Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right. It would be to the Secretary. However, I think the Secretary would look at how the Senate spoke and how the Congress spoke on this to decide what to do. Obviously, if the Senate voted to do this and it was a strong vote, then I think he would pay attention to it, he or she would pay attention to this.

Mr. HARKIN. I might just quote here from the Vietnam Veterans of America: VVA has long held the principle belief that the health care and benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of our Nation's defense. I think that is the problem around here. We have a defense budget, then we have a veterans' affairs budget--as if somehow they are separate and distinct and have no connection with one another. I think this sentence really says it clearly: . . .the benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of our nation's defense. We cannot separate the two. Your amendment will carry forward with assurance of the Nation's commitment to veterans' military service-related health care needs. The letter from the Vietnam Veterans of America, Incorporated, goes on and says: Some of your colleagues have argued that attrition of the veterans population through deaths of World War II veterans is an indication that VA needs less money to operate. However, this narrow perspective fails to take into account the rising costs of medical care, and more importantly, the current demographics of the veterans population. VA health care users are older and sicker than the overall American public. Vietnam veterans now represent the largest group within the veterans population. Many of the Vietnam veterans and a growing population of Persian Gulf war veterans have complex problems relating to herbicide, chemical and other environmental exposures. VVA strongly believes that Congress must commit an adequate annual appropriations to VA medical care programs. Your amendment is a very positive recognition of the current circumstances and needs of America's veterans. Thank you for your initiative to attempt redistributing some DOD funds towards VA medical care. Sincerely, Kelly Willard West, Director of Government Relations. The same thing basically follows through on the Blinded Veterans Association and the Paralyzed Veterans Association of America. The Blinded Veterans Association says: The VA health care system has already been pared to the bone, and we doubt there are any more efficiencies that can be realized to offset inadequate resources. Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will be served, pure and simple, and that is the truth. Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will be served. Let me just, right now, refer to this chart for those who think that may be taking $329 million out of a $271 billion defense budget--think about that, $271 billion, and all we are asking for is $329 million, just to get veterans' health care benefits up to meet inflationary needs. If you look at this chart, it shows you how much we are spending on military of our discretionary budget. If you look at our discretionary spending, military consumes half of it. Half of all that we spend in this Congress goes to military spending--half, 50 cents out of every dollar. Out of the other 50 cents, we take agriculture and energy and Social Security, economic development, transportation, science and space, housing, foreign affairs, foreign aid, health, justice, education. We hear all this debate that we are spending too much on education--6 cents out of every dollar; 6 cents for education, 50 cents for military spending. We are not talking about all these, we are talking about veterans' benefits. Out of this $1 that we spend here every year, how much goes for veterans' benefits? 3\1/2\ pennies--3\1/2\ pennies, to meet the medical needs of those who risked life and limb to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think that we can do a little bit better than 3\1/2\ pennies. I think the amendment we are offering brings that to just a little under 4 pennies, if I am not mistaken. Is that too much to ask? It is not too much to ask when we are taking 50 cents out for defense. I think the Vietnam Veterans of America had it right. We should not separate veterans' benefits out of defense. It is part of the ongoing costs of the defense of this country, and we should not separate the two out. I believe we are meeting our commitments globally. I take a back seat to no one in saying that we are the world's most powerful nation, that we have a lot of commitments globally, that we have to meet those commitments. We are meeting those commitments and we will continue to meet them. And taking $329 million out of the defense budget is not going to harm that one little bit. But what will harm us, if we do not meet this commitment, is that many of our veterans, our Vietnam veterans, now today many of our Korean war veterans and even some of our World War II veterans, they are getting older--they are living longer, just as the demographics of our country are--they are living longer; they are sicker. There are leftover problems that they have that maybe were not indicated when they were in the military, such as herbicide and chemical poisoning and things like that, that now later on they are suffering from. What happens if we do not meet their medical needs? Aside from the personal suffering and the personal hardship that they and their families have to undergo, what happens is that younger people in their families and their friends look upon them and they say, ``Wait a minute. Here is someone who went to the Persian Gulf. Here is a veteran who fought in Vietnam. Maybe here is someone who was in Korea, and yet they are not being cared for? A lot of the funding has to come out of their own pockets to meet their medical needs?'' I would imagine a lot of younger people would say: Why would I ever want to go in the military? If we promised to meet their health care needs and later on we don't live up to that obligation, what does that say to our younger people who we want to enlist and become active duty members of our armed services? I think our lack of spending adequate resources to keep up with at least inflation in veterans' health care benefits has a deleterious effect on the security of our Nation. I see this amendment as not just something helping the veterans and meeting the obligation that we have to our present-day veterans, but I see this amendment as really meeting the future security needs of our country by saying to those who come along next, who may be asked to go to some other place in the world to defend this country, to defend our vital national interest, it says to them, ``When you are in that position, we're going to meet your obligations, too.'' I just feel very strongly that this is something that we have to do as a society. I am not trying to goldplate anything. I am not trying to boost veterans' medical benefits' spending way pie high in the sky. I am simply saying at least we ought to keep up with inflation. We do that here. We kept up with inflation in energy and agriculture, national affairs, justice, education--we keep up basically with inflation. Why shouldn't we do this for our veterans, also? As the Independent Budget Project of the veterans' groups have pointed out, tens of thousands of Americans who now stand in harm's way in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and other troubled spots around the world will be the veterans of tomorrow. It is worth noting that the veterans suffering from the complicated gulf war illnesses may end up being a greater financial strain on the system in the future. What are we going to say to them? Tough luck? In other words, Mr. President, the demand for VA health care will not diminish in the foreseeable future. Just because there are fewer people doesn't mean we can spend fewer dollars. They are living longer, they are getting older, and they are sicker, and a lot of the illnesses they contracted haven't shown up. We can't just wish it away. All we are asking is to provide the resources to meet the demand that is there. That is what this amendment does. I urge its adoption as the fair and equitable and the right thing for our country to do for the veterans who fought in World War II, Korea, the Persian Gulf, Vietnam and, yes, in Bosnia, too, and for those younger people who are going to be the veterans of tomorrow, we have to meet this obligation. I will point out, I offered this amendment last year, and I didn't have all of the figures down--we do this year--keeping up with inflation. This amendment received 41 votes last year on a bipartisan basis. It is less money this year. We are actually asking for less money this year just to keep up with inflation. I am hopeful Senators on both sides can see fit to meet the obligation to our veterans. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. I was informed--if the Senator will yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. HARKIN. That would put you on until just before 9 o'clock. That would put me up about 9 o'clock. I still don't know why we can't go back and forth like we have always done in the past.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not agree to that. I am sorry, that had to do with something else. I still reserve the amount of time that was requested.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a time agreement also, and I have been waiting all day. I will take only about 15 minutes on mine.