[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 75 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6139-S6146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 1415, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1415) to reform and restructure the processes by
which tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and
distributed, to prevent the use of tobacco products by
minors, to redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2433 (to amendment No. 2420), to
modify the provisions relating to civil liability for tobacco
manufacturers.
Gregg/Leahy amendment No. 2434 (to amendment No. 2433), in
the nature of a substitute.
Gramm motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Finance with instructions to report back forthwith, with
amendment No. 2436, to modify the provisions relating to
civil liability for tobacco manufacturers, and to eliminate
the marriage penalty reflected in the standard deduction and
to ensure the earned income credit takes into account the
elimination of such penalty.
Daschle (for Durbin) amendment No. 2437 (to amendment No.
2436), relating to reductions in underage tobacco usage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have now been on this legislation for 3
weeks. We have taken some very important votes, and the bill has been
significantly modified. I think it is time for us to complete our
business and do so with dispatch. Obviously, if we don't, the
proponents of the status quo will achieve by delay what they can't with
a majority of votes; and that is, obviously, to kill tobacco
legislation that is aimed at saving the lives of over 1 million
children.
The bill, as it has been modified, contains measures of enormous
benefit to the Nation, including vital antiuse smoking initiatives that
will stop or reduce the compelling aspect of this entire legislation--
that is, the 3,000 children a day from taking up a habit that will kill
a third of them. There is critical funding for ground-breaking health
research, assistance to our Nation's veterans who suffer from smoking-
related illnesses, a major antidrug effort to attack the serious threat
that is posed by illegal drugs, the magnitude and importance of which
was described very effectively by the Senator
[[Page S6140]]
from Georgia, the Senator from Idaho, and others.
This legislation contains one of the largest tax decreases ever, and
it eliminates the marriage penalty for low- and moderate-income
Americans and achieves 100 percent deductibility of health insurance
for self-employed individuals. It provides the opportunity to settle 36
pending State cases collectively and in a timely fashion.
I argue that those provisions which I just described--research,
veterans, tax cut, attacking the problem of illegal drugs, and settling
pending legislation--I believe have made this legislation far more
important than it was when it was introduced.
We all know that the time is to finish the business and move the
process forward. I think it is also clear for anyone who has turned on
the television or listened to the radio or read the newspaper that the
objective of the tobacco companies is to kill the legislation. I am
sure they have come to expect a return on their enormous campaign
contributions.
If we kill the bill, it doesn't do anything to stop tobacco companies
from marketing to kids, it doesn't do anything to stop the death march
of teenagers who are taking up a killer habit, and it does nothing to
promote ground-breaking research on new treatments and cures for these
terrible diseases, including cancer and heart and lung disease. We will
not take a step forward to stop the flow of abuse of illegal drugs, and
we will do nothing to assist our Nation's veterans. Inaction doesn't do
anything to relieve the burden on the Nation's taxpayers, a burden not
only in the form of a marriage penalty but in the $50 billion taxpayers
have to shell out to treat smoking-related disease, which is almost
$455 tax per household per year.
As I was driving from one place to another last night, I heard
another one of these commercials. I do want to again express my
appreciation to the tobacco companies for raising my name ID all over
America, especially in the States of Arizona, Iowa, and New Hampshire.
So I am very appreciative of almost making my name a household word--
what kind of a household word, obviously, is up to interpretation. But
I just want to repeat that there are two attacks that the tobacco
companies are making on this legislation. We polled it, and one is that
it is a ``big tax bill,'' and the other is the issue of ``contraband.''
I have addressed those issues before, but I want to point out again and
again because the attacks are made again and again. Right now, today,
$50 billion per year is paid by the taxpayers to treat tobacco-related
illness. Mr. President, that number is bound to go up. If teenage
smoking is going up, then the tax bill is going up.
Now, you can argue, as some in the tobacco companies have argued, and
some of my colleagues particularly on this side of the aisle have
argued, that there is no way you can reduce teen smoking; that there is
nothing you can do; that raising the price of price of cigarettes won't
work and antismoking campaigns won't work.
This tax bill is big and it is getting bigger. Some don't accept--and
I am not clear why--the view of the Centers for Disease Control that
teenage smoking is on the rise in America. I think a visit to any local
high school in your State or district might indicate that teenage
smoking is on the rise. But, more important, people whose statistics on
these public health issues that were unchallenged are now being
challenged as to whether teenage smoking is on the rise or not. I think
the burden of proof is on those who disagree to prove that these
statistics are wrong, given the credibility of the organizations who
state that teenage smoking is on the rise. If you accept the fact that
teenage smoking is on the rise, then over time there would be more
people who would require treatment for tobacco-related illnesses. The
tax bill goes up. It is sort of elemental, but it needs to be said over
and over again. If we are paying this huge tax bill to treat people as
a result of tobacco-related illness, and it is getting bigger, then it
seems to me that you have a much bigger tax bill than the costs
associated with this legislation.
Mr. President, I believe we are reaching a crucial point, as I
mentioned earlier in my remarks. We are either going to have to invoke
cloture and address the germane amendments, which is still part of
cloture, part of the Senate procedures after the invocation of cloture,
or we are going to have to move on to other things. At that point, as
is usual, we assess winners and losers. That is appropriate and fun
here, especially inside the beltway. I don't disagree with that
approach.
I think we ought to understand who the losers will be. The losers
will be the children of America. They are the only ones who lose.
