[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5683-S5684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            KIDS AND SMOKING

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have been debating the tobacco bill in 
the U.S. Senate and will continue to debate that piece of legislation 
into next week and perhaps even beyond. I will begin a discussion on 
the subject of kids and smoking, and I will read into the Record pieces 
of information from the tobacco industry itself. Then, at the 
conclusion, I will ask the question and have all Americans ask the 
question: Were the tobacco companies and was the tobacco industry in 
America targeting our children as customers for their tobacco products?
  If the answer is yes, then the question is not any longer whether 
there should be tobacco legislation; the question will be exactly what 
kind of legislation must we pass and how quickly can we enact it.
  Let me begin with a few quotes. These are quotes from the tobacco 
industry that have been unearthed in various lawsuits and discovery 
proceedings.
  Brown & Williamson, a 1972 company document:

       It's a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. 
     Honey might be considered.

  Talking about the potential of adding honey to cigarettes to make 
them more appealing to teenagers.
  RJR tobacco company, 1973:

       Comic-strip-type copy might get a much higher readership 
     among younger people than any other type of copy.

  Talking about advertising, clearly a strategy that says--how do we 
advertise to kids? This from the RJR tobacco company.
  Brown & Williamson, 1973:

       Kool--The brand Kool--has shown little or no growth in 
     share of users in the 26-and-up age group. Growth is from 16- 
     to 25-year-olds . . . at the present rate, a smoker in the 
     16- to 25-year-age group will soon be three times as 
     important to Kool as a prospect in any other broad-age 
     category.

  Is this a company interested in getting kids addicted to cigarettes? 
Sure sounds like it to me.
  Philip Morris, 1974:

       We are not sure that anything can be done to halt a major 
     exodus if one gets going among the young. This group--now 
     speaking of the young, according to Philip Morris--follows 
     the crowd, and we don't pretend to know what gets them going 
     for one thing or another . . . Certainly Philip Morris should 
     continue efforts for Marlboro in the youth market . . .

  R. J. Reynolds, 1974:

       They represent tomorrow's cigarette business . . . As this 
     14- to 24-age group matures, they will account for a key 
     share of the total cigarette volume--for at least the next 25 
     years.

  In a 1975 report, a Philip Morris researcher writes:

       Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been 
     attributable in large part to our high market penetration 
     among young smokers . . . age 15 to 19 years old . . . my own 
     data, which includes younger teenagers, shows even higher 
     Marlboro market penetration among 15- to 17-year-olds.

  That is a 1975 report from a researcher in Philip Morris. These are 
internal company documents:

       To ensure increased and longer-term growth for Camel 
     filter--This according to a 1975 RJR memo--the brand must 
     increase penetration among the 14- to 24 age group which has 
     a new set of more liberal values and which represent 
     tomorrow's cigarette business.

  RJR Nabisco, 1975, talking about increasing penetration among 14- to 
24-year-olds.
  R. J. Reynolds, 1976:

       Evidence is now available to indicate the 14- to 18-year-
     old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. 
     RJR-T must soon establish a successful new brand in this 
     market if our position in the industry is to be maintained . 
     . .

  Fourteen to 18-year-old kids. This is a tobacco document that says, 
``We have to go after this to maintain our position.''
  1978, Lorillard cigarette company:

       The base of our business is the high-school student.

  Philip Morris, 1979, writes:

       Marlboro dominates in the 17 and younger category, 
     capturing over 50 percent of this market.

  What a cause for celebration at Philip Morris in 1979!

       Marlboro dominates the 17-and-younger category, capturing 
     over 50 percent of this market.

  Marlboro Red, 1981, a Philip Morris researcher writes:

       . . . the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to 
     smoke while in their teens. At least part of the success of 
     our Marlboro Red during its most rapid growth period was 
     because it became the brand of choice among teenagers who 
     then stuck with it as they grew older.

  Does this sound like a set of documents--and I am going to go on at 
some length to talk about these documents from the industry--does it 
sound like a set of documents from an industry without morals, without 
values? From an industry that sees 14-year-olds with dollar signs 
painted on their baseball cap?
  Is that a company or an industry without values? I think so.
  The Tobacco Institute, 1983. It says:

       [Brown & Williamson] will not support a youth smoking 
     program which discourages young people from smoking.

