[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7987-S8010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--RESUMED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1282) making appropriations for the Treasury
Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Dorgan (for Moynihan) amendment No. 1189, to ensure the
expeditious construction of a new United States Mission to
the United Nations.
Dorgan (for Moynihan) amendment No. 1190, to ensure that
the General Services Administration has adequate funds
available for programmatic needs.
Dorgan (for Moynihan) amendment No. 1191, to ensure that
health and safety concerns at the Federal Courthouse at 40
Centre Street in New York, New York are alleviated.
Campbell/Dorgan amendment No. 1192, to provide for an
increase in certain Federal buildings funds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, pursuant to the consent agreement of
last night, I send the following amendments to the desk for
consideration and ask they be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments No. 1194 through No. 1204
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like at least to give the names
of the amendments: Senator Warner, amendment on professional liability
insurance for Federal employees; for Senator Kyl, $50 million for
Customs Service; another one for Senator Kyl, sense of the Senate for
funding for the Customs Service; one for Senator Jeffords on child care
centers in Federal facilities; one for Senator Enzi, the high-intensity
drug trafficking areas; Senator Grassley, funding for the Customs
Service; Senator DeWine, abortion services in Federal health plans;
Senators Lott and Daschle, conveyance of the land to Columbia Hospital
for Women; Senator Collins, Veterans of Foreign Wars Stamp; Senator
DeWine, funding for the Customs Service; and Senator Hutchison of
Texas, $50 million for the Customs Service.
With that, I yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be numbered and set aside.
Amendment No. 1191, Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of Senator Moynihan, I ask unanimous consent to
be allowed to withdraw amendment 1191.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Amendments No. 1189 through No. 1214
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk
pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement to have them offered by 12
o'clock. I will read their names: an amendment by Senator Reid;
amendment by Senator Baucus, amendments by Senators Schumer, Moynihan,
Harkin; another from Senators Schumer, Landrieu, Wellstone, Torricelli,
and Lautenberg.
I ask they be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are set aside.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I now yield to my colleague, Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Amendment No. 1202
(Purpose: To request the United States Postal Service to issue a
commemorative postage stamp honoring the 100th anniversary of the
founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment
numbered 1202.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 98, insert between lines 4 and 5 the following:
Sec. 636. (a) Congress finds that--
(1) the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (in
this section referred to as the ``VFW''), which was formed by
veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine
Insurrection to help secure rights and benefits for their
service, will be celebrating its 100th anniversary in 1999;
(2) members of the VFW have fought, bled, and died in every
war, conflict, police action, and military intervention in
which the United States has engaged during this century;
(3) over its history, the VFW has ably represented the
interests of veterans in Congress and State Legislatures
across the Nation and established a network of trained
service officers who, at no charge, have helped millions of
veterans and their dependents to secure the education,
disability compensation, pension, and health care benefits
they are rightfully entitled to receive as a result of the
military service performed by those veterans:
(4) the VFW has also been deeply involved in national
education projects, awarding nearly $2,700,000 in
scholarships annually, as well as countless community
projects initiated by its 10,000 posts; and
(5) the United States Postal Service has issued
commemorative postage stamps honoring the VFW's 50th and 75th
anniversaries, respectively.
(b) Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the
United States Postal Service is encouraged to issue a
commemorative postage stamp in honor of the 100th anniversary
of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States.
Ms. COLLINS. On behalf of Senators Campbell, Dorgan, Gregg, and
myself, I am pleased to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment urging
the U.S. Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring
the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States.
The VFW will be celebrating its centennial in September of this year.
This sense-of-the-Senate resolution is similar to legislation I
introduced earlier this year which had been cosponsored by 59 of our
colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent that list of cosponsors be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the 71st was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S7988]]
S. Con. Res. #12--Cosponsors (59)
Senator Inouye, Daniel K.--02/22/99.
Senator Roth, William V., Jr.--02/22/99.
Senator Jeffords, James M.--02/22/99.
Senator Torricelli, Robert G.--02/22/99.
Senator DeWine, Michael--02/22/99.
Senator Voinovich, George V.--02/22/99.
Senator Helms, Jesse--02/22/99.
Senator Cleland, Max--02/22/99.
Senator Daschle, Thomas A.--02/22/99.
Senator Abraham, Spencer--02/22/99.
Senator Allard, Wayne--02/22/99.
Senator Brownback, Sam--02/22/99.
Senator Chafee, John H.--02/22/99.
Senator Dodd, Christopher J.--02/22/99.
Senator Enzi, Michael B.--02/22/99.
Senator Fitzgerald, Peter G.--02/22/99.
Senator Gramm, Phil--02/22/99.
Senator Landrieu, Mary L.--02/22/99.
Senator Thurmond, Strom--02/22/99.
Senator Specter, Arlen--02/22/99.
Senator Durbin, Richard J.--02/22/99.
Senator Hagel, Chuck--02/22/99.
Senator Inhofe, James M.--02/22/99.
Senator Biden, Joseph R., Jr.--02/22/99.
Senator Lott, Trent--02/22/99.
Senator Sessions, Jeff--02/22/99.
Senator Snowe, Olympia J.--02/22/99.
Senator Hatch, Orrin G.--02/22/99.
Senator Lincoln, Blanche--02/22/99.
Senator Lugar, Richard G.--04/14/99.
Senator Nickles, Don--02/22/99.
Senator Frist, Bill--02/22/99.
Senator Rockefeller, John D., IV--02/22/99.
Senator Kerry, John F.--02/22/99.
Senator Coverdell, Paul--02/22/99.
Senator Shelby, Richard C.--02/22/99.
Senator Robb, Charles S.--02/22/99.
Senator Conrad, Kent--02/22/99.
Senator Grassley, Charles E.--02/22/99.
Senator Akaka, Daniel K.--02/22/99.
Senator Baucus, Max--02/22/99.
Senator Bryan, Richard H.--02/22/99.
Senator Craig, Larry E.--02/22/99.
Senator Domenici, Pete V.--02/22/99.
Senator Feingold, Russell, D.--02/22/99.
Senator Gorton, Slade--02/22/99.
Senator Gregg, Judd--02/22/99.
Senator Stevens, Ted--02/22/99.
Senator Wellstone, Paul D.--02/22/99.
Senator Ashcroft, John--02/22/99.
Senator Warner, John W.--02/22/99.
Senator Reid, Harry M.--02/22/99.
Senator Boxer, Barbara--02/22/99.
Senator Grams, Rod--02/22/99.
Senator Kennedy, Edward M.--02/22/99.
Senator Lautenberg, Frank R.--02/22/99.
Senator Wyden, Ron--02/22/99.
Senator Crapo, Michael D.--02/22/99.
Senator Murray, Patty--04/14/99.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a member of the VFW Ladies Auxiliary
post in Caribou, ME, and as the daughter of a World War II veteran who
was wounded twice in combat, I am honored to lead the charge for this
worthwhile legislation.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars traces its roots back to 1899, when
veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection
returned home and banded together to establish a handful of local
organizations intended to help secure medical care and pensions for
their military service. These original foreign service organizations
gradually grew in number and influence and in 1914 came to be known
collectively as the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
Mr. President, it was several years later, on June 24, 1921, when the
VFW's chapter in my home State of Maine was chartered. Today, there are
84 VFW posts in Maine to which over 16,000 veterans belong.
Those small groups of veterans who organized in 1899 have today grown
to over 2 million strong. During that time, VFW members have fought in
every war, conflict, and military intervention in which the United
States has been engaged during this century.
As we near the start of a new millennium, the VFW's members continue
to live by the organization's creed of ``Honor the dead by helping the
living.'' They do so by representing the interests of veterans across
the nation through an established network of trained service officers
who, at no charge, help millions of veterans and their dependents
secure the educational benefits, disability compensation, pension, and
health care services to which they are rightfully entitled as a result
of their distinguished service to our country.
This service also extends beyond veterans. The VFW's Community
Service Program, through members in its 10,000 posts, serves
communities, states, and the nation. During the past program year, for
example, the VFW, working side by side with its Ladies Auxiliary,
contributed nearly 13 million hours of volunteer service and donated
nearly $55 million to a variety of community projects. In addition, the
VFW helps young men and women attend college by providing more than
$2.6 million in scholarships annually.
Mr. President, this Sunday, on the Fourth of July, we will celebrate
the 223rd anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.
I can think of no more appropriate time to honor the brave men and
women who, while far from home, sacrificed so much that the dreams of
our founding fathers might become, and remain, a reality. By urging the
U.S. Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp honoring the VFW's
100th anniversary, as was done for its 50th and 75th anniversaries, the
Senate can take a small step toward remembering their service and
showing our deep appreciation for their unwavering commitment to our
country, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado and the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota for working with me on this amendment. It is
my understanding the amendment has been cleared and that it is
acceptable to the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. As a life member of the VFW myself, and a sponsor of
this amendment, I think it is an important statement to make, as my
friend said, as we move to the Fourth of July weekend. I am happy to
accept this amendment.
I yield to Senator Dorgan.
Mr. DORGAN. I think it is a good amendment. I have asked consent to
be added as a cosponsor. I am happy to support the efforts of the
Senator from Maine, and we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1202) was agreed to.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleagues for their support and cooperation.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators on the floor, I
announce we would like to have them come down and offer their
amendments. We will be happily expecting them.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will ask that a letter from Barry
McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, be
printed in the Record. General McCaffrey has written to me and, I am
sure, the chairman of the subcommittee because he is concerned about
the funding level for the National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign.
As we indicated yesterday, that campaign will be funded in the
subcommittee mark at $145.5 million. That is about $49 million below
the administration's request.
General McCaffrey has a number of observations about that and makes
the point in his letter that he hopes, in this process between the
Senate and the House, somehow those funds might be restored to full
funding at the President's request.
I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Office of National
Drug Control Policy,
Washington, DC, June 30, 1999.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan The purpose of this letter is to bring
to your attention a precarious funding recommendation for the
FY 2000 appropriation for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. This drug-prevention initiative is the centerpiece
of the national effort to educate America's sixty-eight
million children and adolescents about the risks associated
with illegal drugs. Thanks to the Congress' full support of
the campaign over the past two years, we have succeeded in
harnessing the full power of modern media--from television to
the Internet to sports marketing--to provide accurate and
effective anti-drug information to children, adolescents,
parents, and other adult influences.
We are pleased with the results obtained since the campaign
was launched eighteen months ago.
The campaign's messages are being heard. 95 percent of our
youth target audience is receiving an average of 6.8 messages
a week. Among African American youth, we are doing even
better--reaching 95 percent of the young people 7.8 times per
week, 94 percent
[[Page S7989]]
of Hispanic youth are receiving messages in Spanish 4.8 times
per week.
Our children are becoming more aware of the risks and
dangers of drugs. Teens are indicating in response to surveys
that campaign ads are providing them new information,
increasing their awareness of the dangers associated with
drugs, and making them less likely to try or use drugs.
Parents state that the ads are providing new information and
making them aware of the effects of drugs on their children.
The private sector is matching the federal government's
investment. Over the past year, corporate America has
provided $217 million in pro-bono advertising and in-kind
contributions. In the past twelve months, the campaign has
generated 47,000 public service announcements and resulted in
thirty-two network television shows including anti-drug
messages.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended that
the media campaign be funded at 25 percent below our request
in FY 2000--$145.5 million, $49.5 million below the
administration's request. This funding level would not allow
the campaign to reach adolescents and parents with the
message frequency required to fundamentally change attitudes
towards illegal drugs and, eventually, reduce drug use by
vulnerable adolescents and teens. The Committee's additional
recommendation that $49 million of proposed FY 2000 funds not
be available to the Campaign until the final day of the
fiscal year would result in a de facto 48 percent cut in
campaign funds.
Now is not the time to make cuts in the Media Campaign. We
are at a critical juncture in time. Drug use by our teens
skyrocketed between 1992 and 1996 as risk perception
declined. In the past two years, the Monitoring the Future
survey and the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse
suggest that our children are becoming more aware of the
risks posed by illegal drugs and that adolescent drug use
rates are declining. This campaign can be a catalyst for
lower drug use rates by our children.
We need your leadership to ensure that the full Senate
restores funding to the requested amount of $195 million in
FY 2000 for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This
is a sound investment in the well being of our sixty-eight
million young people.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, also, to add to the comments made by
Senator Campbell, I believe we had something in the neighborhood of 20
amendments that were filed. The unanimous consent agreement required
that amendments be filed by noon today. This subcommittee on
appropriations has now, I believe, close to 20 amendments, perhaps 21
amendments, that have been filed. It is, I know, the intention and the
interest of the leadership--the majority leader and Senator Daschle as
well--to move ahead and finish this bill and finish some other business
today.
My hope is that Members who have offered amendments--in fact, all the
amendments have been filed on behalf of other Senators by Senator
Campbell and myself. I hope very much that those who asked us to file
an amendment on their behalf will come now to the floor and offer those
amendments so we can proceed to get through this piece of legislation.
Of the 20 amendments, some likely will be worked out, some will
perhaps need votes. Senator Campbell is absolutely correct, this is the
right time for people on whose behalf we have offered these amendments
to come to the floor and begin debating them.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1201
(Purpose: To authorize the conveyance to the Columbia Hospital for
Women of a certain parcel of land in the District of Columbia)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call up the Lott-Daschle amendment No.
1201, the conveyance of land to the Columbia Hospital for Women, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] for Mr. Lott, for
himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 1201.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO THE COLUMBIA HOSPITAL FOR
WOMEN.
(a) Administrator of General Services..--Subject to
subsection (f) and such terms and conditions as the
Administrator of General Services (in this section referred
to as the ``Administrator'') shall require in accordance with
this section, the Administrator shall convey to the Columbia
Hospital for Women (formerly Columbia Hospital for Women and
Lying-In Asylum; in this section referred to as ``Columbia
Hospital''), located in Washington, District of Columbia, for
$14,000,000 plus accrued interest to be paid in accordance
with the terms set forth in subsection (d), all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to those pieces or
parcels of land in the District of Columbia, described in
subsection (b), together with all improvements thereon and
appurtenances thereto. The purpose of this conveyance is to
enable the expansion by Columbia Hospital of its Ambulatory
Care Center, Betty Ford Breast Center, and the Columbia
Hospital Center for Teen Health and Reproductive Toxicology
Center.
(b) Property Description.--
(1) In general.--The land referred to in subsection (a) was
conveyed to the United States of America by deed dated May 2,
1888, from David Fergusson, widower, recorded in liber 1314,
folio 102, of the land records of the District of Columbia,
and is that portion of square numbered 25 in the city of
Washington in the District of Columbia which was not
previously conveyed to such hospital by the Act of June 28,
1952 (66 Stat. 287; chapter 486).
(2) Particular description.--The property is more
particularly described as square 25, lot 803, or as follows:
all that piece or parcel of land situated and lying in the
city of Washington in the District of Columbia and known as
part of square numbered 25, as laid down and distinguished on
the plat or plan of said city as follows: beginning for the
same at the northeast corner of the square being the corner
formed by the intersection of the west line of Twenty-fourth
Street Northwest, with the south line of north M Street
Northwest and running thence south with the line of said
Twenty-fourth Street Northwest for the distance of two
hundred and thirty-one feet ten inches, thence running west
and parallel with said M Street Northwest for the distance of
two hundred and thirty feet six inches and running thence
north and parallel with the line of said Twenty-fourth Street
Northwest for the distance of two hundred and thirty-one feet
ten inches to the line of said M Street Northwest and running
thence east with the line of said M Street Northwest to the
place of beginning two hundred and thirty feet and six inches
together with all the improvements, ways, easements, rights,
privileges, and appurtenances to the same belonging or in
anywise appertaining.
(c) Date of Conveyance.--
(1) Date.--The date of the conveyance of property required
under subsection (a) shall be the date upon which the
Administrator receives from Columbia Hospital written notice
of its exercise of the purchase option granted by this
section, which notice shall be accompanied by the first of 30
equal installment payments of $869,000 toward the total
purchase price of $14,000,000, plus accrued interest.
(2) Deadline for conveyance of property.--Written
notification and payment of the first installment payment
from Columbia Hospital under paragraph (1) shall be
ineffective, and the purchase option granted Columbia
Hospital under this section shall lapse, if that written
notification and installment payment are not received by the
Administrator before the date which is 1 year after the date
of enactment of this section.
(3) Quitclaim deed.--Any conveyance of property to Columbia
Hospital under this section shall be by quitclaim deed.
(d) Conveyance Terms.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance of property required under
subsection (a) shall be consistent with the terms and
conditions set forth in this section and such other terms and
conditions as the Administrator deems to be in the interest
of the United States, including--
(A) the provision for the prepayment of the full purchase
price if mutually acceptable to the parties;
(B) restrictions on the use of the described land for use
of the purposes set out in subsection (a);
(C) the conditions under which the described land or
interests therein may be sold, assigned, or otherwise
conveyed in order to facilitate financing to fulfill its
intended use; and
(D) the consequences in the event of default by Columbia
Hospital for failing to pay all installments payments toward
the total purchase price when due, including revision of the
described property to the United States.
(2) Payment of purchase price.--Columbia Hospital shall pay
the total purchase price of $14,000,000, plus accrued
interest over the term at a rate of 4.5 percent annually, in
equal installments of $869,000, for 29 years following the
date of conveyance of the property and receipt of the initial
installment of $869,000 by the Administrator under subsection
(c)(1). Unless the full purchase price, plus accrued
interest, is prepaid, the total amount paid for the property
after 30 years will be $26,070,000.
[[Page S7990]]
(e) Treatment of Amounts Received.--Amounts received by the
United States as payments under this section shall be paid
into the fund established by section 210(f) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
490(f)), and may be expended by the Administrator for real
property management and related activities not otherwise
provided for, without further authorization.
(f) Reversionary Interest.--
(1) In general.--The property conveyed under subsection (a)
shall revert to the United States, together with any
improvements thereon--
(A) 1 year from the date on which Columbia Hospital
defaults in paying to the United States an annual installment
payment of $869,000, when due; or
(B) immediately upon any attempt by Columbia Hospital to
assign, sell, or convey the described property before the
United States has received full purchase price, plus accrued
interest.
