U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–277 2011

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND 

TRADE BUREAU 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 20, 2008 

Serial No. 110–85 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Jon Traub, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia, Chairman 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of May 13, 2008, announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Lloyd Doggett, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 6 

John J. Manfreda, Administrator, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, United States Department of the Treasury ............................................. 24 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Authentix, statement ............................................................................................... 92 

Charles N. Whitaker, statement ............................................................................ 94 

Consumer Federation of America, statement ........................................................ 100 

Matthew L. Myers, statement ................................................................................ 101 

SICPA Product Security, statement ....................................................................... 104 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, news release ................................ 107 

Maurice A. John, Sr., statement ............................................................................. 109 

The Honorable Mike Thompson and George Radanovich, joint letter ................ 116 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND 

TRADE BUREAU 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 

room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Lewis 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–5522 

May 13, 2008 

OV–8 

Lewis Announces a Hearing on 

the Department of the Treasury 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis (D–GA) 

today announced that the Subcommittee on Oversight will hold a hearing on the Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The 

hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in the main 

Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. The Honorable Lloyd Doggett, a Representative from the State of Texas, and John J. Manfreda, Administrator of TTB, 

have been invited to testify. However, any individual or organization not scheduled 

for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the 

Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

On January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 separated the functions 

of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms into two organizations—TTB and 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). TTB was established as a new bureau within the Department of the Treasury to: (1) collect excise 

taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition; (2) regulate alcohol and tobacco 

products; and (3) protect consumers. TTB is the primary Federal authority in the 

regulation of the alcohol and tobacco industries. ATF was established as a new bureau within the Department of Justice with jurisdiction over firearms enforcement 

and regulation, arson and explosives, and interstate trafficking of cigarettes. 

TTB is the third largest tax collection agency in the Federal Government with 

nearly $15 billion in excise taxes collected last year from approximately 6,100 businesses. In addition, TTB regulates over 45,000 alcohol and tobacco business operations. It has approximately 550 employees and a budget of $93.5 million. The Administration’s fiscal year 2009 proposed budget for TTB is $96.9 million, an increase 

of 3.6 percent over current levels. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Lewis said, ‘‘TTB has a broad range of 

responsibilities from tax collection to consumer protection and plays a critical role in our economy. I look forward to reviewing TTB’s operations, including the impact of its separation from ATF. TTB must have the resources and authority it needs to protect the public and the revenue.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review TTB’s overall operations on its 5-year anniversary. The 

Subcommittee will examine: (1) TTB’s budget and workload; (2) enforcement programs and compliance issues related to the collection of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, 

and ammunition excise taxes; (3) the immediate and long-term impact of the division of resources and responsibilities between TTB and ATF; and (4) administrative 

and other proposals related to TTB’s operations. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
3 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit comments 

for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the 

Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee 

homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘110th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, ‘‘Committee Hearings’’ (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress 

=18). Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link 

entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Follow the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ‘‘submit’’ on the final 

page. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Tuesday, June 

3, 2008. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. 

Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

Chairman LEWIS. Good morning. The hearing is now called to 

order. Today the Subcommittee on Oversight will review the operation of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. 

It is the newest agency in the Department of Treasury, yet it collects the oldest of our Federal taxes—excise taxes on alcohol and 

tobacco. 

This Subcommittee has not had a full review of TTB in over 15 

years. This hearing is long overdue. TTB plays an important role 

in our government. This agency collects $15 billion in excise taxes 

each year, regulates the alcohol and tobacco markets, and protects 

the public. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
4 

It has been 75 years since the repeal of the Prohibition and the 

demands on TTB are growing. However, its budget has not. It has 

less than 600 employees and no law enforcement agents to oversee 

markets of almost $600 billion. 

This does not count products sold outside the tax system. Illegal 

products threaten our health, our safety and our revenue. 

I am concerned that TTB is not getting the respect it deserves 

given its broad and important mission. 

The Subcommittee welcomes Mr. Manfreda and looks forward to 

his testimony. 

[The prepared statement of the Honorable John Lewis follows:] 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.001
5 

Chairman LEWIS. Now I am pleased to recognize my distinguished Ranking Member and my dear friend and my brother, Mr. 

Ramstad, for his opening statement. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for calling this hearing today. You are a dear friend and I am 

grateful to serve with you. 

It does not seem possible that 5 years have passed since the responsibilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were 

divided and placed into two different agencies. 

I think we all recognize while the TTB might not be the most 

well known Federal agency, in fact, I bet if you did a survey of the 

535 Members of Congress, a majority would not recognize the initials. 

Nonetheless, as the Chairman pointed out, it is the government’s 

third largest collector of revenue, bringing in the $15 billion in excise taxes to the Treasury each year. 

It is a very critical agency, just the function of ensuring that domestically produced alcohol and tobacco products comply with Federal safety requirements is absolutely vital. 

In other countries, we hear stories after stories of tainted alcohol 

and tobacco products. We do not hear of similar incidents in our 

country and that is a testament, I believe, to TTB’s effectiveness. 

My hat goes off to the work that you are doing. 

I know that your agency works closely with a number of Federal 

and State agencies, and I know Minnesota law enforcement has 

been grateful for your collaboration on a number of important cases 

in our State. 

We are getting a good return, I believe, on our investment of taxpayer dollars. Of course, there is always more to be done, like with 

every agency and every organization. 

There still are illegal sales of cigarettes and alcohol. We still 

need to emphasize the enforcement function and certainly, a concern of everybody on this Committee is cigarettes and alcohol, too 

common in the hands of minors, certainly a concern of all Americans. 

Internet sales. Looking forward to hearing about whether we 

need to change any laws with respect to Internet sales. I know they 

pose special challenges. Also looking to hear from our good friend 

and colleague from Texas, Mr. Doggett, about the STOP Act. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to review the 

budget and the operations of the TTB. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses and working together on these important 

issues. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramstad, for your 

statement. 

Now we will hear from our witnesses. I ask that you limit your 

testimony to 5 minutes. Without objection, your entire statement 

will be included in the record. 

It is my great pleasure and delight to introduce or just present 

one of our colleagues, Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas, a 

Member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Mr. Doggett. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LLOYD DOGGETT, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Ramstad, and colleagues. I certainly share in the sentiments that 

each of you have just expressed concerning the Bureau. 

While it has a number of responsibilities, I will focus in my brief 

testimony on just one of those, and that is tobacco, and specifically 

H.R. 5689, the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act or the STOP Act, 

that I have introduced as a sensible law enforcement approach to 

prevent the smuggling of tobacco. 

Tobacco is the single largest illegally trafficked drug product 

on the planet. By reducing tobacco smuggling, I believe we can 

improve public health, collect more government revenue, and curb 

a source that has often been used by organized crime and terrorists. 

Tax free black market tobacco is sold at lower prices, increasing 

consumption in tobacco related illness while denying much needed 

government revenue and sometimes financing terrorists. 

An estimated 21 billion contraband cigarettes entered the U.S. 

market during one recent year. Almost half of these were international product or U.S. product for export coming back into the 

U.S. to evade Federal taxes and State and local taxes, and a little 

more than half represented internal cross-State smuggling from 

low tax States to high tax States. 

The total lost revenue from illegal tobacco has been estimated at 2 to $4 billion each year in this country. It is not a small problem. 

Worldwide, there are an estimated 600 billion elicit cigarettes accounting for a loss of 40 to $50 billion in government revenue. 

Of course, tax free cheaper tobacco means more nicotine addicts. 

About every 6 seconds, someone in this world dies from tobacco. 

That is why the enactment of this particular legislation has been 

important to public health groups like Tobacco Free Kids, which 

has filed testimony at this hearing, and the American Lung Association, which has endorsed the STOP Act. 

Last year, when this very Committee was debating in this room 

the proposal to raise tobacco taxes in an effort to end the disgrace 

of so many uninsured children across our country, some of our colleagues on the Committee voiced concerns that more taxes would 

only result in more smuggling. 

I believe that their concern was not unreasonable, but I believe 

it is an unreasonable excuse for opposing reasonable taxation of tobacco products. 

When smuggling is the problem, law enforcement should be 

given the tools to prevent and control it. That is why the STOP Act 

would take the approach that it does. 

Indeed, World Bank studies have suggested that the availability 

of smuggling is more related to a tolerance for smuggling and contraband sales than it is to the level of taxation. 

Choosing between raising taxes and reducing tobacco smuggling 

really represents a false choice because we can reduce smuggling 

and recoup needed revenue at the same time. 

Highly profitable tobacco smuggling can be used to advance a 

variety of criminal objectives. I commend our colleague and the 

Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
7 

Representative Peter King, who recently released a revealing report entitled ‘‘Tobacco and Terror, How Cigarette Smuggling Is 

Funding Our Enemies Abroad.’’ 

In an interview with the Republican Members of the Committee on Homeland Security’s staff, a convicted tobacco smuggler 

turned confidential informant for the State of New York admits 

‘‘Tobacco smugglers’ only fear is losing a load of cigarettes. We do 

not fear law enforcement. They’ll pull us over, seize the load and 

maybe we’ll get arrested, but most likely we won’t. Worse case scenario, we go to jail for a couple of months before returning to smuggling. 

Think about it. A small fish like me can make $50,000 a month 

working only a few hours each week. The big fish make hundreds 

of thousands a week, most of which goes to the Middle East in cash 

or trade transactions.’’ 

Among the groups that I have worked with over almost a decade 

is the Federation of Tax Administrators, an association of the principal tax and revenue collecting agencies in each of the 50 States. 

They are on the front lines of dealing with tobacco and tobacco 

smuggling. 

I would ask the Committee’s consent, I believe they will be filing 

written testimony after the hearing, but to include a letter from 

them and the testimony that Mr. John Colledge presented recently 

to the Judiciary Committee in support of the STOP Act. 

[The information follows:] 

WRITTEN REMARKS OF JOHN W. COLLEDGE III 

CONSULTANT, CUSTOM AND TRADE—ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING 

SPARKS, NEVADA 

FOR THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

MAY 1, 2008 

Introduction 

Chairman Scott, it is a pleasure to submit these remarks in support of the proposed ‘‘Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008.’’ I would like to provide the Committee with some background on tobacco smuggling in the United States and how, 

I believe, this Act will greatly reduce the illicit trade in tobacco as it relates to the 

United States. My opinions are my own, and based upon more than 33 years in law 

enforcement and specifically, more than 20 years experience in enforcing U.S. customs laws, with 14 of those years enforcing and studying matters directly related 

to cigarette smuggling and transnational organized crime. I will discuss some of the 

specifics of this proposed legislation and provide some background on the illicit 

trade in tobacco. 

Background 

The United States has been a source and transshipment country for contraband 

cigarettes for approximately 50 years. I would like to quote from the prepared remarks that were submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee in March 2000, 

by then U.S. Customs Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly: 

International cigarette smuggling has grown to a multi-billion dollar a year illegal 

enterprise linked to transnational organized crime and international terrorism. Profits from cigarette smuggling rival those of narcotic trafficking. The United States 

plays an important role as a source and transshipment country. Additionally, large 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
8 

1 U.S. Congress, Senate, 2001, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Treasury and 

General Government, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, 30 March 2000, Internet, http://frwebgate. 

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001lsappltrel1&docid=f:62810.wais, accessed: 17 

March 2008. 2 Europa, Press Room, Press Releases, EU coherent strategy against fiscal fraud—Frequently 

Asked Questions Brussels, 31 May 2006, Internet, available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/ 

pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/221, accessed 28 April 2008. 3FinCEN, Advisory Issue 12, June 1999, Internet, available from: http://www.fincen.gov/ 

advis12.html, accessed: 28 April 2008. 4Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, TRADE BASED MONEY LAUNDERING, 23 June 2006, Internet, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoec/60/25/37038272.pdf, accessed 

12 November 2007. 

sums of money related to cigarette smuggling flow through U.S. financial institutions.1

Since March 2000, the illicit trade in all tobacco products has increased dramatically in the United States. The contraband products include those smuggled into the 

United States, those legally manufactured domestically and diverted to the illicit 

market, and those illegally manufactured in the United States. 

Cigarette Packaging 

Please allow me to briefly describe tobacco packaging so everyone can understand 

the issues: 

• Pack = 20 cigarettes (internationally 5, 10, 25 cigarette packs exist). • Carton = 10 Packs, 200 cigarettes. • Master Case = 10,000 cigarettes (internationally 12,000 cigarettes). • 40 Foot Container = 1,000 master cases, 10 million cigarettes. 

Sources of Illicit Tobacco 

Tobacco is a legal commodity that is traded throughout the world, but price differences between nations and domestically, between states and provinces, have created a demand for contraband tobacco products. These cigarettes fall into several 

categories: 

• Cigarettes purchased in nations, states, or provinces with low tax rates and 

smuggled into nations, states, or provinces with higher tax rates. • Counterfeit cigarettes. • Illicitly manufactured cigarettes. • Cigarettes fraudulently diverted from Export Warehouses, Customs Bonded 

Warehouses, Foreign and Free Trade Zones. • Stolen cigarettes, ranging from store burglaries to thefts of container-sized shipments in foreign, interstate or interprovincial commerce. 

Tobacco Smuggling Overview 

Several groups of the Italian Mafia, Russian and Asian organized criminal groups, 

Colombian narco-traffickers are or have been involved in tobacco smuggling in Europe, Asia, North and Latin America. Non-traditional organized criminal groups operating between the United States and Canada are currently involved in the contraband trade in tobacco, including illicit manufacturing, smuggling, and money laundering. 

In addition to producing counterfeit cigarettes, illegally manufacturing other cigarettes, and trafficking in contraband cigarettes, criminal organizations have used 

cigarettes as a commodity to launder the proceeds of other criminal activity and to 

facilitate various international trade fraud schemes. In Europe, some of these trade 

fraud schemes are known as Value Added Tax (VAT) Carousel Fraud.2 Cigarettes 

have been used to launder large cocaine and other drug smuggling proceeds in what 

is known as the Black Market Peso Exchange.3 Trade Based Money Laundering was 

described in detail in a Financial Action Task Force report that was published in 

June 2006.4 These organized crime groups operate through corruption and intimidation and are not afraid to use violence to further their business goals. 

The terrorist organizations referred to in Mr. Kelly’s testimony were the Real 

Irish Republican Army (IRA), and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The Real 

IRA and other factions of the IRA have smuggled cigarettes and other commercial 

products to fund terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for 

decades. In the United States, we have seen persons linked to Hezbollah convicted 

of offenses related to trafficking in contraband cigarettes in schemes to provide material support to terrorism. The PKK was linked to cigarette smuggling into Iraq 

that benefited the family of Saddam Hussein. The Real IRA, Hezbollah, and the 

PKK are internationally recognized as terrorist organizations. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
9 

5 U.S. Department of Justice, Distinguished Service Commemorative Presented to John 

Colledge United States Customs Service, re: United States v. Miller et. al., Syracuse, New York, 

30 November 2000. 6 Ibid. 

7The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, 2005 Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada, Ottawa, 20–21, available from: http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annuallreports/annuallreport2005/ 

document/annuallreportl2005le.pdf, Internet, accessed: 15 January 2008. 8 Ibid. 

9The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, 2004 Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada, Ottawa, 21, available from: http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annuallreports/annuallreport2004/ 

document/ciscl2004lannuallreport.pdf, Internet, accessed: 15 January 2008. 10The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, 2003 Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada, Ottawa, 19, available from: http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annuallreports/annuallreport2003/ 

Document/cisclannuallreportl2003.pdf, accessed: 15 January 2008. 11 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, Press Release, 11 April 2005, Internet, available from: www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/presslreleases/2005/ 

Abraham.sen.pdf, accessed: 28 April 2008. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 

Here are some examples of ongoing or long-term smuggling of tobacco products 

that directly impacted or are currently affecting the United States: 

Case Studies—North America 

The Saint Regis—Mohawk Reservation or Reserve, also known as the Akwasasne, 

straddles the international border between the United States and Canada. In 1997, 

an organized smuggling group with links to Italian and Russian organized crime 

that operated on the Akwasasne smuggled large volumes of cigarettes and liquor 

into Canada from the United States in violation of the laws of both countries. The 

money laundering case was the largest ever in the Northern District of New York 

and involved criminal transactions that totaled more than $687 million.5 This case 

resulted in the first guilty plea from a major tobacco manufacturer when Northern 

Brands International, a subsidiary of RJ Reynolds Company, pled guilty to violating 

Customs laws and forfeited $10 million and paid a fine of $5 million.6

The smuggling activity continued along the border between the United States and 

Canada. The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC), 2005 Annual Report on 

Organized Crime in Canada, was the most recent CISC report to specially address 

the illicit tobacco trade and the role of organized crime in that trade.7 The report 

made reference to tobacco products manufactured illegally in the United States, 

packaged in plastic bags, and smuggled to Canada for sale.8 The plastic bag packaging is a growing trend worldwide, which makes tracking and tracing cigarettes 

even more difficult. The 2004 report specifically linked the Hells Angels motorcycle 

gang and Asian organized crime to commodity smuggling conducted by organized 

crime groups operating along the international border between Canada and the 

United States.9 The 2003 report listed the origins of illicit tobacco products as the 

United States, South America, Asia and the Middle East.10

In 2002, a criminal investigation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement resulted in criminal charges of several people in Texas, New York, and California. The group was charged with distributing 2,313 master cases of counterfeit 

cigarettes with a retail value of approximately $5.4 million.11 The indictment also 

alleged that 5,616 master cases of cigarettes were shipped by the organization with 

a total loss of revenue to the Federal and State Governments of approximately $9.2 

million.12 The following excerpt from the press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas described the scheme: 13

The Organization employed different techniques to smuggle and introduce into the 

commerce of the United States contraband and counterfeit cigarettes. These included, but were not limited to, the manipulation of the Customs in-bond system. 

The defendants attempted to achieve this by making false and fraudulent material 

statements and representations to U.S. Customs authorities by presenting altered 

and falsified documents and by submitting fraudulent ‘‘pedimentos,’’ Mexican Customs documents. 

These pedimentos reflected that the contraband cigarettes had been exported from 

the United States to Mexico when, in truth, the contraband cigarettes had been 

smuggled and introduced into the commerce of the United States. The various documents used by the defendants were intended to convince anyone who inspected 

these documents that taxes and duties were not due and owing to U.S. Customs authorities, and/or the States of Texas, California and New York, on any cigarettes associated with these documents. The Organization modified and adapted its smuggling techniques in direct response to any measurable success by law enforcement 

in curtailing its illegal activities. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
10 

14 Behan, Tom. The Camorra, 43–44, London: Routledge, 1996. 15 Ibid. 16 Center for Public Integrity. Tobacco Companies Linked to Criminal Organizations in Cigarette Smuggling, Italy. available from: http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=354; Internet; accessed 14 January 2008. 17 Ibid. 18SE Times, Italian prosecutors to charge former Montenegrin officials with cigarette smuggling, 24 June 2007, Internet, http://www.balkantimes.com/ocoon/setimes/xhtml/enlGB/features/ 

setimes/newsbriefs/2007/06/24/nb-04, accessed 10 January 2008. 19 Reuters, Milosevic widow, son in cigarette smuggling probe, 11 June 2007, Internet, http:// 

www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1181733220070611, accessed 10 January 2008. 

The investigation revealed that the counterfeit cigarettes were shipped in containers on international waters from Asia to the United States. It is known that at 

least two containers of counterfeit cigarettes arrived at the port of entry in Long 

Beach, California. To prevent detection by U.S. Customs authorities, the defendants 

caused the shipments of counterfeit cigarettes to be manifested as other merchandise, for example ‘‘toys’’ and ‘‘plastic goods.’’ When the counterfeit cigarettes arrived 

at the port of entry, the members of the organization attempted to unload, smuggle 

and distribute the counterfeit cigarettes in the United States. 

Some of the elements in the Doggett bill would have greatly assisted in the investigation and prosecution of this and other cases. The export bonds, wholesaler’s permits, and more uniform record keeping may well have prevented this scheme. 

Case Study—Europe 

In 1961 the free port in Tangiers, Morocco was closed and the cigarette smuggling 

operations that operated there for a decade were moved to the former Yugoslavia 

and Albania.14 This relocation greatly benefited the Camorra, an Italian organized 

crime group from the Naples area.15 When those states failed in the early 1990s, 

the Camorra and other criminal groups quickly took advantage of the instability in 

the region and again expanded their criminal enterprises in the region. 

In 1999, a report issued by the Italian Anti-Mafia Commission, identified Albania 

as a major transshipment point for cigarettes smuggled to Italy and various countries in the Middle East.16 Reports from multiple sources stated that the Prime 

Minster of Montenegro at that time, Milo Djukanovic, granted smuggling rights to 

several people in exchange for substantial bribes. Djukanovic was implicated in cigarette smuggling in testimony in an Italian court by a leading figure in Italian cigarette smuggling with links to the Camorra who claimed that he personally negotiated cigarette smuggling rights from Montenegro with Djukanovic.17 Milo Djukanovic was recently re-elected as the Prime Minister of Montenegro. 

The Balkans region remains deeply involved in cigarette smuggling and criminal 

investigations into illicit activities dating back into the 1990s. In June 2007, a story 

in the SE Times reported that Italian prosecutors were about to charge Milo 

Djukanovic and others for their participation in a criminal enterprise involving cigarette smuggling and money laundering from 1994 to 2002.18 Also in June 2007, it 

was reported that Serbia’s special organized crime prosecutor announced that they 

began an investigation of Mira Markovic, Slobadan Milosevic’s widow, and her son, 

Marko Milosevic, for cigarette smuggling between 1996 and 2001 that reportedly 

earned them tens of millions of Euros.19

The situation in the Balkans impacted not only Europe, but also the United 

States. Some of the smuggled cigarettes were manufactured in the United States 

and proceeds from the illicit activity were laundered in the United States. High 

level government corruption and failed states are a cause for concern of all nations. 

