the pressure will 
fall against current programming: education, VA, veterans, all of that. 
That is where you put the pressure. I put the pressure against the new 
revenue stream. And I think that is more appropriate and much more 
likely to happen. I do not think it is near as likely to happen under 
the Senator's amendment from Massachusetts as it is to happen if this 
tobacco settlement weaves its way through the Congress and there is a 
drug section in it. It is far more likely to occur than under the 
Senator's amendment.
  I appreciate the fact that we agree on its importance, that much of 
what we have drafted has been embraced. But I think it is far more 
likely to occur in the manner in which I suggested. And I do not accept 
the argument that it is misplaced. Most of teenage drug abuse occurs in 
smoking, smoking marijuana, which is five times more dangerous than 
tobacco.

  Mr. KERRY. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. It is an important part of the discussion. I would ask my 
colleague--they are both smoking. They are both smoking a grown 
substance, wrapped in paper, and it requires the same process. But the 
same ingredients of smoking are the same impact fundamentally that 
require counseling, education, and knowledge to build up the sort of 
resistance to peer pressure.
  I ask my colleague, if that is the purpose of it, why would he not 
want an increased level of funding to guarantee that they are sort of 
wrapped together? Smoking marijuana and smoking cigarettes are almost 
one in the same. They are both a narcotic substance. They both can 
ultimately result in great harm to health. Therefore, you want the 
cessation programs, the counteradvertising, et cetera. Why would the 
Senator then strip that capacity away for these other objectives rather 
than augment those?
  Mr. COVERDELL. One, as I said a moment ago, I am not very encouraged 
where we are because this initiative has fallen poorly against the 
goals of the Congress and the administration over the last 6 years.
  The interdiction budget has dropped from over $1 billion in 1991 and 
1992, to under $700 million. It got down to $500 million in 1995. 
Flight hours that are protecting our citizens have dropped from 36,000 
to 11,000. Ship days have dropped from 4,000 to 1,700 days.
  We had one experiment recently in the Coast Guard in Puerto Rico that 
kept 350-plus million doses of cocaine off American streets. These are 
all interconnected.
  The best thing we can have happen is for the child not to get 
ensnared into the drug war in the first place. I believe that you 
cannot deal with teenage addiction and separate it from the tobacco 
bill. I just do not think that is the right thing to do.
  I think they should be embraced together. I think, given the scope, 
that this is the No. 1 problem. Given the scope of it, the fact that it 
would be authorized to consume 20 percent of these revenues, it is 
perfectly logical and sound. And there would be a revenue base 
generated to do it. I do not see the revenue base standing behind the 
good Senator. And I equally am admiring of the work that you have done 
on this issue. I have respect for it. I just do not think that 
amendment which has come late--very late--in response to what we have 
endeavored to do will achieve a new, bold initiative on antinarcotics 
in the United States.
  I yield back whatever--I do not yield back the time; but I save it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute 40 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend again. I do not 
think he absolutely answered my question. What he says is we have to 
have the interdiction efforts, we have to have an addition for the 
Coast Guard, the military because of the number of hours they are 
flying. I agree with that.
  I think we have a very serious problem growing in this country with 
respect to our military because of the increased OPTOUT and OPTEMPO 
versus the pay we are giving them, and the opportunities for time off, 
and so forth. That is a huge issue, and it is growing in the country.
  But the point is--and I make it again to my friend from Georgia--as a 
former prosecutor I can remember that there is a threshold level that 
you can stop drugs coming in, this sort of nuisance level. You can 
raise the price. You can always raise the cost of doing business.
  But no one I know in the business of law enforcement, no one I know 
who is serious about the drug effort believes that augmenting 
interdiction at the expense of the demand side is going to cure the 
problem.
  For every 300 tons of whatever that you stop, I promise you, there is 
an airplane that has been constructed with

