Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, immediately following the opening prayer, the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 107, a resolution affirming the U.S. commitment to Taiwan, and the Senate then proceed to its consideration. I further ask that an amendment offered by Senator Lott, which is at the desk, then be agreed to and the Senate then proceed to the immediate vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended, with no motions or additional amendments in order, other than a title amendment. I finally ask unanimous consent that, following the vote on the resolution, if adopted, the preamble be considered agreed to, an amendment to the title be agreed to, and the title, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the product liability bill be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as a reminder to all Senators, a cloture motion was filed on the motion to proceed to the private property rights. That cloture vote will occur on Monday, July 13, at 5:45 p.m.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for the next 30 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, pursuant to the consent agreement, the Senate will proceed immediately to S. Con. Res. 107 regarding Taiwan, with a rollcall vote occurring immediately. Therefore, a rollcall vote will occur at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, July 10. Mr. President, following that vote, the Senate could be asked to turn to any other legislative or executive calendar items. However, no further votes will occur during Friday's session of the Senate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, July 10. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to make some comments about America's strategy in the long and vitally important struggle we are waging against illegal drugs. When it comes to ensuring a bright future for our children, there are very few things we can do that are more important than protecting them from drugs. Earlier today, President Clinton and Speaker of the House Gingrich unveiled a major billion-dollar advertising campaign, a campaign approved by this Congress to reach our children with a hard-hitting message about the dangers of drugs. Mr. President, in my view, this is a very worthwhile project; it is something that we should do; it is something that I believe will in fact make a difference. It comes not a moment too soon. Advertising is important in virtually every sector of our society. Those of us who run for public office use TV and radio; products are sold every day. I think the evidence is clear that we can reach our young people; we can reach everyone through very effective antidrug advertising. Mr. President, investing in antidrug education campaigns is important, but education is just one of the key components. It must be part of a balanced overall strategy if we are to truly fight drug abuse. To succeed, we have to rely on more than just creative minds on Madison Avenue. We need the help of teachers, doctors, parents, and many more, to help reduce demand through education and through treatment. We need the help of law enforcement officers, we need the help of prosecutors, judges, to arrest and then send drug pushers to prison. And we need drug enforcement agents, Coast Guard crews, and even members of our military to seize drugs at the source or in transit before they come into our country. It takes all these individuals, and so many more, to wage a comprehensive--to wage a balanced, effective war on drugs. History proves the fight against drugs is only successful when it is balanced and when it is in fact comprehensive. Mr. President, sadly--sadly--our overall drug strategy today is neither balanced nor comprehensive. Our drug strategy today is imbalanced because of a lack of commitment for the international and for the interdiction components of the antidrug effort. Let me repeat, I believe that we are not making enough effort in the international area and in the interdiction components of the antidrug effort. Now, what do I mean by the interdiction component? What do I mean by the international component? Let me define ``international effort,'' what I mean by that, and what I mean by ``interdiction efforts.'' International efforts include any direct assistance, resources and training the United States provides to foreign countries specifically for counternarcotics matters. By interdiction efforts, I mean to include the seizing of drugs, the disruption of drug-trafficking routes outside our borders from where the drugs are produced in source countries, through the so-called transit zones, then up until they reach our border. Basically, Mr. President, what we are talking about is everything from the production of the drugs all the way until they hit our border. It is in this effort in the past few years we have not made the effort, not made the sufficient effort. Sadly, the current administration, despite its promises in this area, has been either unwilling or unable to maintain the support needed for a successful comprehensive and balanced international and interdiction strategy. It is, Mr. President, because of this imbalance that the current administration has failed to uphold the tremendous successes of the Reagan and Bush administrations in reducing illegal drug use, particularly among young people. In fact, the evidence shows that drug use has been on the rise. This must be of great concern to all Americans. Mr. President, I am going to be talking in the balance of this speech about that lack of effort in the international area and that lack of effort in the interdiction area. I want to also say, though, that part of the problem has been that initially this administration did not focus on the drug problem. It was not a high priority. The President, for years, did not use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to talk about this issue. And I think this contributed to the problem as well. The fact is, over the course of the previous decade, international and interdiction programs beyond our borders were essential parts of a balanced plan to reduce drug use, a plan that also included drug education, drug treatment, and local law enforcement efforts. When we used all of these, Mr. President, we made some progress. But beginning in 1993, the administration abandoned this balanced approach and shifted resources away from the international and interdiction components of our antidrug efforts. Simply put, this administration has deemphasized effective strategies beyond our borders that are designed to keep drugs from entering our country and infecting our communities. Mr. President, I believe it is time to reverse this current policy. This evening, I call on my colleagues to join me in restoring--in restoring--a balanced drug control strategy that will put us back on a course toward ridding our schools and our communities of illegal and destructive drugs. By doing this, we can in fact make a difference. By restoring our prior commitment to source and transit zone interdiction efforts, we can once again reduce the trafficking of drugs. Let me address this issue in more detail. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, effective international and effective interdiction programs are a necessary and key component of any national drug control strategy. During the period from 1985 through 1992, the U.S. Government waged a comprehensive and a balanced antidrug effort. The evidence clearly shows that with a balanced strategy we were making great progress. We significantly reduced drug use. In 1987, the Federal drug control budget was divided as follows: 29 percent for demand reduction programs. These, of course, include education, treatment, prevention. Thirty-eight percent of the budget in that year--38 percent of the budget--went for domestic law enforcement, and 33 percent went for international and interdiction efforts. The total national drug control budget at that time was $4.79 billion. Now, what were the results of this very balanced--very balanced--approach? We achieved some progress, with some success. In 1988 to 1991, total drug use was down 13 percent, cocaine use dropped by 35 percent, marijuana use was reduced by 16 percent. How did interdiction contribute to this decline? First, major efforts to limit the easy access to drugs by street dealers caused the number of potential drug users to fall off. Second, limiting success through interdiction drove up the street price of drugs dramatically. Because of interdiction, drugs became more difficult to find and more expensive to buy. During this period of time, our drug interdiction strategy was serious business. President Bush called illegal drugs the ``gravest domestic threat facing our Nation today.'' In 1989, President Bush tasked the Defense Department to play an important role in the drug war. Specifically, the Defense Department was tasked to engage in the detection and monitoring of drugs in transit towards the United States. As a Member of the House of Representatives at that time, I can recall very well the investment we dedicated toward the international and toward the interdiction components of the war on drugs. These investments did make a difference. All this changed in 1993. The Clinton administration immediately pursued policies that upset this careful balance in drug funding. Although we have seen a considerable increase in the overall national drug control budget, the proportion of resources dedicated to international and to interdiction efforts has dramatically declined over the past 5 years. In addition, interdiction no longer remains a priority within the Department of Defense. In fact, the Defense Department currently ranks counternarcotics dead last in importance, dead last in its global military force policy. Let me spend a few minutes talking about this major shift in policy. Let me refer Members of the Senate to my second chart. Of the $13.3 million national drug control budget for the year 1995, 35 percent was allocated for drug demand reduction programs--35 percent--53 percent for law enforcement, but only 12 percent for the international and the interdiction components combined. So we went from one-third of the total budget to 12 percent, a dramatic change. Think of it--only 12 percent of the total drug control budget was dedicated to these efforts, down from 33 percent just a few years before. Although the overall drug budget increased threefold from 1987 to 1995, the piece of the drug budget pie allocated for international and interdiction efforts has dramatically decreased. This is not only unfortunate, it is also unacceptable. There was then and continues to be no real effort made, no real commitment made, no real resources given, for international and interdiction efforts. We are spending some money, but it has been a dramatic decrease in the message of our total effort. I believe the results are clear and the consequences have been devastating. Counternarcotics funding for defense fell 57 percent between 1992 and 1995. Coast Guard funding fell 32 percent during that same period. As a result, a number of Defense Department and Coast Guard ship days devoted to drug interdiction dropped from 4,448 in fiscal year 1993 to 2,845 in 1995. Further, not surprisingly, Coast Guard seizures dropped from a little over 90,000 pounds in 1991 to a little over 28,000 pounds in 1996. In addition, the number of flight hours by airborne warning and control systems, AWAC planes, dropped from 38,100 hours in fiscal year 1992, clear down to 17,713 hours in fiscal year 1996, a 54 percent reduction. Had it not been for the change in leadership in Congress in 1995, this very troubling situation would have been far, far worse. However, the damage of an unbalanced strategy has been done. Cocaine seizures had dropped, the price of cocaine had dropped, and there was an increase in drug use. Overall drug use among teens aged 12-17 rose by 70 percent. Drug-abuse-related arrests more than doubled for minors between 1992 and 1996. Since 1992, there has been an overall 80 percent increase in illicit drug use among graduating high school seniors. This negative effect has sent shockwaves through our communities and our homes. The rise of drug use is not at all surprising. With the decline of emphasis on drug interdiction, it became far easier to bring drugs into the United States and thus far easier to purchase drugs. A significant price decline caused by the increased availability of cocaine and heroin made it easier for casual adult users and our youth to buy these drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reported that small ``pieces'' or rocks of crack once sold for $10 to $20 and are now available for $3 to $5. Mr. President, what disturbs me about this current national drug control strategy is that this unbalanced trend continues. As we can see in the second chart, in the late 1980s there was a generally balanced distribution among the three different functions--demand reduction, law enforcement, and international interdiction efforts. In 1987, you can see, they are fairly balanced. Compare that to the distributions for the years 1994, 1995, and then 1998. One can see that our previous balanced approach certainly no longer exists. The red on the chart is the international and interdiction components--again, Mr. President, basically our entire antidrug effort from the source countries to the transit zones, right up to the border of the United States. That is what this red represents. What you find is, it was basically a third when we started, when we looked at 1987, but by the time we get to 1995 and 1998 it is a much smaller percentage, down to as low as 12 percent. That is the problem. Our previous balanced approach simply no longer exists. The strategy has changed, and, sadly, so have the results. This really is the untold story of what has gone on in regard to our antidrug efforts during the past few years. It is a story that I think has to be told, and it is a story that I think the Senate, the House, and the American people simply have to pay attention to. We have to change this trend. We need to restore a balance, a balanced strategy. Let me make it clear that I strongly support funding to keep with the demand side of the drug situation; that is, finding a way to persuade Americans, particularly young people, that doing drugs is wrong, that it destroys lives, families, schools, and communities. Truly, in the end, reducing demand is the only permanent way to really overcome the threat of drugs. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will always be a supply. That is why education and treatment, both-- education and treatment--remain essential long-term goal components of our antidrug efforts. However, reducing the demand for drugs is not going to happen overnight. It will take many years to change minds regarding the use or abuse of drugs. I believe one way to reduce demand is to have an effective interdiction policy, one that will seriously reduce the level of drugs into this country. We must find ways to raise the costs of narcotics trafficking, making it far more difficult for drug lords to bring these drugs to our Nation and in making the drugs far more costly to buy. It is sad to say, the drug cartels don't have a budget process or a bureaucracy to slow them down. Unfortunately, the job is not getting done. As I have mentioned before, the Caribbean is becoming more and more the transit route of choice for drug traffickers. I have made two visits to the transit zone in the Caribbean in the past few months. During my last visit, I learned that our agents in the Bahamas seized more cocaine in the first 3 months of 1998 than in the previous 3 years combined. This may sound great, it may sound like we are making progress, but our agents there inform me that although they would like to take tremendous credit for these seizures, their belief, their concern, is that the higher amount seized represents probably just a small fraction of the total amount of drugs coming through this area. They told me that they think the amount of drugs coming through is significantly up, and they are only getting a fraction of what is coming through. For example, Mr. President, of the total drug air events in the Bahamas from April 1997 to April 1998, our U.S. agents told me that they believe there was only an 8 percent success rate in stopping drug air flights that had been detected. They are working hard and they are doing the best they can, but that means that over 92 percent got away. Without a doubt, there is a larger, larger flow of drugs entering the United States and a larger, larger flow of drugs coming through this part of the world. Mr. President, when I was in Key West for a short visit in May, I was briefed on specific interdiction efforts in the Eastern Pacific. I was surprised to find that in the Eastern Pacific the coast is literally clear today for the drug lords to do their business. We have virtually nothing going on to stop drug trafficking in this area. It is wide, wide open. This is simply unacceptable. The U.S. Government is not effectively dealing with this increasingly large threat in the eastern Pacific. We have virtually no presence because of a lack of funding and commitment. I was briefed about an operation called Caper Focus, which would have focused on interdiction efforts in the area. We would have had a number of surface assets and aircraft to patrol the waters and to do interdiction. This operation, unfortunately, was canceled--canceled before it started--because of a Department of Defense decision to send the needed surface assets elsewhere. To date, this issue has not been resolved and the coastal waters in the Eastern Pacific are wide open--wide open--for drug business. Mr. President, it is situations like this that greatly disturb me and, I think, should disturb all Americans. As a Nation, we are not doing all we can to fight drugs beyond our borders. The drug lords in South America are well aware that the United States no longer considers interdiction an important facet in its drug program. It is no exaggeration to say that they are having a field day. Although the Coast Guard and agencies can monitor drug trafficking operations, they stand by helpless because they lack the necessary equipment to turn detection into seizures and arrests. Mr. President, I believe it is time to provide the resources essential for our agencies to effectively complete the job that they have been assigned, and the job that they so desperately want to do-- the job to protect our borders from the importation of illegal narcotics. The most effective way to stop the drug business is to find ways to make it more difficult for them to engage in this illicit and, frankly, immoral practice. We need to have a renewed commitment and rededication of resources toward drug interdiction. Mr. President, there is a clear link between the rise in the drug use and the decline of resources devoted to interdiction. The interdiction efforts conducted from 1985 to 1992 made a difference in reducing drug use. Interdiction does drive up the price of doing business in drugs, and this drives up the price and drives down the purity of cocaine on the street, or any other drug. Also, it is important to note that seizing or destroying a ton of cocaine in source or transit areas is much more cost effective than trying to seize the same quantity of drugs at the point of sale. No doubt, interdiction is a key factor driving down drug use, and you do it by driving up drug prices. Mr. President, the answer to this current problem is clear: We need a balanced antidrug approach. That means we have to restore source country/transit zone interdiction efforts. I believe that we can in fact do this. I believe we can restore the strategy we had not so many years ago before the current administration hobbled these efforts. We need to reduce the flow of cocaine and heroin into the U.S., we need to drive up the cost of these drugs, and we need to reduce their availability and support efforts to reduce demand. This will work. Mr. President, I have been working with colleagues both in the Senate and the House in developing this comprehensive interdiction eradication and crop substitution program. So I intend to take the floor again soon and outline how we can restore our international interdiction efforts and how we can restore the balance we need to once again effectively fight the scourge of illegal drugs. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln once said, ``We cannot escape history.'' Well, history shows that only with a comprehensive, balanced antidrug strategy can we actually reduce drug use. So it is time for our drug strategy to embrace history, not escape it. Mr. President, I will discuss this matter in the future in more detail and with more specifics, as far as what I think we need to do. But the bottom line is that we need that balanced approach. We need to get back to doing what we were doing a few years ago, when one-third of our budget was devoted to interdiction, stopping drugs before they reached the United States. We need to do everything--we need to have drug treatment, we need to have drug education, we need to have domestic law enforcement, and we need to work at our borders. All of these things are important. But we also must do the final thing. The final thing is to stop the drugs at the source, in the source country, and in transit.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will offer a few brief comments in regard to this very important piece of legislation that the Senate is now considering. In my work on the Labor Committee, one of the things I have been focusing on is the issue of quality teaching in our classroom. Really, there is nothing more important in regard to education than the teacher. Our children deserve to be taught by teachers who really understand their subject, understand the subject matter. I have worked hard to incorporate measures concerning good teaching into this bill. I want to thank Chairman Jeffords for the assistance that he has given me and the cooperation in getting these sections incorporated into this very good bill. Title II of this legislation is entitled ``Improving Teacher Quality.'' Here are some of the measures that I have been promoting that I am pleased to say have been included in this bill. One, the bill funds programs that establish, expand, and improve alternative routes to State certification for highly qualified individuals from other occupations and for recent college graduates with records of academic distinction. Two, this bill would develop and implement innovative efforts aimed at reducing the shortage of highly qualified teachers in high-poverty urban and in high-poverty rural areas. These efforts might include the recruitment of highly qualified individuals from other occupations-- again, through alternative certification programs. Three, this bill would provide prospective teachers with alternatives to traditional preparation for teaching, through programs at colleges of arts and sciences or at nonprofit educational organizations. I am pleased that this bill has a strong focus on alternative certification or licensure of teachers. I introduced S. 1742, the Alternative Certification and Licensure of Teachers Act back in February of this year. I introduced it because I wanted to give highly qualified people who like to teach, who want to teach, a chance to do so. These are people who can serve as mentors and who can serve as role models, real life examples of how a good education can make a huge, positive difference in a student's future. These are the types of individuals that we should be encouraging to become teachers and to get into education. I also take a moment to talk about the commonsense Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act, which I introduced last July. I am pleased that this provision has also been included in this bill. Members can find it incorporated in title IV of the bill before the Senate. Now, Mr. President, the Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act provides school loan forgiveness to individuals who earn a degree in early childhood education or in related fields and who then obtains employment in a child care facility. I think we must recognize the extraordinary need that exists today for quality child care. Recent studies have shown that more than 80 percent of child care centers provide mediocre or poor quality services. The indications are that a mere 14 percent of the centers surveyed met levels of quality that were high enough to adequately support a child's development. The Quality Child Care Loan Forgiveness Act will help ensure that our children get higher quality child care. It will do it by encouraging more people, better qualified people, to teach in these facilities. It will encourage students who are in college to major in this area and to make their lifework early childhood development. Again, I don't know what could be more important. Finally, let me say I am glad that this bill includes important legislation I sponsored having to do with the underground railroad. The Underground Railroad Education Culture Act will provide for the establishment of programs to research, display, interpret, and collect artifacts and other items relating to the history of the underground railroad. The history of the underground railroad is important to this country. It is important to Ohio, and it is important to me personally. In the 20 years prior to the Civil War, it is estimated--no one will ever know what the true figure is--but it is estimated that more than 40,000 slaves, 40,000 human beings escaped bondage and made their way to free soil on the trail of the underground railroad. This is a great story. It is a great story that every schoolchild in America should know about. More than 150 underground railroad sites have been identified in my home State of Ohio alone. We are sure there are many, many more besides that. These are sites that symbolized at the time freedom for thousands and thousands of enslaved Americans. When I visit these places, as I have with my family, it gives me real pause for hope about the future of our country. When we talk about race relations in this country, we would do well to remind ourselves that at one of the darkest points in our history-- maybe our darkest point, the period of slavery--some blacks and some whites took immense personal risk to work together for freedom, to work together for liberty. It is a great story. This is a part of the American story that we should be proud of and we should build on. In Ohio, we are very proud of the part our ancestors played in this great story. This is why I think this legislation is so very important. I want to again thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, the chairman of our committee, and my other colleagues on the Labor Committee, for agreeing to place this legislation in the managers' amendment. It was very important to recognize this period in our history. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by mentioning briefly what I believe to be the next step on education policy. I have introduced legislation that would provide assistance for the creation of nonprofit teacher training facilities across the United States, facilities that would help train teachers--teachers who are already in the classroom, or individuals who are about to enter this great profession. S. 1742, the Teacher Quality Act, which I have introduced, is a commonsense piece of legislation that would assist school districts in their struggle to maintain the highest possible academic standards for their children. I hope that in the weeks ahead we will consider this bill as well. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan effort and will vote in favor of its passage. Again, I congratulate Senator Jeffords and the other members of our committee who have worked so long and hard to bring this very good and comprehensive bill to the Senate.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask the Chair to notify me after I have used 6 minutes. privilege of the floor

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. One of the key priorities for America today is protecting our young people from drugs. We need to stay on the lookout for new and different ways that we can make even a small difference in this important fight. This morning, along with Senators, Grassley, Kohl, Abraham, Sessions, and Coverdell, I am introducing a bill that is neither monumental in approach nor grandiose in scope--but it will break on of the links in the chain of the drug trade. There is now a loophole in Federal law that permits large quantities of a certain class of drugs known as controlled substances to pour into our country at an alarming rate. Included among these are some dangerous hallucinogenics and so-called date-rape drugs. The reason for this current loophole is that, under present law, an individual is permitted to transport a 90-day supply of a controlled substance into the United States. By ``controlled substance'' we mean a substance that is either banned or regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency. This ``personal use exception,'' as it is called, is well intentioned. It was created to allow Americans who become ill or injured abroad to carry their necessary medication back to the United States. I want to emphasize that this bill would by no means end that very legitimate practice. That is not our intention at all. However, this legislation would stop the blatant exploitation of that exemption which is allowing some drug traffickers to operate freely in the United States. Let me explain. Specifically, these narcotics are being legally purchased in another country without any sort of documentation of medical need, then brought across our border, and then illegally sold on our streets in this country. By closing this loophole, we will empower our law enforcement to stop what amounts to nothing more than another form of drug trafficking in the United States. The remedy we seek today is both effective and sensible. It would limit the amount of these controlled substances that can be carried back to the United States by Americans to 50 doses. According to the DEA, that is about a 2-week supply, enough time to go get a new prescription before running out of that medication. I would also like to note some things that this legislation will not do, so we can explain it very clearly to Members. It will not change the law with respect to noncontrolled prescription drugs, drugs such as insulin or Premarin, and it would not affect the ability of people to obtain drugs to treat heart disease or cancer or AIDS or other serious illnesses, because these medication are not on the Controlled Substances List at all. I also indicate to my colleagues that there is support for this among the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs--they all support this approach. They recognize the problem and would like to see it resolved. Let me again emphasize, this legislation is not complex. All we are really doing is closing a loophole to stop this illegal trafficking of controlled substances in the United States. If we are really going to make drug interdiction a priority, then it makes a great deal of sense to take this relatively small but effective and meaningful step. We need to take this step today. Before closing, I would like to compliment my friend and colleague from the State of Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot, from Cincinnati, who has shown great leadership on this issue, and many issues. It was through his active and tireless efforts in raising the profile on this issue that I was first made aware of the problem. I look forward to work with him and my other colleagues on this very important new initiative. It is my hope the Senate will act quickly and decisively to approve this very commonsense piece of legislation. Mr. President, in conclusion, I ask unanimous consent a recent article that appeared in USA Today entitled ``Medications from Mexico'' that explains this and illustrates the problem be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Terrence O'Donnell, for the remainder of the day.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 2242 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. One of the key priorities for America today is protecting our young people from drugs. We need to stay on the lookout for new and different ways that we can make even a small difference in this important fight. This morning, along with Senators, Grassley, Kohl, Abraham, Sessions, and Coverdell, I am introducing a bill that is neither monumental in approach nor grandiose in scope--but it will break on of the links in the chain of the drug trade. There is now a loophole in Federal law that permits large quantities of a certain class of drugs known as controlled substances to pour into our country at an alarming rate. Included among these are some dangerous hallucinogenics and so-called date-rape drugs. The reason for this current loophole is that, under present law, an individual is permitted to transport a 90-day supply of a controlled substance into the United States. By ``controlled substance'' we mean a substance that is either banned or regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency. This ``personal use exception,'' as it is called, is well intentioned. It was created to allow Americans who become ill or injured abroad to carry their necessary medication back to the United States. I want to emphasize that this bill would by no means end that very legitimate practice. That is not our intention at all. However, this legislation would stop the blatant exploitation of that exemption which is allowing some drug traffickers to operate freely in the United States. Let me explain. Specifically, these narcotics are being legally purchased in another country without any sort of documentation of medical need, then brought across our border, and then illegally sold on our streets in this country. By closing this loophole, we will empower our law enforcement to stop what amounts to nothing more than another form of drug trafficking in the United States. The remedy we seek today is both effective and sensible. It would limit the amount of these controlled substances that can be carried back to the United States by Americans to 50 doses. According to the DEA, that is about a 2-week supply, enough time to go get a new prescription before running out of that medication. I would also like to note some things that this legislation will not do, so we can explain it very clearly to Members. It will not change the law with respect to noncontrolled prescription drugs, drugs such as insulin or Premarin, and it would not affect the ability of people to obtain drugs to treat heart disease or cancer or AIDS or other serious illnesses, because these medication are not on the Controlled Substances List at all. I also indicate to my colleagues that there is support for this among the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs--they all support this approach. They recognize the problem and would like to see it resolved. Let me again emphasize, this legislation is not complex. All we are really doing is closing a loophole to stop this illegal trafficking of controlled substances in the United States. If we are really going to make drug interdiction a priority, then it makes a great deal of sense to take this relatively small but effective and meaningful step. We need to take this step today. Before closing, I would like to compliment my friend and colleague from the State of Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot, from Cincinnati, who has shown great leadership on this issue, and many issues. It was through his active and tireless efforts in raising the profile on this issue that I was first made aware of the problem. I look forward to work with him and my other colleagues on this very important new initiative. It is my hope the Senate will act quickly and decisively to approve this very commonsense piece of legislation. Mr. President, in conclusion, I ask unanimous consent a recent article that appeared in USA Today entitled ``Medications from Mexico'' that explains this and illustrates the problem be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in 1989, President George Bush called drugs ``the gravest domestic threat facing our nation today.'' Almost nine years later, that threat still exists. That same year, President Bush tasked the Defense Department to play an important role in the drug war. Specifically, the Defense Department was tasked to engage in the detection and monitoring of drugs in transit towards the United States. At that time, counter narcotics, and drug interdiction were key components of our nation's drug control strategy. As a member of the House of Representatives at that time, I can recall very well the investments we dedicated toward the international and interdiction components of the war on drugs. These investments made a difference. We made a dent in the drug industry. The price of cocaine increased. Drug use declined significantly. That was 1989. In 1992, the focus and the level of commitment toward a comprehensive drug control strategy has diminished. The drug threat is as strong as ever, but the same cannot be said for our drug interdiction efforts. It's not just a case of fewer resources, it's a case of diminished priorities. In fact, in its list of priorities, the Defense Department currently ranks counter-narcotics dead last in its mission statement. This is an unfortunate mistake. Mr. President, it's time we re-ordered our priorities. That is why last week, my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, myself and Senator Grassley and Senator Helms, introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment, which was adopted by the Senate last week, simply states that a higher priority should be given within the Defense Department to drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. Specifically, our drug control mission should be ranked at the same level as our peacekeeping operations. I thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment by unanimous consent. It is my hope that the final bill will contain similar language. The facts bring us to no other conclusion--it's time to make drug interdiction a priority again. In 1988, close to 2 million adolescent Americans were drug users, and by 1992, that number was down by 25%. At that time, we had a balanced drug control strategy--with sufficient investments in the key components: interdiction, treatment, education and law enforcement. During that same period, marijuana use dropped by over 16 percent and cocaine use was down 35 percent. Our efforts were concentrated and effective-- with inspiring results. Mr. President, that progress ceased in 1992, and since that time, teenage drug use has more than doubled--and the ramifications have been far-reaching. For example, drug-abuse related arrests for those under the age of 18 in 1996 were twice those of 1992. Health costs continue to rise as this plague spreads uncontrollably. Youth drug use is on the rise because drugs have increasingly become both more available and more affordable. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has reported that small ``pieces'' or ``rocks'' of crack, once sold for ten to twenty dollars, are now available for three to five dollars. The street price of drugs is decreasing and our efforts to limit their supply are failing. Mr. President, this increase in illicit drug use can be traced in part to the decline in counter-narcotics as a priority for national defense policy. In 1992, Department of Defense funding for counter- narcotics activities in transit areas was over $500 million. A steady trend in decreased funding brought it down to an all-time low of $214 million in 1995. Mr. President, that is more than a 50% decrease in funds. Thankfully, due to efforts by my Senate and House colleagues, last year's allocation was increased to $300 million. However, we are nowhere near the 1992 levels. In recent years, the Department of Defense has been called upon to support counter narcotics activities in transit areas in the Caribbean. However, assets critical to the drug interdiction effort have been consistently diverted to matters considered a ``higher priority.'' Mr. President, this decrease in funding has had an unfortunate impact on our drug interdiction efforts in the Caribbean. For example, the number of days per year that our ships spend patrolling the Caribbean has shrunk by two-thirds. Some of our key interdiction agencies have reported that the ships and manpower needed for effective interdiction are unavailable. Also, there radar system is less extensive--and even if drug traffickers can be identified, we lack the manpower necessary to intercept and seize the illegal drug imports. In 1996, only half of the known maritime drug events detected resulted in apprehension or seizure. Our defenses are down and the drug lords are taking advantage of this weakness. Added to this decline in resources is the increase in more sophisticated resources utilized by the drug cartels. According to the State Department, about 760 metric tons of cocaine were produced in South America in 1996. Of that, 608 tons were destined for the United States through the transit zone. U.S. government agencies that deal with cocaine seizures indicated that with additional equipment, annual cocaine seizures can be significantly increased. The Department of Defense, however, has indicated that it will not be able to provide these additional assets because of other priorities. Mr. President, this attitude was not acceptable in the late 1980's and it should not be acceptable now. It is necessary that we once again implement an effective transit zone operation as an integral measure to limit the availability of illicit drugs to our youth. It is time to renew drug interdiction efforts, provide the necessary equipment to our drug-enforcement agencies, and make the issue a defense priority again. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment and helping turn the tide of the drug crisis in our country.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, to offer an amendment to restore a piece of history for our veterans. This may be the last opportunity we have to bring an Ohio-built ship back to the state of Ohio--where so many U.S. Navy ships were built. Our amendment would allow for the restoration of the tank landing ship, the U.S.S. Lorain County (LST-1177), so that it may be restored and serve as a memorial to Ohio veterans. A number of individuals deserve credit for this initiative. First, I commend my friend and colleague Congressman Paul Gillmor. Congressman Gillmor is a true friend of Ohio Veterans. He took the lead in adding similar legislation to the House of Representatives' version of the Defense Authorization Bill. Secondly, I would like to recognize the efforts of the members of Ohio War Memorial, Inc. Their patriotic devotion to this memorial is very worthwhile and highly admirable. The U.S.S. Lorain County was built during the 1956-58 time period by Lorain County's American Shipbuilding Company. She spent 14 years on active duty as a part of the U.S. Navy's Amphibious Force in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and the Caribbean. She completed distinguished service and was decommissioned in 1972. The Lorain County is presently in Virginia and she is intact and in good condition. Without this amendment, she likely will be sold for scrap metal. So this is our last opportunity to save and utilize this ship as a memorial to all of those who not only built the mighty ships of the U.S. Navy, but to those dedicated veterans who served on them as well. This amendment would not impose any cost to the Federal Government and would allow Ohio War Memorial, Inc., a private, nonprofit citizens group, enoght time to raise the funds needed to return the ship to Ohio, renovate it, and turn it into a memorial that every veteran from, or visiting the state of Ohio would be proud to see. Mr. President, I ruge my colleagues to support this effort to save this piece of history.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply require that all Defense Department physicians have unrestricted licenses in order to practice medicine. In addition, our amendment would require the Department of Defense to set up a monitoring system to ensure that military physicians obtain continuing medical education in his or her specialty. This amendment is about ensuring that the men and women of our armed forces, as well as their families, are guaranteed a physician corps that meets the same professional standards of civilian practitioners. A number of individuals deserve credit for this initiative. First, I commend my friend and colleague from Springfield, Ohio, Congressman Dave Hobson. Congressman Hobson is one of the true best friends of our military families, and he has been a true leader in Congress to ensure these families have available to them a high quality health care system. He is the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the House of Representatives, along with thirteen of his colleagues. Congressman Hobson is not the only one from the Dayton area that has shown an interest in health care quality for military families. Last October, a series of articles were written by the Dayton Daily News on the quality of military health care. One particular issue highlighted in this series involved the license requirements for doctors who practice medicine at military facilities. While civilian doctors hold a license in the state where they practice, military physicians can hold a license from one state and practice medicine in U.S. military facilities in all fifty states and around the world. This exemption is needed obviously because military doctors frequently are transferred to other facilities. That general requirement makes good sense. After all, it is impractical to have more than 13,000 military doctors applying and testing for a new license every time they move, which can average one move for every two to three years, and does not include the possibility of no notice deployments and yearly exercises. Two of the key requirements of military health care is mobility and flexibility, and both must remain to be the case. Generally, the system works well. Unfortunately, one state has been offering ``special'' licenses for doctors practicing at mental institutions, Indian reservations, and military facilities. The Dayton Daily News reported last year that 77 military doctors received ``special'' medical licenses, which were easier to obtain and has less rigorous testing requirements. In essence, the ``special'' license lowered the level of standardized competency. The amendment I introduced today will eliminate this loop hole. Specifically, it will require the Defense Department to have their physicians carry a current ``unrestricted'' license. To their credit, our armed forces, through the regulatory process, already are moving toward the very same goals of this legislation. Our amendment simply codifies in the law this basic requirement--to ensure that there is a minimum standard of professional competency. Just as important, under our amendment, the mobility and flexibility of military health care would be maintained by allowing the ``unrestricted'' license to be issued by any state, but it will not be a ``specialized'' license that would be able to circumnavigate proficiency standards. Military personnel and their families deserve to have the peace of mind that no matter where they are stationed, or where they are treated, they will receive the same level of competent health care. This amendment, Mr. President, gives military personnel and their families this peace of mind. I am pleased that our amendment has the support of the National Military Families Association (NFMA) and the American Association of Physician Specialists (AAPS). I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support for this amendment from NFMA and AAPS be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important quality of life initiative for our military personnel and their families.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is about to pass S. 1379, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. I introduced this legislation along with my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, and fifteen of my colleagues on November 5 of last year. Our Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Hatch, and the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, strongly support this bill. Indeed, I want to thank Senator Leahy and his staff for their tireless work in helping to bring this legislation to the floor. As an authority on the Freedom of Information Act, or ``FOIA'' (pronounced FOYA), Senator Leahy has made very useful suggestions that I have incorporated into the substitute. These changes satisfy privacy concerns raised by FOIA and Privacy Act professionals. Finally, I want to underscore that we would not be here today without Senator Moynihan and his staff. He has brought to our work the unique insights on the classification system that he gained as chairman of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy Classification. The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act represents what I hope will be the culmination of work begun in the last Congress to release U.S. government-held records of Nazi war criminals, the Nazi Holocaust and the trafficking of Nazi-held assets. Just two years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and with it, the end of the Nazis' death grip on an entire continent. Since that time, searingly detailed accounts of the Nazi Holocaust have provided more and more evidence of the true magnitude of the atrocities that were committed. We have learned so much. Yet, if the last few years are any indication, we still have a great deal more to learn. After the fall of communist rule, Russia and several former Soviet- bloc nations opened volumes of secret files on Nazi war crimes. Argentina has cooperated in the public release of its files. British government records are being declassified and made available for public scrutiny. And over the course of last year, Swiss banks and the Swiss government have been under intense international pressure to make a full accounting of unclaimed funds belonging to Holocaust victims, as well as Nazi assets that may have once belonged to Holocaust victims. Mr. President, here at home, our own government has been gradually making records available about what it knew of Nazi-related activities and atrocities. Last year, a government-conducted study revealed new information about what the U.S. Government knew regarding the transfer and flow of funds held by Nazi officials. This report found that the U.S. government was aware that the Nazi mint took gold stolen from European central banks and melted it together with gold obtained in horrible fashion--gold obtained from tooth-fillings, wedding bands and other items seized from death-camp victims. Mr. Chairman, the photos I have on display are several aerial U.S. intelligence photographs taken in 1944 of Auschwitz, with prisoners being led to the gas chambers. These pictures were discovered by photo analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency in 1978. They confirm what we had heard from the Polish underground that a ``death camp'' did in fact exist at Auschwitz. They also demonstrated that our government had photographs of these camps as these atrocities were occurring. These pictures tell a grisly story. How many more such pictures or documents exist? With the legislation before us, we intend to answer