Unique Serial Numbers and Other Marks 

Historically, law enforcement has lacked the ability to trace contraband tobacco 

products. Invoices frequently described container shipments of cigarettes simply as: 

‘‘American Made,’’ without identifying the brand. The shipments were sold several 

times while the cigarettes were in transit, the invoices were faxed or otherwise 

transmitted many times, resulting in critical data being blurred in transmission or 

possibly altered between transmissions. The cigarette packages and cartons lacked 

unique serial numbers that were readable by law enforcement authorities. The 

unique numbers found on master cases were often removed by traffickers to hinder 

law enforcement efforts to trace the cigarettes. The requirement of the Doggett bill 

to mark individual packages with unique serial numbers and markings will make 

it easier to distinguish diverted or stolen cigarettes from those legally introduced 

into commerce. The unique serial numbers and high-tech stamp described in the 

Doggett bill will significantly aid law enforcement authorities in the United States 

and our international partners to track and trace cigarettes that originated in the 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
11 

United States. The State of California and the countries of Brazil, Malaysia, and 

Turkey have introduced marking regimes similar to those described in the Doggett 

bill. Canada recently contracted for a comparable system. California has publicly reported a reduction in contraband trafficking and increased revenue collection with 

a high-tech stamping system, which has paid for itself. The loss of revenue to the 

United States, State and local governments (depending on the State and locality) 

for one 40 foot container of cigarettes can easily exceed 1 million dollars. 

Export Bonds 

For nearly 50 years cigarettes manufactured in the United States have been exported to brokers who introduced these cigarettes into the black market. The lack 

of enforcement and financial accountability by the exporters fueled this illicit trade. 

The export bonds required by the Doggett bill would force exporters to exercise more 

due diligence in ensuring their products are not smuggled back into the United 

States or into another country. 

Wholesale Permits 

It is important that all manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, and export warehouse proprietors have an appropriate permit to conduct business related to tobacco 

products. The permits are important in ensuring due diligence in the supply chain. 

A permit system would aid law enforcement agencies in their efforts to identify 

criminal elements in the tobacco trade who might seek a permit in the United 

States to smuggle tobacco products into, through or from the United States. The information sharing provisions in the Doggett bill would allow the exchange of this 

data with international regulatory and law enforcement partners, thus enhancing 

law enforcement efforts directed at transnational organized crime groups. 

Control of Manufacturing Equipment 

Increasingly sophisticated equipment is being used in illicit cigarette manufacturing in the United States and throughout the world. The equipment is used to 

produce counterfeit and other tobacco products. The mechanisms to control the 

equipment utilized in the manufacturing and application of cigarette tax stamps 

would be an important tool in suppressing both the counterfeiting and illicit manufacturing of tobacco products and will make it more difficult to illicitly manufacture 

cigarettes. The Doggett bill is not intended to control devices that an individual 

would use to make cigarettes for their personal use, but rather that equipment 

which has commercial applications. 

Recordkeeping 

The Doggett bill does not call for businesses engaged in the tobacco trade to maintain records that they currently do not maintain for Federal, State, and local Governments. What the bill requires is more specificity in their recordkeeping. In my 

experience, if the businesses maintained records; they contained the vague or nonexistent references as to country of origin, false or inappropriate harmonized tariff 

schedule classifications, and incomplete information as to the parties in the transactions. Given the fraud that has historically been associated with the tobacco trade, 

I do not believe it is not unreasonable for the government to mandate accurate 

record keeping. 

Creation of Right of Action for State Tobacco Administrators for Failure To 

Report 

State tobacco administrators have the primary responsibility for the collection of 

tobacco taxes and in some instances, State sales taxes. The changes proposed in the 

Doggett bill would provide a legal remedy for the States to take action in the U.S. 

District Courts. Given the interstate and international nature of the tobacco trade, 

this is often the best venue. In addition, the States have been active, and in some 

cases assumed a leading role in the pursuit of criminal organizations involved in 

the illicit tobacco trade. The Doggett bill does not delegate any authority to the 

States, nor does it infringe on tribal sovereignty. 

Conclusion 

The overview of the tobacco smuggling schemes in North America and the Balkans described in these remarks illustrated three of many long-term tobacco smuggling scenarios that involved or involve organized criminal groups, allegations of 

high level corruption of national governments in the Balkans, issues that directly 

affect or affected the security and the commerce of the United States and our closest 

friends and allies. The criminal activity associated with tobacco smuggling is not benign. The criminal and terrorists groups involved in this activity are doing so for 

personal enrichment, funding or laundering the proceeds of other criminal activities, 

or to finance terrorist acts. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
12 

Generally speaking, law enforcement in the United States, several states and 

many other nations has been inadequately funded, trained, networked with domestic and international partners, conflicted with ever-changing priorities, or lack the 

legal framework to adequately address the illicit tobacco trade. Many offenses associated with the illicit tobacco trade lack severe penalties associated with drug or 

arms trafficking. Enforcement in the United States and other nations did not receive high priority because the crime was looked upon as ‘‘the other guy’s problem’’ 

or the transshipment locations were profiting from foreign or free trade zone activity, freight handling, and associated financial transactions. Transnational organized 

crime, in any form is not ‘‘the other guy’s problem,’’ it is the responsibility of all 

nations. 

The ‘‘Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008’’ will eliminate many of these 

shortcomings in the United States. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the Committee on this important matter. 

f 

Mr. DOGGETT. The jurisdiction over the STOP Act is divided between our Committee and the Judiciary Committee which recently 

had a hearing on it. It was an insightful hearing. They deal with 

Alcohol and Tobacco, ATF, while we deal with TTB. 

I am pleased to respond to questions about the STOP Act and 

about its objectives, and just appreciate the fact that the Committee is conducting this oversight hearing. 

The STOP Act, which has been offered in various forms for almost a decade, is not going to be accepted in its current form by 

the tobacco industry. 

What I am outlining today would be an approach that I hope 

eventually a future Congress will implement, but what I would like 

to do is see us take at least a few commonsense steps this session, 

I hope in a bipartisan fashion, to try to address tobacco smuggling 

and then have the Committee continue considering some of the 

high-tech approaches that other governments are using to really 

get at this problem in the future. 

I welcome any questions you might have and thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of the Honorable Lloyd Doggett follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Lloyd Doggett, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 

Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Ramstad, and colleagues, thank you for conducting this oversight hearing and giving me this opportunity to discuss legislation 

pending before our Committee that concerns one of the major responsibilities of the 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. This is H.R. 5689, the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2008, the STOP Act, a sensible law enforcement approach 

to prevent the smuggling of tobacco. 

Tobacco is the single largest illegally trafficked legal product on the planet. By 

reducing tobacco smuggling, we can improve public health, collect more government 

revenue, and curb a source of funding for organized crime and terrorists. 

‘‘Tax-free’’ black-market tobacco is sold at lower prices, increasing consumption 

and tobacco-related illness, while denying much-needed government revenue and 

sometimes financing terrorist groups. An estimated 21 billion contraband cigarettes 

entered the U.S. market during one recent year; almost half of this represents international product or U.S. product for export coming back into the U.S. to evade Federal, State and local taxes, and a little more than half represents internal crossState smuggling to evade State and local taxes. Total lost revenue from illegal tobacco is estimated at $2–$4 billion each year. 

Worldwide, there are an estimated 600 billion illicit cigarettes, amounting to a 

loss of $40–50 billion in government revenue each year. And tax free, cheaper tobacco means more nicotine addicts. About every 6 seconds someone dies from tobacco. That is why enactment of anti-smuggling legislation is so important to public 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
13 

health groups such as Tobacco Free Kids and the American Lung Association, which 

have endorsed the STOP Act. 

Last year, when our Committee approved legislation to raise tobacco taxes in an 

effort to correct the disgrace of so many uninsured children across America, some 

of our colleagues here voiced concern that more taxes would only result in more 

smuggling. That is not an unreasonable concern, but it is an unreasonable excuse 

for opposing reasonable taxation of tobacco products. When smuggling is the problem, law enforcement should be given the tools to prevent and control it. That is 

what the STOP Act would do. Indeed, World Bank studies have shown that the 

availability of illicit tobacco is linked more closely to tolerance for contraband sales 

than to the level of taxation. Choosing between raising tobacco taxes and reducing 

tobacco smuggling represents a false choice because if we give our law enforcement 

officers the tools they need, we reduce smuggling and recoup needed revenue. 

Highly profitable tobacco smuggling can be used to advance other criminal objectives including support for international terrorist organizations. I commend our colleague and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. 

Peter King, who recently released a revealing report entitled ‘‘Tobacco and Terror: 

How Cigarette Smuggling is Funding our Enemies Abroad.’’ In an interview with 

the Committee on Homeland Security staff, a convicted tobacco smuggler, turned 

confidential informant for the State of New York admits: 

Tobacco smugglers’ only fear is losing a load of cigarettes. We do not fear law enforcement. They will pull us over, seize the load, and maybe we get arrested; but 

most likely we do not. Worst case scenario, we go to jail for a couple of months before returning to smuggling again. Think about it. A small fish like me can make 

$50,000 a month working only a few hours each week. The big fish make hundreds 

of thousands a week, most of which goes to the Middle East in cash or trade transactions. 

Among the groups with whom I have worked almost a decade in developing the 

STOP Act is the Federation of Tax Administrators, an association of the principal 

tax and revenue collecting agencies in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, New York City and Puerto Rico. On the front lines of dealing with tobacco and 

the impact of tobacco smuggling across America, the Federation has submitted a letter of support for the STOP Act (Appendix A), which along with the written testimony that the Federation will be submitting after our hearing, I would ask for it 

to be made a part of our record. These administrators conclude that the legislation 

that I am proposing ‘‘will significantly reduce the smuggling of U.S. tobacco products 

and aid in the enforcement of State tobacco tax requirements across the country.’’ 

We share jurisdiction over these matters with the Judiciary Committee, which 

through its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held an important hearing on the STOP Act only a few weeks ago concerning those of its provisions, which would be implemented by ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The portion of the legislation that comes within our Committee today is that which concerns the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

and its responsibilities for collecting the Federal excise tax on tobacco products and 

preventing ineligible persons from entering the tobacco industry. I believe that TTB 

should be given additional tools and resources to address this criminal activity. 

As a result of the Judiciary hearing, I have concluded that one provision would 

be better implemented by TTB rather than ATF, as I had originally proposed. That 

is the provision which would ban the sale of tobacco product manufacturing equipment to unlicensed persons in order to prevent the illegal use of such machinery 

and reduce the problem of illegal manufacturing. 

With such a volume of smuggled tobacco, one of the objectives of the STOP Act 

is to be able to follow tobacco from manufacturer through the distribution chain, to 

be able to determine where particular tobacco that is smuggled was made and 

where it was supposed to be sold before it was diverted. Perhaps the best way to 

do that is to follow the example of the State of California and Canada by using 

state-of-the-art technology to apply a high-tech stamp during the manufacturing 

process, which cannot be easily counterfeited and which can contain complete information about the product to which it is attached. The stamp would contain 

encrypted information readable by a portable scanner, enabling enforcement officials 

to distinguish real tax stamps from counterfeits, identify who applied the stamp and 

initially sold the product, and obtain other information useful for tracking, tracing, 

and enforcement purposes. 

Several companies have the capacity to implement such a system, and two of 

them, Authentix and SICPA Secure Ink, are submitting written testimony for the 

record of this hearing and have provided me with letters in support of my bill (Appendix B and C). In California, which contracted with SICPA, cigarette tax revenue 

increased by $100 million in the first 20 months after these new high-tech tax 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
14 

stamps were introduced in 2005. In its testimony for today’s hearing, SICPA indicates that it has developed similar stamp systems for both Brazil and Turkey. My 

bill allows the Secretary of the Treasury the flexibility to develop regulations that 

allow us to build on what has worked, and what can be improved, on the California 

model and from other countries. 

While the STOP Act proposes this approach, it is clear that domestic tobacco manufacturers are not yet willing to accept it. While considering this requirement for 

enactment by a future Congress, I would ask the Committee to explore other provisions that I have advanced to see if we cannot achieve bipartisan agreement on a 

few steps that can be taken now in this Congress to make a difference in the battle 

against tobacco smuggling. 

In addition to the illegal machinery provision that I mentioned, I believe that we 

should at least adopt provisions included in the STOP Act similar to those that were 

overwhelmingly approved by this Congress as a part of the Children’s Health Insurance legislation that President Bush vetoed. These would broaden authority to 

deny tobacco permits to manufacture or import tobacco and would condition permit issuance upon compliance with State and Federal laws. The STOP Act creates an audit trail, giving law enforcement access to information 

tobacco companies already have, improving law enforcement’s ability to prevent illegal diversions of tobacco products and to identify and prosecute those who take part 

in this activity. Former U.S. Custom’s agent John Colledge, with more than 20 years 

of Federal law enforcement service, testified earlier this year that ‘‘The unique serial numbers and high-tech stamp described in the Doggett bill will significantly aid 

law enforcement authorities in the U.S. and our international partners (Appendix 

D).’’ 

Even if we are unable, in this Congress, to offer our law enforcement officers the 

advantages of a high-tech stamp that could be made easily available, we should at 

least require some unique, uniform serial number. This would give law enforcement 

officials access to the same information that the tobacco manufacturers already 

have. This measure is about arming our officers—arming them with the knowledge 

they need to fight increasingly sophisticated smugglers. 

I believe that TTB agrees that adding serial numbers to the records to be maintained by manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers is a simple way to help tighten 

the audit trail. 

The STOP Act, coupled with well-crafted regulations, will provide State and Federal law enforcement, regulatory, and prosecutorial agencies with valuable tools to 

fight tobacco smuggling. 

This year over 150 nations are beginning to negotiate a set of rules for a worldwide effort to eliminate the illicit trade of tobacco as part of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Geneva, Switzerland. The Bush Administration signed 

the Convention in 2004, but unfortunately, we are excluded from any participation 

in the ongoing negotiations on international smuggling and other issues because 

during the last 4 years, President Bush has not even bothered to submit this treaty 

for ratification to the Senate. As the world moves ahead with a protocol to keep 

cheap smuggled cigarettes out of the hands of children and profits out of the hands 

of criminals and terrorists, we should be part of the solution, not the problem. 

The benefits of this bill can be measured in deaths and disease that are prevented, in enhanced quality of life for those who avoid nicotine addiction, and in billions of dollars saved in both lost revenue and health care costs. I am eager to work 

with all Members of our Committee in taking meaningful steps to more fully empower law enforcement as it is struggling with smuggling. 

f 

Chairman LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Doggett. 

At this time, I will open it up for questions for Mr. Doggett. I 

ask that each Member follow the 5 minute rule. 

Mr. Doggett, for many years, you have been a leader on the need 

to prevent smuggling. Can you just tell Members of the Subcommittee what can TTB do to discourage and prevent smuggling 

now under current law and label authority? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I am not in any way critical of TTB. I think they 

are doing the job within the limits of their legislative authority. 

All that I am looking to do is to try to supplement their ability 

to deal with this problem and the same for ATF. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
15 

If you have this evening a State Trooper on one of the interstates 

stop a truck for some traffic violation and they look in the back and 

they find it does not look like it came from one of the major cigarette manufacturers but is full of cartons of cigarettes, the question 

is whether or not that State Trooper and his superiors will have 

the information available that they need in order to determine 

where this tobacco came from, where it is headed, and whether it 

is likely to be the property of a criminal enterprise. 

The tobacco manufacturers have the ability to trace their product 

now. I would like to be sure that law enforcement at TTB and right 

down to local law enforcement have access to the same information. 

While I propose in the STOP Act a high-tech stamp that California, Canada, Turkey and Brazil are using, I think if we did as 

little as to just add four words to one of the sections concerning 

maintaining records with serial numbers, that would be helpful. 

I proposed in the STOP Act originally that it be done by ATF, 

but after the Judiciary hearing, I think TTB is a better place, that 

we prohibit the sale of tobacco manufacturing equipment to those 

who are not already licensed to manufacture tobacco. 

Chairman LEWIS. Mr. Doggett, where would you place a serial 

number? Would it be on each carton or each pack? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I think it would be on each packet of cigarettes. 

Chairman LEWIS. Is that feasible? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Let me answer it in two ways. First, I think that 

there is already information the major tobacco manufacturers have. 

They are not a pen and pencil operation. It is a high-tech computer 

operation. I think they already have this information and they 

sometimes make it available voluntarily to TTB on request when 

they get the information. 

What I have proposed that is new and I think is more far reaching than certainly this Congress and the industry is ready to accept 

at present is the use of a high-tech stamp. 

California is doing that, and over 20 months of putting that hightech stamp on for sales in California, they say they have collected 

an extra $100 million in State revenue. 

Canada is going to this system, will have it implemented within, 

I believe, the next few months. Brazil and Turkey have implemented similar systems. 

I believe that you have testimony that is submitted and any letters they have, I would again ask consent to incorporate as part of 

my testimony, from two companies that are involved in doing this 

kind of work already. 

Mr. DOGGETT. They say it can be done fairly quickly, in a matter of months, and that it can save millions of dollars. 

We are trying to have a seamless system where you can easily 

tell where this tobacco came from, where was it heading when it 

got diverted, and that is the goal here. 

Chairman LEWIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Ramstad is recognized. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doggett, thank 

you for your testimony about the STOP Act. 

When you quantify the number of contraband cigarettes coming 

into this country every year at 21 billion, it certainly got the attenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:11 Feb 18, 2011 Jkt 058277 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\58277.XXX APPS06 PsN: 58277

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
16 

tion of everybody, I think, in the room. I again appreciate your 

work in this area. 

Is current state of the law such that manufacturing equipment 

can be sold legally to unlicensed people? 

Mr. DOGGETT. That is my understanding. We would clarify, one 

of these provisions that I say is unlike the high-tech stamps, which 

is not acceptable to the industry, I would think that this is a provision that we might be able to reach agreement on, that only those 

licensed through TTB should be able to obtain tobacco manufacturing equipment because they are the only people that are licensed to use it. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. I was going to ask if there was any empirical 

data to support the efficacy of doing that, and you cited the California experience. Can you provide us with a summary of that? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, I can. I believe that the testimony offered 

by two companies who provide this kind of service, the one in California, I believe, is called SICPA. Its U.S. headquarters is based 

out here in Virginia. They have a system that they describe. It is 

SICPA Secure Ink, I believe it is called. 

There is another company called Authentix. They have designed 

various systems. SICPA is providing the service in Turkey, in 

Brazil, in California, and in Canada. 

I believe that looking at the testimony from these two companies, 

it gives you an idea of how the system could eventually be implemented, but as I say, I think it is probably unrealistic to assume 

that can be done in the short term, but I believe it is worth this 

Committee’s further study for future implementation. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. Just one final question, Mr. Chairman. Aside 

from the serial number requirement and the manufacturing equipment limit, that is limit on sales to unlicensed or restrict sales to 

unlicensed people, what else comprises the STOP Act? Are those 

the major two elements of the bill? 

Mr. DOGGETT. There are a number of other elements. I would 

like to suggest one other I did not reach yet in my testimony that 

I believe would be important, and that is that when we debated the 

CHIP legislation, there actually were a few provisions that were included in that legislation. They were not debated or discussed, I believe, in this Committee, that Congress passed twice, and as you 

know, that was vetoed by the President. 

Those provisions would broaden authority to deny tobacco permits to manufacture or import tobacco and would condition issuing 

a permit to import or manufacture tobacco on compliance with 

State and Federal laws. That is not smuggling, among other things. 

I think that would be a constructive step. 

There are other provisions concerning trying to have a seamless 

distribution system, bonding, reporting, provisions I would like to 

see adopted at some point in the future, unlikely to occur this year. 

What I am trying to look for are a few provisions that might 

carry us a few steps forward in the effort against smuggling, and 

then have the Committee to continue to consider these others, observe the experience of California, Canada, and these other countries, and see if it would not be in our interest from a revenue 

standpoint and from a public health standpoint to adopt these provisions eventually. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
17 

Mr. RAMSTAD. Again, I want to thank my friend from Texas for 

your testimony. There are few things more important than keeping 

cigarettes out of the hands of minors especially given the nature 

of nicotine, the addictive nature of nicotine, and the damage it 

causes, lost lives and so many diseases that are related. 

Thank you for your work in this area and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. NEAL [Presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Ramstad. 

Mr. Doggett, first, a word of thanks again as Mr. Ramstad has 

indicated for your leadership on this very issue. 

Do you think it is feasible to implement a high-tech tax stamp 

on each package of cigarettes at the present time? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I believe it is. California did provide the leadership on this. They have been in effect since 2005, and over the first 

20 months, they were able to reduce smuggling and the sale of contraband tobacco by about $100 million. 

The Canadian system is being implemented this year. The testimony from SICPA refers to the Turkish and Brazilian systems, 

with which I am not as familiar. 

The technology is there. We all know about the use with all the 

problems after 9/11 of high technology to have a system that is not 

perfect on counterfeiting but reduces the counterfeiting, and 

through that stamp, a variety of information can be accessed about 

where it was manufactured, when it was manufactured, and where 

this product was headed. 

That, I think, can be invaluable to not only Federal administration through TTB but through State and local administration, and 

that is why the Federation of Tax Administrators has joined the 

public health groups in endorsing this, and why Mr. Colledge, who 

has extensive experience that I referred to earlier, testified at the 

Judiciary Committee and felt this was so important to get adopted. 

Mr. NEAL. How does your bill relate to the International Framework Convention for Tobacco Control? 

Mr. DOGGETT. That is an important question and I must say 

a rather disappointing one. The United States under the Bush Administration participated in the negotiating of a Framework Convention with countries around the world to deal with this menace 

of tobacco, a menace that really has the potential, according to the 

World Health Organization, of killing more people than a whole series of other maladies put together. 

The principal role, I think, that the United States played in 

those negotiations was try to weaken the Framework Convention 

just as much as it possibly could. Although there was some dispute 

about whether they would sign, then they signed the Framework 

Convention. 

That was 4 years ago. Since that time, President Bush has never 

bothered to submit the Framework Convention to the Senate for 

approval, for ratification. 

The Framework Convention Committee is meeting in Geneva 

this summer to look at this problem of tobacco smuggling and what 

should be done to address it. We will not have a seat at the table. 

I believe that the legislation that I propose would be consistent 

with the objectives of the Framework Convention on smuggling, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
18 

only one aspect of the many public health issues associated with 

the international pandemic of nicotine addiction, but an important 

one. 

