[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5188-S5190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           Amendment No. 2422

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we have had over a dozen Senators who 
have stood up and said that while the Kennedy amendment raises the 
effective tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.50 per pack, it has 
absolutely nothing to do with money. Over and over, our colleagues have 
said this is not about money, it is about children. They say they don't 
want the money, they want the impact of higher cigarette prices to 
discourage children from smoking.
  It seems to me, Madam President, that if that is in fact what they 
want, that there is a simple way to give it to them, and that is, we 
should attach to the Kennedy amendment a tax cut aimed at the very 
people who are paying this increase in the price of cigarettes. In 
doing that--may I have order?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the Senate 
is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. We will not 
proceed until the Senate is in order. The Senator from Texas is 
entitled to be heard. The Senator's time will not begin until there is 
order.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Madam President, we have a dilemma in that our colleagues assure us 
that while this amendment raises hundreds of billions of dollars, that 
it is not about money. They say they don't want the money, they want 
the impact of higher cigarette prices. But yet the cold reality is, 
those prices are going to be paid in higher out-of-pocket costs by 
blue-collar workers all over America. Thirty-four percent of the cost 
of this tax increase that is now pending as an amendment here in the 
Senate will be borne by Americans who make less than $15,000 a year. 
Forty-seven percent of it will be borne by Americans who make less than 
$22,000 a year.

[[Page S5189]]

 And 60 percent of it will be borne by Americans who make less than 
$30,000 a year. None of this tax increase will be paid for by tobacco 
companies. Sixty percent of the tax increase will be paid for by 
Americans who make less than $30,000 a year.
  So if the motion to table the Kennedy amendment fails and the Kennedy 
amendment remains pending, it would be my objective to offer, along 
with Senator Domenici, a second-degree amendment that will repeal the 
marriage penalty for working Americans in families that earn less than 
$50,000 a year. In doing so, Senator Kennedy would have the higher cost 
of tobacco, but the same people who are paying that tax, while seeing 
the cost of cigarettes rise would, by having the marriage penalty 
eliminated, where Americans who fall in love and work at the same time 
and get married now end up paying higher taxes for the privilege of 
being married, have that penalty eliminated, so that we would still get 
the impact of a higher price on inducing children not to smoke.
  But blue-collar working Americans, a waitress and a truck driver who 
are married and who both smoke, under this bill will pay an estimated 
$712 in new taxes, new excise taxes. We should give that money back to 
them in a tax cut so that we don't dramatically lower the living 
standards of blue-collar workers.
  I want to remind my colleagues of the incredible fact that the 
amendment before us, the Kennedy amendment, will mean that Americans 
who make less than $10,000 a year will see their Federal taxes rise by 
53 percent.
  So I urge my colleagues, in this rush to tax tobacco companies, to 
remember that the Kennedy amendment does not tax tobacco companies, it 
taxes Americans who basically make less than $30,000 a year. It will 
drive up the Federal tax burden of those who make less than $10,000 a 
year by over 50 percent.
  So I hope my colleagues will table the amendment. But if they don't 
table the amendment, Senator Domenici and I will offer an amendment 
which lets the tax increase stand but simply takes the money and gives 
it back to blue-collar working families who are, I have to remind my 
colleagues, the victims in this debate.
  There is a terrible paradox that, instead of taxing the tobacco 
companies, we are taxing the very people who have been induced to 
smoke, and therefore the victims are being punished with an 
excruciating, bone-crushing tax increases so that a working couple will 
pay $712 in taxes a year as a result of the Kennedy amendment.
  If, in fact, our colleagues are only interested in the impact on 
teenage smoking, then they won't object to the amendment that Senator 
Domenici and I are offering because we don't take the tax off, we 
simply say take that money, eliminate a discrimination in the Tax Code 
against married, working people, blue-collar families making less than 
$50,000 a year, and give them the money back. Also under our provision, 
we would adjust for the marriage penalty before you calculate the 
earned income tax credit so that the substantial amount of the benefits 
would go directly to those Americans who are making less than $10,000 a 
year who are going to see their Federal tax burden grow by over 50 
percent under this bill.

  I would like to first ask my colleagues to remember, this is not Joe 
Camel that this bullet is getting ready to hit. This is not a big 
tobacco company. This is Joe and Sara Brown, two hard-working Americans 
who have been induced to smoke. They are the victims in this whole 
process. And, yet, we are getting ready to take $712 a year out of 
their pockets. If we don't table this amendment--and I hope we do table 
it--Senator Domenici and I will offer an amendment that will take the 
money that is raised from this tax increase and we will give it back to 
the very people who are going to pay these higher taxes. But we will 
give it back to them by eliminating the marriage penalty, so that they 
will have to pay more for tobacco, and hopefully they will stop 
smoking. But they won't be poorer. They won't see their Federal tax 
burden go up by 50 percent. They won't be crushed by an oppressive and 
very, very punitive and regressive tax.
  Let's remember, it is the victim of the process who is being 
assaulted by this amendment. I hope my colleagues will vote for the 
McCain motion to table it. But if they don't, Senator Domenici and I 
will try to give our colleagues what they claim they want. That is, 
they want the tax; they don't want the money. Well, let's give the 
money back to blue-collar working families in West Virginia, in Texas, 
in New Mexico and across the country who make less than $50,000 a year 
and who need every penny they get. They are the people who are outraged 
about the fact that they have been exploited by being induced to smoke 
and in many cases have become addicted to nicotine. They are the ones 
who are being harmed by the amendment we have before us.
  I think the issue is clear. I hope my colleagues will not impose this 
massive tax increase of $712 on a blue-collar working family where both 
the husband and the wife smoke. I hope they will not crush them with 
this tax. But if they decide to, if they decide to do it, then Senator 
Domenici and I will have an amendment to give the money back to married 
taxpayers by eliminating the marriage penalty for American families 
that earn less than $50,000 a year, and we will make the adjustment 
above the line so that those who receive the earned income tax credit, 
the poorest people in America who work, will receive the benefit of our 
tax cut.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am going to make a motion to table the 
Kennedy amendment. Before I do, I would like to, for the benefit of my 
colleagues who would like to know what is going on here, say our 
intention is--and none of this is by unanimous consent--but our 
intention is to move to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, 
who has an amendment concerning immunity.
  In our custom of going back and forth, since Senator Gramm was the 
last speaker, I would like to have Senator Kerrey of Nebraska be able 
to speak for about 15 minutes. Then we would move to Senator Gregg.
  I would like to have a vote on that tonight. But I also urge my 
colleagues to come and talk on the bill as well as its amendment, 
because I have been told by Members on both sides of the aisle that 
there is great frustration that they have not been able to address the 
entire bill, much less amendments.
  I intend to stay tonight as long as is necessary. I will force the 
Senator from Massachusetts to do the same thing, and we will try to get 
as much debate and discussion of this very important bill before we 
leave tonight.
  Madam President, at this time I move to table the Kennedy amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT (When his name was called). Present.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Smith) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller

[[Page S5190]]


     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lott
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith of New Hampshire
       
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________