Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct, that was the effect and the intention of my amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, the Senate has received from the House a joint resolution to provide funding through November 13, 1995, for the continuation governmental activities carried out during fiscal year 1995. This is a clean bill, providing funding for the activities funded in the 13 annual appropriations bills. The funding levels are sufficient to continue government activities without prejudice to the ultimate enactment of regular bills, but at levels sufficiently low to provide an impetus for successful completion of those bills. The bill continues ongoing programs at restrictive rates that are the average--less 5 percent--of the 1996 levels in the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. For those programs that are terminated or significantly affected by either the House or Senate bills, the rate may be increased to a minimal level--which could be up to 90 percent of the current rate. In any instance where the application of the formula would result in furloughs then the rate can be increased to a level just sufficient to avoid furloughs. I would have preferred to come here today to announce the enactment into law of the 13 regular bills, rather than to urge your support for a continuing resolution covering those 13 bills. At this point, however, non of the regular bills has been enacted into law. I am hopeful that before the end of the session we can resolve our differences with the administration and the House and have 13 bills enacted into law. The 6 additional weeks granted by this resolution will give us some breathing room for addressing some fundamental differences between the executive and legislative branches. This joint resolution is very restrictive. This resolution is drafted so that there is very little incentive to extend the resolution for a longer time. For example, section 114 mandates that the resolution ``shall be implemented so that only the most limited funding action of that permitted in the resolution shall be taken in order to provide for the continuation of projects and activities.'' In addition, section 113 mandates that, for those programs that had high initial rates of operation or completed distribution of funds to other entities at the beginning of fiscal year 1995, no similar distributions shall be made or grants shall be awarded that would impinge upon final funding prerogatives. Also, section 109 states that no provision in the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Acts that makes the availability of any appropriation contingent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or other legislation shall be effective before the expiration date set forth in the resolution. These provisions help guarantee that neither the executive nor legislative branches will prefer continuation of this resolution to the enactment of the regular fiscal year 1996 bills.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator's understanding is correct. Authorities and conditions, such as those under the McKinney Act and the section 8 programs that you cite, and all other administrative provisions in the 1995 Act, would remain in effect during the period covered by the joint resolution.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the leader. Let me just reiterate the procedure we are in at this moment on these two appropriations bills. To put it very bluntly, these are corpses, and all the prayers and all the amendments that you can pray or offer are not going to change the reality that these two bills have been clearly identified as two bills to be vetoed. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the wasted effort that is going on on the floor and for the last 48 hours in trying to revive a corpse. It just does not happen this way. It only happened once. [Laughter.] So consequently, it seems to me, if we could voice vote these two bills out, move the process with the CR, the reality is the White House and the Members of Congress, the Budget Committee people, the Appropriations Committee people, are going to have to revisit Defense; Labor-HHS; State, Justice, and Commerce; HUD and independent agencies; and possibly, although the House has now rereferred the bill back to committee, the report on the Interior. Those are veto bills. Now, we are going to have to find more money. It is not a simple proposition to satisfy the White House on those three nondefense bills. So I say, for one who cannot get a plane reservation on a moment's notice like some can--I do have to go clear to the west coast--and my colleagues like me, we cannot just find an hour and say, well, we are going to be finished in the next hour, and get a reservation. So have some consideration, please, on that basis as well, the personal basis. But I just want to say--there is no more blunt way I can put it--we are wasting our time on these two appropriations bills.

