John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I take it the Senator doesn't use the word ``coercion'' lightly. This isn't just an abortion clinic; this is a place where people were forced to go to have abortions.

Mr. ASHCROFT. There was incarceration. I am asking the Senator: If the woman refused to get an abortion, she would be hauled off to jail?

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Chinese have intimated that they can't control coercive abortion activity in remote regions. I think the testimony we have heard belies that, but the Chinese officials say this is in remote areas. Would the Senator say that China also is unable to control political discussion and political dissent, or are they pretty good at controlling political dissent and just not very good at controlling coerced abortions?

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask another question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So the Senator's amendment is not to deny a visa to someone who had an abortion or someone who has participated in an abortion clinic that wasn't a coerced abortion. You are just focused on this situation where people were intimidated, coerced, sometimes jailed, sometimes fined, sometimes actually had their homes demolished to force them to destroy an unborn child. Your amendment focuses on persons who are involved in that kind of coercive behavior to force individuals--who want to preserve the life of the child--to destroy the child. Those individuals are the ones that would be denied a visa to enter the United States by this amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield for another question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator from Arkansas feel that the way China treats its own citizens--its willingness to coerce them into having forced abortions--reflects the way they feel about human rights and the way they feel about the rights of citizens around the world? And would he care to comment on how that might reflect the rather callous view of the Chinese who are targeting American citizens with what they call city-buster nuclear weapons on their ICBMs? Does the Senator think there is a relationship between this disregard for life that is expressed in coerced abortion policy and the willingness to target peace-loving people in the United States with city-buster nuclear weapons on long-range ICBMs?

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator one more question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So she was the person who was implementing a one-child policy, which was a policy of forcing abortions for subsequent pregnancies.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. If I am not mistaken, Congressman Smith held a pretty dramatic set of hearings, and there was testimony at the hearing about forced abortions in China. Is the Senator aware of that hearing?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Did she say there were techniques used to make people get abortions, that there was intimidation? I have heard they threatened to burn houses and that they did other things that would intimidate individuals. Was that part of the testimony?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I have been asked to propound a unanimous consent, and I believe it has been agreed to by both sides. Prior to the Senator leaving the Chamber, I will do that.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer's Defense Act. Quite simply, this bill prohibits any agency from establishing a tax on the American people. Mr. President, as we all know, the United States was founded on one simple and fundamental principle--no taxation without representation. In ``The Second Treatise of Government'', John Locke said, ``if anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people . . . without . . . consent of the people, he thereby . . . subverts the end of government.'' According to Locke, consent required agreement by a majority of the people, ``either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them.'' The Declaration of Independence listed, among the despotic acts of King George, his ``imposing taxes on us without our consent.'' The Boston Tea Party remains the symbol of Americans' opposition to taxation without representation. The Constitutional authority--given only to Congress--to establish federal taxes is clear. Its reasoning also is clear. It is the Congress that represents the people. Only Congress considers and weighs every issue that rises to national importance. While federal agencies consider their own priorities to be paramount, only Congress can determine which goals merit a tax on the American people. The modern era of restricted federal budgets, however, threatens to erode the essential principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' In many subtle and often hidden ways, federal agencies are receiving from Congress the power to tax. They tax by adding unnecessary charges to legitimate government user fees. They tax through federal mandates. These taxes pass the cost of government on to the American people--without their knowledge. The worst example of administrative taxation is the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service tax. ``Universal service'' is the idea that everyone should have access to affordable telecommunications services. It originated at the beginning