[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.

                          ____________________