Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to stand on the floor today with my colleague from Georgia who is the primary author of the important amendment that is before the Senate. He has done such an excellent job of laying out what everyone in America knows to be the No. 1 issue facing our young people and literally facing the American culture, and that is the drug culture and the impact it is having on the lives of an awful lot of our citizens and especially our young people. Neither he nor I belittle the concern that 3,000 young Americans start smoking every day. But 3,000 young Americans that start smoking don't die every day. But about 40 of our youngest and sometimes our brightest die every day because of an overdose of drugs or because of a crossfire of a gang shooting that was drug-related. That adds up to about 14,000 young Americans. Yet this legislation we have before us, S. 1415, 753 pages that our colleagues tell us will cause young citizens in this country to smoke less and live a better life, has not one word in it about illicit drugs, the drug traffic, and what we as a citizenry and those of us as policymakers ought to be doing, where we can, to stop the rapidly increasing flow of illicit drugs into this culture. My colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, and I join together. By this amendment we are saying if you are really sincerely concerned about what goes on amongst our young folks today that may in some way damage them, then you ought to be voting for this legislation because the Senator from Georgia, like myself, and I know like the Presiding Officer at this moment, have on many occasions gone before grade school and high school groups to talk about the state of affairs of our country and the importance to those young people of what goes on in our country, and we have asked the question, Is cigarette smoking a problem. Yes, a few hands go up. They are concerned about it. Others are not because they are smoking. But when you ask about drugs, when you ask about the character of them, the nature of them, the availability of them, all hands go up, or nearly all hands, because young people know better than anyone else what is going on amongst their peer group. They are frighteningly concerned because oftentimes it impacts the life of a friend or it disrupts in a massive way a friend's family. Yet today this Senate is silent on the issue. This administration has retreated in a dramatic way from the war on drugs that was launched by the administrations of President Reagan and President Bush. Let me give some very interesting statistics. While there are not as many pot smokers as tobacco smokers at current rates, if the current rate continues, in but a few short years there will be almost as many marijuana, pot, weed smokers amongst our youth as there are tobacco smokers. There has been a 25 percent, 38 percent, and 31 percent increase in the number of children who have smoked a cigarette in the last 30 days, in the month of May. In comparison, there has been 175, 153 and a 99 percent increase, respectively, in the number of children who have tried a joint of marijuana in the last 30 days in the 8th, 10th and 12th grades, respectively. That is an American tragedy. We know it. Yet, we have allowed this administration and, frankly, we have allowed the Congress to be relatively silent on the issue. That is why the Senator from Georgia and I could be silent no longer. It is critically important that we speak out, that we begin to shape more clearly policy that will work toward interdiction. As the Senator has just spoken to, the Coast Guard, dramatically cut back, with ships in mothballs--they are not out in the Gulf of Mexico, where they were for a good number of years, stopping the flow of illicit drugs moving into the market. There is a 70 percent flow of drugs coming across our southern borders, and we are silent to it. Well, yes, in all honesty, there has been a limited amount of interdiction. Yes, there was an effort on the part of this administration as it related to the money laundering in Mexican banks. But just the other night, on television, there was attention addressed to three Mexican brothers operating south of the border, in Tijuana, talking about the multihundreds of millions of dollars in cash-flow and the intimidation and the deaths that they can bring down on citizens who get in their way because they are the kings of drugs flowing up the west coast. We know who they are. Their pictures were shown on television. But we do limited amounts of things against them. Are we frightened of them? No. It is just a retreat from the scene. It is the attitude of, well, we will fund a little bit of therapy if somebody gets hooked on drugs. But somehow we don't want to engage in a war to save our children. I was once a smoker. I am not proud of it, but I was. But I quit, I guess when I matured enough to know that it wasn't good for me and smart enough to know that it wasn't the right thing to do. But you know, if I would have been hooked on a major drug like cocaine, I might not be here today. The great tragedy of young people and drugs is that it kills them. Young people, while smoking cigarettes may be the cool and stylish thing to do amongst their peers, grow up and mature. There is a reverse peer pressure that begins to develop, and in great numbers we see young people quitting in their twenties and early thirties. They can quit because they are not dead. But if they are hooked on cocaine or heroin, which is the follow-up to marijuana, they are dead. That is how they quit. We know it. We saw the great tragedy out in California of the great humorist a few weeks ago whose wife could not get off cocaine. She finally killed that humorist and then took her own life and left two small children. That is the story of drugs, the tragedy of drugs. The other side is saying that we have a bitter pill here: We are trying to destroy a tobacco bill. Quite the opposite: We are trying to make it a good piece of legislation that truly does something against this phenomenal drug culture in our society. That is what we ought to be debating. Those are the real issues. Let me give you some fascinating statistics. Young people are young people, and for those of us who are now adults, but, more importantly, for those of us who have raised teenagers, we know a lot more about kids than we used to know, especially if we have raised our own. We know that if you put a challenge against them, oftentimes they will meet the challenge. Well, guess what? The American public knows that, too. And so when they were recently asked, just in the last week, in a nationwide survey--not funded by a tobacco company, funded privately-- the question was asked: Which of the following do you believe is the most responsible for young people initially beginning to smoke? Ten percent of the American public said Hollywood, television, popular culture. You know, it is true. When that handsome or attractive television star or movie star walks out in prime time with a cigarette in their hand, that is cool; that is something, those viewing say, I ought to do. Yes, when President Clinton said he didn't inhale and then later on MTV he jokingly said he might have on a second try, guess what happened? Marijuana usage amongst teenagers bottomed out and headed up, because the leader, the icon of America's culture, kind of shrugged it off as no big deal. But the tragedy of no big deal is that, step one, marijuana smoking leads to step two, a search for cocaine, which can lead to death. The numbers have dramatically changed during this administration. I am amazed that they aren't out on the front line with us attempting to lead a war against drugs. Well, back to the question: Who most influences young people to initially start smoking? Thirteen percent say the parent example--in other words, a power figure, an important figure in your life. If your parents smoke, you are likely to smoke. The tobacco industry and their advertising--if you listened to the debate from the other side on the floor, you would be convinced that they alone caused 3,000 kids a day to start smoking. The American public says that maybe 6 percent of the cause is laid at the feet of the tobacco companies. I am not going to let the tobacco companies off. Yes, we now know that they targeted young people by their advertising, and that is wrong, and we ought to try to stop that. But the public knows that it didn't work that much. Guess what. No. 1 factor: 59 percent say influence of peers and friends. If you have ever raised a teenager, you know that that is absolutely correct. It is the pressure of those whom they associate with, those whom they go to school with, those whom they play with; that is the real influence. If the friend is smoking, then there is a great pressure for you to smoke. Worst of all, if the friend is using drugs and thinks it is cool, and you are in that group, as a teenager, there is phenomenal pressure on you to go along, to be cool, to be part of the crowd. Well, the statistics go on. But, most importantly, the American public has not been fooled by the rhetoric on the floor from the other side that somehow this massive tax increase, this massive expansion of Government programs, is somehow going to stop teenagers from smoking and make the world a safer and healthier place, because when they were asked, in this same poll, basically what the impact of this legislation would do and what it really was, 57 percent of them said it was a massive tax increase and a major increase in Government. And then they asked the question about raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by better than double--$2.50 when everything is added in at the furthest extension of the bill--is that more likely or less likely to stop teenagers from smoking? Sixty-seven percent of Americans said it was less likely. Strangely enough, Mr. President, if you do the math and you raise cigarettes to that amount, all of a sudden marijuana becomes less expensive in a relative sense. Kids are paying three times or four times the price of tobacco for a joint of marijuana. Yet, we are being told that if you just jack up the price somehow they quit smoking. Yet, marijuana usage in a 30-day period in this last month of May was up 157 percent amongst eighth graders. It sounds like a lot of spendable income to me. Yet, that is not taken into consideration. So my colleague from Georgia and I said that somehow we have to change this. We have to work with our colleagues here in the Senate to change it. How long can we go with these figures and statistics and death rates smacking us in the face and saying it is not a problem, it is not a problem if 14,000 young people die directly or indirectly related to drugs on an annual basis? That is a national crisis by any definition deserving a national effort of magnitude against it. That is what the Coverdell-Craig amendment does. As my colleague from Georgia was speaking and talked about doubling the interdiction budget for U.S. Customs, doubling the interdiction budget for the Coast Guard--in other words, ships out of mothballs and back in the water--the Department of Defense put some effort there because they have been pulled back. As my colleague from the State of Idaho who is chairing at this moment knows, we have seen a major effort out in our State with drug-free communities and a drug-free neighborhood effort. We help there. While that has been a marvelously successful voluntary effort bringing in business and educators in our State, we help them out by some block grants giving flexibility to do more in the local communities by millions of dollars nationwide to encourage the successes in Idaho and other communities to have those successes across the board everywhere. Does it make a difference if national leaders and local leaders and State leaders are standing up telling their young people not to get involved in drugs? You bet it does. Our First Lady, Nancy Reagan, was oftentimes joked about because she said ``just say no.'' Yet, because she was and is a national leader and a national image of great respect, the young people responded. There is value in saying no and not shrugging it off and laughing and saying, ``Maybe I ought to have tried to inhale.'' But it is very important that leaders of this country say no. Our legislation helps leaders at the local level and the State level say no. Why should teenagers convicted of drug crimes or associated with drug purchases have a driver's license? If you are caught drinking at an illegal age in the State of Idaho, you don't have a driver's license. Shouldn't it be the same? Our bill provides for that incentive, and it ought to. But the real arena is our schools. This legislation makes allowable the use of Federal funds to provide school choice for grades K through 12 for students who are victims of school violence related to drugs, and includes drug-related crimes, creates incentives for States to provide an annual report card for parents and teachers listing incidents of crime. In other words, it lifts the awareness of drugs in the community and in the school system to get parents involved along with their educators to build a drug-free school environment. That is what we ought to be talking about--and a smoke-free environment. Let me add that. That is important, too, because we want to get kids away from tobacco. The thing I fear most in all of what we do or may not do is that we are hiding in the myth that has been perpetrated by some, including the former Director of the Food and Drug Administration, that if you just jack up the price of a pack of cigarettes the problem goes away. Yet, every nation that has tried that in the past--and Canada is a perfect example--lost their market because the market went into the black market. When there is a desire in the public arena for something and you restrict the ability of the public to get to it, they will find a way. Thirty percent of the sales in Canada went into the black market. They had to lower the tax to get the sales back to control the product. My point is very simple. If we do that in this country and 30 to 40 percent of tobacco and cigarette sales move into the black market, then that cool dude on the street that is selling your kids marijuana or cocaine is going to open his coat and say, ``Oh, you can have some cigarettes, too. I am your local cigarette vendor, but I also have marijuana and cocaine. What is your choice?'' Wouldn't that be a human tragedy if that is what this legislation, S. 1415, results in? I am not saying that is the intent. I am saying that is how the market reacts. The statistics and facts show that in Canada, in Europe, and in Germany, that is exactly what happened. Yet, we are so naive to think you just jack up the price as high as you can possibly get it. Oh, sure, you are going to get hundreds of billions of dollars from the lower income, 30 percent of the socioeconomic scale of this country, and you are going to spend that in all kinds of programs. The trial lawyers are all going to get billions of dollars. But what about the kids? What about the kids? You can't tell the tobacco industry to quit advertising without their consent. It is something called the first amendment in our country. They said they would voluntarily do that if we would control this a little bit. This Senate has chosen not to do so. So we will not get their consent. They will not become involved. But the great tragedy is our kids will be the victims still. While it may curb a few of them from smoking, we are silent--deathly silent--to the issue of drugs. I am extremely proud to stand on the floor today with my colleague from Georgia to offer the most comprehensive anti-teen-drug amendment, to my knowledge, that this Senate has put forward. I don't plead with my colleagues from the other side. I challenge them to get aboard, to quit looking at the dollars and the political game being played, and come with us into good, effective public policy that mans the front lines once again in the war against drugs, that allows national leadership and State and community leadership to unite to say that perpetuating a drug culture among teenagers of our country is an evil we will not tolerate. That is what our amendment does so very clearly. So to the other side, don't call it a bitter pill. How dare you? I don't blame you for being embarrassed about the President's record. The country ought to be. But we don't have to live with that record. We can walk beyond it. This amendment allows that to happen. This is not a bitter pill, nor is it a placebo. It is the beginning of a major and comprehensive effort to deal with the reality of our time. That is that there is the growth of a drug culture in our society that is killing America's youth in greater numbers than we ever dreamed possible. It is time that we stop it.

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield, but I would not lose any floor right.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that modification. It does clarify an important point. Mr. President, according to PRIDE--those are the folks out there on the front line trying to stop kids from using drugs--senior high school use may have stalled, but it has stalled at the highest level PRIDE has measured in 10 years. Until we see sharp declines in the use at all grade levels there will be no reason to rejoice. With respect to young students, the survey found a full 11 percent of junior high students--that is grades 6 through 8--are monthly users of illegal drugs. Junior high students reported significant increases in monthly use of marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers, hallucinogens, and heroin especially. Can you imagine that, Mr. President? We are talking about junior high kids. Heroin, drug of choice? Annual marijuana use has increased 153 percent since Mr. Clinton first took office. Cocaine use is up 88 percent. Why aren't we spending weeks on the floor of the Senate debating this, because it is the No. 1 issue amongst parents. The kids know it. They know their friends are being killed by it. They are laughing at the fact that they think we are going to legislate them away from tobacco. Hallucinogen use has increased 67 percent since Mr. Clinton took office. Now, in the face of this clear and present danger to our Nation's youth, how can this administration justify their obsession with tobacco? That is because there are 100 groups lined up to help them. It is a popular political issue. I agree with them on the premise. But I think they missed the point. They missed the point that the young people of America are talking about. They might answer. ``Well, teen rates of smoking are also going up.'' That is true. But if we look at the facts on teen tobacco use, also found in the Monitoring of the Future Report that I have been quoting, we see the same pattern as on drug use--a steady decline in the Reagan-Bush years with a steady climb since 1992. In other words, what our President says to America and America's youth counts. When he makes light of his flirtation with marijuana, they make light of it, too. That is a great tragedy. Let us ask the question: Instead of hiking increases