Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Oh, that would be excellent. I can't wait to hear them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But if there is any opposition, then, of course, that time would be available. But let us assume for a moment that there might not be. Would Senator Dodd then have an hour at his disposal?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the Dodd amendment. This amendment would provide a reserve fund to improve the affordability, availability, and quality of child care. It also would support families' choices in caring for their children. As you know, Mr. President, child care remains a pressing national problem. More families need it. Not enough families can afford it. And there aren't enough qualified professionals to provide it. Families with children under 5 and with incomes under $14,400 a year today spend one-quarter of their incomes on child care. Yet only 1 of every 10 children eligible for child care assistance receives it. Most modest-income families are getting crushed by the costs of child care. Compounding matters, the quality of much child care remains seriously deficient. And a major reason is the high rate of turnover among child care providers. More than one-third of them leave their jobs each year, largely because of low wages. Mr. President, this amendment would help address these problems by providing a mechanism for additional federal support for child care. And it is critically important. Some have argued that working families don't need this help, because the states already are getting more federal child care funding than they can spend. But that is just wrong. According to the latest HHS data, states' child care outlays are 90 percent of total budget authority for 1997, and states have obligated 99.8 percent of those funds. Morover, so far in 1998, states are drawing down child care funds at a higher rate than last year--and at a higher rate than either CBO or OMB had projected. I also have heard the argument that we don't need to support spending on child care when we can expand the dependent care tax credit instead. But that's just not sufficient. As long as the dependent care tax credit remains non-refundable, expanding it will not help modest-income working families. In fact, a two-parent family with two children that pays $400 per month for child care would not begin to benefit from a non-refundable expansion until its annual income reaches almost $31,000. Let me emphasize that. If you have two kids, a $30,000 income, and you pay $400 a month for child care, you're not going to benefit at all from current proposals to expand the dependent care tax credit. Your income is just too low. Finally, I know that the Republican budget resolution is assuming some additional discretionary funds for child care. But I question whether these funds will materialize given the strict overall caps on discretionary spending. And, in any case, discretionary spending is a 1-year, short-term approach to a long-term problem. Americans' child care needs are increasing, and families should have our commitment that we will lend a helping hand. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that it's time to address child care needs in a serious way. And I hope we can get bipartisan support for Senator Dodd's important amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is very kind. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his generous giving up of some time here. In 1 minute, very succinctly, Mr. President, it is this: I heard our friend from New Mexico talk about the proliferation of reserve funds. I want to remind the Senator that he and I were part and parcel of an agreement to establish a major reserve fund last year in the budget agreement. It was designed for transportation. We encouraged that process to make sure that there would be money to take care of the transportation needs. We had a commitment by the chairman of the Finance Committee that that was an appropriate use of process, to set up a reserve fund. Well, we have a reserve fund now to make sure our kids, when they grow up, are healthy and learned and ready to take on their responsibilities. I do not mind a little reserve fund. I hope that the Senator's vote carries.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be wonderful. We are not thinking of closing up shop until we have heard all the amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So all the people who want to rush down here and offer amendments will still have time to do so tonight?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have two we would like to lay down on behalf of some of our Members here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and set aside for disposition in a sequence that would be agreed to by the managers. There are four first- degree amendments and one second-degree amendment. We have an amendment on behalf of Senator Hollings which concerns Social Security, a Lautenberg amendment, a Conrad second-degree amendment, a Lautenberg amendment on the environment, and a Boxer amendment on education. I ask unanimous consent that these be accepted at the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the interest of moving the program along, we will eliminate the Conrad second-degree amendment at this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in support of the Murray amendment because it very simply focuses on a problem that is of critical importance. It establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to help reduce class sizes. I have to commend the Senator from Washington because her focus on children extends to the whole range, from nutrition, health, education, and child care. She is right, in my view, to bring this amendment up before the Senate, and now before the American people. What she is saying is young people need more attention from their teachers and thus the class size reduction is a perfect avenue toward getting them more attention. The capacity for the child to learn increases when class sizes are smaller. Once again, I commend our friend and colleague from Washington. She is one