John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the Leadership Training Institute (LTI), a summer camp being held in Bolivar, Missouri this week. LTI is challenging America's youth to reach for personal excellence and to lead their generation to an ever higher standard of morality and achievement than the generation before them. The United States has seen success because individuals have the opportunity to set standards that define their highest and best. Leaders have the opportunity to be both ``intensive'' and ``extensive.'' Intensive leadership is influencing towards excellence those that are closest to you--your family and friends. Extensive leadership is reaching beyond to your community, culture, and even the world. My hope for today's youth--and those participating in this week's leadership training--is that they will take the opportunity to be leaders close to home and beyond. Programs that guide youth in setting the highest standards for their lives are essential to the continuity of morality in our culture and the setting of our sights on the noble. God has given principles which turn our eyes from the temporal, the physical, and the menial to the eternal, the spiritual, and the noble. The Leadership Training Institute is headquartered in Arkansas and its staff and participants come from many communities across America, including from my home state of Missouri. LTI is committed to training youth in the virtues which leaders such as Thomas Jefferson considered to constitute the moral fabric of our society: ``With a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence; we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' LTI educates youth in the lessons of our Nation's founders --their experiences, wisdom, and legacies. Youth learn that good leaders are people of faith as well as people of science. This training in American heritage and ingenuity prepares today's youth to set an excellent example in their homes, schools, communities, and government. I am proud to see the staff and supporters of the Leadership Training Institute challenging America's youth to lead by personal standards of excellence. Hopefully, the participants of the program this week in Bolivar, Missouri, will set goals to become the leaders that remind us of all that is good in our country by advancing those values in their own lives.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on many occasions, I have come to the Senate floor to talk about the importance of parental control and involvement in a child's education. Study after study has confirmed that parental involvement is the single most important element in educational achievement. One way to allow parents more control over and involvement in their children's education is to give them more choices of where to send their children to school. Choice empowers parents. It puts them in the driver's seat instead of the nickel seats. I believe we want parents in those front seats. Education is an important tool that our children need in order to survive and be successful in our society. It is sad to realize that for too many children in too many families, a safe, structured and challenging education is out of reach. The public schools in many of our major cities simply cannot or do not provide adequate education, while a private or parochial education is too costly for most families of modest means. On the other hand, it is encouraging when individuals in our society step forward to provide the means for better educational opportunities for our nation's underprivileged children. When those in the private sector, through their charitable giving, open the door for kids to receive a high quality education, those individuals are to be commended. I am pleased to say that last week, two very generous and compassionate Americans gave new hope to thousands of families across the country who want the same thing all of us want--the best possible education for their children. Ted Forstmann and John Walton are businessmen, entrepreneurs and philanthropists. On June 9, they launched the Children's Scholarship Fund, which will provide scholarships to bright and deserving children from low-income families across the nation to help their parents send them to any private or parochial school they're academically qualified to attend--from kindergarten right through high school. Thanks to these individuals, new educational opportunities will now be available to thousands of youngsters that were not available before. These two civic-minded Americans have given the fund quite a start, with an initial contribution of $100 million dollars. Over the summer, they will select cities to become partners with the fund, lining up donors in each city to match their initial generosity. That will allow this new and exciting program to distribute more than $200 million in scholarships in more than a dozen cities, with each scholarship being an opportunity for a child to prepare for a better and brighter future. This national program is modeled after--and really inspired by--an effort Mr. Forstmann and Mr. Walton launched here in the city of Washington, D.C. earlier this year. Together they donated $6 million to the Washington Scholarship Fund, which recently awarded scholarships to more than 1,000 students from the troubled District of Columbia public schools. Washington is one of about thirty privately-funded scholarship programs in the country. The fact that there are so many of these programs speaks volumes, I think, about the state of the public schools in many of our cities. I mention the Washington program because I think it's a good example of what the national effort is all about. First, the Washington Scholarship Fund is locally-based and locally-run. Mr. Forstmann is right when he insists that each program must have strong involvement from local officials, community leaders, local businesses and anyone else who wants to help kids obtain the best education. I have always believed that local neighborhoods and communities are in the best position to create solutions to meet the specific needs of individuals in their communities. The Children's Scholarship Fund is already in contact with more than 300 mayors from all around the country. This is the first step in selecting partners who know what's needed in their community and who will support this program financially and with their hard work. But perhaps more important than the scholarships themselves is what they represent. it's important--and maybe even a bit sad--to note that more than seventy-five hundred families here in the Nation's Capitol applied for those 1,000 scholarships. It took a lottery to give them out. Mr. Forstmann has said he never dreamed the demand would be so overwhelming. Who are these families? They're families whose children are trapped in public school systems that offer them no choices. If students only have one choice of where to attend school, they are locked into that school and don't have the capacity to say I am going to do better, I will go elsewhere. On the other hand, when students have more choices of where to attend school, they will have the ability to receive a higher quality, more rigorous education. The Children's Scholarship Fund provides children and their families with more educational choice. I believe that providing more educational choices for families can even help our nation's public schools, because they will understand they are no longer the exclusive provider of education in their community. They will have to start becoming the creative supplier of what it is that students need. When you have diversity and pluralism in a school system by providing more choices for students, this creates energy, creativity, and quality when institutions know that they have to do their best for to compete for students. I commend Mr. Forstmann and Mr. Walton for providing the opportunity for our nation's children to have greater choices of where to receive their education, giving them the chance to learn as much as their minds and hard work will allow. Education is an investment in future citizens, future leaders, the future work force of America. Ted Forstmann and John Walton have made a profound investment in the nation's future, one that is worthy of our admiration and gratitude.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize a company that truly reflects the spirit, goals and achievements of a true ``American success story'' as hailed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Today, Harley-Davidson Motor Company is an even more outstanding example of American ingenuity and performance. They have seen record earnings 31 of the last 32 quarters--a prime example of their strength as a business. They have seen 32 consecutive quarters of record sales--clearly demonstrating the loyalty of their consumer base. Harley-Davidson produces its entire line of the very popular Sportster motorcycle in Kansas City, Missouri. They opened the doors of this facility months ahead of schedule, and are already employing hundreds of Missourians. This is evidence of the positive path of growth and expansion of Harley-Davidson. The U.S. market share for Harley continues to grow; today it is 56 percent. Harley also has a great future in the international marketplace and the company is seeing increasing demand for its products in Europe, Japan, Australia, and other countries. Harley has long been a leader in design and safety standards. As early as 1921, Harley-Davidson bikes incorporated advancements that are still in use today. Twenty years later, during World War II, Harley devoted its entire output of motorcycles to the war effort earned the coveted Army-Navy ``E'' award for excellence in wartime production. In many ways, Harley-Davidson has freed generations of American rider to enjoy this country by motorcycle. As Harley-Davidson approaches its hallmark 95th anniversary as a producer of quality American goods, I want to be among the first of the long list of well wishers to say, ``Happy Anniversary, Harley! You're still `king of the road!''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hatch in introducing the Judicial Improvement Act of 1998. Many of the provisions of this bill stem from a series of hearings I held in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights last summer addressing the problem of judicial activism. The hearings focused on the problem of judicial activism and its impact. The Subcommittee heard testimony from a variety of individuals, from constitutional scholars to victims of activist judicial orders. The final hearing of the series focused on potential solutions to the problem of activism. That final hearing canvassed potential solutions ranging from proposed constitutional amendments, to increased public education efforts about the problem of judicial activism, to proposed statutory solutions. The hearings convinced me that, at a minimum, we needed to provide some procedural mechanisms to make it more difficult for any single judge to issue an activist order and to make it easier for litigants to force the reconsideration of activist orders. Since the close of the hearings, I have been working with others on the Judiciary Committee to fashion legislation that would accomplish these goals. Last fall, I circulated draft language concerning the three legislative proposals that remain my top priorities in this area--requiring a three-judge panel before a federal court can strike down a state initiative or an act of Congress as unconstitutional, expanding provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to cover other local and state institutions, and codifying a flat prohibition on federal court orders directly increasing taxes. With the help of Chairman Hatch, Senator Abraham and others on the Committee, we have added many additional provisions and drafted a comprehensive bill aimed at improving the federal judiciary. Although I would not have included every provision in the bill had I introduced my own bill, the bill reflects the collective work of the Committee and would substantially improve the workings of the federal judiciary. Let me take a few moments to discuss the provisions that are critical to addressing the problem of judicial activism. First and foremost, the bill addresses the problem of having a single federal judge strike down a state referendum as unconstitutional. Nothing highlights the undemocratic power of a federal judge more strikingly than when a single unelected federal judge invalidates a law passed by the general public through the initiative process. Even the Ninth Circuit, the epicenter of judicial activism in America, has acknowledged the strain that a single judge's nullification of an initiative places on our political system. As the court recently noted in an opinion reversing such a single-judge nullification: ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' The Coalition for Economic Equality v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir.), (cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 397 (1997). The three-judge panel ameliorates this problem by requiring that a three-judge panel be convened, and a majority of the panel agree, before a state initiative can be enjoined. The provision then addresses the problem of the popular will being preliminarily enjoined for long periods of time before a final appealable decision is issued by providing for an expedited review of the injunction. The three-judge panel provision recognizes that there may be situations in which state initiatives run afoul of the Constitution and courts may need to declare them unconstitutional. But the bill also recognized that when a federal court takes such an action, it can cause considerable frustration and friction. The bill attempts to minimize such friction by ensuring that a federal court complies with a number of safeguards before taking such a drastic action. A second key provision in the bill extends some of the protections included in the Prison Litigation Reform Act to other state and local government institutions. During the hearings, I heard over and over about the frustration of state and local officials who are saddled with consent decrees entered into decades ago that allow unelected federal judges--rather than elected local officials--to run local institutions. The bill addresses this problem by requiring the periodic reconsideration of such consent decrees or structural injunctions to ensure that they remain necessary to remedy a constitutional violation. Once again, the bill recognizes that our federal Constitution and federal system of government may require federal courts to issue injunctions covering state and local institutions, but also acknowledges that such sweeping injunctions create friction with local officials. The best way to limit such friction is to provide a mechanism to ensure that the injunctions remain necessary to