in teen smoking to justify massive, intrusive, expensive legislation that will mostly target adult smokers, shouldn't the administration admit that teen smoking increase is yet another symptom of their failed drug policy? Shouldn't they admit that having given kids a wink and a nod on drugs, other bad habits would also appear more acceptable? Anybody who has raised teenagers knows that. Let's take a concrete example. Recently, an article appeared in the New York Times. ``Young Blacks Link Tobacco Use to Marijuana.'' Strange relationship. I am quoting the New York Times relating to a dramatic increase in tobacco use amongst minority teenagers. According to this article, experts believe that part of the explanation for increased tobacco use amongst these teens is because they are already using marijuana. And that tobacco prolongs the effect of marijuana smoking. If so--and I recognize that there are certain complex factors here-- this is a case where tobacco use may be directly linked to our failing drug policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. Let me read two paragraphs from the article: It is not clear how much of the increase in smoking amongst black teen-agers is due to the use of cigarettes with marijuana, and experts say advertising has been the major factor. But the marijuana-tobacco combination is notable because it is the reverse of the more common progression from cigarette and alcohol use to illegal drugs. Many black teen-agers said in interviews that they were drawn to cigarettes by friends who told them that nicotine would enhance their high from marijuana, which has been lore and practice among drug users of all races for decades. And this is apparently no mere myth. Many scientists who study brain chemistry say the link between cigarettes and marijuana is unproven but likely true. One other paragraph: The students were perfectly aware of the health hazards of cigarette smoking. A 17-year-old at Norman Thomas High School in Manhattan said she was quitting because she might be pregnant. But that is the only reason she was quitting. A 15-year-old at Saunders [High School] said she did not smoke during basketball and softball season but resumed in between. The article also talks about the effects of the kind of antitobacco measures that are being discussed on the floor including pushing the price of cigarettes to $3.50 to $4 to $5 a pack. Adolescents overwhelmingly said they would pay $3.60 a pack. The current charge in New York is $2.50. An additional $1.10 would move that to $3.60, and the teenagers did not see that as a problem. Now we are talking about the legislation that is being debated on the floor right now. According to the article: A few said that $5 a pack might inspire them to quit, or at least to try. But faced with that high a tariff, 17-year-old . . . a student in Yonkers, had another idea. ``At that price,'' he said, ``you might as well buy weed.'' In other words, he was saying you might as well smoke marijuana because they are going to end up being about the same price. I don't think anybody on the floor of this Senate has thought about that. But the kids are thinking about it. Let us think about those words, Mr. President: ``At that price, you might as well smoke weed.'' It is always easy for the partisans of big government to come up with big spending, big bureaucracy plans, that whether or not it actually impacts the intended target, in this case teenage smoking, it is sure to have all sorts of unintended but predictable side effects. For example, how big of a tax increase are we looking at? Well, we don't know for sure. Why shouldn't we be looking at this as a big regressive tax, and I think I can say, in all fairness, the biggest regressive tax in American history? How effective will it be in actually curbing teenage smoking or, for that matter, adult smoking? How much more attractive will it make others? By that, I am talking about illegal drugs such as marijuana, especially to young people. Well, that teenager from Yonkers said it: If you are going to raise tobacco to that price, you just might as well smoke weed. Have we learned anything at all from the black market of other nations? That has been discussed by some of my colleagues on the floor in the last several weeks, and they have used it as an example and it bears repeating because it shows a reaction to the marketplace. In Canada, by 1992, a pack of cigarettes cost about $4.50 in U.S. dollars, probably about $6.75 in Canadian dollars, while the price in the United States was $2. The result: the loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue and up to 40 percent of the Canadian market supplied by smuggling, black market, illegal, under the table, vended in the alley, out of the backs of cars, vended by the black market of drug dealing. Canada rolled back its tobacco taxes in 1994, and Sweden recently dropped its tobacco tax over 25 percent. Do we really want to repeat their mistakes? We are about to start. When cigarettes in Mexico cost about $1 a pack, where do you think the border will be? Or, more importantly, how can we protect the border? The movement will be significant. Does anyone think this would not be a tremendous windfall for organized crime or for cross-border drug trade in Mexico, which is already at epidemic proportions? How many funding streams is that? Well, taxes, we know that. And if those funding streams that we are asking for to fund all of this dry up, then how do we pay for the programs? Because they will surely dry up. Other nations have found that to be the case. And they have had to back off, to up their moneys, to up their cash flow again to fund the programs that they were going to feed off of the taxes they raised from tobacco. As a Republican, I think this big government approach is just the wrong way to go, especially when we have no real assurance that these programs will do any good. We need to take a hard look at drug use. And, yes, the teen tobacco use situation in this country that we find is critical. We need to look at it in a practical and a principled way. The bottom line should be this: If the Clinton administration won't lead on drugs--and at this point I would say their credibility on drugs has been fatally compromised--then it is the Congress that should lead. We should lead. That is our job--to create public policy that makes sense for the American people. That is why my colleague, Paul Coverdell of Georgia, and I are offering this amendment which would ensure that the drug crisis is not ignored as we attempt to address the tobacco problem. This amendment collects a number of initiatives that would make a serious impact on illegal drugs. It takes a three-pronged approach: attacking the supply of drugs by strengthening our ability to stop them at the border, providing additional resources to fight drugs that reach our neighborhoods, and by creating disincentives for teens to use illegal drugs. Let me talk about some of those provisions that are embodied in our amendment. Let me first talk about the one on supply, the supply side of the drug problem, because we all know it is a supply-demand equation. We cannot rely just on treatment programs for those who have already started to abuse drugs. And you know there is a bit of that attitude--well, yeah, if they get hooked on them, we will treat them. The problem is sometimes they get hooked on them, and they get killed or they die before they can get to treatment. We must stop drugs from getting to our kids in the first place, or make every effort to try to stop it. One key step in fighting the drug supply is increased resources for the interdiction of those drugs; in other words, law enforcement. Fund them, put them on alert, make it a No. 1 priority. This is the area where the administration has been most irresponsible. Slashing the Coast Guard's antidrug budget, with the result--and you know what the result was--a major disruption in the rate of decline. The number of seizures for drug shipments turned back before they reached the United States--listen to these figures; it happened on the President's watch after he slashed the interdiction money--declined by 53 percent. We are talking interdiction, at the border or out in the water; a 53-percent decline in interdiction from 1992 to 1995. So, what does our amendment do? We give the Coast Guard, the Defense Department, the U.S. Customs Service, the resources they need to target that interdiction before drugs reach the American streets. Our amendment does exactly that, and that is our intent. Our amendment also includes the Drug-Free Borders Act, which attacks the 70 percent of illegal drugs that enter our country across the Mexican border. Mr. President, 70 percent of the problem is right there on that very identifiable border. These provisions would increase the penalties for crimes of violence and other crimes committed at our borders and enable the INS to hire thousands--yes, thousands--of new Border Patrol agents. But our amendment does not just stop at the border; it also strengthens the hand of law enforcement in fighting drug dealers at home and abroad. For example, our amendment increases the resources available to DEA and the FBI. We also think parents deserve to know if convicted drug dealers have moved into their neighborhoods. Our amendment requires released Federal convicts, convicted of major drug crimes, to register with local law enforcement personnel, who can then put their communities on notice. Why not? Those are the folks who have been killing our kids by selling drugs. Why not let the communities know if they are back in those