Anybody else who loses can probably survive, probably go on to other
things, probably lead their well and healthy lives. But I don't believe
that the American people will treat us kindly, nor should they, if we
fail to act on this issue. Is it the most important and compelling
issue that affects America today? Probably not. Crime is important,
drugs are important, education is of critical importance. But do we use
that rationale to ignore this problem? Is that appropriate logic? Do we
say, well, crime and education are far more important issues to the
American people than teenage smoking; OK, so therefore ignore it?
I don't get that logic, Mr. President. I was reading in some of the
newspapers this morning that there are polls out now that have
convinced some Americans--and perhaps in the view of some pollsters, a
majority of Americans--that this is a ``big tax bill.'' A lot of
Americans believe we really aren't going to do anything about kids
smoking. Why would anybody be surprised at that? If you spend $100
million, which is what many--or suppose only $50 million on
advertising, it is going to sway American public opinion. But the
effect of those kinds of advertising campaigns fades. The American
people then focus back on the problem because the problem will remain.
And if we do nothing to address it as a body, I think the American
people have every reason to be less than pleased at our performance at
addressing what I believe most Americans correctly view as a very
important issue, which is--obviously, we have stated many times --our
children.
So I think it is important that we recognize that we are now ending
the third week of considering this legislation, and we are going to
have to either file cloture and move forward with a vote on it, and if
the vote carries, move to a conclusion. Otherwise, I believe that we
should obviously move on to other things, and with the full and certain
knowledge that the issue is not going away because the problem is not
going away.
I understand that my friend from Massachusetts will have an
amendment, and that an agreement has been made with the majority
leader. I hope we can reach a time agreement on that and then move to
our side for an amendment.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be sending up an amendment shortly.
When that amendment is called up, I will ask unanimous consent that we
have 1\1/2\ hours--Mr. President, a small change, a quick change in
plan, which is not unusual in the last 2\1/2\ weeks. We are going to
debate this amendment. It is our intention to debate this amendment for
an hour, at which time there will be a motion to table, and hopefully
after we have disposed of this amendment, should we be able to do so,
we would proceed to the Faircloth-Sessions-McConnell amendment on
attorneys' fees.
That is the current plan. We hope to be able to proceed with that
plan. I, therefore, ask that amendment No. 2541 be called up.
Amendment No. 2689 to Amendment No. 2437
(Purpose: To reduce youth smoking)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I withdraw that request, and I send this
amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), for himself,
and Mr. Bond, Mr.
[[Page S6141]]
Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Johnson,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Specter, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Graham proposes an amendment numbered 2689 to amendment
numbered 2437.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
( ) Assistance for Children.--A State shall use not less
than 50 percent of the amount described in subsection (b)(2)
of section 452 for each fiscal year to carry out activities
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.).
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering, together
with Senator Bond, Senator Chafee, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd,
Senator Wellstone, Senator Johnson, Senator Boxer, Senator Specter,
Senator Landrieu, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and others is a
bipartisan amendment with considerable support, I believe, both in the
Senate and outside of the Senate. It would be my hope that we would be
able to dispose of it rapidly.
Over the course of the last couple of weeks we have had some very
contentious issues on the floor of the Senate regarding liability,
regarding look-backs, the marriage penalty, and drugs. I won't suggest
that the drug penalty didn't have some focus with respect to children.
Of course it does.
But this is primarily children. This amendment is the primary focus
of this legislation. This amendment goes to the core effort of how we
will best get this legislation to assist in the effort to reduce our
young people from smoking. That is why this amendment, I believe, has
broad support. That is why this amendment has been supported by
editorials across the country. That is why this amendment is supported
by different advocacy groups on behalf of children across the country.
We have been debating for 2\1/2\ weeks now about the Nation's first
opportunity to try to deal comprehensively with tobacco, and, in so
doing, comprehensively try to address the question of reducing teenage
smoking. This is an amendment that can directly improve the lives of
our children by adopting a national policy with respect to tobacco and
our approach to children that is workable, proven, and fair.
I believe the reason that a number of colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, from different political ideologies, have come together on this
amendment is for the very simple reason that not only is it focused on
children, not only is it about children, but it comes with a proven
track record of making an impact on choices that children will make.
This is, frankly, not about politics. This is certainly not an effort
to stall the bill. This is an effort to make this bill as
constructively as possible a bill that is really going to assist us in
accomplishing the purposes of the bill; that is, principally to raise a
generation of young people who are able to live up to their potential,
free from the grasp of what we know to be a dangerous drug.
This is an effort to try to guarantee that those 3,000 children who
we have talked about day in and day out who begin smoking won't start
smoking, and they won't start smoking because there is an intervention
in their lives that is significant and meaningful at the time that it
counts.
Senator Bond, I am pleased to say, comes to this amendment with
considerable experience in how these kinds of efforts work. When he was
Governor of Missouri, he started the parents and teachers plan there.
There are few people in the Senate who I think speak with as much
conviction about the difference that it makes for young people when
adults are adequately involved in their lives and when the kind of
structure is available in their lives so that we can make a difference
when it makes the most importance to those children.
In my judgment, and I think in Senator Bond's judgment, Senator
Chafee's judgment, Senator Specter, and others who are part of this
legislation, this seeks to have an impact at the most direct connected
level with our young people.