I hope that next year the treaty is submitted and that we can 

get a seat at the table. This is a big problem. We also propose in 

the STOP Act for more information sharing between our government and foreign governments on this problem, and we ought to 

have a seat at a table like the Framework Convention to deal with 

this and other public health issues. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Mr. Nunes is recognized to inquire. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doggett, thank you for appearing before us. I think we can 

all agree that contraband cigarettes are a huge problem that we 

have in the United States. It was very predictable as we have continued both at the Federal and State level to raise taxes on cigarettes that it creates a black market, underground market. 

In your testimony, you talk a lot about the California proposal 

that was enacted in 1995 with the stamp—I mean in 2005. I think 

it is important—you testified that this has been an overwhelming 

success. 

I think there is also evidence on the other side, being from California, that this has been a dismal failure to some degree. Now, it 

is very tough to police who is selling contraband cigarettes at the 

actual mini-market level. When there are mini-markets on every 

street corner nowadays, there is considerable problems associated 

with this stamp. 

Within just a month after the stamp was enacted, there was already counterfeit stamps on the market. 

I want to know, as we begin to air this out, and I will submit 

some information for the record, and I assume you will submit information for the record, and I think it is important to have these 

types of hearings, but we need to make sure that with policies like 

these that we do not end up in the same place where we are in 

California with now counterfeit stamps being enacted. 

I do not know if you have any ideas about how we can ensure 

that we do not have the stamp duplicated, and what we can do in 

the future to make sure if your policy is enacted, that we do not 

have a continuing problem with contraband cigarettes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I welcome any information you have in that regard. I know you have some familiarity with your home area. 

I would just say that the comments you have made run counter 

to what Governor Schwarzenegger’s Administration has said about 

the success of this program and pointing to the additional revenues 

that have been raised through the program, and the fact that other 

jurisdictions are now looking at it. 

I would again re-emphasize as I said at the beginning, this is the 

first State to do it. I am sure there are some things to work out 

in how it happens. We have as a practical matter at least the next 

year to take a look at how they are doing it and see what changes 

the Canadians make in the California approach, as well as to survey, which I have not yet, what experience Turkey and Brazil have 

had, two countries that have been very involved with tobacco 

through the years, but who have adopted this kind of system. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
19 

What I would look for now, as I said in my testimony, is are 

there a few areas that might help us address tobacco smuggling 

that could be more or less acceptable to the industry and could 

take us a few steps closer, a few more tools available to deal with 

tobacco smuggling this year. 

We hope we can have a dialog about that. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee for holding 

this hearing. I will be submitting some information for the record. 

I think it is important that we air out all these issues so we get 

all the facts on the table before we try to proceed making law here 

in the Nation’s Capitol. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Your input is appreciated. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, is recognized to 

inquire. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doggett, what are the tobacco companies doing to counter 

cigarette racketeering? 

Mr. DOGGETT. It depends on whether it helps or hurts them. 

This Committee has been involved in the past in considering legislation which became the law concerning grey marketing tobacco. 

That was a situation where I think Philip Morris lost control of 

its own distribution chain and in some cases, product that was 

manufactured by its facilities in other countries was being brought 

back to create a cheaper grey market to compete with what Philip 

Morris made in this country. 

There were changes made a couple of times in the past through 

legislation that had the support of the tobacco industry to get that 

passed. 

On the other hand, there had been numerous situations around 

the world and in the United States where the tobacco industry appears to have been complicit in using smuggling directly or indirectly to build market share for its product. 

Mr. PASCRELL. How does that work? 

Mr. DOGGETT. One example—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. How does that work and what are the positions 

that have been opposed by the cigarette companies? 

Mr. DOGGETT. One way it worked in New York State was that 

a distributor for RJR, who I think is still in prison, was involved 

in using tobacco smuggled through an Indian reservation to get 

into Canada. 

Another way it has worked has been with reference to European 

Commission. Philip Morris, for example, has agreed to pay $1 billion to European Commission to settle charges concerning the role 

it played in tobacco smuggling and in other related activities in 

the—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Did they admit to the smuggling, participating? 

Mr. DOGGETT. They only agreed to pay $1 billion after they 

were charged with it, which is not a legal admission but I have not 

found them ready to give a billion here or a billion there just for 

the public good. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Were they complicit? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
20 

Mr. DOGGETT. I believe they were and there are other examples. I am not focusing just on them. Japan Tobacco, which got involved, also has agreed to make payments to the European Commission. 

There have been reports, for example, in Colombia, which we are 

very concerned about, in smuggling drugs up here, that a few years 

ago, four out of every five Marlboro’s sold in Colombia were smuggled into Colombia. 

It is a problem that has occurred around the world, not just with 

American companies, but where it has been in the interest to build 

market share at lower prices in certain countries, addicting other 

people’s children to the same kind of problem that our children 

have had. 

Mr. PASCRELL. In your estimation, what would be of great productivity here to respond to this great problem? What do the cigarette companies oppose that you think would have the greatest impact on the problem that you are trying to address? What do they 

oppose? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I think they are certainly not agreeable to using 

the high-tech stamp yet. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Why not? Because of cost? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I believe there is some testimony that they filed 

in the Judiciary Committee that I should think they are filing here, 

that we will have Members raise here, expressing their concern 

about that, about bonding requirements, about labeling tobacco as 

to where it is headed. 

I will let them make all their arguments on that. My objective 

today is to say are there not a few steps, the illegal machinery provision, the CHIP provisions, that we might take, the unique serial 

number provision, so that law enforcement will know what major 

tobacco manufacturers already know, are there not a few steps that 

we could come together on to advance this. 

Then we can consider the experience Mr. Nunes referred to, the 

experience that I have heard of from California, and see how they 

mesh, and whether over the long haul, using the latest state-of-theart technology, we can have a more seamless distribution system 

for this deadly product. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think the Members 

of the Committee, would profit from seeing either former testimony 

or reports from the Bureau itself, as to the extent of participation 

of cigarette companies in the aspect of smuggling and racketeering 

of cigarettes. I think it would be quite astonishing. 

If we could get that, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. NEAL. I think that is a subject for further inquiry for sure. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cantor, is recognized to inquire. 

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

gentleman from Texas for his testimony. 

Obviously, there are many points with which I think some Members would disagree with some of the allegations that have been 

made here regarding the tobacco companies’ involvement in illegal 

activity and smuggling, et cetera. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
21 

I do think we ought to strive to try to set the record straight in 

any kind of testimony/evidence that we could see to try and clear 

that up. I, for one, am a little bit doubtful let’s say as to some of 

the statements that have been made. 

I do know that there has been a concerted effort here in Congress 

to try and put an end to the illegal importation of tobacco products. 

I know in 2000 and then in 2006, Congress passed the Imported 

Cigarette Compliance Act, tightened it up in 2006, and frankly 

dealt with some of the issues the gentleman from Texas raises 

here in insisting and requiring that all imported cigarettes comply 

with U.S. health warnings, ingredient disclosure laws, and also 

strengthening prohibitions on the diversion of export tobacco for domestic consumption. 

What I think, Mr. Chairman, my question is beyond the sort of 

questions that have been raised about the high-tech stamp and 

whether it can be counterfeited, because I do think those questions 

have been raised, and we ought to take a look at that, but what 

we are really talking about is an allocation of resources and priority of how we are going to spend taxpayer dollars. 

If Congress has already taken action really on point to what you 

are talking about, trying to limit the pirating, trying to limit the 

illegal importation, why are we not trying to enforce those laws? 

Why are we not using our resources to enforce those laws, and 

frankly go right to the crux of the matter, which is these Internet 

sales that are going on. 

I know that you are a cosponsor of the PACT Act, and there are 

ways for us to try and put a stop to some of these evasion techniques that are going on out there, not only evading taxes but also 

promoting the illegal transaction and sale of cigarettes. 

Again, I think what I would ask the gentleman from Texas is 

how does the STOP Act do anything other than that which Congress has already done? How do you promote what we are trying 

to do by requiring the stamping of a destination during the manufacturing process? 

How does that do what we are trying to do instead of focusing 

on what we really should be focusing on, the Internet sales of tobacco? 

Mr. DOGGETT. First, we are in agreement that Internet sales 

is one of those areas that has not been adequately addressed in any 

of the prior legislation, and I support that and I believe the tobacco 

industry does, too. 

The legislation to which you refer is the grey marketing legislation that I mentioned in my earlier testimony, where Philip Morris 

and I think only Philip Morris was having a problem about some 

of its own product coming back into the United States and competing with product that it made here. 

It was focused on grey marketing. It was not focused on black 

marketing. I actually tried—I think that came up in the Committee 

maybe just before you came onto the Committee. I tried to get some 

of these provisions included in that legislation unsuccessfully. 

What I want is a seamless system, an audit trail. We have all 

seen those like World War II movies where people are using cigarettes as currency. This is in many ways almost like currency, and 

there is laundering that occurs of that currency. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
22 

I want to be able to follow the tobacco from the point of manufacture to the ultimate point of use, and have a seamless system in 

that regard. 

I believe that a company like Philip Morris or RJR can essentially do that itself, has the information available, and by doing 

something like requiring the serial number to be available, which 

they provide sometimes voluntarily to TTB, to do that uniformly I 

think will help law enforcement. 

I think the high-tech stamp could accomplish a lot of that, but 

just over the short term, why can we not agree on illegal machinery, on the provisions that were in the CHIP Act, putting the serial 

number on there, and allowing TTB to share information with foreign governments. 

I do not think those are inconsistent or harmful to a tobacco industry with which, as you can tell, I disagree very strongly, but to 

a tobacco industry if it does indeed want to comply with the law 

and not be engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in tobacco. 

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you so much. 

Mr. NEAL. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, is recognized 

to inquire. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for testifying today. 

For the record, can you tell us a little bit about this high-tech 

stamp that we have been talking about and how it works? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes. I believe that I would again refer you specifically to the testimony of two of the companies that compete 

against each other for providing such a stamp. 

It is a stamp—I am not sure that it can be compared to the kind 

of information we are seeing on passports, as a stamp to try to reduce counterfeiting, but it attempts to use a high-tech stamp that 

would go on each pack. 

It contains encrypted information that is readable by a portable 

scanner. It enables the enforcement officials to distinguish between 

real tax stamps and counterfeits. They identify who applied the 

stamp, who initially sold the product, and obtain other information 

that can be used in tracking and tracing the product for law enforcement purposes. 

I think the two approaches of these companies, and I believe 

there is another company or two who are out there doing that that 

I have not had any contact with, I asked them to forward testimony concerning as much of the mechanics while protecting any 

business confidentiality they have, and to respond to some of these 

questions. 

As you will get a chance to review their testimony about the different ways they do that, they say it is feasible to do this within 

a matter of months, that they can follow what they did in California using this portable scanner. They can do the same thing that 

they are helping Canada do, and have a much more seamless system. 

Mr. TIBERI. Do they know or do you happen to know what the 

cost of implementing such an approach would be? Did they discuss 

that with you? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
23 

Mr. DOGGETT. I do not know the precise cost. I believe it is important to look at that. I do know the State of California says the 

result has been $100 million in additional revenue. 

Mr. TIBERI. One final thought with respect to the labeling issue. 

If you have a manufacturer that is exporting a particular cigarette 

to Italy and is also exporting that same cigarette to France, what 

would be the benefits of doing that to neighboring countries, number one, and number two, what impact would that have on the U.S. 

manufacturer with respect to inventory? 

Mr. DOGGETT. You are referring to a requirement that is in the 

STOP Act that I have not discussed yet. 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. But is definitely in the Act that requires a label 

as to where this product is going. 

Mr. TIBERI. Correct. 

Mr. DOGGETT. It may be, by the way, if the high-tech stamp 

provision is put in there eventually, that all of that can be included 

in the high-tech stamp, that it can be monitored that way rather 

than a separate stamp. 

I will answer your question first by coming closer to home. There 

is also a requirement in there that if it is going to an Indian reservation, we do not make any changes in the laws concerning Indian reservations, but if it is destined for an Indian reservation, 

that you put that on there. 

That goes to the heart of some of the concerns that Peter King 

and his staff have raised about the use of Indian reservations for 

what appears to be avoidance of taxes by some people in the State 

of New York. 

As to the France and Italy example, I think maybe the best example is a place like Cyprus, Morocco, Bosnia, a small country that 

suddenly has billions of cigarettes going into that country. They are 

clearly not all destined for consumption in that country and that 

country may just be used as a trans-shipment point to get into 

other markets. 

That is the purpose, just to try to track the tobacco as to where 

it is going. There may be a way to simplify the process from what 

I currently have in the STOP Act. 

Mr. TIBERI. The STOP Act would still regulate cigarettes going 

to Italy and France as well? 

Mr. DOGGETT. It would require telling us, when you ship them, 

where they are destined for. Are they going to Estonia, Bosnia, or 

are they really destined for some other place. 

Mr. TIBERI. Are any of those countries asking for this regulation, to your knowledge? 

Mr. DOGGETT. I am not sure about Bosnia. I believe all of the 

other countries are signatories to the Framework Convention, in 

which smuggling is a key part, and which they have already had 

some preliminary meetings and will meet again this Summer in 

Geneva to try to come up with stronger provisions to deal with tobacco struggling. 

They put out a number of papers about how serious and growing 

a problem this is. 

I think all those countries we mentioned, and I know France and 

Italy are participating in the Framework Convention negotiations. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
24 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Let me thank Mr. Doggett for his testimony this morning, and I would invite you, if you care to, Mr. 

Doggett, to join the Subcommittee for the rest of the hearing. 

I also want to welcome Mr. Thompson, the gentleman from California, who is a Member of the full Committee on Ways and Means 

as well. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much and thank you for the insightful questions and comments of all our colleagues. 

Mr. NEAL. I would now like to call the next witness. It is now 

my pleasure to introduce Mr. John Manfreda, the head of TTB. 

Mr. Manfreda, would you proceed with testimony, please? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MANFREDA, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO 

TAX AND TRADE BUREAU 

Mr. MANFREDA. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Ramstad and the 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John 

Manfreda, and I am the Administrator of the Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, which is known as TTB. 

I appreciate your interest in our Bureau and appreciate today to 

report on the progress we have made since our creation in January 

2003. 

In the interest of time, I will be brief, but I request that my full 

statement be made a part of the record. 

Mr. NEAL. So, ordered. 

Mr. MANFREDA. TTB was created in the Department of Treasury with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

which divided the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

into two new agencies. 

In addition to creating TTB, the Homeland Security Act created 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice. 

Our mandate at TTB is to collect taxes rightfully due and to ensure that alcohol beverages are produced, labeled, advertised and 

marketed in accordance with Federal law. Put another way, our objectives are to collect the revenue, protect the consumer and promote voluntary compliance. 

TTB collects alcohol, tobacco, firearms and ammunition excise 

taxes pursuant to Chapters 51 and 52 and sections 4181 and 4182 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

These products generate nearly $15 billion in annual Federal excise tax revenues. The excise taxes collected by TTB come from 

more than 6,100 businesses and the taxes are imposed and collected at the producer and importer level of operations. 

Members of the regulated industries paying excise taxes are distilleries, breweries, bonded wineries, bonded wire cellars, manufacturers of cigarette papers and tubes, manufacturers of tobacco 

products, and manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition. 

About 200 of the largest taxpayers account for 98 percent of the 

annual excise taxes that TTB collects. In fiscal year 2007, the majority of taxes that TTB collected were from tobacco and alcohol, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
25 

which accounted for roughly 49 percent each, with the remaining 

2 percent from firearms and ammunition. 

In addition to the collection of excise tax, TTB administers cover 

over payments to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and also processes drawback claims. 

Federal excise taxes collected on articles produced in Puerto Rico 

and the Virgin Islands and subsequently transported and sold in 

the United States are covered over into the treasuries of Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands. In 2007, TTB processed $459 million 

in cover over payments from rum to Puerto Rico and $8 million to 

the Virgin Islands. 

The alcohol and tobacco taxes are remitted to the Department of 

Treasury’s General Fund and the firearms and ammunition excise 

taxes are remitted to the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Fund under 

the provisions of the Pittman-Robertson Act 1937. In 2007, TTB collected $323 of revenue for every dollar spent to 

administer its tax collection operation. We attribute this success to 

a good working relationship with industry members as well as to 

the lean administrative overhead. 

The commodities that we regulate are lawful in the United 

States. Furthermore, we recognize that these industries have a significant economic impact domestically. 

For example, the annual economic impact from the wine, distilled spirits, and beer industries is approaching $500 billion and represents 3 to 4 percent of the Gross National Product. This is why 

we work to reduce delays and regulations that impede business, to 

promote voluntary compliance, and to refine our management practices. 

TTB provides assistance to the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative in alcohol beverage and tobacco matters within the 

gambit of the World Trade Organization as well as negotiation of 

bilateral and multilateral free trade agreement issues related to 

wine and spirits. 

We also know from experience that the illicit sale of tobacco and 

alcohol is financially lucrative and a known funding source for 

criminal and terrorist organizations. 

An appropriate regulatory presence provides a deterrent against 

tax evasion schemes, and our efforts to keep ineligible persons from 

entering the alcohol and tobacco industries have been more focused 

since our creation as an independent bureau. 

To ensure that only eligible persons enter into the business, TTB 

conducts criminal, personal and financial background checks and 

interviews prospective industry members. 

Key to collecting all the revenue rightfully due is an active field 

presence. 

When we were created in 2003, TTB was authorized to have 559 

employees but began with only 326. Most of those positions were 

in our headquarters in Washington, D.C., our laboratories and our 

National Revenue Center. At that time, TTB had no field offices or 

CFO operation. 

During the transition phase, we made key strategic decisions to 

make the best use of our limited resources. For example, to provide 

the most efficient and cost effective delivery of administrative and 

financial services, TTB decided to contract with the Bureau of PubVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:41 Jan 31, 2011 Jkt 058277 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\58277.XXX APPS06 PsN: 58277

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
26 

lic Debt’s Administrative Resource Center to handle TTB’s accounting, travel, procurement, human resources and financial management support services. We outsourced IT support services. 

We also embraced teleworking, particularly in the field, which has 

allowed us to put our investigators and auditors where they will do 

the most good while saving the cost of unnecessary office space. 

I am particularly committed to maintaining our partnerships 

with industry, other Federal and State agencies, and international 

organizations. By working together, we can meet industry and public expectations for a responsive, fair and efficient government. 

Once again, thank you for affording me the opportunity to report 

on our progress since our creation and our challenges that still face 

us. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in TTB and look forward to continuing to work with you, and will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of John J. Manfreda follows:] 

Prepared Statement of John J. Manfreda, Administrator, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, United States Department of the Treasury 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Ramstad, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to report on the current operations and 

performance of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). We greatly 

appreciate your interest in our Bureau. 

TTB was created within the Department of the Treasury in 2003 as a result of 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002. As a successor of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms, our mandate is to collect taxes owed, and to ensure that alcohol beverages are produced, labeled, advertised, and marketed in accordance with Federal 

law. 

TTB administers Federal tax laws on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition. 

Specifically, TTB is charged with the administration of Chapters 51 and 52, and sections 4181 and 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), as well as the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act. Under these authorities, TTB is chiefly responsible for: (1) collecting alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 

ammunition excise taxes, and classifying alcohol and tobacco products for excise tax 

purposes; (2) reviewing applications and issuing permits for distilled spirits and 

wine operations and for tobacco product manufacturing, warehousing, importing and 

exporting operations; (3) regulating the production, packaging, and storage of alcohol and tobacco products; and (4) ensuring that the labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages are not misleading and provide adequate information to the consumer. 

(Attachment A provides a more in-depth discussion of TTB’s statutory authorities). 

We recognize that the industries we regulate have a significant economic impact 

domestically. For example, the annual economic impact from the wine, distilled spirits, and beer industries is approaching $500 billion, and represents 3 to 4 percent 

of the Gross National Product. 

When TTB was created in 2003, it was authorized to have 559 employees, but 

began with only 326 employees. Most of these positions were in our headquarters 

in Washington, D.C., our laboratories, and our National Revenue Center (NRC) in 

Cincinnati, Ohio. At the time, TTB had no field offices or CFO operation. In order 

to maximize our FTE allocations, we established a skeletal internal management 

staff, and contracted with the Bureau of Public Debt Administrative Resource Center (BPD ARC) to handle our accounting, travel, procurement, human resources and 

financial management support services. This allowed us to concentrate our FTEs on 

our primary mission. 

Currently, TTB has approximately 150 employees working in our headquarters office and 180 employees working at the NRC. The remaining employees are located 

in field offices that have been established in several major U.S. cities, and at TTB’s 

laboratory facilities in Maryland and California. The primary components that comprise the TTB organization include the Administrator, the Assistant Administrators 

for Headquarters Operations, Field Operations, Management/Chief Financial Officer, and Information Resources/Chief Information Officer. (Attachment B includes 

TTB organizational chart). TTB reports to the Office of Tax Policy in the Department of the Treasury. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
27 

TTB has transitioned its information technology support services from the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to the private sector. The migration of IT support to the private sector includes the hosting of our custom business 

applications at a commercial site and the implementation of our office automation 

applications on our IT infrastructure. 

In the 2007 Partnership for Public Service and Institute for the Study of Public 

Policy Implementation survey, ‘‘The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government,’’ TTB ranked tenth on its rating of 222 programs in terms of best places to 

work, second for its family friendly environment, and sixth in strategic management. Human capital management remains the highest priority at the Bureau, 

along with fostering an environment of performance excellence and leadership continuity. The use of such human capital flexibilities as telework, flexible work schedule arrangements, student educational employment programs, student loan repayment program, health improvement program (which provides employees time for exercise), and performance system are the primary factors contributing to TTB’s recognition as one of the best places to work. TTB’s implementation of these initiatives 

not only enhances the recruitment and retention of highly skilled employees, but 

also provides facility cost savings to the Bureau that are invested in improved services to stakeholders. 

The financial resources to support TTB core business activities under the FY 2009 

President’s Budget are $99,768,000, including $96,900,000 from direct appropriations and an estimate of $2,868,000 in offsetting collections, mainly from the Puerto 

Rico cover-over program. 