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution on behalf of myself, Senator Brownback and Senator Torricelli, which addresses a critical issue in South Asia. It calls for a peaceful and just settlement of the dispute over Kashmir. For the better part of half a century, Pakistan and India have had a territorial dispute involving the Jammu and Kashmir region--commonly referred to simply as Kashmir. Three times in the past 50 years, these two nations have fought against one another, two of these wars were over Kashmir. International security experts have long considered South Asia generally, and Kashmir specifically, a ``nuclear flash point.'' These longstanding tensions between Pakistan and India have only worsened with their testing of nuclear weapons last month. It is more important than ever to take a serious look at Pakistan-India relations. A peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute is not only in the interest of the peoples of South Asia, it is also in the interest of the United States. Our nation has had a long and important history with both countries. I think the United states is very aware of the dangers to our own national security, as well as the peace and security of the whole world, if the Kashmir dispute continues without resolution. Further, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would foster economic and social development of the Kashmir region, as well as the rest of South Asia. It would also curb many of the human rights abuses which continue despite the efforts by many international groups. As a world leader, we must take the initiative to help negotiate a peaceful and just end to the dispute in the Kashmir region that follows the wishes of those affected. And both the United States and the United Nations can play an important role in finding a resolution to the dispute over Kashmir, and in improving relations between Pakistan and India. While the Administration and the international community have taken several steps to address these problems, more action is required. This Senate resolution states that resolving the Kashmir dispute should be a top US priority, as well as that of the world community. Furthermore, this resolution asks our Ambassador to the United Nations to call a meeting of the Security Council with representatives from both India and Pakistan for the purpose of discussing security in South Asia. It also advises the Administration to raise the issue of Kashmir with the Security Council and promote the possibility of a UN sponsored mediator for the conflict. Finally, this resolution requests that the President ask the Indian government to allow UN human rights officials to visit the Kashmir region. I believe the resolution outlines some important next steps for the U.S. to help facilitate a reasonable and just solution to the Kashmir dispute and normalization of relations between India and Pakistan. It is time for the United States Government and the world to act in a productive manner that will help attain stability in South Asia. We cannot turn a blind eye to this long-standing conflict any longer and must seek a peaceful end to this dispute which not only benefits the countries involved, but will ultimately benefit the world. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with the previous speaker. There have been a lot of things not making sense. On Friday, June 5, the majority leader said, ``If we don't add something on the marriage penalty, tax relief, and on drugs, there will not be a bill.'' Two days later, he said, ``This has gone way beyond trying to do something about teenage smoking. Greed has set in. This is about money grubbing; it's about taxing people and spending on a myriad of programs. We have lost our focus.'' That was the same person--in 2 days, two different things. Yes, there has been a lot of confusion around here on this bill. I think it is very clear. If this bill goes down today, Joe Camel wins, and our kids lose--3,000 a day will lose, and Joe Camel wins.

Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the right to object to that.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I hear all kinds of rumblings that the Republican side of the aisle, at some time today, is going to try to kill or will effectively kill the tobacco bill. I want to take a few minutes to talk about that and try to recap, if I can, why we are here and why we have spent so much time on the tobacco bill. Three thousand kids every day take up smoking; 1,000 of them will die prematurely. Teenage use of tobacco products is at a 17-year high. And 42.7 percent of high school kids are now using some form of tobacco products. Ninety-one percent of 3-year-olds in this country recognize Joe Camel, and recognize him in a friendly manner. And thanks to the court cases that we have had in several States, we now have the industry documents that reveal years and years and years of lying and deception by the tobacco companies. That is why we are here. That is why we have a tobacco bill--to put an end to teen smoking, to put an end to the lies and deceptions of the tobacco companies, to save kids' lives. The Republican leader was on the floor here a week and a half or so ago. I happened to be on the floor at the same time. And Senator Lott of Mississippi, why, he said, we have to remember what the end game is. Well, I got to the floor shortly after, and I said, yes, we do have to remember what the end game is. The end game is to put an end to what I just talked about and to reduce teen smoking. That is the end game. That is why we are here--to cut down on teen smoking. But Senators on the other side of the aisle here today, and in the past 4 weeks, have had another agenda. They have had tax cuts, drug money, and limits on attorneys' fees, et cetera, et cetera, and on and on. Let us look at the Record. On Friday, June 5, the majority leader, Senator Lott, said, and I quote, ``If we don't add something on marriage penalty, tax relief, and on drugs, there won't be a bill. There will not be a bill.'' In other words, the majority leader is saying, if we do not load a lot of stuff onto this bill--marriage penalty, tax relief, drugs--there will not be a bill. That is what he said on June 5. On June 7, on one of the talk shows, CNN's Sunday Night ``Late Edition'' interview with Wolf Blitzer, here is Senator Lott again, 2 days afterward: Instead of focusing on trying to get something constructive done, what we have now is game playing and rhetoric. What we need is leadership. Mr. Blitzer said, ``When will there be a vote''--talking about the McCain bill. Senator Lott, 2 days before on June 5--Senator Lott had said, ``. . . there won't be a bill until we add the marriage penalty, tax relief and drugs.'' Now, two days later, Mr. Lott says: Well, at this point, it is dead in the water and there may never be a vote on the McCain bill. The problem is greed has set in. It is the usual addiction in Washington to taxes and spend. This has gone way beyond trying to do something about teenage smoking. This is now about money grubbing. This is about taxing people and spending on a myriad of programs. . ..We have lost our focus. What kind of brave new world are we living in around here? On June 5, the majority leader says there won't be a bill unless we load it up. Two days later, he says we have loaded the bill up, we can't have a bill because we have lost our focus, because it ought to be about teen smoking. Game playing. You want game playing? That is where the game playing is coming from. It is coming from the leadership in the Senate. That is where the game playing is coming from. I will say it loud and clear right here. The leadership has never wanted this bill, and they want to kill it. What we want--and I don't just mean Democrats, I mean a lot of Republicans, too, we want to put an end to teen smoking, and we want this bill. But, unfortunately, the Republican leadership and some on that side are going to try to make good on their threats to kill the bill. I understand the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, was on the floor a few minutes ago sort of crowing about killing the bill. Well, I hope those reports are wrong. I hope we have the bipartisan support to pass the bill. But it seems to me at this point in time the choice is very clear: You are either for tobacco company profits or you are for our kids. You are either for cutting down on the lies and deceptions of the tobacco companies, or you are for saving our kids' lives and keeping them from smoking. That is what it has come down to. Don't let anybody kid you. Now I heard the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, a while ago--I happened to be listening--talking about all the taxes, all the taxes the people are going to have to spend if we raise the price of cigarettes. I got to thinking about that. Guess what. Not one person in this country has to pay those taxes. What an interesting set of taxes-- taxes you don't have to pay. If you don't smoke, you don't pay the taxes--simple as that. It doesn't tax everybody. You have the freedom to choose. If you want to pay the taxes, smoke; if you don't want to pay the taxes, don't smoke. Yet to listen to the other side talk about it, why, you would think that everyone in this country was going to have to pay taxes. Absolutely not true. Only if you want to smoke. Then you ought to be more than happy to help pay for those who get sick and to help do something about keeping teenagers from smoking. I don't think I yet have met one adult who has smoked a long time-- 10, 15, 20 years--I haven't met one yet who has said, ``I would recommend a young person take up smoking.'' I haven't met one yet. Every single one of them says, ``Don't do what I did. Don't get in the habit. Don't become an addict like I am.'' That is what this bill is