Mr. HATFIELD. I could tell you simply, in conjunction with discussions with people at the White House and people representing the White House position, we did not have enough nondefense discretionary dollars for the 602(b) allocations. We had cut too much out of our budget resolution of the program needs and the priorities of the White House, the dollars necessary to get their signature to these bills. Mr. DOLE. As I understand it now, based on conversations with people I have confidence in at the White House, the President will not sign these two bills. They are essentially dead. And I would like to remove them from the Senate Chamber for last rites. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the leader yield?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to withhold.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments, without any invasion or impingement upon the time agreements attendant to those amendments. I will offer an amendment and ask for 20 minutes, to be equally divided between Senators Pell, Bumpers, and Dorgan, with the understanding that there will still be a vote at 9 p.m.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATFIELD. Those are within the overall 30.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm, and Senator Hollings particularly for his cosponsorship. I also want to thank Scott Gudes, Scott Corwin, David Taylor, and Mark Van de Water, four members of our respective staffs who sat up and worked this out in detail until about 2 a.m. this morning. They certainly deserve the accolades and appreciation of the whole Senate.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first I want to express my deep appreciation for the kind words expressed by the chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Gramm of Texas, and to say in response that it has been one of those wonderful occasions and experiences that sometimes happen in the Senate, and that is when we get down together one-on-one to negotiate and to try to find out the other person's perspective, the other person's viewpoint, the other person's priorities, and come to a new appreciation that this indeed, is one of the strengths of this institution--its [[Page S 14503]] diversity. And at the same time there is diversity in this institution, it does not mean that it means stalemate. It does not equal stalemate diversity. I could find no person with greater sensitivity and words indeed than that personified by Mr. Gramm in working out the differences and also, at the same time, working for the same goal. I come to appreciate, from time to time, the strength of diversity. I sometimes also think that if I listened more, spoke less, I would hear what the other person might be saying a little more clearly than depending upon imagery or upon labels such that we oftentimes use in shortcut methods. That also does not build for personal relationships. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Hollings, myself, and on behalf of the Appropriations Committee in general. I filed an amended application for the Commerce, Justice and State bill that allows an additional $500 million in budget authority and $325 million in outlays to be spent on the bill. Now, this begs for, again, a quick description again of our process. I know beyond the beltway that is not necessarily perhaps a very high item of interest. For our own colleagues to understand that at the beginning of any appropriations cycle that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, along with consultation and along with staff and so forth, creates what we call the 602(b) allocations. Now, we do not follow the House of Representatives. In other words, we have our own methods and our own priorities and so forth. So that reflects basically, once the committee has adopted the chairman's mark, that represents basically a committee action. In this particular case, we had $1 billion--I am talking now in round numbers--$1 billion in a 602(b) allocation to this subcommittee headed by Senator Gramm and with the former chair of the committee and now the ranking member, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, $1 billion under the House of Representatives. Now, there were obvious problems just from that allocation. These people had to work within that framework once adopted by the committee. They did so. That meant that they had to not just reduce and diminish some of the expenditures that have been built up over a period of time, but they also had to select between agencies and between programs within agencies. Now, when we go to the House of Representatives for a conference ultimately as we do with each bill, the chairman of the House committee, Robert Livingston of Louisiana, and I have the responsibilities under the Budget Act that we have to find a way to bring those two committees together on an agreed target figure. Normally, what we do is to strike the difference. We say, all right, that is $500 million for the Senate in this case and $500 million less for the House. You take that as your target figure to make your adjustments. In this particular case, probably one of the most severely hit of all subcommittees in the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, and they had an extraordinarily difficult time in the Senate to even get in the ballpark of meeting with the House floor conference. Why wait until that moment when Congressman Livingston and I have to get together to fix that target, why not do it now? That is all this amendment represents. We are saying, in effect, we had the previous bill, HUD, independent agencies. We had to adjust that downward in terms of meeting a figure to the House figure for HUD, independent agency, the Senate HUD, independent agency, to get together for conference. What I have done at this point is to advance that moment of time and decision that would have to take place with Congressman Livingston and myself, taking from the HUD bill we have just completed on the floor and transferring that budget outlay figure that we have just announced