[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E841-E842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TEEN SMOKING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. NEWT GRINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 13, 1998

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues to 
read the following column, ``Blowing Smoke on Smoking,'' from the April 
27, 1998 edition of the Marietta Daily Journal.
  Like most Americans, I was sickened to discover internal tobacco 
industry documents

[[Page E842]]

which revealed a marketing plan geared to teenagers. As a result of 
this and other unsavory revelations about the industry, I feel the 
tobacco lobby has zero clout on Capitol Hill today.
  This editorial clearly illustrates that the current debate over the 
tobacco issue is not one of who favors stopping teen smoking and lung 
disease. We all favor that. The question is whether we get there 
through legislation that specifically targets teen smoking without a 
net tax increase, as most of my Republican colleagues and I favor, or 
do we get there by passing a large tax increase on the poor, using the 
increased revenue to line the pockets of trial lawyers, fund bigger 
government spending on new programs, and create even more federal 
bureaucracy, as the Clinton administration favors. That is the choice 
we face.

            [From the Maritta Daily Journal, Apr. 27, 1998]

                             Blowing Smoke

       Newt Gingrich said the other day that President Clinton was 
     insincere in his support of tobacco legislation, and 
     President Clinton responded with a counter-attack. A better 
     option was available to him. The president should have 
     abandoned the insincerity.
       This is not a question of who cares about children or who 
     cares about stopping lung disease,'' the Republican House 
     speaker is quoted as having said in a speech. ``This is an 
     issue about whether or not liberals deliberately used a 
     passionate, powerful, emotional issue as an excuse for higher 
     taxes, bigger government and more bureaucracy.''
       For those unkind words and others, President Clinton 
     orchestrated a response in which he and other Democrats 
     essentially called Gingrich a shill for the tobacco industry 
     and accused him of being someone who doesn't much care if 
     teens start smoking and eventually die from lung cancer.
       But Gingrich spoke the unvarnished truth. The White House 
     has been supporting legislation that would increase federal 
     regulatory powers, abridge First Amendment free-speech 
     protections and hike cigarette taxes that are 
     disproportionately paid by people with low incomes. The 
     revenues, Clinton has made clear, would then be used for 
     expensive new programs mainly benefiting the middle class.
       Some 98 percent of smokers are adults and the proposed 
     $1.10-a-pack tax would only cause an estimated 2 percent drop 
     in teen smoking. Nevertheless, Gingrich himself has said he 
     would support a tax increase if it would not be so high as to 
     cause a black market in cigarettes. What he doesn't support 
     is the way the White House plans to spend the money, and 
     here's where presidential sincerity can be measured. If the 
     president and the Democrats truly want to curb teen smoking 
     instead of bribing voters with new giveaways, why not use the 
     extra funds for anti-smoking campaigns? Or the White House 
     could do what Gingrich favors and support using the revenue 
     for health care costs.
       Because of an escalating greed for revenues, the 
     administration-supported bill sponsored by Republican Sen. 
     John McCain may now be dead. But if the president should get 
     his way, the government would become a kind of shareholder in 
     the tobacco industry, counting on its ongoing prosperity for 
     the continued financing of programs that might well grow in 
     popularity.
       Do the president's actions, then, demonstrate that he cares 
     about saving teens from smoking and premature death, or do 
     they demonstrate that he cares about political advantage?
       It doesn't take a Ph.D. in political science to figure out 
     the answer.

     

                          ____________________