about--keeping kids from becoming addicts, addicts every bit as bad as if they took up cocaine or heroin--nicotine addiction. And it is the gateway drug to the others. You want to cut down on marijuana? Cut down on teen smoking of cigarettes. You want to cut down on teen use of smoking crack? Cut down on their smoking cigarettes first. You want to cut down on kids who get into the drug culture? Go after cigarettes first. It is a gateway drug. It is a drug, make no mistake about it, and a highly addictive drug. And it just so happens to be legal. But we know from industry documents today that they have known for years that nicotine is addictive. They have known for years that it is carcinogenic. They have known for years about the medical costs of addiction to tobacco. Yet through all their advertising, they have lied about it. All this fancy advertising of Joe Camel and that rugged Marlboro Man on that horse and all these young people--do you ever see a tobacco ad that has a lot of old people hacking and smoking and spitting in it? No. All the tobacco ads have nice young people, and they are healthy, and they are vibrant. They look like they are having a great time, and if it weren't for tobacco, they probably wouldn't be having a great time. That is the kind of deception used by the tobacco companies. That is what we are trying to put an end to. Taxes? No one has to pay these taxes. I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. No one has to pay these taxes, not one single person, if they choose not to smoke. But if they do, then, yes, we want you to pay more for cigarettes, because we want to use that money to stop kids from smoking, which is what you want, too. Every adult I have known who is addicted to nicotine says kids shouldn't take it up. But these tobacco companies will continue to hook kids because they know that is their replacement smoker. They know that 90 percent of adult smokers who are hooked on nicotine start smoking before the age of 18. If they don't start smoking by that time, chances are they will never take it up and become addicted. That is why we are here. That is the end game--to keep our kids from smoking. Killing this bill is a death sentence for millions of kids. Killing this bill would be a historic cave-in to the special interests of this country. It would be a historic cave-in to the $40 million in deceptive ads that the tobacco companies have put out across this land over the last month. It would be a historic cave-in to an industry that has deceived and lied to the American people for the last half century. Make no mistake about it, tobacco executives and all of their PAC directors who have all of that money to start giving out to campaigns, they are watching. They are watching, and they are rubbing their hands together, and they are saying, ``Oh, boy, they are going to kill that tobacco bill.'' And they are going to know who their friends are. They are going to know who their friends are--the ones who killed this bill. And I am sure they will be helpful to their friends. Well, I hope we can send a message to our kids that these well-funded special interests, no matter what they have done and how much money they have spent, that they can't win today, that they can't win in this body, that this body still represents the rank and file of American people and not just those with a lot of money and a lot of power. If the Republican leadership and those on that side kill this bill today, we will be back, time and time and time again. We will be back. We will be back with amendment after amendment after amendment on bills that come up to this floor. We will not back down. We have come too far to rein in the tobacco companies, we have come too far to stop our kids from smoking, to back off now. If the Republican leadership and the Republicans succeed in killing this bill today, it might be the end of the debate on the tobacco bill, but it will not be the end of tobacco debate on the Senate floor and it will not be the end of amendments and bills that we will bring up to try to get to the end game to keep our teenagers from smoking. If the Republican leadership succeeds in killing this bill, I predict that there will be a major public backlash--a major public backlash. Why do I say that? A little bit of history. Last year, about this time--actually toward the end of July--Senator Chafee, a Republican, and I, a Democrat, offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate to provide the necessary money to the FDA to enforce the ID checks in stores and outlets, wherever cigarettes were sold across the country. We offered the amendment and we had a vote. We lost. That was in July. Well, I used a parliamentary maneuver to ensure that we could have one more vote on it when we came back after the August recess of last year. So I filed my parliamentary appeal on that. We broke here in August and we went home. We came back in September, and the first vote we had when we came back in September was the same vote of Senator Chafee and Senator Harkin on providing the money to the FDA for the ID checks--the same vote that had lost in July. Guess what. This time it carried overwhelmingly. I submit that a large part of that was because a lot of people went home in August and a lot of the groups--I am talking about all of the public health groups, such as the American Heart Association, The Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and a host of others--got to people and said, wait a minute, we want to enforce these ID checks. We don't want young people buying cigarettes and tobacco products. There was a public backlash. I predict the same thing will happen if this bill is killed today. Despite over $40 million in ads that have dominated the airwaves over the last month by the tobacco companies--despite all that--the public still supports this bill by over 2 to 1. This was a survey taken June 12 through June 15 by Market Facts TeleNation, an independent polling firm, of 924 adults. Margin of error, plus or minus, is 3.2 percent. The question was: As you may know, the Congress is currently considering the McCain tobacco bill, which creates a national tobacco policy to reduce tobacco use among kids. Based on what you know about the bill, do you favor or oppose Congress passing the McCain bill? Those who favored, 62 percent; opposed, 31 percent. That was June 12 to June 15. This is the 17th, so that was earlier this week. That is after $40 million was spent by the tobacco companies to persuade the public that what we are doing is raising these huge taxes and spending all of their money on a variety of nonsense programs. I am sure we have all seen the ads. How can you miss them? Turn on the TV and there is another ad. And still, through it all, the American people are seeing through it. They have caught on to the tobacco companies. They know they have been lying to them for 50 years. Ask any older adult today--I am talking about somebody in their sixties, seventies, or eighties--who has been addicted to nicotine. Ask them if they believe the tobacco companies told them the truth 30 or 40 years ago when they took up tobacco. They know the tobacco companies lied to them through their slick advertising, ads that show doctors smoking and nurses smoking, and all kinds of things, saying that Camels were better for your throat than other cigarettes. Still, the American people, 2 to 1, want this bill. That is why I predict that if this bill is killed, there is going to be a tremendous public backlash. The public is going to know who killed this bill: the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate. Make no mistake about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, most Americans are very familiar with Head Start. This popular preschool program was created in 1965 to provide health, nutrition and educational assistance to low-income four and five year old children. Head Start enjoys strong bipartisan support and is widely recognized as a success. In response to the growing body of research about the critical development which occurs during the first three years of a child's life, Head Start has been expanded in recent years to also serve infants and toddlers. The Early Head Start Program provides comprehensive child development and family support services to families with infants and toddlers from birth through age three and currently receives 5% of Head Start funding. An estimated 39,000 children currently receive services nationwide. In Iowa, 533 children are served by Early Head Start. However, these children and families represent only a fraction of those that need and could benefit from these activities. As a result, today I am introducing legislation that would increase the set-aside to 10% in 2002--to double the number of participants. There were many exciting developments last year with respect to the education of young children. Science confirmed what many of us have believed for years--that the first three years of a child's life are the most important. We discovered that young children have unlimited potential to learn many things during this critical time. We learned how important it is for parents to read to their young children, talk with them and stimulate learning through play. We also learned that children who do not have enriched learning experiences during these important years can be stunted for life. Last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations subcommittee, of which I am the ranking Democrat, held a hearing focused on the importance of early intervention activities. We heard compelling testimony on the benefits of providing support for early education and development activities. The