communities? These are only some of the provisions in our amendment that attack the supply of drugs. We also focus on the demand side of the problem by supporting local efforts to protect our neighborhoods, businesses, and schools from drugs and provide incentives for young people to stay straight. Our amendment includes a provision addressing needle exchange programs. At a time when drug use, particularly heroin use, is increasing, this program clearly undermines our effort to fight illegal drugs. What program? The current program. The Clinton program. The green light to subsidizing needle exchange programs. That is the green light for drug use. The House has already passed legislation to stop this, H.R. 3717, by a strong 287 to 140 vote. The Senate should do the same. Our amendment includes just exactly this. I hope the Senate can support it. Another section of our amendment is the Drug-Free Student Loan Act. It restricts loan eligibility for students who use drugs. This would target substance abuse without creating Federal mandates or authorizing new spending. It puts the kids on notice: ``We ain't going to tolerate it anymore. Be straight, you will get your education. You can have a loan for it. But, use drugs and you are falling out of favor with the public.'' The Drug-Free Teen Driving Act in our amendment would encourage States to be at least as tough on driving privileges for those who use drugs and drive as those who are drunk drivers. Stop and think about the inconsistency today. You get caught a drunk driver, you get your license pulled. Drug abuse? No. No. We are not addressing that. This amendment does. Same treatment. Our amendment includes the Drug-Free Workplace Act. This section provides incentives for employers to implement antidrug programs in the workplace, such as clear antidrug policies, drug testing, and employees' assistance programs. We also assist schools in the fight against drugs by allowing them to use Federal funds for drug testing programs and victims' assistance. Our amendment also provides incentives for States to create an annual report card to parents and teachers, listing incidents of school violence and drug activities. Another critically important part of our amendment would back up communities in their fight against drugs. We would authorize matching grants funds to support communities' efforts to establish comprehensive, sustainable, and accountable antidrug coalitions. Senator Coverdell and I recognize you cannot do all of this from the top down, that you have to work with the grassroots and help it grow from the bottom up. These and other provisions in our amendment are commonsense measures to protect our young people from the growing menace of drugs. They would counter the wrongheaded policies of this administration and start sending the right signals to America's youth. This amendment does not set up new bureaucracies nor impose new mandates. It supports law enforcement's attack on the suppliers of drugs. It also supports local efforts to control drugs in neighborhoods, schools, and businesses. Nothing can be more important than supporting these local efforts, because they are the front line in the war on drugs. And right now, with the efforts in communities to be drug free, they are the only line, the only real line that is working. We do not need the hammer of the Federal Government to force communities to take action. As I have mentioned, they are already at it. All they need is a few resources and our help. Let me give an example of something that is happening in my State that I am so proud of. It is called the Enough Is Enough campaign. It is a community-based drug prevention campaign driven by the private sector. No government dollars or controls are involved. Why? The problem became so bad in the Clinton years, the communities had to take it on. They said, ``If we cannot get help from the Federal Government, we will do it ourselves,'' because they saw the numbers going up and they saw the deaths occurring. Most people in Idaho agree that this program is the most effective antidrug, drug awareness campaign they have ever seen. It builds on the systems within every community that influence and involve specific groups of individuals. It recognizes that each system has a special, specific role to play in the prevention that is necessary and that it involves all of the community. It unites these systems. It includes the media and the public and private sectors behind a common goal--to equip our children to walk drug free through a drug-filled world. It focuses on community teamwork to fight the drug culture and regain the quality of life for our children. Enough Is Enough is the largest community- wide drug prevention effort in Idaho's history. Antidrug advocate Milton Creagh has delivered his challenge to communities all over the State. More than 100,000 people have already participated in the program, and additional community coalitions are being formed every day. This program is proof that the Federal Government does not have all the answers. In fact, the Federal Government can do a lot of harm by forcing wrong programs and wrong incentives on local communities and citizens. Instead, we should provide encouragement, support local antidrug initiatives, and that is the philosophy behind our amendment: Get our law enforcement involved, stop the stuff at the border. In offering the amendment to the antitobacco bill, I have been arguing that the danger posed by illegal drugs is greater and more immediate and more deadly than any immediate problem that tobacco poses on teenage America. It is my strong belief that the bill before us tonight must not ignore the drug crisis that threatens our youth, America's future. Having said all that, however, I do not mean to suggest that we should ignore teenage smoking. Let me repeat that for the Record, because I am quite sure there are some who will say, ``Well, Coverdell and Craig are trying to switch the focus.'' No; we are trying to refocus. We are trying to do fine focus. We are trying to get this Government pointed in the right direction. In fact, as I have already pointed out, there is a connection between youth smoking and drug use. There are a number of commonsense antismoking measures we should seriously consider, but I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the one thing in particular we know to be effective in combating not just teenage smoking, but drug use, violence, suicide, sexual behavior, and emotional disturbances. In an area that is fairly underrated and where the Clinton administration definitely has been a part of the problem, the one thing is parental involvement in their children's lives. A recent Washington Post article entitled ``Love Conquers What Ails Teens, Studies Find'' summarized the results of a Federal study known as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health based on a survey of 90,000 students grade 7 through 12 and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Teenagers who have a strong emotional attachment to their parents and teachers are much less likely to use drugs and alcohol, attempt suicide, engage in violence, become sexually active at an early age. That is what the Post reported. Though less important than the emotional connection, the presence of parents at home at key times in the morning, after school, at dinner, at bedtime make teenagers less likely to use alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. Mr. President, the Federal Government cannot mandate family cohesion, but I cannot think of a better argument for passing S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. That would encourage a host of comptime- flextime options for America's parents. Why am I talking about this when we are trying to stop teenagers from smoking, when we have an amendment on the floor about teenage drug abuse that we are trying to curb? Because it ought to be a part of the package. We ought to understand and not be so naive as to say that it is the total environment in which the child lives. I mention it only tonight for our Senate to understand that we cannot do it; we are blocked on the floor; it is not the right thing politically; somehow the unions oppose it. Why don't we wake up? Why don't we understand that Government can, in fact, by its inaction, be an impediment? Those are the conclusions I have drawn, and that is why I am a cosponsor with Senator Coverdell of this, what I believe to be the most important part of this total legislation. Mr. President, in the coming days, the Senate will be faced with a stark choice: We can be panicked down the road of least resistance to passing a big Government antitobacco bill that won't do the job but will become a permanent tax and regulatory nightmare, or we can pass some commonsense legislation that will help States, localities, communities, and, most of all, parents take charge of their children's future. We can mount a strong antismoking campaign, and we can assist States to do so. Really, when it comes to controlling our borders, when it comes to stopping the massive new flow of drugs into this country, stimulated by an administration that just doesn't want to face the issue, then it is time the Congress speak, and we can speak clearly and decisively if we vote, pass, and add as a major component to this tobacco legislation the Coverdell-Craig teenage antidrug amendment. It sets us in the right direction. It is a quantum step toward dealing with teenage drug use that, by everyone's measurement, is moving at an astronomical rate, taking lives in unbelievable numbers. We hear the statistic, 3,000 