remedy a constitutional violation. This bill does that. Another key provision of particular importance to my constituents back in Missouri is the flat prohibition on federal court orders directly raising or imposing taxes. The people of Kansas City have suffered through the activism of federal District Judge Russell Clark, including his order directly ordering local authorities to increase taxes. This provision directly attacks such judicial tyranny. Importantly, however, the bill leave the federal court's power to order remedies that may lead a local or state government to raise taxes. But the ultimate decision of whether to raise taxes, raise revenue through other means or cut spending remains that the local authorities. A final point should be made about all three of these provisions: they apply only to federal courts. The procedures and remedial authority of state courts remain unaffected. During the Subcommittee hearings a number of people offered suggestions to make the federal courts more directly responsive to the people. In attempting to improve the federal courts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that under our federal system we have both federal courts and state courts of general jurisdiction which are fully capable of hearing federal claims. State courts, moreover, are much more responsible to the people--in the majority of States they are subject to direct elections or retention elections. This bill recognizes the comparative advantages of these two court systems and tries to limit the availability of those remedies that are the most intrusive in the courts that are least responsible to the people. If people are really convinced that courts must levy taxes and run state and local institutions in perpetuity (and I, for one, am not convinced such measures are every necessary), then at least the courts that do so should be relatively responsive state courts, rather than unelected, life-tenured federal judges. Before I close, let me mention a few other provisions of the bill that are of particular importance to me. First, the bill contains a provision that makes it clear that the same standards for judging the admissibility of confessions that Congress created for federal criminal trials should also apply when federal courts engage in collateral review of state and federal convictions. This provision reinforces that the touchstone for admissibility should be the voluntariness of the confession and that a technical violation should not free a convicted prisoner on collateral review. Second, the bill includes a provision similar to one in legislation introduced by Senator Specter, which I have co-sponsored, which prevents a federal court from barring local authorities for ordering a retrial of a convicted authority. The traditional remedy in a habeas proceeding is release from custody. Taking the further step of barring retrial goes beyond the traditional office of the writ and is an affront to state courts and prosecutors. Finally, the bill appropriately limits the practice of releasing prisoners early as a judicial remedy. Perhaps, the most poignant testimony in the Subcommittee hearings concerned family whose son, Danny Boyle, was killed by an arrested felon, who but for a prison release order would have been behind bars. Danny was a promising young police officer whose life and career were cut short--a victim of judicial activism. I am committed to working to ensure that another family does not have to come before a future Subcommittee hearing with similar testimony about a son or daughter. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Abraham for working with me to get these provisions included in the bill. I look forward to working with them to ensure that this bill moves forward and that we take these modest steps to improve the federal judiciary.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly against restraining the debate by invoking cloture here. There are too many outstanding issues to invoke cloture and to amend or stop the debate and amendment process. I rise today to oppose invoking cloture on the tobacco bill. A vote to invoke cloture, a vote to cut off debate on this massive legislation, is a vote in favor of a massive tax increase. It is a vote against tax relief, a vote against fighting illegal drug use in this country. I doubt whether those who are not keenly familiar with the procedures of the Senate would understand that when you invoke cloture, you limit amendments, and if you invoke cloture at this time--if we were to vote to invoke cloture today, we would basically be saying that we could not include in this bill any antidrug measures, we could not include in this bill any tax relief. I think it is clear that the American people are beginning to learn what this bill is about. The American people are beginning to understand what $868 billion in new taxes really means. They are beginning to understand that there are boards and commissions and new iterations of the Federal Government, of the National Government, dictating activity in this bill, and it is time for us to continue the debate. The American people are beginning to learn that there is foreign aid in this bill, that there is $350 million a year in foreign aid just to provide for studies in foreign countries of the impact of smoking in those countries. This legislation is almost 500 pages long. It is quite possibly an attempt at the largest expansion of government since the ill-fated Health Security Act, President Clinton's attempt to take over one- seventh of the U.S. economy in the health care measure. And, while we have spent several weeks on this bill, we have not begun to scratch the surface of this 480-page bill. As I believe others who will be coming to the floor will show, you will find a bill like this is very complex. As I mentioned, the kinds of foreign aid measures, the kinds of things virtually unrelated to any benefit people in this United States could expect to receive from this bill are tucked into the nooks and crannies of this bill. It is no wonder people do not want further amendments. It is no wonder they want to curtail debate. But I think it is time we continue to have debate. We have spent several weeks on this bill. We have not begun to scratch the surface. There are issues that we have discussed but haven't voted on and issues that have yet to have a full and fair debate. On Friday, over 100 amendments were filed to this bill. More than 30 Members of this body have filed amendments to this bill. We should not curtail the discussion of this bill by invoking cloture. Many important issues will not be addressed if cloture is invoked. If cloture is invoked, many of those amendments--the antidrug amendment and the tax cut amendments--would be ruled nongermane and would not be allowed to be considered. Some say this is legislation that is dead or dying and cloture is needed to salvage this legislation. That is the mindset of people who are afraid that the details of the legislation will be exposed to the American people and, as a result, the American people will no longer support the measure. That is the mindset of people who are afraid the American people will learn that this bill in fact contains a massive tax increase, $868 billion, and it is focused, 60 percent of it, on people who earn less than $30,000 a year. The American people have a right to know what is in this bill, and we have only begun educating the American people about the bill and debating the important issues. We have had only 5 votes on amendments to this legislation, 3 motions to table that were agreed to and 2 that were not--a bill of almost 500 pages and only 5 votes so far. We have not even begun to discuss the controversial provisions regarding tobacco farmers. We have just begun to talk more about the serious problem of illegal drug use by teenagers and the fact that most parents are far more concerned about that than they are about smoking. We have yet to vote on any amendment to provide relief from the discriminatory marriage penalty. I know there are several Senators who have amendments to address this tax penalty, including the minority leader, who has expressed that. Of course, I have a measure in this respect, as does the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico. But this cloture motion would put an end to these discussions. I ask my friends who filed this motion, what are they afraid of? Why won't they allow full and fair debate on this bill? What are they afraid of, that the American people will find out that is included in this legislation? I believe if we are going to raise the kind of taxes that are included in this bill, we need to have a complete and open debate. Unfortunately, some from the beginning have tried to hide the tax increase. The Commerce Committee--I was a member of the committee, but I was the only one to vote against this bill--simply refused to call this a tax; instead, they called it a penalty on the tobacco companies, but put in the bill a requirement that the tobacco companies would pass it on to the American people. Thankfully, what we call something will not change its real character. If it is a tax, it is a tax, whether we call it that or not. The Finance Committee at least had the integrity to say it was a tax and that this is a massive tax increase on the American people. The fact that the bill requires this to be paid by the American people, by consumers, not the tobacco companies, is something the American people deserve to know. This is a bill that is designed, at least in the minds of many people, to somehow punish the tobacco companies. But there is a mandate in the legislation that requires that the tax be passed through to the consumer. Tobacco companies will be fined if they don't pass the price increase on to the addicted consumers, and of course this tax does fall most heavily on those who are least able to pay it, those earning less than $30,000 a year. Using data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, this tobacco legislation will be an annual $382 million tax increase on individuals in my home State--a $382 million tax increase on Missourians. That is more than $3 million per county in my State. Roughly $227 million of that amount would be paid by individuals in households of less than $30,000. It is clear we should not invoke cloture. Invoking cloture would curtail the availability of amendments relating to drug use. It would curtail the availability of amendments relating to tax relief. In the face of a tax measure which potentially would add $860-plus billion to the tax responsibilities of the people of this country, I believe we should maintain our ability to talk about tax relief in the same legislation. With that in mind, I oppose the invoking of cloture here. I think it is bad judgment. It curtails discussion unnecessarily and unduly. It would provide for the masking of the real character of this legislation from the American people when the American people have every right to know and learn about the full nature of this measure. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in regard to the effort to restrict debate on this bill.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in America today, a great debate--a great division--exists over the issue of abortion. For some, abortion is about the so-called ``right to choose.'' For others, it is ultimately about control. For me, it is about something completely different. It is about life. Abortion is, at its core, about the destruction of an innocent human life; a life that is unique in the history of the world--formed and shaped in the image of God; a life that has never been and will never be again. ``Abortion,'' said the late Mother Teresa, ``is the great destroyer.'' And so it is. More than thirty-five million lives have been lost in the terrible years since Roe versus Wade became the law of the land. It is a tragedy unmatched in modern times. For mother, for father, for child, abortion is never a real resolution. It is but a temporary answer that inflicts a permanent pain. It is a wound that does not heal; a wound, alas, that cannot heal. Senator Smith and I come to the floor this morning to stand against abortion and to stand for life. For we believe that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution protect every person's ``life.'' The protection designed by James Madison and adopted by the People is universal in scope. Its protection is unequivocal. It admits of no exception. ``No Person shall . . . be deprived of life.'' As this is the Constitution's ``plain meaning,'' I believe our proposed Human Life Act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while I support a statutory approach, I would, as I said before Senator East's Judiciary Subcommittee in 1981, go farther. For I also believe it necessary to amend the United States Constitution to restore its original meaning. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's efforts to create an abortion jurisprudence from whole cloth demonstrate the difficulty of deviating from the view that life begins at conception. Every judicial effort to establish a time when constitutional protections magically kick in has been undermined by medical reality. Earlier this year, I held a Constitution Subcommittee hearing to mark a profoundly sad occasion--the 25th anniversary of Roe versus Wade. At that hearing, we heard testimony about the relentless progress of medical technology in pushing forward the date of viability. More recently, we have learned how judges in striking down bans on partial birth abortions have undermined birth as a clear line for when the constitutional protection for life begins--effectively legalizing infanticide. Clearly, the Supreme Court, unguided by any constitutional text, has written themselves into a position that is legally, medically and morally incoherent. The experience of the past twenty-five years confirms the desperate need for the legislation and the proposed amendment we introduce today. In thinking about this morning, I was reminded of my first run for Congress. I supported a Human Life Amendment in 1972--fully a year before Roe versus Wade was handed down. In 1981, as Missouri Attorney General, I argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the unborn in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. As Governor, I signed the pro-life law which became the basis for the Webster decision. And so, like Senator Smith and Senator Helms, I am not a newcomer to this debate. But I stand before the Senate this morning not to discuss my past, but to talk about our future--about the kind of America we want to have in the next century. Abortion makes a statement not only about the life of the unborn child, it makes a statement about the life it leaves behind. Sadly, it sends a message that life is expendable: life that is too young, too old, ailing, or tenuous. It says, ``You are worthless.'' It says, ``You are not important.'' To all who might hear my voice, I say, ``That is not the kind of statement America wants to make.'' It is not the message American wants to send. It is not the kind of America we want to be. Recall Deuteronomy, ``I have set before thee this day, life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.'' That both thou and thy seed may live, Mr. President. For an America that can be again--America the beautiful.