[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6433-S6435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE SO-CALLED TOBACCO BILL

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today will be a defining day in 
Washington, DC. It will be a defining day in the Congress of the United 
States. More specifically, it will be a defining day in the U.S. 
Senate.
  This is a day on which we will make very important decisions, 
decisions that will reflect whether or not we believe that government--
invasive, bigger, stronger, more consumptive government--is something 
to be fostered and encouraged, or we are going to say that we believe 
the people have the ability to make good decisions on their own and 
that we will not promote a government which will take more and more 
from the people, leaving them with less and less, not only in terms of 
resources but leaving them with less and less freedom.
  We are going to be talking about the so-called tobacco bill today, 
which unfortunately is more of a smokescreen for a tax increase and big 
government than it is anything else.
  The Democrats have rightly suggested, have appropriately stated, that 
the fate of this bill really rests in the hands of Republicans. And I 
believe that those of us who are on the Republican side of this Senate 
will make decisions, and we will either decide to pass this massive tax 
increase, to pass and institute this set of bureaucracies, the scale of 
which has not been seen in a long time in a bill in Washington, DC--we 
will either decide to pass an invasive sort of intermeddling by the 
Federal Government in a wide variety of the affairs of individuals, or 
we will decide that we believe that the appropriate action is not to 
tax the American people with another $868 billion in tax, is not to 
create 17 new boards, commissions, and agencies to try to micromanage 
everything from convenience stores and gas stations up to grocery 
stores and larger institutions that sell merchandise.
  But the Democrats are right in suggesting that the decision will be 
made on the Republican side of the aisle. We will make a decision about 
whether or not to go forward with the tobacco bill, the smokescreen for 
the world's biggest tax increase this year. I don't know of any 
proposed tax increase this year that can match this proposed tax 
increase. And the direction we take will be a test of the way in which 
we lead, and it will be a test of the Republican leadership of the 
Senate.
  Republican leadership has a responsibility to lead to Republican 
ideals and call us to our highest and best as people, and to give us 
the opportunity to be responsible as individuals and to shrink the size 
of government, not to

[[Page S6434]]