kids start smoking every day, and that is true, but thousands try drugs and get hooked and thousands die within a very short time. Thank goodness that in your adult years, if you are a smoker, sometimes common sense hits you like it hit me, that it was the wrong thing to do, that it wasn't healthy, that it was socially unacceptable, and that it was not going to cause me to be a good influence over my children, and I quit. But I doubt seriously that in my youth, if I had been hooked on drugs, I might not have had the opportunity to quit. I hope this Congress awakens to the real issue, and I think my colleague from Georgia and I are bringing the real issue to the floor of the U.S. Senate. We will debate it tomorrow, and we will debate it Monday. I hope that we have a resounding vote in favor of the Coverdell-Craig amendment, that it become a part of this total package, and that we deal with it in a fair and responsible way, then find and bring about the funding necessary to ensure that we can put our Coast Guard back to interdiction, that we can stop the flow at the borders, that we can go after the pusher on the street, and that we can show our young people that starting or experimenting with drugs is not only unacceptable as a part of the American culture, but that we will insist they quit for their safety and for their future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the time has come for the Senate to begin debate on a portion of the legislation before us that I think, if accepted by this body, will be the most significant thing that we can possibly do. Mr. President, even before the bill before us was brought to the floor of the Senate, the question of tobacco has been, for many months, one of the major issues of public debate, if not the major issue in some quarters. The Clinton administration, in particular, has crusaded for legislation supposedly aimed at preventing America's teens from taking up a deadly habit, arguing that the need for this legislation is so strong that questions of cost and constitutionality, or the ordering of social priorities, are left by the wayside. Even raising such questions is to invite the accusation of being a tool of the big tobacco companies. How dare you stand in the way of this legislation. Not long ago, Mr. President, I was in Idaho speaking to a group of high school students. This was just as the tobacco issue was starting to break out at the top of most news stories. I asked these kids what the biggest problem facing them and their peers was and what that problem was doing to their lives. When I mentioned tobacco, I'll be honest with you, I was a bit surprised. I was surprised that a lot of hands didn't go up because that is what the media had been talking about, what the front pages were telling us. In fact, Mr. President, only a few hands went up. But when I asked about illegal drugs, almost every hand went up. There was hardly a young person in any one of those high school groups that I spoke to that didn't see drugs as a major problem. Mr. President, you come from a relatively rural State, as do I, and, remember, teenage drug abuse is supposed to be a problem of the big inner-city schools. But the school I was talking to was a school of 250 in rural Idaho. Yet, nearly every hand went up because every one of those students knew someone in their age group who was misusing or was involved in illegal drugs, and they were concerned about that young person's future. They were concerned about the effect it would have on their friends' lives. Well, someone might say that these are kids, what do they know? We are the adults; we are the United States Senators, and we are supposed to have a more mature view of the problems that face the citizens of our country. Yes, I would hope that we as adults would be able to make mature and considered judgments on these questions. But in sensing that drugs present a bigger threat to them now than does tobacco, I think these kids are right. Yes, we should do everything reasonable that we can possibly do to discourage young people from taking up smoking. I was once a smoker myself, and I know that it is not easy to quit. I fought it hard and I fought it for a long time. And I haven't smoked in 8 years. I am proud of that and so is my family. But if these kids do start smoking, the real danger they will face will be 10 and 20 and 25 years out, before which let us hope they mature, that they have a reason to think about their life and their health, and they quit like I did, and they become parents who discourage their children from smoking. Smoking may kill teens later in life, but illegal drugs are killing them today. Whether we are talking about overdoses, car accidents, or the violence associated with the drug trade, illegal drugs present a clear and immediate danger to every young person who tries them, to their families, and to their communities. Talk to the parents of a child they have just lost to an overdose of drugs, and they didn't realize until it was too late that their child was on drugs. No family, no socioeconomic family in every strata, or at any level, is immune. Not one kid will likely die this year because he or she lit their first cigarette. But thousands of Americans will die because they started using drugs this year. Kids who started using drugs today may not get a chance to mature out of that habit, as I did and as thousands do. I expect there are very few parents who would not care whether their kids decided to start smoking. Most of them care a great deal. However, if they were asked whether they would be more concerned about their teens starting to smoke or becoming a user of marijuana, crack, or heroin, how many parents would say they would take the dope over tobacco? Well, we know what they say. We have seen it in the polling. Let me tell you, Mr. President, the polling is dramatic. The polling is very clear. The parents of today in the highest of percentages say, Get the drugs away from our kids. It is the No. 2 issue. And way down at the bottom of all of those issues that parents are concerned about, as it relates to their kids, is smoking. Yet for the last 2 weeks, this Senate has been focused on that issue. Why? Because it is politically popular. We are going to bash those big tobacco companies because they lied to the American people, and we are going to save teenagers from smoking, and we are going to raise taxes to an all-time high to do it. We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, in any poll you take, on the average parent's mind today is the kids associated with drugs, the kids associated with gangs, the kids being killed in car accidents; and way down at the bottom, but on the list of 10 or 12 items, is smoking. That is one reason I question the administration's priorities tonight. In the abstract, I suppose that if drug use continued at the steady decline of the ``just say no'' Reagan and Bush era, if we could honestly say we had the drug dealers on the run, we might start to ask, Well, what is the next thing on the list of national priorities that this Congress ought to become involved in? But that is not what we see. The drug policy of the Clinton administration has been by every measure except theirs a miserable failure. From an early slashing of the funding for the White House antidrug office, to the administration's effort to have it both ways on clean needles for addicts, to their effort to lower penalties for crack cocaine to equal those of powder, to the President's grossly irresponsible ``I wish I had inhaled'' comment on MTV, this administration has sent all the wrong signals. And guess what? Those signals have been picked up by the young people of this country, and the predictable results have occurred. Two national annual surveys show that drug abuse by our Nation's youth has increased steadily since the Clinton administration came into office. The University of Michigan December 1997 Monitoring the Future Study, and the 1997 Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education, and the so- called PRIDE Survey each offer cause for alarm. The Monitoring the Future Study reveals that illicit drug use among America's schoolchildren has constantly increased throughout the Clinton administration. Mr. President, here comes the figures of alarming proportion. For eighth graders the portion using any illegal drug in the prior 12 months has increased 71 percent since the year President Clinton was first elected. And since 1992, it has increased 89 percent amongst 10th graders, and 57 percent amongst 12th graders. That is any illicit drug. The numbers go straight through the roof since President Clinton came to office. Reagan, Bush--numbers declining. Everybody laughed at Nancy Reagan when she said ``Just say no.'' But she stood on a moral pedestal along with George Bush and Ronald Reagan, and they stood as powerful leaders and examples. We have a President who chuckled, and said, ``Well, I wish I had inhaled.'' Sorry, Mr. President. You sent all the wrong signals. Marijuana use accounted for much of the overall increase in illicit drug use continuing its strong resurgence amongst eighth graders. Use in the prior 12 months has increased 146 percent since 1992. The year President Clinton was first elected to office, amongst 10th graders, the annual prevalence has increased 129 percent amongst 12th graders it has increased 76 percent since 1992. Those ought to be figures that are spread in banner headlines in every major newspaper in this country. And they go unnoticed except in our schools, except with school administrators and counselors, and most importantly