[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 107 (Tuesday, September 5, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8914-S8915]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I came to Congress years ago, I had 
no idea that one of the major issues I would face and be involved in 
was the tobacco industry. Now, I knew what tobacco had done to my 
family. I lost my father when he was 53 years old. He died of lung 
cancer. He smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. I was just a sophomore 
in high school when he died. I stood there by his bed at his last 
breath and thought to myself, I hope I am smart enough to never be 
addicted to tobacco, because I have seen his young life destroyed by 
it.
  I didn't swear to go against the tobacco companies. That sure wasn't 
the reason I ran for office. But the time came, as a Member of the 
House of Representatives, when issues started presenting themselves 
involving tobacco. As they presented themselves, I recalled my personal 
and family experience with death and disease from tobacco, and I 
decided to get involved.
  About 15 or 16 years ago, I introduced a bill to ban smoking on 
airplanes. I was a Member of the House and didn't know any better, and 
I was told by the experts: You are going to lose; nobody beats the 
tobacco lobby; they are too powerful in this town. All of the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle in the House opposed my 
amendment. To my great surprise, it passed anyway. It turns out that 
Members of the House of Representatives, and ultimately Members of the 
Senate, are frequent fliers. They knew how ridiculous it was to have 
smoking sections on airplanes and nonsmoking sections. Eventually, we 
reached a point where there was no smoking on airplanes. My colleague 
from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, carried this bill successfully in 
the Senate. Together, we worked and banned smoking on airplanes.
  A lot of things have happened in America since. Once we established 
that it was unsafe to be exposed to secondhand smoke on airplanes, 
people started asking the obvious questions: Is it safe in an office? 
Is it safe in a hospital? Is it safe on an Amtrak train or on a bus? 
America started moving toward a new standard over the last 16 years, 
and I am happy to say there are now fewer and fewer places in America 
where you are exposed to secondhand smoke. Most smokers who are still 
addicted at least ask permission before lighting up. Most know it is 
better to go outside. That is a changing standard in America and one 
that I believe has led to a healthier nation.
  Make no mistake, while we have made progress in dealing with tobacco, 
the tobacco companies have still been selling their deadly product. As 
they sell that product, we learn more and more about their corporate 
strategy. Let me read to you the opening line in an editorial last week 
written in Newsday, a publication in New York:

       Lying is as natural to tobacco executives as breathing once 
     was to their customers.

  They were reacting to last week's stunning disclosure that the 
tobacco industry is up to its same old tricks. During the last 6 years, 
cigarette manufacturers have steadily increased the level of nicotine 
smokers inhale every time they smoke. Nicotine, of course, is that 
addictive chemical in the cigarettes which leads people to smoke even 
more. During the same 6-year period of time, more and more cities and 
States have been expanding protections for people to play and work away 
from secondhand smoke, while the industry has been loading up their 
product with more nicotine so that it is tougher to quit.
  The Surgeon General of the United States found definitively that 
secondhand smoke is dangerous. Of the 45 million Americans who still 
smoke today, 70 percent say they want to quit. It is tough to quit. It 
is made even more difficult because the cigarette manufacturers put 
more of the addictive nicotine chemical in the cigarettes. We know that 
now. The tobacco industry was found guilty of racketeering, of 
intentionally manipulating nicotine levels to create more addiction to 
cigarettes. While they are running this advertising about how dangerous 
it is to smoke, to talk to your kids--while you see those ads on 
television and see what is going on in newspapers and magazines, all 
this advertising notwithstanding, they are pumping more and more of 
this addictive nicotine into their product.
  We passed in the Senate a provision that would have given the FDA the 
authority to regulate cigarettes. It died in conference. Once it went 
into a conference with the House of Representatives, they stopped it. 
So this deadly product of tobacco and cigarettes continues to be the 
only product in America that is widely sold and is not regulated by our 
Government. It is not regulated in terms of its contents or its 
marketing or advertising. You would think that in a situation such as 
this, the tobacco industry would have spent