  Well, there it is, I guess. They know who their customers are, and 
they target their customers. They try to addict these kids to 
cigarettes. And then they say, ``We will not support a youth smoking 
program discouraging young people from smoking.''
  ``Strategies and Opportunities,'' by R.J. Reynolds, 1984:

       Younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the 
     growth and decline of every major brand and company over the 
     last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to 
     brands [and] companies in the future for two simple reasons: 
     The renewal of the market stems almost entirely from 18-year-
     old smokers. No more than 5 percent of smokers start after 
     age 24. . . . Younger adult smokers are the only source of 
     replacement smokers. . . . If younger adults turn away from 
     smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population 
     which does not give birth will eventually dwindle.

  That is according to a strategies memo from R.J. Reynolds.
  R.J. Reynolds, 1986, Camels.

       [Camel advertising will create] the perception that Camel 
     smokers are non-conformist, self-confident, and project a 
     cool attitude, which is admired by their peers. . . . 
     Aspiration to be perceived as cool [and] a member of the in-
     group is one of the strongest influences affecting the 
     behavior of [young adults].

  Well, those are just some, and the list is long.
  After reading what has been unearthed from the bowels of the records 
of the tobacco industry about their attempts to addict our children to 
cigarettes, starting with a single sentence by one cigarette company 
that says ``the base of our business is the high school student,'' does 
anyone doubt that we have a tobacco industry who, for years in this 
country, has decided that their customers must be children? Because 
when you reach age 30--just as one of the researchers suggested, and 
wonder what will further enrich your life that you are now missing, you 
will not conclude that smoking is the activity you have missed. No 
adult that I know says, at age 30, ``Gosh, if I could just start 
smoking, I would further enrich my life.'' The only opportunity for new 
customers for the industry is to addict a child.
  That brings me to the point of the legislation on the floor of the 
Senate. Some say this is punitive. Some say, ``What's all the fuss 
about?'' Well, fuss is about a country that says to the tobacco 
industry:

       Tobacco is a legal product, but for adults, and it is 
     amoral to try to addict our children, and we want to stop it. 
     We want to say to the industry, ``We will not allow you to 
     continue to profit by trying to addict America's children to 
     nicotine. We will simply not allow it. And if you don't like 
     it, tough luck. And if you lose money, too bad. But you 
     cannot continue with impunity in this country to try to 
     addict America's kids to cigarettes.' ''

  There have been a lot of claims about this legislation. I want to 
talk about a couple of those claims. We know from statistics that 
America is full of a lot of wonderful people. I do not know anyone that 
I am acquainted with who would want to live elsewhere. It is not that 
the rest of the world isn't wonderful--this is just a great place. And 
we are blessed to be able to live here in this time.
  But there are challenges. Among those challenges is that every day 
3,000

[[Page S5684]]

additional kids in our country start to smoke, and 1,000 kids will die 
because they started to smoke today. Today, and every day, when those 
3,000 take their first cigarette, they consign --one-third--all with 
names, all with families, all with potential careers and dreams and 
hopes and aspirations--one-third will be consigned to die because they 
took up a habit that can kill you. And 300,000 to 400,000 people a year 
die in this country from smoking and smoking-related causes.
  Smoking rates among high school students--10th and 12th graders--have 
increased for the last 6 years in a row. In my State of North Dakota, 
according to statistics 39 percent of high school kids under age 18 
smoke.