The Columbia Hospital shall execute and provide to the
Administrator such written instruments and assurances as the
Administrator may reasonably request to protect the interests
of the United States under this subsection.
(2) Release of reversionary interest.--The Administrator
may release, upon request, any restriction imposed on the use
of described property for the purposes of paragraph (1), and
release any reversionary interest of the United States in the
property conveyed under this subsection only upon receipt by
the United States of full payment of the purchase price
specified under subsection (d)(2).
(3) Property returned to the general services
administration.--Any property that reverts to the United
States under this subsection shall be under the jurisdiction,
custody and control of the General Services Administration
shall be available for use or disposition by the
Administrator in accordance with applicable Federal law.
Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the
aisle, and we are ready to adopt it. I ask unanimous consent the
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1201) was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1215, 1216, And 1217
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have three amendments, two of which were
to be offered by Senator Graham and one to be offered by Senator
Cochran. The amendments were left in the Cloakrooms on a timely basis
but were not part of the submissions that Senator Campbell and I
offered before the 12 noon deadline. Senator Campbell and I ask consent
that these three amendments be considered timely filed and offered.
I send the amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendments will be numbered and laid aside.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1193
(Purpose: To enable the State of Rhode Island to meet the criteria for
recommendation as an Area of Application to the Boston-Worcester-
Lawrence; Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut Federal
locality pay area)
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment to the bill be
called up at this time. It has already been laid down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and
Mr. Chafee, proposes an amendment numbered 1193.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 98, insert between lines 4 and 5 the following:
Sec. 636. Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) For purposes of this section, the 5 counties of the
State of Rhode Island (including Providence, Bristol,
Newport, Kent, and Washington counties) shall be considered
as 1 county, adjacent to the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence;
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut locality
pay area and the Hartford, Connecticut locality pay area.''.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment I am offering, on behalf of
myself and Senator Chafee, deals with a problem that is particular to
Rhode Island. The problem involves what is known as locality pay. That
is the differential pay that Federal employees are given because of
higher costs in the area in which they live and work. Essentially it is
a comparison between the labor cost in the private sector and the
Federal sector. If there are higher private labor costs, there is a
differential added to the paycheck of the Federal employee in the
particular area.
The problem with Rhode Island is, because of the complicated rules of
allocation, my entire State is excluded from locality pay. So Federal
workers who work in Rhode Island do not receive locality pay, even
though their fellow workers, in some cases just a few miles away, in
Massachusetts or Connecticut, receive this differential locality pay.
Now, the reason the rules disadvantage Rhode Island is, essentially,
to qualify for locality pay, you have to have at least 2,000 workers in
a county and that county has to be contiguous to another locality area.
This is a map of New England and parts of New York. Because of the high
cost of labor in Boston and in these major areas, such as New York City
and Hartford, CT, because of the concentration of workers, these areas
in blue represent locality pay areas. However, Rhode Island has been,
in a sense, discriminated against because, for one thing, the managers
of this program have stopped the locality line about 4\1/2\ miles from
the border, in some cases. In a county in which we have 3,500 workers--
we have enough workers in Newport County, but we are not contiguous to
a locality pay area. In northern Rhode Island, we don't have 2,000
people in a certain county, but we are contiguous to another area. So
the combination of these rules of numbers of Federal employees and
being contiguous to a high locality pay area works to the detriment of
Rhode Island.
Let me suggest something else that also I think is unique in the
situation of Rhode Island. We, I think unlike every other State in the
U.S., do not have county governments. We don't operate anything on a
county basis. Rhode Island is the smallest State in the Union, roughly
70 miles long and 35 miles wide. The concept of county is something
that really is not apropos. When you look at some of the larger States
in the country where counties are of sufficient size, where they easily
accommodate several thousand workers, then it makes a difference but
not in Rhode Island.
The proposal that Senator Chafee and I have developed is quite
simple; that is, to consider the entire State of Rhode Island as a
county. Frankly, in the context of the United States, it is about the
size of many counties. If we had that change in the law, we would have
a situation where our workers in Rhode Island--we have approximately
6,000 Federal employees --would, in fact, be in an area contiguous to
locality pay zones and would qualify for the extra pay. What does this
mean in the paychecks of our workers? Essentially, what they are seeing
is 3.45 percent less in their 1999 paychecks than people doing the same
jobs in New London, CT, and in Boston, MA. In fact, Boston is about 40
miles from Providence. So we have this awkward situation. In fact, we
have people who live in Rhode Island and work in Boston for the Federal
Government and get paid higher than their neighbors who live in Rhode
Island and work in Providence, RI. So this situation is both unfair
and, I think, unfortunate.
Our amendment would correct that situation and it would do so in a
way which, I think, would not do great damage to the overall structure
of locality pay throughout the United States. After all, we are talking
really about a unique situation--the smallest State in the country,
which has no effective counties in it as a measure of
[[Page S7991]]
any governmental type of activity. So I suggest very strongly that we
approach this with a legislative solution.
I must thank both the subcommittee chairman, Senator Campbell of
Colorado, and also the chairman of the authorizing committee, Senator
Thompson. We have been talking with both individuals and they have been
most helpful, as have their staffs. They have suggested that we can
probably, with their assistance, make more progress by simply today
discussing and describing the issue and then relying upon our mutual
efforts to try to derive some type of administrative solution to this
issue.
Let me say one other thing that makes this a very compelling problem
to us. This is not simply going out and saying I want to have my
workers treated the same way their brethren and sisters are treated
just 30 miles away; there is something else here. We find it, in
certain cases, difficult to recruit Federal workers to come into the
Rhode Island area because if they have a choice between going to Boston
or to parts of Connecticut, or parts of Long Island, NY, in the same
region, they will choose these other regions because they will
automatically get a 3, 4, 5 percent pay increase, simply by choosing to
work in Boston rather than working in Providence.
We have, in the past, tried to recruit individuals to come into our
FBI and our Secret Service office, and many, many qualified people have
said: I would love to work there. The challenges are there, the career
potential is there, but the problem is, how can I turn to my family and
say I am going to take a 3, 4, 5 percent pay cut?
This really affects our ability to recruit those individuals that we
need--as anyplace needs--to effectively run our Federal agencies. So
both Senator Chafee and I are concerned about and committed to this
issue. First, we recognize that this is something that, with the
cooperation and the help of the Appropriations Committee and Senator
Campbell, and the authorizing committee with Senator Thompson, and
their ranking members, we hope we can make progress on the
administrative front.
At this time, unless the Senator from Colorado has comments, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator has that right.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Alpert,
a fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges during the
pendency of this bill and during the morning business time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S.
1315 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the time provided by the
managers.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, while we are waiting for Senators to
come to the floor with amendments, I would like to speak to two
sections of the Treasury and general government appropriations bill
that are, I believe, of great importance.
The first is called the GREAT Program--the Gang Resistance Education
and Training, or GREAT Program. This is a program that is administered
by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in partnership with
State and local law enforcement.
Unfortunately, gang activity has increased in our country in recent
years, as the Chair well knows.
ATF has developed a program to give our children the tools they need
to be able to resist the temptation to belong to a gang.
The GREAT program is only seven years old, but has already grown from
a pilot program in Arizona to classrooms all over the United States--
and in Puerto Rico, Canada, and overseas military bases. ATF estimates
that about 1.7 million students have received GREAT training.
GREAT was designed to provide gang prevention and anti-violence
instruction to children in a classroom setting. ATF trains local law
enforcement officers to teach these classes, and provides grants to
their offices to help pay for their time.
Needless to say, working policemen in classrooms do a lot to dispel
the sometimes erroneous myths that children have about working
policemen.
This program is having a positive effect on student activities and
behaviors, and is deterring them from involvement in gangs. A side
benefit is that the graduates seem to be doing a better job of
communicating with their parents and teachers, and getting better
grades.
Last year the Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a
hearing on the GREAT Program. The highlight of the morning was
listening to the students from Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona and a
number of other States as they told about what they learned when they
took the classes. It was very encouraging to hear how some of these
kids actually turned their lives around because of this training.
For the second year in a row, the administration is requesting only
$10 million for grants for the GREAT program. Last year, Congress felt
that wasn't enough to fund the many requests for help from State and
local law enforcement and provided $13 million for GREAT grants. $10
million still isn't enough.
We are asking again in this bill to provide $13 million. I urge my
colleagues to support the effort of the committee to again provide $13
million for grants to State and local law enforcement for this
worthwhile and effective program.
The other section of the bill I would like to mention for the
knowledge of my colleagues is what is called the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children.
This center was created in 1984, and is dedicated to finding every
missing child and helping to prevent the abduction and sexual
exploitation of all children.
Sadly, we are not 100 percent successful. Every year thousands of
children are put at risk. In fact, every day in the United States 2,300
children are reported missing to different law enforcement agencies.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children works closely
with three entities under the jurisdiction of this bill--the Customs
Service, the Postal Inspection Service, and the Secret Service. I think
it is important for my colleagues to be aware of the contributions of
these different agencies.
In 1987, the Customs Service was the first Federal law enforcement
agency to agree to be the contact point for tips and leads from the
toll-free Child Pornography Tipline. Under direction provided by the
committee, support for the Tipline will continue in the fiscal year
2000. This funding will be used for promotional brochures, public
service announcements, and a campaign to educate teenage girls about
the risks they may encounter and the ways to stay safer from crime.
In March of last year, the Customs Service and the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children launched the new CyberTipline to
allow parents to report incidents of suspicious or illegal internet
activity. For the benefit of my computer literate friends, that
internet address is ``www.missingkids.com/cybertip.''
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children have a long-standing relationship in
combating child pornography and sexual exploitation of children. For
over ten years, information developed from the Child Pornography
Tipline has been provided to the Postal Inspection Service for
investigative purposes. In addition, the
[[Page S7992]]
Center has provided technical assistance when needed for specific
investigations. The Postal Inspection Service has provided continuing
assistance to the Center through training, development of publications,
and outreach programs.
In late 1996, a cooperative agreement with the Secret Service
Forensic Services Division resulted in the creation of the Exploited
Child Unit. This unit focuses on combating child molestation,
pornography, and prostitution. They raise public awareness about the
problem of pedophilia and focus educational efforts on child safety on
the internet.
This bill today gives ample opportunity to provide funding for both
of these programs. This particular program will provide $2 million for
forensic support of investigations and $1.996 million for the exploited
child unit. This money will be well spent.
I know my colleagues will be willing to support this.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask of you, or the distinguished chairman
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee,
what the process is to call up one of the amendments that has been laid
down, specifically No. 1195? Do I need to ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending business? What is appropriate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to call up his
amendment.
Amendment No. 1195
(Purpose: To increase by $50,000,000 funding for United States Customs
Service for salaries and expenses to hire 500 new inspectors to stop
the flow of illegal drugs into the United States and facilitate
legitimate cross-border trade and commerce)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1195, dealing with
the appropriation of additional funding for 617 Customs inspectors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. KYL], for himself, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 1195.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 13, line 24, strike ``$1,670,747,000'' and insert
``$1,720,747,000''.
On page 15, line 6, before the period, insert the following: ``:
Provided further, That $50,000,000 shall be available until expended to
hire, train, provide equipment for, and deploy 500 new Customs
inspectors.''
On page 49, line 13, strike ``$38,175,000'' and insert
``$36,500,000''.
On page 50, line 1, strike ``$23,681,000'' and insert
``$22,586,000''.
On page 53, line 3, strike ``$624,896,000'' and insert
``$590,100,000''.
On page 58, line 8, strike ``$120,198,000'' and insert
``$109,344,000''.
On page 62, line 26, strike ``$27,422,000'' and insert
``$25,805,000''.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is one of the amendments which was
offered during the subcommittee markup but which we did not pursue
because we had not identified offsets for the additional $50 million
being requested, and we wanted an opportunity to try to work it out
before the bill came before the Senate.
We have not really worked out all of the details of this. Therefore,
I am informed by the chairman of the subcommittee he may not be able to
support this amendment at this time.
It is my intention to at least begin the process on behalf of myself
and Senator Hutchison, who hopefully will be present shortly, so we can
begin the discussion as to how to find a way to fund some additional
Customs inspectors, particularly to be deployed on the southwest
border.
Before I describe the problem and the reason for this, I commend the
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for a really heroic
effort to save existing Customs inspectors.
What had happened is, the way the administration's budget had been
prepared, it was going to fund existing agents out of a fee structure
that never had any chance of being passed by the Congress or
implemented into law. Had not the chairman and ranking member acted
quickly to find other sources of funding, we would have lost 617
existing Customs inspectors, but they were able to find that money
elsewhere.
As a result, those positions have been saved at least for now. Where
that leaves us is exactly even, with no increase in Customs officers,
despite the huge increases in the number of people and the amount of
commercial traffic crossing our border, particularly in the Southwest.
What that means is we are just literally dead in the water despite
the efforts of the subcommittee chairman, Senator Campbell.
That is why we wanted to find an additional $50 million to hire 500
agents--only 500 agents--for next year to help with this problem.
Let me describe a little bit the problem on the Southwest border. As
you know, we passed NAFTA. NAFTA has enabled us to dramatically
increase commercial traffic between Mexico and the border, our four
border States of the United States. But even without NAFTA, we would
still have an increase in commercial traffic as well as the daily
traffic between the communities south of the border and the American
cities on our side.
I was somewhat amused that my colleague from Michigan, Senator
Abraham, was very concerned about the situation on the Canadian border
near Detroit. He was lamenting the fact we could end up with a
situation where there was a 2-minute delay for every car going through
the border checkpoint--a 2-minute delay. Just think what that would
mean with the large number of people who wanted to cross into the
United States from Canada each day.
The reason I had to chuckle a little bit is, if we are successful, if
we do get some additional agents, and the chairman of the subcommittee
is successful in protecting what we have, our goal, stated by the
Finance Committee, is to get to the point where we will only have a 20-
minute delay per car at the Arizona border or at the Mexican-United
States border.
A 20-minute delay every time you want to cross the border becomes
onerous, particularly to people who live in the border communities and
who every day cross the border for business or for family or pleasure
reasons. There are literally hundreds and thousands of people who do
that every day. This does not speak of the commercial traffic, which I
will talk about in just a moment.
The point is, we are trying to get to a point where it only takes you
20 minutes to come into the United States or to go into Mexico. But we
are talking specifically about coming into the United States. That is a
very onerous situation when you are trying to promote commerce as well
as more tourists coming to the United States, as well as families. So
this is not something that is a luxury but something I think everyone
would recognize is very important.
I will talk about some of the numbers because I think it is very
instructive.
The traffic congestion at any of our border crossing points into
Mexico--you just have to be there to see it. The number of commercial
trucks, for example, that cross the border annually in my State of
Arizona increased from 287,000 in 1994 to 347,000 in 1998. We do not
have the personnel to keep up with that congestion.
For example, in San Luis, AZ, which depends very heavily on cross-
border trade, you can easily wait 3 hours to cross. That is not unheard
of at all, to sit there for 3 hours waiting to cross into the United
States. This is during times when it is very critical, particularly for
produce. Much of the commercial traffic that comes from Mexico to the
United States is produce. It does not do any good for that produce to
be sitting out there for 3 hours in the very warm sun south of Yuma,
AZ, waiting to come in through the border crossing.
I ask my colleagues, if they had to wait 3 hours every time they
wanted to get someplace on Capitol Hill, how long they would stand for
it. Obviously, not very long.
We just don't have enough Customs inspectors, however, to staff that
San Luis port even to stay open during some key hours. I point out, the
commercial point is closed on Saturdays. So we are only talking about
general business hours.
[[Page S7993]]
In effect, what ends up happening is, you get cancellations or
reroutes hundreds of miles away to other ports when you have these
kinds of long delays. The number of inspectors at this particular port
of San Luis has increased. Do you want to know by how much it has
increased? One inspector over the last 5 years. That is all. It went
from 51 to 52. Obviously, we are not keeping up with the traffic.
The same is true of the port of Nogales, which is the largest port in
Arizona. There the fresh produce industry is very big, both import and
export. It is over $1.5 billion a year. It is now the fifth busiest
port on our Southwest border. But the Nogales port does not have enough
inspectors. The number of inspectors there actually decreased last year
by seven.
According to the Fresh Produce Association of America, there have
been occasions, even during the low-produce season, where 6-mile truck
backups have occurred down in Mexico. Just think about that for a
moment--6 miles of trucks waiting to clear Customs. It is not at all
uncommon for the truckers to come to the border and literally have to
wait overnight before they can find a slot the next day to cross into
the United States. And we are trying to encourage trade?
We understand that trade benefits people on both sides of the border.
Obviously, we are not doing our part when the produce from Mexico
cannot come into the United States because we do not have enough
inspectors.
The lack of personnel on our borders is also a very serious problem
with respect to the interdiction of illegal drugs and other contraband.
As we all know, the Customs inspectors are really our first line of
defense there. I have been on the border where you have these huge,
long lines of traffic. Everybody is anxious to get through, and you
just have a few ports with a few inspectors there struggling mightily
to determine whether or not there may be some illegal drugs or
contraband. We have given them some good high-tech equipment they can
use, but it still requires manpower. Every week, they are able to stop
some kind of traffic in which smuggling is going on, but they do not
begin to catch even a fairly significant percentage of it.
Just to give you an idea what they have been able to accomplish,
between 1994 and 1998 heroin seizures have gone up by 2,078 percent,
marijuana seizures up 80 percent. It is clear that more Customs
inspectors are needed to keep up with these increasing percentages of
attempts to smuggle drugs and other contraband into our country.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the Finance Committee marked up its
version of the Customs reauthorization bill not too long ago. In it,
they approved legislation that Senators Domenici, Gramm, Hutchison, and
McCain, and I and other border Senators introduced, to increase the
Customs personnel in order to reduce the wait times there to better
fight the war on drugs and to enhance commerce to 20 minutes per
vehicle.