Mission 

TTB’s mission is to collect alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes 

that are rightfully due, to protect the consumer of alcohol beverages through compliance programs that are based upon education and enforcement to ensure a fair and 

even marketplace; and to assist industry members to understand and comply with 

Federal tax, product, and marketing requirements associated with the commodities 

we regulate. TTB has two primary strategic goals: (1) Collect the revenue and (2) 

Protect the public. These goals are closely integrated and the resources attributed 

to these functions are evenly distributed. 

I. COLLECT THE REVENUE 

TTB collects alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes pursuant to 

Chapters 51, 52, and sections 4181 and 4182 of the IRC. These products generate 

nearly $15 billion in annual Federal excise tax revenues. The excise taxes collected 

by TTB come from more than 6,100 businesses, and these taxes are imposed and 

collected at the producer level of operations. (Note that excise taxes on imported 

products are collected by Customs and Border Protection). Members of the regulated 

industries paying excise taxes are distilleries, breweries, bonded wineries, bonded 

wine cellars, manufacturers of cigarette papers and tubes, manufacturers of tobacco 

products, and manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition. About 200 

of the largest taxpayers account for 98 percent of the annual excise tax collected. 

In FY 2007, TTB collected the majority of taxes from tobacco (49 percent) and alcohol (49 percent), with the remaining two percent from firearms and ammunition. 

The alcohol and tobacco taxes we collect are remitted to the Department of the 

Treasury General Fund. The firearms and ammunition excise taxes we collect are 

remitted to the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Fund under provisions of the PittmanRobertson Act of 1937. 

The following table displays the amount of Federal excise taxes TTB collected 

from FY 2003 through FY 2007 by revenue type. 

Revenue 

Type FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

Alcohol $6,910,631,000 $6,995,366,000 $7,074,076,000 $7,182,940,000 $7,232,138,000 

Tobacco $7,382,435,000 $7,434,211,000 $7,409,758,000 $7,350,842,000 $7,194,113,000 

Firearms 

Ammunition $193,414,000 $216,006,000 $225,818,000 $249,578,000 $287,835,000 

Mfg. 

Special 

Occupational $103,781,000 $100,562,000 $10,190,000 $2,895,000 $2,808,000 

Taxes * 

TOTALS $14,590,261,000 $14,746,145,000 $14,719,842,000 $14,786,255,000 $14,716,894,000 

* Special Occupational Taxes (SOT) were suspended on most alcohol taxpayers, effective July 1, 2005, and repealed for all alcohol taxpayers effective July 1, 2008. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
28 

In 2007, TTB collected $323 of revenue for every dollar spent to administer its 

tax-collection operation. TTB attributes this success to its professional working relationship with industry members as well as its lean administrative overhead. In 

2005, TTB underwent a Program Assessment and Review Tool (PART) review by 

the Office of Management and Budget and received an effective rating for its Collect 

the Revenue Program. 

In addition to the collection of excise tax, TTB administers cover-over payments 

to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and processes excise tax drawback claims. 

Federal excise taxes collected on articles produced in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and subsequently transported and sold in the United States are ‘‘covered-over’’ 

(or paid) into the treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In FY 2007, TTB 

processed $459 million in cover-over payments from rum to Puerto Rico and $8 million to the Virgin Islands. Also, under current law, persons who use non-beverage 

alcohol in the manufacture of medicines, food products, flavors, extracts, or perfume 

and other non-potable products may be eligible to claim drawback of most of the 

excise taxes paid on distilled spirits used in their products. In FY 2007, TTB processed $332 million in such drawback claims. 

One of the reasons we have been so effective in collecting the revenue rightfully 

due is an active field presence. TTB’s Office of Field Operations conducts audits, investigations, and analyses to ensure the fair and uniform enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations within our jurisdiction. The staff also works to identify 

gaps in tax payment and any individuals illegally operating outside the excise tax 

system. 

TTB’s audit program is based upon a risk approach. We audit those taxpayers 

who, based upon a variety of factors, present the greatest risk to the collection of 

the revenue rightfully due. As a consequence, we audit approximately 90 percent 

of the revenue every three years. We also identify other risk factors that indicate 

likely noncompliance with the tax laws and include them in our audit schedule. 

From FY 2004 through FY 2007, our auditors and investigators identified approximately $25 million in tax, interest, and penalties and saw our voluntary compliance 

increase substantially, as explained in greater detail below. 

To resolve our audit and investigative findings, TTB either collects the full 

amount due, or resolves these cases through offers in compromise when doubt as 

to liability or collectability is present, as provided under our IRC jurisdiction. Likewise, TTB also resolves some of these matters through adverse actions resulting in 

surrender or revocation of the permit under the IRC and FAA Act. 

To maximize our enforcement capabilities, the Office of Field Operations reorganized and established a new Trade Analysis and Enforcement Division (TAED). 

TAED provides intelligence analysis for the purpose of identifying and developing 

targets for investigation and audit that would most likely reveal compliance violations. The intelligence gathered is also used to determine trends and schemes utilized to facilitate tax diversion, including tax fraud and evasion, and to provide assistance in the investigation of substantive cases. Results of all of these activities 

are fed into a risk model, which provides criteria for determining resource expenditures for future audits and investigations. 

TTB recently established a Tobacco Laboratory within its Scientific Services Division. TAED and the Trade Investigations Division (TID) work closely with the Tobacco Laboratory to pursue and collect the tax liability on tobacco products. Using 

state-of-the-art equipment, the Tobacco Laboratory analyzes tobacco product samples to assist in tax classifications of tobacco products, including cigars, cigarettes, 

roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, and snuff. In FY 2007, TTB 

analyzed 157 tobacco product samples for tax classification purposes. The Tobacco 

Laboratory has established collaborative partnerships with the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). In 

addition, the laboratory has become a member of the World Health Organization’s 

Tobacco Laboratory Network (TobLabNet), a global tobacco testing laboratory network, which extends the laboratory’s contact to the tobacco enforcement laboratories 

of more than 100 countries. 

Efficient Government 

One of TTB’s goals in collecting the revenue is to administer laws and regulations 

in a way that imposes the least burden on the taxpayer. TTB does this through various voluntary compliance efforts such as implementing electronic government initiatives, engaging in open lines of communication, and conducting industry seminars. 

• Electronic Government—TTB has recognized the need to provide the regulated industries with the option of electronically filing tax returns, tax payments, operational reports, and certificates of label approval. To this end, TTB 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
29 

has implemented a streamlined and automated process for receiving tax returns, operational reports, and payments submitted through Pay.gov, which is 

designed to interface with existing TTB business systems. This system reduces 

paper, manual processing, and errors, and speeds up the payment process. In 

FY 2007, 98 percent of TTB’s tax receipts were collected electronically. 

• Informing Taxpayers—An open line of communication with the taxpayer is 

essential in achieving our goal of collecting all the revenue due. We keep industry members and the public primarily informed through TTB’s Web site, 

www.ttb.gov. In 2007, TTB launched a new e-mail subscription service, TTB 

Updates, which provides visitors to our web site the option of subscribing to 

more than 70 web pages for e-mail alerts when content changes. This is an electronic government solution called GovDelivery and our customers enthusiastically embraced this innovative approach to information dissemination. By September 2007, more than 23,000 people subscribed to the updates, with an average customer subscribing to about 11 pages. 

• Seminars and Other Efforts—TTB has pursued various other measures to 

promote voluntary compliance with the statutes and regulations we administer. 

TTB maintains consistent contact with taxpayers, through seminars, communications between industry members and our auditors, investigators incident to 

field visits, and through specialists who respond to requests for assistance. For 

example, in FY 2007, the Office of Field Operations alone held 17 compliance 

seminars, which were attended by more than 2,100 industry members. These 

seminars offered plain language guidance on how to comply with Federal laws 

and regulations. Since its first year in existence, TTB has seen its voluntary 

compliance rate rise (measured in the number of timely and accurate tax payments made) from 80 percent in 2003 to more than 86 percent in 2006. We have 

also made efforts to simplify our regulations to make them clearer and easier 

to understand. 

II. PROTECT THE PUBLIC 

TTB’s second key strategic goal is to protect the public and prevent consumer deception. TTB has implemented this mission by ensuring the integrity of: (1) regulated industries, (2) alcohol beverage products, and (3) the alcohol beverage marketplace. 

Integrity of the Regulated Industries—TTB is committed to ensure the integrity of the regulated industries, in which the goal is to keep ineligible persons from 

entering the alcohol and tobacco industries. The illicit sale of tobacco and alcohol 

is financially lucrative, and a known funding source for criminal and terrorist enterprises. To ensure that only eligible persons enter into the business, TTB conducts 

background checks and in-depth interviews on all new applicants. In FY 2007, TTB 

issued 5,285 original and 22,336 amended permits. 

Of these permit applications in FY 2007, TTB investigators conducted nearly 630 

investigations of applicants to verify that they were qualified to operate under the 

applicable statutes. As a result of these screening and investigation efforts, an annual average of 10 percent of all original applications referred for investigation are 

either denied or withdrawn. 

Integrity of Alcohol Beverage Products—Under the FAA Act, importers and 

bottlers of beverage alcohol are required to obtain certificates of label approval 

(COLAs), or a COLA-exemption approval, for most alcohol beverages prior to their 

introduction into interstate commerce. The intent is to prevent consumer deception 

and to ensure that the label on an alcohol beverage product provides the consumer 

with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. In FY 2003 

TTB’s Advertising, Labeling and Formulation Division (ALFD) processed more than 

100,000 COLA applications, and by FY 2007 that number had risen to over 125,000 

applications annually. Of these applications, 22 percent were rejected, returned for 

correction, withdrawn, or surrendered. Fifty-one percent of these FY 2007 applications were received through COLAs Online, an electronic system that allows alcohol 

industry members to submit label application information online, saving considerable time and money in making and processing applications. 

TTB performs field investigations to verify the integrity of the product to ensure 

the accuracy of claims made on an alcoholic product’s label, based on supporting 

records. For example, the investigation may include on-site review of production and 

bottling records (such as viticulture sourcing documents in the case of wine products), varietal traces, and review of production records to ensure they match approved formulas. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
30 

Other key TTB functions that ensure the integrity of alcohol beverage products 

include: 

Formulas for Domestic Alcohol Products—TTB examines formulas for domestic wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages and pre-import applications filed by 

alcohol importers to determine the proper identification of the product and to ensure 

that products are manufactured in accordance with Federal laws and regulations (as 

well as for tax-classification purposes). 

Laboratory Support—TTB’s Scientific Services Division’s (SSD) laboratories 

conduct analyses of alcohol beverage products to ensure compliance with approved 

formulas and established standards of identity. In FY 2007, SSD analyzed more 

than 2,000 beverage alcohol samples for product integrity, pre-import analysis and 

other purposes. 

Alcohol Beverage Sampling Program—TTB has recently expanded its Alcohol 

Beverage Sampling Program (ABSP) to include a statistically valid sampling model. 

In the new ABSP pilot program, TTB will collect samples of alcohol beverage products from the marketplace, and review their labels and conduct laboratory analyses. 

The purpose is to determine if the labels accurately describe the products that are 

in the bottles and are otherwise in compliance with our regulations. We will then 

take enforcement actions as appropriate. 

Contamination and Consumer Complaints—As part of its mission to Protect 

the Public, TTB responds to contamination incidents and consumer complaints of 

mislabeled products. In these instances, we obtain samples of the product in order 

to conduct a lab analysis, and if appropriate, notify the producer to identify the extent of the problem. We take appropriate measures to ensure that the product does 

not present a threat to the consumer. 

Integrity of the Alcohol Beverage Marketplace—TTB conducts investigations of 

unlawful trade practices to ensure that the alcohol beverage marketplace is free 

from anticompetitive practices that allow undue supplier influence over retailer purchasing decisions. 

In addition, to ensure the integrity of the marketplace, we monitor written or oral 

advertisements or other statements used to induce sales of alcohol beverage products. The purpose is to prevent false or misleading claims, which may deceive the 

consumer. 

TTB’s International Trade Division (ITD) works to protect the integrity of the alcohol beverage marketplace by educating foreign governments about the laws and 

regulations that TTB administers regarding the importation of alcohol. In addition, 

ITD has participated in the negotiation and formation of the following recent international trade agreements: 

Agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Oenological Practices and Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling—The World Wine Trade Group 

(WWTG) is an informal group of wine producing countries, comprised of Argentina, 

Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States to facilitate the international trade in wine. The group accounts for around 27 percent 

of world wine exports. In 2007, the United States exported $208 million in wine to 

its WWTG counterparts. 

The WWTG has negotiated two agreements. The first is the Agreement on Mutual 

Acceptance of Oenological Practices, which recognizes common winemaking practices. The second agreement is the Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labeling, 

which recognizes the different regulatory requirements for placement of information 

on wine labels. 

United States/European Community Wine Agreement—In 2006, the United 

States and the European Community (EC) signed the first phase of an Agreement 

on Trade in Wine, which provides for the recognition of existing current winemaking 

practices, as well as a consultative process for accepting new winemaking practices. 

The Agreement also provides for the simplification of certification requirements for 

U.S. wine exported to the European Community. U.S. and EC negotiators are currently meeting to establish a second phase of the agreement as provided for in the 

current accord. In 2007, the United States exported $458 million in wine to the European Community. 

United States/Mexico Trade in Tequila Agreement—In 2006, the United 

States and Mexico signed an agreement that ensures the continuation of trade in 

Tequila without additional restrictions from Mexico. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
31 

Cooperation With Other Federal and State Agencies and Other Organizations 

TTB partners with Federal and State agencies and other organizations to maintain the proper level of oversight to collect the revenue and to protect the public. 

Other Federal Agencies—TTB works along with Customs Border Protection 

(CBP) in administering our jurisdiction with respect to imported products. Specifically, CBP ensures that importers have a valid permit as required under current 

law, that taxes on imported products are paid, and that alcohol beverages carry labels that TTB has approved prior to removal into domestic commerce. TTB also 

works with CBP in the development of its integrated International Trade Data System (ITDS), in order to facilitate verification of the authenticity of commercial goods 

being shipped into U.S. ports. TTB will use ITDS to identify and pursue persons 

who are importing without a permit and otherwise acting out of compliance with 

our jurisdiction. Where we discover smuggled alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, our policy is to refer these matters to CBP, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and 

ATF, and work with them to enforce our respective jurisdictions. In addition, TTB 

and ATF have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide access to the information essential for the accomplishment of our missions. 

TTB works with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for expert advice on 

health and safety issues related to alcohol beverages. For example, we contact FDA 

when we encounter potentially adulterated alcohol beverages (as determined under 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) so that we can take appropriate enforcement action under our statutes. TTB and FDA have an MOU to coordinate responses in regard to contaminated alcohol beverages. Likewise, we have worked 

with the FDA on our proposed rulemaking concerning the labeling of allergens on 

alcohol beverages. 

TTB and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) share in the regulatory control of alcohol products that bear an organic claim on their labeling. TTB and the 

USDA have an MOU to allow for a timely concurrent review of alcohol beverage labels that bear an organic claim. In addition, TTB has assisted USDA in its administration of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act by providing information related to tobacco products removed subject to tax by manufacturers and importers. 

In addition, TTB provides assistance to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in alcohol beverage and tobacco matters within the ambit of the 

World Trade Organization, as well as in the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral 

free trade agreement issues related to wine and spirits. 

Finally, TTB and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have cross-jurisdictional 

authority in the area of beverage alcohol advertising. TTB has worked with FTC on 

several occasions in response to complaints about alcohol advertisements. 

States—TTB has executed agreements with most State agencies responsible for 

alcohol and tobacco taxes for the purpose of sharing of tax information. TTB also 

consults with States to provide background information on permit applicants prior 

to the issuance of tobacco permits. We also work closely with States on matters involving our common jurisdiction. 

Other Contacts—TTB also consults with other organizations for the purpose of 

understanding the industries, to gain intelligence on unlawful activities and to effectuate an enforcement scheme that fulfills our responsibilities without undue interference in our respective operations. For example, we consult with the Federation 

of Tax Administrators and the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators, and the National Association of 

Beverage Control Administrators. 

Significant Issues and Accomplishments 

Establishment of an MOU with China’s AQSIQ—On December 11, 2007, TTB 

signed an MOU with China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), to protect the public and to establish a consistent 

channel for information exchange on imported and exported alcohol and tobacco 

products. The MOU establishes a consultative process to strengthen cooperation in 

the administration of import and export alcohol and tobacco regulations and compliance determinations. In addition, the MOU establishes processes to provide for the 

exchange of information with regard to the identity and quality of imported and exported alcohol and tobacco products. 

New Regulations for Distilled Spirits Plants Operations—On May 8, 2008, 

TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register 

that proposes to amend our primary body of regulations governing distilled spirits 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
32 

plants—27 CFR part 19. These regulations have not been updated since 1980 and 

therefore do not reflect current industry innovations and practices. 

Cigar and Cigarette Rulemaking—In FY 2007, TTB published Notice No. 65, 

Tax Classification of Cigars and Cigarettes, which proposes changes to the regulations that govern the classification and labeling of cigars and cigarettes for Federal 

excise tax purposes under the IRC. These proposed regulatory changes address 

TTB’s concerns regarding the adequacy of the current regulatory standards for distinguishing between cigars and cigarettes. The proposals clarify the application of 

existing statutory definitions and update and codify administrative policy in order 

to provide clearer and more objective tobacco product classification criteria. The 

clarifications contained in the NPRM are intended to reduce possible revenue losses 

through the misclassification of cigarettes as little cigars. We are currently analyzing the comments we received in response to this NPRM. 

Fuel Ethanol—A major challenge facing TTB is the accelerated growth of alcohol 

fuel production. In 2005, total U.S. production of alcohol for fuel use was approximately four billion gallons, and in 2006 it was nearly five billion gallons. Current 

capacity is nearly seven billion gallons per year, and plants under construction will 

make an additional five billion gallons annually. Most alcohol fuel production comes 

from fewer than 150 large plants, but hundreds of smaller plants have applied for 

TTB permits in each of the last four fiscal years. Near the end of last year, TTB 

had 1,567 active alcohol fuel plants. From October 2007 through March 2008, TTB 

received 197 new applications for alcohol fuel plants. With the number of new permittees dramatically increasing, TTB is using resources to ensure this industry’s 

compliance with the laws and regulations. This growth is expected to continue. 

American Viticultural Program—American viticultural areas (AVAs) are designated as such under the authority granted in section 105(e) of the FAA Act to prescribe regulations concerning the labeling and bottling of alcohol beverages. An AVA 

is a delimited grape-growing region that is known to the public by a specific name 

and has distinguishing geographical features from its surrounding areas. By using 

an AVA name on a wine label, a wine producer may identify for the consumer the 

specific geographical area from which the grapes used in the wine originated. 

TTB administers the AVA Program and, since TTB’s inception in 2003, has approved 43 petitions to create or expand AVAs, and is currently processing 22 others. 

The petitions we have received since 2003 for establishing or expanding AVAs have 

involved grape-growing regions in the States of California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

In November 2007, TTB published proposed revisions to our regulations covering 

the approval of AVAs. The general purpose of these proposed changes was to maintain the integrity of the program, and specific proposals were made to: (1) clarify 

the petition submission and review process; (2) clarify the standards for approving 

AVA; and (3) establish a rule that recognizes both a new AVA and an existing 

winery’s brand label(s) that might be the same as the proposed AVA but outside 

of the proposed AVA boundaries, by ‘‘grandfathering’’ existing longstanding label 

use for wines that would not meet the AVA appellation standard. Regarding the last 

proposal, TTB simultaneously published an NPRM regarding the establishment of 

a specific viticultural area, and that rulemaking included a similar proposal intended to minimize the adverse economic impact on an existing brand label holder. 

In response to this NPRM, TTB received 183 detailed comments and approximately 

1,170 form-letter and postcard comments. We are carefully analyzing the comments. 

Alcohol Products Labeling—On July 31, 2007, TTB published Notice No. 73, 

Labeling and Advertising of Wines, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages, to amend 

its regulations to require a statement of alcohol content, expressed as a percentage 

of alcohol by volume, on all alcohol beverage product labels. This NPRM also proposes to amend the labeling regulations to require a Serving Facts panel, which 

would include a statement of calorie, carbohydrate, fat, and protein content. The 

proposals would also allow industry members to disclose on the Serving Facts panel 

the number of U.S. fluid ounces of pure alcohol (ethyl alcohol) per serving as part 

of the statement of alcohol content referred to above. The proposed new regulations 

would also specify reference serving sizes for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages based on the amount of that beverage customarily consumed as a single serving. The NPRM proposes to make these new requirements mandatory three years 

after the date of publication of a final rule. 

The comment period on Notice No. 73 closed on January 27, 2008. TTB received 

approximately 800 comments on Notice No. 73, and we are currently in the process 

of reviewing these comments. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
33 

Allergen Labeling—On July 26, 2006, TTB published T.D. TTB–53 setting forth 

interim regulations allowing voluntary labeling of major food allergens used in the 

production of alcohol beverage products. Under the interim regulations, producers, 

bottlers, and importers of wines, distilled spirits, and malt beverages may declare 

on a product label the presence of milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, 

wheat, peanuts, and soybeans, as well as ingredients that contain protein derived 

from these foods, if any of those substances or ingredients were used in the production of the alcohol beverage. Once a producer decides to engage in allergen labeling, 

the interim regulations require the listing of all allergens used in production and 

specify how that labeling must be carried out. The interim regulations also set forth 

a petition procedure whereby a producer may obtain an exemption from the labeling 

for a particular allergen. On the same date, TTB published Notice No. 62, which 

proposes to make mandatory the voluntary allergen labeling regime. 

These efforts stem from the passage of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2004, which amended the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by the inclusion of major food allergen labeling standards for products subject to that Act. 

The House Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No. 608, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., at 3 (2004)) 

accompanying the Act noted that the Committee expected TTB to issue regulations 

on allergen labeling for beverage alcohol products, and to work in cooperation with 

the FDA in this regard. 