The legislation on the floor, Mr. President, currently directs that
about 40 percent of the funds that are raised through the tobacco
revenues be directed directly to the States over 5 years. That is in
the billions of dollars. Those billions of dollars that are directed
straight back to the States are divided into two groups. Half of that
money is restricted to a certain set of programs in which the States
can engage. Half of it is completely unrestricted, as many people in
the Senate think it ought to be. That is so that the States can choose,
on their own, what they think might make the most difference with
respect to tobacco and how they would like to spend the proceeds in an
effort that, after all, the States were significantly involved in. The
States' attorneys general are the ones who brought the lawsuits and
helped significantly to put us in the position to be able to be trying
to arrive at a comprehensive national settlement. So that is the theory
behind which those funds were distributed appropriately to the States.
However, given what has happened in the last days here on the floor,
where a considerable portion of this legislation has now been diverted
to a specific tax cut, and another considerable portion of the
legislation has seen money directed specifically to the Coast Guard, or
to the DEA, or to other drug-fighting efforts, it is even more
compelling and more appropriate that at this point in time we seek to
guarantee that some of those available funds are really going to go to
the children on those activities that will most impact those children's
choices.
So we want to assure that at least 50 percent of the restricted
funds--not the unrestricted but 50 percent of the already restricted
funds--will be spent on those activities that already exist within the
menu of what the restricted funds can spend it on. We want to guarantee
that it will go to the after-school programs, to the early childhood
development, and to the child care that every expert in the field will
tell you will make an enormous difference to the lives of those
children.
Mr. President, let me just share with my colleagues an article that
appeared in the Washington Times yesterday. It is called ``After-School
Crime Busing.'' It is an article by Edward Flynn. In fact, he is the
chief of the Arlington Community Police Department. He writes:
In fact, the tobacco bill is an opportunity for Congress to
take its most powerful step ever to fight crime--by investing
half the new revenues in the child care and after-school
programs proven to prevent crime and make communities safe.
This chief of police says to all of us in the Washington Times:
The tobacco companies are worried about their bottom line.
I look at crime's bottom line. Educational child care for
young children and after-school programs for school age kids
are two of the most powerful weapons to fight crime and
protect our kids from getting hooked on tobacco. For example:
Studies have shown that denying at-risk toddlers quality
educational child care may multiply by up to five times the
risk that they will become chronic lawbreakers as adults, and
by up to ten times the risk that they will be delinquent at
age 16.
What's more, as a recent Rand report shows, these programs
actually produce savings to Government--primarily from lower
criminal justice and social service expenditures-- as much as
four times higher than their cost.
But today millions of Americans who must work earn less
than the cost of quality child care for two kids.
And then it goes on to discuss the availability of child care.
Police Chief Flynn says the following:
FBI data tells us that violent juvenile crime triples in
the hour after the school bell rings, and half occurs between
2 p.m. and 8 p.m. The good news: After-school programs can
cut crime by as much as 75 percent. And they help kids do
better in school, treat adults with respect and resolve
conflicts without violence.
Unsupervised after-school hours aren't just prime time for
juvenile crime. They're also prime time for youngsters to
become crime victims and for other threats to children's
health like teen sex and substance abuse.
That is what we are talking about here--substance abuse, tobacco.
There is good evidence that after school supervision can
cut in half the risk that kids will smoke, drink or use
drugs.
So in addition to their proven anticrime impact, after-
school programs--because of the supervision they can offer
while parents are at work and their positive effect on kids'
values--are powerful antismoking and antidrug programs as
well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
article be printed in the Record.
[[Page S6142]]
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Times, June, 10, 1998]
After-School Crime Busting
(By Edward A. Flynn)
If you've been reading the huge ads the big tobacco
companies have been running recently, you might think tobacco
legislation will cause a new American crime problem by
creating a black market in cigarettes.
In fact, the tobacco bill is an opportunity for Congress to
take its most powerful step ever to fight crime--by investing
half the new revenues in the child care and after-school
programs proven to prevent crime and make communities safe.
The tobacco magnates' claims deflate when you look at the
facts:
They use grossly inflated projections of cigarette cost
increases, as much as three times higher than the $1.25 or so
the Treasury Department and most economists agree will be
added to the price of cigarettes.
They ignore protections in the bill like requiring that
each pack of cigarettes carry a serial number so it can be
daily traced, that will probably reduce the smuggling that
now occurs between states.
While there could be some increase to international
smuggling, the best way to deal with that is to make sure a
bit of tobacco revenues are left available to enforce the new
law--not to eliminate tobacco penalties that would reduce
smoking, save lives and compensate taxpayers for the billions
we've paid to treat health problems caused by smoking.
In fact, if Congress allocates at least half of the new
revenues to support educational child development and after-
school programs, it can dramatically reduce crime, violence
and addiction.
The tobacco companies are worried about their bottom line.
I look at crime's bottom line. Educational child care for
young children and after-school programs for school-age kids
are two of the most powerful weapons to fight crime and to
protect our kids from getting hooked on tobacco. For example:
Studies have shown that denying at-risk toddlers quality
educational child care may multiply by up to five times the
risk that they will become chronic law breakers as adults,
and by up to ten times the risk they will be delinquent at
age 16.
What's more, as a recent Rand report shows, these programs
actually produce savings to government--primarily from lower
criminal justice and social service expenditures--as much as
four times higher than their cost.
But today millions of Americans who must work earn less
than the cost of quality child care for two kids. Because
Head Start and child care block grants don't have the
resources to help most of those who need them, parents are
forced to leave their children in poor-quality care--little
more than ``child storage.'' That damages child development,
including kids' ability to get along with others and succeed
in school, and ultimately puts your family's safety at risk.