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in America today, a great debate--a great division--exists over the issue of abortion. For some, abortion is about the so-called ``right to choose.'' For others, it is ultimately about control. For me, it is about something completely different. It is about life. Abortion is, at its core, about the destruction of an innocent human life; a life that is unique in the history of the world--formed and shaped in the image of God; a life that has never been and will never be again. ``Abortion,'' said the late Mother Teresa, ``is the great destroyer.'' And so it is. More than thirty-five million lives have been lost in the terrible years since Roe versus Wade became the law of the land. It is a tragedy unmatched in modern times. For mother, for father, for child, abortion is never a real resolution. It is but a temporary answer that inflicts a permanent pain. It is a wound that does not heal; a wound, alas, that cannot heal. Senator Smith and I come to the floor this morning to stand against abortion and to stand for life. For we believe that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution protect every person's ``life.'' The protection designed by James Madison and adopted by the People is universal in scope. Its protection is unequivocal. It admits of no exception. ``No Person shall . . . be deprived of life.'' As this is the Constitution's ``plain meaning,'' I believe our proposed Human Life Act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while I support a statutory approach, I would, as I said before Senator East's Judiciary Subcommittee in 1981, go farther. For I also believe it necessary to amend the United States Constitution to restore its original meaning. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's efforts to create an abortion jurisprudence from whole cloth demonstrate the difficulty of deviating from the view that life begins at conception. Every judicial effort to establish a time when constitutional protections magically kick in has been undermined by medical reality. Earlier this year, I held a Constitution Subcommittee hearing to mark a profoundly sad occasion--the 25th anniversary of Roe versus Wade. At that hearing, we heard testimony about the relentless progress of medical technology in pushing forward the date of viability. More recently, we have learned how judges in striking down bans on partial birth abortions have undermined birth as a clear line for when the constitutional protection for life begins--effectively legalizing infanticide. Clearly, the Supreme Court, unguided by any constitutional text, has written themselves into a position that is legally, medically and morally incoherent. The experience of the past twenty-five years confirms the desperate need for the legislation and the proposed amendment we introduce today. In thinking about this morning, I was reminded of my first run for Congress. I supported a Human Life Amendment in 1972--fully a year before Roe versus Wade was handed down. In 1981, as Missouri Attorney General, I argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the unborn in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. As Governor, I signed the pro-life law which became the basis for the Webster decision. And so, like Senator Smith and Senator Helms, I am not a newcomer to this debate. But I stand before the Senate this morning not to discuss my past, but to talk about our future--about the kind of America we want to have in the next century. Abortion makes a statement not only about the life of the unborn child, it makes a statement about the life it leaves behind. Sadly, it sends a message that life is expendable: life that is too young, too old, ailing, or tenuous. It says, ``You are worthless.'' It says, ``You are not important.'' To all who might hear my voice, I say, ``That is not the kind of statement America wants to make.'' It is not the message American wants to send. It is not the kind of America we want to be. Recall Deuteronomy, ``I have set before thee this day, life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.'' That both thou and thy seed may live, Mr. President. For an America that can be again--America the beautiful.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate regarding the so-called tobacco settlement. My understanding of this bill does not comport with the understanding that has been recently voiced on this floor by the Senator from Massachusetts. It appears to me this bill, which is a very comprehensive bill, the dimensions of which are so substantial that they deserve clear inspection--we are talking about a major piece of legislation, a tobacco bill which includes this kind of specificity. We are talking about a bill that has 17 new boards and commissions. We are talking about a bill that would add taxes of about $885 billion at the maximum over the course and life of the bill to the budgets of Americans. These aren't costs that go to the tobacco company. These will be additional costs to the people. I question whether or not this kind of bill deserves the full examination and the full discussion of this Senate; that is a serious question. I have a suspicion that some individuals want to curtail debate on this bill because the bill is finally being seen. There is a dawning. The light of day is beginning to shine on this bill. The American people are seeing that 98 percent of the people are being taxed, while only 2 percent of the teens smoke. The 98 percent of the people that are being taxed are having their costs go up astronomically. Not only are they having their costs go up astronomically, they are having their costs go up on an assumption that if you raise the cost of cigarettes by 10 percent, you get a 7-percent decrease in the amount of utilization by young people. That is an assumption that the studies do not bear out. As a matter of fact, the most recent studies indicate that an increased cost of cigarettes will not curtail young people from smoking. It is simply not the case. At best, the studies are inconclusive. At worse, they show that there is little correlation between a price increase and reduction in youth smoking. Let me give you some statistics about this. The Cornell study was a study that followed 13,000 children for 4 years. This was not something that was cooked up and done in response to the tobacco industry, or someone like that. It was done at Cornell University, and it was a National Cancer Institute-funded study, so that the funding for this study is credible funding. Here is what the study found: . . . little evidence that taxes reduce smoking onset between 8th and 12th grade. So in that critical exposure period between 8th and 12th grade in school, there is very little evidence that increased taxes would reduce the kind of growth in the numbers of individuals smoking. The economists that conducted this study presented their results on the relationship between higher tobacco taxes and youth smoking to the American Economics Association at their annual meeting in January of 1998. This is a current study. This studied young people and the way they respond in the modern culture. It concluded that higher taxes have little effect on whether young people start to smoke. Little effect. Here is what the study concluded: Taxes are not as salient to youth smoking decisions as are individual characteristics and family background. In other words, whether children begin smoking doesn't relate to taxes near as much as it does to family background and characteristics of the children. This study, which followed 13,000 young people for 4 years, says: We find little evidence that taxes reduce smoking onset between 8th and 12th grades. They estimated that a $1.50 tax increase would decrease the smoking onset by only about 2 percentage points, from 21.6 percent of the 12th graders to 19.6 percent of the 12th graders. When you suggest that the change in the smoking habits would be that small--they had to conclude as follows, and I will quote from the report of Cornell University, a report funded by the National Cancer Institute, which put it this way: Our data allow us to directly examine the impact of changes in tax rates on youth smoking behavior . . . In other words, they said they had enough data to draw conclusions. . . . and our preliminary results indicate this impact is small or nonexistent. So this massive tax increase--$868 billion to a new estimate of $885 billion--on the American people, over the course of the life of this settlement, is supposed to produce some kind of a reduced incidence of youth smoking. Yet, the very best data from the latest studies, sponsored not by the tobacco people, but by the National Cancer Institute--a 4-year study--indicates that the taxes would have a small or nonexistent affect. That reveals what this bill is all about. It is about big Government. It is about big taxes. It is about new agencies. It is about an invasion of the taxpayers' pockets. It is striking to note that there is $350 million a year in this bill. And with the 50 States, that is $7 million per State. That is $7 million per State, on an average, that goes overseas to fund studies in foreign countries about how costly cigarette smoking is in those cultures. For the life of me, I can't figure out why we want to have Government bureaucracy, funded by a tax on the lower income people of the United States of America, to make it possible for Third World countries and others overseas to have studies on how costly smoking is in their culture. A number of individuals would prefer that they have it not be so costly here. The truth of the matter is that 59.4 percent of all the individuals who will be paying this tax, according to the best estimates we have, will be individuals whose income is less than $30,000 a year. So we have a massive tax bill, three-quarters of a trillion dollars, focused on the lowest income people in America, on the presumption that it will curtail smoking among young people. But the best academic research we have indicates that young people are not sensitive to price. As a matter of fact, the study conducted by Cornell University, funded by the National Cancer Institute, indicated that there is little or nonexistent impact by that kind of tax in terms of curtailing smoking by young people. This is a study done by the folks at Cornell University, which is a well-respected institution. We would expect that the National Cancer Institute would fund a study that is fairly done. It studied a lot of children, and 4 years is a long period of time. We would not expect this study to have been done in a slipshod manner. It does come to the conclusion that indicates this isn't a very productive way to try to curtail youth smoking. The economists stated the study raises doubt about the claim that tax or price increases can substantially reduce youth smoking. Well, obviously, there are very serious doubts. But there is no doubt about what this bill is about. It is about an $885 billion increase in the taxes to be focused on low-income individuals in the United States. Let me just cite another study. Economists at the University of Maryland and the University of Chicago conducted a similar study that analyzed data concerning more than 250,000 high school seniors for the period from 1977 to 1992. Now, this is a longitudinal study; you get from 1977 to 1992, so it is a 15-year-long study. This is the largest sample ever used for a study on the subject. So you have a quarter of a million students studied over a 15-year period. Here is what they found. They found the relationship between price and youth consumption is ``substantially smaller'' than suggested by previous studies. In addition, not only do we have the Cornell study on this idea that you can reduce smoking by 7 percent with a 10-percent price increase, which says that it is nonexistent or would have little impact at all, but this other study was done by the University of Maryland and the University of Chicago over a 15-year period on a quarter of a million students. It says there is a substantially smaller than previously suggested link between taxes and smoking. Many of us could just look at the circumstances that we see around us and have an idea that price isn't the primary objective or consciousness on the part of young people. When we look at young people wearing $140 tennis shoes because they have a certain logo on them, I think we can get the idea that there is something in addition to price here; there is status and statement, which are very important to young people. Price becomes irrelevant in the context of status and statement. Let's get out of the area of studies and look at what happened when price increases have been put into effect. In 1989, California raised its cigarette excise tax by 25 cents per pack, but there is no evidence that cigarette smoking declined. Now, this was an 11 percent increase of the tax. That is a major increase. If we were to see that kind of increase, we would expect there to be a decline. No evidence of a decline. As of 1994, researchers were ``unable to identify a decline in prevalence [among 16- to-18-year-olds] associated with the imposition of the excise tax.'' In Canada--and this is the most commonly cited arena cited by those who want to have this massive settlement imposed on the American people at the cost of more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars to the people. In Canada, our neighbor to the north, the federal government increased cigarette taxes in several stages in the late 1980s and early 1990s--from $10.75 per thousand cigarettes to $24.34 in 1986 per thousand cigarettes, then to $38.77 in 1989 per thousand cigarettes, and then to $62.90 in 1991 per thousand cigarettes. So you go from $10 per thousand, or about a penny a cigarette, to 6 or 7 cents per cigarette, over the period of time. So you had an increase, at first, of a penny per cigarette, and then an increase of 6 cents per cigarette. Although it has been stated on the floor by proponents of this legislation that smoking decreased during that period, they failed to talk about the years 1991 to 1994. Here is what happened. When the tax rates were the highest in that nation's history, and when the tax rates were the highest in that nation's history during that period, smoking rates among 15- to 19- year-olds rose from 21 to 27 percent. That is a 25-percent increase-- more