among several of our colleagues who call education focus of their agenda. The reserve fund would allow the Congress to help the States and local educational agencies recruit, train, and hire the 100,000 additional teachers by the year 2005. These teachers would reduce class sizes in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students per classroom. Mr. President, this is a very important initiative and deserves our support. I will now speak for a moment about a personal experience. I grew up in what is now one of America's poorest cities, an industrial city, in New Jersey. The city is called Paterson, NJ. I was born there. I and a couple of my business associates decided to try to help out because of our good fortune and our interest in what was taking place within that old favorite city of ours. We provided a program for extending free tuition--we paid for it--for students who, from the sixth grade, our targeted grade, went on to pass their high school requirements and we would pay for their education in college. I thought it was a pretty significant inducement. We had academic counselors that worked with these students. Then-Vice President Quayle was very kind, spending 45 minutes with these youngsters. It was a real treat for them. We took them on various trips and tried to help them along. I am ashamed to say, pained to say, really, that the program did not do a lot of good. We are reexamining why. The principal thing that jumped out at us was that the sixth grade was too late to start, too late to make a difference with these youngsters. When examined it further, we look to the earliest grades, grades 1, 2, and 3. We found that those early learning experiences matter most. So I think that this amendment helps us to concentrate on putting our resources where they will do the most good. It is critical to get the kids off on a good start at that tender age. That is why President Clinton proposed this major national effort to limit class sizes in the early grades. That is why the proposal enjoys such strong support among the American people. Unfortunately, the budget now before the Senate rejects this proposal. Frankly, I believe it is one of the major shortcomings of the resolution. Senator Murray offered this amendment in the Budget Committee's markup, but it was defeated on a straight party line. I hope today's vote will be different. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and, once again, commend the distinguished Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue. Since coming to the Senate, she has been an outspoken advocate for education, for our children in all aspects. I know she speaks not just for America's parents, grandparents, but families all across our country in urging this Nation to make education our top priority. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY Mr. President, the Republican budget is anti-education It sets up too many roadblocks to a brighter future for the nation's children We should be doing more, not less, to improve the nation's public schools. The budget should reflect our true national priorities The American people give top priority to education, and Congress should too But, the Republican education budget goes against what the American people want by cutting education funding. Republicans say that they are pro-education But, there is a massive disparity between their rhetoric and the reality of their budget Our Republican colleagues say that they support education and children But their current tax proposal and their current budget proposal make it very clear that they are no friends of public education If Republicans were friends of public schools, they would not divert $1.6 billion of scarce resources to private schools. They would not cut education by $400 million next year, and prohibit funding for any new programs. They would not ignore the pressing need to repair our crumbling schools--to train more teachers, to reduce class sizes, to provide more after-school programs to keep children off the streets, away from drugs and guns, and out of trouble. They would not propose tax breaks that benefit wealthy families who send their children to private schools. There are many good ideas to improve education that deserve support We need to increase our investment in public schools We need to raise academic standards We need to modernize school buildings We need to reduce class size We need to support more teachers and better training for current teachers We need to expand after-school programs. Students deserve modern schools with world-class teachers But too many students in too many schools in too many communities across the country fail to achieve that standard The latest international survey of math and science achievement confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, teachers, and students alike It is shameful that America's twelfth graders ranked among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and science. Schools across the nation face serious problems of overcrowding Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay, and are not equipped to handle the needs of modern education. Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings Half the schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition It will take over $100 billion to repair existing facilities nationwide. America's children are learning in overcrowded classrooms This year, K-12 enrollment reached an all-time high, and it will continue to grow over the next 7 years Communities will need to build 6,000 new public schools to maintain current class size Due to overcrowding, schools are using trailers for classrooms and teaching students in hallways, closets, and bathrooms Overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. In Springfield, Massachusetts, student enrollment has increased by over 1,500 students, or 6 percent, in the last two years, forcing teachers to hold classes in storage rooms, large closets and basements. In addition, too many schools are already understaffed During the next decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirements mean that the nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers Between 1995 and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students, causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher retirements. The teacher shortage has forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers, and ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise Each year, more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers enter the classroom One in four new teachers does not fully meet state certification requirements Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training at all Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher In Massachusetts, 30% of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. Incredibly, the Republican budget ignores these pressing needs The Republican plan cuts funding for education It refuses to provide key new investments to improve public education If their anti-education plan is passed, schools and students will get even less help next year than they are getting this year, just when they need help the most. The Republican budget cuts discretionary funding by $1.6 billion below the President's budget It cuts funding for education and Head Start by $1 billion below the level needed to maintain current services In fact, it cuts education and Head Start funding by $400 million below last year And to make matters worse, the Republican budget prohibits funding for new education programs. It denies 3.7 million students the opportunity to benefit from smaller class sizes. It denies 900,000 disadvantaged students the extra help they need to improve their reading and math skills. It denies 400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school programs. It denies 6,500 middle schools serving 5 million students extra help to ensure that they are safe and drug free. It denies 1 million students in failing schools the opportunity to benefit from innovative reforms. It denies 3.9 million needy college students an increase in their Pell grants. The Republican anti-education budget does nothing to help recruit and train qualified teachers. It does nothing to improve failing schools by creating Education Opportunity Zones. It does nothing to help disadvantaged students attend college and graduate from college. It does nothing to increase funding for Title I to improve students' math and reading skills. It does nothing to increase funding for Pell grants. The challenge in education is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation. That's why I strongly support the amendment by Senator Murray to reduce class size in grades K-3 across the country. A necessary foundation for success in school is a qualified teacher in every classroom, to make sure that young children receive the individual attention they need. That's why it is so important that we help bring 100,000 new qualified teachers into the public schools and reduce class size in the elementary grades. Research has shown that students attending small classes in the early grades make more rapid progress than students in larger classes. The benefits are greatest for low-achieving, minority, and low-income children. Smaller classes also enable teachers to identify and work effectively with students who have learning disabilities, and reduce the need for special education in later grades. A national study of 10,000 fourth graders in 203 school districts across the country and 10,000 eighth graders in 182 school districts across the country found that students in small classes performed better than students in large classes for both grade levels. Gains were larger for fourth graders than eighth graders. Gains were largest of all for inner-city students in small classes--they were likely to advance 75 percent more quickly than students in large classes. Another significant analysis called Project STAR studied 7,000 students in grades K to 3 in 80 schools in Tennessee. Again, students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. And the gains were larger for minority students. We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. Many states and communities are considering proposals to reduce class size. But you can't reduce class size without the ability to hire additional qualified teachers to fill the additional classrooms. The federal government should lend a helping hand. This year, California Governor Wilson proposed to spend $1.5 billion to reduce fourth-grade classes to 20 students or less, after having reduced class sizes for students in grades K-3 last year. In Pennsylvania, a recent report by the bipartisan legislative commission on urban school restructuring recommended capping class sizes in kindergarten through grade 3 in urban districts at 20 students per teacher. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program is helping to reduce class size in grades K-3 in low-income communities. In Flint, Michigan, efforts over the last three years to reduce class size in grades K-3 have led to a 44% increase in reading scores and an 18% increase in math scores. Congress can do more to encourage all of these state and local efforts across the country. We can help lead the way in reducing class size. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment and to increase our investment in education. The nation's children deserve our support.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will try not to take more than 5 minutes, but I appreciate having 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection to the Senator from Oregon offering his amendments, but we are on a 10:30 schedule and I think it is important we preserve that schedule. I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Oregon. Amendment No. 2179

