[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.

                          ____________________