than a 25-percent increase in the number of teens smoking at the time when the cost of cigarettes was at the highest in history. Frankly, when the cost of cigarettes in Canada was at the highest in history, I think it is pretty clear from the testimony of others on this floor that the black market was operating the most aggressively at that time. So we are probably seriously underestimating the fact that the growth was about 25 percent in the number of teens who were smoking. If the argument that rising prices will reduce teen smoking, it stands to reason that youth smoking should increase as prices fall. If you are going to say that higher prices cause teens to stop smoking, then lower prices would probably cause teens to start smoking. However, a year and a half after significantly reducing tobacco taxes in Canada, according to the ``Survey on Smoking in Canada,'' teen smoking ``remained stable.'' What we really have from our experience of observing Canada is that teens aren't very much affected by price. That confirms what the study indicated at the University of Maryland and Chicago. It confirms what the Cornell study indicated. It confirms what happened in California. What happens, as a matter of fact, is that teens are not affected very much by price. The fact that is ignored by those who argue teen smoking declined in Canada due to the significant tax increases is that youth smoking declined in the United States by 30 percent during the same period--from 1977 to 1990--without a price increase. There are times when teen rates of smoking haven't gone up in either culture. If they were parallel in both cultures as a result of other factors, and taxes went up in one and not in another, it makes it pretty clear that the tax increase in one was irrelevant to whether or not teens smoked. Here we have a situation where we are imposing a tax on 98 percent of the cigarette consumers who are adults on the presumption that it will change the smoking habits of the 2 percent who are teenagers when the studies and the real world information simply do not bear out this as a justification for this kind of massive tax increase. In the United Kingdom, between 1988 and 1996, the per pack price of cigarettes was increased by 26 percent. Although cigarette volumes fell by 17 percent, the percentage of weekly smokers aged 11 to 16 went from 8 percent in 1988 to 13 percent in 1996. So it turns out in the United Kingdom the number of youngsters who were smoking went up, even when the number of people smoking overall went down. It went up from 8 percent to 13 percent in spite of the fact there was a 26-percent increase in the price of tobacco. The University of Chicago, and Maryland, Cornell University, a study funded by the National Cancer Institute, the experience in California, the experience in Canada, the experience in Great Britain--these are experiences which indicate to us that this is more a bill about taxes than about increasing the size of government. It is about sending the hard-earned dollars of individuals in the United States overseas to fund these studies in other countries, to provide a basis for a variety of interests in the United States being well funded; but this is not a bill which addresses the issue of teen smoking in a responsible way. The Centers for Disease Control has compiled data on brand preferences which support the conclusion that young people are not particularly price sensitive. The ``price value'' or discount segment of the cigarette market comprised 39 percent of the overall cigarette market in 1993. Yet, according to the CDC, less than 14 percent of adolescent smokers purchase generic or other ``value-priced'' brands. On the average, the people were price sensitive, but when you got to teenagers they weren't. This point was echoed by the government's lawyer defending the FDA tobacco rule, who told the U.S. district court, ``[P]rice, apparently has very little meaning to children and smoking, and, therefore, they don't smoke generic cigarettes. They go for those three big advertised brands.'' All of a sudden, we come to this place where we are going to pile on the taxes, pile them on low-income individuals. Those making less than $30,000 a year will pay nearly 60 percent of this $885 billion tax burden. And we are doing it in the face of the information of these university studies that are current, that are recent; in the face of the data from California, and data in Great Britain; and in the face of the Federal Government's lawyer arguing in the U.S. district court in the FDA tobacco case where he said, ``price apparently has very little meaning to children and smoking.'' They aren't affected by price. We have a situation where we have had cloture filed on this bill. There are those who do not want the kind of debate about price and about taxes, about the fact that the price isn't really as significant as they would like to portray on teen smoking. And if we slow this bill down enough for people to look at it carefully, they might figure out that this bill isn't what is needed at all. Certainly, most people do not think we need another three-quarters of a trillion dollars in taxes focused on the hard-working, lower-income individuals in America. This is a bill about taxes. It is a bill about money. If you look carefully at this bill, it has everything from foreign aid in it to more of the child care proposals of President Clinton. It is time, if we are going to have taxes increased, that we do something constructive with the tax increase, and we give it back to the people in terms of respecting an institution which America has long understood to be at the core of the potential for a bright future for this country. We are talking about the institution of marriage. I commend Senator Gramm who brought to the floor a proposal which would eliminate the marriage penalty on individuals who are low-income individuals, to say to them that we don't think you should have to pay higher taxes merely because you are going to be married; you are going to make the durable, lasting commitments of marriage that are likely to be the basis for strong families that are the foundation and the future of America, we don't think you should pay for that in terms of higher taxes. Both Senator Gramm and Senator Domenici have indicated they would eliminate the marriage penalty for individuals making less than $50,000 a year with some of the resources generated by this measure. Obviously, there are those who are expecting to spend those resources on more government programs and are terrified by the fact that we might think about giving the money back to the people. You have to understand this is at a time when the U.S. Government is in surplus. It is expected--even conservative estimates--that there will be a $39 billion surplus this year, nearly $60 billion in surplus next year, and we shouldn't be here debating how to spend more of the taxpayers' money. We should be here debating how to give money back. And Senators Gramm and Domenici, the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico, have come forward with a plan to reduce taxes to the extent that you end the marriage penalty and to say to people, we are not going to penalize you for having the durable, lasting commitments of marriage that become the foundation. Frankly, I am very enchanted by the idea of eliminating the marriage penalty, and this will not end the debate on the marriage penalty. I will continue to offer amendments until it is eliminated, whether this passes or not. The marriage penalty is a pernicious attack on the values and principles of America. It is time that we aligned the policy of America with the principles of the people of America. I commend the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Texas for their outstanding work, but I think this cloture motion was filed because people are beginning to understand. The idea is that, well, we filed cloture on some other matters; maybe we should file cloture on this. I think that has been suggested. I don't think that is the case. I think the people are beginning to understand this is a massive tax increase. And because it is, I think that cloture is inappropriate at this time. We have a responsibility to debate what we will do with $885 billion in revenue. I think it should be given back to the people who have paid it. With that in mind, I urge Senators to oppose in every respect the motion for cloture, to vote against it. This is a measure which deserves the light of day. It deserves the dawning of day. The American people really ought to have a chance to look carefully at it, understand it, and to see it clearly. They ought to see it in the context of what it seeks to do--tax individuals, primarily low-income individuals, at very substantial rates--and the result will be substantially more Government. The studies indicate that the impact on teen smoking as a result of that tax is very likely to be minimal, if existent at all. It is with that in mind that I think we ought to take very seriously the proposals to abolish, to take the tax out of this bill. And if we don't do that, we ought to do what we can to give back the money which is collected from the hard-working people of America. The idea that we should somehow proliferate Government in response to this situation is an idea which, when exposed to the full light of understanding, will be rejected by the American people. Certainly Washington appears to be the only city in the world where a bad decision, the decision to smoke, made by free people, becomes the basis for taxing those free people, taxing them in ways that will make it very difficult for them to provide for their families. My own view is that that is inappropriate. We should reconsider the position that is being offered here, and I believe the kind of tax relief that has been offered by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico is the kind of relief that ought to be considered in the event there are any taxes in this measure. With that in mind, I will do what I can to make sure that we have the opportunity to consider a variety of proposals which would extinguish and end the marriage penalty in our law, if there are resources being collected from the American people under the guise of a tobacco settlement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that people want to make this a bill about cessation of teen smoking. I want teens not to smoke. It puzzles me, though, that they look past the studies: Cornell University, with 13,000 students showing that price doesn't make much difference at all to them. They look past the University of Chicago and University of Maryland saying that price is way overrated. They look past the experience of Canada when price was going up dramatically, smoking was going up among young people. They look past the United Kingdom where smoking went up among teens when price was going up, and they talk about teen smoking, and yet they don't make the possession of cigarettes by teenagers illegal or inappropriate in the bill. This Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If we really were serious about saying it is wrong for youngsters to have cigarettes or to have tobacco or thought it inappropriate, we could make it illegal for them, but this bill doesn't do that. What does this bill do? This bill raises taxes. It creates new government programs. It funds the priorities of the Clinton administration. It is an $885 billion tax increase, and who pays the tax? The tax gets paid by low-income individuals. Mr. President, 59.4 percent of the individuals who will be paying this tax will be individuals who earn less than $30,000 a year. Some have said, ``Well, we should be voting on amendments.'' I agree we should. There was a unanimous consent order proposed today which provided for votes. I agreed to it. I didn't stop it. The majority leader proposed it. He proposed to have votes to lay these issues in a context where they could be dealt with, where they could be voted on, where they could be disposed of, and those on the other side of the aisle rejected it. We can't have it both ways. We can't say that this is a bill which is going to stop people from smoking and we are going to collect $885 billion when they do smoke. If they stop smoking, the money won't be there. What we all know is they are going to keep smoking; that is why the money will be there. We can't say this will help the children of poor families when we are going to make the poor families pay $1,200, $1,600 a year in taxes and take that off the table of those families and out of their budgets. We can't say we are going to stop teens from smoking when we don't even care enough to make it illegal for teens, where we have jurisdiction, to possess cigarettes. This is a tax bill. It is a massive tax bill. It is a massive government bill. It promotes government agencies not only in the United States but overseas. There is $350 million each year in this bill to send overseas, so that countries overseas can conduct studies about what it costs to smoke in other countries, not the United States of America. I think this is the kind of priority that no wonder people don't want this bill slowed down enough for the American public to see: Taxing people who make less than $30,000 a year in the United States to fund studies overseas so that they can conduct studies about what it costs to have cigarette smoking in other countries. I don't believe that is what Americans are interested in. That is not going to help young people in the United States. The Senator from Arizona says the States deserve reimbursement. He said this is hard on the States, and then he sort of bragged about how hard this is on tobacco companies. I am not worried about the States or the tobacco companies as much as I am about the people of the United States. They are the ones who deserve reimbursement, if anybody deserves reimbursement. And here we have an elevated taking by the Federal Government, another three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the life of this bill--taking from these people instead of giving to them. We come to do this at a time when the Federal Government is looking at a revenue surplus. It just seems to me that we ought to be debating how to give back the money to the people rather than taking these resources from the people. I do not object to amendments. I do not object to a UC which would allow further amendments. Very seldom do we have bills here where we get it right the first time. I think it is good to have debate on these issues. I think it is good that the studies be brought forward. It is good that the people have an opportunity to see exactly what the community has been able to decide when it has observed the facts, the reality of situations not only here but in other settings. It is with that in mind, I believe it is important to move forward with the amendments, like