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to support the amendment that the distinguished Senator from Alabama offers, because I think we all share the view that if a parent can stay at home--mother can stay at home, typically--then that is the best way to go and there ought not to be any discrimination against that kind of a policy or program. But people are forced, because of the pressure on incomes, to often look for the second or even the third job in the household. As we examine the programs that will promote the parents at home, I think we have to consider this amendment as an indication of where we all stand. The amendment, as I see it, simply affirms the view that families should not be punished for their child care choice. There is no better babysitter, no better caregiver, than the mother of the child. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Democrats are proud of our long record of helping families with a stay-at-home parent to make ends meet. When you got to a particular vintage, kind of like mine--advanced middle-age, I think we call it--it was typical, regardless of the difficulty that existed financially in the household; somehow or other it all came together. My mother was widowed when she was 36. I had already enlisted in the Army. I had a little sister at home. Mom managed to take care of my sister, get a modest allotment from my military pay, and at the same time have a job. She made all those arrangements, and my sister was never neglected and grew up a happy, fulfilled person, as did my mother and I. But things are different now. We live in a pressure-cooker world where people just can't seem to get by unless there are multiple jobs in the household. For the middle-income family, it is not atypical. So Democrats, maybe we kind of harken back to a different day and say those were the proper kinds of functions to be going on in the household. Things were modest, but people accepted their fate and tried to work their way out of it. In 1993, what we tried to do was to establish the opportunity for a family to take care of their kids. We secured an expansion of the earned-income tax credit, giving a refund to those people who just didn't make enough to care for their families. In 1996, we secured an increase in the minimum wage. Last year, we won the $500-per-child tax credit. Now, all of these initiatives put more money in the pockets of American workers, and I, as a Democrat, and those of us who are Democrats were happy to see that. This is not to suggest that many of our Republican friends were not happy, but it put a Democratic stamp on these programs. I am sure, again, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle support it. These things have made a real difference. Also, the Family and Medical Leave Act, signed into law by President Clinton, has given parents the flexibility to take time off to care for a newborn or a sick child. When it comes to helping working moms, I think we are all on the same page. Once again, I commend Senator Sessions for offering this amendment. I am pleased to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to clarify exactly where we are, what the schedule calls for.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Amendment No. 2209 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Committee on Finance shall consider and report a legislative proposal this year that would dedicate the Federal budget surplus to the establishment of a program of personal retirement accounts for working Americans)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are together, believe me. As a matter of fact, I want to tell you something, Mr. President. You have no idea--few have-- how hard I worked to get this man to stop smoking. It showed my true affection for him because I wanted him to be around here. Even when I disagree with him, I like him here because he stimulates reactions and gets us going at times, if you know what I mean. Mr. President, I ask people to consider this question with me. What grandparent, I ask you, would not say: Take care of my grandchild first, help my grandchild so that when he or she grows up, they are healthy, help my grandchild to not become an addict to tobacco or other drug substances? What grandparent would not stand up and proudly say ``take care of them first'' because eventually they will be the ones who will shoot the Government programs and health insurance programs up through the roof? Yes, there is $22 billion worth of spending in Medicare on tobacco- related illness. We are not sure, but there is a significant amount, perhaps a like amount, in Medicaid tobacco-related illness. But if we don't inhibit smoking among the youngsters today, this price will continue. Sometimes you have to make an investment in the long term before you can obtain the result that you want. You can't always do it overnight. So I submit, Mr. President, that we are determined not to break the caps. We are determined to abide by CBO accounting. We are determined not to spend money that we don't have. And to correct something the Senator from New Mexico said a moment ago, he said the surpluses should be used for Medicare. I think he didn't quite mean it that way because, technically, the words are, ``surplus is going to Social Security,'' and hopefully the proceeds from the tobacco legislation would go toward creating a more solvent Medicare. So, Mr. President, I kind of rest the case here. My colleague from North Dakota is going to want to wrap up, as they say, but I say as an experienced grandparent--and if anybody wants to see the pictures of my five grandchildren, I have them here in my pocket. But I tell you that there is nothing--nothing--in my life that I would not give to prevent sickness or illness to any one of my grandchildren. There is no price that is too high to pay. I will take care of myself, but I want to make sure I give my grandchildren a chance to grow, develop, and be healthy. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor for my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Colorado thus far for his ever-present indulgence. I will take my 5 minutes first, and I ask the Chair to remind me when my 5 minutes is up so that I can give the remaining 7 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota. First of all, I am not personally insulted, I promise you that, not at all. I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee talk about what a great guy and a good friend and a nice Democrat and everything else the Senator from North Dakota was. Then he talked about the Senator from Louisiana. It doesn't bother me. It is just one of those things, Mr. President, two Democrats being described as great guys and all that. But we will go on from there.