When we can't even provide the funding to get the wait times down to
20 minutes per vehicle, we are derelict in our duty; we are failing in
our responsibility; and the responsibility is on the Congress of the
United States.
That is why Senator Hutchison and I have introduced this amendment to
add $50 million for 500 inspectors. We may take one item out to make it
$49 million so that the offsets we have provided would be more easily
supportable by our colleagues, but this is an increase of merely 500
agents with this $50 million. That is what it costs to get the
equipment and the training and get this number of Customs inspectors
actually on line at one of our ports of entry.
The amendment, as I said, will actually permit the deployment of
these agents during the next year to one of these points of entry where
they are needed for the Southwest border.
Just to focus a little bit more on the specific need with respect to
commerce there, should my colleagues be interested, the number of
trucks crossing the U.S. border annually has increased from 7.5 million
in 1994 to over 10 million in 1998. That is a 40-percent increase. More
than 372 million people crossed either the United States-Mexico or
United States-Canadian border in the last fiscal year.
But even with this huge increase in the crossings, of both
individuals and commercial traffic, the number of Customs inspectors
and the canine enforcement officers--that is an important part of this,
too--has only increased by 540 people between 1994 and 1998. That is
simply not enough to keep up with the commercial traffic, let alone the
missing of opportunities to seize illegal drugs.
Of the 3,400-plus pounds of illegal heroin seized last year, Customs
seized 2,700 pounds. Of the 1.76 million pounds of marijuana seized,
Customs seized just under 1 million pounds. And of the roughly 265,000
pounds of cocaine seized last year, Customs seized 148,000 pounds.
Clearly, this is where the first line of defense is in our war on
drugs. I know my colleagues and I love to stand here and talk about how
we need to get tougher in the war on drugs. This is our chance. The
first line of defense in the war on drugs in the United States is at
the point of entry where people attempt to bring this illegal
contraband into our country and, because we are unwilling to fund the
number of customs inspectors required, we don't have enough people on
the border to check every vehicle and, therefore, to find and to stop
these kinds of illegal drugs coming into our country.
I know the chairman of the subcommittee has talked a lot about the
need to meet this need. I don't think there are any of us who don't
appreciate what we have to try to do. It is very difficult in a tough
budget environment to find the money to do it.
What I have tried to point out is that we have to set priorities. If
you look at all of the other parts of the budget, I can't find hardly
any area in this particular budget that, in my view, has a higher
priority than protecting our kids from drugs, than protecting our
border from people who are literally invading our country with illegal
substances to do detriment to our citizens. What is more important in
this budget than that?
I, literally, challenge my colleagues who will oppose our amendment,
defending appropriations that are in this mark for their particular
area of interest, because we have had to provide $50 million in offsets
in order to fund this $50 million for increased Customs agents, I
challenge my colleagues to come to the floor and be willing to explain
why what they are trying to protect in this budget is of a higher
priority than stopping drugs at our border. I will be very curious to
see how many of our colleagues are willing to come and vote against our
amendment because it is taking funding out of something that is
important to them, to explain to us why that is more important than
this.
I am sorry to present that challenge as directly as I am. I think if
we are going to be serious about this problem, rather than just talk
about it, we have to address this in a very serious way that makes
tough choices, that prioritizes. We can't just say, well, it is hard to
do, and, therefore, we will try to do it next year. That is why we are
so insistent on trying to accomplish this now.
There is much more I could say about this particular problem at this
time. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to speak to this amendment
as well. Perhaps the chairman of the subcommittee would like to address
the issue now; I am not certain. Perhaps I could make that opportunity
available, should the subcommittee chairman wish to avail himself of
it.
If not, I am happy to speak to the issue more.
Let me stop at this point and see if Members might have any other
conversation on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for
bringing this to the attention of the Senate. I certainly understand
and sympathize with him. My State borders his, and I spend a good deal
of time in Arizona. I am fully aware of the problem we have with our
borders. They are like a sieve, very frankly.
I wish we could have found the additional $50 million he asked for,
but, as he has already mentioned, we did have some budget constraints.
We simply could not find it.
Let me tell my colleagues from where the Senator from Arizona would
take the money to offset the $50 million additional money he would like
to
[[Page S7994]]
put in this account. He would take $1,675,000 from the Federal Election
Commission. He would take $1,095,000 from the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. He would take $34,786,000 from the GSA. These are repairs
and alterations that are badly needed for Federal buildings across the
country. He would take $10,854,000 from the GSA policy and operations
account, and $1,617,000 from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
I will talk for a few minutes about what we have done. First of all,
in this bill the committee has provided $1.67 billion in funding for
fiscal year 2000 for the Customs Service. This level is $263 million
more than was requested by the administration and provides for
maintaining current levels of funding and other related costs as well
as nonrelated labor issues associated with the increase of inflation,
with the exception of the fiscal year 1999 pay raise component.
The committee has provided new funding for the Customs integrity
awareness effort, totaling $4.3 million. In addition, the committee
provided an additional $2.5 million for the establishment of an
assistant commissioner for training, which will provide in-service
training and professional development of Customs personnel. There have
been news reports about the breaches of integrity within the Customs
Service. These programs are in response to those issues. This funding
will assist the Customs Service in improving their hiring
methodologies, ensuring that applicants are of the highest quality. In
addition, the funding will improve the recruitment and redesign of the
hiring process as well as support existing personnel.
The committee has continued level funding for the Customs Service
child pornography efforts. The committee has been very pleased by the
Customs Service's efforts, given the limited resources dedicated to
that program. The committee has also provided $19 million in funding
for items associated with technology and staffing along the Southwest
border, to which the Senator alluded.
Last year, as part of the fiscal year 1999 emergency drug
supplemental funding, this committee provided an additional $80 million
for nonintrusive inspection equipment on top of the $40.6 million for a
variety of technologies for the Southwest border. This funding provided
for the purchase of a mobile truck X-ray system, railcar inspection
systems, gamma ray inspection systems, and higher energy, heavy pallet
X-ray systems. Of the $276 million of funds provided in that emergency
supplemental, the Customs Service has not yet obligated all those
funds. In fact, as of today, there is $143 million that has not been
spent in the account.
In addition, there is sufficient funding to cover the costs of the
annualization of Operation Hardline and GATEWAY, as well as equipment
annualization for fiscal year 1999. This will allow Treasury to
annualize the cost of these border-related positions.
In addition, there is $1.29 million included to cover the cost for
the mandatory workload increases during peak processing hours for the
new crossings, including staffing and the dedicated commuter lane in El
Paso, TX.
The committee has also included new funding for the Customs Integrity
Awareness Program at $4.3 million, so the total cost of the effort is
now $18 million. That is $6 million in the base and $4.3 million for
this year for polygraphs and $8 million for agent inspector
relocations.
I wish we could have done more. Very simply, as everybody in this
body knows, we were up against budget constraints. We simply did not
have the money to fund all the things that we would like to.
I yield the floor.
Senator REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Texas is here to
debate the Kyl-Hutchison amendment. I think that is appropriate. I want
to respond briefly to Senator Kyl's statement.
We are working under some very difficult budget constraints. There is
a budget that is affecting the work we do on the floor that I didn't
support. It was a budget that was given to us and passed by the
majority. There are all kinds of problems we have with domestic
discretionary spending, including more Customs agents. I would love to
have more Customs agents. We need them very badly in Las Vegas, the
most rapidly growing area in the whole country.
Remember, we, on this side of the aisle, did not vote for that
budget. The budget we are working under is the budget that was given to
us by the majority. With all of our domestic discretionary programs, we
have a lot of problems, not the least of which is Customs agents.
I hope the American public is aware of the fact that veterans'
benefits, as a result of the budget we have, are being stripped
significantly. I hope there will be an effort made to have more money
placed in the allocations to allow more appropriate and fair spending
for domestic discretionary programs in all of our appropriations bills.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to allocate the
$50 million in the Kyl-Hutchison amendment for the hiring of new
Customs agents.
We have a terrible situation. I understand the position of Senator
Campbell and Senator Reid in having to allocate this money. I think
they have done a yeoman's job working within the budget constraints.
The fact of the matter is, in any budget, any family has to set
priorities. This administration has refused to set a priority of
protecting our borders from illegal immigration and illegal drugs
coming in. The fact is, they asked for no new Border Patrol agents this
year, even though Congress has allocated 1,000 new Border Patrol agents
every year for 5 years starting 2 years ago.
They didn't even hire the allocation in this year's budget. We
authorized and paid for 1,000 Border Patrol agents in this year's
budget, and this administration has only been able to hire 200 to 400
agents. Since we lose so many, we are worse off than we were when we
started this fiscal year.
Now we come to Customs agents who are, once again, on the front line,
particularly for illegal drugs because they are the ones responsible
for searching trucks and cars that come in through the border. Once
again, we have a request from the President for zero new Customs
agents. The Customs Office itself asked for 617 new Customs agents.
Look at what these Customs agents are doing. More than $10 billion in
drugs flow across the U.S.-Mexico border each year. Last year, the
Customs Service seized 995,000 pounds of marijuana, 148,000 pounds of
cocaine, and 3,500 pounds of heroin.
We are talking about not fully funding new agents, to not give these
people on the front line the help they need in stopping the flow of
illegal drugs into our country. In Loredo, TX, the biggest commercial
port of entry on our southern border, there were over 1 million truck
crossings last year. There are routine waits of 4 to 6 hours. At El
Paso's Bridge of the Americas, the hours of operation are from 6 a.m.
to 5 p.m., but because the Customs Service can't afford to pay
overtime, they have to close at 4 so that they will be able to actually
finish the people in the pipeline by 5. Trucks entering an import lot
after 4 have to wait until 6 the next morning just to have their
documentation cleared. This is hurting not only our ability to curb
illegal traffic, but it is also hurting trade and free trade and
ratcheting up the cost of goods coming in from the border. So it is
very important that we look at Customs agents as the front line for
getting illegal drugs stopped at our country's borders.
DEA Administrator, Tom Constantine, was before the Commerce, State,
Justice Subcommittee this past March, and he said:
The vast majority of drugs available in the United States
originate overseas. The international drug trade is
controlled by a small number of high echelon drug lords, who
reside in Colombia and Mexico. Most Americans are unaware of
the vast damage that has been caused to their communities by
international drug trafficking syndicates, most recently by
organized crime groups headquartered in Mexico. At the
current time, these traffickers pose the greatest threat to
communities around the United States. Their impact is no
longer limited to cities and towns along the Southwest
border; traffickers from Mexico are now routinely
[[Page S7995]]
operating in the Midwest, the Southeast, the Northwest, and,
increasingly, in the northeastern portion of the United
States.
We need to have as a priority stopping illegal drugs coming through
our borders. And if the administration continues to ask for zero new
border patrol agents and zero new Customs agents, we are not going to
be able to win the war on drugs. We cannot do it.
Senator Kyl and I didn't choose to go in and take from other parts of
the budget; that was our only option. When the President comes in with
a budget that asks for no new Customs agents, we could do nothing but
try to find offsets in order to maintain the integrity of the budget.
So we went for administrative costs that were increases in spending
over last year. It wasn't our choice to do this, but the
difference between having increases in the GSA budget or increases in
Customs agents who are going to be on the front line stopping illegal
drugs from coming into our country, and to ease the flow of trade into
our country, it seems to me, is pretty clear.
So I hope that we can make this a priority. I look forward to working
with Senator Campbell and Senator Reid in the conference committee to
try to mitigate the impact of any cuts that would be made in other
budgets. I understand their position and having to defend this bill.
They had hard choices to make. But we can't choose to walk away from
law enforcement on our borders. This is a Federal responsibility. We
can't fill in with local law enforcement officers. They don't have the
capability to stem the flow of illegal drugs into our country.
So I hope our colleagues will support the Kyl-Hutchison amendment. We
will do everything we can to mitigate the cuts that we are making in
other areas, but it has to be our priority to get control of our
sovereign borders, to keep illegal drugs from going into Cleveland, OH,
or from going into Tacoma, WA, or Wilmington, DE, because that is where
these drugs end up; they don't stay on the border. They infiltrate our
country, and we must stop it. This is one of the ways we are going to
try to do that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have to tell you, I have no quarrel
with my colleagues from Texas and Arizona in my efforts and interests
in reducing the use of drugs in America, since I helped write this bill
and I have been on the forefront of trying to reduce drugs and putting
money where it is most needed. But I remind my friend from Texas that,
in fact, in this bill we put in $263 million over the administration's
request. In addition, as I have already said, of the $276 million of
funds provided in the emergency supplement, which was signed into law
on May 31 of this year, Customs has still not spent $143 million of
that money. I know some of it is for equipment, but certainly some of
that could be transferred within the Department to areas that need it.
We have done the best we can.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield, I was thinking as we were
talking about this, and as the Senator was making his point, perhaps we
could look for offsets within Customs' budget, as well as some of these
other areas. We would like to pass the amendment, but we also would
like to maybe look for other ways that Senator Kyl and I could set
priorities within the Customs Department budget and maybe work
something out that would not hurt another agency as much but we
reprioritize within the budget.
Mr. CAMPBELL. We will be happy to work with the Senator from Texas
and Senator Kyl. If we can find the offsets within Customs' budget, we
would be delighted to work with the Senator.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I just wanted to address a comment to the
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Campbell. I made the point when I
first began to speak that without his efforts, we would not have been
able to save existing Customs inspectors. I misspoke and understated
the nature of the problem and, therefore, the significance of what
Senator Campbell was able to accomplish. I think in the way I stated
it, I said there were 617 additional inspectors that were at risk.
Actually, I think the number is closer to 5,000.
Had Senator Campbell and the other leadership of the subcommittee not
gotten to the problem to find an additional $312 million, as he pointed
out, all 5,000 of those existing inspectors would have been at risk
because they were being funded by a source which was not ever going to
materialize and, in fact, which has not materialized. So in announcing
the chairman's successes, I actually understated the nature of what he
was able to accomplish. Senator Hutchison and I, therefore, take
nothing away from the chairman of the committee, who has had to
scramble very hard to try to help find a solution to this problem of
Customs agents at our borders.
We have expressed, I think, in the strongest terms that we can, our
appreciation for that. The chairman doesn't have to remind us of the
hard work that he has put into that. We simply are of the view that we
have to find a way to do more than tread water to stay even because, as
both of us have pointed out, the traffic at the border is not staying
even. The drug smugglers' efforts to bring more contraband into the
country is not staying even. We have to try to keep up. The modest
increase we are talking about is an effort to try to keep up with the
nature of the problem that we have.
Point No. 1, the chairman is absolutely correct. They fought very
hard to get additional money just to save the status quo.
But I think the second point we are making is also valid; that is,
preserving the status quo isn't good enough. We need to try to find a
source to at least find another $50 million for these additional
Customs inspectors to at least try to keep pace with what is going on
at our borders.
I ask the chairman, if there is no further discussion, we could
simply defer a vote on this until afterwards. It is my understanding
there will be a vote on the Lautenberg amendment in roughly 90 minutes
or so. Perhaps we can simply conclude this conversation now and
schedule any vote immediately after that.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to table the Kyl amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays. I further ask that the vote on the Kyl
amendment take place immediately after the vote on the Lautenberg
amendment, No. 1214, which we expect to take place later this
afternoon.
However, I will be happy to work with my colleague, and if we can
find a solution or a way to offset the money in the Customs' budget, at
that time I will ask to vitiate this motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I
ask unanimous consent that the time prior to the motion to table
amendment No. 1214, the Lautenberg amendment, be limited to 90 minutes
to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no other amendments
be in order to the amendment prior to the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for
allowing me to do this.
I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 6 minutes to introduce a
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1317
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we have an agreement worked out on two
amendments dealing with child care centers and Federal activities.
[[Page S7996]]
Amendment No. 1197
(Purpose: To ensure the safety and availability of child care centers
in Federal facilities)
Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the Jeffords amendment No. 1197 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Jeffords
and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 1197.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senators Jeffords and
Landrieu as a cosponsor of this amendment that helps address an issue
affecting many lower pay-grade federal employees with young children:
affordable child care. Often there are facilities available to fill
this need, but the costs puts this option beyond the reach of these
families. This amendment addresses this concern by allowing the use of
appropriated funds to help these families. Though I am concerned that
the House may be uncomfortable with the overall scope of this
amendment, I look forward to working with Senators Jeffords and
Landrieu to make sure this measure or a reasonable compromise is
acceptable to both the House and the Senate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to reiterate the importance of an
amendment that we agreed to earlier today by unanimous consent. This
amendment offered by Senator Jeffords and myself will increase the
availability, safety, and quality of Federal child care.
I firmly believe that the Federal Government should serve as a model
for other employers to implement child care services in this country.
These services must be affordable, safe, and be provided in an
atmosphere that supports healthy development and growth of children. We
have already made much progress within the Department of Defense with
the enactment of legislation that ensures quality, safe and affordable
child care to defense employees. The DoD program is now considered one
of the finest in the world. It is now time to take this exemplary model
and expand it to all Federal agencies.
The executive branch of Government has responsibility for over 1,000
child care centers--788 through the military, 109 through the General
Services Administration, and 127 through other Federal departments.
Over 215,000 children are being provided child care through these
various Federal programs.
Unfortunately, almost 1/3 of Federal employees with young children
may not have access to any Federal child care services. We need to
ensure all children of Federal employees, not just those under the
Department of Defense, have access to high quality and affordable child
care.
Every parent should know that when they drop their children off at a
Federal day care facility that their child is safe--because we have
enacted uniform safety standards for these child care facilities.
We also must make efforts to ensure that child care is made available
to every Federal employee regardless of their income. Now, more than
ever, Federal employees are struggling to balance work and family
obligations. They are also struggling to pay for the cost of child
care. Currently, the cost of quality child care services ranges from
$3,000 to more than $10,000, depending on where a person lives. In my
State, this care ranges from $3,000 to $6,000. Unfortunately, many
families in Louisiana cannot afford this cost. In fact, there are over
500,000 children throughout Louisiana whose families earn under
$27,000.