President and First Lady also convened historic conferences to discuss early childhood education and child care and a public campaign was launched to spread the word to parents. Throughout the year, the message was always the same--we must make investments in early intervention programs a national priority. This is the right thing to do for the young children of our nation, but it is also the most cost-effective thing for us to do. Every dollar invested in quality pre-school programs saves $7 in future costs for special education, welfare or corrections. In 1991, the Committee for Economic Development called on the nation to rethink how we view education. This group of business leaders urged federal policy makers to view education as a process that begins at birth, with preparations beginning before birth. I strongly support this objective and have always been a strong advocate in early intervention activities such as Head Start, the WIC nutrition program and early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We must dedicate ourselves to making the CED vision a reality and build a strong foundation for education in this country. That begins with ensuring that all children get off to a good, strong start and enter school ready to learn. Last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations subcommittee made investments in early intervention a priority at my request. The FY 1998 appropriations bill invested an additional $64 million in Early Head Start, an increase of 75%, and provided an 11% increase in the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The legislation I am introducing today takes another step toward building this foundation by doubling the set-aside for the Early Head Start Program for children ages 0-3 by the year 2002. This action will continue to improve access to education and development services for our youngest children to provide a good start in life. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, most Americans are very familiar with Head Start. This popular preschool program was created in 1965 to provide health, nutrition and educational assistance to low-income four and five year old children. Head Start enjoys strong bipartisan support and is widely recognized as a success. In response to the growing body of research about the critical development which occurs during the first three years of a child's life, Head Start has been expanded in recent years to also serve infants and toddlers. The Early Head Start Program provides comprehensive child development and family support services to families with infants and toddlers from birth through age three and currently receives 5% of Head Start funding. An estimated 39,000 children currently receive services nationwide. In Iowa, 533 children are served by Early Head Start. However, these children and families represent only a fraction of those that need and could benefit from these activities. As a result, today I am introducing legislation that would increase the set-aside to 10% in 2002--to double the number of participants. There were many exciting developments last year with respect to the education of young children. Science confirmed what many of us have believed for years--that the first three years of a child's life are the most important. We discovered that young children have unlimited potential to learn many things during this critical time. We learned how important it is for parents to read to their young children, talk with them and stimulate learning through play. We also learned that children who do not have enriched learning experiences during these important years can be stunted for life. Last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations subcommittee, of which I am the ranking Democrat, held a hearing focused on the importance of early intervention activities. We heard compelling testimony on the benefits of providing support for early education and development activities. The President and First Lady also convened historic conferences to discuss early childhood education and child care and a public campaign was launched to spread the word to parents. Throughout the year, the message was always the same--we must make investments in early intervention programs a national priority. This is the right thing to do for the young children of our nation, but it is also the most cost-effective thing for us to do. Every dollar invested in quality pre-school programs saves $7 in future costs for special education, welfare or corrections. In 1991, the Committee for Economic Development called on the nation to rethink how we view education. This group of business leaders urged federal policy makers to view education as a process that begins at birth, with preparations beginning before birth. I strongly support this objective and have always been a strong advocate in early intervention activities such as Head Start, the WIC nutrition program and early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We must dedicate ourselves to making the CED vision a reality and build a strong foundation for education in this country. That begins with ensuring that all children get off to a good, strong start and enter school ready to learn. Last year, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations subcommittee made investments in early intervention a priority at my request. The FY 1998 appropriations bill invested an additional $64 million in Early Head Start, an increase of 75%, and provided an 11% increase in the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The legislation I am introducing today takes another step toward building this foundation by doubling the set-aside for the Early Head Start Program for children ages 0-3 by the year 2002. This action will continue to improve access to education and development services for our youngest children to provide a good start in life. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, at the request of the Clinton Administration, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. I am grateful to be joined in the introduction of this bill by Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, and by Senator Johnson. In my years serving on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and now as its Ranking Member, I have always placed a very high value on the child nutrition programs, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These programs have been critical in helping to meet the nutritional needs of millions of our nation's children. This bill is the first child nutrition reauthorization bill sent to Congress by an Administration in two decades. It is a very commendable effort, with many positive features, that we will be relying upon substantially as we fashion a child nutrition bill in the coming weeks in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and ultimately in conference. In addition to reauthorizing those programs that are expiring, the bill makes a number of improvements throughout the child nutrition programs. It is designed to be cost-neutral over the next five years, to simplify and streamline program operations, to reduce impediments to participation by eligible individuals, to reach certain children needing additional nutritional assistance, to strengthen program integrity and to enhance the nutrition provided by the programs. Earlier this year, I joined Chairman Lugar, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in introducing a measure, S. 1581, that would simply reauthorize the child nutrition programs for the next five years. That bill was recognized as a starting point for a careful review of the child nutrition programs leading to the development of a sound, well- crafted and bipartisan reauthorization bill. I believe there is broad support for improving and modifying these programs to meet changing needs and demands within the overall spending limitations that we are committed to working within. One of the more important features of the bill is new authority for nutrition assistance in after-school programs through the Child and Adult Care Food Program for at risk youths between the ages of 12 and 18. We know too well that the hours just after school are full of opportunities for teenagers to get into trouble, whether it involves crime, drug use or teen pregnancy. The availability of nutrition assistance can help to support organized after-school activities that are healthy and constructive alternatives to what might otherwise occur in those risky after-school hours. There are also provisions in the bill designed to improve the nutrition provided by the programs, including an emphasis on establishing adequate time for kids to eat school lunches in an atmosphere conducive to good nutrition and an authorization of Nutrition Education and Training grants based on $0.50 a child each year with a minimum of $75,000 per state. There are also provisions in the bill to improve access to the Summer Food Service Program by increasing the number of sites and the number of children that can be served by non-profit sponsors. Statistics continue to show that far fewer low income children are served in the Summer Food Service Program than during the school year in the National School Lunch Program, especially in rural areas. The provisions in this bill are designed to help address this gap. The bill also reauthorizes the WIC Program. Under Secretary Shirley Watkins was absolutely correct when she said at a recent Agriculture Committee Hearing that, ``WIC works.'' No other Federal-state program has the proven cost-effectiveness of WIC, which has been shown in study after study. This bill is designed to build upon the success of the