FBI data tells us that violent juvenile crime triples in
the hour after the school bell rings, and half occurs between
2 p.m. and 8 p.m. The good news: After-school programs can
cut crime by as much as 75 percent. And they help kids do
better in school, treat adults with respect, and resolve
conflicts without violence.
Unsupervised after-school hours aren't just prime time for
juvenile crime. They're also prime time for youngsters to
become crime victims, and for other threats to children's
health like teen sex and substance abuse. There's good
evidence that after-school supervision can cut in half the
risk that kids will smoke, drink or use drugs.
So in addition to their proven anti-crime impact, after-
school programs--because of the supervision they can offer
while parents are at work, and their positive effect on kids'
values--are powerful anti-smoking and anti-drug programs as
well.
Law enforcement leaders nationwide--from the Police
Executive Research Forum and the Major Cities Chiefs
organization to the National District Attorneys Association
and Fight Crime: Invest In Kids--have called on legislators
this year to provide the funds so communities can ensure all
kids access to educational child care and after-school
programs while parents are at work.
The way to do that--the one-two punch that also fights teen
smoking--is by designating at least half of new federal
tobacco tax revenues to support child care and after-school
programs.
This would be one of the most powerful steps Congress has
ever taken against crime, and a tremendous investment to help
America build a healthy and productive generation for the
twenty-first century, decrease long-term government financial
burdens like welfare and crime costs, and start saving
innocent lives today.
Mr. KERRY. I will discuss some further evidence of why this is so
vital, but let me emphasize to my colleagues what we are doing in
restricting this 50 percent of the already restricted funding is not a
new program. We are not creating any new program. We are not creating
any new bureaucracy. We are not requiring any new line of expenditure.
We are using the existing child care development block grant, and we
employ a mechanism that both parties, in a bipartisan fashion, have
already accepted.
This existing, successful bipartisan program already helps States to
invest in child care but not adequately. And it already helps this
investment in early childhood development programs but still not
adequately. I believe all we have to do is look at the example of
President Bush, who signed the block grant into law originally, and the
bipartisan effort of Senator Hatch and Senator Dodd, who pushed the
Senate to make this investment a reality.
This amendment spells out explicitly the truth that has been implicit
in all of this debate, that children are at the heart of the debate
about tobacco in this country. We know--and we now know it to a
shocking degree because we have discussed it at length on the Senate
floor--through the tobacco companies' own memoranda, the degree to
which tobacco companies targeted young children for decades. We went
through, about a week ago, some of the extraordinary documents that now
exist as a result of the lawsuits that show the million dollars of
advertising that researched ways in which the tobacco companies could
target young children and, the tobacco companies themselves
acknowledged, ``get them when they're most vulnerable.'' The language
was the most shocking and explicit statement of a kind of craven policy
of how to corrupt young people that you have ever seen. And literally
they said, get them hooked early, get them with all these symbols, get
them with the advertising, and we won't say anything about the
aftereffects because the pharmacological impact, they said--that is the
way they politely labeled getting hooked--the pharmacological impact
would see to it that the kids continued to buy down the road.
So here we have an opportunity to protect our children from exactly
that kind of predatory practice that is unacceptable. We believe that
is the compelling reason why the Senate should adopt this amendment.
According to a January 1998 poll, 83 percent of American voters
support what I just said--83 percent of American voters believe that
tobacco legislation ought to include significant investments in our
children. It is a bipartisan consensus in this country that we ought to
do that.
Two-thirds of the Republicans who were polled by Lake, Sosin and
Associates strongly agreed that the funds from the tobacco bill ought
to be invested in child care and other childhood development programs
that will make a difference as to whether or not those kids would then
pick up smoking.
In the Philadelphia Inquirer, the editorial page recently praised
this amendment, saying, ``Using tobacco settlement proceeds for child
care meshes with the goal of cutting the health toll of smoking and
could produce benefits that go far beyond that.''
The Deseret News in Salt Lake City, UT, recognized that support for
child care programs ``saves billions of tax dollars down the road.''
The Syracuse Herald-Journal on its editorial page, in urging the Senate
to pass this amendment, said, ``Let the tobacco bill do some good.''
The editors of that newspaper reminded us that ``there are good reasons
why tobacco revenues should go into child care. Child care and
development block grant program, put in place during the Bush
administration, simply doesn't have enough of a budget to fulfill the
needs of working families--it wouldn't even if $20 billion is allotted.
But it would be a start.'' And that is what these voices are telling
us--that we ought to make the start.
There is, in addition to broad editorial support, Mr. President, the
coalition of more than 100 national, State, and local organizations,
called Child Care Now, fighting for this amendment because they
recognize the connection between kids and smoking. And in that
coalition you will find the National Council of Churches of Christ in
the USA, the YWCA of the USA. I have a letter that I received from the
children and parents of Camp Fire Boys and Girls, 700,000 members
strong, asking each Senator to support this amendment because,
``Children engaged in constructive after-school activities are less
likely to smoke.'' These are mothers and fathers of working families,
[[Page S6143]]
and they understand the tremendous pressures and temptations of
smoking, and they have asked each and every Senator to support the
notion that that is where a significant component of this revenue ought
to go, to give their kids a fighting chance.