expand it, to leave resources in the hands of the people, not sweep 
them into the coffers of government.
  Our leadership has called upon Don Nickles to manage this bill 
because the leader of the Republicans and the leader of the Senate has 
recused himself in large measure from this consideration. I thank 
Senator Nickles for his outstanding efforts in this respect. I want to 
commend him for his opposition to this kind of invasion into the lives 
and pocketbooks of Americans and invasion into the liberties of 
Americans.
  I want to commend him for his understanding that this is a bill about 
big government and big taxes, not a bill about teen smoking. I think he 
has understood from the very beginning that lots of things that might 
be done to curtail teen smoking aren't even mentioned. There is not 
even a whiff or a hint; there is not even the smoke that would follow 
the evidence of that kind of item in the bill. This is not a bill that 
makes the possession of tobacco by teens illegal, or provides 
incentives to do the same, or makes illegal the possession of tobacco 
by people in the District of Columbia.
  If we are really serious about curtailing teen smoking, we might just 
say to the teens, ``You can't have it if it is that evil and that 
inappropriate.'' We have done that with alcohol. We have provided lots 
of ways in which we provide incentives from the Federal Government for 
States and others to make sure that young people do not have access to 
alcohol. That is not a part of this bill.
  Don Nickles has understood this bill, I believe, as a massive tax 
increase, a big-government explosion, which I think is appropriate in 
terms of the identification. I want to commend him for his leadership 
here.
  There is a choice to be made in this bill, and the choice is simple: 
Is the Senate going to return to tax and spend? Is it going to identify 
itself with the history of the Congress when it was under Democratic 
control and authority that the way we handle America is to tax more and 
spend more and tax more and spend more? Are we going to extend the line 
of taxation and spending beyond where it already is?
  It is important to note where we have come. We have not just arrived 
at a place where we are taxing and spending. We have arrived at a place 
where we are now taxing and spending more than we have ever taxed and 
spent in the history of the United States of America. Governments take 
more of the income of Americans at this time in history than ever 
before. We have to ask ourselves as we look behind the smokescreen of 
this so-called tobacco bill to see what the real components are. And we 
find $868 billion--$868 billion--in new taxes. That is not million 
dollars, that is billion dollars. This is massive, three-quarters of a 
trillion dollars plus in new taxes. We have to ask ourselves, do we 
want to extend tax and spend, or do we want to decide that we don't 
believe that government, with its invasive micromanaging of the lives 
of individuals and its invasive confiscation of the resources of the 
individuals--we have to decide, do we really want that to be the way in 
which we operate?
  This is a defining moment for the Republican-controlled Senate. How 
will we respond to this question which is squarely before us today? Are 
we going to be tax-and-spend respecting government, or are we going to 
say to the American people we protect the people more than we respect 
government?
  We are not going to allow government to come and sweep out of the 
resources and freedom of American citizens the kind of resources that 
are provided for in this bill.
  I think we need to look forward to an era of lower taxes. I think we 
need to look forward to an era of smaller government. I think we need 
to look forward to an era of personal responsibility and freedom rather 
than government intervention and government spending and government 
taxes. I think we need to look forward to a time when States and 
communities make decisions and not when we have dictates and mandates 
and impositions from Washington, DC.
  This is a defining moment. This is a defining moment for us all. If 
the choice is whether or not we will discontinue consideration, set 
aside, defeat this massive tax bill, I believe that is exactly what we 
should do.
  Most Americans have an understanding of what is happening here. They 
may not have had an understanding when we first started this debate, 
and you will remember, I think, as I do, when this debate was begun, it 
was suggested that this entire thing would be just sped through the 
Senate; that we were going to bring it up the first of the week, and it 
was going to be over with by the time we left for the Memorial Day 
recess.
  I looked at the bill, and I was shocked. I said, Wait a second; $868 
billion in new taxes, 52 new powers for HHS in Title I alone, Health 
and Human Services, one Department, 52 new powers, authorities, and 
responsibilities; 178 new Federal Government powers, far-reaching 
powers, some with the ability to define and regulate literally whether 
you could sell cigarettes on the top of the counter, whether they could 
be in sight, whether they had to be out of sight. And, of course, with 
small operations like gas stations, when you have a one-room operation, 
you are just standing out there in the cold, literally in a little 
glass box. It is hard to have everything out of sight--all those kinds 
of things. It really stung me that to try and make that consideration 
in the span of a week was totally inappropriate, and I came to the 
floor only to find out that there was a plan to table my motion 
regarding taxes after less than an hour of real consideration, and it 
was supposed to be disposed of; we were going to sort of dispose of the 
financial considerations of an $868 billion tax on the American people 
in an hour. Then we were going to table it and move on to just slam 
this into a position to say that it was going to be the fate of the 
American people to accept it.
  That is when I really said to myself, I have to do something to slow 
this down so that the American people have a chance to see what this 
is.
  Real leadership is more than just reading the initial poll. The spin 
doctors of this whole tobacco settlement came in to say how this was 
really going to punish the tobacco companies. Then you got to reading 
the fine print, and you found out that there is part of this law which 
forbids the tobacco companies to make the payments themselves. They 
must, under the law, pass these charges on to the low-income families 
that use tobacco. And I say low-income families. I mean it is 
incredible; this $868 billion tax will fall primarily, massively, 
heavily on individuals who are very low income. According to the best 
authorities, 59.4 percent of this $868 billion tax will fall on people 
who make less than $30,000 a year.
  You say, Well, what is a little more tax to those people? A little 
more tax. If the family is a two-pack-a day family, it is going to 
result in something close to $1,500 a year by the time you figure out 
all the taxes.
  Now, the specific tax that is contained in the bill is $1.10 a pack, 
but the bipartisan Joint Committee on Tax put it this way: The price 
will go up from $1.98 to $3.83. Now, if it was just $1.98 plus $1.10, 
that would take it to $3.08. So what we are talking about is a far 
bigger increase in the price than just the taxes. And by the time it 
works its way through the system, the Joint Committee on Tax basically 
says that individuals will be paying $4.84 a pack as opposed to $1.98 a 
pack. So we are talking about what is just almost a $3 increase per 
pack. Now, two packs a day is 700 packs a year, roughly, for the 
family--700 times 3. By the end of this program, we are talking about 
over a $2,000 tax per year on a two-pack-a-day family. That is 
substantial.

  Now, who does this fall on? People making less than $30,000 a year. 
What does this do to their children? What does this do to them? These 
people are addicted. The whole idea is predicated on addiction. You get 
this kind of price increase, and you get this kind of revenue only if 
people are not sensitive to the price, only if they can't quit, only if 
they maintain their habit. You can't project $868 billion in revenue if 
you think people are going to quit. So here you have these low-income 
individuals maybe having as much as $3 per pack by the year 2007, 
according to the Joint Committee on Tax, $3 per pack extra to pay. That 
is $1,500 to $2,000 more taken out of the budget of that family, and 
these are people, 60 percent of them, who earn less than $30,000 a 
year.