[[Page S8915]]

the last 6 years cringing over the feeling that their product was so 
deadly. No, they decided to crank up the nicotine levels in popular 
brands of cigarettes. They made their deadly product even harder to 
quit using. If you are one of the 70 percent of smokers who really want 
to quit, tried to quit and haven't been able to, thank the 
manufacturers of that cigarette you are smoking; they made sure there 
is enough nicotine in every pack so that it is tough for you to stop 
your addiction.
  Of course, the cigarette industry won't even consider informing their 
customers of the higher levels of nicotine. Instead, the companies ran 
ad campaigns promoting ``light'' and ``low tar'' brands--descriptions 
that were meaningless and only misled people into buying and smoking 
more cigarettes.
  Newsday wasn't the only publication to speak out on this issue. The 
New York Times wrote:

       It is stunning to discover how easily this rogue industry 
     was able to increase public consumption of nicotine without 
     anyone knowing about it until Massachusetts blew the whistle. 
     . . .It is long past time for Congress to bring this damaging 
     and deceitful industry under Federal regulatory control.

  You have to hand it to the cigarette makers. It is a great business 
plan. Every day, 4,000 teenagers take their first cigarette and start 
smoking. They don't need to smoke very long before their bodies have 
absorbed a lot of nicotine and they are on to an addiction. If you are 
addicted to cigarettes, of course, you want more of them.
  The latest stand came several weeks after a Federal court found the 
cigarette makers guilty of racketeering. The Washington Post says of 
Judge Kessler's opinion that it:

       . . . is moving and powerful. It is exhaustive in scope, 
     detailed and utterly convincing that the industry sought for 
     five decades to mislead the American people and Government 
     concerning the deadly consequences of smoking.

  After several years of litigation against the industry by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, Judge Kessler found:

       Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with 
     zeal, with deception, with the single-minded focus on their 
     financial success, and without regard for their human tragedy 
     or social costs that success exacted.

  Two weeks after the strong rebuke of the industry's practices, the 
cigarette makers filed a motion with Judge Kessler. Do you know what 
they wanted to know? They asked if her directive to stop misleading 
customers about light and low-tar labels on their cigarettes meant they 
had to stop deceiving people overseas. They wanted to know if they 
could still practice their deception of their products they sell around 
the world, even though they have been told not to do it in the United 
States. What a great industry.
  The Washington Post this morning said:

       (I)n a sign of the boundless rapaciousness of these 
     companies in marketing death, they had the temerity to ask 
     [the judge] not to apply her order ``to sales wholly outside 
     the United States.'' If we can't continue to defraud 
     Americans into killing themselves, they effectively asked, 
     can we at least keep suggesting to billions of people abroad 
     that some cigarettes are safer than others?

  Think about that. They had the nerve to ask if they could sell this 
product overseas and continue to deceive when they have been stopped 
from doing so in the United States. If any doubts remain about this 
ruling and the willingness of this industry to play fair, last week's 
news put it to rest.
  Nicotine levels spiked even while this trial was underway, and there 
was no one--no industry representative, no Federal agency, no consumer 
group with access to the information--no one to question the cigarette 
makers. If it were not for the State law and diligent health 
requirements in Massachusetts, we still would not know.
  The very helpful nicotine replacement products people use to help 
them quit smoking are not very effective if the cigarettes they are 
trying to give up are delivering much more nicotine.
  Who is going to tell the consumers?
  The cigarette makers have gotten away with this latest spike in 
nicotine, as they have gotten away with lies and deceptions in the 
past.
  I have proposed, along with others, regulating this industry. It is 
time for us to know the contents of this product, to market it in an 
honest fashion, and to put meaningful warning labels on cigarette 
packages in the hopes that we can stop young people from taking up this 
habit.
  I have said, in my entire life, I have never heard a single parent 
come to me and say: I have the greatest news in the world: My daughter 
has decided to smoke. I have never heard that because parents know 
intuitively--and we all know intuitively--that it is the beginning of 
an addiction which can lead to compromised health and death.
  I urge my colleagues who have turned their back on this tobacco issue 
for too long to acknowledge what has happened with these decisions and 
with this disclosure by the Massachusetts health department. We need to 
do more. We need to regulate this product, and we need to protect 
American consumers.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________