This amendment responds directly to the plea of parents who
desperately seek help in the area of child care and early childhood
development to help keep their kids away from the cigarettes that they
know they are being exposed to during the hours when, because they are
working, because they are compelled to be away from the home, and
because they do not have enough money to provide adequate support
otherwise, their kids are being exposed. And we have an opportunity
here to help them do that.
Scientific research at the University of Southern California and the
School of Public Health at the University of Illinois shows that 13-
year-olds who are left home alone after school or during the day are
significantly more likely to smoke cigarettes than children who
participate in structured after-school activities. But today, only one-
third of inner-city schools offer those programs, and, not
coincidentally, it is in those very inner cities where youth smoking
rates are now rising and going the highest.
The National Women's Law Center, committed to protecting the rights
of women, but also committed to the economic security of low-income
women, wrote to Senator Bond and to me in favor of this bill, because
they recognize that under the child care development block grant today
only 1 out of 10 eligible children in a low-income working family
currently gets the child care assistance they need.
So if we are intent on reducing the number of kids who are smoking,
and if we are really worried that smoking among high school seniors is
at a 19-year high, and we are really worried about what the Senator
from Georgia said when he came to the floor and talked about the drug
problem, the marijuana increase among young people, then it is critical
we focus on the 3 million young children in this country who are
eligible but do not get it. We need to leverage the capacity of every
State and local community to be able to take kids off the street
corners, where they too often cave in to peer pressure and smoke each
day, and put them instead into a structured environment that brightens
their future, not one that jeopardizes it.
So if we are serious about reducing youth smoking, it is imperative
that we engage now in this effort to cultivate a whole generation of
young people who have the capacity to make the right decisions.
I have a letter from Dr. T. Berry Brazelton of the Harvard Medical
School. Many people in America know him well, personally, and think of
him as America's pediatrician. I would like to point out that he wrote,
along with over 50 other doctors, public health officials and child
development experts, to Senators about the early child development
component of sound decisionmaking for our children. Among those who
joined Dr. Brazelton were Julius Richmond, former Surgeon General of
the United States, and the Chairman of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, and Elizabeth McAnarney, the Chairwoman
of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Rochester. They
tell all of us that scientific study after scientific study shows that
the brain development in those first years of life is the most
important--I quote from the letter of Dr. Brazelton:
. . . for laying the foundation for adequate development,
which results in self-confidence, smart decisionmaking, and
the ability to later resist destructive habits like smoking.
So these aren't ideas that have been cooked up on a political basis
somehow. These are the foremost experts in the field. They are telling
us if we want to raise a generation of children who are able to make
these decisions, who will not fall prey to the lure of tobacco, it is
vital that we invest in their capacity to do so.
Again, I return to their letter, and read directly from it:
We urge Congress to craft a comprehensive program for
reducing teen smoking--and to ensure that such an effort
includes an essential investment in early childhood
development and after-school programs. You can support a down
payment on this investment by voting for the Kerry-Bond
amendment.
I think Dr. Brazelton said it best in a recent editorial when he
said--simply--
As a prescription for preventing teen smoking, I'd say that
early childhood development and child care programs are just
what the doctor ordered.
We also know from police officers and prosecutors like Ed Flynn,
Chief of Police in Arlington, Virginia, who are leading a fight to
invest tobacco money in child care. Chief Flynn has said that child
care and after school programs ``help kids learn the valuable skills to
become responsible adults.'' An entire organization led by police,
prosecutors, and crime victims is pushing the Senate to pass this
amendment because:
The hours from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. are not only the peak
hours for juvenile crime, teen sex and teen experimentation
with drugs, but also the hours when teens are most likely to
get hooked on tobacco. After-school programs are not only our
best protection against juvenile crime, but also may be the
most powerful anti-smoking programs available. Being
unsupervised in the afternoon doubles the risk that kids will
smoke, drink, or use drugs.
It is those individuals closest to our children who know this is the
right way to deal with youth smoking.
This is an amendment every Senator ought to support.
I want to especially thank Senator McCain for supporting this
amendment. In view of the pressure on Senator McCain, the Senator's
support means a lot to me. I think I can speak for Senator Bond when I
say we are honored to have John McCain by our side on this fight. I
also want to thank Senators Chafee, Campbell, and Specter for
cosponsoring this amendment.
I think it proves that this is an amendment which is based not on
Republican ideas or Democrat ideas, but simply on good ideas in touch
with the mainstream view in this country.
Under the Kerry-Bond amendment states will enjoy the flexibility of
the child care development block grant. The truth is we would simply be
articulating once and for all the important standard which the public
health community and most Governors have already endorsed: that child
care and early childhood development are vital tools in reducing the
rates of children smoking in this country. We then leave it to the
leadership at the state and local level to meet that standard, to
design the programs that meet the local needs in places as different
and diverse as Illinois, where Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, is
experimenting with child care, and Rhode Island, where Gov. Almond has
made after school care an integral part of preparing children in his
state for the next century.
The Kerry-Bond amendment empowers communities to find their own way
of saving a new generation from smoking. We know how after school
programs like Girls Inc. of Worcester, MA have effectively incorporated
anti-smoking curriculum designed to teach their participants about the
dangers of tobacco and equip them with the values to resist the peer
pressure to smoke. I have met with the case workers from Central, MA
who tell you that the ``Home Instruction Program for Preschool
Youngsters'' helps parents and teachers join in community
partnerships to raise healthier kids. But in all these communities and
around the country you will find that there are waiting lists for the
services--for the programs which teach kids about responsible decision-
making, for the anti-smoking programs and the programs which take kids
off the streets and give them structure--and the demand far exceeds our
capacity to serve. At the Castle Square Early Child Development Center
in Boston, there were 67 kids in the program and 500 on the waiting
list. I believe it's a moral dilemma that you have 500 children there
who aren't receiving the structure they need to resist smoking, that
today we have limited ourselves to saving just 67 of those kids. The
Kerry-Bond amendment can change that, by ensuring that half of the
restricted funds would go to child care programs which can play such an
important role in reducing youth smoking.