that question. Both Congress and the President have taken action to promote the release of government-held records during this tragic era. On April 17, 1995, the President issued an executive order calling for the release of national security data and information older than 25 years. Late in the 104th Congress, thanks to the tireless efforts of my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, and Representative Carolyn Maloney and several others, we passed a sense of the Congress resolution, which stated that all U.S. Government agencies should make public any records in its possession about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war crimes. The President agreed, noting that learning the remaining secrets about the Holocaust is clearly in the public interest. The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act is designed to put the concerns expressed by the last Congress into strong action. First, the bill would allow for expedited processing of FOIA requests of survivors of Nazi persecution. These individuals are growing older every day, and the time remaining for them to obtain answers to the questions that have troubled them for five decades will soon come to an end. We owe it to those who suffered--and to those who seek to prevent future genocides--to disclose fully and completely all the records in the United States on this issue. Second, the bill would establish the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group. This Working Group would to the greatest extent possible locate, identify, inventory, declassify and make available for the public all Nazi war records held by the United States. This means that all materials would be required to be released in their entirety unless a Federal agency head concludes that the release of all or part of these records would compromise privacy or national security interests. The agency head must notify Congress of any determination to not release records. Thus, we in the Senate would be in a position to review the material being withheld to ensure that it was being done for valid reasons consistent with this legislation. The Director of the Holocaust Museum, the Archivist of the United States, and the Historian of the Department of State are specifically appointed to sit on the task force because of their unique expertise on this subject. Further, to help the interagency group complete its task, the President is authorized to appoint the head of any other Agency and up to three additional people with expertise on this subject who can assist with the identification and disclosure of relevant documents. This pro-active search is necessary, because a full government search and inventory has never been completed. For example, some documents that surfaced this spring were found among materials related to Southeast Asia. Our bill is targeted toward two classes of Nazi-related materials: First, war crimes information regarding Nazi persecutions; and two, any information related to transactions involving assets of Holocaust and other Nazi victims. In summary, what we are trying to do with this bill is strike a clear balance among our government's legitimate national security interests, the legitimate privacy interests of individuals, and the people's desire to know the truth about Nazi atrocities. These records, once released, will be held in a repository at the National Archives. Let me enumerate several changes which we have made since the bill was unanimously reported out by the full Judiciary Committee last March: Section 3(b)3(B) was revised to make clear that the standard of judicial deference currently accorded to agency classification decisions under exemption (b)(1) of the FOIA applies to exemption decisions rendered by Heads of Agency's making a withholding decision under Section 3(b). As the Committee of Conference recognized when exemption (b)(1) was amended in 1974, executive departments responsible for national defense and foreign policy matters have unique insights into what possible adverse effects might occur as a result of public disclosure of a particular classified record. Accordingly, it is expected that federal courts, in reviewing a decision by an Agency head that disclosure and release of a Nazi War Record would be harmful to a specific interest identified in an exemption herein, will accord substantial weight to an agency's affidavit or other submission concerning the record in question. Records held by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) of the Department of Justice are specifically exempted. Nonetheless, because of the substantial expertise at OSI, it can reasonably be expected that OSI will be asked to assist with the review of records held by other agencies. OSI is currently engaged in an effort to close ongoing investigations and prosecutions of alleged war criminals. Thus, to ensure that the high priority investigations continue and all relevant documents found during the search are quickly reviewed for declassification, my colleagues and I have asked the Appropriations Committee to provide a small increase of $2 million in OSI's budget to enable the staff to take on and complete both of these tasks. Section 2(b)(1) has been revised to extend the life of the interagency group from one to three years in recognition of the fact that there are extensive document holdings that must be reviewed. The bulk of this work should be done in the first year. The three year life of the Working Group cannot become an excuse to proceed slowly. This bill not only addresses the acts of Nazi War Criminals, but also addresses those who transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of assets involuntarily taken from persecuted persons by, under the direction of, or on behalf of, or under the authority of the former Nazi Government of Germany or any nation then allied with that government. This bill is a bipartisan effort to ensure the Federal Government has done all it can to ensure Holocaust victims and their families can obtain the answers they need. The clock is running, and time is running out for so many victims of the Holocaust. They, and history itself, deserve to know as much as possible about this tragic chapter in the story of humanity. I thank my colleagues for their strong support for this legislation.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for the next 25 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of final passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act authored by my distinguished colleague, Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin. Senator Kohl has worked tirelessly to strengthen our child support laws, and I have been happy to lend my support to this effort. The House bill we pass today mirrors the Senate-passed version that we sponsored earlier this session. I believe children should not have to suffer twice for the decisions of their parents to divorce; once when they decide to divorce, and again when one of the parents evades the financial responsibility to care for them. Let me tell you just one story from my home state of Ohio. Marcia Walsh, the mother of seven children, became one of the working poor when she and her husband divorced, and he neglected his child support order. He left Ohio, leaving Marcia to support seven children, ages 6 to 15, on food stamps and a $14,000-a-year night job. When Marcia turned to our federal Child Enforcement Program, she discovered a failed program whose collection rate is only about 19.4 percent. Mr. President, people like Marcia and her children deserve better than that. Our bill will help address situations like theirs, in two ways. First, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act gives federal law enforcement an incentive to bring more of these cases against deadbeats by making this offense a felony. Second, this legislation would make movement from state to state to avoid child support payments a crime. Today, nonpayment of child support is a class B misdemeanor, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is frustrated at having to chase deadbeats for just a class B misdemeanor. Federal prosecutors are equally discouraged about trying misdemeanor cases. It is currently not a crime to move to another state to avoid having to pay child support. Under this bill, not paying child support for two years, owing more than $10,000 in back child support, or going to another state to avoid child support payments would be penalized by a fine or two years in jail, or both. If the parent flees the state where the child resides, and owes more than $5,000, the same penalty described above would apply. Mr. President, making sure parents live up to their financial responsibilities for their children is a very important national priority. We have serious laws in this country protecting life and property--it's highly appropriate that we protect with equal seriousness the interests of our most precious national resource, America's children. I thank Senator Kohl for his work on this important bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Coverdell-Craig amendment. As the Chair knows, and Members know, the Coverdell-Craig amendment was offered yesterday to the underlying McCain tobacco bill. I congratulate my colleague from Georgia and my colleague from Idaho for this very worthwhile amendment. Let me first, though, begin by saying, again, what I have said numerous times on the Senate floor in the last few weeks, and that is I support the underlying McCain bill. It represents a unique and critical opportunity to change attitudes and to save young lives from the debilitating effects of smoking. All of us know, Mr. President, all too well, that youth smoking is a component of an even larger and more dangerous reality, the tragedy of youth drug use. If we had to talk about the health problems in this country today, particularly if we want to talk about the preventable health problems in this country, we would talk about illicit drug use, we would talk about smoking, and we would talk about abuse of alcohol. Those three are clearly the three biggest, the things that will ultimately kill tens of thousands of Americans. They prey on our young. So I think it makes sense, as we struggle in this Senate to come up with a comprehensive bill that deals with our tobacco problem in this country, that we also use this as an opportunity to deal with another problem, and certainly a related problem, and that is the use of illicit drugs. So I congratulate my friends and colleagues from Georgia and Idaho, Senator Coverdell, Senator Craig, for this very good amendment. I think we need to use this unique opportunity to address youth smoking. But we also need to take it one step further and address youth drug use. Doing so would make this even more effective, this current bill, the McCain bill, even more effective in changing the young lives for the better. Mr. President, drug trafficking remains a tragic reality of life in this country today. Let me share some facts with my colleagues. Fact: Recent reports suggest that heroin trafficking from Mexico has dramatically increased. Fact No. 2: The Caribbean is fast becoming once again a major illegal drug transit route. Fact: While drug production and trafficking have been on the rise, our resources we, as a country, have dedicated for drug interdiction have dramatically declined. In 1987, approximately 27 percent of the entire national drug control budget was dedicated to interdiction. During that period of time, the United States did, in fact, make a dent in the trafficking of narcotics. Cocaine seizures, for example, were significantly up. However, Mr. President, starting in the early 1990s, the percentage of drug control funds devoted to interdiction has declined dramatically. In fact, by 1995, only 10 percent of the national drug budget was dedicated to interdiction--a very significant drop. By 1998, the percentage still remained at 10 percent. Looking at it another way, in 1992, over $2 billion was dedicated to interdiction purposes. But by 1995, only $1.2 billion was set aside for this specific matter. Mr. President, let me be very clear. I strongly support--strongly support--increased funding to deal with the demand side of the drug situation that is finding ways to persuade Americans, particularly young Americans, that doing drugs is wrong, that it destroys lives, and destroys families, schools, and communities. In a sense, Mr. President, we could argue that in the end reducing demand is the only real effective way to ultimately overcome the threat of drugs in this country today. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will always be a supply. That is why education as well as drug treatment remains central long-term goals. The amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Idaho recognizes the need to invest in demand-reduction efforts, as well as the need to invest in interdiction efforts. However, reducing the demand for drugs is not going to be achieved overnight. It will take years, if not generations, to change minds and attitudes regarding the use or abuse of drugs. I believe one way to reduce demand is to have an effective interdiction policy, one that will put a serious dent into the flow of drugs into this country. We must find ways to raise the cost of narcotics trafficking, making it far more difficult for drug lords to bring these drugs to our Nation and making the cost of drugs on the streets--whether that be the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Cleveland--making the cost of those drugs go up. Just like the underlying bill, we can impact demand by raising the street value of drugs, and we can do that by going after the supply routes. There is an inverse relationship between the cost and consumption. I believe that is true with drugs. I believe that is also true with cigarettes. That is the basic principle of the McCain bill. I think it is logical to extend that principle, as my colleagues have done, Senator Coverdell and Senator Craig, in this amendment. As I mentioned, I do want to make it very, very clear: Drug interdiction, which I am talking about this afternoon, is only one of the things that we have to do. We have to have good domestic law enforcement. We have to deal with the problem of treatment. Treatment does work. It is tough but it can, in fact, work. We can save lives. We have to continue to invest in treatment. Education prevention--that works, as well, as long as we are consistent. As long as we do something consistently through a child's life, it works. So we need to focus on that, as well. Let me turn now to what I was talking about a moment ago, that is the need to increase our emphasis on drug interdiction. As I mentioned before, the Caribbean is becoming more and more the transit route of choice for drug traffickers. I made two visits to this transit zone in the Caribbean in the last several months. During my last visit, I learned that our agents in the Bahamas have seized more cocaine in the first 3 months of 1998 than in the past previous 3 years combined. With sufficient funding, interdiction efforts can make a huge difference. Clearly, drastic funding reductions have drastic consequences when it comes to results. I had the chance on these visits to meet with the soldiers on the front lines, or sailors on the front lines of our war on drugs. I witnessed our strategy in action. I sat down with the experts, both military and civilian, the people who are actually on the front line, the people who are charged with carrying out the monitoring, the detection, and the interdiction of drugs. Given what I have learned during these visits and the conclusions I have reached, the amendment by the Senators from Georgia and Idaho could not have come at a better time. There is a dire need for a renewed commitment, a rededication of resources toward drug interdiction. With energy and with adequate resources, our drug interdiction efforts can be improved. We cannot ask those tasked to implement our drug interdiction strategy to conduct their missions without the proper level of resources to do the job. One reason why is simple: This drug interdiction puts the lives of these law enforcement officers in danger. That is the nature of the business. We have to ensure that they have the best equipment, the best resources and the best intelligence so that they can carry out this mission, not only so they can be effective, but so they can do it in as safe a way as humanly possible. The men and women charged with interdicting drugs face a ruthless enemy who will go to great lengths to protect their cartel. We are dealing with millions and millions of dollars. When I visited the Caribbean last month, I saw videos of drug traffickers in ``go-fast'' boats--that is what they are called, go-fast boats--that are made almost exclusively for the only purpose of bringing drugs up from Colombia, bringing up drugs from that part of the world. I saw videos of the go-fast boats literally running over Customs vessels in the shallow waters south of Florida during a nighttime interdiction pursuit. I believe we owe it to these law enforcement officers to ensure they have the proper equipment and manpower to do the job they were asked to perform. After all, it is unfortunate reality that the drug cartels don't have a budget process or a bureaucracy to slow them down. These drug cartels, these drug lords, are constantly adjusting to their environment and updating their equipment. What kind of resources are we talking about? What kind of resources do I believe we are lacking? Let me use the U.S. Customs Service operating in south Florida as just one example. In 1986, Customs had 77 vessels and 124 maritime officers. Today, they are now down to 30 vessels and 23 officers. Funding for the Maritime Enforcement Program is down from $13.25 million--that was the figure in 1992--to $5.2 billion. So we have gone from $13.25 million in 1992 to $5.2 million in 1997. Further, Customs no longer has a 7-day, 24-hour operation. To make matters worse, Customs not only lacks basic resources, they also lack 1990s technology. A Colombian go-fast boat can go between 80 and 90 miles per hour, while the few Customs go-fast boats that are available only top about 70 miles per hour. So not only does Customs lack resources in general, they lack the state-of-the-art equipment needed to match those of the drug lords. On my most recent trip, I visited the Joint Inter-Agency Task Force located in Key West, FL. This is the primary hub for detection, monitoring, and interdiction efforts. During these visits, I saw firsthand that our government agencies there--and there are many--have tremendous monitoring and detection capability, and they are doing a good job. They can detect when a small, drug-carrying aircraft is leaving Colombia and making the journey across the Caribbean. Unfortunately, however, while we may have the capability to detect and monitor drug trafficking in the Caribbean airspace, we do not have adequate resources and capabilities for the end game--the actual seizing of illegal drugs in transit. And the drug lords know this. For example, I was informed that of the total drug air events in the Bahamas from April of 1997 until April 1998, our U.S. agents state that there was only an 8-percent success rate of stopping drug air flights that have been detected--8 percent. That means approximately 92 percent got away. And though cocaine seizures are up, their concern is the higher amounts seized represent probably a fraction of the total amount of drugs coming through the area. While in Key West, I was also briefed on specific interdiction efforts in the eastern Pacific. I was surprised to find out that in the eastern Pacific, off the coast of Mexico and Central America, up this region that is cut off on the map, the coast is virtually, literally clear for drug lords to do their business. Mr. President, this is simply not acceptable. The U.S. Government--and I am talking about us--is not effectively dealing with this increasingly large threat in the Eastern Pacific. We have virtually no presence because of the lack of funding. I was briefed about an operation called Caper Focus, which would have focused on interdiction efforts in the area. We would have had a number of surface assets and aircraft to patrol the waters and interdict. This operation, unfortunately, was canceled before it started because of a Department of Defense decision to send the needed surface assets elsewhere. To date, this issue has not been resolved, and the coastal waters in the Eastern Pacific are open for drug business. Mr. President, our men and women who work on interdiction matters on a daily basis are committed to success, but they are not getting the support that they really need from us. Because of limited resources, we are selectively spending resources--a little bit here and a little bit there, a little bit at a time, and in different places. This, of course, has tremendous negative consequences. With more limited resources, we could seal off one or two of the so- called ``drug corridors,'' but the reality is that drug routes are constantly in flux, as the traffickers always seek to exploit the chinks in the armor of law enforcement. This phenomenon has been compared to the squeezing of a balloon--squeezing it at one end and it pops out on the other. That is the problem we have constantly run into in this antidrug effort. When we step up efforts in one area, like squeezing a balloon on one end, the traffickers just move to another area. Let me give my colleagues an example of this. On one of my recent trips I saw that, in particular, Haiti has become an attractive rest- stop on the cocaine highway. Haiti is strategically located about halfway between the source country--Colombia--and the destination country--right here in the United States. Haitian law enforcement, though slowly getting better, is really unequipped to put a dent in the drug trade. What's more, their coast guard fleet, while it is improving and we are working with it, consists of a handful of boats. And as it is the poorest country in the hemisphere, by far, Haiti is extremely vulnerable to the kind of bribery and corruption that the drug trade needs in order to flourish. It is not surprising that the level of drugs moving through Haiti has dramatically increased. According to a U.S. Government interagency assessment on cocaine movement, in 1996, between 5 and 8 percent of the cocaine coming into the U.S. passed through Haiti. By the third quarter of 1997, the percentage jumped 12 percent, and then it increased to 19 percent by the end of that year. Mr. President, accordingly, because of that, we responded to this crisis with a military operation called Operation Frontier Lance. Operation Frontier Lance utilized Coast Guard cutters, speedboats, and helicopters to detect and capture drug dealers on a 24-hour per day basis. Incidentally, Mr. President, this operation was modeled after another successful interdiction effort off the coast of Puerto Rico, called Operation Frontier Shield. However, unfortunately, funding for Frontier Lance ran out and the operation just ceased. In fact, it ceased on Monday of this week. I had the opportunity to be on one of the cutters that was off the coast of Haiti and talk to the men and women who were so proud of the tremendous job they were doing. This potential roadblock on the cocaine highway is no more. Again, it ceased to exist this past Monday. The reality also is that Coast Guard funding has been slashed in the past several years. I think this is a mistake. It is my hope that by passing the Coverdell-Craig amendment, we can jump start Operation Frontier Lance, and other similar programs. We need to get back into the game. Now, Mr. President, our first and best resource in this antidrug effort, of course, is people. We are lacking in personnel in areas where we need it the most. Of the more than 100 U.S. drug enforcement agents authorized to be in the Caribbean, I was surprised to find only one agent in Haiti last March when I visited. Since my March visit, the DEA has agreed to add six more agents; that is clearly the direction in which we ought to go. But we also need additional manpower, men and women, to go to the Dominican Republic, and other areas of the Caribbean as well. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, one of the major problems regarding our current interdiction efforts is that we are using scarce resources sparingly. The drug traffickers know that if we place resources in one or two selective places, they will just switch their routes and go elsewhere. A more logical approach, more funding permitting, would be to have more manpower and resources at different key places at the same time; or, in other words, ``squeeze the balloon'' at different ends--all at the same time. I believe that we can do that by passing the Coverdell-Craig amendment. That is why I support this timely amendment. Mr. President, I believe it is time to rededicate ourselves to an effective interdiction strategy. A lot of good work is now going on. But we can do a lot more and we can do better. I have had the opportunity to see our efforts firsthand. We are competing with an enemy that has increased its resources to do the job, while we tragically have cut our resources by more than half. Having said that, I also believe that we must have a clear idea what we should expect with increased funding. In short, we need to ascertain from the relevant agencies, whether it be from the Navy, Coast Guard, Customs, DEA, FBI, or whatever the agency may be, what we can expect to accomplish with more resources, and we have to look to them to tell us what they think they can do. I believe it is our obligation to give them those resources and to give them the direction. My point is that we need to make sure that the Government agencies have the necessary amount of money and that they indeed strictly use the funds for counter-narcotics efforts. Again, I want to commend my friend from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, as well as Senator Craig, for their efforts in this regard, their efforts in combating the drug threat both within and beyond our borders. I look forward to working with them and other colleagues on this important, new initiative. In conclusion, let me just say again how important I believe it is that we pass the McCain bill. It has been a struggle. No one should have expected it not to be a struggle. This is a big bill. It is comprehensive legislation. It is tough sledding. We knew that when we started. But we should not be discouraged. The stakes, I think, are very high. What are the stakes? The stakes are whether or not we are going to seize this historic opportunity to pass legislation that will, in fact, have a significant impact on reducing the number of young people who start smoking every day. The consequence of this legislation will affect not only young people today, it is going to impact our society for years and years to come. So we should continue, we should push on, and we should get the job done. The amendment that I am speaking about this afternoon--I am sure we will be back on it again next week--which was brought to the floor by Senator Coverdell, is an amendment that I believe will improve the McCain bill. It will improve it by taking some of the resources from the bill and using it in the antidrug effort, using it on drug interdiction, which I believe is so urgently needed. With some additional resources, I am convinced that the men and women who I have had the chance in the last several years to meet with, to see, that are on the front lines, along our borders--and I have had the chance to visit our borders--as well as in the Caribbean and other areas, I believe they can get the job done. I believe that they can impact the drug trade. They can only do it though if we are willing to give them the resources and give them the backing to allow them to do that job. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his very kind comments. I think the charts of the Senator from Massachusetts tell a great story, actually a sad story, but it is a very effective story and really illustrates the need for this bill. I also thank my other colleague from Massachusetts for his kind words about this amendment a few moments ago. The amendment that Senator Durbin and I have offered really will make a few, but very necessary, improvements to the so-called look-back provision of the underlying McCain bill. Let me start my remarks this afternoon by talking a little bit about the look-back concept, and then the specific look-back provisions in the McCain bill, because I think an understanding of the broad concept of look-back is essential to understanding what the McCain bill tries to do in this area, and is also essential to understanding what Senator Durbin and I are trying to do with our amendment. Conceptually, the purpose of look-back--whether in the original tobacco settlement, the McCain bill, or in the Durbin-DeWine amendment--is to change the incentives for tobacco companies. Until now, tobacco companies have always had an incentive--potential profits--to convince children to use their products. The look-back approach simply flips this incentive--it turns it around by giving tobacco companies incentives to help reduce the number of minors using their products. This incentive structure, through which tobacco companies will work with us rather than against us in our goal to reduce youth tobacco use, is created by imposing assessments on tobacco companies if they do not meet targets reducing youth tobacco use. It is simple: If the targets are not met, the companies will have to pay. If the targets are not met to reduce teenage smoking--and these are targets that the tobacco companies all said they could do, all made a commitment to do in the settlement they reached with the attorneys general--if those targets are not made and are not met, then the tobacco companies will have to pay. Before I get into the specifics of the McCain look-back provision and our amendment, I would like to reiterate what I have said several times on the floor of the Senate before, and that is that the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, has done a great job in bringing this tobacco bill to the Senate floor against some very, very difficult odds. This is a comprehensive bill. Something like this, frankly, has never been tried before, so I commend my colleague from Arizona for his great work. This bill includes many different parts, each of which is important if we are really going to reduce youth use of tobacco. The look-back provision that our amendment deals with is an important and integral part of this campaign to reduce youth use, but is only one of several things the bill does, all of which are important, to have a real impact on youth smoking. Again, I congratulate Senator McCain, as well as his colleagues on the Commerce Committee, for facing this difficult issue and meeting it head on with a very sound piece of legislation. I will now turn to a quick overview of the Durbin-DeWine amendment. Madam President, the Durbin-DeWine amendment will make two changes to the look-back provision in the underlying McCain bill. First, our amendment will shift the emphasis from an industry-wide look-back to a company-specific look-back. Let me make it very clear, both the McCain bill and the Durbin-DeWine amendment blend the company look-back with the industry-wide look-back. Both are blends. The difference is the Durbin-DeWine amendment puts more emphasis on the responsibility of the individual tobacco company. We follow what I consider to be, frankly, a more conservative point of view, and that is accountability, that the tobacco companies should have to live with the consequences of their actions or even their inactions. That is the conservative way to look at it, but more important than that, it is the right way to look at it. The second provision of the Durbin-DeWine amendment provides for increasing the McCain bill's targets for the reduction of youth tobacco use. Yes, by setting a higher target of reduction, the goal is to have fewer kids smoking. But having said that, let me emphasize that our provision effectively takes us back to what the cigarette companies agreed to over a year ago when the cigarette companies and the attorneys general reached this agreement. Our provision takes us back to what the tobacco companies said they could do in June of last year. I'll repeat that: We are simply increasing these reduction targets to levels the tobacco industry and companies agreed was achievable just last year in the attorneys general agreement. Let me discuss in more detail these two specific changes in the look- back provision that we are providing in the Durbin-DeWine amendment. I will first start with the company-specific emphasis and how we would require more accountability from the individual tobacco companies. The first important change that I mentioned our amendment makes is that it shifts the emphasis from an industry-wide look-back to a company-specific look-back. What does this really mean? Let me explain by using an example and by talking about my early concern of last year's settlement which only contained an industry-wide look-back and had no company-specific piece in it. Under a pure industry-wide look-back, the industry is measured and judged as a whole on how well it does in reducing youth tobacco use. What this does, in effect, is dilute the incentive for each company to do everything it can to make sure children are not using its products. Why do I say that? Simply because the effects of whatever that company does--positive or negative--is spread across the entire industry. In a sense, this is a form of socialism. Whatever they do, however well they do it, they only get a portion of the credit, and they only get a portion of the blame. The intent is to share--everybody is in this together. You can have one company that does everything it can to reduce teenage smoking, and you can have another company that completely ignores everything and goes about its business to continue to try to hook kids. It doesn't matter; each one is treated equally under a pure industry system. I think that is wrong. Let me raise a specific case that I brought up a few weeks ago when I talked about this issue on the floor--a case that involves the Philip Morris company, the maker of Marlboro. This company, Philip Morris, through the use of the Marlboro Man and other marketing campaigns, has been extremely successful in selling cigarettes to our young people. They know what they are doing. They are very, very good at marketing their product. They did such a good job that by 1993--if you can believe this--60 percent of all teen smokers in this country used Marlboro--60 percent. But in the overall market of all cigarettes sold, the legal market, Marlboro only had 23.5 percent of the market. So 60 percent in illegal sales--60 percent to kids--and only 23.5 percent to legal, adult market. The Marlboro Man and other advertising did a fantastic job, tragically, in hooking young kids. How would an industry-wide look-back approach affect Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro? After all, Philip Morris is responsible for a majority of youth smoking, meaning this is the main company the look- back incentives should be aimed at. Madam President, the industry-wide look-backs in the original settlement and in the McCain bill would allocate the industry-wide assessments to each company based on its adult market share--not its share of the youth market. So if the cigarette industry as a whole misses its reduction targets, under the original settlement reached last year, Philip Morris would only be responsible for 23 percent of the total industry-wide look-back assessment, even though Philip Morris is responsible for 60 percent of all the youth smoking in the country. So once again, let me ask the question that I have asked previously: What do we think Philip Morris will do under this industry-wide look- back if we had a pure industry-wide look-back provision? Will the look- back succeed in getting Philip Morris to try to reduce the number of children who use its products? I do not think so. For the industry-wide look-back, it is pretty clear to me that the answer is no. Philip Morris will probably not try to reduce youth use of its products at all. Why? Well, it's simple: the incentive is not there. The industry- wide look-back forces other companies to pay for the sins of Philip Morris. Philip Morris is simply smarter to simply ignore the look-back. So an industry-wide look-back in this case would fail to do what it is supposed to do. In the case of Philip Morris, it would fail to give the proper incentive to the very company with the most responsibility for stopping kids from using its products. So, Madam President, what can we do to make sure the look-back provision is effective and really gives tobacco companies the right incentives? The answer is simple. We need to hold each company responsible individually for meeting the youth reduction targets, and allow each company to reap the rewards or face the consequences of its own behavior. Madam President, it is the American way. It is the right way. Let us hold them responsible. Let us hold them accountable. Let us measure their success or their failure. Right now about 3 million children, it is estimated, smoke Marlboro cigarettes which are made, as I mentioned, by Philip Morris. Instead of focusing a look-back provision on what the industry as a whole does, it is so much more powerful to simply say to Philip Morris--this is what we ought to say to them--``You have 3 million children who use Marlboro cigarettes--3 million in this country. You need to do everything you can to help us reduce that number. That's your responsibility.'' That is what the look-back provision should hold them to. That is what the Durbin-DeWine amendment says. By focusing on a company- specific rather than industry-wide look-back, we are simply telling each tobacco company that it is responsible for its own behavior. In this way we create a more powerful incentive for each company to help us achieve the ultimate goal of this legislation. Let us never forget that ultimate goal; that is, to reduce youth smoking in this country. Let me talk, if I could, Madam President, about the second part of our look-back change that we make in the Durbin-DeWine amendment. Part of our amendment, as I mentioned, was to set higher reduction targets for youth smoking than those set in the McCain bill. What this means is that tobacco companies are given an incentive to try to get even more children to stop smoking. Using the current level of youth smoking as the baseline, the Durbin- DeWine amendment would aim for a 67-percent reduction in youth smoking in ten years. This compares to the 60-percent