current WIC program with improvements in program management and integrity. While I support a very high proportion of the provisions of this bill, I do not necessarily support every detail of it. I will also mention some of the areas in which I hope the final bill will take more substantial steps than are included in this bill. In my view, more should be done to increase participation in the School Breakfast Program, especially among low-income children, and in the Summer Food Service Program. I would also prefer further strengthening of after- school and child care nutrition assistance. And additional steps should be taken to improve integrity and accountability in the WIC program while continuing the progress toward full participation. I look forward to working with my Congressional colleagues, the Administration and the entire child nutrition community, to design a final bill having broad bipartisan support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, at the request of the Clinton Administration, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. I am grateful to be joined in the introduction of this bill by Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, and by Senator Johnson. In my years serving on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and now as its Ranking Member, I have always placed a very high value on the child nutrition programs, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These programs have been critical in helping to meet the nutritional needs of millions of our nation's children. This bill is the first child nutrition reauthorization bill sent to Congress by an Administration in two decades. It is a very commendable effort, with many positive features, that we will be relying upon substantially as we fashion a child nutrition bill in the coming weeks in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and ultimately in conference. In addition to reauthorizing those programs that are expiring, the bill makes a number of improvements throughout the child nutrition programs. It is designed to be cost-neutral over the next five years, to simplify and streamline program operations, to reduce impediments to participation by eligible individuals, to reach certain children needing additional nutritional assistance, to strengthen program integrity and to enhance the nutrition provided by the programs. Earlier this year, I joined Chairman Lugar, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in introducing a measure, S. 1581, that would simply reauthorize the child nutrition programs for the next five years. That bill was recognized as a starting point for a careful review of the child nutrition programs leading to the development of a sound, well- crafted and bipartisan reauthorization bill. I believe there is broad support for improving and modifying these programs to meet changing needs and demands within the overall spending limitations that we are committed to working within. One of the more important features of the bill is new authority for nutrition assistance in after-school programs through the Child and Adult Care Food Program for at risk youths between the ages of 12 and 18. We know too well that the hours just after school are full of opportunities for teenagers to get into trouble, whether it involves crime, drug use or teen pregnancy. The availability of nutrition assistance can help to support organized after-school activities that are healthy and constructive alternatives to what might otherwise occur in those risky after-school hours. There are also provisions in the bill designed to improve the nutrition provided by the programs, including an emphasis on establishing adequate time for kids to eat school lunches in an atmosphere conducive to good nutrition and an authorization of Nutrition Education and Training grants based on $0.50 a child each year with a minimum of $75,000 per state. There are also provisions in the bill to improve access to the Summer Food Service Program by increasing the number of sites and the number of children that can be served by non-profit sponsors. Statistics continue to show that far fewer low income children are served in the Summer Food Service Program than during the school year in the National School Lunch Program, especially in rural areas. The provisions in this bill are designed to help address this gap. The bill also reauthorizes the WIC Program. Under Secretary Shirley Watkins was absolutely correct when she said at a recent Agriculture Committee Hearing that, ``WIC works.'' No other Federal-state program has the proven cost-effectiveness of WIC, which has been shown in study after study. This bill is designed to build upon the success of the current WIC program with improvements in program management and integrity. While I support a very high proportion of the provisions of this bill, I do not necessarily support every detail of it. I will also mention some of the areas in which I hope the final bill will take more substantial steps than are included in this bill. In my view, more should be done to increase participation in the School Breakfast Program, especially among low-income children, and in the Summer Food Service Program. I would also prefer further strengthening of after- school and child care nutrition assistance. And additional steps should be taken to improve integrity and accountability in the WIC program while continuing the progress toward full participation. I look forward to working with my Congressional colleagues, the Administration and the entire child nutrition community, to design a final bill having broad bipartisan support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question? I compliment the Senator on his outstanding statement and thank him for all of his diligence and hard work on the whole issue of cutting down on teen smoking. I know the Senator from Florida has made that one of his key principles, which is in this bill. Really, the essence of this bill is to cut down on teen smoking. I appreciate all of the work he has done, and with Senator Chafee and with me on this. I know Senator Chafee will be speaking next. We hope to engage in some colloquy here on the Senate floor to talk about some of the issues that have come up that are extraneous--important issues, but extraneous to the bill. I just want to basically ask the Senator from Florida--before I know Senator Chafee will make his opening statement--about that aspect, about the other issues that seem to be coming up on this bill and whether or not we could address those later on and just keep the focus on the main issue here.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened with interest and great attention to the words spoken by the majority leader. He used the phrase, ``Let's keep in mind the end game.'' I go back to what my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and Senator Chafee just spoke about before the two leaders took the floor. What is the ``end game''? It is right here. This is the end game. The number of high school students smoking is going up at a precipitous rate, higher than ever. The end game of this bill is to cut down on teenage smoking. That is the end game. The majority leader says if there is no marriage penalty tax in there and no illegal drug money, then there is going to be no bill. I hope I still have some rational reasoning power. I have to ask, Why? Why is that? The majority leader didn't expound on why that would be. You mean to say that we are holding these teenagers being addicted every day-- 3,000 teenagers every day being addicted to tobacco--hostage to the marriage penalty tax provision or illegal drug money? Holding them hostage? Yet, the majority leader says there will be no bill unless we have this. I don't understand that. The committee-reported bill didn't have them in it. The committee-reported bill that was reported out by a huge vote under the leadership of Senator McCain didn't have that in it. And the majority leader went on to say--I don't understand where he is getting his figures--that we are going to have money for research, we will have money for cutting down teenage smoking. I don't know where he is going to get the money. Look, I am using the same chart that Senator Chafee used just a minute ago. Here is the original McCain bill: $65 billion over 5 years for public health, NIH, health research, States, and agriculture. Add it up--$65 billion. If we keep the States at $26 billion, we keep agriculture, we add in illegal drugs, the Coverdell amendment, the marriage penalty, and veterans, we are up to $65 billion, and we have no money for NIH and no money for public health, period. Does the majority leader mean to say that he is going to bring another bill on the floor to magically find some money floating around someplace for NIH research and for public health for cutting down on teen smoking? I am sorry. The facts are simple. If you put in the $15 billion on the illegal drugs, the $15 billion on the marriage penalty, the veterans' $3 billion, agriculture $18 billion, you can forget about public health and NIH. There is no money left, unless, of course, the majority leader is going to come back on the floor with a provision to raise the price of tobacco to even more than $1.10 a pack. Maybe the majority leader would like to raise the price of cigarettes to $1.50 a pack or $2 a pack. That might get you the money. But with the $1.10 a pack you have in there now, you are not going to have the money, period. So I just do not understand what the majority leader can possibly be talking about and where he could possibly be finding all of this money that he is going to have. The majority leader