TTB Import Safety Measures—An Interagency Working Group on Import Safety was established in July of 2007 to conduct a thorough review of U.S. import safety practices and to determine where improvements could be made. As a result of 

TTB’s involvement in the Working Group, where it served as a Treasury representative, we devised a number of recommendations meant to highlight the importance 

of import safety and work towards preventing and minimizing potential safety concerns. Of the eight recommendations, TTB has already implemented three: (1) implementation of a statistically valid alcohol beverage sampling program; (2) enhancing information-sharing with counterpart regulators in foreign countries; and (3) advising importers and producers to be vigilant about product safety. TTB is continuing efforts to implement the remaining recommendations. 

Laboratory Accomplishments—In 2007, two TTB laboratories obtained ISO 17025 

accreditation from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), 

an accreditation body in the United States. ISO is a non-governmental organization 

that promotes the development of standardized methods to facilitate the international exchange of goods and services. 

In 2006, TTB opened a new compliance laboratory in Walnut Creek, California. 

This laboratory provides support to TTB through routine product integrity testing, 

monitoring the regulatory compliance of both beverage and non-beverage alcohol 

products, and onsite and online technical assistance to regulated industries, TTB investigators, and auditors. Laboratory personnel test samples collected by TTB field 

personnel from on-site investigations and audits to determine if the products are in 

compliance with the correct tax class and standard of identity. 

Mission Impact on Trade—TTB has been instrumental in helping domestic producers overcome foreign trade barriers based on the expertise of our laboratory to 

verify that domestic products (destined for export) comply with U.S. requirements. 

For example, when the European Union (EU) proposed setting a limit on the presence of Ochratoxin-A, a naturally occurring toxin in wines obtained from certain 

grape harvests, TTB provided an advanced screening process that demonstrated 

U.S. wines met the EU’s standards, and were properly labeled as wine. In addition, 

in November 2005, German customs officials detained a bulk shipment of Rose Cabernet Sauvignon because they claimed that it was mislabeled. TTB assisted in U.S. 

Government efforts to respond to German concerns. Eventually the European Commission determined that the wine was properly labeled as Cabernet Sauvignon and 

entitled to be sold in Germany pursuant to the United States/European Community 

Wine Agreement. In June 2006, the shipment was released for sale. 

TTB Tightens IT Security and Tests Continuity of Operations Procedures 

(COOP)—The protection of sensitive data has become a high priority for all Federal 

agencies. To minimize the risk of such a breach, TTB encrypts the hard drives of 

all employees’ computers. All data stored on TTB computers are both password protected and encrypted, providing maximum privacy for all sensitive TTB and industry data. This encryption provides the most aggressive level of protection for personally identifiable information (PII), minimizing risk to Bureau personnel and our regulated industry members. As an additional security measure, TTB uses two-factor 

authentication for remote access to TTB resources. TTB also encrypts auxiliary/portable devices. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
34 

In FY 2007, we tested the reliability of our IT Infrastructure. The Bureau continued to operate through seven planned and unplanned power outages at our major 

data centers in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Washington, D.C. The data center monitoring 

and alerting equipment, robust backup power supplies, and personnel recall procedures were put to the test during each of the power outages. Equipment was restored with minimal damage and TTB productivity was uninterrupted. TTB’s disaster recovery and COOP procedures were also tested when the TTB Headquarters 

building was flooded, during which the data center and several network wiring closets were covered with water. All TTB IT operations were up and running just four 

hours after the flooding incident occurred. Personnel could work remotely from their 

homes in the days following the incident and Bureau operations continued normally. 

TTB Expo—In June 2008, TTB will hold a new educational event called TTB 

Expo 2008. While TTB staff have an excellent reputation for holding industry-specific seminars, this event will be on a much larger scale than anything we have attempted in the past. The Expo, which will span two full days, will be comprised of 

over 40 different educational seminars presented by TTB and other Federal and 

State representatives and is designed as a unique way to educate people about how 

to comply with the myriad laws, regulations, and policies affecting the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and ammunition industries. Also, 16 exhibition booths will be 

open throughout the Expo, allowing attendees to spend one-on-one time with TTB 

experts and to obtain guidance and informative brochures regarding TTB regulations and requirements. Our goal in hosting this event is to ‘‘build bridges’’ between 

government and regulated industry members and to establish an ongoing and open 

dialog. Attendees of TTB Expo 2008 will have the opportunity to meet the TTB employees who process their tax returns and other TTB forms and to have all their 

questions answered by subject-matter experts. The Expo is open to all TTB regulated industry members as well as to persons interested in entering one of those 

businesses. 

Conclusion 

I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in TTB and the opportunity you have afforded me to report on our progress since the Bureau’s creation and on the challenges that still face us. I look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee 

as we strive to meet industry and public expectations for responsive, fair, and efficient government. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Attachment A 

TTB’s STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

TTB is responsible for overseeing a comprehensive scheme of statutory provisions 

with respect to the regulation of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and ammunition under 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), as well as additional authorities under 

the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) and the Webb-Kenyon Act. 

Chapter 51 of the IRC contains the excise tax provisions relating to alcohol and 

the authorized operations of the various segments of the alcohol industry, including 

manufacturers of nonbeverage products, as well as tax-free and denatured alcohol. 

Specifically, TTB oversees the qualification and operation of distilleries, wineries, 

breweries, and industrial alcohol producers and users. TTB administers the tax classification of alcohol products and the collection of excise taxes on these products. 

TTB also administers the production, packaging, bottling, labeling, and storage requirements related to alcohol products under the IRC. 

With respect to tobacco, TTB administers chapter 52 of the IRC, relating to the 

manufacture, importation, exportation, and distribution of tobacco products. Specifically, TTB qualifies and issues permits for tobacco product manufacturers and importers, and export warehouses, and oversees their operations. TTB classifies various classes of tobacco products for tax purposes, and collects the tax on such tobacco products, as provided under the statute and implementing regulations. 

Under the FAA Act, TTB is responsible for regulating the authorized operations, 

labeling, advertising, and trade practices for those engaged in the alcohol-beverage 

industry. The FAA Act requires a permit for all persons engaged in the business 

as a producer (other than breweries), importer, or wholesaler of alcohol beverages, 

and provides for the suspension and revocation of those permits upon failure to comply with the laws relating to alcohol. The permit system ensures the integrity of the 

industry by preventing persons who are not likely to operate in accordance with the 

law from entering the trade. 

The FAA Act also requires approved certificates of label approval (or exemptions 

from label approval) for most alcohol beverages bottled or sold in the United States. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
35 

This labeling requirement, along with related advertising provisions, ensures that 

consumers are provided with adequate and non-misleading information about the alcohol beverages they purchase. In addition, the FAA Act contains trade practice provisions, which regulate such practices as exclusive outlets, tied house arrangements, 

commercial bribery, and consignment sales. These provisions are intended to ensure 

fair dealing within the industry and to protect the consumer by prohibiting sales 

arrangements that result from anti-competitive practices. 

In addition to the FAA Act and the IRC, TTB also administers the Webb-Kenyon 

Act, 27 U.S.C. section 122, which prohibits the shipment of alcohol beverages into 

a State in violation of its laws. This law was amended in 2000 to give States the 

authority to seek injunctive relief in Federal District Courts to enjoin shipments of 

alcohol in violation of State law. TTB also enforces the Alcohol Beverage Labeling 

Act, which requires that the Government Warning Statement appear on all products 

for sale or distribution in the United States. 

Finally, TTB administers the excise tax on firearms and ammunition under IRC 

sections 4181 and 4182. Here the IRC imposes taxes on the sale or use of firearms 

and ammunition by the manufacturer, producer, or importer. Tax is imposed on the 

sale or use at the rates of 10 percent on pistols and revolvers and 11 percent on 

firearms (other than pistols and revolvers) and shells and cartridges. The PittmannRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 requires that an amount of all of the revenue collected under section 4181 (firearms, shells, and cartridges) and section 

4161(b) (bows and arrows) be covered into the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Fund, 

hunter safety programs, and maintenance of public target ranges for execution of 

programs. 

f 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Manfreda. 

Can you tell the Committee what the size of the markets for 

products manufactured and sold completely outside our tax system 

are? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, I do not have any fixed data on that. I can 

give you studies that we have read but I do not know the validity 

of those studies. 

Just recently, we have formed a Trade Analysis and Enforcement 

Division. It is an intelligence function within our Office of Field 

Operations to actually gather that kind of data and formulate a 

base strategy to deal with sources or operations outside the legal 

system. 

Mr. NEAL. What other agencies do you work with to try to collect those taxes? 

Mr. MANFREDA. We work with the ATF. We work with Customs and Border Protection. We work very well with ICE. Between 

2007 and today, we have developed over 108 enforcement cases in 

the works. Included in the agencies that we work with are many 

State agencies for the illegal importation, unlawful manufacturing 

or moonshining operations where we partner with the States to 

help facilitate stopping the manufacturing of moonshine. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, my friend, Mr. Ramstad, to inquire. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank my friend. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Manfreda, for your stewardship at the TTB as well 

as for your testimony today. 

Given the explosion, and I do not think that is hyperbolic to call 

it an explosion of the Internet, Internet sales must represent special challenges to your agency. I am speaking in terms of collecting 

the excise taxes that are owed as well as ensuring the safety of the 

products. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
36 

Do you agree with that and how are you addressing those challenges? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, they are a big challenge to us. Probably 

prevalent the most in acquiring compliance with international 

Internet sites. I think such sites are used to facilitate entry of 

smuggled or non-tax paid cigarettes into this country through those 

types of sales. 

Domestically, we are finding that for the most part domestic 

sales that are occurring from lawful manufacturers are going out 

with the Federal excise tax paid. However, one area where there 

is non-compliance is with Indian reservations. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. I do not want you to be in a position of having 

to reveal, not that you would, any undercover operations, but can 

you tell us if you have an unit that concentrates on sales over the 

Internet? 

Mr. MANFREDA. We do not have a specific unit. We are without 

law enforcement agents. To the extent we find leads with this type 

of activity, we have to work with other sister agencies, either IRS, 

the ATF, or Customs and Border Protection. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. I certainly understand that collaborative relationship. I was alluding to finding the leads. I know you do not 

have the law enforcement function per se. 

The other question I wanted to ask, you mentioned in your testimony the cooperative relationship that TTB has with other Federal 

agencies, and I cited it in my opening statement, including the 

FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. 

I understand the Senate is considering language in the FTC authorization bill regarding alcohol advertising and so-called slotting 

fees. Are these not areas that have traditionally been under the 

TTB jurisdiction? 

The reason I ask is that we certainly want cooperation and collaboration, not duplication among Federal agencies. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Absolutely, sir. In the advertising arena, we 

have worked well over the years with the Federal Trade Commission. Generally, when we have issues, they will defer to us with 

areas of alcohol and tobacco. 

The slotting fee issue is not really new to us, not from a point 

that we regulate it. Slotting fees are illegal in the liquor industry 

period. Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, they have 

been considered an illegal activity since 1992 in our regulations. 

From the point of view of looking into that, we already have the 

knowledge and the experience to deal with slotting fees in the alcohol beverage industry, and that would be duplication in our mind. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. Vis-a-vis the Senate bill, you are not concerned 

about possible duplication? 

Mr. MANFREDA. It would appear there could be duplication, if 

they are looking at what are slotting fees and what is the history 

of it in the liquor industry. We already have all that information 

and the experience in enforcing our laws and regulations with respect to that activity. 

Mr. RAMSTAD. That would be my thought as well. I think that 

is a caveat for us on this side of the Capitol. 

Again, I thank you, Mr. Manfreda. I have no further questions 

and yield back. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. MANFREDA. Thank you. 

Chairman LEWIS [Presiding]. Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Manfreda, is the TTB aware that some shipments 

mainly from Internet based sales of alcohol are shipped outside the 

regulatory framework of some States? I think you are aware of 

that; correct? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I have in front of me a list of things that have 

been conducted by various watchdogs and ask unanimous consent 

that this list be submitted into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection. 

Mr. PASCRELL. This list demonstrates that businesses who sell 

alcohol online to consumers often ship directly to consumers in violation of State law, even to minors. 

Is the TTB aware that certain of these shipments also reach minors? Are you aware of that, Administrator Manfreda? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, we have read about that. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You are not aware of the list I have in my hand 

documenting such activities? Are you telling me that your department does not know about this? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sales to minors does occur through Internet 

sales; yes, sir. I am aware of that. I do not know what is on your 

list. 

Mr. PASCRELL. When direct shipments of alcohol reach minors, 

would you not agree this is a significant public policy concern? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. What is the TTB doing to combat the online sales 

of alcohol to minors and what kinds of resources are needed for you 

to ensure that kids are not purchasing alcohol on the Internet? 

I want you to take your time to answer that, please. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Basically, direct sales of alcohol products, if 

they are being sold from a retailer to individuals, does not run into 

our jurisdictions that we have control over. 

We have control when a particular entity who is doing Internet 

sales changes their status by selling to another entity that will sell 

for retail sale. 

For the most part, these direct sales are violating State laws. In 

the year 2001, we published an industry circular where we basically said that sales that are sold by permitees in violation of State 

laws violate the Webb-Kenyon Act. 

We have limited resources able to throw at this problem, so what 

we basically did is we prioritized the need, the Federal interest 

need, given our limited resources to deal with these problems 

across the board and said in those types of transactions, if the chief 

law enforcement officer of the State or their attorney general asks 

us for help in dealing with these problems, we will look into the 

matter and decide whether or not to take action against the permitee’s permit for violating the Webb-Kenyon Act under our laws. 

That is what we have been doing with that issue. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Administrator Manfreda, this could be a form 

of interstate commerce if you are going across State lines. It would 

seem to me that the Federal Government does have jurisdiction, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
38 

that you need to look into this, and we would like to know what 

resources you need to implement what I believe should be Federal 

oversight. 

There are different laws, as you know better than I do in each 

State, and some stricter than others. 

It would seem to me that we need to get a handle on alcohol, particularly going across State lines and being sold to minors. What 

you are saying really in essence is that the Federal Government— 

this is not our jurisdiction. We rely on the State law in terms of 

jurisdiction here, unless I am misinterpreting what you said. 

Mr. MANFREDA. We are saying that basically these are violations of State law. 

Mr. PASCRELL. There is no violation on Federal law if you are 

shipping alcohol across State lines to juveniles? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Not under the laws we enforce. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would take note of that and I 

think we need to do something about that. Not to give you more 

work, but to give you more resources to do what you should be responsible for. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, I absolutely agree with you as far as this 

is a serious problem and does need to be addressed. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I am glad that you admitted that it is a serious 

problem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEWIS. Mr. Nunes. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Manfreda, you have already testified that you are aware of 

these illegal sales of alcohol going to minors. Obviously, you have 

been contacted by the States on these issues. 

This is kind of along the questioning that was just asked, but if 

you have appropriate resources, what can TTB do to enforce these 

laws? Is there anything that is being done today to combat this? 

Mr. MANFREDA. We have been contacted by States but only in 

two instances, to my knowledge, and each of those instances involved just six bottles being sold over the Internet. 

Mr. NUNES. What type of alcohol was that? 

Mr. MANFREDA. I would rather not say. I am not even sure. I 

can get that for the Committee. 

In those two instances, one, we contacted the permitee that was 

involved, and it was a mistake and they said they would never do 

it again and so far, they have not. 

In the second situation, it was something that was so de minimis 

that we did not pursue it. 

What we can do, sales in violation of State law is a Webb-Kenyon 

Act violation. We administer the Webb-Kenyon Act. Under the FAA 

Act, we have the ability to suspend or revoke a permit if one violates one of the conditions of your basic permit. 

From a technical point of view, we have the ability to suspend 

or revoke a permit for violations of State law when they rise to the 

level where we would take action under the Webb-Kenyon Act. 

Mr. NUNES. I know you are doing all you can. I want to switch 

the line of questioning to the food poisoning issues that you referred to in your testimony. I assume you are aware of the poisoned 

vodka that got out in Moscow and killed several hundred people, 

I believe. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
39 

There are several initiatives that the Congress has under consideration regarding imported food products. 

Can you describe the processes, procedures and permit requirements that the Tax and Trade Bureau already has in place for beverage alcohol products to ensure that these products both imported 

and domestically produced are safe from contamination? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. I would start with saying that every 

importer must be permitted under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. When we issue those permits, we do background checks 

and we look at a person’s financial standing, trade connections and 

business experience to decide whether or not he is likely to comply 

with Federal law. Really, only eligible people are given permits to 

import. That is the first control. 

The second control is that we require what we call certificates of 

label approval for every alcoholic beverage before it can be removed 

from Customs’ custody or into the domestic commerce of this country, removed by a bottler of such products. 

That is basically what you see on every alcohol beverage bottle. 

It identifies what is in that bottle. 

In a lot of cases with imports, we require pre-import samples, 

where we are able to identify what is going to be coming in from 

the sample. 

From that point of view, we are able to do screening of those 

kinds of products and if we find it does not match up with what 

they say it is, we deny the certificate of label approval and it never 

gets to come into the country. 

We have also initiated a market basket testing program where 

our investigators go out and from all levels of the distribution 

chain pull product samples and send it to our lab to identify basically that it is what is said on the label. It is verified from our scientific analysis back in our labs. We do that routinely. 

Through 2005 to 2007, we actually analyzed 209 bottles for pesticide contamination. When we pull a bottle, out of those, 42 of 

them were domestic and 167 were foreign. All 42 of the domestic 

proved to be fine with no pesticide contamination, and out of the 

167, there were 38 bottles that contained pesticides. 

When we get a hit like that, we immediately go to EPA who 

identifies to us just what pesticides are authorized and which ones 

are not, and if it is authorized, we look to the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether the levels are acceptable. 

In this case, there were six that had hits of unauthorized pesticides, but after talking with FDA, it was determined that the levels which they were at did not raise any health issue or concern. 

We then would notify an importer to say this should not come 

back into this country again and we verify it at later dates to make 

sure the product is free of the pesticides. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Manfreda, for your testimony. I 

know you have a very difficult job. 

Mr. Chairman, I have some news articles that I would like to 

submit for the record. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
40 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.002
41 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.003
42 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.004
43 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.005
44 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.006
45 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.007
46 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.008
47 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.009
48 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.010
49 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.011
50 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.012
51 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.013
52 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.014
53 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.015
54 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.016
55 

f 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman LEWIS. Thank you. Mr. Becerra. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Manfreda, thank you very much for being with us. 

Let me concentrate my questions on some of the budgetary matters 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.017
56 

that you have. Now that you have split up, we have this new agency that was created, ATF went its way, you went your way. 

I have some concerns. You mentioned something astounding. For 

every dollar you have to use to collect revenues, excise taxes, you 

collect $323. I dare say that you are probably one of the most efficient Federal agencies when it comes to generating revenues that 

are due to the Federal Government so that we can do all the work 

that we need to, national defense, education, health care. 

I would think that we would want to make sure that if there is 

a dollar that should be collected, we would give you the resources 

to collect that, since you collect $323 for every dollar you collect. 

My understanding is never once in your 5 years of existence have 

you been given money by the Administration for enforcement, to 

hire your own enforcement agents. I know you have requested— 

TTB has requested money in your budget for enforcement agents 

but you have never been given the money. 

If we were to get you money for enforcement agents, could you 

make use of those enforcement agents? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Absolutely, sir. We have all the criminal jurisdictions under the Internal Revenue Code and the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act to enforce. This is not duplicated by any other 

Federal agency. ATF has only tobacco jurisdiction with regard to 

the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which is a prime area 

where there is diversion and failure to pay State taxes. 

For our purposes, we would need agents not only to enforce our 

criminal laws, but also to assist us in seizures, forfeitures and detention issues that arise in enforcing the laws which we administer; yes, sir. Mr. BECERRA. Your agency collects something around $15 billion? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. In excise taxes that are owed by these various 

enterprises. You have never been given the authority to hire enforcement agents to do the enforcement work or given money to 

hire the enforcement agents for the work that you are under law 

prescribed to do, and I know you have established a division to 

study the issue of collecting some of this contraband product that 

is out there, because there is probably billions more that we could 

collect in excise taxes if we could get a grip on what is out there 

being sold in the black market. 

I am not sure I understand why this Administration would not 

want to give you the resources. My understanding is that your $15 

billion in excise taxes that you have collected, that has been pretty 

constant for the last 5 years; right? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. Would you say to me that over the last 5 years 

the consumption of alcohol, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco has remained constant? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Pretty much. 

Mr. BECERRA. There has been no increase? 

Mr. MANFREDA. There has probably been decreases in tobacco. 

Mr. BECERRA. In alcoholic beverages? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Alcohol has grown in certain market areas and 

in others, it has decreased. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
57 

Mr. BECERRA. There is a very good chance that over the last 

5 years, had you had the resources, where there has been an increase in consumption, which means therefore there should be an 

increase in taxes generated, that had you had the enforcement capability, you might have been able to pursue those areas where 

perhaps we have not had the highest degree of compliance? 

Mr. MANFREDA. I would say that agents would assist us in enforcing those areas which are problematic to us. 

Mr. BECERRA. Do you have any reports yet from this new division that was created to study the issue of contraband products? 

Mr. MANFREDA. They are pretty much in their infancy, but we 

have the people hired for those positions and they are starting to 

collect data. 

Mr. BECERRA. Can you please report to us on an ongoing basis 

on where you are with that? Obviously, I think Members in this 

Committee would be very interested in trying to help you move to 

a point where we are just not assessing the sale of contraband but 

we are trying to make sure that we deal with it so that it can be 

in an open market, not in a black market. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Okay; yes, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. One last area of inquiry. I know my colleague, 

Mr. Thompson, will get into this more. I will just ask one question. 

If there is a second round for follow up questions, I will try to get 

into it more deeply. 

I have a concern. My understanding is in reading some of the information about wines and other products that more and more 

Americans are into the issue of organic products and trying to 

make sure that we stay as healthy as possible. 

I know some wines are labeled as organic wines, which in essence means they do not use certain pesticides for the growing of 

those grapes that are used to make that wine. 

You all did some investigative work and you found that of 12 

wines that you inspected, 10 contained pesticides. Of those 12 that 

you randomly selected, that is an 83 percent non-compliance rate 

by those wine growers in labeling, in mis-labeling their wines as 

organic. 

I am not sure if that is the rule or if that is the exception with 

regard to how these vintners are labeling their wines, mis-labeling 

them as organic. 