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico just volunteered to give us 5 minutes on our side, with the understanding that the rest will be yielded back. What I would like to do is ask my colleague from North Dakota to say what he wants to do. Does he want 7 minutes or so? I would like 5 minutes. If that would be all right, I would agree with the proposal offered by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder if we can get the Senator's question answered as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. That is what we promised him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Long enough to accomplish that objective. Anyway, we are going to want to amend this, and I hope we can get that done. That would be a positive start. Think about it: 3,000 young people a day start smoking; over 1 million a year. One-third of them will die prematurely, just as sure as we are standing here, if we don't make significant changes in the way tobacco is understood in our society--1 million kids a year. Wow, that is larger than some of our biggest cities. It is certainly larger than a lot of the countries that are on this globe. It is time we reach out a helping hand and say, ``OK, we are going to help you stop before you get started on this addiction.'' I hope our friends on the Republican side will join us. It was interesting for me to see what happened on two different occasions in these last couple of weeks. One was this very day, when a senior Member of the Senate on the Republican side, the Senator from New Hampshire, offered an amendment to say that there would be no protection for the tobacco companies, that they would have to face up to what the process is--whether it is the courts or negotiated settlements, or what have you--and take their chances. It drew a lot of votes. I think there were 75 votes in favor of the Gregg amendment. The other was an earlier time, when we were marking up the budget resolution, when we had six members of the Republican Party stand up with Democrats and confirm the fact that we think the $1.50 price per pack of cigarettes put in place over 3 years at the rate of 50 cents a year ought to move ahead. And that was the only amendment that had any bipartisan support--the only amendment. It meant that some of our friends on the Republican side, just as we have heard in these Capitol Grounds, just could not say no. They had to say yes. They had to say yes, we want to see a $1.50 per pack fee imposed on cigarette use. We are looking at a lot of money. We are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 25 years. I make a plea for those who are going to be voting on this amendment tomorrow sometime: Take a look at what it is you are doing. We understand the interests in Medicare, but we want you to share our concern that the place to start in preventing disease from the use of tobacco starts with kids, starts with the youngest of them, starts with the most helpless of us, and join us in amending this budget resolution so that we can get a different kind of message out there. Mr. President, to reiterate I strongly support this amendment, which would expand the tobacco reserve fund to allow tobacco revenues to be used for anti-tobacco efforts. This amendment, in effect, is a test of whether the Senate is serious about comprehensive tobacco legislation. If we vote down this amendment, then we're saying ``no'' to tackling the issue of tobacco this year. Senators on both sides of the aisle have various visions of how tobacco revenue should be spent. But there had been a bipartisan consensus that, at the very least, we should dedicate tobacco revenue to fighting teen smoking and developing smoking cessation programs. The majority leader, Senator Lott, has taken that position. Senator McCain is developing legislation that would use tobacco revenues for anti-smoking efforts. And other bills by Senators Hatch, Conrad, Jeffords, Kennedy, and myself all would devote tobacco revenue to anti- teen smoking programs, tobacco-related research, smoking cessation, and other tobacco related programs. Even the tobacco industry's proposed settlement called for tobacco revenue to be used for a variety of programs, including teen education, smoking cessation and tobacco research. Unfortunately, this budget would block all of these activities. That's wrong. And it just makes no sense. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has argued that there is enough funding available in the resolution for these activities. I strongly disagree. The budget resolution assumes $125 million in budget authority for anti-youth smoking and cessation in fiscal year 1999. But that is far below any of the major tobacco bills. In fact, it's not even in the same ballpark. The tobacco industry's original proposed settlement included over $2 billion per year for these programs. Senator Conrad's bill included a similar figure. That's $2 billion versus $125 million. That is not even close. Also, the $125 million assumed for teen smoking reduction programs and smoking cessation in the budget resolution must be accommodated within the discretionary spending caps. And there's reason to be skeptical that this will happen. After all, those caps are very tight. And increasing funding for these activities would require cuts in other programs. Maybe that will happen. But I certainly wouldn't count on it. The bottom line, though, is that the restrictive reserve fund language in this resolution makes it much less likely that we will pass tobacco legislation this year. That's a grave concern to me, and to most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. After all, 3,000 kids a day start smoking every day; 1,000 of them will die prematurely as a result. We simply must act. And this resolution would create a major roadblock. I ask my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment, and pave the way for comprehensive tobacco legislation this year. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their kind comments and would say, while this looks like a mutual admiration society, we kind of get that way because we work on an issue we care an awful lot about, something with which several of us have had a history for a long time. I particularly say what a delight it is to work with our distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. He is always very thorough in his review of budget matters or whatever the subject is. He is on the Finance Committee. He has done a lot of good work there and has earned the respect of all the people he works with because he is so thoughtful and so deliberate and so direct in the things he sees and that he wants to work on. Senator Conrad was designated as chairman of the tobacco task force by our leader. It was a singular honor, because what the minority leader wanted to do was to pick someone whose objectivity could be counted on because we do have different views on how we ought to treat the tobacco negotiations, deal with the tobacco companies, and deal with our constituents and the public at large. The Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, chose Senator Conrad because he knew he could be counted on to do a thorough analysis, bring the parties together, and certainly that has been the case. Senator Conrad had people there who were friends of the industry, unabashedly. They made sure the industry point of view was being represented. On the other hand, we had those from the science community, Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler, and people who had seen the effects of tobacco directly in their homes and often on their own person. So he has done a thorough job all the way through the discussions here. We have a chance now to finally come to the beginning of the analysis of what might take place here in the Senate as it regards a kind of comprehensive settlement. It is discouraging, I must say, at this point, to find out, despite the good intentions of our friends on the other side, that we wind up with a budget resolution facing us that totally restricts our ability to work with the problem. The problem, very simply, is how do we protect young people--kids, if I may use the affectionate expression--kids, from starting to smoke when they are 8, 9, 10, 11 years old? We had a boy, a young man, in front of our committee. I think he was 12, a young man from Iowa, 12 years old. He was pleading for help to stop his addiction--12 years old--because he didn't want his little brother to start smoking and be addicted to tobacco--12 years old. He said he was already hooked and he tried to stop several times. I looked at him and I said, ``My gosh, how can that happen that someone that age, still in the full bloom of development and growth, how could he be hooked on tobacco?'' He told it as it was. He wasn't a city slicker. He was a boy from--kind of country. He came in with a member of the police department, as I remember, who was his friend and kind of counselor. We have lost the mission, I think, by directing the language so that we are hamstrung. We are unable to say to the country at large that what we want to do is we want to see that the tobacco industry finally makes up for some of the terrible damage it has brought on our community, brought on our people. We lose sight of that sometimes, the damage, as we go through the debate, because we talk about immunity from the suit, protection from litigation, talking about how we can cut a deal with the tobacco industry. I, frankly, think it comes under the umbrella of nonsense. I don't like to be casual with language. We are dealing with an industry that has taken a terrible toll on America. To put it in some frame that makes it quite clear, in all of the wars of the 20th century--World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam--the casualties, those killed in combat in all the wars of the 20th century, don't equal the number that die each year as a result of smoking. It is incredible when you think about it. We know there are over 400,000 deaths a year, most of them premature, often fatal after surgery--after surgery--lungs, throat, you name it, respiratory conditions galore, gastrointestinal conditions. We found out not too long ago, via the Harvard School of Public Health, that in addition to those who we knew died from tobacco-developed illnesses, that those who have exposure to secondhand smoke, numbering over 50,000 persons a year, 50,000 persons a year have fatal heart attacks, fatal heart attacks from exposure to secondhand smoke. We look at this and we say, ``Well, what do we do about our arrangement with the companies?'' The first thing we have begun to find out--and we are about to find out a lot more--is what they have hidden in their planning over the years, their papers over the years, their attempt to hide information from the public by pretending that there is a client-attorney relationship. The reason I mention these things is, we have to understand who it is that we are working with, that we are talking to. This is an industry which has been a foul-play industry for decades, knowing very well that addiction was being created by the manipulation of the nicotine, trying to grow plants that have a higher nicotine content that will addict quicker and firmer. After a lot of discussion, after the attorneys general of most of the States in the country have met and have fashioned out what they think is a settlement--which we didn't all fully agree with, but they made a start, and I give them credit--they began to lay out what the parameters might be, an arrangement which would have the companies stepping up to help us develop a proper public health policy, because that is the primary mission. Money, in this case, while not unimportant, is certainly a secondary part of the discussion, because with that money what we want to do is stop kids from smoking. We want to teach people how to stop even after they have begun smoking. We want to do some research. We want to find out what that nicotine does to the body, to the lungs, to the digestive system--the whole thing. We want to be able