[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6010-S6011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL TOBACCO POLICY AND YOUTH SMOKING REDUCTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we remain in 
status quo until the hour of 2 o'clock, and then I will have additional 
remarks after the Senator from Texas speaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, excuse me----
  Mr. McCAIN. Just status quo until 2 o'clock.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We will have time to talk?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, at 2 o'clock, we should have distributed 
our amendment to both sides of the aisle. We will have given everybody 
an opportunity to look at it. We are in the final stages of getting the 
amendment done by legislative counsel. We went over it this morning 
with Senator McCAIN's staff.
  I think probably the best part of valor is to get it over here in a 
few minutes, distribute it widely, get everybody to look at it, and 
then be ready to begin at 2 o'clock. At that time, it will be my 
objective to offer the amendment. There is an open spot on the tree. I 
will offer the amendment. Hopefully, we will have support from both 
sides, it will be adopted, and we will take a major step toward 
repealing the marriage penalty and giving tax equity to the self-
employed on health insurance.
  This is a good amendment. I think it will serve a good purpose, and I 
hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for the 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I assume from our previous conversations, 
too, that the Senator from Texas is agreeable to a time agreement?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am agreeable to a time agreement on this amendment, yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I think it 
is an important amendment as well. I hope we can negotiate time and 
move forward on this amendment and others throughout the remainder of 
the day. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. I want to talk about the 
tobacco bill in the context of where we started and where we are now.
  I was on the Commerce Committee, and although I thought the bill had 
flaws in the Commerce Committee, nevertheless there was a balance to 
the bill. Our purpose in the tobacco bill is to try to keep teenagers 
from experimenting and getting hooked on cigarettes before they have 
the full judgment to understand that nicotine is addictive.
  That has been everyone's stated purpose. The President said that. 
Every Member who makes a speech on the floor says that. Everyone 
agrees. What we came out of the Commerce Committee with was a bill that 
I felt had a good chance of reaching the goal of severely limiting the 
amount of teen smoking in this country.
  Here is what the bill did, in a broad generalization. It had an 
agreement from the tobacco companies that they would not advertise. 
That is a key component to curbing youth smoking, not making it seem 
attractive to smoke. If you are not advertising with the Marlboro Man, 
it may not be nearly as appealing to smoke. So the tobacco companies 
voluntarily agree that they are not going to advertise provided a huge 
part of the balance of this bill.
  The second part, and what the tobacco companies needed, I suppose, or 
asked for in order to give up a major right that we could not take away 
from them--their constitutional right under the first amendment to 
advertise. Congress could not pass a law saying they could not 
advertise. We had to have something to which they would agree. What 
they wanted was some limitation on the liability in any 1 year.
  So in the bill that came out of committee, there was a limitation of 
about $8 billion. And if someone sued, and it was above that limit, 
their claim would not be thrown out but it would roll over until next 
year. I thought that was a fair balance because it would allow us to go 
for the target of stopping teenagers from starting to smoke because of 
advertising, which we now know has been targeted toward them, in return 
for having what I think is a huge liability limit. Nobody at this point 
has even come close in this country to $3 or $5 billion in any year 
from a lawsuit on liability. So I thought we had a balance.
  What has happened on the floor is, I think--a combination of people 
who had different purposes in addition to stopping teen smoking, 
removed all the liability limits, therefore, you lose the tobacco 
companies agreeing to give up their constitutional right to advertise. 
I think we lost track of the major target.
  In the meantime it was also decided that we would tax the people who 
legally smoke, at least $1.10 a pack, so that the price of a pack of 
cigarettes would go toward $5 a pack. So now you have what I think is a 
terrible principle; and that is, that you are taxing one sector of the 
population to have new programs that may or may not be effective in 
curbing teen smoking.
  So now we have an amendment that is going to be offered in the next 
hour that would say, ``Well, we've got this huge tax increase and I 
don't like where the spending is going, so let us give it back in tax 
cuts to somebody else.'' I do not like that principle. I do not want to 
tax a working person who is making $20,000 a year in order to give 
money back to a working family making under $50,000. I do want to give 
money back to the working family that is making under $50,000, but I 
want to do it in the context of our budget, like we do every other tax 
cut or every other tax increase, for that matter.
  This bill violates both principles that we would tax or give tax cuts 
within a budget and that we would tax one person to give it to someone 
else.

[[Page S6011]]

  I am the sponsor of the bill that would eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. It is my bill. Senator Faircloth and I are cosponsoring this 
bill together because we believe the highest priority for tax cuts in 
this country should be eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  So given the choice that I am going to have before me of not wanting 
to tax one person in order to give it to someone else, but my choice 
being we are going to have the tax increase, what do we do with it? Go 
spend money on new Government programs or give it back to people who 
make under $50,000, I am going to choose the latter. I am going to 
choose to try to start eliminating the marriage tax penalty by giving a 
higher level of exemption before you have to start paying taxes.
  So I am going to make the tough choice in favor of giving money back 
to the people who work for it. But I do not like this bill. And I hope 
and I urge my colleagues not to continue to try to put this bill in 
shape but instead to go back and start all over. I think we can pass a 
responsible bill in this Congress that would severely limit the number 
of teenagers who start smoking. That is a worthy goal.

  I also think in this Congress that we should pass the elimination of 
the marriage tax penalty because it hits people who make $30,000, 
$40,000, $50,000, couples who get married, who want to make that 
downpayment on their first home; and when they do, they are hit with a 
$1,000 or $2,000 tax increase just because they got married.
  So I want to do both of these things. I do not like the choices that 
we are looking at in the bill before us. And I do not like the choices 
being given to us by the amendment. But as the lesser of two evils, I 
am certainly going to support a tax cut when we already have a tax 
increase on the floor. But what I would suggest is that we scrap the 
whole thing and try to do this right.
  Doing it right means two things: It means, first of all, eliminating 
the marriage tax penalty in the budget; and, secondly, coming back with 
a balanced bill that will have the purpose of stopping or severely 
curtailing teen smoking, but not on the back of a person who is working 
for a living, not making much money, and is smoking, unfortunately, but 
nevertheless by his or her own choice. That is a choice that a person 
makes. I do not think that we should be taxing someone at this level--
it is a regressive tax--when we are not sure that the purpose is going 
to be achieved.
  So I hope my colleagues will look at this issue, step back--first of 
all, pass Senator Gramm's amendment because at least we can take the 
first step towards eliminating the marriage tax penalty--then I hope we 
will bring this bill down and start from scratch and try to put forward 
a bill that will stop teen smoking or at least put a big dent in it. I 
think we can do that with the balance that we had in the original bill 
before it got worked over by the U.S. Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Iowa is recognized to speak as in morning 
business for 6 minutes.

                          ____________________