One of the first steps that the Federal Government can and should
take is to provide a model for other employers to follow, so more
individuals will have greater access to affordable and quality child
care. Moreover, if the Federal Government is to remain a credible
provider of child care services, Congress must enact this important
amendment. I look forward to working my colleagues in the House and
Senate to ensure adoption of this legislation in the conference report.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment will go a long way toward
ensuring the safety and healthy development of children of federal
employees who are cared for in federally sponsored or operated child
care centers. The Senate passed this amendment last year on the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by unanimous consent.
Unfortunately, it was dropped during the last few hours of the
conference. So I am back again this year.
In 1987, Congress passed the Trible amendment which permitted
executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a
portion of federally owned or leased space for the provision of child
care services for federal employees. The General Services
Administration (GSA) was given the authority to provide guidance,
assistance, and oversight to federal agencies for the development of
child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was
passed, hundreds of federal facilities throughout the nation have
established onsite child care centers which are a tremendous help to
our employees.
As you know, Federal property is exempt from state and local laws,
regulations, and oversight. What this means for child care centers on
that property are not subject to even the most minimal health and
safety standards. Even the most basic state and local health and safety
requirements do not apply to child care centers Federal facilities.
I find this very troubling, and I think we sell our federal employees
a bill of goods when federally owned leased child care cannot guarantee
that their children are in safe facilities. The Federal Government
should set the example when it comes to providing safe child care. It
should not be turn an apathetic shoulder from meeting such standards
simply because state and local regulations do not apply to them.
As Congress and the administration turn their spotlight on our
nation's child care system, we must first get our own house in order.
We must safeguard and protect the children receiving services in child
care centers housed in federal facilities. Our employees should not be
denied some assurance that the centers in which they place their
children are accountable for meeting basic health and safety standards.
This amendment will require all child care services located in
federal facilities to meet, at the very least, the same level of health
and safety standards required of other child care centers in the same
geographical area. That sounds like common sense, but as we all know
too well, common sense is not always reflected in the law.
It should also be made clear that state and local standards should be
a floor for basic health and safety, and not a ceiling. The role of the
Federal Government--and, I believe, of the United States Congress in
particular--is to constantly strive to do better and to lead by
example. Federal facilities should always try to provide the highest
quality of care. The GSA has required national accreditation in GSA-
owned and leased facilities for years, and the majority of child care
centers in GSA facilities are either in compliance with those
accreditation standards or are strenuously working to get there. This
is high quality of care towards which we should strive for in all of
our Federal child care facilities.
Federal child care should mean something more than simply location on
a Federal facility. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide
safe care for its employees, and it has a responsibility for making
sure that those standards are monitored and enforced. Some Federal
employees receive this guarantee. Many do not. We can and must do
better.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask the amendment be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1197) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1211 Withdrawn
Mr. CAMPBELL. I call up amendment No. 1211 by Ms. Landrieu, and I ask
that it be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 1211) was withdrawn.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous
consent immediately following the
[[Page S7997]]
vote in relation to the Kyl-Hutchison amendment on the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the
confirmation of the nomination of Lawrence Summers to be Secretary of
the Treasury, Executive Calendar No. 95.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I now ask unanimous consent it be in order to ask for
the yeas and nays on the nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1214
(Purpose: To provide for the inclusion of alcohol abuse by minors in
the national anti-drug media campaign for youth)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1214, which
has been sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself,
and Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Harkin, and
Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 1214.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. INCLUSION OF ALCOHOL ABUSE BY MINORS IN NATIONAL
ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
(a) In General.--The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) is
amended--
(1) in section 101(h) of division A (the Treasury
Department Appropriations Act, 1999), in title III under the
heading ``federal drug control programs--special forfeiture
fund (including transfer of funds)'', by inserting
``(including the use of alcohol by individuals who have not
attained 21 years of age)'' after ``drug use among young
Americans'';
(b) Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization
Act of 1998.--Section 704(b) of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of
division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (15), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(16) shall conduct a national media campaign in
accordance with the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998
(including with respect to the use of alcohol by individuals
who have not attained 21 years of age).''.
(c) Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998.--The Drug-Free
Media Campaign Act of 1998 (subtitle A of title I of division
D of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
(1) in section 102(a), by inserting before the period the
following: ``, and use of alcohol by individuals in the
United States who have not attained 21 years of age''; and
(2) in section 103(a)(1)(H), by inserting after ``antidrug
messages'' the following: ``and messages discouraging
underage alcohol consumption,''.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. This amendment is being offered on behalf of myself,
Senator Byrd, Senator Hutchison, Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, and
Senator Harkin. This amendment would require the drug czar's office to
include messages in his current media campaign to discourage children
from engaging in underage alcohol consumption.
Running ads on national TV espousing the evil of drug use without
even mentioning alcohol sends the wrong message to America's children.
It is the equivalent of telling kids, ``Say `no' to drugs, but this
Bud's for you.''
The fact is, consuming alcohol is illegal in all 50 States if you are
under the age of 21. Among America's youth, underage alcohol
consumption is just as big of a problem as drug use.
The facts are revealing. For those who are not aware of the danger,
alcohol kills six times more children ages 12-20 than all other illegal
drugs combined. It was a surprise to me, and I suspect it is a surprise
to millions of other Americans.
Underage alcohol consumption and its devastating effects on children
paint a daunting picture. According to the Department of Health and
Human Services, the average age at which children start drinking is 13.
Even worse, the research shows that children who drink at the age of 13
have a 47-percent chance of becoming alcohol-dependent; if they wait
until they are 21 to begin drinking, they have only a 10-percent chance
of becoming dependent.
In all, there are nearly 4 million young people in this country who
suffer from alcohol dependence. They account for one-fifth of all
alcohol-dependent Americans.
The bottom line is that we dare not turn a blind eye when an
opportunity comes along to address this problem. The drug czar's media
campaign is that opportunity.
Drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey has said:
[T]he most dangerous drug in America today is still
alcohol.
Gen. McCaffrey has also said:
[Alcohol is] the biggest drug abuse problem for
adolescents, and it's linked to the use of other, illegal
drugs.
Statistics support what General McCaffrey has been saying. According
to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University,
young people who drink alcohol are 7.5 times more likely to use any
illegal drug and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than young people
who never drink alcohol. In other words, alcohol is a gateway drug. Too
often it leads to the use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin by
children. Since that is true, including ads addressing underage alcohol
consumption in the media campaign would benefit the campaign and
increase its overall effectiveness.
In advocating for this amendment, our voices are not alone. Surgeon
General David Satcher recently wrote a letter to General McCaffrey:
I want to recommend that you include advertisements
addressing underage drinking in the paid portion of ONDCP's
media campaign.
Surgeon General Satcher also stated:
It is time to more effectively address the drug that
children and teens tell us is their greatest concern and the
drug we know is most likely to result in their injury or
death.
In addition to support from the Surgeon General, we have bipartisan
support in the House. This same amendment was already added to the
House version of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard from California and Congressman Wolf from
Virginia.
Editorials have also been written across this country supporting our
position. Editorials have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York
Times, Christian Science Monitor, and the Los Angeles Times, among
other newspapers.
This effort on behalf of our children is further supported by more
than 80 organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Public Health Association, the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, and the Crime Prevention Council.
The Senate has not been silent on the issue of underage drinking in
the past, and we should not stand mute now. We have made clear on at
least three occasions that it is the law of the land to prohibit the
use of alcohol by those under the age of 21.
I am proud to have been the author of the 1984 law that made 21 the
drinking age in all 50 States. As a matter of fact, I had an argument
with a couple of my children who were less than 21 at the time. We had
a long discussion. They said it might cut into their fun, their proms.
But I looked at the statistics and saw how many lives we could save.
In the almost 16 years that law has been on the books, we have saved
15,000 kids from dying on the highways.
Later, in 1995, Senator Byrd led the charge on ``zero tolerance'' for
underage alcohol consumption by writing the law that says if you are
under 21, a .02 blood-alcohol level is legally drunk.
Our amendment is not prescriptive. It would not tell the drug czar
which types of alcohol ads or precisely how many alcohol ads would be
run. But it would require the drug czar to include the underage alcohol
consumption message in its media campaign. And it would give General
McCaffrey the authority to do so, authority he has claimed he currently
lacks.
We want to send a strong message to America's youth that neither
underage alcohol consumption nor drug use is acceptable. We do not want
to say there is a preference of one over the
[[Page S7998]]
other. We do not want to do that by being silent on alcohol.
Mr. President, the only successful path to winning the war on drugs
is the one paved by preventing underage drinking. If we cannot muster
the political will to tell our children that underage drinking is
wrong, we will never win the war on drugs.
We must not accept underage drinking as a so-called rite of passage
because it is a passage directly to illegal drugs such as marijuana,
cocaine, and heroin; and it is a passage to a life of alcohol
dependency.
What we have heard from colleagues who are not supporting us is that
drugs are illegal. But so is drinking under the age of 21.
Tobacco is a legal product, but we have worked hard to try to stop
young people from starting to smoke because we know eventually it often
leads to respiratory failure, lung cancer, and other diseases, as well
as premature death.
So I hope our colleagues will support this amendment. It is time to
make young people aware of the facts. Underage drinking is not
acceptable. It leads to addiction, and nothing is more painful to a
parent than to see an addicted child.
We ought not to be deterred by any arguments that suggest that adding
alcohol to the media campaign might detract from the message about
drugs. What is the difference? Addiction is addiction is addiction. We
do not want to lose our kids. We do not want them to lose control, and
we do not want them to lose their lives.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I speak to the Lautenberg
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to correct the Record. On several
occasions in earlier debate I referred to the Kyl amendment No. 1195 as
the Kyl amendment. I ask unanimous consent to correct that title to the
Kyl-Hutchison amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend
from New Jersey. I came from an alcoholic family. Believe me, I know
firsthand the devastating effects of what it does in a family. I have
had over a dozen relatives, uncles, cousins and so on, including a
sister, who have died from some form of alcohol-related abuse. I know
the devastating effects on a whole community; on society as a whole. I
know the cost and I do not think anybody detests it more than I do.
As my colleague, Senator Dorgan, knows, coming from a State in which
there are many Indian reservations, fetal alcohol syndrome, which is an
effect on children from mothers drinking too much, is literally
hundreds of times worse on those reservations. On one reservation in
America, 1 out of 4 children is born with some degree of fetal alcohol
syndrome as opposed to the national average of 1 out of 500.
I am concerned, but the question for this body is not whether we want
to reduce the use of alcohol by youngsters. Of course all of us want to
do that. The question here is whether the ONDCP is the right vehicle or
not. My view is it is the wrong vehicle.
I have been the chairman of this committee since the inception of
this media campaign, when Senator Kohl was the ranking minority, and
this project is something the committee originally had a great deal of
difficulty in doing, because we wanted to make sure we got the best use
of taxpayers' money when we set this up. I believe this amendment would
simply dilute that mission. The committee did not provide as much as we
would want this year. In fact, we are putting in $50 million less this
year than we did for the ONDCP last year. I believe the inclusion of an
anti-alcohol campaign would simply decrease the funds available for the
antidrug campaign more than we want to. The House, in my opinion, made
a mistake when they pursued this action.
I also tell you we are, in my view, increasing the jurisdiction of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy without legislative
authority to do so. This is the wrong vehicle, as I mentioned, and I am
seriously concerned that the precedent it would set would cause us a
great deal of controversy, maybe open a Pandora's box of other
amendments to broaden the ONDCP into areas it should not be.
This amendment expands ONDCP's jurisdiction into alcohol prevention.
As I mentioned, they do not have a statutory mandate to do that. There
are other agencies, such as the Center of Substance Abuse Prevention,
that are better equipped to handle this kind of campaign. When we
originally put the money into this campaign a few years ago, we wanted
to make sure we could measure the effects. So there was a GAO study
authorized, a 5-year study to review the media campaign and give the
results to our committee about the ongoing effects, to see if we, in
fact, were reducing the use of alcohol consumption by youngsters as a
result of the campaign.
That study is only halfway through. It still has several years to go.
I think if we dilute this message, if we start expanding the role, we
are simply going to completely throw out the validity of that study the
GAO is doing.
So, although I do appreciate the efforts of the Senator from New
Jersey, and I look forward to working with him on other ways we can
reduce alcohol use by youngsters, I, at this time, oppose the
amendment. I will move to table after my colleague speaks.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require
to respond to my friend from Colorado.
He talks, as he said, with experience, having seen alcohol addiction
and the devastation it inflicts. But I want to respond specifically to
the question the Senator from Colorado raises about dilution of
message. We think that when a campaign is directed toward young people
and it says ``Say no to drugs,'' the omission of alcohol sends the
wrong message. That's like saying, ``Drugs are bad for you, but alcohol
is not so bad.''
So when we look at the statistics, and we see alcohol kills six times
as many young people ages 12 to 20 than all of the illegal drugs
combined, that tells us that the media campaign cannot deliver a
thorough message unless it includes alcohol. Without including alcohol,
the media campaign is a mere wink at underage drinking.
The drug czar is going to have $1 billion, we hope, over the next 5
years to deliver a message. Mr. President, $1 billion is a lot of
money. So if the media campaign says ``Say no to drugs,'' and it also
says ``Say no to alcohol,'' I see nothing wrong with that. And if there
are ads portraying the horrific things that illegal drugs can do to
kids, there should be ads portraying the same horrific things that
alcohol can do to kids.
With the budget surpluses we have, we will keep on looking for
additional funding for this campaign. One of the things that touches
everybody in this Chamber, regardless of party, is interest in
children, interest in protecting them from violence, interest in
protecting them from disease, and interest in protecting them from
addiction. So I think it is quite appropriate we combine the message on
addiction to include all of the products that would be addictive,
including alcohol.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from
New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. I compliment him on the battle he has been
waging, and successfully, might I add. I am sorry he has elected not to
return to this body. I wish he would change his mind on that score.
Let me just say at this point, I am pleased to join Senator
Lautenberg in offering this amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Treasury
and general government appropriations bill. The amendment would require
that the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Antidrug Youth Media
Campaign include ads regarding illegal underage drinking. It is absurd
to me that our federally funded media campaign fails to include the No.
1 drug choice amongst children; namely, alcohol. I do not know how that
could escape anyone's attention. I cannot understand why that is not
included.
Large numbers of young people are drinking. According to the 1997
Monitoring the Future Study conducted by
[[Page S7999]]
the University of Michigan, approximately 34 percent of high school
seniors, 22 percent of tenth graders, and 8 percent of eighth graders,
report being drunk at least once in a given month.
Yes, Mr. President, drunk. I know that is a shocking statistic. It is
also one that we should not tolerate. Alcohol is a gateway drug. Young
people who consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs.
Statistics compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University show that 37.5 percent of young people who
have consumed alcohol have used some illicit drug versus only 5 percent
of young people who have never consumed alcohol.
Early alcohol use results in alcohol problems in life. A report by
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism indicates that
when young people begin drinking before the age of 15, they are four
times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than when drinking
begins at age 21.
I noted in I believe it was either Roll Call or the Hill earlier this
week there was a story about interns who are visiting the ``watering
holes''--visiting the watering holes. We all know what that means.
These are not watering holes. These are places where these young
interns are going to drink some form of alcohol, and many of them will
end up getting drunk.
Most tragically, alcohol kills. It is deadly. Deadly! It takes the
lives of more children than all other drugs put together. Yet, for some
reason, this particularly lethal drug is left out of the media
campaign. This administration has been leading a great campaign, a
great crusade against tobacco, against smoking, and that is all right.
That is well and good. But why doesn't the administration put its stamp
on a crusade, on a great campaign against alcohol for youngsters? Why
doesn't the administration lead in that crusade?
Let me repeat a story I have told many times. Russell Conwell, one of
the great chautauqua speakers, told the story ``Acres of Diamonds''
5,000 times. I have not told this story 5,000 times, but I have told it
a number of times.
In 1951, when I was a member of the West Virginia Senate, I asked the
warden of the State penitentiary in Moundsville to let me be a witness
to the scheduled execution of a young man by the name of James Hewlett.
Under the laws of West Virginia at that time, a certain number of
witnesses were required to be at an execution. The warden acceded to my
request.
Why did I want to witness an execution? I often have the opportunity
to speak to young people. I often speak to these pages who are sitting
right now on both sides of the aisle looking at me. I speak with them
out in the halls. I try to tell them wholesome stories from Tolstoy or
from other great authors. I try to give them good stories. I try to
teach them good lessons so they will leave here having heard someone--
and I am sure there are other Senators who do the same thing--talk with
them about values.
It was for that reason that I wanted to see this execution. I often
speak to young people in 4-H groups, Boy Scout groups, Girl Scout
groups, and other groups, and I wanted to be able to tell them
something that would help them in later life.
I went down and talked with the man who was to be executed. He had
hired a cab driver to take him from Huntington, WV, over to Logan. On
the way, he pulled a revolver and shot the cab driver in the back,
robbed him, dumped him by the side of the road, and left him there to
die.
Later, Jim Hewlett was apprehended in a theater in Montgomery. He was
brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced to die in the electric
chair.
He was asked if he would like a chaplain in his cell. He scoffed at
the idea of having a chaplain in his cell. He did not want any part of
it. But when the Governor declined to commute his sentence, then the
young man became serious about a chaplain. He wanted a chaplain in his
cell.
On this occasion, the warden permitted me to go down to the cell of
the young man, and I talked with him. I told him I had the opportunity
to talk with young people on many occasions, and I asked if he had
something that he could tell me that would help these young people,
some advice that I could pass on to them that might assist them in
avoiding trouble in later life.
Jim Hewlett said yes. He said: ``Tell them to go to Sunday school and
church.'' He said: ``If I had gone to Sunday school and church, I
wouldn't be here tonight.''
Our conversation was very short. The hour of 9 was rapidly
approaching, and he was to step into the electric chair at 9 o'clock.