to stand up face to face with the powerful tobacco industry and say, ``Hey, listen; whatever you do, understand that we are going to limit your ability to get your message out to children and to other unsuspecting people, and we want you to pay for it, but we want you to work with us to help us develop these programs.'' We thought we were doing pretty well, because that proposed settlement served as a springboard for other discussions. It served as a springboard for what else we might do, as the President so carefully and positively laid out. We saw that there would be programs as a result of an agreement with the tobacco companies and to ask the public to join in and help pay for some of the costs that tobacco renders on our society. There are guesstimates that it goes from $30 billion, $40 billion a year, up to $100 billion a year when you talk about lost productivity and problems which arise for individuals and families which go beyond just the treatment of the health problem. We worked hard. Mr. President, we have just been joined by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, who has become a friend over the years as we worked together and with whom we had an unusually successful program last year to get to a balanced budget, to help continue the process begun by President Clinton and his policy and watch that deficit go down. We look forward to surpluses in the future, possibly over $1 trillion in the next decade. Think about what good we could do with that money. The President laid it out very carefully. It had to do with teen smoking programs, how we stop that from happening, and all the things I just talked about to improve health, prevent people from becoming addicts, which they are, over 41 million of them--addicts. It doesn't sound pleasant, but that is the truth. As a matter of fact, it is said in some quarters that addiction to smoking is almost deeper and longer lasting than it is with some of the illegal drugs that we hear so much about in our society. We were enthusiastic. I know I speak for the Senator from North Dakota and I speak for myself, Senator Reed, Senator Durbin, and Senator Bingaman, when I say we thought, ``OK, we're on a good track; we talked to our friends on the Republican side of the Budget Committee, and we worked to find a plan so that we could use whatever revenues developed effectively,'' even as we developed a good health policy, because that was outside the Budget Committee directly. But it did include the programs which would be considered as part of the budget resolution, budget planning, for fiscal year 1999. I don't have to tell you how disappointing it was to find out we were not at all going to be able to implement the policies we thought were positive--that we thought would prevent the kids from starting to smoke, that we thought would help us counter advertising, that we thought would help us with research, the NIH--to find out that by design, certainly more than by coincidence, what we were doing was restricting the use of any funds which might derive from a fee--we might even call it a user fee--from those who smoke, but a fee, an excise tax--that it was going to be restricted to something we like, by the way. All of us want to see a more solvent Medicare, a stronger Medicare. The President has confirmed his view of what ought to be done, because he has appointed a commission. They are going to have a chance for deliberation. In the next year, there are going to be specific recommendations on how to protect Medicare, how to create the kind of solvency which will give us all some confidence that Medicare is going to be there as a program to use for all who reach 65. We find out, however, despite the fact that we want to see Medicare protected, what has happened is the use of funds has become so narrowed that we can't do the other programs; that we are going to be unable to take the money which was earned off the addiction, off the habit that ruined so many people's health. Out of the 41 million people who are out there, we don't know how many are going to die prematurely, but we know a lot of them are, and we know a lot of them will be wrestling with diseases which will render them unable to conduct their lives in a normal fashion, and we are not going to be able to use those funds for that. Again, there is not a suggestion of anything underhanded-- not at all, Mr. President. I want to make sure that is completely understood. It is a focus on what the programs are that we are going to be able to put into place as a result of having those funds available. Our friends on the Republican side have decided you are not going to use it for any of those things; you are not going to use it for developing an appropriate health policy program; you are not going to be able to use it to stop teen smoking. I know there are programs within the basic budget resolution to encourage that, but, Mr. President, those programs are financed to the tune of $125 million a year. That is the recommendation. My gosh, even the tobacco companies, who hate to admit they have done anything wrong, were willing to put $2 billion into the anti-teen-smoking program. We find ourselves in the position where we agree with the interests and the effort on behalf of the majority of the Budget Committee in developing a program, but we also find ourselves saying, ``Hey, wait a second, is this going to help the tobacco companies in some way? Is this going to hurt our ability to attack the programs that we so desperately need to do? Or is it just a little bit of a disguise to say, `Well, OK, what we are going to do is, we are going to support health programs very narrowly'?'' It is with regret that we talk about that today. Mr. President, you have seen the list that the Senator from North Dakota has alongside him there: Reality versus rhetoric. We have some work to do. We have to try to amend what it is that came out of the Budget Committee. I am the ranking member. I like working with Senator Domenici. I hope he will like working with me when I am the chairman. But that is the way these things go, Mr. President. Sometimes what goes around comes around.