that of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico which would abolish the marriage penalty, to say to those families, ``We want you to be able to have the kind of right to deploy your own resources rather than have Government spend the money. And we don't think we should penalize you because you have involved yourself in the durable, lasting commitments that form the basis of the family,'' the most important institution in our culture. So it is with that in mind that I have risen to criticize this bill and to unmask it. This bill is substantial. It has more pages than the average person probably reads, more pages than the average Senator reads. And reading this bill is important. It is in here that you find out about the Federal programs that are tucked away, the mandated spending for the States. It is in here that you find out about the kind of special limitations that were to be provided to the cigarette companies in terms of their liability. If you care so much about the children, why limit the amount of money in damages that tobacco companies would have to pay in? Why provide them with a special sanctuary? It is this bill that deserves our consideration. It is in here that you find the massive tax increases and the spending on new and other programs. I believe we ought to add to this that if we are going to have taxes, we will give the taxes back by way of saying, as the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico have said in their proposal, the marriage penalty ought to be abolished for individuals making $50,000 or less. I would abolish it for all individuals. And, frankly, I am going to continue offering amendments about the way to spend the money, not to spend it through Government but to send this money back to the American people. They earned it. They should have the opportunity to spend it. The idea, ``You send it; we spend it,'' being the slogan of this place is a bad idea. It should be, ``You earned it; we returned it.'' It is not wasted on me that the cloture motion was filed when the debate on the marriage penalty got going. A lot of people don't want to unmask the policy of this country that we penalize people for being married. A lot of people don't want to debate the issue of whether we should have all these new programs or whether we should give people the money back that they earned and we took from them merely because they were married. I do not blame people for not wanting to reveal if they are against wanting to give the American people their money back, that if the American people learn we are taking their money simply because they are married, that we have the opportunity to give it back but we would rather give it back to programs here in Washington or even overseas. That is an embarrassment. It is no wonder individuals want cloture filed and feel we should shut down debate. I do not want to shut down debate, but we should move forward with tax relief for the American people, and we should be very reluctant about imposing $885 billion of new taxes in the name of programs for which it is accordingly suggested that somehow young people will not begin smoking. The idea young people start smoking at 3,000 a day--it may be true. If we can believe the studies at the University of Chicago, the University of Maryland, Cornell University, if we can believe the experience of California, Canada, the United Kingdom, the kinds of things they have talked about in these taxes here that are involved in this bill will not make a difference. The truth of the matter is, the academic studies of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, indicate that to talk about taxes making a big difference in youth smoking is overstated. And these are not studies by interest groups; these are studies by the National Cancer Institute; these are studies by the University of Maryland, the University of Chicago, Cornell University. So it is time for us to understand this debate is about taxes. It is a debate about Government--big taxes, big Government; massive taxes, massive Government. We are not even making illegal the possession of cigarettes for children in the District of Columbia. If we thought that was really important, we could add that to this bill. No; that has not been done. We just simply make it possible for Government to grow. No wonder people are uncomfortable, especially when there is a proposal that says we could allow families to grow by returning the money to families and stop penalizing them just for having the durable commitment, the lasting bond that comes when people are married and are now penalized for that in our Tax Code. This would be an opportunity, according to the plan of the Senators from New Mexico and Texas, to alleviate that. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the tobacco bill. And I wish to address the massive tax increase that is in this bill--tax increases that are targeted against the lowest income individuals in America: hard-working citizens who earn primarily less than $30,000 a year. It is a massive tax increase that is going to be used to expand the Federal Government, just when the American people continue to make it clear that they are tired of Government imposing its decisions on our daily lives. Just last week there was an announcement of a $39 billion surplus in 1998 and a $54 billion surplus in 1999. Congress should be debating how to return this money to the taxpayers. We should not be debating how to siphon more out of the pockets of working Americans. It is also possible to discuss the inevitable black market that would result from the policies in this bill, even though my colleagues and the administration continue to ignore this threat to American neighborhoods of creating a black market with the high taxes in this bill. I will also discuss the effect of a price increase on teenage smoking rates. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, I am truly concerned about teen smoking. However, I do not believe that teen smoking is the focus of this legislation. Under the guise of reducing teen smoking, proponents of this bill are willing to increase taxes on hard-working Americans by well over $800 billion. That is well over three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Under the guise of reducing teen smoking, proponents of this bill support a massive increase in the size of the Federal Government--17 new boards and commissions, which is a modest estimate. And then in response to the identification of those boards and commissions, some in support of this bill have decided to say they would take out those boards and commissions and just leave authority for agencies to create within themselves the capacity to do what the boards and commissions were designed to do. Instead of having boards and commissions that are accountable and identifiable, you have stealth boards and commissions that are hidden in the agencies. I don't think making them indistinguishable is a way to say that government isn't growing. Proponents of this bill claim it is necessary to curb teen smoking. What this bill is necessary for is to feed the tax-and-spend habit of individuals in Washington. Although Congress has the authority, we do not even make it illegal for minors to possess or use tobacco in the District of Columbia in this bill. We only have rules regarding the point of sale. Even then, we only make retailers responsible for the transaction. There is no disincentive for teenagers to try and purchase cigarettes in this bill. Two percent of retail cigarette sales are made to minors. Adults purchase 98 percent of all cigarettes sold in retail stores. Under this bill, we are creating a massive tax increase on 98 percent of smokers in order to try and discourage 2 percent of all the retail sales. There is sound evidence that the 2 percent will not be discouraged. In Washington, taxes and spending are the only things more addictive than nicotine. Preliminary reports estimated this legislation would increase taxes $868 billion. We now know that this legislation would raise taxes $885 billion and create new government programs with funding locked in for 25 years. It creates a huge government regulatory scheme the likes of which we have not seen since the Clinton proposal to perpetrate a national health care system from the Federal Government. This bill is a tax bill, pure and simple. It is a tax bill on Americans who are already overburdened with taxes. Americans today are working longer and harder than ever before to pay their taxes. Tax Freedom Day this year was less than a month ago, on May the 10th. It was a record year. Americans worked longer into the year this year to pay their taxes than ever before. The hard work of the American people, let me say again, the hard work of the American people allowed the President just last week to announce a $39 billion projected surplus in 1998 and a $54 billion surplus projected for 1999. Yet here we are a week later continuing to talk not about how to return the surplus to the people, but how to siphon more out of their pockets. As currently drafted, the proposed tobacco bill is nothing more than an excuse for Washington to raise taxes and spend more money. In the 15 years prior to 1995, Congress passed 13 major tax increases. In fact, last year's Taxpayer Relief Act was the first meaningful tax cut since 1981. As currently drafted, the tobacco bill erases that relief. We must stop that from happening. We must not undo the modest gains we gave to the American people just last year. We certainly cannot relieve them by imposing another $885 billion in taxes on them. To paraphrase President Reagan, the whole controversy comes down to this: Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to tax and tax and tax? Who will pay the $800-plus billion in taxes contained in this proposed legislation? The tobacco legislation is a massive tax increase that would be levied against those least capable of paying. About 60 percent of the tax increase would fall on families earning $30,000 a year or less. That is a shocking figure. What it basically says is these families with less than $30,000, struggling to put clothing on the backs of their children, food on the table, to pay the rent, to have the money for transportation, to keep the car repaired, occasionally scraping together enough for a modest day off or a vacation, would suddenly be subject to a massive new tax, 60 percent of which would fall on them. Some households would see their taxes increase by more than $1,000. Moreover, this new tax would be levied on money that has already been subject to the income tax. If you are buying cigarettes and you have an additional $1.10 to pay, it is a tax on money you have already paid tax on. Households earning less than $50,000 would pay seven times as much in new tobacco taxes than households earning $75,000 or more. According to the Congressional Research Service, tobacco taxes are perhaps the most regressive taxes currently levied. In the United States of America where, we already have the highest taxes in history, we are now projecting a massive tax increase on individuals least capable of paying. While those earning less than $10,000 make up only 10 percent of the population, 32 percent of those people smoke. The current tobacco tax represents 5 percent of the smokers' income in this category. Those making between $10,000 and $20,000 a year make up 18 percent of the population. However, 30 percent smoke. The current tobacco tax makes up 2 percent of a smokers income in this category. Therefore, this bill amounts to a tax increase on 31 percent of Americans who earn under $20,000 a year. Households earning less than $10,000 a year would feel the bite of this tax increase most of all. These households, it is estimated, would see their Federal taxes rise 35.1 percent. In most areas of the country, someone earning $10,000 a year is well below the poverty line. We spend much of our time in this body trying to find solutions for those in this income bracket--we have tax credits, welfare programs, educational grants, job-training programs. They cost billions of dollars a year. We try to lift people out of their poverty, out of that income bracket. However, today, Members of this body are enthusiastically saddling them with a huge tax burden of over $800 billion focused on those least capable of paying. Washington politicians and bureaucrats are saying they know better how to spend the resources of the American people. Let me share the impact this tax increase will have on the constituents of the people in Missouri. Using data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, it is clear the tobacco legislation would be an annual $382 million tax on people in Missouri. Of that amount, $227 million would be paid by households earning $30,000 or less. This is a conservative estimate. This assumes that each smoker in Missouri smokes only one pack a day. For someone who smokes two packs daily, the $1.10 per pack tax increase contained in the tobacco legislation would amount to a tax increase of $803 annually. Let's look at how this will impact other States. Arizona, 22.9 percent of the adults smoke; $227.3 million tax increase on Arizona, $164.7 million on those with incomes of $30,000 or less. In Texas, 23.7 percent of adults smoke; $1.2 billion tax increase on Texas, $1.2 billion tax increase on the people of Texas, with three quarters of a billion being levied against those who earn $30,000 or less. This bill contains massive tax increases that are going to be used to expand the Federal Government just when the American people continue to make it clear that they need relief. Some people ask, where is all this money coming from when we talk about our surpluses? I can tell you where the money comes from--it comes from the hard work, the sacrifice, the ingenuity, the efforts of Americans. It is not our money. It is their money. It is not Washington's. We should be discussing how to leave the money where it belongs. Instead, we are discussing how to take more money. I have an amendment that I plan on introducing later in this debate that will accomplish the goal of leaving money in the pockets of the taxpayers. It will give much-needed tax relief to Americans in a way which will provide the greatest relief to those who will be hardest hit under the bill. I believe, as many do in this body, that if this bill is allowed to increase taxes, that revenue should be used to relieve married couples of what might possibly be the most indefensible and immoral tax of our Tax Code. This is a perfect example of Washington's values being imposed on America instead of America's values being imposed on Washington. Americans value marriage; Washington taxes marriage. The marriage penalty tax creates a situation in which 21 million couples pay $29 billion more than they would have paid had they been single. The marriage penalty, on the average, is about $1,400 per family. This is grossly unfair and is an assault on the values of the American people. Consider a typical couple in which each person earns an annual income of $35,000. Under current law, if the couple were to wed in 1998, they would pay $10,595 in Federal income taxes, assuming they were childless and they take the standard deduction. If, instead, they chose to remain single, their combined tax bill would amount to $9,117. In other words, they would pay $1,478, a 16-percent penalty for being married. As you might expect, people often modify their behavior to avoid paying taxes. In fact, it is one of the assumptions of the tobacco legislation that people would modify their behavior--quit smoking--if we raise taxes on cigarettes. Does the Tax Code really influence moral decisions and prevent couples from getting married? Tragically, yes. Some couples simply cannot afford to bear the extra burden of the marriage penalty. Just ask Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce of Connersville, IN. They were planning to get married when they learned that their annual tax liability would balloon $3,700 as a result. The marriage penalty led them to rethink their decision to get married. A marriage penalty exists today because Congress legislated ill- advised changes to the Tax Code in the 1960s. This is an example of Washington's values being imposed on America instead of America's values being imposed on Washington. Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is expected to collect $9.3 trillion in taxes from hard-working Americans. Completely eliminating the marriage penalty would reduce that total by only $150 billion, or only 1.6 percent. Now that taxpayers have provided the Federal Government with a surplus that may be as much as $60 billion this year alone, Congress has no excuse for withholding tax relief from American families. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The average dual-income household spends a far larger share of its income on taxes than it does on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation combined. With taxes at these levels, no wonder families are finding it necessary to send both spouses into the workplace. One of the ways in which the marriage penalty manifests itself is that the standard deduction for a married couple is less than that for two singles. That means if you are married and you file a joint return, the standard deduction is not double what it was when you were single. Again, let me repeat this staggering fact. Last year, 21 million married couples collectively paid a $29 billion tax. They paid $29 billion more than they would have paid had they been single. I will offer an amendment that will substantially reduce the marriage penalty. It will do so by making the standard deduction for married couples twice what the standard deduction is for single people. Members of this body have been arguing that there is no tax in this bill, only an increase in tobacco prices to deter smoking. In fact, the Finance Committee, in its mark, at least tried to level with the American people by reporting out a bill that called it a tax. Webster's Dictionary defines a tax as a ``compulsory payment, usually a percentage, levied on income, property values, sales prices, etc., for the support of government.'' In this bill we have a compulsory payment. The bill then requires that the cost of these payments be passed on in the form of price increases to consumers. It even penalizes companies if they fail to do so. These payments are then used to fund massive programs for Federal and State governments. Well, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck. So if it ``walks'' like a tax and acts like a tax, it is probably a tax. This is a tax and in law provides that those payments--taxes--are to be passed through to consumers--under a penalty if it is not done. It has been said that industry is the group that is convincing people that this is a tax bill. But we all know that industry can't make it a tax bill, and Senators can't say it is not a tax bill if it is a tax bill. It is a tax bill. It requires consumers to spend additional sums of money and to send them to Washington so that government programs can be extended. Those who support this bill would like for the American people to believe that this is tough on tobacco. The American people are beginning to find out that tobacco companies won't bear the costs of these payments. Consumers will. This bill requires that consumers will be those who are required to put up the money--the $800 billion-plus that comes in the mandatory payments, the taxes that are occasioned by this bill. What will be the impact on tobacco companies? In September of 1997, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report entitled ``Competition and the Financial Impact of the Proposed Tobacco Industry Settlement.'' The report was done at the request of the Congressional Task Force on Tobacco and Health. This report analyzed the economic impact of the proposed settlement on cigarette prices, industry profits, and Government revenues. This tobacco legislation was built upon the proposed settlement, but it is not exactly the same. But this report was based upon the annual payment, look-back provisions, and tax deductibility of the payments made by the tobacco companies. There are several important conclusions in this report: First: ``The major cigarette manufacturers may profit from the proposed settlement by increasing the price of cigarettes substantially above the amount of the . . . payments that are to be paid to the public sector.'' It could be profitable for the tobacco companies. This bill that is so hard on the tobacco companies may result in increased profits for the very tobacco companies we are supposed to be hurting. Second, the report concludes: ``Even assuming that prices increase by no more than the annual payments, the major cigarette firms may profit substantially . . . through limitations on liability and reductions in advertising and litigation costs.'' Well, that is a very serious suggestion. And that comes from the Federal Trade Commission of the United States. Again, the actual elements of this bill that are supposed to show that Congress is ``tough on tobacco'' may, according to the Federal Trade Commission, actually enable tobacco companies to profit substantially by reducing litigation costs and by reducing the costs of advertising. The report then mentions the affect of price increases on smokers. It says: The overall demand by adults for cigarettes is inelastic, or relatively insensitive to changes in price. Most adult consumers will continue to smoke notwithstanding a significant increase in price. As a result, an industry-wide price increase would be profitable for the companies, even though some smokers would react to the higher prices by smoking less or quitting altogether. Now, the evidence is not clear that raising prices reduces teen smoking rates. Mr. President, this bill is being considered on the Senate floor. It is being considered and being sold to the American people as the only way to reduce youth smoking. They are being told that we can justify an $800 billion tax increase that is necessary to get rid of the disease of addiction. However, after looking at the evidence, there is no reason to believe that such a tax increase is the answer to eliminating teen smoking. Mr. President, I inquire as to the time remaining in my opportunity to speak?

Mr. ASHCROFT. The same.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. Food and Drug Administration regulations, which were designed to curtail teen smoking and which were suggested by a Cabinet Secretary who helped promote these regulations, did not contain price increases. The most striking evidence that significant price increases are not necessary to reduce smoking is a very recent attempt by this administration to address the youth smoking issue. In 1996, regulations promulgated by the FDA were touted as being historic. It was estimated to reduce youth smoking by 50 percent over 7 years, and they didn't include price increases. The important aspect of these regulations is that they contain no price increase on smokers in the general population. As you know, this legislation is raising the prices on 100 percent of the smokers to try to discourage the utilization of cigarettes by 2 percent of those who purchase. There was no discussion in the regulations of a huge price increase--a massive tax increase. And about this regulation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, stated: This is the most important public health initiative in a generation. It ranks with everything from polio to penicillin. I mean, this is huge in terms of its impact. Our goal is very straightforward: to reduce the amount of teenage smoking in the United States by half over the next 7 years. It is a laudable objective, and apparently it is believed to be attainable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services without a massive tax increase or price increase. David Kessler, one of the strongest proponents of this bill, was the Director of the Food and Drug Administration when these regulations were promulgated. He stated: Don't let the simplicity of these proposals fool you. If all elements of the anti-smoking package come into play together, change could be felt within a single generation, and we could see nicotine addiction go the way of smallpox and polio. without a price increase. These statements were made about regulations that contained absolutely no price increase--no massive tax on the working people of America; no massive taking by the government of over three-quarters of a trillion dollars; no extension of 17 new boards, commissions, and agencies for the government. Also, remember that these regulations were supposed to reduce youth smoking by 50 percent over 7 years, while it has been claimed, that this bill--containing massive tax increases--will reduce teen smoking by 60 percent over 10 years. Dr. Kessler was widely cited as a supporter of the amendment offered on this floor last week that would have increased the tax on cigarettes by $1.50 rather than the $1.10 already contained in the bill as necessary to reduce teen smoking, which is substantial. Yet, when those regulations were enacted he never complained that this regulation would not have been effective in reducing teen smoking because it did not contain such a massive tax increase. About these regulations, President Clinton stated: That's why a year ago I worked with the FDA, and . . . a nationwide effort to protect our children from the dangers of tobacco by reducing access to tobacco products, by preventing companies from advertising to our children. The purpose of the FDA rule was to reduce youth smoking by 50 percent within 7 years. There was no complaint by the President that these regulations were insufficient because they did not contain a price increase. What has changed in just 2 short years? Policymakers in Washington have found a cash cow to pay for their pet programs that the President said he wanted, but which he would find incapable of moving through the ordinary budget process. The evidence as to whether price increases reduce youth smoking is tentative--at best. The second issue I want to address concerning the need to increase taxes on the American people by $868 billion is whether price increases actually reduce teen smoking. My colleagues have been arguing that the studies show conclusively that price increases reduce youth smoking. However, that simply is not the case. At best, the studies are inconclusive. At worst, they show little correlation between price increase and a reduction in youth smoking. The debate on this floor has assumed that for every 10 percent increase in price reduces youth smoking by 7 percent. Frankly, I think the average citizen knows that young people who are willing to pay $150 a pair for sneakers are probably not very price sensitive when it comes to other factors that relate to status and the like and making a statement, which smoking frequently is for young people. The debate on this floor has assumed--a dangerous assumption, reckless, and irresponsible intellectually--that for every 10-percent increase in price you get a 7-percent reduction in youth smoking. Studies conducted by economists at Cornell University and the University of Maryland, and funded by the National Cancer Institute, question the connection between youth smoking, prices, and tax rates. The Cornell Study After following 13,000 kids for 4 years, Dr. Philip DeCicca of Cornell University, in a National Cancer Institute funded study--a public health study--found ``Little evidence that taxes reduce smoking onset between 8th and 12th grade.'' The economists that conducted this study presented their results between the relationship between higher tobacco taxes and youth smoking to the American Economics Association annual meeting in January 1998. This is not a dated study. The study concluded that higher taxes have little effect on whether young people start to smoke. They concluded that ``[T]axes are not as salient to youth smoking decisions as are individual characteristics and family background.'' ``[W]e find little evidence that taxes reduce smoking onset between 8th and 12th grades,'' and estimated that a $1.50 tax increase would decrease the rate of smoking onset by only about 2 percentage points-- from 21.6% of 12th graders who start smoking currently to 19.6% of 12th graders. ``Our data allow us to directly examine the impact of changes in tax rates on youth smoking behavior, and our preliminary results indicate this impact is small or nonexistent.'' Here is the best data we have. The most recent studies indicate that a massive increase of three-quarters of a trillion dollars plus on the taxes of the American people will have little impact or a nonexistent impact in reducing youth smoking. In conclusion, the economists stated that the study ``raises doubt about the claim that tax or price increases can substantially reduce youth smoking.'' maryland study Economists at the University of Maryland and the University of Chicago conducted a similar study that analyzed data concerning more than 250,000 high school seniors for the period 1977-1992--the largest such sample ever used for a study on this subject. They found that the relationship between price and youth consumption is ``substantially smaller'' than suggested by previous studies. In addition, real world experience confirms the uncertain relationship between higher tobacco taxes, prices and youth smoking. california In 1989, California increased its cigarette excise tax by 25 cents per pack, but there is no evidence that youth smoking declined. This was an 11 percent increase. Therefore, under the analysis that elasticity of teenage smokers is .07, there should have been a