[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 62 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4934-S4936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                TOBACCO

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to have the opportunity of 
commenting on a matter which is a matter of great discussion in 
Washington and around the country. It is the so-called tobacco 
settlement. I say ``so-called'' because I think this is more about 
taxes than it is about tobacco. It is more about big government than it 
is about teen smoking. This is a measure of the magnitude of which 
obscures most of the things we have considered for a long time, at 
least those things considered in my time in the U.S. Senate.
  Now, Washington may be entering a new era of surplus politics, but 
its inhabitants have yet to reject the sentiment that was expressed by 
King Henry IV nearly 600 years ago. He put it this way: You have gold 
and I want gold. Where is it? Well, that may be something that really 
describes America right now because this measure which is flying under 
the flag of the tobacco settlement is really a massive tax increase on 
the people of this great country.
  This tax increase would total about $860-some billion--that is the 
original bill before it went to the Finance Committee. I don't know 
whether the increase from $1.10 to $1.50 a pack added in the Finance 
Committee is even reflected in those figures. We are talking about an 
$800 billion increase in taxes and it will be focused on people who 
make less than $30,000 a year. These are hard-working families, 
generally families with small children, at the beginning of their 
earning potential in life. To focus $860 billion in new taxes on those 
individuals is a very serious question.
  As a matter of fact, that kind of serious question of $860 billion in 
new taxes and then about 17 new boards, agencies, commissions, et 
cetera, in government to spend the money is so obvious a question that 
I objected to moving to this bill very expeditiously, very rapidly. It 
looked to me like there was going to be a rush to try and get into this 
bill, and we would somehow be asked to have consideration of this bill 
which was not thorough and did not have the kind of complete debate and 
dialog which I think the Senate of the United States ought to have, and 
which I think we were created to have.
  The founders of this great country said that the Senate of the United 
States was like the saucer; the cup was the House, and it was supposed 
to be a place where there were hot passions and emotions, but you spill 
things over into the saucer. It is a place where things cool. You 
should have the time to look at things carefully in the U.S. Senate. 
You should have the capacity to thoroughly discuss things. There should 
be open discussion. We have had a policy and a heritage in this great 
body of making sure that all the anticipatable consequences and results 
and affects of a particular proposed policy could be understood and 
debated and discussed here.
  If I have the assurance that that is the strategy which we will 
pursue, that it will be a Senate strategy of complete discussion, that 
we will not unduly or inappropriately limit the kinds of amendments 
which are offered, that we are going to have an open discussion, that 
we are not going to rush in and impose cloture to stampede the Senate 
to a conclusion in what is a pretty highly charged and emotional area, 
then I have no objection to proceeding. I wouldn't object to proceeding 
to this bill unless I thought it was going to be something that was a 
must-do project and that the definition of ``discussion'' would be 
someone's time objective rather than a quality objective. The ultimate 
objective that we should have when we are discussing things in the U.S. 
Senate should be the quality of our output, not whether or not we want 
to get home for a vacation or take a break.

  My own view is that I really do not want to stand in the way of this 
particular measure being considered, but I don't want anything to stand 
in the way of this measure being considered thoroughly, and that there 
be a full opportunity to provide debate, and that

[[Page S4935]]