with parents, who say it is the No. 1 issue facing their children and them as parents. Of particular concern, according to the survey, is the continuing rise in daily marijuana use amongst 10th and 12th graders. More than one in every 25 of today's high school seniors is a current daily marijuana user, with an 18.4- percent increase since only last year, while only 1.1 percent of eighth graders used marijuana daily in 1997. That still represents a 50- percent increase since 1992. Since President Clinton was first elected, annual LSD use has increased over 52 percent, 68 percent, and 50 percent amongst 8th graders and 10th graders and 12th graders, respectively. More than one in 20 seniors in the class of 1997 used cocaine this year, a 12.2- percent increase over just last year. That is cocaine. That is the drug that kills. Crack cocaine also continued a gradual upward climb amongst 10th and 12th graders. In short, since 1992, annual cocaine use is up 87 percent, 147 percent, and 77 percent amongst 8th, 10th and 12th graders, respectively. The longer term gradual rise in the use of amphetamine stimulants also continued within the class of 1997, increasing over 7 percent since last year. Since 1992, annual heroin usage--heroin is on the resurgence--has increased by 83 percent, 141 percent, and 92 percent for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders. America, these are our kids, and they are using heroin. This administration doesn't talk about it. The most recent PRIDE Survey shows a continuing and alarming increase in drug abuse amongst young kids. Illegal drug use amongst 11- and 14- year-olds has continued on a dangerous upward spiral. According to the president of PRIDE, senior high drug use may have stalled, but it is stalled at the highest levels that PRIDE has measured in 10 years.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate a former Idahoan on his successful climb of the world's tallest peak. Mr. President, last month I reported to the Senate a story of my constituents who were climbing Mount Everest. While the climb is not a new adventure to the world, the climbers are. A group of disabled Idahoans, led by former Idahoan Tom Whittaker, successfully reached the base camp of the Everest peak on May 19. On May 27 Tom continued on to the summit with another group, becoming the world's first amputee to reach the top. Tom had fallen ill the week prior to his final ascent; however, he would not be deprived of his ultimate goal. He had tried unsuccessfully to make the climb twice in the past, but was forced back by bad weather. This time, at the Everest website, climbers from around the world are congratulating Tom on his achievement, writing, ``May his success inspire you to follow your dreams and know that your abilities are far more important than your disabilities, whatever they may be.'' I would like to share that sentiment with America today. Tom did not get to his goal without hard work and sacrifice. He did not succeed on the first try. But he would not be denied his dream, and in my mind, Tom Whittaker has set an example to be emulated by all.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Alaska yield me additional time?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me join my colleague from Nevada and say we are debating a motion to proceed. To proceed to what? To proceed to something that the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress have spoken to in a substantial majority for the last 3 years, which is that the Government of the United States should honor the 1982 Nuclear Waste Act and take possession of the waste that they promised the utilities they would take in return for the ratepayers paying out billions of dollars to build a permanent repository. The Senators from Nevada have alluded that there is no cost or obligation. It is the word of our Government; it is the law that speaks. It is a solemn obligation under taxes that we have taken to take possession and build a permanent repository. The courts have also, just in the last year, clearly reflected that. This administration has had to quietly admit it. Now they are fighting in court saying, ``We don't want our hands dirtied by our obligation.'' Mr. President, you are without claim, you are without program, but you aren't without politics. I must say that when the Senators from Nevada talk about the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board saying certain things, let me remind the Senate the chairman of that board was appointed by this President. Would it be so unusual that he would reflect the political attitudes of this President? I suggest not. Now, I find it very interesting that the Senators from Nevada are standing on the floor today wringing their hands and suggesting that we are avoiding the debate on tobacco. Since when has the Senate been a single legislative body? Under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans alike, for the purpose of moving timely policy issues, this Senate has dealt with a multitude of issues. That is exactly what the majority leader is attempting to do today--to start a process on the nuclear waste bill and to move on with tobacco. Who has denied the Senate the right to do two things at one time? The Senators from Nevada. They are the ones that say it is either/or and it is not both. So I find it a bit ironic that they would suggest today that thousands of children may die from tobacco. Let me tell you that any child that starts smoking tobacco doesn't die from it immediately; 10, 15, 20 or 30 years down the line, if they are foolish enough to continue, they might. So back off. That is an illogical argument, and the reality is very clear. This Senate is capable of doing a multitude of things, and we must if we are going to move timely policy issues for this country. Oh, my goodness, Dr. Richard Wilson is suggesting that waste stored at generating sites is safe. What is the difference between storage at a generating site and storage at a temporary site awaiting final disposition in the Nevada desert? Well, I will tell you that there is a difference. The difference is that neither is a problem. So to the Senators from Nevada who claim this great difficulty of human risk to the State of Nevada, there is no risk, by the admission of Dr. Richard Wilson. What there is, is the reality of the law and a timely responsible disposition of this issue. How can any Senator stand on the floor and say we are going to collect $14 billion in taxes, which we have done, and then we are going to turn and run away from the issue and spend the money elsewhere? That is what the Senators from Nevada are suggesting. They are suggesting that somehow we collect the money, but we have no obligation after the fact. The law and the courts are clear. The reality is that we move toward the development of a permanent repository. And while we are doing that, and while it is the Congress of the United States that, by law, designated Yucca Mountain for the purpose of the necessary scientific and engineering studies to determine its desirability for that, we have the responsibility of the law to fulfill the obligation. By the way, what Dr. Richard Wilson did not say is that every site that stores waste at every generating site today, by definition, is temporary--by definition, is temporary. And yet it is safe. Yes, it is safe. It has been well managed. But because it is temporary, the Congress of the United States in 1982 said it is time this country developed a permanent--permanent--resolution of this issue. I would suggest, with a smile on my face, that the Senators from Nevada, when using the tobacco argument, are hiding behind a bit of a smokescreen today. But let's clear the smoke and face the reality that we can deal with more than one issue at one time in this Chamber. The Senators from Nevada are denying us the ability to deal with tobacco, because if we get cloture today, we are on nuclear waste, and we will stay there until this issue is resolved, when we could move forth and debate both tobacco and nuclear waste with a timely allocation to each issue for the purpose of resolving it to final disposition. That is what the majority leader was talking about. That is what this Senate is trying to do. It is our obligation, and it is our responsibility. The Senator from Alaska has talked about the waste, the amount of storage facilities, and what we are attempting to do--81 sites in 41 States, commercial spent fuel. Are big utility companies trying to shove off the responsibility, as has been alluded to by the Senators from Nevada? Quite the contrary. The big utility companies entered into an agreement with their Government. They signed a contract, and they paid the tax. Is that shoving anything off? Absolutely not. It is the reality of the law, and the Senators from Nevada know that. Can I blame them for their arguments in defense of their State? No. But they are not entitled to their own truth when it does not match the reality of the law. Facts cannot be generated on a daily basis. The reality is very clear--$14 billion later and better than a decade and a half, the Congress of the United States has not forced their Government and has not forced this administration to own up to the law, and it is now time we do so. A majority of this body agrees with that; 65 Senators agree with it, 307 House Members, because they understand that they have an obligation to uphold the contractual relationship of this Government as was established. And what did our courts say? Yes, contracts mean something. Last year, the Supreme Court said: You have a contract; the