As I started to go, after thanking him, he said, ``Wait a minute. Tell
them one more thing. Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.''
Those are his exact words. I have spoken them hundreds of times: ``Tell
them not to drink the stuff that I drank.''
I said: ``What do you mean by that?''
The chaplain spoke up and said: ``Senator''--I was a State senator at
that time--``Senator, you see that little crack on the wall up there?
If he were to have a couple of drinks, he would try to go through that
crack in the wall. That is what it does to him. He was drinking when he
shot the cab driver.''
I went back to the warden's office.
The rest of the story, of course, is obvious. The young man was
executed, and I have been passing these words of Jim Hewlett from
Fayette County, WV, on to young people during these almost 50 years
since: ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.''
Why do we have to tippy-toe around it? Why does the administration
have to tippy-toe around it? Why do the people in the administration
who have responsibilities along this line have to tippy-toe around it?
Alcohol kills! Not only does it sometimes kill the person who imbibes
but it also kills others--wives, children, old people who are trying to
go to the grocery store or to a child-care center. These are people who
are innocent. They are not doing the drinking. But the person who drank
and then got behind the wheel, that person has killed others.
Every year at commencement time, when high schools are holding their
commencements all over the country, we read stories in the newspapers.
They are the same year after year: a group of youngsters, having just
graduated, have a big party, and they get drunk and they crash their
automobile that is going at a speed of 100 miles per hour into a tree.
The automobile wraps itself around the tree and there are the mangled,
bleeding, dead bodies in the twisted wreckage. And in the car is also
found some alcohol.
It is time this country awakens. It is time the churches of this
country awaken and tell our young people: Don't do it.
When I give a Christmas message, I do not say: Don't drink and drive.
I simply say: Don't drink. I am not expecting everybody to feel as I do
or to do as I do, but at least we ought to do what we can to educate
the young people of this country as to the evils, the dangers, and the
sorrows that will come from the use of alcohol--alcohol.
There are some young people right now listening to me on the
television somewhere who have heard me pass along the advice of the
condemned man, Jim Hewlett: ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I
drank.'' I hope those young people will listen. I hope they will take
it to heart and not drink alcohol.
This amendment is a commonsense amendment--a commonsense amendment--
to address the staggering statistics regarding youth alcohol use. We
need to send a strong message to the nation's youth that drinking has
serious consequences, and all too often they are deadly consequences.
I thank Mr. Lautenberg for his statesmanship, for his courage, and
for his common sense. I appreciate very much his allowing me to
cosponsor this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on our time, I thank the Senator from
West Virginia. He shows an interest in this subject that calls up our
knowledge of experience with alcohol that none of us should ever have--
the loss of a family member.
When you see the devastation of alcohol, you do not understand why it
is a different class addiction than that which is drugs. It is easier
to get into. It is less stigmatic. People do not say: Oh, look, he's an
alcoholic.
[[Page S8000]]
A friend of mine has a granddaughter, 14 years old--14 years old--who
started sniffing glue, drank alcohol. Now it is drugs. She is in an
institution. It is the most heartbreaking thing one can imagine.
Mr. President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 34 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I will use time allocated by Senator Campbell.
Mr. President, it is a rare occasion when I rise to oppose an
amendment on alcohol offered by my colleague from New Jersey. I just
heard the moving comments by the Senator from West Virginia. On almost
every other occasion on the Senate floor, I have supported their
initiatives. The .08 national standard on drunk driving, I have
supported it. You name it, I have supported it.
My mother was killed by a drunk driver. I have been in an accident
caused by a drunk driver in which the car I was driving was totaled.
Senator Byrd described graduation parties. My cousin's son Jesse was
at a graduation party one night--the night before he was to graduate
from high school--a wonderful young boy, great golfer, slight of build,
a handsome young man--and at midnight got in the wrong car, a car
driven by a young man who had had too much to drink. They drove across
a railroad track and were hit by a train, and that young boy lost his
life.
I know about the scourges of alcohol. I know about drunk driving. I
know about the disease of alcoholism. I also know about the issue of
illegal drugs in this country and want to tell a story about that, if I
might.
I visited Oak Hill Detention Center recently, within the last matter
of weeks. Oak Hill Detention Center is not too far from this building.
It is a half-hour drive. It houses some of the toughest young criminals
who have committed crimes on the streets of the District of Columbia.
These are kids, in many cases tough, hardened criminals but still kids.
I met a young man who at age 12 was dealing drugs and was addicted to
hard drugs on the streets of the District of Columbia. He was shot a
number of times, picked up, and convicted of armed robbery. At age 12,
he was selling and addicted to hard drugs.
Across the table from him sat another young man who, at age 12, was
also dealing drugs and convicted of armed robbery. Across the table was
a young girl who, at age 13, was on hard drugs and selling drugs and
had a baby--all in the first year of her teenage life.
The security fellow in one of the areas of the Oak Hill Detention
Center said to me--and I could tell he liked these kids; he cared about
these kids; he knew them, knew them well--said: You know, these are
tough kids. These are kids who have done wrong, in most cases have had
a tough life, but they are still kids. He said: What I regret most
about this job is going to their funerals. There are too many funerals.
After they serve their time at the Oak Hill Detention Center and they
are back on the streets--too often relapsing back on hard drugs--I go
to their funerals.
The common element to the discussions I had at that Oak Hill Youth
Detention Center was hard drugs--addicted to drugs at a very young age
and then followed a life of crime, and in most cases violent crime as
well.
This country has a problem with drugs. One approach to addressing
this problem was recommended by the administration and some in Congress
to say: We know that television has an influence on people's lives.
Television advertising, hundreds of billions of dollars of television
advertising has an influence on what people buy, what they wear, how
they look, and what they sing. If it has that kind of influence, can we
use television in a way that can influence people with respect to drugs
and how they view drugs?
So the proposal was to put together a $1 billion program over 5 years
to do intensive drug education television advertising. I support that.
This year, this subcommittee cut the funding for that by $50 million.
In other words, there will be $50 million less than was requested for
it and $50 million less than was spent last year on this program.
This program ought to be allowed to work so we can determine with
what effectiveness we can change people's vision and view about drugs,
especially young people. We are in the third year. We need to allow
this to work.
Cutting this program by $50 million was the last thing we wanted to
do, but the budget allocations would not allow us to fully fund it.
Now we are told by our colleagues, we want to add other things to it.
I will support in an instant a proposal brought to the floor of the
Senate that says let us do something of exactly the same scale on
alcohol. I will support that in an instant. A $1 billion program over 5
years to educate young people about alcohol, we ought to do that. But I
don't think, having cut this program by $50 million this year--
understanding that when you talk to young people anyplace in this
country who have been involved in violent crime, you will find out that
the origin of that and the genesis of much of that behavior comes from
addiction to drugs--now is the time to both cut this program by $50
million, which is what has happened in this subcommittee, and then also
add other responsibilities to that program.
I indicated that my family was visited by the horror of the phone
call late at night saying that my mother had been killed. Others in my
family have been victims of drunk driving accidents. I understand all
that. But the subject here is about drugs.
I have spoken on the floor about six times of a person I am going to
speak about just briefly again, Leo Gonzales Wright. A young attorney
with, I am sure, great hope and stars in her eyes moves to Washington,
DC, to practice environmental law. In her early twenties, her name was
Bettina Pruckmayr. Bettina Pruckmayr ended her life in this town with
the kind of horror that is not visited upon many. She stopped at an ATM
machine, was abducted by a man named Leo Gonzales Wright, and stabbed
over 30 times by this violent felon.
Who was Leo Gonzales Wright? A man addicted to drugs, a man high on
drugs, a man who had been convicted of murder before, let out of prison
on patrol, tested positive for drugs but not put back in prison.
What do drugs mean? What do drugs do? It means that people on our
streets, who are addicted to drugs and are willing to commit violent
acts, murder innocent people like young Bettina Pruckmayr.
The origin of this is the problem of drugs. It is a very significant
problem. The attempt was to decide whether we could alter behavior,
educate young children with $1 billion in a 5-year program of
advertising dealing with drugs. I happen to think that makes sense. We
have tried a lot of different things. It makes sense to try this.
Does it make sense to do a lot more on alcohol? Absolutely. I am
willing to support that and do that. I don't think, however, it ought
to be used to dilute this effort. This effort is an effort that is in
its third year. We have already had to dilute it by reducing funding
$50 million.
I say to my colleague, with whom I voted on every occasion on this
issue, let us find another way to fund this program and I will be with
you. I understand the scourge of alcohol and alcohol addiction, the
carnage it causes on American roads, and the devastation it causes to
American families. I also think those who spoke about that with such
gripping emotion today probably could tell us stories that they
understand the carnage caused by drug addiction in this country to hard
drugs and the number of families whose hearts ache tonight because
their loved one was killed by someone high on drugs, addicted to drugs
for a number of years in a circumstance where perhaps, had we done
things differently, had we done things better, had we had more
influence on those lives, we might have avoided having that person
addicted to drugs and, therefore, committed to a life of crime.
That is what this effort is about. It is what General McCaffrey and
the Office of Drug Control Policy, it is what we are trying to do in a
5-year period. I think we ought to continue to do that.
One final point: One of my regrets, standing as I am today, is a
woman
[[Page S8001]]
named Karolyn Nunnallee, whom I consider a good friend. She is the
national president of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She and her
organization very strongly support the Lautenberg amendment. I almost
never have disagreed with Mothers Against Drug Driving. I think they
have done more in this country than most any other organization I know
to influence and alter behavior dealing with the issue of drunk
driving. I regret very much not supporting them on this issue.
For reasons I have already stated, I think we ought to stay the
course on this question of drug addiction and education dealing with
drug addiction among America's youth. At the same time, I want to join
in and support in any way possible the efforts of Senator Lautenberg
and Senator Byrd and others to add money to transportation bills on
drunk driving issues, to add money to health bills on drunk driving. I
will support a billion-dollar program in 5 years. Sign me up. But don't
dilute this program. Let us let this program work to see, at the end of
5 years, whether we have altered the behavior and substantially changed
the determination by some young people in this country to understand
more about drugs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 30 minutes, 25
seconds; the Senator from New Jersey has 15 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky and 10
minutes to Senator McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenburg
amendment.
We all want to do what we can to fight underage drinking. At first
glance this amendment might look like a good idea. Putting the office
of national drug control policy and the drug czar on the case sounds
like we are really taking action in the fight against underage
drinking.
I believe that this amendment would actually hurt both the fight
against underage drinking as well as our Nation's struggle with illegal
drugs.
First of all, we're not even sure if the drug czar, General
McCaffrey, really wants this amendment. We are hearing rumblings that
the administration is against it, but no one seems to know for sure.
Until we know, it doesn't make sense to pass the amendment.
If General McCaffrey, the man the President has asked to lead the
charge in our anti-drug efforts, isn't sure about it, I think we need
to be very careful.
In addition, we know that the bipartisan coalition for a drug-free
America--headed up by Bill Bennett and Mario Cuomo--the group that
coordinates efforts with the drug czar and produces most of the
Government's antidrug ads, does not support this amendment.
Bill Bennett and Mario Cuomo don't agree on much, and when they do we
should take notice and listen.
Second, passing the amendment and adding underage drinking to the
problems the drug czar has to tackle will just distract him from his
principal focus--as Senator Dorgan said--the war on illegal drugs.
As Senator Dorgan, the ranking member on the subcommittee, pointed
out last night, the drug czar's resources are already stretched to the
limit.
Adding underage drinking to the drug czar's portfolio would only
stretch his resources even further, and force him to take on another
tough fight. I don't think that's what we want.
In fact, we know the Federal Government is already spending hundreds
of millions of dollars through the various agencies to fight underage
drinking, and the evidence shows we are making progress.
Over the past 10 years, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Administration reports that excessive drinking by underage kids has
dropped significantly.
The Centers for Disease Control agrees. They report that underage
drinking has dropped by more than 50 percent over the past two decades.
A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse on drinking among high
school students reports similar progress.
Unfortunately, the evidence from the war on drugs is not as good.
Over the past 5 years, the Department of Health and Human Services
reports that illegal drug use has increased for high school kids.
We are turning the tide against underage drinking. What now is the
compelling reason to involve the drug czar's office? He already has his
hands full with the war on illegal drugs.
As I said earlier, it's an idea that sounds good at first, but I
don't think anyone has laid out a compelling justification for it.
Mr. President, I applaud Senator Lautenberg for his fight against
underage drinking. It is a fight, as is the war on illegal drugs, that
we have to win. But I think he has taken the wrong approach on this
amendment. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Let's keep
fighting underage drinking with the tools we now have in place. They
are working. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Lautenberg
amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, others have said it probably better
than I can, but what is really at stake is whether we are going to
dramatically diminish, if not gut, the war on drugs.
The junior Senator from Kentucky has outlined the progress made on
the teenage drinking front in the last 20 years, and it is, indeed,
significant. No one argues with any of the observations that have been
made by Senator Byrd and Senator Lautenberg, and others, about the
devastating nature of the problem of teenage drinking, although it is
encouraging that progress is being made.
The industry itself advertises against underage drinking extensively.
The alcohol industry has spent $100 million over the last 8 years, and
the beer industry has spent $250 million over the last 10 years, for a
total of $350 million, in their own financed effort to get at the
problem of teenage drinking, which is a horrendous problem. But as
Senator Bunning has pointed out, it is a problem upon which we have
made significant progress.
What is before us today with the Lautenberg amendment is whether we
are going to gut the war on drugs. Regretfully, since President Clinton
came to office, teenage drug use in this country has gone up 46
percent. We are going backwards in the war on drugs. While it may be an
unintended consequence of what Senator Lautenberg is seeking to achieve
today, the practical effect of this amendment is to gut the advertising
campaign designed to go after teenage drug use, as Senator Dorgan has
pointed out.
Let's have no misunderstandings; nobody is in favor of teenage
drinking. Nobody thinks that we should not do more about this problem.
However, the issue before us is: Are we going to gut the advertising
effort in the war on drugs?
The National Youth Antidrug Media campaign is underway. This
amendment, according to drug czar Barry McCaffrey, would undermine
that. The Partnership for a Drug Free America, which is the nonprofit
group that works with General McCaffrey to run this antidrug campaign,
opposes this amendment.
General McCaffrey said just 3 weeks ago that proposals such as this
amendment ``could dilute the focus of the successful media campaign
advertising effort to change attitudes of youth and parents toward
illegal drug use.'' He also said, ``An anti-underage drinking message
to youth is largely a separate and distinct message from the anti-drug
message, requiring a significantly different strategic approach based
on scientific and behavioral knowledge.''
So what we are doing is mixing up apples and oranges. A campaign,
designed, properly researched, and underway, to deal with youth drug
abuse would be diverted in an entirely different direction by the
Lautenberg amendment.
Others have referred to the letters from Mario Cuomo, Bill Bennett,
and Jim Burke, the cochairs of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
They
[[Page S8002]]
oppose the Lautenberg amendment. Obviously, it is not because they are
in favor of teenage drinking, but they don't want to gut the effort to
have an effective antidrug campaign among America's young people.
Chairman Burke, of the Partnership for a Drug-free America, said:
``We don't believe . . . an effective campaign targeting underage
drinking can be carved out of the current appropriation for the
National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign.
He went on:
I can tell you that forcing the campaign to address
underage drinking (something it was not originally designed
to do) will seriously jeopardize the success of this effort.
He is referring to their effort to deal with teenage drug use, which,
remember, is going up while teenage drinking is going down.
Cochairman Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York, said this
amendment ``threatens the success of one media campaign by creating
another that simply cannot and will not work given the current
limitations.''
Governor Cuomo also said that ``this type of program will require
hundreds of millions more dollars--if not billions--to be effective.''
Governor Cuomo's cochairman, Bill Bennett, said:
Advocates are wrong to suggest that this enormous problem
of teenage drinking can be addressed effectively within the
current appropriation for the antidrug campaign. We read this
amendment as the beginning of the end of the antidrug
campaign.
Mr. President, we don't need to end the antidrug campaign. Drug use
is going up; drug use among high school seniors has gone up 46 percent
since 1992. It needs to be addressed. That is what this appropriation
is for. Certainly, a program to address underage drinking, which all
three of the men I have just quoted would tell us, would have to be of
a tremendous size. That is an activity Congress would need to analyze
carefully before embarking on.
I know that there are probably many Senators who are thinking that if
they oppose the Lautenberg amendment, it is going to be very difficult
to explain in a campaign contest. Let me say this. What would be even
more difficult to explain, it seems to me, is a vote that would gut the
effort to combat drug use in this country--teenage drug use in
particular--which is on the increase. That is what this appropriation
is designed to try to impact.
So if we are going to address teenage drinking, let's not do it at
the expense of the war on drugs. The war on drugs has not been very
effectively fought in the last few years. I am not here to cast any
particular aspersions against anybody for that, but it is a cold, hard
reality that teenage drug use has gone up 46 percent since 1992 in this
country. It was previously tracking down. We need to get back on track
and address this youth drug use. That is what the original
appropriation was designed to do.
I hope we will resist the temptation to gut the war on drugs so that
we can pursue it effectively. As evidence, we have the testimony of Jim
Burke, Mario Cuomo, and Bill Bennett.
I ask that the record include copies of a letter from Bill Bennett of
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, opposing the Lautenberg
amendment; a letter from Mario Cuomo of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, opposing the Lautenberg amendment; and a statement of Richard
D. Bonnette, President and CEO of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, opposing the amendment, along with a press release from the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
I ask unanimous consent that those be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Partnership for a
Drug-Free America,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: An amendment has been introduced in
the House of Representatives that threatens the success of
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, currently being
coordinated by the Office of National Drug-Control Policy and
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. This amendment, now
part of the Treasury & General Government Appropriations
Bill, mandates the inclusion of alcohol-related messages in
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. As former
Director of ONCDP in the Bush administration and as co-
chairman of the Partnership, I write to urge you to oppose
any similar provision that may be offered in your
Appropriations Committee markup of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Bill.