I return to the original premise of this debate, the reason we are
here on the floor of the Senate debating a bill that a few years ago
would have been considered too hot to handle. We are all fortunate to
have Republicans like Senator Bond here in the Senate who believe it is
wrong to ignore our children in this tobacco debate. I want to
[[Page S6144]]
especially thank him for his leadership in this discussion, for his
initiative in pushing to include children in our legislation. Senator
Bond has helped set a tone of bipartisan cooperation and along with
Senator McCain I think he has laid the benchmark for fairness. Kit Bond
and I believe this Senate can find room in fair and workable tobacco
legislation to put hundreds of thousands of children on the road to
good health and responsible decisionmaking. In truth I wonder if we can
really believe that fair tobacco legislation could ignore the kids who
brought us here today as one unified Senate. Let us prove once again
that the moral center can hold in this debate and let us join together
in passing the Kerry-Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I particularly thank my distinguished
colleague from Massachusetts for yielding to me. I am very pleased to
join with him in offering this critically important amendment.
Late last year, Senator Kerry and I introduced legislation, which is
bipartisan legislation aimed at providing support to help families give
their children the kind of encouragement, love, early training and a
healthy environment they need to develop their social and intellectual
capacities. I have had the opportunity in my years both as Governor and
in the Senate to work with children and work in the development of
children. I am convinced that many of society's problems today--the
high school dropout rate, drug and tobacco use, juvenile crime, even
adult crime--can all be linked to inadequate child care and early
childhood development opportunities.
Let me just tell you a brief story about the first really broad-based
early childhood development program that we put into effect in
Missouri. Our Parents As Teachers Program was designed to provide
assistance through educating and informing and giving helpful advice to
parents of children from birth to 3 years old--how they could relate to
the children, how they could establish better contact with the
children, how they could excite the child's curiosity, to get involved
with reading and learning. I was having a difficult time getting it
through the Missouri legislature. I recommended it in 1981 and 1982 and
1983, and someone always had a reason to vote against it. I never got
it through.
Finally, in my last year as Governor I said we are going to make an
all-out push because this program is making a difference. We were
seeing in the pilot projects in four school districts that children
whose parents had been in Parents As Teachers came to school ready to
learn. Their parents had taken responsibility. The parents were
involved in their education. They had developed the pattern of
involvement. The program itself identified potential learning
disabilities or physical disabilities early on, which could be best
corrected at those early ages.
I told everybody I was going to focus attention on early childhood
development. Without my direct suggestion or intervention, the Director
of Corrections, the Missouri Department of Corrections, the man who
managed all of the prisons and the parole and probation efforts in
Missouri, Dr. Leroy Black, on his own, came before the committee that
was hearing testimony on Parents As Teachers. We had just gone on a
major prison-building exercise in Missouri. In that 4 years of my
second term we had increased the prison spaces 88 percent. People were
wondering whether we could ever catch up with the prison population.
He came before that committee with a very simple, straightforward
message. He said if we want to cut down on the need to keep building
prisons in the future, we are going to have to deal with early
childhood development. He said the failures in early education, the
failures of parental responsibility, the failures of the parents to be
involved--for some care giver to make sure these children were getting
an education, being taught responsibility--is the greatest cause of the
increase in crime and the increase in prison population.
He was successful. He was a great help in getting this program
established on a Statewide basis. Yes, as Senator Kerry mentioned, we
now have studies based on this program and others that show a child's
social and intellectual development is deeply rooted in the early
interaction and nurturing a child receives in his or her early years
and the scientific research shows that infant brain development occurs
much more rapidly than previously thought.
We used to think of those cute little infants, birth to 3 years old,
as being cuddly, wonderful things without much going on. But brains are
developing--50 percent of a child's mature learning capabilities are
developed by the age of 3. They are in a very rapid mode of
development.
Anybody who has tried to teach a child to speak two languages instead
of one language will find a very small child--you think they would
learn English slowly--but they will learn another language, too, just
as quickly, where an adult is having a great deal of difficulty trying
to learn another language. They are in a rapid mode where they can
accept new inputs and they are learning rapidly.
The role parents and adults play is critical. That is when the
patterns are established for the future learning of future
responsibility of the children. I had long said the first 3 years of
life was the greatest learning experience for a child. I found when our
son Sam was born, that the first 3 years of his life were the fastest
learning experience in my life. I learned a lot more in those 3 years
than I had learned in many years as Governor and various offices that I
had held.
Learning about a child and learning how important that education is,
is quite an experience. Frankly, some of the people who attacked our
early childhood development program, Parents As Teachers, were accusing
it of being subversive. They thought it was subversive because we were
encouraging government to come in and take over the raising of
children. That is not the purpose of the program. We provided the
parents the tools to be the first educators of the children.
Guess what happened. It was subversive in that it hooked the parents
into the child's development and well-being and welfare and education.
When we are talking about discouraging children from using tobacco, and
as we did in the amendment adopted this week, from using drugs, from
using alcohol, parental responsibility is a vitally important part of
that program.