there be the potential for amendment which is thorough, which would 
provide the opportunity for alternatives so if we want to reach our 
real objective of somehow curtailing the adverse impacts of cigarettes 
on the young people of America, we wouldn't be locked in to some narrow 
set of agreements or agencies or taxes, but that we would think 
carefully about how it is done.
  I simply want to say and make clear my position that while I did 
oppose a unanimous consent to move to this bill, I am not locked into a 
position of saying we should not consider tobacco. If I believed that 
we have an opportunity to consider the so-called tobacco settlement 
fully and thoroughly and fairly in the great tradition of the Senate, 
then I am more than willing to proceed to consideration of this matter.
  As a matter of fact, I would like to begin the discussion of the 
matter today talking about some of the things that I think are most 
difficult about this bill, and perhaps I think ought best be 
characterized as unwise. The Federal budget surplus is likely to exceed 
$45 billion this year, and you wonder why Congress would be considering 
massive new taxes if we are finally in a place of surplus. You would 
think we should be debating how to give money back to the American 
people instead of taking more money from the American people.
  When our decision is to take money from the American people, our 
decision is basically that they can't spend it as wisely on their 
families as we can spend it on their families. After all, the families 
of America are what we are spending our resources on one way or the 
other. If we believe we are so much smarter than they are for meeting 
the needs of their family, we should take the money from them and spend 
it. But if we have a good awareness that American families know what 
they need and how to spend their money better than we can spend it on 
them, we ought to let American families have their resources to spend 
on themselves.
  There are some things that have to be done collectively. We know 
about those things--certain law enforcement functions, national 
defense, certain government programs--but the never-
ending explosion of taking the resources from families, suggesting that 
we have better things to do with that money than families do, is a 
presumption in which I will not imagine and I certainly will not 
persist.
  I intend to fight to kill any tobacco bill that contains a tax 
increase of the magnitude being considered.
  When you are talking about over $800 billion for smokers, for 
example, the tax that will be imposed against them and on them as a 
result of this bill will be 50 times greater--50 times greater--than 
the tax relief we gave them last year. I am not a person who has chosen 
to smoke, and I am not a person who is associated with the tobacco 
industry. I don't know of a single smoker in my family. It hasn't been 
in my family. It wasn't in my father's family. We were taught that 
tobacco was evil from day one. Speaking of old-time English kings, King 
James warned citizens of England hundreds of years ago that tobacco was 
bad for their health. I think people have known it. I don't think it is 
sneaking up on anybody. I think most Americans know that tobacco is not 
good for you. If you are close to someone who is smoking and you start 
choking, I think you understand that this stuff is not good for you. We 
know the pollutants contained in the byproducts of combustion, smoke, 
are bad even if you are just walking down a city street and get too 
many diesel fumes from a bus. So it is not a matter of not knowing.
  The question is, Are we going to have a tobacco bill that taxes the 
American people at an incredibly high level--$860 billion-plus in new 
taxes--and that says to a fellow who chooses to smoke, in spite of what 
he knows, that, well, the kind of tax that you are going to pay is 50 
times greater than any relief we have given you previously? This is a 
massive tax increase that will be inflicted on those who are least able 
to pay. Some estimates suggest that this tobacco bill would increase 
taxes by over $860 billion. This development of 17 new responsibilities 
in Government--for boards, commissions, or agencies, or, I suppose--and 
I hear there is a proposal now to take the formal boards, commissions, 
agencies out and allow them to be created not in the statute but by 
department heads on their own later on, so we would sort of fly the 
commissions, boards, and agencies below the radar screen of the 
American people.
  The truth is, if you are going to spend $860 billion, you are going 
to have bureaucrats do it. Over 5 years, the hike would increase taxes 
$109 billion, more than erasing the entire effect of the measure of the 
tax relief we provided last year. Of course, I will mention that 60 
percent of those who would be paying these taxes earn less than $30,000 
a year. That really means these are, in many cases, young couples, 
couples with children. They are going to be bearing the burden of this 
tax increase. The Finance Committee came up with the idea that these 
taxes be increased by $1.50 a pack for cigarettes. Now, if you have a 
young family with a mother who smokes one pack a day and the father 
smokes two, that is $4.50 a day that the Government would be taking 
from that family. Over the course of a month, I think that is $140 a 
month, and 12 times 14, if my math serves me correctly, would be close 
to $1,600 a year. Now, that is serious. That is very serious. In my 
judgment, we have to think carefully about that kind of tax increase.
  Mr. President, maybe you will do the math for me. I was doing that 
math in my head, so it may not be $1,600; it may be more than $1,600. I 
think it would be.
  But the point is, this is a massive tax increase on people. What 
about the children in those families? The whole presumption of this 
idea that we can collect the $868 billion is that people are so 
addicted, they can't stop, so we will tax them. In spite of the fact 
that taxes are going up, there is going to be persistent use. On one 
hand, they say these taxes are going to keep people from smoking. On 
the other hand, they put a lot of money in the budget saying people 
won't be able to stop smoking and therefore we will get the money. It 
seems to me there is a little tension between these two arguments. It 
is a massive tax increase. It seems to me the only thing more addictive 
than nicotine is taxing and spending in the Congress.
  People are going to say this is about teenage smoking, but this bill 
doesn't even make teenage smoking illegal in Washington, DC. This 
doesn't make teenage smoking illegal or unlawful in the Capitol or in 
the Senate office buildings. We are talking about what kind of messages 
we want to send to our teenagers. This Congress, the U.S. Senate, has 
never cared enough about the role modeling it does to forbid smoking in 
the in the U.S. Capitol or in the Senate office buildings. We are up 
here saying we are going to try and stop teenagers from smoking, and we 
stand around--I don't--and we don't stop smoking, we don't curtail 
smoking. We provide incentives. We make sure there are plenty of 
ashtrays. If you want to use the stairs in our buildings, that is where 
they put the ashtrays. If you need to draw a deep breath after four or 
five flights of stairs, you can be sure that because of our policy we 
will have a role model there smoking for you.