here this afternoon at $325 million. I had a reserve fund in the so-called BA that we could draw from in the full committee, and we drew from that, to create now this amendment. In other words, this amendment does not add a single penny to our overall commitments under the budget resolution. What we are doing is making a fine adjustment that has to occur anyway, and we are doing it in advance of the time in order to make this bill more acceptable and to be a broader base of support for the bill, but also to be more equitable and fair in the bill. My phone has been ringing off the hook for the last 3 weeks since the committee reported the bill. I know that it has been so in the case of Senators Gramm and Hollings, as well, and probably many others who serve on the Appropriations Committee. Now, this small increase of funds, we have made a printout of each account to which we are adding funds in the Commerce Department, the State Department, and some of agencies funded under this bill. We also have reiterated our commitment for the Byrne-formula grants in the Justice Department. Each member has before him or her the full amendment in detail. I will only refer to that. Now, what this overall amendment does is to keep the spending levels closer to a freeze and closer to actions taken by the authorizing committees. So this is not just trying to get an adjustment for this bill here in the Senate, and for the conference to come with the House, but also to tie in with the authorized levels provided by Senator Helms in the case of Foreign Relations Committee and the State Department. You will find on this printout such examples, if you look at the columns where this so-called outlays and this adjustment takes place in the last two columns of the figures. As an example, we are taking domestic and counselor programs and funding them with replacement of money at about $115.8 million at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee authorizing level. That is how you work these charts back and forth. The amendment provides additional funds for six independent agencies. Those six independent agencies are U.S. Sentencing Commission, International Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Marine Mammal Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration. Now, in the case of the Federal Trade Commission and the International Trade Commission and all of these, what we have done is to have a freeze minus 10 percent in the amendment. That contrasts to a freeze minus 20 percent which was in the bill that is now before the Senate. That, again, is representative of another type of handling of these additions. In the case of the Small Business Administration, we propose to add an additional $30 million, which should be sufficient funding to administrator the loan volume recommended in the committee bill. Again, we refer back to not only our previous work but to authorizing committees as well. There are many competing demands in this bill and it makes it very difficult, even with this amendment. Let me make very clear, this amendment does not solve all of our problems. But I do think it can solve sufficient problems to get this bill wrapped into the CR, down to the White House, eventually to be vetoed. I have to be straightforward. My impression, maybe this amendment is going to help in some way alleviate that probability that is now very clear that the President intends to veto this bill. Maybe we can again, hopefully, make that a lesser possibility than it is under the bill that we have before us. So, Mr. President, I am not going to go on about these changes. I am very happy to respond to specific questions that people may have, but I do want to say that it has been through the cooperative spirit of the leadership of this subcommittee and the leadership of the full Senate that we are hoping, today, to offer this amendment, have it adopted, and thereby move on to address other issues in this bill.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to begin by commending my colleagues the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for their efforts on this bill. While I am not pleased with the decreasing funding allocation for foreign aid operations, I understand the reality we face with regard to all of our discretionary spending. I support bringing our budget into balance and believe we must make sacrifices to achieve this end. However, I continue to believe that foreign aid serves important U.S. interests. We have much more work ahead as we try to build basic health, education, and welfare infrastructures in the developing world. Of course, this cannot be an isolated U.S. effort. We must continue to work with our friends and allies throughout the world to expand global development efforts. My opposition to the military aid in this bill remains firm. The United States should be ashamed by the level of arms sales included year after year in this bill. I would much rather see this money go toward development assistance. Funding for international family planning assistance continues to be one of my priorities. I have included an earmark for the central office or core funding for AID Office of Population. This earmark will ensure the continued success of AID's population program, which is arguably the best in the world. Over the past 30 years, this program has been adjusted and finetuned time and again so that it runs as efficiently and effectively as it does today. In addition, I am pleased by the level of funding for migration and refugee assistance. Worldwide, we continue to see a rise in the number of refugees fleeing ethnic strife, civil war, and political persecution. The United States must retain a strong commitment to providing for the protection and care of these refugees. It is my hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this bill and conference with the House so that we can get it on the President's desk as soon as possible. mepfa amendments