Government is responsible for delivering on the contract. The Senators from Nevada say quite the contrary. Well, they can debate about the Supreme Court if they want to; I will not. What the legislation that we have before us proposes to do is to honor the contract and to do so in a reasonable and timely way, to build a temporary repository, to begin to handle waste in the very way, the very safe way, by the admission of the Senator from Nevada, that it is being handled at temporary sites. So what is the fear? I think there is none. In fact, if you study the issue, you know there is no fear. How many nuclear bombs were trucked right down through the middle of Las Vegas--hundreds of them were--as they moved out to the test site in Nevada for the purpose of their testing. We in this country have the phenomenal integrity of managing nuclear waste in a sound and safe way. And that is the record. We know that is the record. But the legislation that we have before us, or at least that we are attempting to get to, even tightens up on that. It even gets much, much tougher. It goes on to talk about the responsibility of establishing the transportation sites and working with the States to assure that those transportation sites' integrity is maintained. Nevada as a State, as does my State of Idaho, has had a long history of dealing safely and soundly with nuclear materials and doing it in a way that has been cost-effective, that has brought hundreds of millions of dollars to our State in the form of revenue, jobs, and taxation. Is it a double standard we talk about today? Not this Senator. It is a contractual obligation of our Government to find and build a permanent repository for the long-term safe disposition of nuclear waste material. That is the debate today. I cannot blame the Senators from Nevada for the fight they put up. But it is very clear where this Congress and where this Government intends to go, and it has been very clear since 1982, because that is what the citizens of our country have wanted, and that is what we have obligated ourselves to do. We have a nuclear legacy that some would like to walk away from, but it is a nuclear legacy of which this country can well be proud.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this Nation has a nuclear legacy that some would like to shy away from. It is, in fact, the legacy of which I am proud. It has brought safety and security to this country for decades. Now we must handle it in a responsible fashion, because from that legacy there is a debt, and the debt is the safe and responsible management of nuclear waste from the military side. Some years ago, we decided that a permanent repository would also house high-level military nuclear waste. While all of that legacy is a responsibility of our Government and our citizens, there is another legacy that we can be even more proud of, and that is the history of the commercial electrical generating industry that chose to generate electricity from nuclear energy. About 20 percent of our electrical base today is nuclear, and our scientists and environmental friends tell us that if we are to obtain the clean air standards in the nonattainment areas, we will probably have to have more nuclear generated electricity, or at least we will have to keep the same ratios even with the growth of our country. All of a sudden, out of a Kyoto discussion comes a new recognition of a phenomenally clean, safe form of electrical generation. We all understand that. We all find it terribly important. If we are going to address the reality of climate change--and all of us are concerned about it--one of our obligations is to provide a safe, clean source of energy, and it is nuclear. And to do so, we must find a safe, clean way to handle the spent fuel. That is what we have understood for a long time, and that is what this country will demand. That is what we are putting forth today--to deal with this legislation, to put it to the President, hopefully, for his signature. And I will tell you that the Senators from Nevada have said he might veto it. Well, the President of the United States does not run the legislative branch of Government, nor should we view that threat as something that would deter or direct our policy formation. We are a separate branch, and while the President might suggest he would veto it, we also have the power to override. And in the last vote we had on this issue, we missed that by one vote. I am convinced today, based on the increased importance of this issue and the reality of the court tests and the simple explanation of our President as he throws his political hands up and says, ``I have no solution to the problem, and I will do nothing,'' even though the courts and the law say he must, that he is acting in a fully irresponsible fashion. The Congress of the United States knows that, and 41 States know that. And the public is beginning to say, ``Wait a moment, Mr. President. You have an obligation under the law. Didn't you take an oath of office? Aren't you responsible for upholding the law?'' But so is the Congress. And the Congress and the President, in concert, can resolve this issue. The resolution is in the very legislation that we are attempting to debate on the floor, to build a safe, temporary repository to begin to take possession of the waste that we promised we would in 1982 as we began this process and as we began to tax the ratepayers of the nuclear-generating utilities of this country. We can do that and we should do that, if that is what we debate today. This is not a debate about tobacco. That is a false argument. It was the Senators from Nevada and the minority leader who denied the Senate the right to debate both issues. So let us not use that again. It is a phony argument. It is a false-based argument. This Senate, under Democrat or Republican leadership, has dealt with two or three issues at a time. When we get under time constraints, as we are in this political year when our colleagues will want to be out campaigning by early October, there will be many times on the floor of the Senate when we will want to deal with multiple issues. This is one where some have chosen to be selective, but let the record show that is a false choice. We can do both. We should do both. That is the intent. That is why we are here today, to debate a motion to proceed so we can handle both at the same time in a responsible way, so we can turn to our citizens and our electorate and say, as we close the business of the 105th session of the U.S. Senate, that we dealt in a timely fashion with our environmental responsibilities with nuclear waste, high-level waste materials, and that we also dealt with the responsibility to the teenagers of America, and that is to deal with tobacco and try to restrict it from their access and their use. We can do both, and we should, and that is what we are attempting here this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 10 a.m. in open session, to consider the nominations of Dr. Hans Mark, to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering; Mahlon Apgar, IV, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and Environment; and Joseph W. Westphal, to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the sessions of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2 and Wednesday, June 3, 1998, to conduct an oversight hearing on the programs and operations of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on the ``International Postal Services Act of 1998.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on June 2, 1998, at 11 to 2 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 10 a.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``e-commerce & Y2K: What's Ahead for Small Business.'' The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 10 a.m. on the nominations of Clyde Hart to be Administrator of the Maritime Administration, Neal Lane to be Director and Rosina Bierbaum to be Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing previously announced for June 11, 1998, has been rescheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, June 17, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Improvement Act of 1997. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in observance of the tenth annual National Foster Care Month, May, 1998--a month when the nation commemorates the outstanding contributions that foster parents make every day to the lives of some of our most vulnerable young people. Children are our nation's greatest hope and responsibility. Every child deserves a loving, permanent family. Unfortunately, nearly half a million American children find themselves without a family to count on, victims of violence, drugs, or neglect. With the help of foster parents, these children can live in an environment that is safe, stable, and full of love. Yet all too often, the compassion and caring of foster parents go unrecognized. Let me tell you about an Idaho family who have been foster parents for ten years. Arthur and Janet Mayer have fostered more than 140 boys throughout those years. It is impossible for most of us to imagine-- much less imitate--the tremendous commitment of time and energy these fine people have made to their foster children. Later this month, they will be recognized in my state with the Lifetime Achievement to Foster Care Award. I am pleased to express my admiration of Arthur and Janet, and my appreciation for their dedicated service to children and families. National Foster Care Month gives us an opportunity to commend not only the Mayers, but also the more than 100,000 foster parents across the nation who have opened their homes and hearts to young people in need of temporary refuge. Whether they help 140 children or one, these individuals are making a critical contribution that will resonate long into the future. I hope all of my colleagues will join with me in encouraging families in their own states to participate in the foster care program and applauding the important work of our nation's foster parents.