said he was offended. Enough happens around here to offend each and every one of us every single day of the year, I suppose. But I have learned after 13 years here--14, I guess--that you can't be too offended too much by what goes on around here. I guess you have to look at the reality of the situation, and the reality is very simple. There are those in this body who do not want a tobacco bill, period. They do not want the tobacco companies to have to shell out this money. They don't want to have a bill that will provide for an increase in the price of cigarettes per pack. That is legitimate. That is their viewpoint. They are welcome to it. They can defend it all they want. Maybe they have good reasons they can defend it. But that is the reality of the situation. For example, the Senator from Texas, I believe, propounded the amendment on the marriage penalty tax, doing away with that. I believe--I think I am correct--that he even said if this amendment was adopted he would still vote against the bill. So what kind of games are being played around here? I don't take offense at that; I just simply point it out for the reality of the situation. The reality is that we have a battle going on on this Senate floor, a big battle, and it is a battle between those who want to stop 3,000 kids a day from starting to smoke, 1,000 who will die from it, and those who say business as usual; the tobacco companies, that is OK; let them go ahead; it is a legal product. We don't have to do anything to them. And if we just add all these amendments on, it is going to fall of its own weight. That is the game being played around here. It's a game that is played all the time. That is just sort of the way the Senate operates. What I guess we have to do is continually point out what is in fact being done. Now, let's talk about at least illegal drugs. We all want to stop illegal drugs. I have been here 13 years, 14 now. It seems like every year we have a bill to do something about illegal drugs: We are going to beef up the Border Patrol; we are going to raise the penalties; we are going to have mandatory sentencing. Year after year after year we go after illegal drugs because it makes nice headlines and we know that 100 percent of the American people are against it so it is kind of an easy thing. It makes you feel good. You can hit at illegal drugs. It gets popular support. It gets in the newspapers. That's all well and good. But, Mr. President, what are we talking about? When you are talking about death and illness to the youth of America, illegal drugs doesn't hold a candle to tobacco. And here are the figures. I welcome anyone to dispute the findings by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If someone would like to take the Senate floor and dispute this, please let me see the data you have. But the data we have from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, ``Tobacco kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs and fires combined'' every year. Here is tobacco over here: 418,000 deaths in 1 year. Here is illegal drugs, 9,463. What's important? Year after year we come here going after illegal drugs, and we let the biggest killer and destruction of youth in America go by--tobacco. Let it go by every year. And we are about to do the same right here by loading on all these amendments. Now, the marriage penalty needs addressing. I think I would agree with others who have said it before, yes, it needs to be addressed. Yes, it is an unfair tax. But we are going to have a tax bill later this year. It is not going to take effect until next year anyway. Address it at that time. Illegal drugs, we can address that at another time. Keep our eye on what the majority leader said, ``the end game.'' Is the end game of this bill to go after homicides or illegal drugs? No. It is go after tobacco. That is the end game. And the end game is to make sure that we have the money to fight it. That is what this is all about. It is not just about getting tobacco companies to put a lot of money into the Federal Government. If that is all that was happening, I would be opposed to it. What it is about is saying to the tobacco companies you have for years through your advertising, through covering up the health risks, you have for years hooked a whole generation of Americans on tobacco. You know that it is carcinogenic. You know that nicotine is addictive. You know that it causes emphysema and cancer and heart disease. And yet through your slick advertising year after year you hook more young Americans. We know what the tobacco companies have known for years, that smoking begins early, that by age 18, 89 percent of all adult smokers have started smoking. We know that. Tobacco companies know that. Oh, they have said for years, no, no, we advertise for brand selection, to get people off of one brand and onto another. Hogwash. They know that if they can hook someone when they are young, they have them later on. As I have said many times, Joe Camel never appealed to me. Joe Camel does not appeal to someone my age. Neither do all these slick advertisements of young people on the beach and having a lot of fun and they are all looking healthy and they are out there. They don't appeal to older people. The Marlboro gear that you can get with your coupons, that doesn't appeal to older people. They are after young people. How many older people do you see wearing the Joe Camel beach togs. You don't see that. How many older people do you see wearing Marlboro gear. You see teenagers wearing it but not older people. The tobacco companies systematically for years have been targeting young people because they knew if they got them hooked young, they got them later on. What we are saying today is no, tobacco companies, don't dump a lot of money into the Federal Government so we can take care of the marriage penalty, illegal drugs, this and that. We are saying, we are telling you that you are going to have to pay money in so that we can put the money out for public health, to help take care of those people you hooked years ago, to bring money in so we can put it into NIH on research, so we can put money into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on research on how to cut down on smoking, how to keep kids from smoking, have smoking cessation programs and prevention programs in all of our schools. That is what we are after right here. NIH Health Research. End game: NIH health research, smoking cessation programs, smoking prevention and education in our schools, counter advertising, which we know is very effective and which the tobacco companies probably dread more than anything else, antismuggling, and youth access restrictions. This is the comprehensive bill that we are talking about. You add in the add-ons that are now before us and all of this is gone. Every single one of these is gone because you don't have the money for them unless again can someone please get on the floor and tell me where are we going to find the money if in fact we adopt all of these extraneous provisions. So that is what the end game is about. It is saying to the tobacco companies it is time for you to cough up, cough up enough money to take care of those you have addicted through your advertising and that you did not warn about the health aspects even though you knew what the health aspects were going to be. It is time for you to cough up enough money for research in heart disease and lung cancer and emphysema and all the illnesses that tobacco plagues us with. It is time for you to cough up enough money so we can go out to our schools and we can have prevention programs and education programs for our kids. It is time for you, tobacco companies, to cough up enough money so we can have counter advertising, not the slick ads that tell you how good smoking is but ads that really tell you how death and illness will occur if you do in fact take up smoking. That is what this money is all about. It is not about the marriage penalty or illegal drugs or anything else. It is about taking care of the youth of America who have been hooked on tobacco. For the life of me, I don't understand why it is the majority leader can say that if these add-ons are not adopted, the tobacco bill is dead. I would like to see a vote out on the Senate floor. I think we ought to vote on the amendment by the Senator from Texas on the marriage penalty. Let's vote it up or down. Let's vote on all these amendments. Let's just vote on them. And then let's have a final vote on this bill and see where we come down. Let's cut out the games. Let's cut out all this game playing. I bet the tobacco industry CEO's today, Mr. President, are slapping each other on the back and they are laughing all the way to the bank, gleefully watching us hack away at the programs designed to prevent young people from smoking and to help those smokers quit who have already taken it up. They must be really happy watching us go through all of this when they know that tobacco is the biggest killer of youth. This is the end game right here. This is the end game. I have used this chart before on the floor. Two young, attractive women coming in to buy cigarettes. Which one is 16? You don't know. You don't know which one is 16. Melissa and Amy--it turns out Melissa is 16 and Amy is 25. We want to keep Melissa from taking up tobacco, and if Amy has taken it up, we want her to quit. That is what the end game here is all about. It is not about marriage penalty or anything else. To those who say it is, to those who say, as the majority leader said, that if we don't have these extraneous measures on here the bill is going to die, I say, come out and explain to the American people