Representative Royal-Allard and Representative Wolf, who
introduced this amendment in the House are correct in their
convictions about underage drinking. But advocates are wrong
to suggest that this enormous problem can be addressed
effectively within the current appropriation for the anti-
drug campaign. Advocates of the amendment say it is simply
designed to give Gen. McCaffrey statutory jurisdiction to
address alcohol within the context of this campaign. We read
this amendment as the beginning of the end of the anti-drug
campaign.
If you wish to combat underage drinking, I urge you to
support the development of a mass media campaign specifically
targeting this issue through a separate appropriation. The
marketing experts who comprise the Partnership believe it
will take hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct a
campaign designed to dissuade teenagers from drinking. The
Partnership offers its assistance in this pursuit. But many
things need to fall into place first--research, market-
testing, and hundreds of millions in funding to do this
correctly.
Should a version of the Roybal-Allard/Wolf amendment
surface in the Senate, please help us keep the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign on track and focused. Please oppose
any effort to require this campaign to do more than it was
originally designed to do. As you may know, the Partnership
receives no part of the federal money dedicated to the anti-
drug campaign. The Partnership donates all its advertising to
this federally-backed effort for free.
Sincerely,
William J. Bennett.
____
Partnership for a
Drug-Free America,
New York, NY, June 23, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: An amendment has been introduced in
the House of Representatives that threatens the success of
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, currently being
coordinated by the Office of National Drug-Control Policy and
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. This amendment, now
part of the Treasury & General Government Appropriations
Bill, mandates the inclusion of alcohol-related messages in
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
If Congress wishes to support developing a national
advertising campaign targeting underage drinking, we stand
ready to support you be offering the assistance of our entire
organization. We do not believe, however, an effective
campaign targeting underage drinking can be carved out of the
current appropriation for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
As the former chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson and
someone who has spent his entire career in marketing, I can
tell you that forcing the campaign to address underage
drinking (something that it was not originally designed to
do) will seriously jeopardize the success of this effort. To
undertake such an effort, extensive consumer-based research
would be needed to determine effective advertising
strategies. No such research exists. Additionally, to really
change attitudes about alcohol, this type of effort would
have to compete head-to-head with the billions spent to
market alcohol products and, therefore, require significantly
more funding.
Shaving money out of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign will not accomplish this. We do not question the
rightness of addressing underage drinking. Our concerns focus
on what we can and cannot accomplish with the current
appropriation. We question the wisdom of seriously risking--
and perhaps killing--the effectiveness of one media campaign
to create another that simply cannot and will not work, given
current limitations. Should a similar amendment be proposed
in the Senate, I respectfully ask you to keep the anti-drug
campaign focused on what it was designed to target: illegal,
illicit drugs.
Sincerely,
James E. Burke.
____
Partnership for a
Drug-Free America,
New York, NY, June 23, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: As you may know, the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America--a non-profit coalition of
professionals from the communications industry--has for the
past 12 years demonstrated a remarkable expertise in the
production of anti-drug advertising and the execution of a
national anti-drug media campaign. The Partnership is
currently donating all of its advertising to the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, being coordinated by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Partnership also
provides ongoing strategic advice to the campaign, and
receives no federal funds as part of this program.
The House Appropriations Committee will soon mark up its
Treasury & General Government Appropriations Bill. An
amendment has been added to this bill authorizing the
inclusion of alcohol-related messages in the anti-drug
campaign. As the Partnership has
[[Page S8003]]
demonstrated, advertising can be used to address teenage drug
use. Backed by the proper research, advertising could also be
used to address underage drinking. But please understand
this: We cannot target both effectively within the current
appropriation.
The alcohol industry spends billions each year on marketing
and promotion. As it stands, $185 million is authorized to
fund the anti-drug campaign. Of this less than $150 million
is actually being spent on the purchase of media exposure for
the campaign. If the Congress is interested in developing an
effective campaign to address underage drinking, the
Partnership stands ready to work with any and all concerned
organizations and government agencies to see it through. But
please understand that this type of program will require
hundreds of millions more dollars--if not billions--to be
effective.
Unless the House plans to increase funding significantly
for the anti-drug campaign, the Partnership has urged members
to vote to strip the Roybal-Allard/Wolf Amendment from the
anti-drug media campaign appropriation. The amendment
threatens the success of one media campaign by creating
another that simply cannot and will not work, given current
limitations. A fact sheet on the Partnership and our position
on this amendment are attached for your convenience. If any
similar provision is offered in your Appropriations Committee
markup of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Bill, I encourage you keep the anti-drug campaign focused by
opposing any such measure, unless significantly more funds
are appropriated.
Sincerely yours,
Mario M. Cuomo.
____
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
co-chairman
Mr. James E. Burke, Chairman Emeritus, Johnson & Johnson,
Chairman, Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 405 Lexington
Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10174, 212/973-3514, 212/
697-1031 (Fax).
Governor Mario M. Cuomo, Former Governor, New York,
Partner, Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, 787 Seventh Avenue, New
York, NY 10019-6099, 212/728-8260, 212/728-8111 (Fax).
Dr. William J. Bennett, Former Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy (Bush administration), Former Secretary
of Education, US Department of Education (Reagan
administration), Co-Director, Empower America, 1776 I Street,
N.W., Suite 890, Washington, DC 20036, 202/452-8200, 202/833-
0556 (fax).
____
Statement of Richard D. Bonnette, President & CEO, Partnership for a
Drug-Free America on the Roybal-Allard/Wolf Amendment
New York, June 7th--We whole-heartedly support the concept
of developing a national advertising campaign targeting
underage drinking. Alcohol abuse is a huge problem in
America, and plays an undeniable role in substance abuse
among children and teenagers. As the Partnership has
demonstrated, advertising can be used to address teenage drug
use. Backed by the proper research, advertising could also be
used to address underage drinking. But it is simply not
possible to target both effectively within the current
appropriation for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
I base this perspective on more than 30 years in the
advertising business, and 10 years of experience with the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The Partnership is a
coalition of communications professionals from advertising,
marketing, public relations and related disciplines. This
judgment does not question the relevance of targeting
underage drinking. It questions the wisdom of seriously
risking--and perhaps killing--the effectiveness of one media
campaign to create another that simply cannot and will not
work, given current limitations.
Our overriding concern about the Roybal-Allard/Wolf
amendment is that it will reduce the overall media exposure
for the anti-drug campaign. The alcohol industry spends at
least $1 billion each year on marketing and promotion; the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is funded at $195
million. Of this, less than $150 million is backing the
advertising campaign. Clearly, an alcohol-abuse advertising
campaign would require significantly more money to compete
with the marketing muscle of the alcohol industry. From a
sheer marketing perspective, the chances of such a campaign
having an impact within the context of the current
appropriation are very, very slim.
The Partnership stands ready to support the development of
a national advertising campaign on underage drinking. We have
more than a decade's worth of experience in running a
consumer-focused media campaign designed to change attitudes
on drugs. We will help any and all groups interested in this
type of campaign in every way we can. This type of campaign,
however, must be done correctly.
The first step of any solid marketing effort is thorough
research. We have 11 years of experience in the marketplace
and 12 years of research on consumer attitudes about illegal
drugs. While one could assume this model could work for
alcohol abuse, extensive consumer-focused research would be
needed to guide the development and execution of such a
program. Currently, this type of research does not exist. The
development and literature review backing the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign took more than 18 months. To insert
an amendment requiring alcohol abuse be addressed, without
the same thorough approach taken in the development of the
anti-drug media campaign, ignores the fundamental need for
research.
Children and teenagers have different attitudes about
different drugs--marijuana, cocaine, inhalants,
methamphetamine, heroin and other illegal drugs. Kids of
different ages, races and genders view these drugs
differently. Attitudes about certain drugs also vary by
region in the country. We have no similar consumer insights
into what kids think about alcohol--beer, liquor, malt
liquor, etc.--and how these attitudes may differ by alcohol
brand, by age of kids, race, etc.
Marketing to reduce alcohol abuse would be more difficult
than marketing against illegal drugs. Alcohol, unlike illicit
drugs, is legal. While not impossible to accomplish, changing
attitudes about alcohol would be very challenging, given its
widespread cultural acceptance and use (responsible and
otherwise) of alcohol products. Alcohol use is widely
glamorized in movies, television and music. Alcohol use is
deeply ingrained in our culture--ritualized and commonplace.
We respect the opinions and passion of our colleagues
working to reduce alcohol abuse. We do not have any ties with
the beer and/or alcohol trade organizations opposing this
amendment; we do not accept funding from the alcohol and/or
tobacco industries. We are concerned about this amendment
solely because it could significantly diminish the impact of
the anti-drug campaign.
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is being
coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy in
cooperation with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America
(PDFA). PDFA provides advertising to the campaign pro bono
and receives no federal funding for its role in this effort.
The amendment seeks inclusion of anti-alcohol ads in this
campaign, which is using federal funds to purchase media
exposure for anti-drug advertising.
fact sheet
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is a non-profit
coalition of professionals from the communications industry,
whose mission is to reduce demand for illegal drugs in
America. Through its national anti-drug advertising campaign
and other forms of media communication, the Partnership works
to decrease demand for drugs by changing societal attitudes
which support, tolerate, or condone drug use.
The Partnership is comprised of a small staff and hundreds
of volunteers from the communications industry, who create
and disseminate the Partnership's work. Advertising agencies
create Partnership messages pro bono; research firms donate
information services; talent unions permit their members to
work for free; production professionals bring Partnership
messages to life; a network of advertising professionals
distribute the group's work to national and local media;
public relations firms lend services to various Partnership
projects; and media companies donate valuable broadcast time
and print space to deliver Partnership messages to millions
of Americans.
To date, more than 500 anti-drug ads have been created by
our volunteers. From March 1987 through the end of 1998, the
total value of broadcast time and print space donated to
Partnership messages topped $3 billion, making this the
largest public service media campaign in history. The
Partnership receives major funding from The Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation and support from more than 200
corporations and companies. PDFA accepts no funding from
manufacturers of alcohol and/or tobacco products. The
organization began in 1986 with seed money provided by the
American Association of Advertising Agencies.
Research demonstrates that the Partnership's national
advertising campaign has played a contributing role in
reducing overall drug use in America. Independent studies and
expert interpretation of drug trends support its
effectiveness. The New York Times has described the
Partnership as ``one of the most effective drug education
groups in the U.S.''
Drastic changes in the media industry over the past decade
have led to an overall decline in media exposure of public
service advertising. This is one factor contributing to the
Partnership's decision to participate in the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, coordinated by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy in cooperation with PDFA.
Through the leadership of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and
the commitment of numerous, outstanding members of Congress,
a total of $380 million has been appropriated by Congress for
this effort to date ($195 million in FY '98, $185 million in
FY '99). The bulk of this money is being used to pay for the
one thing that has eluded our campaign in recent years--
consistent, optimal, national media exposure. PDFA receives
no funding for its role in this campaign. The organization
donates all advertising to the effort pro bono and serves as
a primary strategic consultant (unpaid.)
In addition to its work on a national level, the
Partnership has helped create 54 state- and city-based
versions of its national advertising campaign through its
State/City Alliance Program. Working with state/city
governments and locally-based drug prevention organizations,
the Partnership provides at no cost--the guidance, on-site
technical assistance and creative materials necessary to
shape a multimedia campaign tailored to the
[[Page S8004]]
needs and activities within the state or city. Several
additional alliances are targeted for launch, which will
expand the program's reach to 98 percent of the U.S.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of National
Drug Control Policy,
Washington, DC.
Assessment of the Potential Inclusion of Anti-Underage-Drinking
Advertising in the ONDCP Campaign
An anti-underage drinking message to youth is largely a
separate and distinct message from the anti-drug message,
requiring a significantly different strategic approach based
on scientific and behavioral knowledge. If we were to be
asked to communicate an additional anti-underage-drinking
message platform with the current media budget, we would fall
below effective reach and frequency levels for all message
platforms, thus risking the success of the entire campaign.
An anti-underage drinking message to youth would also
require separate production, and this would incur a
considerable investment ($3-$4 million).
An anti-underage drinking message to adults might more
easily be incorporated in a strategic message focusing on
encouraging good parenting, and the important role of youth
influencers, in shapping positive behavior among youth.
Ideally, of course, a separate effort targeting adults would
be more effective.
While incremental advertising funds would absolutely be
required to successfully mount an anti-underage drinking
campaign, it would not be necessary to double the overall
ONDCP advertising budget if the adult efforts are combined.
Since the youth campaign represents about half of the
campaign, the ideal incremental budget would be approximately
$100 million. This would include some funds for such needed
expenditures as additional production, new behavior change
expertise, and limited copy testing, tracking and evaluation.
We would seek every possible efficiency between the anti-drug
and anti-underage-drinking campaigns from a creative and
media perspective (e.g., limiting the target to older teens).
If incremental funds are unavailable at this time, please
be aware that the current campaign already includes a
substantial percentage of anti-underage-drinking messages
(e.g., MADD, DOT, OSAP, etc.). This proportion could be
augmented, though this would obviously diminish other PSA
efforts. The ``match'' airtime devoted to this advertising is
every bit as good as that secured for the paid anti-drug
units.
issue paper
Inclusion of alcohol in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign
Using appropriated funds to include an alcohol or tobacco
component in the paid portion of the ONDCP National Youth
Anti-drug Media Campaign, within existing budgets, would
significantly dilute the campaign's emphasis on illicit
drugs, the primary intent of Congress and the Clinton
Administration in establishing this program.
The Media Campaign already addresses alcohol in several key
areas.
When ONDCP purchases time on network or local television
and/or radio stations, a condition of the media buy is a
dollar-for-dollar contribution to ONDCP from the media outlet
in the form of public service. Most comes in the form of
donated public service slots in similar time periods, which
ONDCP shares with other organizations that have drug-related
messages (PSAs). The Media campaign is already using
underage-drinking and drunk driving public service
announcements in its pro bono component. From July 1998
through January 1999 (the period for which data is
available), about 15% of the television public service time
given to the Media Campaign has been shared with four
organizations involved with underage drinking and drunk
driving (They are: National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Recording
Artists, Athletes and Actors Against Drunk Driving, and the
Dept. of Transportation). These 20 PSAs were electronically
coded and reports are generated to identify and track when
and where each massage is played. Computerized tracking
reports indicate these massages have played over 7,000 times
on local and network television, which is conservatively
valued at $8,000,000 in media time. ONDCP does not count any
time donated in the middle of the night (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.)
All of these PSAs were aired during appropriate time slots.
In addition, the Partnership for a Drug Free America has 53
State and local alliances 15 of which support programs that
include alcohol messages as public service announcements.
These messages include under-aged drinking, binge drinking,
prenatal alcohol use, parental modeling, and other subjects
that appear on television, radio, on billboards, on posters,
and in print PDFA estimates that the total value of media
time donated for these messages is approximately $7,000,000.
ONDCP's media match also comes in the form of television
programming. At least four national network television
programs have focused on youth-alcohol related issues. For
example, on May 16, the entire episode of WB's Smart Guy will
concentrate on underage drinking. ONDCP's behavioral change
experts have worked closely with the writers and producers of
this program to ensure key message strategies were
incorporated.
Much of the campaign's communications strategy to reach
parents regarding youth drug are appropriate to reaching
parents regarding underage drinking (knowing where your
children are, who their friends are, establishing rules and
values, etc.).
Substantial and costly changes in the communications
strategy would be required. The existing campaign strategy
was developed over an eight-month period in an expert driven
process. The strategy emphasizes specific message platforms,
techniques, and activities to address illicit drugs. Adding
alcohol to the strategy would mean a substantial departure
from current strategy, and would require additional time and
research for development. For example, ads would need to be
developed to address laws on underage drinking, issues of
access to alcohol (point of sale), etc. This would dilute and
delay the overall impact of the anti-drug ads by reducing
their reach and frequency. Professional advertising and
research staff have already alerted ONDCP that we may have
too many strategic messages for the level of funds available.
The addition of alcohol ads would further complicate efforts
and delay the campaign from reaching its planned potential
and strength.
Development of alcohol messages would place new,
unanticipated requirements on our existing partners, require
substantial time for production (behavioral briefs, focus
groups and testing) and create additional expense. The
Campaign was developed based on the Congressional expectation
that all the messages used would be produced on a pro bono
basis, primarily through the Partnership for a Drug Free
America, whose agencies provide their creative work free of
charge. PDFA does not produce national messages on alcohol
use/abuse; thus, we would required to pay for development
costs through an advertising agency (and no funding
allocation exists for this). The costs and contractual effort
required to undertake this would be substantial. Further it
would undermine a principle upon which the campaign was
based--the pro bono development of advertising messages.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of National
Drug Control Policy,
Washington, DC, June 7, 1999.
McCaffrey Says Inclusion of Unresearched and Under Funded Alcohol Ads
in Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Would Be Ill-Advised
Washington, DC.--White House National Policy Director Barry
McCaffrey today said that proposals to include alcohol
prevention in the paid portion of the ongoing National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign ``could dilute the focus of the
successful media campaign advertising effort to change
attitudes of youth and parents toward illegal drug abuse.''
McCaffrey stated, ``We share a concern about the terribly
serious problem of underage alcohol use. We do not disagree
with the desirability of a media campaign targeted against
underage drinking. However, it would be a serious mistake to
simply add alcohol messages to the ONDCP paid media campaign
without significantly increasing the funding level.
Behavioral scientists and youth and advertising experts
advise us that our campaign will only be effective if we
purchase a sufficient level of media exposure for each of our
messages. The addition of paid alcohol ads--without new
funds, staff and research--would only hamper the
effectiveness of our campaign.
A commercial advertiser would not add a new product line to
an advertising plan without increasing the advertising
budget. We cannot simply add new alcohol messages without
seriously endangering the effectiveness of the anti-drug
youth campaign. There are several challenges that would make
an anti-alcohol campaign an expensive proposition. Although
at the initiation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign there was a stockpile of illicit drug ads, there are
very few ads currently available on underage drinking. We
would need to develop and produce expensive new ads.