I hope to be able to pursue that line of questioning with you perhaps in the future to find out what you are doing to make sure that 

the American public is not being deceived by people who are trying 

to peddle certain products as organic when in fact they are not, and 

what we are doing to try to make sure that does not happen. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. BECERRA. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEWIS. Mr. Tanner is recognized for inquiry. 

Mr. TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. Where are you on the rules on definition of little cigars 

versus cigarettes, and the FTC, and for lack of a better term, putting in the FTC re-authorization in the Senate about alcohol regulation and so forth, could you comment on that, particularly as it 

regards the sale of beer? 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
58 

Mr. MANFREDA. Certainly, sir. Regarding your first question, 

we are in rulemaking on the little cigar versus cigarette issue. As 

you know, under the Internal Revenue Code, the definitions for 

‘‘cigar’’ kicks you out, and it says a cigar is any tobacco leaf which 

is wrapped in paper containing tobacco except that which is a cigarette. You have to flip into the cigarette. The cigarette is any leaf 

tobacco wrapped in tobacco paper because of its appearance, its labeling, its packaging, filter, is likely to be sold or offered for sale 

as a cigarette. 

It is a very subjective determination. We went into rulemaking 

with a hope to take away the very subjective nature of that determination and to make it more scientific. We thought we had come 

up with a very good notice of proposed rule making to air. 

As a result of the public comments, we found that our rule was 

not that good. It did have some issues and problems. We are now 

working with our own scientists and other scientists in different 

agencies to come up with probably a better platform to re-air this 

and get comment on it. 

It was really more clarifying so we can give better guidance. 

Right now, with that kind of standard, it is very subjective. I think 

if we can rely on science, it takes that subjectivity and makes it 

a much more objective determination. We are working on that, sir. 

We are right in the middle of that. 

The FTC, we think that is duplication of effort, especially in the 

area of slotting fees. Slotting fees have been an illegal activity in 

the alcohol industry for as far back as I can remember. If any agency has information on slotting fees, we have it, especially with regard to the alcohol beverage industry. We would think it is duplicative. 

Mr. TANNER. Thank you. 

Chairman LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Tanner. Mr. Doggett is now 

recognized for his questions. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

testimony. As I was beginning mine earlier, I believe you and I 

first talked about almost 10 years ago when I was preparing the 

first draft of what is now the STOP Act, just to seek technical expertise of you and your colleagues about how the Act would work 

and fit with the kind of work that you do at the agency. 

That was at a time when Treasury Secretary Larry Summers 

was publicly expressing a great deal of concern about tobacco 

smuggling. I realize through the intervening 10 years, you are now 

serving in a new Administration, and I thank you for the efforts 

that you are making. 

My questions are not directed toward seeking endorsement, 

which I know is not forthcoming from the Administration to the 

STOP Act, but I would like to just ask you a few specifics along 

the lines of what I was saying to my colleagues. 

Are there any steps that could be taken now, modest, that would 

be consistent with the work that you are doing? Let me ask you 

just a couple of specifics. 

As I understand it, currently on any cigarette pack, you would 

have one of three identifiers. You would either have a slip on there 

that was a permit number of the factory. You would have the manufacturer’s name and some piece of information that the manufacVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:41 Jan 31, 2011 Jkt 058277 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\58277.XXX APPS06 PsN: 58277

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
59 

turer chooses to put on there, or you would have the manufacturer’s name and city and State of factory for the product. 

Is that basically the current regime? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. My question to you is would it be helpful to the 

agency to have a standardized serial number, so that you may be 

able to get that sometimes voluntarily from the industry in a particular investigation, but so you would know from the outset the serial number and could trace back the information on the product? 

Mr. MANFREDA. I would say that could be helpful to us. Currently, if you are looking at a specific individual pack in a retail 

outlet, there is no apparent indicia on the package to show that 

taxes have been paid. 

We do not really have the capability of tracing that package all 

the way back to the manufacturer. From that point of view, a serial 

number may help. 

I would say we had serial numbers on alcoholic beverages up to 

about 1982. They were basically done away with because it became 

a security issue and a compliance issue with maintaining the integrity of those serial numbers that were on the liquor bottles. 

Mr. DOGGETT. We need to be mindful of that experience, but 

basically having the serial number on there could be an aid to law 

enforcement? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Currently, is there anything to prevent me from 

going out and buying tobacco manufacturing machinery? 

Mr. MANFREDA. None whatsoever, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Would it also be consistent with the efforts of 

the agency to make clear that just as you must have a permit to 

manufacture tobacco, that tobacco manufacturing equipment cannot be or should not be sold to those who lack such a permit? 

Mr. MANFREDA. I have no problem with that. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I referenced some of the provisions that Congress passed twice last year in the children’s health insurance program. Those were provisions that would broaden the authority of 

TTB with reference to issuance of permits or the ability to revoke 

permits if there was a violation of State or Federal law. 

Would that be consistent with—— 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, that would be very helpful. Under current 

law, under the Internal Revenue Code, if you look at the provisions 

controlling revocation and suspension, we are basically limited to 

anybody that violates the Internal Revenue Code provisions and 

the regs thereunder. 

There are limiting factors to revocation. If we expand it to allow 

for suspension or revocation based on a violation of the Contraband 

Cigarette Trafficking Act and other statutes, Jenkins Act, that 

could be very helpful. They would be the type of individuals that 

you do not want in the business. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Right. People that are really not legitimate distributors, wholesalers, manufacturers of tobacco. Those legitimate 

interests ought to have a concern for seeing that these people are 

not involved. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
60 

You find situations where you have good reason to believe there 

has been a violation of a law, but you are powerless to do anything 

about it because it is not within your jurisdiction? 

Mr. MANFREDA. With existing permitees. If we have an applicant that has violations, the criteria is because of your business 

standing, financial standing and trade connections, you are not 

likely to comply, in that arena, we could say based on these other 

convictions, you are not likely to comply, so under that scenario, we 

could do something. 

It sounds odd to have the authority with respect to application 

but not have it with respect to suspension or revocation. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEWIS. Mr. Thompson is now recognized for his questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Manfreda, thank you for being here. I want to say that John 

and I go back a long ways. We have worked together on a lot of 

things and have a good relationship. I consider him a friend. 

Mr. Manfreda, your agency is proposing two new rules that I 

think are both wrong and, if adopted, are going to bring great harm 

to the wine industry and they trouble me a great deal. 

The Congress prohibited misleading wine labels when they 

passed the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, and your agency 

was charged with enforcing that law, as you mentioned in your 

opening testimony. 

In 1986, your agency concluded, and I will quote, ‘‘A geographic 

brand name of viticulture significance on a wine label indicates to 

consumers the origins of that wine.’’ That means where those 

grapes are grown. 

In your own manual, and I have a copy of it here, and without 

objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this to the record. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
61 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.018
62 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.019
63 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.020
64 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.021
65 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.022
66 

Mr. THOMPSON. Your manual provides public guidance regarding geographic brand names, what is allowed or what is not allowed under the law and under the regulations. 

I would like to quote from this also. It states and I quote ‘‘If the 

brand name includes the names of a geographic area that actually 

exists and is described in at least two reference materials as a 

grape growing area, the wine cannot be labeled with such a brand 

name.’’ 

I do not want them included, Mr. Chairman, but I would like 

unanimous consent to get the citations from these reference books 

included in the record. There are about 15 of them here, Mr. Chairman, that do in fact speak directly to the proposed rule. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection, you just want the citation? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Just the citations. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection. 

Mr. THOMPSON. They also go on to say that new brand names, 

‘‘new’’ being after July 7, 1986, cannot be labeled with such a name 

also. I would like these put in the record and also while we are at 

it, I have a letter from about 57 Members, I think 17 from this 

Committee, opposed to that, and also a letter and statement from 

the Napa Valley Vintners opposing this as well. 

Chairman LEWIS. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
67 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.023
68 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.024
69 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.025
70 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.026
71 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.027
72 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.028
73 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.029
74 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.030
75 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.031
76 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.032
77 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.033
78 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.034
79 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.035
80 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.036
81 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.037
82 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.038
83 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.039
84 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.040
85 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Manfreda, I have a couple of questions on 

this issue that I would like to ask you. If a vintner submitted an 

application today with a Calistoga brand name on the label, would 

that label be approved under these standards? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Which standards? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Your standards. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, they would, currently. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You would in fact approve a label with the 

name ‘‘Calistoga’’ on it? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir, because we are now in rulemaking on 

that point. We probably would approve it subject to an advisory 

that this matter and the use of the word ‘‘Calistoga’’ is subject to 

rulemaking and your ability to continue to use that may be subject 

to termination. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Your manual states specifically that it cannot 

be done. 

Mr. MANFREDA. That manual, sir, is purely a guidance document. If you look at the regulations which control this particular 

issue, under 4.39(i), this regulation specifically states as determined by a TTB official. 

From our knowledge, there was no determination made at the 

time, in 1998 when we started approving the Calistoga label, that 

such term had viticultural significance. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Manfreda, the Federal Government, when 

they passed the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, prohibited 

misleading wine labels. How in the world can you sit here and tell 

me that a wine label with a geographic destination would in fact 

be approved unless, of course, you can come back somehow and explain how that fruit comes from that specific area? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Our laws basically say you cannot use a brand 

name of geographical significance or viticultural significance, and 

basically, that is determined by the agency. 

Calistoga has not been officially determined to be—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is not what your rule says. As a matter 

of fact, it gives an example of the Virgin River Valley Serenade 

white wine, and it states ‘‘Virgin River Valley is the name of a geographic area that actually exists and is described in at least two 

reference materials as a grape growing area. Therefore, the wine 

cannot meet the appalachia of origin requirements for the geographic area named in the brand name.’’ 

Mr. MANFREDA. Again, that is a guidance document and it does 

not address Calistoga specifically. In fact, from our historical 

files—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. There are 15 references right here. You sat 

through the very, very tough hearings in the eighties on this issue. 

You were at the hearings in my district. In those hearings, one of 

the leading viticulturers in the world, and sadly to say, just passed 

away this weekend, Robert Mondavi, but he testified before that 

hearing that since 1937, ‘‘I’ve been crushing grapes in the Napa 

Valley. These grapes have come from the various areas of Napa 

County, Caymus, Yountville, Oakville, St. Helena, Calistoga. The 

wines have their own characteristics from each of these areas.’’ 

This is something that you know personally, with personal experience. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
86 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, that is the whole function of the rulemaking, to air this issue entirely to give people the ability to comment. If you remember, this rulemaking involves the application of 

the regulation that is already on the books that basically says a 

geographical brand name that is the name that has been in existence after 1986 does not fall within the grandfather clause of 

4.39(i). 

What we were trying to do here is see whether or not there are 

other approaches to this particular labeling issue other than terminating somebody’s right to use a brand name that they have been 

using for over 12 years. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You are mixing questions now. There is this 

very specific provision in the law, a revocation provision, that allows you to remove that if someone does in fact have a label that 

is not legitimate and not proper, and that revocation provision is 

probably what should be used in this particular case. 

Mr. MANFREDA. I know that exists there, but we are still in 

rulemaking. It would be premature to pre-determine the outcome 

of this before the rulemaking finishes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You told me in my office when we talked about 

this that there may be some way to deal with this by placing a disclaimer on the Calistoga label, that in fact the grapes were not 

from Calistoga. 

If that were to happen, how would a consumer know that the 

wine is not from Calistoga? 

Mr. MANFREDA. If the disclaimer specifically said the grapes 

were not—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. On the wine bottle. 

Mr. MANFREDA. Right in the same—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. What about the consumer who buys his or her 

wine in a restaurant off a wine list, sees it advertised and somehow 

draws the conclusion that it is from Calistoga, or in a wine review 

or for sale in a catalog or on the Internet? 

Mr. MANFREDA. I think that is a very good point. You are 

going to the limitations of our jurisdiction over advertising materials. To the extent it would constitute advertising by an industry 

member, our rules can address that to make sure if the brand 

name is used, you have an appropriate disclaimer also present. We 

can cover it to the extent that we have jurisdiction over it, and for 

those areas we cannot reach, it is no more different than other 

issues that could come up and be treated similarly in those respected forums. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, 

if I could, just one more question. 

The label in question, Calistoga Cellars, has never applied to register its wine brand as a trademark with the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. If it had, it would have been refused registration 

on the brand on the basis that it was deceptive because consumers 

associate the term ‘‘Calistoga’’ with the wine. 

This is the holding of the PTO in the case of trademark applications to register similar marks, Calistoga Ranch and Calistoga Estate Vineyards for wine. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
87 

How do you justify TTB’s protecting Calistoga Cellars when this 

position is in direct conflict with the government’s lead agency on 

trademark matters? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Sir, I will have to defer to the PTO. I am not 

familiar with their rules or regulations. I am familiar with what 

we are doing and what we are doing is trying to determine whether 

or not a label with a disclaimer would be not misleading to the consumer with regard to claiming Calistoga where the real source of 

the grapes are shown. 

Mr. THOMPSON. There are other ways to deal with that, and 

we have talked about some of them. One would be a grace period 

whereby the label in question could start sourcing its grapes from 

the Calistoga area which the label is trying to mislead consumers 

to believe their wine is from. It could be like a 5 year period to get 

those grapes, and as you know, the Calistoga folks said they would 

get them, the fruit, to do this. 

This is an important issue. This has been litigated and litigated 

and litigated. The California Supreme Court found that the issue 

that you are trying to protect, the businessperson who has this 

label, does not lose anything if they are required to have fruit in 

their wine that the label leads consumers to believe is in the wine, 

and it went all the way to the California Supreme Court and twice, 

it was refused certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

There is plenty of legal ground to hang your hat on, and I would 

just strongly advise you to consider these things and consider the 

harm that is going to be done to an industry that across the board 

has benefited not only the industry but the consumers and the 

Treasury with this success. 

We are trying to fix something here that is not broken. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. 

Chairman LEWIS. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Thompson. 

Mr. Manfreda, I am sorry I missed your testimony but I read it. 

I just have one question. You mentioned that you conduct background checks when you review alcohol and tobacco permits. How 

do you conduct criminal background checks without access to law 

enforcement databases? What do you look at to be sure there is no 

criminal record? 

Mr. MANFREDA. Yes, sir. With our separation and split to a 

separate bureau, when we were part of ATF, we could use their 

law enforcement function to do NCIC checks. We had been advised 

by Justice in late 2005 and the beginning of 2006 that they did not 

consider us a law enforcement agency under their statute. 

As a result of that, what it has caused us to do is use commercial 

databases, like Lexis-Nexis, Choice, different commercial databases 

to look at the background of individuals. 

We also know that 28 States run fingerprinting for their 

permitees, and we always ask the States that are involved whether 

or not they have derogatory information on the individual that has 

applied for a Federal permit. 

In addition, especially in the tobacco area because of ATF’s CCT 

jurisdiction, we refer matters to them to find out if they have any 

adverse information regarding the individual. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
88 

That is what we have been doing to date. We do our own investigative work regarding the applicant as well. 

Chairman LEWIS. Mr. Manfreda, I want to thank you for your 

time and being so patient. I thank you for your responding to the 

Members and for your testimony. The Subcommittee appreciates 

your views. 

Is there any other business to come before the Subcommittee? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Only one round? 

Chairman LEWIS. Only one round? I think you had two, Mr. 

Thompson. You had two in one. 

There being no further business, the hearing is now adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions submitted by the Members to the Witnesses follow:] 

[Questions from Mr. Cantor to Mr. Manfreda and Responses from 

Mr. Manfreda follow:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
89 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.041
90 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.042
91 

f 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.043
92 

1 ‘‘How Big Was the Global Illicit Tobacco Trade Problem in 2006?’’ Framework Convention 

Alliance (FCA). June, 2007. 2 Ibid. 

3 ‘‘WHO takes aim at tobacco smuggling with new pact.’’ Reuters. Feb. 15, 2008. 

4 ‘‘With Taxes on the Rise, Cigarette Smuggling Likely to Increase,’’ Associated Press. April 

11, 2008. 5 Cigarette Trafficking Grows as Taxes Climb. The Heartland Institute, Budget & Tax News. 

June 1, 2006. 6 ‘‘Illicit Cigarette Trafficking and the Funding of Terrorism.’’ William Billingslea. ATF. The 

Police Chief Magazine. February 2004. 7The Counterfeit Trail. Tobacco Reporter magazine blog. February 2008. 

Statement of Authentix 

Members of the Oversight Subcommittee of the U.S. House Ways and Means 

Committee, the Department of The Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, Federal cigarette tax collection efforts are an important revenue generator 

for the U.S Government and the TTB is to be commended on its five year anniversary. However, there is more that could be done to efficiently and effectively collect 

Federal cigarette taxes. A high-tech Federal tax stamp for cigarettes harnessing 

new technologies such as digital stamping would provide the most effective method 

for Federal cigarette tax collection. Along with increased efficiency of tax collection, 

a Federal tax stamping program would help eliminate the ability of organized crime 

to highjack our economy through cigarette smuggling, diversion and counterfeiting. 

Authentix has harnessed nano-scale engineering and top-notch training programs to 

enable governments across the world such as India, Kenya, South Africa and Guyana to recoup billions of dollars in lost excise tax revenue over the course of the 

past 5 years. 

As a global leader in excise tax recovery, the situation in the U.S. is a growing 

program with billions of dollars at stake at the Federal level. These precious tax 

dollars that provide our Nation with funds for schools, hospitals, roads, and defense 

are being high jacked by very sophisticated organized global crime rings. 

A Snapshot of the Illegal Cigarette Problem 

Some other sources put the total loss at over $1 Billion. The global trade in illicit 

cigarettes is estimate to represent over 10% of cigarettes sold globally—about 600 

BILLION cigarettes.1 Each year, the illicit tobacco trade potentially represents up 

to $US 50 billion worth of losses to governments worldwide.2

We all know, illicit trade in tobacco products significantly contributes to death 

and disease caused by tobacco consumption and to the rise in tobacco consumption 

by making cigarettes ‘‘cheaper, more accessible and more difficult to regulate.’’ 3 As 

taxes in many States have climbed, so has the illicit cigarette trade. The Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates they made 35 arrests for tobacco trafficking in 2003 and 162 such arrests in 2005.4 More than 700 new investigations have been opened in the past 5 years, according to Phillip Awe, the chief 

tobacco enforcer of the ATF.5 As recent media articles have pointed out, the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have found that Russian, Armenian, 

Ukranian, Chinese, Taiwanese, and Middle Eastern (mainly Pakistani, Lebanese 

and Syrian) organized crime groups are highly involved in the trafficking of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes and counterfeit tax stamps for profit.6

Examples of Illegal Cigarette Trafficking Schemes 

Smuggling occurs in a variety of ways, including counterfeit and ‘‘grey’’ products, 

illegally manufactured, counterfeit tax stamps, Internet and postal schemes, theft, 

and smuggling across borders and into ports. 

The Impact 

As Mr. William Billingslea of the ATF states, ‘‘It’s hard to exaggerate the harm 

caused by smuggling and counterfeiting. Governments miss out on tax revenue, legitimate manufacturers suffer lost sales and damage to their reputations, and consumers end up with inferior products. What’s more, the profits from smuggling and 

counterfeiting provide seed money for other illegal activities such as organized crime 

and terrorism.’’ 7

What’s Being Done Isn’t Enough 

• In the U.S., States rely on tobacco stamping technologies from the 1950’s to protect tobacco tax revenues. These stamps have limited security and tracking features which makes it much easier for counterfeiters and smugglers to foil the 

tax recovery system in place. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
93 

Unlike many countries such as Canada, Malaysia and The Czech Republic, the 

U.S. currently does not have a Federal tax stamp and has no way of protecting our 

precious excise tax dollars. This is a great risk every day. There is legislation afoot, 

H.R. 5689, that is calling of the mandate of a digital tax stamp for cigarettes sold 

in the U.S. 

H.R. 5689’s mandate for a digital stamp follows best practices of many other countries from around the world that have implemented a ‘‘country’’ or Federal tax 

stamp and additionally ensures we, as a Nation, are using the best readily available 

technology such as a digital platform to ensure smugglers and organized crime can’t 

counterfeit stamps like they do now. As shown in the picture below, here are a few 

examples from Russia, Poland, and The Czech Republic. 

Some will say digital technology is immature and we should stay with the status 

quo. We would argue, and so would countries from around the world, as well as 

many of our Fortune 500 clients, that indeed the technology does exist and has enabled our clients to recover over $5 billion in lost revenues in the last 5 years. 

The Authentix Digital Tax Stamp Solution is customizable to fit customer needs. 

The solution can authenticate, serialize and track cigarette packs as they move from 

distributors’ warehouses throughout the supply chain. 

A high-tech digital printed on demand Federal tax stamp would be a leapfrog advance from current countries practices and would significantly reduce the ability of 

criminals to get smuggled and counterfeit product into our country and thus reduce 

the ability of foreign operatives to highjack our valuable tax dollars. 

ABOUT THE SOLUTION 

Authentix Offers a Better Solution 

Authentix offers a digital tax stamp solution that enables governments to collect 

tobacco tax revenues effectively and track the status of legally issued tax stamps 

electronically. By using digitally printed on-demand stamps with remote and field 

verification capability, this solution ensures a high level of security and data integrity, accurate and customizable reporting and makes it much easier for governments 

to recover lost tobacco tax dollars. 

The Authentix Excise Tax Stamp Management System is a web based application. 

New users will be registered after they file an online request and complete an electronic application. The request will be directed to Authentix to verify completeness 

and will be forwarded to appropriate tax collection authorities for disposition. The 

applicant will be automatically notified; via e-mail, phone or fax, once a decision is 

made to approve, reject or when additional information is required. Authentix will 

act upon the request based on the decision made by the authorities. This process 

can take as little as few minutes or several days depending on the protocol set by 

the authorities for the review process. 

Properly registered manufacturers will have access to their account through a secure web portal. Upon logging in on the system the manufacturer will be able to 

review status of pending orders, initiate new orders or otherwise manage his/her account The process of ordering new stamps will as simple as filling in and configuring an online order request form and specifying information about type of stamp 

required, stamp denomination, etc. 