We believe establishing responsibility can best occur with assistance
through early childhood development. Parental responsibility is very
important. Yet, there are times when parents need some help. That is
what the other part of this bill does. Parents today face a variety of
stresses that were unheard of a generation ago. Many families with
children rely on more than one paycheck. That doesn't necessarily mean
two 9-to-5 paychecks. Many families are working tag-team shifts or
part-time only, or own home-based businesses so one parent can always
be with the children. The challenges are tremendous and the challenges
are not going to get any easier.
As we all know, the most dangerous time of the day when children
engage in harmful activities, such as tobacco or drug use or crime, is
between the hours after school and before parents get home from work.
In an average week in America, over 5 million children under the age
of 13 come home to an empty house. These are the kids who are most
vulnerable and who engage in activities which may threaten their
future.
Providing increased funding for early childhood development and
constructive after-school activities will serve as a powerful deterrent
to these damaging behaviors.
Ultimately, however, it is important to remember that the likelihood
of a child growing up in a healthy, nurturing environment is most
impacted by his or her parents and family. While government cannot and
should not become a substitute for parents and family, we can help them
become stronger by equipping them with the resources to meet every day
challenges.
The Kerry-Bond amendment achieves that goal.
This amendment will lay the foundation needed to realize meaningful
reductions in tobacco and drug use, juvenile crime, and other social
ills which plague our society.
Again, prevention is the key. Investing in early childhood
development initiatives and before and after school activities is an
important weapon in our
[[Page S6145]]
fight against our Nation's unhealthy and life-threatening activities.
The future well-being of our children is too important for us to
break continually along partisan lines. I urge my colleagues to adopt
this amendment, and I thank my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts for his hard work and dedication to this cause.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The hour of noon having arrived,
under rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture on
the modified committee substitute to S. 1415, the tobacco legislation.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the modified
committee substitute for S. 1415, the tobacco legislation:
Thomas A. Daschle, Carl Levin, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K.
Akaka, John Glenn, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Dale
Bumpers, Ron Wyden, Mary L. Landrieu, John D. Rockefeller IV,
Paul S. Sarbanes, Harry Reid, Richard H. Bryan, Kent Conrad,
J. Robert Kerrey.
Call of the Roll
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under
the rule is waived.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the committee substitute amendment to S. 1415 shall be
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) is absent because of illness.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--56
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Specter
Amendment No. 2689
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman
and Senator Kohl be added as cosponsors to the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. What is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment 2689,
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think this is a very fine amendment. I
want to commend our colleagues, Senator Kerry and Senator Bond, for
offering this amendment. I strongly support it.
This amendment is designed to invest in the well-being of our
children in this country. It is a measure that ensures that the
children of our Nation will get the right start for a far brighter
tomorrow.
As our colleagues have already discussed, the amendment will earmark
50 percent of the Federal share of the tobacco funds going to the
States for child care. Specifically, Mr. President, these funds will be
used to increase our investment in child care and development block
grants--a piece of legislation we were very proud to offer with my good
friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, some 8 years ago.
The idea, Mr. President, is not to create here a new Federal child
care program, but rather to do a better job with the well-established
program that enjoys wide support from our States and Governors,
Republicans and Democrats alike, across this Nation.
The child care and development block grant was created in 1990, as a
partnership between the States and the Federal Government, to improve
the availability and affordability and quality of child care. The block
grant is a very efficient and popular way of providing States with
sorely needed child care funds, and the States enjoy it. The reason is
because it is so flexible. Perhaps most important, this is why parents
also support the program.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in some cases, raised
concerns during the child care debates that somehow our intent with
this child care legislation is to limit the ability of parents to
choose how their children would be cared for, that somehow we would
like to see the Federal Government deciding how to raise them. Of
course, Mr. President, this rhetoric could not be further from the
truth.
The child care and development block grant is predicated upon
parental choice. With assistance from the block grant, parents can
choose to enroll their children in church-based care, they can choose
to have their children cared for by a neighbor down the street, or they
can choose to have a family member care for their child. If they wish,
they can choose to enroll their child in a child development center.
But the benefits of this program are offered to far too few families.
It is terribly underfunded. Only 1 out of 10 children in America who
are eligible for child care assistance receives it. That still leaves
far too many families without the help they need in child care. Full
day care can easily cost $4,000 to $10,000 per child per year, which is
equal to what some families pay for college tuition plus room and board
in a public university in America.
I know concerns have been raised and are apt to be raised about
giving any direction to the States in their use of these funds. I would
like to remind our colleagues that half of the tobacco funds that would
go to the States are unrestricted. These are the funds that reimburse
States for their tobacco-related Medicaid expenses. Many States do with
this money what they will, and they should be able to do so. However,
since the other half of the funds to the States represents the Federal
contribution, we feel we should have something to say about how those
dollars are spent.
As this bill is currently written, the Federal share of the money
earmarked for States would be restricted to a list of six programs.
While child care is on the list, there is no guarantee that any of the
funds would be used for that care. There is no guarantee that child
care would get a single dime of these dollars. I think that would be
unfortunate, Mr. President. We have talked a lot about child care,
about caring for children during this debate on tobacco. We have talked
a lot over the past weeks about things that, frankly, have little or
nothing to do with the well-being of children in this country.