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, why have we spent the last 3 days on the floor talking about tobacco? Nearly everyone who has come to the floor to talk about tobacco has said we have to get it out of the hands of teenagers. There are two reasons we are on the floor talking about tobacco. First of all, it is darn good politics, and, secondly, we are mad at the tobacco companies and we are going to act in a very punitive fashion because they lied to us. They withheld information as to the addictiveness of nicotine, and we are angry as a public, angry as a governing body. We are going to inflict upon them a very punitive action, and we are going to do it in the name of teenagers--thousands of young people every day picking up a cigarette. I am not belittling it, I am recognizing it. We need to try to get tobacco and the substance within it, nicotine, out of the hands of our teenagers. But thousands of teenagers today who start smoking today will not die tomorrow. Let me repeat that. The thousands of teenagers that we are all talking about--and, boy, have we heard it on the floor in the last few days--who pick up a cigarette today will not die tomorrow. Mr. President, young people who engage in the use of drugs can die tomorrow. As my colleague from Georgia said, thousands are dying each year in violent actions and crimes related to drug use and drug associations. Yet, we stand silently by. The administration dropped the ball and walked away, and, finally, my colleague from Georgia rose up and said, wait a moment here, what in the heck are we doing as a country and as a policymaking body? If we are going to do all these great things for kids to get the cigarette out of their hand, why in the heck don't we get crack cocaine, marijuana, and amphetamines out of their hands because it kills them--not 30 years down the road. By the way, if you start smoking today, you have a chance to live, because you can quit down the road. But if you start crack cocaine today, you will probably die on the street in a month or two for one reason or another, because you are stealing the money to get the crap that is called crack, or you are shot in some transaction that went bad. That is how teenagers in America are dying today. The statistics that were just given by my colleague from Georgia about seventh graders and eighth graders is real. I have done the same thing that Paul Coverdell has done. I have gone to the schools of Idaho. I go to them regularly anyway. I spend a lot of time talking with teenagers, kids, and when I ask the question, ``What is your problem?'' the hands go up with drugs. Most of the hands go up. The Senator from Georgia is right. They know who sells it, and where you can get them. If they had a brand name on them, they would know the brand. Most importantly, if they had a brand name on them and they were being trafficked in the market today, we would be here going after the companies that were selling them because it would be killing our kids. But today we are angry. We are mad. We are going to be vindictive. We are after the tobacco companies. We are after their big money to fuel big government. I am not going to vote for a big tobacco bill. I am going to vote to get cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers. It is the right thing to do. But if we stand silently by and let what is described by my colleague from Georgia as the most significant epidemic amongst our youngsters go unspoken to and uncorrected, then we have erred grievously; we have erred grievously as policymakers. New polls are out. When you ask parents what they are worried about, here is what they say: Thirty-nine percent, using illegal drugs. Thirty-nine percent of the American public say that is the No. 1 problem. Sixteen percent say joining a gang. Nine percent say drinking alcohol. Why? You get drunk, you get in the car, and you kill somebody, and you kill yourself. Why then are we on the floor to spend weeks and millions of dollars trying to reach out and get billions of dollars out of tobacco? I will tell you why. Because it is good politics. Yet only 3 percent of the American people say they worry about it when they worry about their kids. It is time we speak out. That is what my colleague from Georgia, my colleague from Michigan, and I are doing. We will have an amendment on the tobacco bill that will deal with this issue, or there will be no tobacco bill. We must wake up the White House, wake up our Government, and wake up this policy body to what we are about to do. Here is what we want to do. We want to attach legislation that deals with this issue in a most significant way targeting three primary areas: Attacking the supply of drugs by strengthening our ability to stop them at the border; pull the mothballed Coast Guard fleet out and put it back in the water. Bill Clinton put it there. The heck with Bill Clinton. Put the money back in. Get them out in the water, and stop by interdiction. That is what our amendment does. Second, we want to provide additional resources to fight drugs that reach our neighborhoods. Give the tools to the law enforcement communities and the schools and the communities at large to join together to block grant and create their own initiative along with our directed initiatives to get at the problem at the local level. Then the third thing is to create disincentives for teen use of illegal drugs. Those are the three major areas that will be involved in what we are about to do. We are going to spend a lot of time on the floor week after next until this proposal, this amendment, is part of the overall bill that will move, I believe, out of here. So what do we have to do? When it comes to the supply side, we have to go straight at it. We have to deal with interdiction. We have to strengthen the borders. We have to stop slashing Coast Guard budgets and put some money back in it. We talked about a 53-percent decline from 1992 to 1995 in the ability of the Coast Guard to reach out and interdict. That simply has to stop. Our amendment does exactly that. Our amendment also includes the Border-Free Drug Act, which attacks 70 percent of the illegal drugs that enter the United States across the United States-Mexican border--70 percent of the drugs that are killing our kids on the street today, not 20 years down the road--today coming across the border from Mexico to the United States. So why not put more people on the borders? I think we ought to. We ought to strengthen the Immigration and Naturalization Service to hire Border Patrol agents to deal with the trafficking and get at the business of going at it. For example, our amendment increases the resources available to DEA and the FBI. An additional section of our amendment is the Money Laundering Prevention Act. Finally, last week this administration announced a major break in drug laundering with Mexican banks. We have arrested a few people. And we are trying to get the cooperation of the Mexican Government now because the money is big. How big? We are trying to get $800 billion away from the tobacco companies to spend on big government and some advertising that we think will convince our teenagers to quit smoking. But $100 billion a year in the drug business kills thousands of teenagers. And we have not spoken to that. Why don't we go after that? I hope we can. We should. That is our goal. While we deal with it in a national and an international way, we have to turn to our parents and we have to turn to our communities. The kids know who the drug dealers are. We ought to start asking them and involving them a little bit and recognizing the importance of that. We do that. We go after the demand side along with the supply side. I think the Clinton administration's green light to subsidize needle exchange and programs like that doesn't make a lot of sense. That is an encouragement. We want to stop that. Our legislation is comprehensive. The amendment that we will talk about over the recess and will offer as soon as we get back is going to be critical. Pieces of what we are doing have already passed the Congress in one way or another. We want to bring them together to create the focus to do the same thing against drugs as we have done against alcohol. You get caught as a teenage drunk driver you lose your driver's license. You get caught using drugs as a teenager you drive on. We will encourage the States to take the driver's license away. Let me say in closing, Mr. President, that if we are really worried about kids, yes. I agree. Let's get the cigarettes out of their hands. But let's stop them from their access to drugs of all forms. It kills them tomorrow. It killed thousands last year. It will kill thousands this year. As a policy-making body, we would be remiss not to deal with this issue now and force this administration to get out of their sleepwalk and deal with the issue in cooperation with us. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That same poll said that only 3 percent of Americans recognize the use of tobacco products as a concern for their teenagers. I think their greatest concern was that the most damaging would be drugs and other activities. Would the Senator from Missouri agree with that?