goal contained in the McCain bill. But this, I think, is the important thing: in real terms what this means is that 450,000 fewer children will smoke if the companies meet the reduction targets in our amendment. Since we know that one-third of smokers die young as a result of their habit, this means that 150,000 fewer children will die early as a result of smoking. These are real kids. These are real children that we are talking about, and they are quite possibly real deaths. So let me say it again. If tobacco companies meet their reduction targets in our amendment, it will mean 450,000 fewer youth smokers and 150,000 fewer early deaths due to smoking. What we need to remember is that the reduction targets in our amendment in real terms are actually equal to the targets from last year's settlement. Our amendment has the same targets to which the industry agreed to last year. To me, Madam President, this is an easy issue and it is an easy decision. In effect, the industry has already agreed that it is possible to prevent almost half a million more kids from smoking than the underlying bill calls for. Let us pass this amendment which stops these kids from ever becoming smokers at all. Again, I emphasize our amendment merely takes us back in real terms to what the industry, the tobacco companies and the attorneys general, agreed to last June. The 67 percent in our amendment is really equal to the 60 percent they agreed to last June because of the change in the baseline. The raw numbers are the same. Madam President, I would like to respond for a moment to some of the criticism that we have heard about this amendment. And let me just comment about a few things. Some Members have come to the floor and have argued that this might be too punitive. Some have said that the potential assessments under this amendment are just too high. First, I would like to say that my sincere hope is that we never see any assessments under a look-back, because this would mean we will have met our reduction goals for youth smoking. Once again, since the industry, the tobacco industry, has agreed that these reduction goals are achievable, I think it is likely we will never see any assessment under the look-back, at least that is what our goal is. But this will only be true if we create a strong incentive for each company to meet the reduction targets. This is what our amendment, the Durbin-DeWine amendment does. The company-specific payments in the Durbin-DeWine amendment are higher than the McCain bill. However, the industry-wide payments are lower. When you add the two types of look- backs, company-wide and industry-wide together, you really will not find a huge difference between our amendment and the McCain bill. We have a different blend. We change the emphasis, but overall there isn't a great deal of difference. Let us take an example. Let us suppose that each and every company misses the reduction target in a given year by 10 percent. If this happens, the combination of industry-wide and company-specific payments in the McCain bill would add up to a total of $1.8 billion. In the Durbin-DeWine amendment, under those same set of facts, it would add up to $2.4 billion. There is a difference, but the difference is really not huge. Madam President, the real difference between our amendment and the McCain bill is not the size of payments, but rather the emphasis. The company-specific focus of the Durbin-DeWine amendment places more incentive on each tobacco company individually to change its behavior and to stop children from using its products. Madam President, others have argued to address another issue that has been raised, that company-specific look-backs are unfair because the company cannot really control whether kids use its products. Well, we know from experience and seeing what these tobacco companies have done in the past that that simply is not true. There are many things that tobacco companies can do to prevent kids from using their cigarettes. There have been many things that the tobacco companies have done to get kids to use their cigarettes. We know there are many things they can do to stop them as well or reduce it. Those who make that argument aren't giving the tobacco companies enough credit. The most basic thing tobacco companies can do is make sure its advertising is not appealing to kids. Now, some of this is already taken care of and addressed in the McCain bill. We do this by placing marketing restrictions on tobacco companies, such as prohibiting the use of cartoon characters or human images. That is in the bill. But advertising is a subtle thing. The tobacco industry has proven a real expert at dealing with this. There is simply no way Congress can specifically prohibit every type of advertising that might appeal to children. We are not that good. We can't write legislation that specific. The advantage of a company-specific look-back provision is that each company is given the incentive to think about other ways its advertising may be attracting children and then to stop it. But even beyond the issue of advertising, companies can still have an impact on how many kids use their products. For example, they can initiate their own antismoking advertising campaigns or their own education programs that would build on efforts called for elsewhere in this bill. They could do it if they wanted to do it. Again, the buck stops with them under our provision. A company could also work with retailers to find ways to be absolutely sure that none of its products were being sold to minors. The relationship between retailers and tobacco companies is a very close one. They have used it over the years to build sales. They can certainly use it in the next few years to reduce illegal sales to minors. So I think those who say that, gee, the tobacco companies can't be held for liability on this, this is all beyond their control, I think that argument is absolutely absurd. As we can see, companies have any number of ways or tools to make it harder or less likely for children to use their products. We need to make sure they have a strong incentive to put that great genius to work. The only way to place a strong incentive on each company separately is with a strong company-specific look-back penalty like that contained in the Durbin-DeWine amendment. The choice before the Senate is simple. We have the opportunity when this amendment comes for a vote, the Durbin-DeWine amendment, to vote on an amendment that will prove the basic purpose of this legislation, and that is to reduce youth smoking by holding individual tobacco companies more accountable for failing to reduce youth smoking, and by restoring the original target set by the tobacco companies themselves and agreed to themselves. The Durbin-DeWine amendment will make a real difference in young lives. I, once again, urge my colleagues to join us on behalf of our young people and support the Durbin-DeWine look-back amendment. Some of my colleagues and friends have come to the floor, and I have heard legitimate talk about the problem of the illegal use of drugs. That is a major problem. It is a major problem in our country today. It is a major problem with our young people. If we had to tick off two of the major problems we have with our general population, but particularly with our young people, we certainly would include cigarettes and we certainly would include the illegal use of drugs. As I have listened to some of those debates, and I agree with what they have said and I do not disagree in any way--in fact, I am struck by the similarity between the two issues--cigarettes and drugs. I think as we approach, really for the first time in this Congress, the issue of trying to comprehensively deal with tobacco use, and as we for the first time try to structure a comprehensive program to reduce the number of young people who start smoking cigarettes, who start to use tobacco, that the lessons we have learned as a society over the last few decades in regard to the illegal use of drugs and how we deal with that and how we try to reduce that, I think are very apt. I think we ought to look at that effort in that war. What have we learned? We have had some success in the war against drugs and we have had an awful lot of failures, as well. We have seen the use go up and we have seen the use go down. There are times in our history where we have driven the use down and at times we have driven the use back up, particularly among our young people. I think we have learned a great deal. What have we learned that might be applicable to what we are trying to do in regard to cigarettes? A couple of things. One, price. Why do we spend so much time, effort, and money to try to keep drugs from coming into this country? Why do we go to the source countries? Why do we try to help Colombia? Why do we have Coast Guard cutters today off the coast of Haiti to try to interdict drugs? Why are we working in the Bahamas? Why are we working in Mexico? Why are we doing everything we can to try to stop drugs from coming into this country? The answer is not only do we want to keep drugs out of the hands of anybody who might buy them in this country, but at the same time we are trying to drive up the price of drugs. We know there is a direct relationship between the cost of drugs on the streets of Cleveland, OH, Los Angeles, Cincinnati and the cost on the drug traffickers to get them there; and we know there is an inverse relationship between the price of those drugs and the use of those drugs. So if it is true with illicit drugs, and I think it is true for just about any product, it certainly is true and the statistics have shown us that it can in many cases be true in regard to tobacco, as well. Now, I happen to think, and I have argued on this floor, that price alone is not enough, driving up the price of tobacco is in and of itself not enough. We have seen that the studies have been conflicting in regard to the price issue. But I am convinced that price is an important factor. What else have we learned about a war on drugs in general? We have learned that when we have come forward with very effective antidrug advertising campaigns that are focused in the media, that are focused on radio and television--we know when the genius of Madison Avenue is utilized, we know they can be effective, and they are effective. We know when we focus public attention on the issue that we can make a difference. Advertising does work. Counteradvertising works, as well. Again, another lesson from our war on drugs. We know what works and we know what doesn't. The same is true with education. We know that when you combine the increase in cost, the price on the street of a drug, you combine that with counteradvertising, you combine that with education sustained year after year after year in school, that it will make a difference. Part of the problem with our anti-education programs that are anti-illicit drugs, we only do them for 1 or 2 years. We might have a 5th or 6th grade DARE program, and then a young person might not get another dose of that until 11th or 12th grade in health class. We know that is a problem. Every study has shown the only way education is effective is starting in kindergarten, preferably before that, and start K through 12, every single year. This is not rocket science. This is not difficult. It is the same way with tobacco. The lessons we have learned, sometimes the hard way, in regard to how you deal with illicit drugs in this country--sometimes we act like we haven't learned those lessons, but those lessons can be applied in regard to stopping young people from smoking cigarettes. What we are trying to do in this bill is to take the knowledge that we have and come up with a comprehensive package that will in the long run save tens of thousands of our young children's lives. That is what we are about. So as we debate this bill and we talk about different provisions, whether it is the look-back provision or other provisions, let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us keep our eye on what are the bare facts and what the goal is. The goal is to reduce teenage smoking. The only way that we can do that is to come up with a comprehensive approach that combines education, antismoking advertising, reduction in advertising aimed at children, good law enforcement, and an increase in price. When you put all of those things together you have a good, good, fighting chance to dramatically reduce teenage smoking in this country, which is what our goal is. That is why I continue to support this legislation and continue to urge my colleagues, no matter what their position is on individual amendments as they come up, to keep our eye on the ball and keep pushing this bill forward. It is essential that we get it passed. We have a great responsibility to get that job done. I hope we will continue to do it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 234 submitted earlier today by Senator Stevens and Senator Lott and others.