Individually serialized stamps will be delivered to manufacturers in singulated 

stacks for application on cigarette packs. Most cigarette manufacturing equipment 

has the capability to apply the stamps before cellophane wrapping is applied to the 

cigarette packs. Information about tax stamps used can be collected from the manufacturing/assembly line. This data will be aggregated and shall be forwarded to 

Authentix through a secure portal for archives and future investigations. 

Only authorized revenue collection agency personnel will have access to this information. The system will provide full search and indexing capability to assist investigations for validating tax stamps as they are intercepted in the field (at distribution centers or at retail stores). Authentix will provide all required instruments for 

authenticating stamps and validating stamp IDs. 

Authentix offers secure web-enabled architecture using HTTPS (128 bit SSL) and 

proprietary encryption technologies to facilitate exchange of information throughout 

the platform. Users are able to securely login using a standard web browser. Once 

access is granted by the firewalls, transaction processing layer will interact with 

various databases to respond to queries. All available databases (Reports, Audit, 

Stamps, Transaction and Notification) are physically isolated and protected behind 

a secondary firewall. 

We recommend a phased deployment, by geography or by brands. 

Carlyle Senior Advisor, Charles Rossotti, who from 1997 to 2002 served as Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service believes, ‘‘In particular, Authentix’ Excise 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
94 

1PM USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group Inc. This submission also reflects the 

views of Altria Group subsidiaries John Middleton Co. and Philip Morris Duty Free, Inc. 

Tax Recovery Programs provide government authorities with the ability to effectively authenticate and track goods to ensure tax revenues are optimized rather 

than lost altogether, a major problem, for example, in tobacco and oil and gas industries. I look forward to working with the Authentix team to further expand the company’s global client base.’’ 

The Authentix solution enables law enforcement authorities to authenticate the 

digital stamps and verify the embedded information on the stamps in the field via 

simple-to-use and secure handheld instruments. 

Authentix digital tax stamp with multi-layered security features and track and 

trace technology. 

Authentix Advantages 

• Multiple layers of security features leveraging nano-scale technology, tamper resistance and intaglio printing. • Can track each stamp as applied and distributed. • Delivers a digitally encrypted, counterfeit-resistant tax stamp. • Each stamp carries a unique serialized identification code. 

Conclusion 

Authentix once again thanks the Committee on Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Department of The Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau for making valiant efforts to keep tobacco taxes from and urges the adoption 

of a more efficient way of monitoring, tracking and authenticating tobacco sales so 

they provide the maxium amount of Federal tax dollars. 

About Authentix 

Authentix is a trusted partner of Governments and Brand Owners Worldwide. 

Authentix provides authentication solutions to the oil and gas, consumer goods, 

tobacco, spirits, banknote and agrochemical industries. Our client list includes Fortune 500 companies and governments across the globe. In the past 5 years, 

Authentix has helped our clients recover over $5 billion in lost revenues. 

For more information, please contact Authentix at www.authentix.com. 

f 

Statement of Charles N. Whitaker 

Altria Client Services Inc. submits this written statement on behalf of Philip Morris USA Inc.1 (‘‘PM USA’’), a leading domestic manufacturer of cigarettes. 

PM USA commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on the important 

work of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (‘‘TTB’’) and, more specifically, the topic of contraband tobacco products. As the Subcommittee is aware, the 

illegal sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products results in a variety of harms: 

• It can result in lost tax revenues to Federal, State and local governments. • It can undermine efforts to prevent youth access to cigarettes. • It can be used by those engaged in contraband trafficking as a source of income 

to support other criminal activity. • It can take business away from law-abiding wholesalers and retailers who fully 

comply with all applicable laws and thereby find themselves at a competitive 

disadvantage. • It can result in substantial, unexpected tax bills for some consumers who purchase cigarettes falsely advertised as ‘‘tax free’’ over the Internet. • And all of these harms can damage the integrity of PM USA’s brands and undermine confidence in the distribution channels through which we intend our 

products to be distributed and sold to adult consumers. 

Law enforcement agencies, State and Federal legislators, PM USA, and other private parties have focused considerable effort in recent years on curbing the illegal 

sales of tobacco products in the United States. PM USA supports effective and appropriate measures to combat illegal sales. Among its many efforts on this issue, 

PM USA has advocated—and continues to advocate—for well-designed legislation at 

both the Federal and State level that would reduce illegal sales. In particular: 

• PM USA supported the enactment of the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act 

(‘‘ICCA’’) in 2000; 

• PM USA supported amendments strengthening the ICCA in 2006; 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
95 

2 19 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5754, 5761(c). 

3The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 was enacted December 20, 2006. It amended 

the ICCA to, among other things, confirm that delivery sales of cigarettes (Internet or mail order 

sales) cannot qualify as personal use quantities and thus are not exempt from the importation 

requirements of the ICCA. It also extended the ICCA to smokeless tobacco products and authorized the States to seize cigarettes imported in violations of the ICCA. The USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act was enacted March 9, 2006. It amended the CCTA to, among 

other things, lower the threshold number of cigarettes that would constitute a violation from 

60,000 (300 cartons) to 10,000 (50 cartons), authorize the Attorney General to promulgate regulations requiring that reports be filed by delivery sellers (other than tribal governments) for 

sales of cigarettes in quantities over 10,000 during a 1-month period, expand the Attorney General’s authority to require recordkeeping by persons who ship or sell more than 10,000 cigarettes 

in a single transaction, extend the CCTA to cover smokeless tobacco products, and create certain 

enforcement rights for State and local governments and for private parties. 4PM USA has filed a number of actions against importers and sellers of illegally imported 

cigarettes that bear PM USA’s trademarks. In one of its largest illegal import cases, PM USA 

filed an action against Otamedia Limited, then the largest Internet seller of illegally imported 

cigarettes to consumers in the United States. The lawsuit resulted in the closure of several 

international web sites that among them had imported more than 500,000 cartons of illegally 

imported cigarettes per month. The court permanently enjoined Otamedia from engaging in the 

sale of illegally imported cigarettes bearing PM USA trademarks into the United States, and 

ultimately awarded the defendant’s key domain name, as well as $173 million in damages, to 

PM USA. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Otamedia Limited, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1259 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2005). 

• PM USA supported legislation in 2006 strengthening the Contraband Cigarette 

Trafficking Act (‘‘CCTA’’); and 

• PM USA supports the enactment of model anti-contraband legislation at the 

State level. 

In addition, PM USA supports the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (‘‘PACT 

Act’’), H.R. 4081. With the PACT Act, a bill that enjoys a broad base of support, 

Congress is presented with a vital opportunity to make real progress on illegal 

Internet sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, a form of illegal sales that has 

not been adequately addressed at the Federal level. As explained more fully below, 

the PACT Act would significantly strengthen Federal laws governing the sale of 

such products over the Internet. 

The Subcommittee heard testimony on May 20, 2008 on another anti-contraband 

bill, H.R. 5689, the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act (‘‘STOP Act’’). While PM USA 

supports a range of State and Federal legislative efforts designed to combat contraband and other forms of illegal sales, we do not support the STOP Act because we 

do not believe the STOP Act is reasonable, prudent, or likely to be effective in addressing contraband. 

H.R. 5689—The STOP Act 

The main provisions of the STOP Act are either not practical or unlikely to 

produce meaningful benefits. To begin with, many of the STOP Act’s provisions seek 

to address the prevention of a specific subset of contraband—namely, illegal imports—that has already been the subject of significant Congressional action since 

the STOP Act was originally introduced in 1999. The current version of the STOP 

Act, which is essentially the same as the 1999 bill, does not appear to recognize 

these developments. 

Illegal imports consist of products that are either manufactured abroad and illegally imported into the United States, or products that are manufactured in the 

United States and intended for export but that are illegally diverted into U.S. commerce. Recognizing the importance of this issue, Congress enacted the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act (ICCA) in 2000, making it illegal to import cigarettes bearing 

a U.S. trademark without the trademark owner’s consent. The ICCA also requires 

that all imported cigarettes comply with U.S. health warnings and ingredient disclosure laws, and it strengthens prohibitions on the diversion into domestic commerce 

of cigarettes intended for export from the United States.2 In 2006, Congress then 

strengthened both the ICCA and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act 

(‘‘CCTA’’).3 PM USA supported each of these actions by Congress, and then reinforced these legislative efforts with private actions of its own filed against illegal 

importers.4

As a result of all of these efforts, we have seen a decline in recent years in the 

incidence of illegally imported cigarettes that appear in the United States. Today, 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
96 

5 According to a 2004 GAO report, Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement seized 1.7 million counterfeit cigarettes compared to only 225,000 genuine cigarettes during 2003. Prior to 2000, the number of illegal genuine cigarettes seized far exceeded 

counterfeits. See Cigarette Smuggling: Federal Law Enforcement Efforts and Seizures Increasing, GAO Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives (May 2004) at 21. 6 Before removal from the factory, every package of tobacco products must be labeled with the 

words ‘‘Tax Exempt. For use outside U.S.’’ or ‘‘U.S. Tax-exempt. For use outside U.S.,’’ except 

where a stamp, sticker or notice, required by foreign country or U.S. possession that identifies 

such country or possession, is imprinted or affixed to the package. 26 U.S.C. § 5704(b); 27 C.F.R. 

§ 44.185. 

illegal cigarettes originating from overseas appears to be mostly counterfeit product, 

as to which the STOP Act provisions would not have any substantial effect.5

The STOP Act Would Impose Burdensome, Unworkable Requirements that are Unnecessary Given Existing Laws Prohibiting Illegal Imports 

Against this backdrop, many of the STOP Act’s major provisions would impose a 

series of burdensome requirements apparently intended to address the same illegal 

import issue that was the principal motivation behind the enactment and later 

strengthening of the ICCA. 

Export Markings. The STOP Act’s export marking provisions require the inclusion 

of certain information on each pack of cigarettes or other tobacco products intended 

for export, including a designation, in both English and the appropriate foreign language, of the country of final destination. It is not clear what purpose this requirement is intended to serve. To the extent that these export markings are intended 

to allow law enforcement agents or consumers to distinguish legitimate domestic 

product from illegally imported product, such markings are simply unnecessary. 

Under current Federal law, tobacco products intended for export already must bear 

unique markings on the pack, thus making it readily apparent on the face of the 

pack that it is not intended for sale within the United States.6

In addition to the dubious benefit of such markings, there are practical and cost 

implications. In the context of duty-free sales, particularly at international airports, 

it is not even clear how this requirement would operate. Manufacturers do not know 

at the time of manufacturing and packaging what the country of destination will 

be for individual purchasers of duty-free product. Thus, presumably manufacturers 

would have to produce separate inventories with separate packaging for every country to which a duty-free customer might travel, and would have to distribute these 

potentially hundreds of separate inventories to the duty free businesses. Even if 

that were possible, the requirement as it applies to the duty free shops is unclear. 

For the duty free shop, does the requirement mean that it may sell only product 

that is labeled with the traveler’s country of citizenship? Or is it the country of immediate destination? Or, still a third possibility, the country in which the traveler 

intends to consume the product? In short, this requirement raises a series of questions even as to basic feasibility. 

Import Markings. The STOP Act also creates new labeling requirements for imported tobacco products. Such products must carry a unique serial number identifying the manufacturer and importer, the location and date of importation, and any 

other information the Secretary may require. These labeling requirements raise 

logistical concerns for importers who would be required to print the importation 

date and location on every package. Importers could not comply with such requirements because the information is not available at the time of manufacturing when 

the package printing occurs, and the importers themselves have no ability to print 

information on packages of individual tobacco products after they are manufactured, 

wrapped in cellophane and packaged into cartons and cases. 

Many of the STOP Act’s Requirements for Domestic Tobacco Sales Impose Significant and Unnecessary Burdens with No Clear Benefit 

Other provisions of the STOP Act aimed at sales of domestic tobacco products 

would impose significant and unnecessary burdens on law-abiding participants in 

the tobacco distribution chain without clear evidence that such burdens will produce 

meaningful benefits. 

Federal Encrypted Tax Stamp. The STOP Act would require the implementation 

of a new Federal tax stamping system, one that would in particular mandate manufacturers to apply an encrypted tax stamp on each package of cigarettes and other 

tobacco products. 

The anticipated benefits of this new and elaborate Federal tax stamp system are 

not clear. Tax avoidance is primarily a State excise tax issue, and for that reason 

tax stamping at the State level is an important component of the overall solution 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
97 

7See Letter to Rep. Doggett from David Moxam, Authentix (‘‘Cigarettes are manufactured on 

highly automated high speed packaging lines. In order to make the economy of scale work, cigarette manufacturers mass produce any given cigarette brand based on forecasts and without specific knowledge of end users (retail stores) demand. Therefore the information about when a 

package of cigarettes is purchased and by which retailer is not available at the time of manufacturing the cigarette packs.’’) 8Only North Carolina, South Carolina and North Dakota do not require a State tax stamp. 

to addressing contraband cigarettes. Because excise tax rates vary from State to 

State, it is important that each State require that cigarettes distributed for sale in 

the State carry indicia (in the form of a tax stamp) of tax payment and of the intended location (State and/or locality) of sale. The Federal excise tax rate, by contrast, is uniform throughout the United States, and approximately 90% of it is paid 

by the several large manufacturers that produce most of the product sold for distribution. While there is evidence that Federal tax avoidance does occur—for example, with some products manufactured by some Native American entities—the preferable approach is not to impose a new tax stamping system on all manufacturers, 

but rather to emphasize targeted law enforcement efforts, which can be highly successful in promoting compliance at the Federal level. 

In addition, the STOP Act in particular proposes the use of a tax stamp that 

would be ‘‘encrypted’’ with information such as the identity of the first purchaser 

from the manufacturer, that is, the wholesaler or distributor. Because diversion of 

tobacco products often occurs in the distribution chain many layers below the wholesaler, it is not clear what benefits this requirement is intended to have. Nevertheless, this requirement is not feasible in any event. One of the producers of this technology has described the practical limitations that impact any proposal to require 

manufacturers to embed the identities of downstream purchasers in a stamp that 

is applied at the point of manufacturing.7 Manufacturers simply do not know the 

identity of the first or subsequent purchasers until well after the tax stamping 

would occur. 

It is worth noting, furthermore, that all but three States require tax stamps,8 and 

the States that require a tax stamp use serialized tax stamps, except California 

(California uses an encrypted tax stamp). The serialized tax stamp already enables 

law enforcement agents to trace an individual pack back to the wholesaler who 

stamped and sold the product. These tax stamps also have security features that 

enable law enforcement agents to immediately discern genuine from counterfeit 

stamps, using technology that is in widespread use today. 

It is not clear the extent to which the STOP Act contemplates additional information to be contained on or in the stamp beyond a serial number and identity of the 

wholesaler. However, the delegation of authority that the STOP Act confers on the 

Secretary of Treasury to require the serial number to contain ‘‘additional information’’ could result in further requirements of uncertain law enforcement value, but 

that could impose serious burdens on participants in the distribution chain. Indeed, 

a number of sections of the STOP Act empower the Department of Treasury to create new or additional requirements other than those specified in the bill, which 

raises a concern as to the limits of the Department’s power to add, through regulatory action, requirements that would compound the burdens of this legislation. 

Burdens on Federal Agencies. It should also be noted that the provisions of the 

STOP Act would create new and substantial burdens on Federal agencies, thus potentially diverting resources from more effective anti-contraband efforts. The Federal tax stamp system under the STOP Act, for example, would entail establishing 

a new and extensive tax stamping regime at the Federal level, one that would require a range of new activities for the Department of Treasury and the TTB, including negotiating and overseeing the printing and distribution of tax stamps and the 

many other tasks that would be necessary to create from scratch and then administer a nationwide Federal tax stamp system. These substantial burdens on Federal 

agencies would be imposed without any clear law enforcement benefits, or at least 

without any benefits that could not be achieved more efficiently and effectively by 

working within existing State and Federal laws or by enacting alternative legislation, such as the PACT Act. In short, existing State stamping and licensing requirements, the requirements of the model State anti-contraband bill that PM USA supports, and the PACT Act, provide a more effective set of solutions to the problem 

of illegal trade of tobacco products. 

PM USA Supports Legislative Solutions Other than the STOP Act to Address Illegal 

Tobacco Sales 

PM USA believes that progress can more effectively be made by focusing attention 

on other legislative solutions, such as the PACT Act, which has been the subject of 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
98 

9The PACT Act refers to remote sales and remote sellers as ‘‘delivery sales’’ and ‘‘delivery sellers.’’ 10 In fiscal year 2000, the weighted average State cigarette excise tax was 41.2 cents per pack. 

(Bill Orzechowski & Rob Walker, The Tax Burden on Tobacco, vol. 42 (February 2008) (funded 

in part by PM USA)). Today it is more than double that at $1.05. (Internal PM USA data). 11 In addition to causing tax losses to the States, Internet and other remote sales are often 

made without the deposit of the escrow amounts required on sales of cigarettes made by manufacturers who are not participating manufacturers under the Master Settlement Agreement. 12 New York State Department of Health, Fourth Annual Independent Evaluation of New 

York’s Tobacco Control Program, August 2007 at 2–18 and 2–19. 13Patrick Fleenor, California Schemin’: Cigarette Tax Evasion and Crime in the Golden State, 

Tax Foundation Special Report, Oct. 2006, at 6–7. 

years of negotiation and drafting and has earned broad support among wholesalers, 

retailers, law enforcement agencies, and others. 

H.R. 4081—The PACT Act 

In contrast to the STOP Act, the PACT Act addresses a number of gaps in Federal 

law and provides an effective, workable regulatory scheme that comprehensively addresses a current and significant contraband problem: Internet sales of cigarettes 

and smokeless tobacco. 

The PACT Act would regulate ‘‘remote’’ or ‘‘delivery’’ sales of cigarettes and 

smokeless tobacco products—i.e., sales, like those over the Internet, in which there 

is no face-to-face interaction between the seller and the consumer and where the 

products are delivered to the consumer by mail, common carrier or other delivery 

service. The gaps in Federal law include the absence of any age-verification requirements for cigarettes or smokeless products sold via the Internet or other remote 

methods, and the absence of effective measures to prevent delivery sellers of such 

products from evading excise and other State or local taxes. By closing these gaps, 

the PACT Act would give Federal and State authorities tools they need to take effective action against those who are exploiting the Internet and other remote sale 

methods. The PACT Act is the product of a long process of discussion and negotiation, and it has broad support. It strikes the appropriate balance between the needs 

of law enforcement and the legitimate interests of affected parties, and it should 

therefore be enacted. 

There is little doubt that the current remote sale of cigarettes by Internet and 

other remote sellers is a problem with many adverse consequences. To understand 

these issues more clearly, it is important to first understand how remote sellers of 

cigarettes operate in today’s marketplace.9 Remote sellers of cigarettes are typically 

located in States with low cigarette excise taxes, in other countries, or on Native 

American reservations in which access to untaxed cigarettes is possible. Once these 

sellers obtain supplies of untaxed or low-taxed cigarettes, they are then able to sell 

the cigarettes over the Internet or by mail or telephone order to consumers in higher-tax jurisdictions, without paying the taxes or other amounts lawfully owed to the 

States and localities in which the consumers are located. Given the substantial excise tax disparities that exist between some States, remote sellers are able to create 

and then exploit an enormous and unfair competitive advantage over cigarette 

wholesalers and retailers who pay State and local taxes.10 Indeed, the current business models of most cigarette remote sellers appear to be based on the non-payment 

of State and local taxes. 

This is not an isolated or minor problem. The percentage of total Internet sales 

of cigarettes originating with domestic Internet sites—that is, sites located within 

the United States—has increased over the past few years. Based on PM USA’s most 

recent analysis, the five largest websites—and seven of the top ten—are located in 

the United States. Against this backdrop, remote sales cause a range of harms 

across a variety of issues, including: 

• The States lose substantial tax revenues.11 For example, the New York State 

Department of Health estimated that the revenue losses to New York from 

Internet and telephone sales during 2006 were between $28 million and $33 

million.12 California estimates that it lost $190 million in tobacco taxes as a result of Internet sales in 2005.13

• Remote sales can undercut State laws intended to prevent youth access to cigarettes and other tobacco products. With remote sales, the transaction does not 

occur on a face-to-face basis, but rather between a purchaser in one State and 

a seller that is typically located outside of that State, often beyond the State’s 

practical ability to regulate the seller’s conduct. A State’s ability to impose requirements on remote sales into that State can be limited, furthermore, by both 

legal and practical considerations. A recent illustration of the limits of States’ 

ability to take comprehensive action in this area is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
99 

14 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008). Justice Ginsburg highlighted in her concurrence the need for Congressional action in light of these limits on States’ power. ‘‘State measures to prevent youth access 

to tobacco . . . are increasingly thwarted by the ease with which tobacco products can be purchased through the Internet. . . . The FAAAA’s broad preemption provisions, the Court holds, bar 

States from adopting [a] sensible enforcement strategy. . . . Now alerted to the problem, Congress 

has the capacity to act with care and dispatch to provide an effective solution. Id. at 998. 15The PACT Act also requires the Attorney General of the United States to compile and publish a list of remote sellers who have not complied with the registration or other requirements 

of the Jenkins Act and prohibits the delivery of packages from non-compliers except in narrow 

circumstances. PACT Act, sec. 2. 16This cause of action for Federal permit holders would not apply against State, local and 

tribal governments. 

decision in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, in which the 

Court struck down elements of Maine’s remote sales law. The Court concluded 

that certain aspects of that law—including the age-verification requirement it 

imposed on remote sales—were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.14

• Legitimate businesses are unfairly disadvantaged. The wholesalers and retailers who sell cigarettes in compliance with all applicable State excise tax and 

age-verification laws often operate on low margins. These law-abiding sellers 

are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with Internet and other remote 

sellers, who evade such laws to undercut market prices offered by legitimate 

wholesalers and retailers—prices that reflect the full cost of goods, including all 

taxes owed in the jurisdiction in which the cigarettes are delivered. 