why it is we had a bill reported from the Commerce Committee under the leadership of Senator McCain that came out with one dissenting vote, out of committee, and we cannot have a vote on that bill here on the Senate floor; why it is we are going to have all these extraneous measures, and they have to be adopted, according to the majority leader, or the bill will not pass? These were not in the committee bill, and it passed out of committee with only one dissenting vote. So, I don't know what the majority leader is talking about, unless what the majority leader is talking about is that he really wants this bill killed, that he wants no tobacco bill, that he wants to load it down with a number of amendments that will surely mean the end of any tobacco legislation this year. I hope that is not the case. As I said, I do not know what the majority leader had in mind. All he said was if these amendments are not adopted, the bill is dead. I don't know what he means by that. Hopefully, in the coming days, he will explain himself further in that regard. Mr. President, our charge is clear and simple here. Our charge is only one--cut teen smoking. We know what does it. The Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, spoke about it. It has to be a comprehensive bill encompassing a rapid and significant increase in the price of tobacco; and, second, smoking cessation and education programs, research, and counteradvertising. If you do all of those, you will cut teen smoking. You can save those lives. You will save a lot of illness in America. That is what we have to be about. Senator Chafee and Senator Graham and I have worked very hard on this legislation in a bipartisan manner going back several months. I think we can still, hopefully, have a good bipartisan bill come out. The committee bill was bipartisan. I am sorry to see that we have gotten now into this partisan wrangling over the marriage penalty, or motions, cloture motions and things like that. I think our leader, Senator Daschle, had it right. We ought to have one set of rules and we ought to abide by those rules. Whatever those rules are for one bill, we ought to attach them to the other bill. I think the best course of action for us here is to vote on these amendments, move on, and vote on final passage. Let's exercise the Senate's will. We have been on the bill long enough. Hopefully, we can finish it next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on June 30, 1998, Alfred Healy, M.D., professor emeritus of pediatrics and special education at the University of Iowa, in Iowa City, Iowa will conclude a distinguished 41-year career of clinical service, teaching, research, and administration of innovative programs supporting individuals with developmental disabilities. His career at the University of Iowa includes 21 years of directing three entities: the Division of Developmental Disabilities in the Department of Pediatrics, the University Hospital School of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and the Iowa University Affiliated Program. He also provided leadership to numerous national and international programs promoting the independence, productivity, and community inclusion of people with disabilities. Dr. Healy gained firsthand knowledge of physical disabilities as a young teenager, during his recovery from two prolonged episodes of rheumatic fever that later severely restricted his participation in sports and other physical activities. Seeking other ways to participate in athletics, he earned his bachelor's degree in physical education in 1956 from the University of Notre Dame while concurrently serving as Assistant Athletic Trainer for all Notre Dame athletic teams. A Master of Arts Degree in physical education followed in 1957 from the University of Iowa, where for three years he served as a teacher at the Iowa Hospital School for Severely Handicapped Children, assisting children with cerebral palsy, the residuals of poliomyelitis, and other physical disabilities in their rehabilitation process. This experience led him to pursue a medical degree, which he earned from the University of Iowa in 1963. Following residency training in pediatrics and fellowship training in disabilities, he joined the pediatric faculty at Iowa in 1967, achieving full professorship in 1980. In 1977 he was appointed director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, the renamed University Hospital School, and also of the Iowa University Affiliated Program. As a professor of pediatrics, he served as director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, and over the years he supervised the training of countless numbers of medical students, physical and occupational therapy students, pediatric and family practice residents, and community physicians. Of the fourteen physician fellows trained under Dr. Healy's leadership, nine are now sharing their expertise and understanding of the interdisciplinary process with another generation of trainees in other university training programs. As a professor of special education, Dr. Healy has taught several courses relating to disabilities on an on-going basis each year for the College of Education. As director of University Hospital School, Dr. Healy has provided clinical care in both inpatient and outpatient settings to thousands of infants, children and adults with physical disabilities. He presided over the transition of University Hospital School from a residential school, founded prior to the passage of P.L. 94-142, to its current role as a tertiary level diagnosis and evaluation center supporting community education and human service programs throughout Iowa. The hallmark of Dr. Healy's administration of University Hospital School has been his commitment to the interdisciplinary process as the most effective response to meeting the clinical needs of individuals with disabilities. As director of the Iowa University Affiliated Program, Dr. Healy expanded the breadth of University Hospital School programs to also emphasize pre-service training, community education, technical assistance to state and local agencies, and information sharing programs. Most of these activities were implemented through grants and contracts that were awarded in no small part because of his leadership. Current examples include the statewide Iowa Program for Assistive Technology, the Iowa COMPASS information and referral service, the Iowa Telemedicine Project from the National Library of Medicine, the Iowa Prevention of Disabilities Policy Council, and the Maternal and Child Health funded Iowa Leadership in Neurodevelopmental and related Disabilities Project. Dr. Healy has also participated in a wide range of national and international initiatives. Responding to a request from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1978, Dr. Healy secured federal funding, and then served as chair of the National Advisory Committee, for the $3.9 million, four-year New Directions training course for pediatricians that dealt with Public Law 94-142. In 1986, also on behalf of the Academy of Pediatrics, he secured funding, and chaired the National Advisory Committee for the $3.2 million, four-year Project BRIDGE training program for pediatricians and therapists that focused on the use of the interdisciplinary process in early intervention for children with physical and other disabilities. This led the academy to award him the Ross Award for Lifetime Accomplishment in Pediatric Education in 1986. Following service in a number of committee and task force roles, Dr. Healy was elected president of the American Association of University Affiliated Programs in 1984, and was presented their ``Distinguished Service Award'' in 1995. He served as president of the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine in 1989. He served two three-year terms as a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics National Committee for Children with Disabilities, followed by two three-year terms as chairman. These offices provided many opportunities to significantly influence federal legislation and funding for programs serving children with physical and other disabilities, and he provided verbal testimony on eight occasions to various committees of the U.S. Congress. In addition, he served as a member of the federal Social Security Administration panel selected to devise a federal response to the U.S. Supreme Court Zebley versus Sullivan decision regarding SSI benefits, which affected hundreds of thousands of children with physical and other disabilities in America. On the international level, Dr. Healy has provided consultations to Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Russia regarding ways to improve their national programs for children with physical and other disabilities. He was also instrumental in helping to establish a University Affiliated Program in Dublin, Republic of Ireland, and he has now completed two trips to Belfast, Northern Ireland, to assist Queens and Ulster Universities in establishing similar programs. During the four decades of his career, Dr. Healy has seen, and contributed to, unprecedented changes in society's response to people with disabilities. According to Dr. Healy, the most rewarding aspect of his work has been participating in a dynamic systems change that now affirms that people with disabilities, and their families, must be at the center of service planning, setting goals, and identifying the means to achieve them. He repeatedly acknowledges that his greatest teachers have been individuals with disabilities and their families. My colleagues are particularly pleased, I know, to join me in expressing profound appreciation for the career of this remarkable American-- clinician, teacher, researcher, and leader.