[[Page S5775]]

phony sides to it or any number of containers on ships, or any means, 
that the demand will bring those products. They will even manufacture 
them in this country. They will find a way to get them to people.
  The key issue is reducing the level of demand. And the demand for a 
cigarette that has tobacco in it is the same demand for the white 
rolled piece of paper that has marijuana in it-- same act, same 
discipline, same entryway, entry gate to drugs. Most experts in the 
field of treatment and demand will tell you that that is the gateway 
drug.
  So it seems to me illogical on its face to say we are going to strip 
down the efforts to get the demand side reduced so we can augment what 
was going to automatically be increased anyway, which will be increased 
demand, increased interdiction. And you get caught in this vicious 
cycle where all of our resources keep being allocated to an area that 
does not give you as much return as education and treatment. Again, the 
perks are pretty clear on that issue, that if fewer and fewer kids 
started in the first place with cigarettes, you would have less and 
less demand, and no pusher can increase the number of people to demand 
the drugs fast enough to make up for kids who say no. If those kids are 
strong enough and educated enough and well prepared enough to say no, 
that is the way we will solve the problem in this country, more than 
any other.

  Again, the Senator from Georgia strips away a significant portion of 
that. He makes them competitive. It is the wrong way to come at this.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute 40 
seconds, and the Senator from Massachusetts controls 4 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, from 1980 to 1992 drug use among 
teenagers was reduced by two-thirds. It was reduced in great part by 
the massive interdiction program and much of an education program that 
was voluntary.
  My point here is that the amendment we have offered to the tobacco 
bill, which shares an addiction problem with these new revenues, is a 
bold component for drug interdiction and drug education, the very 
points that the Senator from Massachusetts is making.
  The proposal he puts to the table is designed very much the same way. 
As I said, there are nuances that are somewhat different. I think the 
likelihood of funding for this bold program under the Senator's 
amendment is far less--far less. Yes, if it all came about, it would be 
augmented, but there are more than sufficient revenues in the proposal 
we have on the floor, which is a tax bill, to fund a strong drug 
interdiction proposal and a strong antismoking proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, if the funding is 
so jeopardized, as he suggested it is, then shame on us. Then we are 
not serious about the drug war. Shame on us.
  Mr. COVERDELL. We aren't.
  Mr. KERRY. Then shame on us. We ought to be prepared to do it. But 
don't do it at the expense of stopping kids from smoking.
  The Senator just made my argument. The Senator from Georgia said 
between 1980 and 1992 we reduced drug use in America by 30 percent. Am 
I correct, the Senator said that?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Sixty-six percent. From 1979 to 1992, it was reduced 
by two-thirds.
  Mr. KERRY. We reduced drug use in America by two-thirds, according to 
the Senator from Georgia, between 1979 and 1992.
  He has just made the argument for not doing what his own amendment 
seeks to do, because if you look at how we reduced that drug use by 
two-thirds between 1979 and 1992, it was because Nancy Reagan and the 
Reagan administration, to their credit, augmented our outreach efforts, 
our advertising efforts, the counteradvertising. We brought role 
models--sports figures and others--into the communities. We had an 
aggressive effort in the United States to reach into our communities 
and teach kids not to.
  That is precisely what this tobacco legislation is seeking to do with 
respect to cigarettes, and there is no reason in the world that you 
can't dovetail all of the drug efforts into that so that smoking, 
drugs, all of it, are dependent on the same disciplines. They are 
dependent on kids being raised with enough awareness of the downside 
and with enough self-esteem and enough structure around them to be able 
to make good decisions.
  What the Coverdell amendment does is reduce the capacity of kids to 
make those decisions. If we want to reduce drugs in America by two-
thirds, we need to do what this tobacco legislation set out to do, and 
I believe we can do that by melding some of what the Senator from 
Georgia seeks to do. That is what the Democratic alternative seeks to 
do.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.