Additionally, since alcohol is legal for adults, an effective
anti-alcohol campaign would need an entirely different
strategy than our existing media campaign, which has as its
focus illegal substances.
When ONDCP purchases time on national or local media, we
negotiate to achieve a dollar-for-dollar matching
contribution. Most of this contribution comes in the form of
donated public service announcement slots in similar time
periods. ONDCP then passes these PSA opportunities to
organizations that have anti-drug messages. From July 1998
through January 1999, roughly 15% of television public
service time given to the ONDCP Media Campaign was shared
with four organizations confronting underage drinking and
drunk driving (National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Recording Artists,
Athletes and Actors Against Drunk Driving, and the Department
of Transportation). These messages have played over 7000
times on local and network television, which is
conservatively valued at $8 million. In this concrete way, we
have already generated the largest youth anti-alcohol media
campaign in history. ONDCP has also used the match part of
the campaign to urge networks to include anti-alcohol
messages in entertainment programming. For example, the
entire episode of WB's Smart Guy that
[[Page S8005]]
aired on May 16 concentrated on underage drinking.''
We are now entering the second year of an increasingly
successful youth anti-drug media campaign. Alcohol and
tobacco use are clearly a major threat to the health and
safety of our children. However, now is not the time to lose
focus on the start of a massive, well designed and successful
effort to reverse the disastrous increase in illegal drug use
by Amedican adolescents.''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let us get on about the business of
fighting teenage drug abuse. I urge my colleagues to support the motion
to table.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my colleague from Ohio is going to
speak. I will give him 4 minutes to make his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Lautenberg amendment.
This is a commonsense amendment.
What are the essential facts? The essential facts are that underage
drinking is a huge problem in this country. If you are worried about
your child dying, this is a good place to start.
Statistics are absolutely unbelievable. The life expectancy of those
between the age of 16 and 24 or 25 is not good. One of the main reasons
it is not good is underage drinking. Most of the fatalities are
connected with underage drinking.
Let me also state some other essential facts.
Advertising works. We all know it works. We know it works on
campaigns. Where does the majority of the money that we raise for our
campaigns go? It goes to advertising. Advertising is how we communicate
with people. We know it works.
If we are serious about dealing with this problem, then we need to
spend the money and we need to do the advertising.
One of the statistics that has been cited on this floor is very
telling. It goes back to my question. If you are serious about this
problem, if you are serious about protecting your kids, what do you do?
Here is one statistic. One study indicates that underage abuse of
alcohol certainly has serious consequences. According to the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation, underage drinking killed an
estimated 6,350 young people between the age of 12 to 20. That was for
the year 1994. All other illicit drugs killed 980 youth.
If these statistics are true--based on my experience as county
prosecutor and someone who has been involved in this issue for many
years, I think it is true--alcohol kills six times as many children
than all other illicit drugs combined.
This is a very modest proposal because it does not compel the drug
czar to spend money. What it simply says is that the drug czar spend
some of the money that they have that has been set aside for
advertising. They can, in fact, spend it on this horrendous problem.
All you have to do to see this problem is to go to the hospital and
talk to an emergency room physician. Ask an emergency room physician
how often alcohol is related to what they see. They will tell you that
on any Friday night, or any Saturday night, it dominates the
emergencies; that the vast majority of the emergencies they see,
particularly the serious ones, are alcohol related.
This is a leading killer of our young people. To say that we are not
going to use this money that is available for advertising, which we
know is effective, for this horrendous problem, frankly, makes
absolutely no sense.
I appeal to my colleagues. While reasonable minds can differ--and I
think my colleagues on the other side of this issue have made some very
interesting and some good arguments--I believe that the statistics
clearly indicate that alcohol is the drug of choice among young people.
For those who are underage, alcohol is the drug of choice. It is the
most serious drug in this country, and it is also a gateway drug, which
simply means it is the drug that most young people start with, and then
they ``advance'' to other drugs.
To be able to mount a successful and a good advertising campaign--to
take the words from the amendment, the message of ``discouraging
underage alcohol consumption,'' that is what this amendment would
allow.
I urge my colleagues to allow this permissive use of the money. I
believe it will save lives. I believe it is the right thing to do.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 11 minutes 1
second. The Senator from Colorado has 15 minutes 39 seconds.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I think we have no further speakers on
the issue on our side. We are prepared to yield back the time, unless
someone shows up in the next minute or two.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think that we can move to conclude
this debate. I will take just a couple of minutes. Unless there are
further Members who want to speak, I will then yield back the time.
This is one of those debates that I really do not enjoy because the
friends who are opposing this are not people who are against what we
want to do. They are not against eliminating underage drinking--not at
all. What we are arguing about is somewhat about process.
Frankly, though, we are on the same side of the issue. But I see them
as having an argument that I can't buy, and I don't think the American
people will buy. We are saying let's preserve as much of the $1 billion
that we have to fight drugs through the media campaign, plus all of the
other money spent on fighting drugs, even though we are not doing it
quite successfully.
But we ought to be looking more critically at how we deal with the
drug problem. We are building more jails. We are penalizing those in
institutions and jails, or in other facilities of incarceration, who
are not drug addicts. We are spending billions of dollars. And we don't
put alcoholics in jail. We don't punish them. We don't stigmatize them
the same way we do drug users.
But I point out that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12 to
20 than all other illegal drugs combined.
What does that say? Does that say that the children who die from
alcohol are worth less to us as a society than those who die from
illegal drugs? I don't think that is the message that we want to
convey.
There is a $1 billion anti-drug media campaign. That $1 billion, in
light of this surplus, could grow. But because the drug czar does not
even have the authority, he cannot issue messages about underage
drinking. There is something wrong with that. Why can't an ad that
shows a picture of a degenerated adult brain from drug use say that
also happens from alcohol?
In many cases, we see violence from alcohol that does not always
kill. But it enrages people and causes fights. Alcohol is the product
largely responsible for spousal abuse and internal family fights.
Alcohol does it every time.
We have 4 million alcoholics between the ages of 13 and 20--4
million. That is a lot of young people. Yet, we are not waging the same
war against alcohol as we are against drugs.
By the way, in the message that we heard from the distinguished
senior Senator from Kentucky, he mentioned outstanding citizens, Jim
Burke and Mario Cuomo, as people who are on the other side. But that
doesn't mean that they are right in this fight. I disagree with them
and have great respect for both of them. I know them personally.
The fact of the matter is, when we don't mention that alcohol is a
scourge, as are illegal drugs, then it is assumed to be by young people
something not so bad. We know it is terrible: Six times more fatal to
young people than all of the illegal drugs combined.
What keeps the message from getting out there? I don't know that
there is anybody lobbying for illegal drugs. But I know that there are
people lobbying to keep this anti-alcohol message away from children.
When I see the Budweiser lizards talking on television, it is a pretty
attractive picture. But it is not a lot different from Joe Camel
attracting kids to smoking. Young people laugh. They like those
commercials. I know it goes right from the television into young
people's minds.
Those commercials make people think, ``Beer is cool.'' But it is not
cool when it is a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old kid. As they say, a child
who starts drinking at age 13 has a 47-percent chance of becoming an
alcoholic. Those who wait
[[Page S8006]]
until age 21 have only a 10-percent chance.
Why don't we respond to this epidemic? We can talk about programs
that can make a difference, but we are not. But we are spending $1
billion on an anti-drug campaign. Yes, there has been a cutback, but I
see that being restored. If those funds grow, the drug czar can't add
alcohol to the campaign, because he doesn't have the authority. This
amendment gives him the authority. It doesn't tell him how to do it. It
says tell young people out there, you hurt your brain, you hurt your
family, you hurt your society, and you hurt yourself if you use
alcohol.
The law is age 21. I wrote that law against terrific opposition in
1984. It was a Republican President. President Reagan was President,
and Elizabeth Dole was the then-Secretary of Transportation. We worked
together to get it done because they saw alcohol as a scourge.
I hope we are not put off by the argument that you can't do two
things at the same time: ``No to drugs'' on one side of the screen;
``no to alcohol'' on the other side of the screen. I don't think that
hurts anybody, and it could help somebody. That is the issue.
I hate to disagree with some of my friends who have taken the other
side. I know they feel the problem deeply. I think they have chosen to
dismiss an opportunity that I think is the only one that exists for us.
We will not have an anti-alcohol program. Can you see trying to get
that through this place with all of the friends of the alcohol
industry? There is not a chance.
This is the time to do it. We ought to step up and vote the right
way. Give the drug czar an opportunity to say no to alcohol, as well as
to drugs.
I ask unanimous consent that a series of editorials be printed in the
Record, including one from the New York Times, as well as a list of
over 80 responsible organizations--many of them religious, a lot of
them social--who are on our side of the issue, as well as the Surgeon
General's letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, June 2, 1999]
The Anti-Drug Campaign's Missing Link
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton's director of
national drug policy, has declared flatly that under-age
drinking is the single biggest drug problem among
adolescents, and is intimately linked to the use of illegal
drugs. But as things stand now, the $195 million national
media campaign that General McCaffrey is running this year to
dissuade youngsters from using illicit drugs will not spend a
penny in Federal funds to warn teen-agers about the dangers
of drinking.
The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy
offers two reasons for not including alcohol in the anti-drug
campaign. the first is that it would dilute the basic
message, which is that kids should avoid illegal drugs. That
is strange reasoning, given the solid evidence showing that
teen-age drinking is often a gateway to illicit drug use.
Indeed, the first goal of the White House's national drug
strategy is to ``educate and enable America's youth to reject
illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco.'' It also notes
that adults who started drinking as children are nearly eight
times more likely to use cocaine than adults who did not do
so.
The second reason is that Mr. McCaffrey believes that the
statute granting his office authority to combat controlled
substances leaves him no room to target alcohol. That rigid
interpretation is open to question. In any case, the
statutory problem can be quickly remedied by legislations.
Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat of
California, and Frank Wolf, Republic of Virginia, have
introduced a measure that would explicitly give General
McCaffrey the authority to include under-age drinking among
the campaign's targets.
Ms. Allard and Mr. Wolf have lined up powerful support from
groups like the American Medical Association. The National
Beer Wholesalers' Association opposes the measure, as does
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, a nonprofit
coalition of advertising firms that has been working on the
campaign. The Partnership argues that an anti-alcohol message
would dilute the anti-drug message, but some of the
Partnership's members earn lucrative fees for promoting
alcohol products.
The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill,
deserves support. If warning about the dangers of excessive
drinking is not statutorily part of General McCaffrey's job,
it ought to be.
____
[From The Washington Post, June 18, 1999]
Beer Lobby at Work
If beer lobbyists have their way in Congress, an expensive
taxpayer-funded campaign against youth drug use--$1 billion
over five years for a prime-time advertising blitz--will go
through Congress without a penny to combat the No. 1 drug
choice among young people. In the eyes of the National Beer
Wholesalers Association--the group responsible for killing
legislation last year to toughen drunk-driving standards--
alcohol doesn't count when it comes to warning kids about
illegal drug use.
Karalyn Nunnallee, national president of Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, points out that alcohol kills six times more
young people in this country than all illicit drugs combined
``and is the primary gateway drug for other illicit drug
use.'' Yet the campaign conducted by Gen. Barry McCaffrey,
President Clinton's director of national drug policy, in
cooperation with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, has
excluded any references to alcohol. The partnership, a
nonprofit, non-federally funded, non-industry-supported
coalition of advertising firms, favors a separate campaign
against drinking by kids. It argues that anti-alcohol
messages would inevitably dilute the focus on ``culturally''
very different drugs.
Still, an anti-drug campaign that can't mention alcohol--or
binge drinking, a serious problem across America--is flawed.
Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard of California and Frank Wolf of
Virginia are sponsoring an amendment before the House
Appropriations Committee that would free Gen. McCaffrey of
this restriction. Their point is not to detract from anti-
drug messages but to add to their effectiveness by reflecting
reality. Taxpayer dollars ought not be spent by the hundreds
of millions to talk about drugs but to remain mute on the
danger of illegal alcohol use by kids.
____
[From the Chicago Tribune, June 4, 1999]
Say `No' to Underage Drinking, Too
States uniformly ban the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors because they are not considered mature enough to drink
responsibly and safely.
That bit of wisdom seems to have been lost on Congress,
which by sleight of hand banned the federal government from
mentioning alcohol in a $195 million anti-drug media blitz
aimed at kids.
A two-word phrase deep in the legislation establishing the
White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy--the so-
called ``drug czar''--limits its activities to ``controlled
substances.'' Liquor is not one, and so the federal
government can't spend a nickel to warn kids about alcohol's
potential dangers.
A bill introduced this month by U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-
Allard (D-Calif.) would correct that and allow the drug czar
to include alcohol warnings in anti-drug messages to
children. It's a sensible amendment, reflecting national
concerns about underage drinking, and it ought to be
approved.
Leading the crusade against the Roybal-Allard bill is the
National Beer Wholesalers' Association, whose tiresome
refrain is that liquor is a legal product and the federal
government has no business criticizing it in any forum.
Nonsense. Alcohol sales to minors are not legal, and the
dangers of alcohol abuse by adolescents are universally
recognized. ``It's the biggest drug abuse problem for
adolescents, and it's linked to the use of other, illegal
drugs,'' said drug czar Barry McCaffrey at a Feb. 8 news
conference.
Among other research, a 1998 University of Michigan study
reported that 74 percent of high school seniors had already
tried alcohol--about twice as many as had smoked marijuana--
and nearly a third admitted getting drunk during the previous
month.
Still, a spokesman for the drug czar's office argues that
adding ``. . . and alcohol'' to the federal ad campaign for
kids would muddle its anti-drug message.
That's an inane distinction. Alcohol, in the hands of
children or teens, is a dangerous drug they should be warned
about. It's sufficiently dangerous in fact, that if more
money is needed to broaden the federal media blitz, Congress
should provide it.
Honesty has to be the trademark of a campaign against
substance abuse, particularly one aimed at kids. Playing
phony games with the definition of ``dangerous substance''
undermines the credibility of the effort and also its
effectiveness.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1999]
Booze and Its Backers
Federal drug czar Barry R. McCaffrey has launched a $1-
billion media campaign to dissuade youngsters from substance
abuse. Not a penny, however, will address the substance that
today's teenagers are abusing the most: alcohol.
With youth consumption on the rise since the early 1990s,
even McCaffrey acknowledges that alcohol leads to more
teenage deaths than other drugs combined. Nevertheless, he
insists that including alcohol in the campaign would only
dilute its basic message, that kids should avoid illegal
drugs.
That's hard to swallow, given federal studies showing that
67% of children who start drinking alcohol before age 15 end
up using illicit drugs. And that adults who started drinking
as children are nearly eight times more likely to use cocaine
than those who did not.
That's why the House Appropriations Committee should pass
an amendment by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles),
requiring McCaffrey to include underage drinking in his
campaign's targets.
Ideally, the government would not be spending any money at
all to reach the
[[Page S8007]]
American people on TV and radio: Broadcasters promised in
1996 to offer more free public-service spots, just before
Congress gave them, without cost, a portion of the supposedly
public airwaves that would have fetched $70 billion on the
open market. Given that McCaffrey's money has already been
allocated, however, Congress' focus should be on how he can
spend it wisely.
The people scrambling to defeat Roybal-Allard's amendment
are unable to offer any sound reason why alcohol should be
excluded from McCaffrey's campaign. But they do have a clear
stake in opposing the amendment. Leading the charge against
it is Rep. Anne M. Northrup (R-Ky.). She received nearly
twice as much campaign money from the alcoholic beverage
industry in 1997 and 1998 as any of her colleagues on the
House Appropriations Committee. At her side is a coalition of
advertising firms, called the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, that have benefited handsomely from the $1 billion
the alcohol industry spent last year on promotions.
On Thursday, the executives of those firms will meet at the
annual American Advertising Conference in Washington. In a
valid illustration of the capital's incestuous world, the
opening speaker will be Gen. Barry McCaffrey.
____
[From the Christian Science Monitor, June 4, 1999]
The Monitor's View--Don't Soft-Pedal Alcohol
The United States government will spend $195 million this
year to persuade young Americans to avoid addictive drugs. Is
there any good reason why some of that money should not be
used to point out the dangers of the substance most abused by
the young--alcohol?
A couple of members of Congress thought not. That's why
they put forward legislation to give the country's chief
antidrug official, Barry McCaffrey, the authority to use some
of the advertising money available to the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy to steer kids away from beer,
wine, and liquor.
But these matters are not so clear-cut as they seem--or as
they ought to be. No sooner has Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard
(D) of California and Frank Wolf (R) of Virginia offered
their amendment than a political-defense mechanism lurched
into action. Alcoholic beverages have a powerful lobby on
Capitol Hill, and their producers and distributors contribute
faithfully to campaign war chests.
Opposition to the amendment is coalescing in Congress
around the argument that including alcohol would dilute or
distort the antidrug message. How so, since alcohol destroys
more young lives than any other drug, and people who use
``hard'' drugs typically have tried alcohol first? Binge
drinking, threatening order and individual lives, has become
an increasing problem on college campuses.
No, what's kicking in is ``Big Alcohol's'' political clout
and America's ambivalence about its most popular over-the-
counter addictive drug, which is relentlessly pitched to the
young via TV beer ads. Sadly, McCaffrey's office is
ambivalent, hardly leaping to support the amendment Leaving
alcohol out of the antidrug campaign creates a gap in common
sense and effectiveness. Representatives Roybal-Allard and
Wolf get high marks for working to fill it.
____
[From the Record, June 7, 1999]
Overlooked Type of Abuse--Far More Youngsters Drink Than Use Drugs
Common sense doesn't always win in Congress. How else can
you explain some of the reactions to an amendment directing
the Federal Government to spend some of its anti-drug
advertising dollars to discourage underage drinking? Unless,
of course, campaign contributions are a factor.