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I wonder if we could get 5 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was listening to the debate on the House floor. They are debating the agricultural bill which has the food stamp provision and the crop insurance in it. There is an amendment pending over there that would strip out the food stamps. The reason I want to take this time on the floor is because I heard some comments made on the House floor that they could pass that by the conference report, strip out the food stamps, send it over to the Senate, and we would pass it today and they could send it down to the President. I want Members to know right now we had a vote here, 92-8, on that bill to keep the food stamps for immigrants, to keep the crop insurance and the agriculture research altogether. In fact, there was a 77-23 vote on a Gramm of Texas motion to recommit--77-23. Let me make another statement, Mr. President. If that action takes place in the House, I can see no way that ISTEA could ever be passed here this afternoon before we go home on break.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are engaged in a historic debate and action on a plant that brought death and disease to millions of people in this country for 300 years. The outcome of our work will determine whether this nation moves to a sensible tobacco policy that will prevent the premature death of millions of our children or continues on the path of death and disease. This is truly a historic, once in a lifetime opportunity to save lives and protect children. When else have we had legislation before us that truly could save millions of American lives? It is an opportunity I've been working towards since 1977 when I first introduced legislation to end taxpayer subsidies to tobacco advertising. The need for bold action couldn't be clearer. Today, as in any other day, 3,000 children in America will take up a deadly habit that will cut 1,000 of their lives unnecessarily short. That's more than 3 jumbo jets full of children crashing every day. And the problem is getting worse. Smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high. It is not reflected in this chart, but the CDC just reported that the percentage of high school students who smoke has increased from 27.5 percent in 1991 to 36.4 percent in 1997. They further found that a shocking 42.7 percent of students--and these are kids generally between 14 and 17--used cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or cigars in the past 30 days. We also know that the vast majority--fully 90 percent--of adult and lifelong smokers begin at or before their 18th birthday. We can change all that. We know the key ingredients to reducing teen smoking. We know that a comprehensive set of reforms is needed. We need solid authority and resources for the FDA to oversee tobacco products. We need an aggressive education and counter advertising effort. We need community-based prevention. We need to expand our research. We need to have strong financial incentives for tobacco companies to take every action to cut teen smoking. And, most importantly, we need to price cigarettes out of the range of children. Every major public health expert agrees that the single most important component of a comprehensive strategy to cut child smoking is a sudden and significant price increase. This is the centerpiece of S. 1889, the KIDS Act, I introduced with Senator John Chafee and Senator Bob Graham. Our bipartisan legislation provides for a $1.50 increase in the per pack price of cigarettes--$1.00 the first year and another 50 cents the next. As Dr. C. Everett Koop and Dr. David Kessler said, this proposal is ``tough medicine for a tough problem.'' Our approach, according to the CDC and other experts, would cut smoking by children in half, over the next three years. That's the sharpest and fastest reduction achieved by any bill proposed to date. The bill before us, as reported out of the Commerce Committee, has a number of commendable features. In many ways it is very similar to the Harkin-Chafee-Graham KIDS Act. It has strong FDA provisions, strong public health provisions and its look-back and liability provisions have been substantially improved. We are very pleased that much of our work is reflected in the bill and we commend Senator McCain for his good efforts. However, on the crucial question of price, the bill is inadequate. The bill would increase the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1.10 over 5 years. To have the greatest impact on teen smoking the price should be increased by at least $1.50 a pack over a very short period of time. I will be doing everything, working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to correct this fundamental shortcoming of the pending measure. While I'll have a lot more to say about many aspects of this legislation, I want to focus the remainder of my remarks today on this critical issue of price. I do this not only because it is the most important feature of the legislation, but because it has been the focus of an onslaught of misleading television, radio and print ads as well as statements and mailings by the tobacco industry in my state of Iowa and around the nation. The tobacco companies have been making a number of false arguments about the impact of increasing the price to cut down on teen smoking. Most disturbing have been their statements that teens don't respond to price increases--that increasing the price won't have an effect on the rates of underage smoking. These accusations are not only run counter to the finding of every major public health organization and countless economists and studies, they contradict the industry's own internal documents and analyses that they tried to hide from the American people for so long. Many studies published in respected journals have clearly documented the impact of price increases on teen smoking. The most recent estimates from the CDC is that for every 10 percent increase in the real price of cigarettes, the prevalence of teen smoking is cut by 7%. In its report this year, Taking Action to Reduce Tobacco Use, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``the single most direct and reliable method for reducing consumption is to increase the price of tobacco products. . . .'' In 1994, the Surgeon General's report Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People concluded that increases in the real price of cigarettes significantly reduces cigarette smoking and that young people are at least as price sensitive as adults. And we have to look no further than our neighbors to the north-- Canada--to find a real world example of the impact of price increases on teen smoking. As this table shows (attached) when real prices in Canada increased from $2.09 to $5.42, the number of 15-19 year olds smoking fell from 42 percent to 16 percent--a drop of 62 percent. However, when tobacco taxes were reduced, youth smoking began increasing after 15 years of decline. As I said earlier, in addition to the abundant evidence on youth smoking and price, the tobacco industry themselves have admitted this in a number of their internal documents. For example, a 1981 Philip Morris document said, ``In any event, and for whatever reason, it is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers. . . .'' A 1987 Philip Morris document further details their knowledge and concern about the relationship to price and hooking kids as the next generation of smokers. The document says: You may recall from the article I sent you that Jeffrey Harris at MIT calculated, on the basis of Lewit and Coate data, that the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. Those teenagers are now 18- 21 year olds . . ., 420,000 of the non-starters would have been PM smokers. Thus, if Harris is right, we were hit disproportionately hard. We don't need to have that happen again. A 1982 RJR Reynolds document--that I ask unanimous consent to have included in the Record at this point--states clearly that an increase in the price of cigarettes will result in ``thousands of new smokers lost.'' This document says that a 15.1 percent increase in the real price will result in the loss of 93,000 ``new smokers'' aged 13 to 17 years old. So when the tobacco companies now argue that increasing the price of tobacco products won't impact youth smoking--they are once again blowing smoke. They are once again trying to deceive the American people. So, Mr. President, we have important work to do this week. We have the opportunity to do a lot of good and strike a blow for our children and for public health. I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to seize this opportunity. Tobacco reform is the issue of 1998. It is the crown jewel of this Congress. And passing a strong comprehensive tobacco bill is an opportunity we simply can't let pass by. Unfortunately, victories in the tobacco wars have come few and far between. In 1988, we finally changed Federal law on smoking in airplanes. It was a full ten years later, and after failing one time, the Senate took its next step last September by passing the Harkin- Chafee plan to fully fund enforcement of the FDA youth ID check. But I am more hopeful now than ever that we can pass a comprehensive plan that would once and for all change how this nation deals with tobacco and dramatically cut the number of our kids addicted to this deadly product. Mr. President, our goal is to be on the Senate Floor three years from now announcing that indeed, child smoking has been cut in half. We should all put our energies into making that happen.