John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I do.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that.

Mr. ASHCROFT. There is ambiguity as to whether or not price is a conclusive determinant for teenagers in their decision to begin to smoke.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his question. I feel like I should be able to finish by 2 o'clock, providing I don't spend a lot of time responding to the questions of others. Most of my time on the floor has not been accorded to me to make speeches. It has been in responding to questions. I have to say it is probably better than had I been speaking because I find the questions to be very satisfying and very enlightening.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I earlier agreed and, as a matter of fact, urged you to have Members from your side go ahead of me. I don't mind them having a chance to speak. When we sought unanimous consent for that, it was objected to by the manager of the bill. I had intended, in every respect, to provide for ample debate. My view is that this is a very important topic. I learned last night in an announcement by those managing this bill that there would be an effort made to table this amendment without giving a full opportunity for discussion and that there was a time set without even so much as seeking an agreement from Senators as to how much time could be spent. In my judgment, if you are going to have an $868 billion tax increase on the American people in pursuit of an objective, which is allegedly the reduction of teen smoking, but has lots of other consequences and is unlikely to achieve the objective, we ought to at least be able to debate it. So I am very willing to consider full debate. I want to have that on this issue. But the managers of this bill have basically signaled to me that they intend to truncate debate, that they don't want this discussed. So it was my judgment that I needed to come to the floor and bring the evidence with me and then speak about this bill. I intend to speak about it and say what I think needs to be said. I am very pleased to have questions raised. But when questions are raised, obviously, that comes out of the time for me to make my remarks. That would extend the time. I think my position is clear. Early on, I tried to make it possible for those in the Chamber to go ahead of me and make remarks, and that was rejected. So if my only choice is to make my own remarks, then I will make my own remarks. But I sought to make it possible for others to speak.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and really appreciate the questions which he propounds because they get to the heart of the matter. And I appreciate also the fact that you have relayed your experience with your town hall meetings. No other Senator in the U.S. Senate, I would venture to say, no other public official, deals with the public as intimately and aggressively as you do. You know, five town hall meetings a day, hopping from airport to airport; of course no other Senator that I know of has flown a light plane around the world on his own. I know that John Glenn has orbited the Earth. But you have stopped and talked to people most everywhere and certainly in Oklahoma. So I thank you for bringing that particular item to our attention.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that.

Mr. ASHCROFT. They are ignoring the fact that there is a lot of cigarette smuggling in the United States today at current taxation levels. To aggravate that with an additional $1.50 a pack would be to skyrocket the smuggling problem.

Mr. ASHCROFT. They send them out the front door and bring them in the back door.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that testimony, and I thank the Senator for bringing it again to our attention.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that testimony.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I think the public is already watching. It is reflected in measurements of the public sentiment when they indicate they believe on about a 70 percent to 30 percent basis that this is a tax and spend, big Government measure rather than a real smoking cessation measure.

Mr. ASHCROFT. We are all well aware of that.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Well, for a variety of reasons. I am sure our history is part of that, but part of the reason is that in this bill we are not doing some of the things which could be done to curtail teenage smoking. So it becomes apparent that we are doing things that are not necessary and not doing things that are necessary.

Mr. ASHCROFT. They are not.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Frankly, I haven't found it. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for asking the question. The impact on families here is pretty serious. But it is financial. Basically, it is to say that for a three-pack-a-day family there is a minimum of $100 a month that goes out of their expendable income, in addition to the taxes. That is not just the cost for smoking cigarettes. That is additional taxes, $100 a month for three packs a day; that is, if you take the committee's $1.10 range. My amendment would strip that $1.10 rate out because I don't think it is appropriate to punish people the way the tobacco companies have done. If you go with Senator Kennedy's proposal, it is a $1.50-a-pack rate. You get to the point of about $1,600 a year for three packs in the family at $1.50. I think that really makes it not only tough for the families to do something about smoking, it makes it really tough for the family to do things about all kinds of other things, like clothing the family, feeding the family, providing shelter and transportation, health care, and other things.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I would. If the President of the United States, for instance, needed a certain amount of money, you might be inclined to find statistics which would provide a basis for generating that amount of money.

Mr. ASHCROFT. My view is that they are self-compelled because they were interested in writing a record which was seriously flawed. The Congressional Budget Office's responsibility is to provide us with the information on the basis of which we can make good decisions, and not seriously flawed information. I think that there is responsibility and an opportunity to improve our potential for good decisionmaking. That is why they would have to challenge those studies which, obviously, would be misleading if not understood in the light of the Congressional Budget Office qualification.

Mr. ASHCROFT. If the Senator is talking about the opportunity to curtail debate and schedule a motion to table, that is one of the reasons I felt like I had to move to provide the kind of debate which I have provided, because without consultation, at least with me, about a timeframe for the debate suggested, there would be a motion to table. And that happened in the last issue I was seeking to discuss in the Senate. I purposely wouldn't allow individuals to cut off debate. There is a lot of interest in this measure. I will personally do what I can to wrap up my participation. I will limit the amount of questions to which I will respond and make time available for others.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I think is dangerous to say that all the health experts agree, or all statistics agree. I think the Congressional Budget Office study clearly indicates that there are other factors that are very serious that interrupt what would otherwise be economic assumptions and the assumption of addiction itself is a way of saying that ordinary economics don't apply.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of that CBO conclusion. I think it provides us with a sound basis for questioning what others are assuming, and they are assuming that, I think, at serious peril.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am aware of it.