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this week finds us at the height of the appropriations process, as the end of the fiscal year rapidly approaches. It has been a season of difficult fiscal decisions which must be made to conform to the constraints of our balanced budget agreement. Never are the tradeoffs as vivid as when we consider spending levels for health and education programs, as we did this morning when the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on the fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. I am pleased to report that the committee provided nearly $1.5 billion more than the House for education programs. In addition, we provided a 2.7=percent increase for health research at the National Institutes of Health. While this level is less than that provided by the House, I believe it represents a fair balance between the vitally important issues of health and education. But clearly, my preference would have been to provide a much larger increase for medical research so that the engine which drives the quality of medical care and reduced health costs could run at full tilt. The current reality is, however, that available funds for discretionary spending are decreasing. We cannot continue to look solely to the appropriations process for the necessary resources to keep our biomedical research enterprise growing at a rate which takes advantage of the myriad medical breakthroughs on the horizon. We must look for a funding source to supplement annual appropriations to the National Institutes of Health. Today I am pleased to unite with my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, in introducing legislation to establish the national fund for medical research. We joined forces in this effort last year and worked hard to see that medical research was a part of the health care reform debates. At the end of the process, although the issue was ultimately unresolved, we had received the attention and support of many Members in this Chamber. We introduce this bill today, with the support of Senator Boxer of California, with the intention of building on the momentum of last year to gain the support of our many colleagues in this body who are committed to the biomedical research infrastructure. Our legislation proposes to create a new fund in the U.S. Treasury, financed by an increase in Federal tobacco taxes and income generated through a voluntary Federal income tax checkoff. By raising the Federal tax on cigarettes by 25 cents per package, as well as raising the tax to an equivalent level on smokeless tobacco products, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated annual income for the fund of approximately $4.2 billion. These funds will be distributed on a phased-in basis to the National Institutes of Health to supplement, not replace, the funds the organization receives each year in the appropriations process. Funds will be distributed in accordance with the proportion of funds each of the member institutes and centers receive in the appropriations process, after 5 percent has been divided between the Office of the Director, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Library of Medicine. Funds raised through this proposal will increase the budget of the NIH by 35 percent over the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. This will allow many more research grant applications to be funded so that scientific opportunities of merit can be pursued and ultimately translated into cost-effective treatments and cures which will improve our national quality of life. I know of no better investment for the Federal Government than one which strengthens our human capital--be it in education or health research, our greatest strength is a healthy, and thus wealthy, populous. Mr. President, my good friend, the great philanthropist, Mary Lasker once said, ``If you think research is expensive, try disease.'' Diseases cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Last year, federally supported research on Alzheimer's disease totalled $300 million, yet it is estimated that $90 billion is expended annually on care. Federally supported research on diabetes totals $290 million, yet it is estimated that $25 billion is expended annually on care. Federally supported research on mental health totals $613 million, yet it is estimated that $130 billion is expended annually on care. As we struggle in the coming months to achieve a balanced budget, we must embrace policies that enable us to make the most out of our scarce Federal dollars. Federal funding for medical research should be a top priority because without new knowledge to develop new strategies to prevent disease, new treatments to delay the progression of disease and new interventions to cure disease; health care costs will continue to spiral out of control. Disease drives the cost of health care. A concerted Federal assault on disease will not only save precious funds, but it will provide hope to the afflicted. Watching a medical catastrophe affect a family or individual is one of the greatest tragedies we face in this country. The impacts are accentuated when this misfortune comes in the form of an incurable disease. Loved ones are left with no hope, and feeling powerless as they watch the debilitating effects of disease overcome the individual. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate have experienced this sense of powerlessness. They have watched helplessly while family members deteriorate from the effects of a deadly disease. The vibrant individual that they knew and loved is reduced to a withering shell of a human being. The one thing, and the only thing that provides comfort to the afflicted and to their loved ones, is hope. Hope for an end to the suffering. Hope for a return to a normal life. Hope for a cure. This hope does not have to be great, even the faintest glimmer brings happiness to someone faced with a fatal future. Medical research is the sole hope we can provide to millions of Americans who will experience disease and disability either in their own lives or in their families. We can care for them in our hospitals and clinics but we cannot alleviate their pain or end their suffering without cures and preventative treatments. Cures are the direct result of our investment in medical research. This legislation is important because it will help provide a more sustainable funding base for medical research. During the debate on the budget resolution, I offered an amendment to restore $7 billion of the nearly $8 billion cut for the NIH proposed by the Senate budget resolution over the next 7 years. This amendment passed by a vote of 85-14. While this was a short-term victory for the NIH, it demonstrates the need for a stable endowment for medical research. The war against disease can not be fully waged if medical researchers have to engage in yearly squabbles with Congress over funding levels. [[Page S 13730]] As most of my colleagues know, I am a practical man. I do not underestimate the difficulty any tax increase has in the current political climate, but I submit we must listen to the people who put the new Republican majority in power. A recent Harris Poll has shown that Americans strongly support health research and are willing to put their money behind their words. The poll asked Americans which type of scientific research they favored--66 percent favored medical research and a pitiful 4 percent preferred defense research. This same poll determined that if assured that the funds would be spent for medical research, 74 percent of Americans are willing to spend $1 more in taxes. Other polling data consistently shows that more than two-thirds of Republican and Democratic voters, including voters in tobacco-growing States, favor raising tobacco taxes. These results make it clear that our constituents desire a strong Federal commitment to medical research, even if it means an increase in taxes. An increase in tobacco taxes is easily the most appropriate source of funding for this bill. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the Federal Government spends more than $20 billion per year to pay for the direct health care costs caused by tobacco. Tobacco taxes will help offset and reduce the economic costs of smoking. Taxes on tobacco products are a proven source of revenue around the world. Most major industrialized nations tax tobacco at $2 to $3.60 per package. The increase in the tobacco tax will provide extensive health benefits. Tobacco use is the greatest cause of preventable death in America. About 1.3 million children and adults will be discouraged from smoking by a 25-cent tobacco tax. Because about half of all long-term smokers die of diseases caused by smoking, a 25-cent tobacco tax will save the lives of more than 300,000 Americans alive today. I hope these heart-wrenching statistics will put an end to the congressional coddling of the almighty tobacco lobby. Tobacco use imposes a great price on our society, and those who profit from tobacco use should contribute their fair share to this devastation. This legislation has everything to do with providing our Nation with a brighter future. While sustainable resources for medical research are essential for our Nation's prosperity, our young people will ultimately determine the future of our Nation. Zenia Kim, a finalist in the Miss Oregon Pageant, and an aspiring medical researcher, provides me with a personal impetus to progress on this legislation. Like many Zenia had not given disease or medical research much thought until a close relative was stricken with cancer. After seeing her family member experience the terrors of chemotherapy, she dedicated her life to finding a cure to cancer. Zenia has vigorously pursued this pledge by working during her college summers at Oregon Health Sciences University. It was here, at one of our Nation's top academic medical centers, that she encountered the problems of insufficient funds for medical research. This inspired her to develop a comprehensive proposal to cure cancer. The main component of this proposal is research. Kim writes, ``as a future medical scientist, I would like to know that there will be enough funding available to pursue my research endeavors.'' I would like Zenia to someday realize her goal and find a cure for cancer. I would like to assure Zenia, that when she graduates from medical school, we will have adequate funding for medical research. I urge my colleagues to support the National Fund for Medical Research to help Zenia and others like her to provide hope for those tormented by disease and disabilities. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record, a copy of the bill, a question and answer summary, a sample of letters of support, and a list of nearly 200 organizations supporting this effort.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this week finds us at the height of the appropriations process, as the end of the fiscal year rapidly approaches. It has been a season of difficult fiscal decisions which must be made to conform to the constraints of our balanced budget agreement. Never are the tradeoffs as vivid as when we consider spending levels for health and education programs, as we did this morning when the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on the fiscal year 1996 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. I am pleased to report that the committee provided nearly $1.5 billion more than the House for education programs. In addition, we provided a 2.7=percent increase for health research at the National Institutes of Health. While this level is less than that provided by the House, I believe it represents a fair balance between the vitally important issues of health and education. But clearly, my preference would have been to provide a much larger increase for medical research so that the engine which drives the quality of medical care and reduced health costs could run at full tilt. The current reality is, however, that available funds for discretionary spending are decreasing. We cannot continue to look solely to the appropriations process for the necessary resources to keep our biomedical research enterprise growing at a rate which takes advantage of the myriad medical breakthroughs on the horizon. We must look for a funding source to supplement annual appropriations to the National Institutes of Health. Today I am pleased to unite with my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, in introducing legislation to establish the national fund for medical research. We joined forces in this effort last year and worked hard to see that medical research was a part of the health care reform debates. At the end of the process, although the issue was ultimately unresolved, we had received the attention and support of many Members in this Chamber. We introduce this bill today, with the support of Senator Boxer of California, with the intention of building on the momentum of last year to gain the support of our many colleagues in this body who are committed to the biomedical research infrastructure. Our legislation proposes to create a new fund in the U.S. Treasury, financed by an increase in Federal tobacco taxes and income generated through a voluntary Federal income tax checkoff. By raising the Federal tax on cigarettes by 25 cents per package, as well as raising the tax to an equivalent level on smokeless tobacco products, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated annual income for the fund of approximately $4.2 billion. These funds will be distributed on a phased-in basis to the National Institutes of Health to supplement, not replace, the funds the organization receives each year in the appropriations process. Funds will be distributed in accordance with the proportion of funds each of the member institutes and centers receive in the appropriations process, after 5 percent has been divided between the Office of the Director, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Library of Medicine. Funds raised through this proposal will increase the budget of the NIH by 35 percent over the fiscal year 1995 appropriated level. This will allow many more research grant applications to be funded so that scientific opportunities of merit can be pursued and ultimately translated into cost-effective treatments and cures which will improve our national quality of life. I know of no better investment for the Federal Government than one which strengthens our human capital--be it in education or health research, our greatest strength is a healthy, and thus wealthy, populous. Mr. President, my good friend, the great philanthropist, Mary Lasker once said, ``If you think research is expensive, try disease.'' Diseases cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Last year, federally supported research on Alzheimer's disease totalled $300 million, yet it is estimated that $90 billion is expended annually on care. Federally supported research on diabetes totals $290 million, yet it is estimated that $25 billion is expended annually on care. Federally supported research on mental health totals $613 million, yet it is estimated that $130 billion is expended annually on care. As we struggle in the coming months to achieve a balanced budget, we must embrace policies that enable us to make the most out of our scarce Federal dollars. Federal funding for medical research should be a top priority because without new knowledge to develop new strategies to prevent disease, new treatments to delay the progression of disease and new interventions to cure disease; health care costs will continue to spiral out of control. Disease drives the cost of health care. A concerted Federal assault on disease will not only save precious funds, but it will provide hope to the afflicted. Watching a medical catastrophe affect a family or individual is one of the greatest tragedies we face in this country. The impacts are accentuated when this misfortune comes in the form of an incurable disease. Loved ones are left with no hope, and feeling powerless as they watch the debilitating effects of disease overcome the individual. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate have experienced this sense of powerlessness. They have watched helplessly while family members deteriorate from the effects of a deadly disease. The vibrant individual that they knew and loved is reduced to a withering shell of a human being. The one thing, and the only thing that provides comfort to the afflicted and to their loved ones, is hope. Hope for an end to the suffering. Hope for a return to a normal life. Hope for a cure. This hope does not have to be great, even the faintest glimmer brings happiness to someone faced with a fatal future. Medical research is the sole hope we can provide to millions of Americans who will experience disease and disability either in their own lives or in their families. We can care for them in our hospitals and clinics but we cannot alleviate their pain or end their suffering without cures and preventative treatments. Cures are the direct result of our investment in medical research. This legislation is important because it will help provide a more sustainable funding base for medical research. During the debate on the budget resolution, I offered an amendment to restore $7 billion of the nearly $8 billion cut for the NIH proposed by the Senate budget resolution over the next 7 years. This amendment passed by a vote of 85-14. While this was a short-term victory for the NIH, it demonstrates the need for a stable endowment for medical research. The war against disease can not be fully waged if medical researchers have to engage in yearly squabbles with Congress over funding levels. [[Page S 13730]] As most of my colleagues know, I am a practical man. I do not underestimate the difficulty any tax increase has in the current political climate, but I submit we must listen to the people who put the new Republican majority in power. A recent Harris Poll has shown that Americans strongly support health research and are willing to put their money behind their words. The poll asked Americans which type of scientific research they favored--66 percent favored medical research and a pitiful 4 percent preferred defense research. This same poll determined that if assured that the funds would be spent for medical research, 74 percent of Americans are willing to spend $1 more in taxes. Other polling data consistently shows that more than two-thirds of Republican and Democratic voters, including voters in tobacco-growing States, favor raising tobacco taxes. These results make it clear that our constituents desire a strong Federal commitment to medical research, even if it means an increase in taxes. An increase in tobacco taxes is easily the most appropriate source of funding for this bill. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the Federal Government spends more than $20 billion per year to pay for the direct health care costs caused by tobacco. Tobacco taxes will help offset and reduce the economic costs of smoking. Taxes on tobacco products are a proven source of revenue around the world. Most major industrialized nations tax tobacco at $2 to $3.60 per package. The increase in the tobacco tax will provide extensive health benefits. Tobacco use is the greatest cause of preventable death in America. About 1.3 million children and adults will be discouraged from smoking by a 25-cent tobacco tax. Because about half of all long-term smokers die of diseases caused by smoking, a 25-cent tobacco tax will save the lives of more than 300,000 Americans alive today. I hope these heart-wrenching statistics will put an end to the congressional coddling of the almighty tobacco lobby. Tobacco use imposes a great price on our society, and those who profit from tobacco use should contribute their fair share to this devastation. This legislation has everything to do with providing our Nation with a brighter future. While sustainable resources for medical research are essential for our Nation's prosperity, our young people will ultimately determine the future of our Nation. Zenia Kim, a finalist in the Miss Oregon Pageant, and an aspiring medical researcher, provides me with a personal impetus to progress on this legislation. Like many Zenia had not given disease or medical research much thought until a close relative was stricken with cancer. After seeing her family member experience the terrors of chemotherapy, she dedicated her life to finding a cure to cancer. Zenia has vigorously pursued this pledge by working during her college summers at Oregon Health Sciences University. It was here, at one of our Nation's top academic medical centers, that she encountered the problems of insufficient funds for medical research. This inspired her to develop a comprehensive proposal to cure cancer. The main component of this proposal is research. Kim writes, ``as a future medical scientist, I would like to know that there will be enough funding available to pursue my research endeavors.'' I would like Zenia to someday realize her goal and find a cure for cancer. I would like to assure Zenia, that when she graduates from medical school, we will have adequate funding for medical research. I urge my colleagues to support the National Fund for Medical Research to help Zenia and others like her to provide hope for those tormented by disease and disabilities. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record, a copy of the bill, a question and answer summary, a sample of letters of support, and a list of nearly 200 organizations supporting this effort.