decrease of at least 7 percent. We are operating under the assumption that 25 cents a pack would have resulted in a 16-percent or more decrease in the number of youth smokers. The truth of the matter is there was an 11-percent increase. Therefore, under the analysis that the elasticity of smokers is .07, there should have been a decrease of substantial proportions. However, as of 1994, researchers were ``unable to identify a decline in prevalence [among 16 to 18 year olds] associated with the imposition of the excise tax.'' canada The most commonly cited real world situation is our neighbor to the North--Canada. In Canada, the federal government increased cigarette taxes in several stages in the late 1980s and early 1990s--from $10.75 per 1,000 cigarettes to $24.34 in 1986, then to $38.77 in 1989, and to $62.90 in 1991. Although it has been stated on this floor, by proponents of this legislation, that smoking decreased during that period, they fail to talk about the years 1991 to 1994 when the tax rates were the highest in that nation's history. During that period, smoking rates among 15-19-year-olds rose from 21 to 27 percent. That is a 25-percent increase. If the argument that rising prices will reduce teen smoking, it stands to reason that youth smoking should increase as prices fall. However, a year and a half after reducing--significantly--tobacco taxes in Canada, according to the ``Survey on Smoking in Canada,'' teen smoking ``remained stable.'' The fact that is ignored by those who argue teen smoking declined in Canada due to the significant tax increases is that youth smoking declined in the United States by 30 percent during the same period-- 1977 to 1990--without a price increase. u.k. Between 1988 and 1996 the per pack price of cigarettes increased by 26 percent. Although cigarette volumes fell by 17 percent, the percentage of weekly smokers aged 11-16 went from 8 percent in 1988 to 13 percent in 1996. common sense Common sense also suggests that youth are less responsive to tax and price increases. In an era of $15 compact discs, $100 video games, and $150 sneakers, is it realistic to believe that a few extra dollars on cigarettes a month will cause youth to stop experimenting with smoking or not to start in the first place? Young people may have less ``disposable income'' than adults, but their spending is almost entirely discretionary. The CDC has compiled data on brand-preference that supports the conclusion that young people are not particularly price sensitive. The ``price value'' or discount, segment of the cigarette market comprised 39 percent of the overall cigarette market in 1993. Yet, according to the CDC, less than 14 percent of adolescent smokers purchased generic or other ``value-priced'' brands--just one-third the percentage. The point was echoed by the government's lawyer defending the FDA tobacco rule, who told the U.S. District Court, ``[P]rice, apparently has very little meaning to children and smoking, and therefore, they don't smoke generic cigarettes, they go for those three big advertised brands.'' In Canada, in Great Britain, the Cornell study, Maryland University, the Chicago study, the situation in California, we don't have a clear understanding that a rise or an increase in taxes would in fact result in a decrease in youth smoking. It is with that in mind that I feel we should reject this bill as a massive tax increase, and if there is a massive tax increase in this bill, that tax increase should be sent back to those who are most hurt by it--low-income individuals--by eliminating a marriage penalty by raising the standard deduction for married couples to exactly double that enjoyed by single taxpayers. I thank the Chair for the time. I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is fitting on this day, the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, to submit this resolution calling for the President to delay his trip to China. With allegations swirling about China's efforts to influence U.S. elections, and with the hard evidence we do have of China's continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technologies, rewarding China with a summit visit is sending the wrong signal at the wrong time. There is perhaps nothing more indicting than a vote in the United States Congress that the actions of a Commander-in-Chief were not in the national interest. And yet, that is precisely what the House of Representatives did on May 20, 1998. By a vote of 417 to 4, the House voted that the President's decision in February 1998 to allow the export of satellite technology to China was ``not in the national interest.'' The Justice Department reportedly protested the waiver, expressing concern that it would undermine an ongoing criminal investigation of a possible satellite technology transfer that occurred in 1996. What is just as troubling is the possible link between the export of U.S. satellite technology and political donations from China's People's Liberation Army (PLA). Liu Chao-ying, an officer in the PLA, gave Johnny Chung--one of the central figures in the Administration's fundraising scandal--$300,000 to funnel into democratic coffers in the 1995-96 election cycle. Ms. Liu just happens to be a senior manager and vice president in the China Aerospace conglomerate, Beijing's state- owned company that oversees China's missile development and space launch programs. The White House says it did not know the source of Mr. Chung's funding. I question how diligently Administration officials and democratic fundraisers wanted to know. Warnings from the National Security Council as to the intentions of Mr. Chung, described by one official as a ``hustler,'' went unheeded. Senator Thompson's fundraising investigation describe in careful detail how the Democratic National Committee dismantled its vetting process for contributions. Mr. Chung himself visited the White House 49 times. This was not a superficial relationship. This man was a regular guest of the Administration. The recent scandals surrounding satellite technology transfers and Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections are only the latest, troubling signs that this Administration's China policy is an abysmal failure. As Harry Wu said at this morning's press conference to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre, appeasement does not bring peace. Appeasement is precisely what this Administration's China policy has become. China announces it will not conduct an inquiry into the Tiananmen Square massacre, yet President Clinton begins his summit at this site, where possibly thousands of Chinese were killed. In Hong Kong, President Clinton will not meet individually with Martin Lee, the leader of pro-democracy forces in the former colony whose Democratic Party won over 60% of the popular vote in the May 24 elections. China is identified by the CIA as the world's worst proliferator of weapons of mass destruction technology, proliferation activity that has contributed directly to the spiraling arms race between India and Pakistan. Yet the Administration rewards China with a nuclear cooperation agreement that will send America's best reactor technology to China. China repeatedly breaks commitments to open its market to U.S. businesses, yet the President renews MFN year after year. This Administration apparently will overlook any offense to our nation's principles and security to continue the bankrupt policy of engaging communist China. China points nuclear missiles at the U.S., and PLA officers describe the United States as China's ``international archenemy.'' Yet the Administration allows advanced satellite and missile technology to be sent to China which a Pentagon memo says harmed U.S. national security. China's actions, and this Administration's response to those actions, has set the U.S.-China relationship on a gravely dangerous course. It is time for a fundamental reevaluation of U.S. China policy. This resolution will provide a good start. This resolution outlines the areas of concern in our policy toward China, from human rights to national security to trade matters. In contrast to how U.S.-China relations have been administered for the last six years, a sound relationship between our two countries must be based on integrity, responsibility, and mutual respect. China's behavior across the board has not given any basis for this Administration to pursue a ``strategic partnership'' with Beijing. Appeasement will not bring peace. This Administration obviously did not learn the lessons of the Cold War. China is an aggressive power that seeks regional hegemony. Extending MFN trade status in exchange for a $50 billion trade deficit, sending China our best nuclear reactor technology in exchange for Chinese weapons proliferation, and beginning the summit at Tiananmen Square when China continues to imprison its people is not the kind of policy that will bring mutual respect and peace in East Asia. I call on the President to delay his trip to China until questions surrounding satellite technology transfer have been answered and U.S. China policy has been formulated more effectively to protect American interests. Senator Hutchinson is joining me as a cosponsor of this resolution, and I appreciate his tremendous work in this area. This resolution is designed to send a signal to the Chinese government and the victims of its repression that there are limits to the tolerance of China's appalling human rights record, continuing trade obstructionism, and destabilizing proliferation.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a student program, the Sino-American Youth Conference, sponsored this summer by Pacific Link International Exchange Students (PLIES). PLIES is a Christian ministry with the worthy goal of providing a cultural experience in the United States to students from the People's Republic of China. Student from China have long studied in the United States, and the exchange of young people between our two countries has done much to increase our mutual understanding and to advance liberty in China. PLIES hopes that its hosting of the Sino-American Youth Conference in Washington, D.C. this summer will continue that positive tradition of exchange by allowing Chinese students to witness first hand the workings of democracy in our nation's capital. Young people from China and the United States will be shaping the future of both of their respective countries. The exchange of ideas and the building of friendships facilitated through the PLIES program will benefit China and the United States in the years ahead. The staff of PLIES are to be congratulated for their work in China and their commitment to furthering dialogue between our two countries. I extend my welcome to the students from China participating in the PLIES program. May your time in the United States be fulfilling and beneficial.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ms. Rosella Schnakenberg, a woman who has served her friends and fellow Missourians for more than 50 years. Although this service has transcended occupational boundaries, the most prominent way Ms. Schnakenberg, a lifelong resident of the Cole Camp community, has benefitted her fellow citizens has been to hold a pivotal role at the First Community Bank in Ionia, Missouri. During her time as an employee of First Community Bank, Ms. Schnakenberg has helped customers open accounts, fill out and process loan applications, save for the future, balance checkbooks, and cash pay checks. In addition to this long list of responsibilities, what is remarkable about this versatile employee is that she performs her duties with enthusiasm and concern. That attitude has helped propel Ms. Schnakenberg from a teller who earned $75 a month to a Vice President and Facility Manager, overseeing day-to-day operations of the bank. During her lengthy tenure, she has observed the bank change and grow from an establishment that applied for deposits by hand and lacked indoor plumbing to an institution that functions and flourishes in the modern world. First Community Bank has not only prospered economically, under Ms. Schnakenberg's leadership, it has also benefitted from her research and recording of the bank's colorful history. That history includes a Depression-era incident when one of the bank managers had cashiers band a high-value bill on both sides of the $1 bill stacks. Mrs. Schnakenberg has also touched the lives of the people around her through the unselfish distribution of her time, such as serving in community activities, visiting friends in nursing homes, and playing the organ at St. John's Lutheran Church services. To honor Ms. Schnakenberg, First Community Bank hosted a reception in her honor on Sunday, March 22, 1998, in Ionia, Missouri. It is an honor for me to recognize such a fine Missourian and to serve her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Operation Graduation is a six-state campaign devoted to the safety of high school seniors on graduation night. The campaign is designed to fund alcohol-free/drug-free graduation parties that are safe, memorable, and fun. In an effort to encourage high schools to hold alcohol-free/drug-free graduation parties, local cable systems in the Midwest are donating money to corresponding area high schools. This project also provides high schools with information kits containing an Operation Graduation How-to-Guide, pamphlets, and brochures on the dangers of drunk driving, and other resources for promoting Operation Graduation. Together, local cable system employees in Missouri are fighting to stop needless deaths on our roads and highways that result from reckless behavior on graduation night. I would like to commend all the people working to make the weekend of May 29, 1998, ``Operation Graduation Weekend.''