of the century when the first national telecommunications service was still being created. This idea was expanded in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed the FCC to extend universal service funds to provide ``discount telecommunications services'' to schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. Most importantly, the Act gave the FCC the power to decide the level of ``contributions''--taxes--that telecommunications companies would have to pay to support universal service. The FCC now determines how much must be collected in taxes that subsidize a variety of ``universal service'' spending programs. Long distance providers pass the costs on to consumers in the form of higher telephone bills. In the first half of 1998, the tax was $625 million, and the Clinton Administration's budget projects it will rise to $10 billion per year. This administrative tax is already out of control. This is possible because Congress delegated its authority to tax. The FCC is able to collect taxpayer dollars at levels it sets--without approval from Congress or the people. The FCC can defy Congress and the people because it has the power to levy taxes. Mr. President, some people thought the tax and spend liberals had left Washington. Not so. Washington interest groups who want to feed at this new federal trough already are geared up to accuse the Republic Congress of cutting funding for education and health care if any attempt is made to rein in the FCC. They will frame the issue as a matter of federal entitlements for sympathetic causes and groups. The most sympathetic group is the American taxpayer, whose money is being taken, laundered through the Washington bureaucracy, and returned for purposes set by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This is why the FCC must be required to get the approval of Congress before setting future tax rates. Should tax dollars be used for federal universal service programs and what amounts or should Americans spend what they earn on their own, real, local priorities? Requiring Congress to review any administrative taxes would answer this question. My bill would create a new section to the Congressional Review Act for mandatory review of certain agency rules. Any rule that establishes or raises a tax would have to be submitted to and receive the approval of Congress before taking effect. In essence, the Act would disable agencies from setting taxes, but would allow them to formulate proposals under existing rulemaking procedures. Once submitted to Congress, a taxing regulation would be introduced in both the House and Senate by the Majority Leader. The rule would then be subject to expedited procedures, allowing a prompt decision on whether or not to approve a rule. The rule would have to be approved by both Houses and signed by the President. Congress must not allow a federal agency--unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats--to determine the amount of taxes hardworking Americans must pay. The Taxpayers' Defense Act will require Congress to stand up and face the American people when it decides to tax. The cry of ``no taxation without representation'' has gone up in the land before, and today we are hearing it again. It is time that we respond.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer's Defense Act. Quite simply, this bill prohibits any agency from establishing a tax on the American people. Mr. President, as we all know, the United States was founded on one simple and fundamental principle--no taxation without representation. In ``The Second Treatise of Government'', John Locke said, ``if anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people . . . without . . . consent of the people, he thereby . . . subverts the end of government.'' According to Locke, consent required agreement by a majority of the people, ``either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them.'' The Declaration of Independence listed, among the despotic acts of King George, his ``imposing taxes on us without our consent.'' The Boston Tea Party remains the symbol of Americans' opposition to taxation without representation. The Constitutional authority--given only to Congress--to establish federal taxes is clear. Its reasoning also is clear. It is the Congress that represents the people. Only Congress considers and weighs every issue that rises to national importance. While federal agencies consider their own priorities to be paramount, only Congress can determine which goals merit a tax on the American people. The modern era of restricted federal budgets, however, threatens to erode the essential principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' In many subtle and often hidden ways, federal agencies are receiving from Congress the power to tax. They tax by adding unnecessary charges to legitimate government user fees. They tax through federal mandates. These taxes pass the cost of government on to the American people--without their knowledge. The worst example of administrative taxation is the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service tax. ``Universal service'' is the idea that everyone should have access to affordable telecommunications services. It originated at the beginning of the century when the first national telecommunications service was still being created. This idea was expanded in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed the FCC to extend universal service funds to provide ``discount telecommunications services'' to schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. Most importantly, the Act gave the FCC the power to decide the level of ``contributions''--taxes--that telecommunications companies would have to pay to support universal service. The FCC now determines how much must be collected in taxes that subsidize a variety of ``universal service'' spending programs. Long distance providers pass the costs on to consumers in the form of higher telephone bills. In the first half of 1998, the tax was $625 million, and the Clinton Administration's budget projects it will rise to $10 billion per year. This administrative tax is already out of control. This is possible because Congress delegated its authority to tax. The FCC is able to collect taxpayer dollars at levels it sets--without approval from Congress or the people. The FCC can defy Congress and the people because it has the power to levy taxes. Mr. President, some people thought the tax and spend liberals had left Washington. Not so. Washington interest groups who want to feed at this new federal trough already are geared up to accuse the Republic Congress of cutting funding for education and health care if any attempt is made to rein in the FCC. They will frame the issue as a matter of federal entitlements for sympathetic causes and groups. The most sympathetic group is the American taxpayer, whose money is being taken, laundered through the Washington bureaucracy, and returned for purposes set by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This is why the FCC must be required to get the approval of Congress before setting future tax rates. Should tax dollars be used for federal universal service programs and what amounts or should Americans spend what they earn on their own, real, local priorities? Requiring Congress to review any administrative taxes would answer this question. My bill would create a new section to the Congressional Review Act for mandatory review of certain agency rules. Any rule that establishes or raises a tax would have to be submitted to and receive the approval of Congress before taking effect. In essence, the Act would disable agencies from setting taxes, but would allow them to formulate proposals under existing rulemaking procedures. Once submitted to Congress, a taxing regulation would be introduced in both the House and Senate by the Majority Leader. The rule would then be subject to expedited procedures, allowing a prompt decision on whether or not to approve a rule. The rule would have to be approved by both Houses and signed by the President. Congress must not allow a federal agency--unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats--to determine the amount of taxes hardworking Americans must pay. The Taxpayers' Defense Act will require Congress to stand up and face the American people when it decides to tax. The cry of ``no taxation without representation'' has gone up in the land before, and today we are hearing it again. It is time that we respond.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is absolutely correct. The Administration's encryption policy is, in effect, a tax on American consumers. We owe it to these customers and the innovators in the software industry to reform this encryption policy now. From the birth of the United States, this country has been a world leader in innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, vision and opportunity. Today all of these American attributes are on display in our technology sector. Whether in telecommunications, or computer hardware or software, the United States has maintained a leadership position because of the opportunities afforded to people with the vision, determination and responsibility to reach for their highest and best. We must work diligently to ensure that ample opportunities are maintained in this country for our technology sector to continue to thrive and innovate. If companies are stifled and cannot compete, then the people, the ideas, the jobs, and the economic growth will simply go elsewhere.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Our technology companies need to be able to compete effectively. Without reasonable export laws our technology sector will be seriously harmed. More encryption companies will leave the country so they are free to sell their products around the globe as well as within the United States. Make no mistake, the market will not be denied. Today, robust encryption products from Canada, Japan, Germany and elsewhere are being sold on the world market. You have heard of the companies that are manufacturing and selling encryption. They are Nortel, Nippon and Seimens. These are not upstart companies. They are substantial players on the international scene, and they offer encryption products that are technically and financially competitive with those produced in the U.S.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I have been involved in the debate regarding encryption technology and privacy for more than three years now. In the course of that time I have not seen any real attempt by the White House to resolve this problem. In fact, over the course of that time the Administration has moved further from negotiation by taking increasingly extreme positions on this critical national issue.