Many people believe that underage drinking is a far more
serious problem than drug use by youngsters. And there's
evidence to support their view. For example, nearly three-
quarters of the high school seniors surveyed by the
University of Michigan last year said they had consumed
alcohol in the previous year, compared with the 38 percent
who reported smoking marijuana. A third admitted to being
drunk in the previous month.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of federal drug policy, has
called underage drinking the ``biggest drug abuse problem for
adolescents.'' He has said it is ``linked to the use of
other, illegal drugs.''
Yet while the federal government this year plans to spend
$195 million on a national media campaign to fight the use of
illicit drugs, no money has been set aside for an advertising
campaign to combat underage drinking.
Earlier this month, Lucille Roybal-Allard, a California
Democrat, introduced legislation to make underage drinking a
target of the federal anti-drug media campaign. Her measure
is supported by the American Medical Association, the
American Public Health Association, the American Society of
Addictive Medicine, and Mothers against Drunk Driving.
But several members of Congress and the beer wholesalers
oppose it. Even the White House's Office of National Drug
Control Policy has questioned it.
Why? The beer industry says it already spends hundreds of
thousands of dollars to combat the problem. It says the drug
czar should focus only on illicit drugs. Rep. Anne Northrup,
R-KY, agrees and has promised to fight the measure when it
comes up for a vote. Ms. Northup says her opposition has
nothing to do with the nearly $40,000 in contributions she
has gotten from liquor and beer interests in the past two
years.
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the coalition that
coordinates the anti-drug media campaign, says it supports
the concept of targeting underage drinking. But it says
federal efforts would be dwarfed by the $3 billion a year the
beer industry spends promoting its products. The Partnership
says $195 million is not enough to do two effective
campaigns, and that one good campaign is preferable to two
weak ones.
Maybe, but it's hard to see how targeting underage drinking
would dilute the message against drugs. If the two are
connected--as Mr. McCaffrey says--discouraging youths from
drinking might also prevent some from using drugs.
____
[From The Boston Globe, June 22, 1999]
Beer Pressure
The same lobby that killed a proposal last year to
standardize blood alcohol levels for drunken driving is now
trying to keep underage drinking out of a youth education
campaign sponsored by the nation's drug czar, General Barry
McCaffrey.
The National Beer Wholesalers Association opposes the
inclusion of underage drinking in the $195 million media
campaign, claiming that alcohol is a legal substance and
should not be lumped with marijuana, cocaine, and other
illegal drugs. But drinking under age 21 is illegal in every
state, and alcohol abuse is far more common than any other
drug among young people.
General McCaffrey himself has said alcohol is ``the biggest
drug abuse problem for adolescents.'' But his office has been
strangely circumspect about adding underage drinking to the
campaign, saying the drug czar's charter limits his mandate
to fighting controlled substances. This is why Congress
should favor an amendment sponsored by Representatives Frank
Wolf of Virginia, a Republican, and Lucille Roybal-Allard of
California, a Democrat, that authorizes McCaffrey to include
underage drinking in the education campaign.
The alcohol lobby is terrified of being regulated like that
other legal killer, cigarettes, with warning labels on beer
cans and limits on marketing to teenagers. It points to its
voluntary public service ads that urge responsible drinking.
But the alcohol industry spends nearly $3 billion a year on
marketing and promotion. Against that backdrop,
``responsibility'' needs all the help it can get.
The facts about underage drinking are sobering. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports 16,100
alcohol-related fatalities in 1997--one person killed every
32 minutes. Intoxication rates were highest for the youngest
drivers. Although the universal drinking age of 21 has helped
reduce fatalities, motor vehicle crashes remain the number
one cause of death for teenagers.
June--prom season--is the month when most of these tragic
deaths occur. It would be a good month for Congress to do
something about it.
____
Statement of Organizations Supporting Inclusion of Anti-Underage
Drinking Messages in the Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
An effective antidrug prevention program directed at
America's young people must include a significant effort to
discourage underage drinking. Alcohol is the leading drug
problem among young people in America, and a ``gateway'' to
the use of other drugs.
We therefore call on Members of Congress and the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to work
together to insure that a series of underage drinking
prevention messages is included as a substantial part of the
federally paid portion of the ``Anti-Drug Youth Media
Campaign.''
national organizations
Adventist Health Network
American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Dance Therapy Association
American Health and Temperance Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Women's Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Child Welfare League of America
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Consumer Coalition for Health and Safety
Consumer Federation of America
Face Truth and Clarity on Alcohol
Join Together
Latino Coalition on Alcohol and Tobacco
The Marin Institute
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
National Alliance of Pupil Service Organizations
National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers
National Association of Evangelicals
National Association for Public Health Policy
National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Counselors
[[Page S8008]]
National Association on Alcohol, Drugs, and Disability
National Crime Prevention Council
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
National Drug Prevention League
National Families in Action
The National Road Safety Foundation
National Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Partnership for Recovery:
The Betty Ford Center
Caron Foundation
Hazelden Foundation
Valley Hope Association
Security on Campus
Service Employees International Union (AFL-CIO)
Seventh-day Adventist Church of North America
Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
United Methodist Church, Board of Church & Society
Youth Power (formerly: Just Say No, International)
State and Local Organizations
AGC/United Learning (Evanston, ILL)
Alabama Council on Substance Abuse
Alcohol Research Information Service (MI)
Alcohol Services, Inc. (Syracuse, NY)
Break Free Outpatient, Inc. (Hollywood, FL)
'Cause Children Count Coalition (Washington, DC)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg [NC] Drug and Alcohol Fighting Back
Project
Christian Citizens of Arkansas
Communities that Care--Somerset County (PA)
Dauphin County Regional Alcohol/Drug Awareness Resources
(PA)
Florida Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors
Georgia Alcohol Policy Partnership (GAPP)
Hillsborough County Community Anti-Drug Coalition (Tampa,
FL)
Indiana Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking
Institute for Health Advocacy (San Diego, CA)
Illinois Churches in Action
Lake County (FLA) Citizens Committee for Alcohol Health
Warnings
Lancaster County Drug and Alcohol Commission (PA)
Lebanon County Drug & Alcohol Prevention Program (PA)
Los Angeles County Commission on Alcoholism
Maryland Underage Drinking Prevention Coalition
National Capitol Area Coalition to Prevent Underage
Drinking (DC)
Network of Alabama Prevention Professionals
New Haven Fighting Back
Newark Fighting Back Partnership, Inc.
New Visitors/Mercy Hall Chemical Dependency Program
(Johnstown, PA)
PAR, Inc. (Pinellas Park, Florida)
Pennsylvanians Against Underage Drinking
Pennsylvania Council on Alcohol Problems
Pennsylvania Prevention Director's Association
Perry (County) Human Services (PA)
Phase: Piggy Back, Inc. (New York)
PRIDE--Omaha
Somerset County Department of Human Services (PA)
St. Vincent College Prevention Projects (Latrobe, PA)
TODAY, Inc. (Vensalem, PA)
Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership (CA)
The Village (Miami, FL)
Youth As Resources (Somerset County, PA)
____
Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant
Secretary for Health and Surgeon General,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1999.
Hon. Barry F. McCaffrey,
Director Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President, Washington, DC.
Dear General McCaffrey: I congratulate you for your
excellent work in developing the national anti-drug media
campaign and demonstrating such strong leadership in support
of our nation's youth. I am confident that the effectiveness
of this program as a means of educating and motivating
children and their families will be enhanced by a greater
commitment to the problem of underage drinking. Thus, I want
to recommend that you include advertisements addressing
underage drinking in the paid portion of ONDCP's media
campaign.
Alcohol is the drug most frequently used by American
teenagers. It is consumed more frequently than all other
illicit drugs combined and is the drug most likely to be
associated with injury or death. Alcohol is a drug that can
affect judgement, coordination and long-term health. It is
involved in teen automobile crashes, homicides, and suicides;
the three leading causes of teen deaths. No comprehensive
drug control strategy for youth can be complete without the
full inclusion of underage alcohol use and abuse.
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reports that
there are 11 million drinkers between the ages of 12 and 20.
Over fifty percent of high school seniors report having been
drunk in the past year. Among 12-17 year olds, less than half
perceive great harm in consuming five or more drinks once or
twice a week. In light of the prevalence of underage
drinking, it is little surprise that alcohol consumption by
youth so often results in risky behaviors which lead to
unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases,
involvement with law enforcement, and worst of all, death and
the death of others. These are the immediate impacts on
society and do not include the even more costly, long term
impact of alcohol abuse or dependence on individual health
and the state of families.
A recent study from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism sheds even greater light on the implications
of these figures. Youth who begin drinking before the age of
15 are four times as likely to become alcoholic as those who
wait until age 21 or later to begin drinking. This research
also indicates that every year of delayed drinking onset will
result in a significant reduction in risk for alcohol abuse
or alcoholism. Underage drinking is a shadow that threatens
the health, safety and adolescence of our nation's youth.
We should utilize a public health media campaign to send
youth and their families messages which will educate them
about the health and social consequences of underage
drinking. Through the ONDCP strategy, we can utilize this
effective medium for altering youth attitudes about underage
drinking and for supporting community-based prevention
activities that will help young people adopt lifestyles that
eschew the use of alcohol and other drugs. The evidence of
need is overwhelming.
I stand ready to work with you to develop a powerful media
campaign that will effectively deglamourize underage
drinking. I have established a Surgeon General's Staff
Working Group to bring together the resources of the
Department to create an effective campaign to curtail the
incidence of underage and binge drinking. This campaign will
be successful only if it can receive the national
dissemination available through a paid media campaign. It is
time to more effectively address the drug that children and
teens tell us is their greatest concern and the drug we know
is most likely to result in their injury or death.
Sincerely yours,
David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health
and Surgeon General.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to explain my opposition to the
Lautenberg amendment giving ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign jurisdiction to include underage alcohol consumption for the
purposes of the media campaign. Like all my colleagues, I have seen the
results of underage drinking, and I deplore them. Young lives should
not be wasted, and I challenge the White House and my colleagues to
continue to take action to curb this problem.
However, I do not believe this amendment is the correct way to solve
the underage drinking crisis. The Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is not
the right vehicle for anti-alcohol messages. The Office of National
Drug Control Policy fights the war on drugs, not alcohol. I agree with
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey that there is an important distinction
between illegal drugs and alcohol, which is a legal substance.
Additionally, simply adding anti-alcohol messages to the ONDCP's Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign without appropriating more funds for this
purpose will dilute the anti-drug efforts. Resources which are badly
needed to fight drugs will be rerouted to fight underage drinking. I
cannot support a bill which chooses to fight alcohol at the expense of
illegal drugs.
I have supported in the past, and will continue to support, programs
that discourage underage drinking. In fact, I want to applaud the
efforts of alcohol distributers, who have initiated many of these
important programs.
Let us find a different way to take action against underage alcohol
consumption that does not compromise our actions against the use of
illegal drugs.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the
Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment
offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I compliment him
on his foresight for bringing this amendment up.
We will have a 5-year media campaign, with $1 billion targeted at
youth so they don't get into drugs and start taking drugs. The drug
czar himself, General McCaffrey, said that alcohol is the gateway drug.
Mr. President, 42 percent of Iowa teens seeking substance abuse
treatment in 1998 were being treated for alcohol addiction; three out
of five teens have had an alcoholic drink in the last month.
[[Page S8009]]
We have a 5-year, $1 billion ad campaign to tell teens don't take
cocaine, don't take meth, don't smoke marijuana, and we are not going
to say anything about beer and alcohol? These are the first drugs these
kids take.
That is what the Senator from New Jersey is saying. Let's require in
this package of ads over 5 years that they also target drinking by
kids.
I understand that the amendment is supported by Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Counselors, and the National Association of Alcohol, Drugs, and
Disability.
It is time we took teen drinking seriously. I heard that the National
Beer Wholesalers Association is opposed to the amendment. If I am
wrong, someone please correct me. It is this association that has
always said they are against teen drinking. If they are against teen
drinking, why would they be opposed to this amendment to put ads out
showing teens what happens if they drink?
Eight young people every day die in alcohol-related car crashes. It
is time to stop this epidemic.
Mr. CAMPBELL. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes 33 seconds.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me reiterate that the practical effect of the
Lautenberg amendment is to gut the effort to reduce teenage drug use.
I wouldn't argue with a single thing that any of our colleagues has
said about the importance of combating teenage drinking. Everybody
thinks it is important to combat teenage drinking. Fortunately, over
the past 20 years teenager drinking has gone down. However, according
to a highly respected University of Michigan study, teenage drug use
has gone up 46 percent since 1992.
We should let this effort to combat teenage drug use, which is
dramatically on the increase, go forward. On another day in another
contest, let's pursue an effort to deal with teenage drinking.
This amendment, regretfully, would gut a very important campaign to
combat teenage drug use. That is not me speaking. That is Mario Cuomo
and Bill Bennett, chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America,
who oppose this amendment, which is not to say that either one of those
men is in favor of teenage drinking.
Let's keep this antidrug effort intact and let what we hope will be
an effective advertising campaign go forward.
I thank Senator Campbell for yielding time to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make just a couple of concluding
comments, again reiterating I am really quite uncomfortable in the
position of opposing Senator Lautenberg. But I do not think this is a
forced choice of the type he suggests we make; I do not think this is a
choice that we ought to be required to make. One might at some point
put together a program, which I would fully support, to say let us do
$1 billion advertising in 5 years, targeted to Americans, especially
America's kids, dealing with alcohol abuse. I would support that. Then
one would say, perhaps, coming to the floor of the Senate: This program
you have dealing with alcohol abuse, why doesn't it include drugs? Or,
Why doesn't it include addiction to smoking cigarettes? I would support
that as well.
But we ought to do them as programs we can measure and evaluate. The
program we are talking about now is a program dealing with drugs. It is
3 years into the program. People say: Why doesn't it include alcohol?
Let's do a program on alcohol. I will support that.
The story I told earlier, about going to the Oak Hill Detention
Center and seeing these young children, kids on drugs who were
convicted of violent crimes, do you know the other thing about their
stories? In every case, they were 12 or 13 years old and they were
addicted to drugs, selling drugs, shooting people, committing armed
robbery, being involved in violent crimes; and the other common
denominator in every single case was they had parents addicted to
drugs. They came from homes, often with only a single parent, in which
that parent was addicted to drugs, died at a young age, and was an
abusive parent because of being addicted to drugs. There is a common
denominator.
This program is a program designed to say to America's youth, through
drug education by television commercials: Don't do drugs. We know
television advertising works. We all use it. Hundreds of billions of
dollars a year are spent on television ads to convince people to listen
to certain kinds of music, wear certain kinds of jeans, to buy certain
kinds of food. We know it works. I think it will work with respect to
this issue of drugs as well.
We are 3 years into the program. I will support gladly, and with
great excitement, a program on alcohol. I have supported every
initiative dealing with alcohol abuse and drunk driving in this Senate.
I will support it as well dealing with the addiction to cigarettes. The
targeting of alcohol and cigarettes, both legal products, to this
country's youth, is unforgivable.
But this is a separate issue. We have a campaign underway. It is 3
years in progress. It is designed very deliberately to change the
understanding and the culture dealing with drugs. I think it has a
chance of working. So let us do that. We had to cut it $50 million this
year alone just on this issue. Let us allow this to work. At another
time I will be happy to join my colleague from New Jersey and others in
designing an identical program dealing with alcohol abuse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator Dorgan and I find ourselves in a strange debate
indeed, because I think we as much as anyone in this body want to
reduce teenage drinking. All of us have had personal tragedies in our
families. As I say, as a former deputy sheriff and as a volunteer
prison counselor, I know all the horror stories. We know a lot of them
today. I don't deny any of them. I am sure they have created terrible
problems in families and in society, too. But I think we are missing
the point I tried to make a while ago. It is not whether we want to
reduce teenage drinking. We all do. It is whether this is the right
vehicle; and it is not.
I mentioned a while ago that ONDCP does not have statutory authority.
If we are going to add statutory authority and just bypass the
legislative part of this body, why don't we do away with the
legislative part of this body and just do all legislation in
appropriations bills?
I would join my friend from New Jersey if he wanted to introduce a
bill to add alcohol to the ONDCP's agenda. That would be fine with me,
to add more money to it, too. I would be a cosponsor. I will be more
than willing to fight the battle with him to make sure we reduce
teenage drinking in any kind of ad campaign that would be effective. I
hope we will do that, too. But I believe this is the wrong vehicle for
it. We ought to do it through the authorizing committees.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Colorado will yield,
let me make one final observation. He mentions the issue of alcohol. He
comes from a particular perspective, being a Native American.
I want to tell him just about two people, and I will do it in 30
seconds. I toured a hospital one day. He talks about fetal alcohol
syndrome. A young Native American woman had just given birth to a baby.
The woman was an alcoholic. The baby was born with a .21 blood-alcohol
content, a young baby born dead drunk. This woman, having had a third
baby, wanted nothing to do with that child, didn't want to see that
child. That child will probably have fetal alcohol syndrome.
But I was down at a hospital not far from this building and I saw
babies born from crack-addicted mothers, and I saw babies born drug
addicted, addicted to hard drugs. The doctors told me what those babies
are like as they try to shed this addiction, being born of mothers who
had taken drugs during this pregnancy.
We have problems in all of these areas. I do not deny that. But this
program deals with drugs. I think it has a chance of working. I hope we
can allow that to happen with this vote.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator for those eloquent comments.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the first vote,
there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form between the
remaining votes.
[[Page S8010]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I see no further speakers. I yield the
remaining time, and I move to table the Lautenberg amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 1214. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--40
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
McCain
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Under the previous order, there
are 2 minutes of debate before a motion to table the amendment of the
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. Who yields time?
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate my
motion to table the Kyl-Hutchison amendment No. 1195. During the break
we were able to finalize some language for the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
prior to the motion to table amendment No. 1200 by Senator DeWine be
limited to 45 minutes, to be equally divided in the usual form, and no
other amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the motion to
table the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
The question is on the amendment by the Senator from Colorado, Mr.
Kyl.
Mr. CAMPBELL. We have reached agreement, but we don't have the
modification printed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask that the amendment be
laid aside?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, I make that request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________