Affordable, accessible, high-quality child care is about the well-being
of children. The tobacco industry has preyed on America's children --
all of us agree on that--stunting their growth and stealing their
futures. This amendment is about turning the tide and making an
investment in children and their families from the very beginning.
Mr. President, experts tell us that the first 3 years of the life of
a child are critical to brain development and to laying the ground for
self-confidence--a sound foundation for a healthy future. Investing
early in childhood development is the best prevention against a whole
host of problems, not the least of which is teenage smoking. Experts,
again, including Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, an organization
representing law enforcement officials from around the country, tell us
time and time again that quality after-school activities are extremely
important to preventing problem behaviors and criminal activity.
Scientific studies support their claims that nearly 5 million children
left
[[Page S6146]]
home alone in the afternoon are much more likely to engage in at-risk
behavior, from smoking to drugs and sex than their peers who are
engaged in stimulating, productive activities.
Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity in the next few hours to
ensure that we make a concrete commitment to investing in the health
and safety of America's children. Setting aside a specified percentage
of funds--funds that we have already agreed to spend for the child care
needs in this country--says to the American public that we will provide
for a solid foundation for the future good health of America's
children. Many of my colleagues know that I have introduced a
comprehensive child care bill along with 26 other colleagues, including
the sponsor of this amendment. This amendment is an important first
step that I think we can take in making good and fulfilling the promise
of that bill. Is this all we need to do? Obviously not, but it is a
good beginning.
I hope that our colleagues, in considering this amendment offered by
Senators Kerry and Bond, in a bipartisan way, would find a way to
support expanding this block grant. It doesn't create any new programs.
It is designed to give maximum flexibility to families across this
country. It can make a huge difference for those parents, who don't
have the choice about whether or not to be at home, to be able to
afford that needed child care.
That $10,000, as I said a moment ago, is equivalent to the cost of a
higher education and room and board. It is expensive. Child care is
very expensive. If we can assist in the cost of that and relieve the
financial burden and the tremendous anxiety the parents feel about
wondering where their child is as they must work, then, in addition to
doing something about reducing smoking among young people in this bill,
that will be amplified by providing assistance to these families and
seeing to it that their child care needs are going to be met, or at
least it will take a significant step in meeting those needs. I commend
my colleagues for offering this amendment and urge colleagues to
support it.
I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Dodd from
Connecticut, and commend him, Senator Bond, and Senator Kerry for
offering this very important amendment to this very important bill. I
want to say a few words, if I could, as a supporter.
The issue that has been most contentious about this tobacco
legislation has been how do we really stop people--children, adults and
young people--from smoking? We have debated that. Many of us feel like
the best way, the surest way to stop people from smoking, from using a
dangerous product that has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
to be dangerous, is to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes high
enough to discourage as many young people as possible from even
starting to smoke and, frankly, discourage adults, who most certainly
have a choice, from continuing a habit. It is a purposeful levy. If we
could stop people from smoking by not raising the price of a pack of
cigarettes, perhaps we should consider that. But I am convinced, as
many Members of this Chamber are, that this is the best and most
effective way, along with counteradvertising, advertising restrictions,
and other restrictions, which, in fact, will be effective.
The question becomes, what do we do with the proceeds generated?
Because it is going to fall regressively, in a sense, on poorer people,
I think we should try to get the money back to those who are going to
pay the tax. We can do that in a number of ways. One way is to target a
general tax relief, which, as this bill moves through, I hope we can
do. But another way that my colleagues have come up with is targeting
some of this money back to hard-working American families--in most
instances, with both parents working full time and, in some instances,
there is only one parent--to help them with the great costs they are
incurring and the great challenge that they have, which is how to be
good workers and how to be good parents. It is incumbent upon us to try
to get some of this money back to these families that are going to pay
this tax and their children for one reason: Because children were
targeted by the industry. There is no question about it. They were
targeted by the industry. In my opinion, they should benefit from the
proceeds generated in this tobacco settlement. To leave the children
out and not specifically designate a portion for them, even though they
are going to get some benefit from their research that is done, would
be a shame. It still gives States discretion about how they would like
to spend a part of the money coming in. But it says that we want you to
use at least 50 percent of your restricted funds to support child
initiatives, child care particularly, and to improve the quality of
child care. Because children were targeted, they should benefit.
Because families who are paying the tax--poor families primarily,
lower-income families--this amendment targets this benefit to them and
allows them to get accessible, affordable, and quality child care.
Let me say one other thing that in some way angers me as a working
mom myself. Some people would like to maybe make judgments about
families that choose to work, or parents outside of the home, or inside
of the home. I would like to say maybe ideally it would be great for
every child in America to have two parents, and perhaps it would be
ideal if one of those parents would stay home full time. But this is
not an ideal world; this is a world where families have to make tough
choices.
Frankly, we have an economy now in America that depends on almost
every able-bodied person over 18 to work. If people haven't noticed,
there is a worker shortage in America for skilled work, for talented
work. Our businesses can't survive unless there are workers working. So
we have to do both. We have to work outside of the home. We have to be
good parents to our children, and one way is to have the Government
help parents who are doing everything that they can do. One way we can
do that is to help them, be a partner with them, to find good-quality
child care, because investing in our children is the best thing we can
do to help our families, to help our country, to keep our economy
strong, and do what is right with the proceeds of this tobacco bill.
So I urge all of my colleagues. I think this has great bipartisan
support. It would be a shame to pass this bill without this amendment
on it and to fall down in our commitment to the children and working
families of our country.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, good afternoon.
____________________