[[Page S6435]]

  And the most repugnant of the figures that they provide is that 44\1/
2\ percent of the people paying this tax will earn less than $10,000 a 
year. This is a tax to fall upon those who are least capable of paying.
  When Ronald Reagan was President, he was known to attract to the 
Republican side of the equation individuals called Reagan Democrats, 
hard-working people who wanted to help their families, individuals who 
worked in trades or worked as laborers, who just worked hard. They 
worked and they earned less than $30,000 a year, but they had values. 
They wanted to take care of their families. They wanted to be able to 
provide for them. And here is the question: Today is a defining moment 
for the Republican Party. Is the Republican Party going to say to those 
kinds of individuals, if you made a choice to smoke at some time in 
your life and now you are addicted, we are going to tax you so that it 
is going to be virtually impossible for you to have the kind of 
standard of living you previously had, and we are going to do this 
because you have been victimized by the tobacco companies. We are not 
punishing the tobacco companies. We are going to make them pass the tax 
on to you. We are going make sure the statute provides a penalty that 
you have to be the person who pays the tax.
  It is a defining moment for the Republican Party, in my view. I do 
not want the Republican Party to be defined as more taxes and more 
spending and more government and less responsibility for individuals 
and less freedom. It seems to me that there is the potential for us to 
be defined that way. We are not talking about this $868 billion tax 
increase in a vacuum. We have a Republican Senate with this bill in its 
hands as to whether or not we are going to tax people by an additional 
amount, and we are talking about this in the context of a surplus.
  It is stunning to me to think that instead of debating how we can 
return resources to the American people, we find that we are focusing 
on a bill on how to take another $868 billion from the American people. 
And it does define the Republican Party. It defines the Republican 
Senate. I think this is a day which will define us very clearly.
  Are we in favor, when faced with a $39 billion surplus, of taxing 
people with $868 billion more in taxes, to fall heavily on those who 
are least capable of paying for it, or are we in favor of saying no 
more new taxes; that we do not believe in a big tax-and-spend 
philosophy; that we are against invasive micromanaging, an 
intermeddling Federal involvement in everything; that we are in favor 
of personal freedom, personal responsibility, State and local 
government potentials, and we reject the idea that in the face of a $39 
billion surplus we have to go and add to the tax bill of the American 
people another $868 billion over the course of this legislation.
  I think we need to debate how to give people a tax break. We should 
not be debating how we are going to tax people hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds of billions, three-quarters of a trillion dollars more 
than we have already taxed them.
  People talk about the addictive quality of nicotine. I think tax and 
spend in the Congress is more addicting than nicotine. I think the 
clear question the American people are going to ask this Senate, they 
are going to ask the Republicans in the Senate: Did you break the 
habit? Did you break the tax-and-spend addiction of Government? Did you 
come to respect people or to protect the bureaucracy? Did you come to 
say that we are going to let people continue to have freedom, we are 
going to ask them to be responsible, we are going to let them have 
their resources and spend their resources on their families? Or did you 
come to say the Government is so capable, in Washington, that it is 
going to sweep these resources out of the pockets of Americans?

  We simply cannot have the largest proposed increase in Government 
since the Clinton national health care plan--17 new boards, agencies, 
commissions. Here are some of the things that are going to happen: Mr. 
President, $350 million a year is going to be taken from these 
Americans, hard-working, low-income Americans--$350 million. That 
averages $7 million per State; large States, small States. It is going 
to be swept out of their pockets and gone for what?
  Mr. President, $350 million a year goes to foreign governments 
overseas so they can conduct studies on what it costs to smoke 
overseas. I cannot believe the Republican Party wants to be identified 
with that kind of expropriation. We take the money out of the pockets 
of Republicans and Democrats--Americans, low-income workers, and we 
send it overseas so they can conduct studies about smoking.
  This bill contains a special provision that relates to smoking in the 
Native American population. If you figure reasonable rates of smoking 
for them, it is $18,000 per Native American that we are going to spend 
in this program. It does not make sense, to be taking money from low-
income Americans in order to do that.
  These are just examples of the way this is a lavish bill, of spend 
and spend and more government and more government. It is only possible 
if you tax and tax $868 billion for 178 new Federal Government powers.
  It is time for Congress to do what we know to be right, what we know 
to be true, what we know to be noble; that is, to respect the American 
people, not protect the Government bureaucracy. The majority leader has 
called this bill too complicated and too expensive. I call upon the 
majority leader to lead the American people to the right conclusion by 
leading the Republican Senate to the right identification with the 
people against big government rather than with the bureaucracy and 
against the people. We should pull this bill off the Senate floor. It 
is a massive tax-and-spend bill. Perhaps more addictive than nicotine 
is the urge of Government to tax and spend and regulate. It is time for 
us to break the habit.
  I call upon our leadership to lead, to lead us to do that which is 
right for the American people. Mr. President, $868 billion in new taxes 
are not going to help American families. They are going to distress a 
number of families to the extent that they lose their independence and 
their capacity to provide for themselves. If we end up making wards of 
the State and Federal Government of more low-income families in 
America, we will have done this Nation a massive disservice. It is time 
for us to set aside the smokescreen, to identify this bill as tax and 
spend, and for us to reject it thoroughly.
  I call upon our leadership to lead us in that respect.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Hawaii is recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 2181 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________