Mr. ASHCROFT. If this issue is not resolved, and resolved soon, we will lose this industry, we will lose our leadership position in technology, and our national security will suffer. We have a choice to make as policy makers--do we allow our companies to compete internationally or do we force them, by our antiquated and ill- conceived government policy, to move overseas. We cannot simply ignore the reality that robust encryption exists in the international marketplace now. Instead, we must allow our companies to compete, and do so now. We cannot allow extraneous issues to stand in the way of remedying the deficiencies with our current approach to encryption. We must recognize that keeping the encryption industry on American shores is the best way to ensure national security. We would not think of allowing all our defense industries to move abroad. By the same token, we should not force the encryption industry abroad through outdated policies. Simply put, strong encryption means a strong economy and a strong country. This concern is just one of the many reasons we need to pass effective encryption legislation this year and just one of the reasons that Senator Leahy and I recently drafted the E-PRIVACY bill, S. 2067.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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 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. 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.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill with the Ford amendment pending regarding tobacco farmers. Following disposition of the Ford amendment, it is hoped that further amendments will be offered and debated during today's session. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible throughout today's session.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you very much.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this bill may be about tobacco and about smoking, but I think it is more about a smokescreen. Constantly, it is suggested that this is a bill which penalizes tobacco, but the tax falls upon the American people. There is a specific provision in this bill that requires that the $868 billion assessment goes to the consumer. Sixty percent of those people earn less than $30,000 a year and 44 percent earn less than $10,000 a year. This is not a hit on the tobacco companies for that money. There is a requirement in the bill that the money be collected from these hard- working, low-income Americans. This is a massive tax on low-income Americans, and it is used to proliferate the bureaucracy of this Government--17 new boards, commissions, and agencies, and hundreds of new functions and responsibilities. It is time for us to say no. When it comes to a habit that needs to be broken, the tax-and-spend habit of the U.S. Congress must be broken. Here it is time for Congress to break the habit. That $868 billion in new taxes that will be focused upon hard- working Americans to fund Government programs, including a $350 million annual disbursement to foreign countries to conduct studies of smoking, is not what the American people expect. This is tax and spend. This is Government bureaucracy. It is time for us to stop and give the American people tax relief instead of the kind of burden that this bill imposes. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the economist Milton Friedman once wrote: `Underlying most arguments against a free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.' Demonstrating its belief in freedom the 104th Congress passed the pro-competition Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Hudson Institute has recently released a study of the cable industry since the new law has taken effect. The study has found what those of us that believe in a free market have always known: consumers reap the benefits of open competition. I submit it for the Record a copy of the executive summary for review. It is a pleasure to deliver further affirmation of the free market system. The material follows: Executive Summary--The Role of Competition and Regulation in Today's Cable TV Market In late 1997 and early 1998, concerns have been raised among regulators, members of Congress, and consumer groups regarding cable television rates. This study analyzes the rationale for new efforts by the FCC to limit rates or impose other regulations on the cable television industry in response to such concerns. It examines the historical record of cable regulation, takes a new look at the state of competition for multichannel video programming, reviews the important capital investment in new digital services by the industry, and assesses the possible impact of new price controls on competition in the wider telecommunications market, including Internet access, telephony, and video programming. The study finds that, despite current market share of around 85.6 percent (falling to around 75 percent by 2002); dynamic services offered by Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), broadcast television, and other multichannel video delivery systems provide substantial and growing competition for cable television. More than 65 percent of households can receive six or more broadcast channels with a suitable antenna. For many households, DBS offers greater levels of service at prices comparable to, or lower than, cable's. DBS appears to provide a good substitute for cable even after accounting for up-front equipment costs. Competing cable systems (overbuilds and Satellite Master Antenna TV) have become cost-effective and are growing rapidly, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. The study also finds that past cable regulation, especially rate controls, provided little or no benefit to consumers, and in fact harmed consumers by inducing lower quality of service. On the other hand, periods of less regulation, such as the years between 1984 and 1990, stimulated production of greater quality and wider choice of programming for consumers, produced steady increases in demand for cable, and produced net consumer welfare gains of $3 billion to $6.5 billion per year. Finally, the evidence shows that the cable industry is in the midst of investing up to $28 billion to improve its infrastructure, including over $1 billion per year to convert to interactive digital services. The entry of cable firms into new businesses such as telephony, Internet, and digital video is improving consumer choice and reducing prices for these services, especially to residential customers; spurring a competitive response from the telephone industry to upgrade its data transmission capabilities; and giving a boost to the introduction of digital television and to competition in the Internet business. An imposition of rate controls similar to those of 1993 and 1994 would undermine the financial basis for the cable industry to enter these new businesses in the near term, and hence weaken competition in the wider telecommunications market place.