  If we are really serious about teen smoking, there are other things 
to do other than raising taxes by $868 billion. If Washington gets its 
way, excise taxes will increase by $1.50 a pack. Now, my view is that 
this is not the kind of tax increase I was sent here to be involved 
in--an $868 billion increase on the taxes of the working people in this 
country. This is not what Republicans were sent here to do.
  Lots of Republicans are fond of talking about Ronald Reagan. Well, 
people who make less than $30,000 a year frequently--some of them are 
Republicans, but some are what we call Reagan Democrats. Ronald Reagan 
was understood by those people to care for them, and he was understood 
by those people to be sensitive to their plight. They were called 
Reagan Democrats because of it. This is a tax increase that is aimed 
right at Reagan Democrats. It will take the money and resources right 
out of their pockets, send it to Washington, keep them from being able 
to spend it on their own families.
  Taxes are at an all-time high. Never before in the history of this 
country have taxes been so high. Just last week, on May 10, was tax 
freedom day

[[Page S4936]]

this year. That means the average citizen had to work until May 10 in 
order to pay their taxes. The rest of the year, he or she can work for 
his or her family. What a deal. And we are going to add $868 billion to 
that burden? Pretty soon, we will be working more for the Government 
than for our families. If we think Government ought to be a bigger 
influence in this culture than families, I think we are sadly mistaken. 
Whether we succeed or fail in the next century is dependent on good, 
strong families. If moms and dads and families do their job, governing 
America will be easy. But if moms and dads and families can't do their 
job, governing America will be impossible. We cannot make it impossible 
for families to do the job that families ought to do in this country.
  Total taxes as a share of total income have reached an all-time high 
in the United States of America. When I was born, in 1942, taxes as a 
share of the total income amounted to 21.1 percent. That was during the 
war--the big war, WW-II. Yet, that was 21.1 percent as a total share of 
income. We are approaching twice that much now. We are over 35 percent 
as a total share of income. It is time for us to come to the conclusion 
that if families are important in this country, leaving them with some 
of the money they earn is important, and an $860 billion-plus tax 
increase would be inappropriate.
  Today, the median two-income family can expect to pay 37.5 percent of 
its income in Federal, State, and local taxes--37.5 percent. Three-
eighths--3 out of every 8 days are devoted to paying the Government. It 
is getting worse. Taxpayers are working longer, harder than ever before 
to pay their taxes. It is time for us to think carefully about 
providing relief, rather than a massive increase in taxes.
  The proposed tobacco bill is nothing more than an excuse for 
Washington to raise taxes and spend more money on new Federal programs. 
I will fight to kill any tobacco tax bill that contains a tax increase 
of the magnitude being considered. I didn't come here, and I don't 
think we were sent here, to have a massive raid on the families of 
America and their ability to provide for the needs of their families. 
What we are talking about is a cut in pay for Americans. We cut their 
pay by taking it when they earn it. I just do not think a pay cut for 
American families is what is needed at this moment. I think this 
country knows that if there is a cut anywhere, it should be a cut in 
Government, not a cut in families. I think we have to understand that 
is what we are talking about. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation, which is a massive tax increase. It is a tax burden 
focused on those making less than $30,000 a year. The vast majority of 
the taxpayers who will pay the $860-plus billion will be people making 
less than $30,000 a year. I think of the kids of those moms and dads, 
who are both working and blue-collar folks, that they want to be able 
to do well by and do well for. We plan to tax them with the most, the 
lion's share of the burden of an $868 billion tax increase.

  I reiterate again my position. I rose to object to moving to this 
bill when I thought we might be moving to it in haste; and that our 
consideration of the bill might be limited and compressed and 
inappropriately telescoped. It might be drawn together in such a way 
that we wouldn't have a thorough opportunity to debate this. It could 
be that I am wrong. With proper assurance that we would have the kind 
of full range of Senate debate, with the complete opportunity for 
amendment and that we will not be clotured so as to preclude the kind 
of debate that is necessary and appropriate in this respect, I don't 
mind moving forward to this issue. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't 
object to moving forward to the issue. We must, however, consider this 
issue based on its merits and not based on a schedule or convenience. 
This is too important an issue and too substantial a set of stakes for 
us to ignore the kind of full debate that the Senate rightfully should 
provide.
  It is with that in mind that I rise to oppose this measure and to 
indicate my position on considering the measure. I hope when we have 
the opportunity to debate this measure fully, we will be able to see 
that a tax increase of that magnitude is not in the best interest of 
the American people. It is not in the best interest of the future of 
America. It is not a measure that really augurs well for the children 
of America. It is really a big government extension of the heavy hand 
of government in the pocketbooks of American families.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to be recognized for a unanimous 
consent request.
  Before I do that, let me commend the junior Senator from Missouri. He 
is right on target. I would like to share with him that in the last 2 
weeks I had over 20 town hall meetings in the State of Oklahoma. In not 
one meeting did anyone bring up this thing and initiate the discussion. 
I think this is really a beltway issue. When I brought it up and told 
them about the massive tax increase--the largest single tax increase, 
with the stroke of one pen that this results in--they were all very, 
very much against it. I think some people will try to use this as 
somehow a way to stop children from smoking when, in fact, it would not 
stop children from smoking.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Oregon that 
I be recognized for as much time as I may consume as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________