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I think that is an appropriate question. There is almost a 50-percent increase in funding for the FDA. Or did the Senator say more than that? Frankly, I have every confidence that Federal agencies will spend the money you give them.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of the poll and I am aware of the concern. And I believe that is correct. I believe Americans are far more fearful that their children will be involved with illicit drugs than they are that their children might experiment with smoking.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I believe that he calls into very serious question the idea that price alone is a major factor, or a controlling factor. And he does so effectively by citing the kinds of information that the Senator has mentioned.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled about the fact that we are, in this process, taxing American families and taxing those American families who have very limited income. Fifty-nine point four percent of the $755 billion that my amendment would take out of this bill, which are taxes on consumers--59.4 percent of that is to be paid by families with incomes of less than $30,000. If you move it up to the $60,000 level, you are talking abut almost two-thirds of the people, hard-working families from our culture, who struggle to put clothing on the backs of their children and the right kind of food on the table. There is a suggestion by some that they can just stop smoking automatically. If they are going to stop smoking, why are we counting on the money? We are counting on receiving almost $1 trillion over the next 25 years from these folks, and it is predicated on the idea that they can't stop smoking. If it were a switch that we could flip on and off, perhaps we would go find the switch and do it. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about taxing individuals who don't have any elasticity of demand. There has been a lot of talk about the elasticity of demand, economics--that if you elevate the price, the demand will go down. If people are addicted, they can't stop, so they have to pay. That is these folks here--59.4 percent of the individuals paying this tax will be individuals making under $30,000 a year. Americans are working longer and harder than ever to pay their taxes. The number of moms and dads, two parents in the family, both working; or in single-parent families, obviously, the only parent is working--we are taking more and more of their resources. We take now more of the income of the American people than ever before in taxes. We are at peace, we are in prosperity, but still, Government is costing more than ever before. We have charged so much for Government, we are finding we have a $43 billion surplus. CBO says it might be up to a $63 billion surplus. What are we going to do? Instead of giving people their money back, instead of saying, ``You send it, we spend it,'' we should be saying, ``You earned it, we returned it.'' No, we are not doing that. Where are we going with this? We are inviting another $868 billion of burden on those who can least afford to pay it. It is just incredible. We should be debating how to return the money to taxpayers, not how to siphon more out of their pockets. As currently drafted, the proposed tobacco bill is nothing more than an excuse for Washington to raise taxes and spend more money. I might add that earlier I sent to the desk a modification of the amendment making technical changes. That does not require anything. I want to indicate to the Senate that I had done so, and it doesn't require action. This proposed increase in Government and taxes is the biggest proposed increase since President Clinton's proposed increase on health care. My own sense is that it took a while for the people of the country to realize what the Federal takeover in health care was going to do to this country, when the American people figured out what it was going to cost. And when the American people understand that this isn't a penalty on the tobacco companies, this $755 billion that I want to knock out of this bill isn't something that the tobacco companies will pay, this is something consumers will pay. The law specifically forbids a tobacco company from passing this on to consumers. There is a mandatory rule that this can't come out of the profits of tobacco companies. This can't come out of their retained earnings. This can't come out of their capitalization. This has to be imposed on the backs of these workers, these folks who are making under $30,000 a year, these additional folks making under $60,000 a year. Here we could have an additional 17 boards and commissions. There is the statute: ``Payments to be Passed Through to Consumers''--not payments to be endured or suffered by the tobacco companies. But these are payments to be undertaken by poor families. Three packs a day, $1,600 a year--that is what they are asking for, $1,600 a year off of the tables, out of the houses, out of the budget for the children in these families. That is what this is a law about. This is a law that would take an enormous amount of resources from the families of America. They are already paying taxes that are virtually out of sight. They are already paying taxes for more than food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined in this country, and we are going to add to the poorest of the poor this incredible burden. Seventeen boards, commissions, and agencies--they say they have been removed from the legislation. The bureaucracies envisaged by the bill will still be there; it is just that they are no longer sort of visible. We have gone from unaccountability to anonymity. That will not cure things. This huge tax increase would be levied against those who are least capable of paying. According to the Congressional Research Service, tobacco taxes are perhaps the most regressive tax that is levied in America. It is a tax that hits poor people the hardest. And we are discussing what we want to do with that $868 billion of additional burden on the poor. About 60 percent of this tax increase would fall on families earning $30,000 a year or less. Those earning less than $10,000 a year make up only 10 percent of the population, but 32 percent of those people smoke. So the current tobacco tax represents 5 percent of the smokers' income in this category. This would take from the people who are struggling to make ends meet, making $10,000 a year, 5 percent of their income. That is really a pack-a-day habit we are talking about. We are not talking about a two- packs-a-day habit. If they have two packs a day, it is far more than 5 percent of $10,000. Those making between $10,000 and $20,000 a year are only 18 percent of the population; however, 30 percent of them smoke. The current tobacco tax would take a real chunk--2 percent of the smokers' income--in that category. This bill amounts to a tax increase on 31 percent of Americans who earn under $20,000 a year. So among those who are the poorest of our hard-working Americans, who are low-income, they are the people who really get hit with this. And 31 percent of all people making less than $20,000 a year are the individuals who are going to be sustaining this tax burden. Households earning less than $10,000 a year will feel the bite of this tax increase most of all. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that these households, those earning less that $10,000 a year overall, would see their Federal taxes rise by 44.6 percent--44.6 percent. Those making between $10,000 a year and $20,000 a year make up 18 percent of the population; 30 percent of them smoke. In most areas of the country, somebody earning $10,000 a year is well below the poverty line. But here we come. We are so interested in additional revenue, at a time when we have surplus, that we are willing to sock it to those who are low-income individuals. We spend much of our time in this body trying to find solutions for those in this income bracket. We have tax credits; we have welfare programs; we have educational grants; we have job training programs. They cost us billions of dollars a year. We try to lift people in those low-income brackets out of their problems and difficulties. However, today, Members of this body are enthusiastically saddling them with a huge, huge tax burden. In fact, some are even trying to make it worse. It is pretty clear that some people have come and said that people will stop smoking. I will get to that next. Here it is. The kind of tax increase, if you are making under $10,000 a year, is 44 percent. We are not really tax increasing anybody since most smokers are concentrated in this part of the graph. Low-income people are going to pay the lion's share. They are going to have very significant increases in their tax load. Now, some Members were critical about the statement that this is a huge tax increase on low-income people. It was stated that I was assuming that they would be irresponsible and not take care of their families' needs. I am not saying here that anybody is irresponsible. I do think that the Government has frequently been irresponsible. It is irresponsible to take this much of the income from people who are trying to clothe their families and feed their families. The revenue assumptions in this bill are based on the fact that most people will continue to smoke. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that people are going to suddenly stop smoking; you can't say that and still say you are going to spend the money and collect the money. This is basically a tax, a tax that relates to the increase in the price of cigarettes, a tax that passes money from low-income, hard- working Americans to big Government in America so the Government can do a wide variety of things. Frankly, I think some of the things that this proposes to do are literally laughable. Some of the programs that are in this bill are designed to curtail smoking overseas. So we are going to tax low-income Americans, folks who are struggling at $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 a year to make ends meet; we are going to take money from them and go overseas and run antismoking campaigns. Now, in my judgment, that is a very, very serious disconnect with what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to make it possible for Americans to live decently and independently and provide for their children, to have a framework in which Government at least lets them enjoy the fruits of the things they labor to produce; and if we don't do that, it seems to me that we obviously have failed. I don't believe we should be taking money from hard-working, low- income Americans and putting it into a foreign aid system that tries to tell people on the other side of the world how they should act and what they should do. If I believed that everybody would quit smoking, the impact of this bill obviously would not be so significant because it would not be a tax. But it is clear that there will be a tax, and there is a predicated set of receipts that is going to run between three- quarters of a trillion dollars and a trillion dollars. Everyone in this Chamber, the administration, and health officials are making the assumption that people will continue to smoke. As currently drafted, this legislation will cause somebody who smokes two packs daily to pay the Government an additional $803 a year. A lot of families could take a vacation on $803. A lot of families could buy additional clothing. A lot of families could afford courses at a junior college to change their skill levels and upgrade their jobs. A lot of families could care for a relative or otherwise do something that we need to get done rather than send this money to Washington, DC. That is $803 for somebody who smokes two packs a day. For a family smoking three packs a day, it is even more. My amendment would prevent that from happening. My amendment simply says we are not going to punish the American people for that which the tobacco companies have done; we are not going to hurt the hard-working Americans of low-income as a means of objecting to the abuses of big tobacco. Moreover, as currently drafted, this legislation allows the tobacco companies to deduct the mandatory payments that are ultimately to be paid by consumers as regular business expenses. Over 5 years, that kind of writeoff would be worth about $36 billion in the tobacco industry. So if we are giving a tax break to the tobacco industry that is going to be worth $36 billion to them over 5 years, and part of that comes as a result of the fact that we are taxing individual consumers, I think that is really unfair. Let's take a second to understand this. In this legislation that is supposed to be so tough on the tobacco industry--and, frankly, the tobacco industry participated in formulating almost all of the basic components of this legislation--the companies act as a tax collector by sending the U.S. Treasury $102 billion over the next 5 years. Then they get a tax deduction, and they cost U.S. taxpayers--all taxpayers, whether they are smokers or not--$36 billion in lost revenues because of the tax deduction. What you get here is a subsidy through the back door. They send in $102 billion they collect from people and then they get $36 billion of it back as a tax break for the company. I think that is a particularly anomalous result. That is a result which we certainly do not really want to have. They collect money from poor, hard-working Americans, turn it in, and when they turn it in they get a tax deduction of $36 billion. Before we consider passing a massive tax increase, it should behoove us to review the government's record thus far in respect to taxes, spending, and government employment. Where have we been recently in terms of tax increases, in terms of spending? In Washington, taxes and spending are the only things more addictive than nicotine. Policymakers in Washington think they know better how to spend the money of families than American families do. In the 15 years prior to 1995, Congress passed 13 major tax increases. Last year's Taxpayer Relief Act was the first meaningful tax cut since 1981. The tobacco tax increase would more than erase that relief. We need more tax relief, not less. If we have the increase that is proposed here, it will totally erase the relief we gave last year. The tobacco industry tax, then, proposed in this bill is not a tax on the industry. It is a tax on the consumers. It would more than erase the relief we gave them last year. The tax relief date has now set a record of May 10. People work longer this year for the Government than ever before. Federal, State, and local taxes claim 37.6 percent of the income of a median two-income family in 1997, more than the couple spent on food, and shelter, on clothing, and transportation combined. During Bill Clinton's first 5 years in office the Federal Government collected 19 cents in taxes for every dollar increase in the gross domestic product. According to the Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Government is now taking a higher share of economic growth than under any President in recent history. The Joint Economic Committee continues, The average rate during the entire era before Clinton from Presidents Eisenhower to Bush was 19 percent. Obviously, the Federal Government has yet to reject the idea that it can just tax and spend and tax and spend.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that testimony.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield for the purpose of a question, and I would request the person to whom I am yielding to please preface your remarks. Does the Senator agree or not agree, if there is going to be a very strict approach, which, frankly, there has never been in my understanding of the Senate to that kind of question. I ask that he start his question that way. I don't want to yield the floor based on technical failure, if the Senator will begin with words of an interrogatory nature.