  We can do something to stop this, and that is the genesis of the 
tobacco legislation. Senator McCain, from the Commerce Committee, the 
committee on which I serve, passed a piece of legislation to the floor 
of the Senate. I voted for it. Senator Conrad, my colleague from North 
Dakota, has done exceptional work in this area working with Senator 
McCain.
  Incidentally, Senator Conrad produced his own piece of legislation 
with a task force.
  But we are attempting, on the floor of the Senate, to pass a piece of 
legislation that tells the tobacco industry: ``You cannot addict 
America's children. We won't allow it.''
  In this debate, we are describing the record of the industry, because 
some still deny that the industry is targeting our kids. I do not think 
they can deny it any longer with any credibility. I think unearthing 
all of these memos, strategies, and words of the industry itself, 
saying--``We're going after your kids''--I think that destroys any 
credibility anybody had who says that the tobacco industry isn't 
targeting America's kids.
  What does this legislation do? The legislation will increase the cost 
of a pack of cigarettes. The legislation on the floor will increase it 
by $1.10 a pack over 5 years.
  What is going to happen with this money? Let me describe how the 
money will be used. First of all, the largest share of the money, 40 
percent, will be returned to the States to compensate the States for 
the costs they have incurred as a result of tobacco-related illnesses--
for example--the substantial increase to health costs, Medicaid, and 
others. The substantial increased costs that the States have incurred 
as a result of tobacco-related causes will be reimbursed by this price 
increase of tobacco.
  The medical costs of smoking are estimated to be somewhere around $50 
billion a year annually. Lost economic productivity, as a result of the 
medical conditions caused by smoking, is somewhere around $47 billion a 
year. The States incur medical costs of about $4 billion just caring 
for smokers. This legislation will reimburse them and their taxpayers 
for that range of costs that I have just described, somewhere close to 
$100 billion.
  Twenty-two percent of the funding--aside from funding I have just 
described that will go to States--will be devoted to public health 
programs. Half will be dedicated to educate children about the dangers 
of smoking, to fund programs to reduce youth smoking, and a 
counteradvertising program to offset the extensive marketing efforts of 
the industry.
  Rather than create the big bureaucracies that the tobacco industry 
claims would happen, what will happen is, these funds will be used by 
the States to try to develop efforts and coordinate advertising and 
other smoking cessation programs that we are convinced will work to 
teach and to persuade America's kids not to begin smoking.
  Twenty-two percent of the funding will go to health and medical 
research largely through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
Frankly, I cannot think of anything we do in this country that has more 
impact, value and importance to every American than investments in 
health research.
  What is happening at the National Institutes of Health is really 
quite remarkable. From breathtaking changes and breakthroughs in health 
coverage to health remedies which attempt to deal with disease and 
problems. And what we are trying to do is to increase the amount of 
investment and research for health care at the National Institutes of 
Health. That makes a great deal of sense to me.
  So we are talking about a range of things--offsetting the costs the 
States have, smoking cessation programs, counteradvertising programs, 
prohibition on the industry's advertising, substantial investments in 
the National Institutes of Health, and a range of other things--that I 
think will be very beneficial. It will also allow someone 20 years from 
now to say that these companies were unable to devote advertising and 
unable to devote efforts to try to addict 14-year-olds. First, because 
you cannot advertise to them, and second, because we are going to 
counteradvertise, and we are going to have smoking cessation programs 
and other efforts to try to prevent you from addicting America's 
children to cigarettes.
  There is in this piece of legislation some assistance for farmers, as 
well, because tobacco farmers will be impacted by this legislation, and 
we should be mindful of the problems caused for tobacco and to tobacco 
farmers as a result of this piece of legislation. Senator Ford has 
crafted an amendment that I think goes a long way in addressing the 
issue that will affect tobacco farmers from this legislation. We will 
be talking about that, I think, next week.
  We have liability issues that are dealt with in this piece of 
legislation. I mentioned advertising restrictions. We had a problem 
affecting veterans that I think has been solved thanks to the work of 
Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia and Senator Warner, as well as 
the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain.
  Those are the issues that I think are very important to our country 
with respect to the tobacco bill. My hope is that in the coming days, 
whether it be 3 or 5 days or a week and a half, that we will pass in 
the Senate a piece of legislation that all of us can be proud of.
  I defy anybody, I defy one person of any political persuasion or of 
any philosophical bent, I defy one person to stand up on the floor of 
the Senate and defend this sort of behavior: Page after page after page 
of evidence that this industry knew that the teenagers of this country 
were their target audience and deliberately tried to addict children to 
smoking. I defy anybody to read this evidence and then tell me that is 
not the case. If you believe, as I do, that this industry has seen 
dollar signs on the heads of America's kids, and you believe that is 
wrong, then we must believe, together, that we have a responsibility to 
pass legislation of this type.
  I am not saying every word is sacrosanct. There are plenty of ideas 
here to add to this that perhaps can improve it. I say at the end of 
the day we had better pass a piece of legislation that acknowledges the 
bankruptcy, the moral bankruptcy approach we have seen when we 
unearthed the information from the bowels of the tobacco industry.

                          ____________________