                           amendment no. 2451

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the Craig-Coverdell 
amendment because I believe that we should move forward with this bill. 
While I agree with the thrust of the amendment, I am seriously 
concerned that all of the revenue to fund this effort will come from 
the tobacco trust fund.
  If we are to have legislation that provides for settlement of State 
cases, funding for smoking prevention and cessation, funding for 
research, farmer assistance and a tax cut, we must allow for funding 
for the drug amendment under additional accounts including the violent 
crime trust fund.
  Clearly, the President will not sign legislation that does not 
provide the funding necessary for the basic purposes of this act. So, 
while I will support the drug amendment, my vote is to keep the process 
moving.
  This is but one wicket in the legislative process and at the end of 
the day, if we are to have a meaningful bill, we must reconcile the 
various demands for trust fund revenues in a manner that will achieve 
the essential purposes of this bill, and which will best serve the 
public health and the public interest.
  Mr. KERRY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 2451, offered by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 52, nays 46 as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Specter
       
  The amendment (No. 2451), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S5776]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We must have order in the Chamber.


                           Amendment No. 2634

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I have the yeas and nays on the Daschle 
amendment? Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvannia (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 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Specter
       
  The amendment (No. 2634) was rejected.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have now dispensed with the issue of 
addressing the problem of drugs in America. Tomorrow, we will take up 
the tax cut issue. There will be an amendment on this side of the aisle 
and an amendment on the other side of the aisle.
  It is our hope that, following that, we will be able to take up the 
substitute. There are, I understand, two important substitutes, one by 
the Senator from Utah, which he has talked about at some length, and 
also one by perhaps Senator Gramm and Senator Domenici. There is still 
concern about the issue of attorneys' fees. I would not be surprised if 
there was another amendment on that issue, and, of course, there is the 
remaining issue of the agriculture section of the bill, which could be 
addressed after cloture, if necessary.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I don't know of any other major issues that 
are affecting this legislation. I hope that we can not only move 
forward but, at the appropriate time this week, hopefully the majority 
leader can propose a cloture vote so we can bring this issue to a 
close.
  All of us are aware that we are in our third week on this 
legislation. All of us are aware that we have other legislation that we 
need to address, including very important appropriations bills.
  I must say that on this day I am pleased with the progress that we 
have made, and I am pleased that we are going to address the issue of 
taxes, which is important to Members on both sides of the aisle.
  So, Mr. President, I say, in the words of the late Mark Twain, the 
reports of the death of this legislation are premature. However, we 
certainly, by no means, have total confidence that we will reach a 
successful conclusion. But I think those of us who are supporting this 
legislation can be pleased at the progress we are making at this time. 
And it does not in any way mean that we do not have a lot of difficult 
hurdles to get over before we have a final vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me join the Senator from Arizona in simply saying that 
I think this was an important step forward today in a lot of respects. 
Neither the Senator from Arizona nor I want to sort of overly 
characterize what it may mean in the total yet, but it does open up the 
opportunity for the Senate to now move to the two remaining, most 
significant issues and then lay the groundwork to have, hopefully, an 
order of amendments for the following ones. I think it is not 
insignificant, therefore.
  The last week permitted us, frankly, to be able to work quietly 
behind the scenes to be able to arrive at some understandings about the 
structure of the tax component of the bill. And while there are two 
alternatives being offered, the fact is that for a week we have 
understood that embracing a component of the tax cut in this 
legislation was not inappropriate--in fact, might not only be a 
necessary ingredient of passing it but also an important reality for 
the amounts of money that are being raised in the revenues.
  So I think we are on a track where we have the ability tomorrow to 
make again some significant progress. And hopefully, with the 
substitutes, then we will have few remaining contentious issues and, 
obviously, some others that we ought to be able to arrive at a 
reasonable understanding about.
  So my hope is that those Senators who have must-do amendments will 
certainly inform us of those in the course of the next day or so.
  I thank my colleague for his cooperation. And I yield the floor.

                          ____________________