Existing Federal Law Has Gaps That Make it Inadequate To Effectively Deal With 

the Problems Created by Internet Sales 

Existing Federal law, namely the Jenkins Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 375 et seq, imposes 

limited regulatory requirements that were originally designed to prevent bootlegging 

of cigarettes. The Jenkins Act was enacted almost 60 years ago, long before the development of the modern infrastructures available today (most notably the Internet) 

that enable millions of consumers to purchase goods from businesses located in 

other States and countries without leaving their homes. The Jenkins Act’s limited 

regulatory requirements have been overtaken by these developments, and are thus 

inadequate to today’s needs. 

For example, the Jenkins Act does not require the Internet or remote seller to pay 

applicable taxes on cigarettes shipped into a State, but rather only requires the seller to file reports to assist the State authorities in collecting taxes from the consumer. This is an inefficient and expensive way to collect the taxes and creates potentially unfair hardships for some possibly unsuspecting consumers. Moreover, the 

Jenkins Act does not require Internet or other remote sellers to comply with ageverification and other measures enacted by the States into which they are shipping 

cigarettes. In addition, violations of the Jenkins Act are punishable today only as 

misdemeanors, making it less likely that Federal prosecutors will invest their limited resources into prosecuting Internet and other remote sellers who violate that 

law’s requirements. 

The PACT Act Addresses These Gaps in Current Federal Law 

The PACT Act amends existing Federal law in key respects in order to address 

the gaps in those laws and to provide workable and effective regulations governing 

Internet and other remote sales. Among other things, the PACT Act: 

• Enhances existing Jenkins Act provisions. The PACT Act directly addresses 

problems with the current law in a number of ways. • First, it expands the amount of information that must be reported by Internet 

and other remote sellers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and requires that 

the monthly reports be provided not only to the State taxing authorities but 

also to the United States Attorney General and to local and tribal governments 

that tax cigarettes.15

• Second, the PACT Act gives State, local and tribal authorities the right to bring 

a Federal cause of action in the United States district courts to enforce the Jenkins Act (including the new remote sale rules described below). These provisions 

give the authorities with the greatest incentives to enforce the Jenkins Act important information and legal remedies they need. • Third, the PACT Act expressly provides cigarette manufacturers or importers 

holding Federal permits with a cause of action to enjoin violations of the Jenkins Act.16

• Fourth, the PACT Act makes violations of the Jenkins Act a felony, thus providing a more powerful deterrent to illegal conduct, and increasing the incentive 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
100 

17These criminal provisions would not apply to State, local or tribal governments. A common 

carrier or independent delivery service also will not be guilty of a felony unless a higher standard of proof is met. PACT Act, sec. 2. 18The PACT Act includes an exception for items mailed to or within Hawaii or Alaska. PACT 

Act, sec. 3. 19Federal legislation is necessary to effect this change as it is well-established that State laws 

cannot regulate what items the Postal Service carries or the terms on which it carries such 

items. See, e.g., N.Y. State Motor Truck Ass’n v. Pataki, 2004 WL 2937803, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 

17, 2004) (‘‘The State lacks the authority to regulate the Postal Service’’). Congress, however, 

has plenary authority to regulate what can or cannot be carried by the U.S. mails. 1 Consumer Federation of America is a nonprofit association of over 300 organizations, with 

a combined membership of over 50 million Americans. Member organizations include local, 

State, and national consumer advocacy groups, senior citizen associations, consumer cooperatives, trade unions and anti-hunger and food safety organizations. Since its founding in 1968, 

CFA has worked to advance the interest of American consumers through research, education 

and advocacy. 

for Federal prosecutors to invest their limited resources in cases involving Jenkins Act enforcement.17

• In addition, the PACT Act clarifies that the Jenkins Act covers remote sales 

originating on Native American reservations. 

• Requires payment of State and local excise taxes on remote sales. Currently, no 

Federal law requires remote sellers to remit State excise taxes to the States in 

which delivery takes place. The PACT Act corrects this situation, by making 

Internet sellers clearly responsible for paying taxes to the State into which they 

are engaging in delivery sales. This change will prevent Internet and other remote sellers who do not collect taxes from unfairly competing with cigarette 

sellers who properly collect taxes, and from misleading consumers into believing 

they have no tax liability when purchasing these products on the Internet. This 

change will also assist States in collecting taxes, given the potential legal impediments faced by States when they attempt to collect taxes from out-of-State 

or foreign Internet sellers. 

• Regulates delivery methods generally. Currently no Federal law regulates the 

delivery methods or the procedures for the delivery of remote sale cigarettes to 

consumers. The PACT Act expands current Federal law and provides for Federal regulation of remote sales of cigarettes, and specifically includes ageverification and shipping requirements. As Federal law, the PACT Act would 

not be subject to a preemption challenge such as in the Rowe case challenging 

Maine’s laws. 

• Makes cigarettes nonmailable and imposes reasonable requirements on common 

carriers. Currently, Federal law allows the use of the U.S. mails for remote 

sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The PACT Act makes these 

products generally nonmailable via the U.S. Postal Service, consistent with the 

current treatment of other age-restricted products such as alcoholic beverages.18

The PACT Act permits the shipment of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco by 

common carriers or other delivery services as long as the shipping, ageverification and other remote sales requirements outlined above are met.19

• Gives the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) authority to inspect records and inventories of remote sellers. The PACT Act expressly 

gives ATFE the right to inspect the records and inventories of cigarette remote 

sellers. This provision of the PACT Act will help the ATFE identify both noncompliant sellers and noncompliant common carriers. 

PM USA Supports the PACT Act 

For the above reasons, PM USA strongly supports the PACT Act. This legislation 

will significantly strengthen Federal laws prohibiting illegal or tax-evading remote 

sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. This legislation will also benefit 

law enforcement by enhancing tools that can be used to identify, investigate, and 

prosecute remote sellers who evade the system of laws that govern the payment of 

taxes on these products. 

f 

Statement of Consumer Federation of America 

Consumer Federation of America commends you for holding a hearing on the 

overall operations of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).1 It is 

critical that Congress provide oversight of Federal agencies to be sure that they are 

properly serving the public and carrying out the intent of Congress. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
101 

2Zwilich T, ‘‘Groups Rip Watered-Down Alcohol Labels.’’ WebMD Medical News, April 22, 

2008, http://www.webmd.com/news/20080422/groups-rip-watered-down-alcohol-labels. 

As you consider the operations and role of the TTB, I wanted to alert you to a 

statement made by a representative of the TTB in April regarding the Agency’s mission. When asked about an alcohol labeling proposal before the Agency, TTB spokesman Art Resnick told a reporter that ‘‘We don’t have a public health mandate.’’ 2

This flies in the face of Congressional intent and public expectation. Overconsumption of alcohol is a serious public health problem and the TTB should be part of the 

solution, not merely an idle bystander. 

Congress clearly expanded the mission of the TTB to include public health when 

it required a government warning label on alcoholic beverages in 1988. Section 202 

of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 213) states, in part: 

‘‘The Congress finds that the American public should be informed about 

the health hazards that may result from the consumption or abuse of alcoholic beverages, and has determined that it would be beneficial to provide 

a clear, nonconfusing reminder of such hazards. . . . It is therefore the policy 

of the Congress, and the purpose of this subchapter, to exercise the full 

reach of the Federal Government’s constitutional powers in order to establish a comprehensive Federal program, in connection with the manufacture 

and sale of alcoholic beverages in or affecting interstate commerce, to deal 

with the provision of warning or other information with respect to any relationship between the consumption or abuse of alcoholic beverages and 

health. . . .’’ 

This is a clear indication that Congress expects the mission of the TTB to include 

public health. 

The TTB obviously wants to shirk this public health mission. This is most readily 

apparent in its proposed rule on labeling of alcoholic beverages, released in July 

2007. The Agency agreed to include some basic information on its proposed Alcohol 

Facts label. Incredibly, however, the TTB did not propose to include information 

about alcohol content per serving on its proposed label, the most relevant information for consumers of alcoholic beverages. The Agency also did not see fit to include 

the Dietary Guidelines advice on moderate drinking, missing a perfect public health 

opportunity to educate consumers about the importance of safe and healthy alcohol 

consumption. 

In Mr. Resnick’s comment and the Agency’s proposal on alcohol beverage labeling, 

the TTB is flaunting its disregard for the intent of Congress that the Agency’s mission include protecting the public health. We urge you to impress upon the TTB the 

importance of this mission and encourage the Agency to carry out this mission as 

it fulfills its duties. 

f 

Statement of Matthew L. Myers 

In connection with this hearing on the activities of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB), I would like to highlight for the Committee the serious 

problem of tobacco tax evasion and contraband trafficking in tobacco products and 

the related enforcement efforts of TTB and other Federal agencies. In that regard, 

we are very fortunate that a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Doggett, has introduced the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act (H.R. 

5689), also known as the STOP Act, which is legislation to address the problem of 

smuggling and contraband trafficking of tobacco products. I strongly urge the Committee’s support for this important legislation. 

Existing Federal laws do not do enough to prevent and reduce contraband trafficking and other tobacco tax evasion. Current Federal law fails to create the kind 

of closed system of legal sales and deliveries among legal, licensed entities that is 

needed to make the diversion of legal tobacco products into illegal markets much 

more difficult. Current Federal law fails to establish the kind of record keeping and 

other tracking and tracing requirements and capabilities needed to identify such illegal diversions when they occur and facilitate related enforcement efforts. In addition, Federal law fails to establish the kinds of markings on tobacco products to 

make it easy to distinguish between legal tobacco products and counterfeit and 

smuggled versions. 

Representative Doggett’s STOP Act would correct each of these deficiencies in current Federal law, enabling TTB and other relevant Federal agencies to work toVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:41 Jan 31, 2011 Jkt 058277 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\58277.XXX APPS06 PsN: 58277

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
102 

gether to sharply reduce the amount of tobacco tax evasion and other contraband 

trafficking in tobacco products that currently occurs. 

Let me explain why the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health 

organizations—such as the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association—strongly support the passage of the 

STOP Act as an effective way to promote public health, reduce tobacco use, and help 

shrink the unnecessary harms and costs caused by tobacco use. 

As the Members of this Committee are well aware, tobacco product smuggling and 

tax evasion are criminal activities that reduce government revenues and hurt honest businesses. That is reason enough to want to minimize the problem. But tobacco 

product smuggling and tax evasion also have serious public health consequences. 

Counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes and other cigarettes sold free of applicable 

Federal or State taxes are offered to consumers at prices far lower than the prices 

charged by lawful tobacco product retailers. The sales of these illegally tax-free 

products undermine ongoing State and local efforts to reduce tobacco use by increasing tobacco tax rates. Studies show, for example, that every 10 percent increase in 

real cigarette prices will reduce overall use by approximately 3 or 4 percent and reduce the number of youth smokers by 6 or 7 percent. The corollary has also been 

proven true—decreases in cigarette prices—in this case from illegal cigarettes—increase tobacco use. The availability of cheap cigarettes therefore increases overall 

tobacco use, thereby leading to higher levels of tobacco-caused disease, deaths and 

costs. By reducing the easy access to contraband tobacco products and other tobacco 

products on which taxes have not been paid, these bills will assist in the effort to 

reduce tobacco use and its harms, especially among youth and lower-income persons. Another key public health problem from contraband tobacco product trafficking is 

sales to kids. Black market vendors and other illegal sellers are much more likely 

to sell to underage buyers than legally operating retailers. 

The sale of contraband tobacco products and other tobacco products on which no 

taxes have been paid also hurts public health by reducing the amount of government tobacco tax revenues available to fund tobacco prevention programs and other 

public health initiatives. 

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that contraband cigarette trafficking can 

also reduce the annual tobacco settlement payments to the States. Those settlement 

payments are supposed to be adjusted downward based on actual U.S. cigarette consumption declines—but the MSA formulas are based solely on changes to legal cigarette sales. Accordingly, when smokers shift from legal to illegal cigarettes, consumption does not actually decline, but the MSA payments to the States do. 

The illegal sale of tobacco products also opens the door to the sale of tobacco products that do not have the required health warnings, do not comply with State ‘‘firesafe’’ laws to make cigarettes less likely to cause fires, and that contain levels of 

pesticides or other contaminants that legally manufactured cigarettes using legally 

grown domestic tobacco cannot contain. In addition, if the pending FDA tobacco 

product legislation (H.R. 1108) becomes law, FDA will likely issue product standards 

for cigarettes and other tobacco products designed to make them less harmful, and 

contraband versions could violate those product standards. 

There is another public health reason to institute effective measures to minimize 

tobacco product smuggling and tax evasion. As mentioned earlier, tobacco tax increases are an especially effective way to increase tobacco product prices and, consequently, reduce tobacco use and its many harms and costs. The tobacco industry 

and its allies regularly argue against any significant tobacco tax increases, claiming 

they will drive more smokers to illegal cigarettes. The proper response to this argument is not to forego new tobacco tax increases and the public health benefits they 

produce, but to increase and improve government efforts to bring criminal contraband tobacco trafficking organizations to justice. 

For all these reasons, minimizing tobacco product smuggling and tax evasion is 

not only good fiscal policy and good anti-crime policy but is also good public health 

policy. 

Fortunately, the STOP Act demonstrates that there are measures that can be 

quickly implemented to prevent and reduce contraband tobacco product trafficking 

and put the related criminal organizations out of business. 

The STOP Act (H.R. 5689) is the latest version of legislation that was introduced 

in prior Congresses and has undergone continuous improvement. Among other 

things, it takes advantage of the lessons learned from growing efforts worldwide to 

address the problem of cigarette and other tobacco product smuggling that crosses 

international borders and the problem of counterfeit tobacco products and counterfeit tax stamps. 

The common sense principles behind the STOP Act are simple and effective: 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
103 

• Make sure that it is difficult for illegal vendors to sell counterfeit tobacco products or make or sell counterfeit tax stamps and easy for enforcement officials 

and others to distinguish legal from illegal tobacco products. The STOP Act does 

that by requiring clear markings on tobacco product packages that identify the 

manufacturer and show where the products may be legally sold. The legislation 

requires new, readily available high-tech tax stamps that establish legality and 

cannot be effectively counterfeited, and it includes provisions to keep tobacco 

product manufacturing and tax-stamping machinery from getting into the 

hands of counterfeiters. 

• Make it easier to track and trace tobacco products as they are transported from 

one business to another so that diversion to illegal distribution channels is more 

difficult and easier to spot. The STOP Act requires reasonable reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements by businesses throughout the distribution and delivery chain; adds tobacco product distributors into the Federal permit system 

that now applies to manufacturers, exporters and importers (creating a closed 

system of authorized legal businesses that can sell and deliver tobacco products 

to each other); provides for encrypted information on the high-tech tax stamps 

to identify not only the entities applying the tax stamp but also subsequent recipients; and establishes a system of export bonds to ensure that the tobacco 

products actually end up in legal markets where they are reportedly destined. 

• Prohibit transactions that serve only to supply contraband trafficking. The 

STOP Act blocks sales of tobacco products that exceed the amount needed for 

personal use. For example, the bill stops the sale of more than 5,000 cigarettes 

(250 packs) to any single retail customer at any one time. Those kinds of large 

retail sales are needed only by those engaged in illegal smuggling and re-sales, 

and this bill would stop them. 

• Untie the hands of Federal enforcement officials. To help enforcement efforts, 

the legislation creates more extensive Federal jurisdiction over contraband trafficking. The STOP Act makes the definition of contraband tobacco product clearer and more comprehensive. It includes all tobacco products for the first time, 

and would also enable Federal enforcement officials to stop and prosecute any 

contraband trafficking of more than 2,000 cigarettes (rather than the current 

jurisdictional minimum of 10,000 cigarettes). 

• Protect citizens who report criminal trafficking acts. The STOP Act does that 

by providing new whistleblower protections for civic minded workers who witness contraband trafficking activity while on the job. 

• Establish strong new financial incentives for good behavior and appropriately 

large financial disincentives for bad behavior. Rep. Doggett’s legislation establishes new export bond requirements that would penalize exporters for allowing 

their shipments to be diverted from the reported legal destinations; provides 

clearer standards for proper behavior; establishes clearer descriptions of wrongful acts, and subjects lawbreakers to higher fines and penalties. 

These examples of some of the key measures in the STOP Act provide a quick 

overview of this comprehensive and carefully thought-out legislation. By doing all 

these things, the STOP Act would make it much easier for TTB to accomplish its 

goal of collecting all Federal tobacco taxes that are legally owed on all the tobacco 

products consumed in this country. 

Once passed into law, we believe the STOP Act will reduce contraband trafficking 

both within the United States and across its borders. Indeed, the STOP Act offers 

a model that the world’s nations could follow both in the current development of 

the Illicit Trade Protocol of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 

(FCTC)—which the United States has signed but not yet ratified—and in subsequent efforts by individual countries to comply with the FCTC by passing their own 

stronger and more comprehensive national laws. 

Some concerns have been raised over the STOP Act’s tax stamping provision, but 

they primarily reflect misunderstandings about how the bill would work and the viability of currently available technologies. More specifically, some cigarette companies have complained that it is not technologically feasible to establish a Federal 

tax stamp for cigarettes. Their complaint ignores the fact that high-tech national tax 

stamps already exist in other countries (e.g., Brazil) and in one U.S. State (California). In addition, at least two major companies in the United States—SICPA and 

Authentix—already offer comprehensive digital tax stamping technologies and systems that could quickly be put into effect. While opponents have asked about the 

cost of establishing a new Federal cigarette tax stamp, high-tech tax stamps would 

bring in substantial new Federal revenues by stopping counterfeit sales and other 

contraband tobacco product trafficking—and that new revenue would be far greater 

than the cost of the new system. California is an excellent example. When California 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
104 

implemented its own high-tech tax stamping system, revenues from cigarette taxes 

increased roughly $100 million dollars over the next twenty months despite no increase in the cigarette tax rate. 

The only other major issue raised about the STOP Act to date has been a concern 

among some Indian Tribes that the Act might in some way weaken existing Tribal 

sovereignty rights. The STOP Act should be Tribal sovereignty neutral, and we believe that it is. Further, we understand that Representative Doggett is committed 

to ensuring that his bill is interpreted and applied that way, either by making whatever changes might be necessary or through appropriate legislative history. 

Passing the STOP Act would not only cap current tobacco product smuggling and 

tax evasion, preventing it from getting any larger in the United States, but would 

also make the problem much smaller. These measures would increase the costs and 

reduce the profits from smuggling and tobacco-product related tax evasion. They 

would also close down lucrative opportunities for criminal and terrorist organizations. They would protect honest businesses from illegal competition, and they 

would increase public revenues at all levels of government. 

As described above, passing the STOP Act would also work directly to improve 

public health by helping to reduce tobacco use and the horrible toll it takes on our 

country. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony for the Committee’s consideration. If any Members or staff have any questions about my testimony or would 

like any additional information, they can contact me or any of the staff at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 

f 

Statement of SICPA Product Security 

Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Ramstad, and other Committee Members, we 

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the printed record of this 

hearing. The information we provide we hope will answer possible questions on the 

feasibility of a Federal cigarette tax stamping system as proposed by Congressman 

Lloyd Doggett in H.R. 5689, the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act (the ‘‘STOP Act’’) 

as he testifies before your Committee today. 

SICPA supports implementation of a Federal high-tech tax stamp system. Our experience has proven that a Federal system is feasible and successful in preventing 

counterfeiting and diversion while protecting government revenues and public safety. 

SICPA offers support of the STOP Act based on our experience with tobacco 

stamping systems. Founded in 1927, SICPA is a trusted advisor to governments, 

central banks and brand owners providing security inks and integrated systems for 

anti-counterfeiting. 

Feasibility of a Federal Stamping System 

It is currently feasible to use digital tax stamp technology to establish a Federal 

tax stamp or other tax-payment indicia for cigarettes. SICPA has experience in operating such systems in contracts with the Federal Governments in Brazil and Turkey and was recently awarded the contract for such a system in Canada. Provided 

the appropriate systems are in place, the following information could be read from 

the stamp by portable scanning devices in real-time at the point of inspection: 

a. The denominated value of the stamp, meter impression or indicia. 

b. A unique serial number or tracking code. 

c. The name and address of the person purchasing (and, if different, of the person 

affixing) the stamp, meter impression, or indicia. 

d. The date the stamp, meter impression or indicia was purchased, when it was 

affixed and the brand to which it was affixed. 

e. The name and address of the person purchasing or otherwise receiving the tobacco product from the person who affixes the tax stamp, meter impression, or 

indicia and the date of such purchase or transfer. 

SICPA systems worldwide have been customized with particular proprietary inks 

for visual authentication and encrypted with data similar to and beyond the desired 

items above that were priorities for Congressman Doggett. 

SICPATRACE® Solution 

SICPA has designed our tax stamp solution with several key attributes: 

• To provide overt and advanced covert deterrence against stamp counterfeiting. 

• To provide secure stamp manufacturing and distribution processes. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
105 

• To minimize impact of the new program on key players (Federal Government, 

State governments, manufacturers, distributors) while enhancing their ability to 

control and monitor the program. • To provide information technology to facilitate the ordering, distribution, authorization, audit, reconciliation and reporting of tax stamp application. • To provide tools for to authenticate the tax stamps using individual features designed for each user group (enforcement, manufacturers, consumers, etc.) 

Implementation of a Federal system would likely be carried out in a similar fashion to systems used in other Federal Government programs. Typically, a Federal 

stamp is produced in a secure environment under very strict production procedures 

to ensure full accountability for all stamps produced. Stamps are shipped to manufacturers where they are applied to packs prior to cellophane wrapping. All the recognized providers of cigarette packing equipment lines have tax stamp application 

modules available that they can readily install on cigarette manufacturers current 

lines. As stamps are applied to packs, the digital stamp is read thereby recording 

the stamp affixing and the brand to which it was applied. Subsequently the stamp 

can be read as it is packaged in a carton and case. As cases are shipped the unique 

numbers of the cases (and therefore the cartons and packs contained therein) are 

used to reference the destinations and each subsequent change in the chain of custody. In the U.S., such a system could be adopted without interfering with the rights 

of the States to apply their own State tax stamp as their current practices dictate. 

High-tech tax stamps are extremely difficult to counterfeit and improve upon the 

current stamping systems based on old technology. Adapting technology used to protect documents of value (e.g. currency, transit tickets, passports, etc.) the technical 

sophistication of SICPA’s proposed tax stamp will protect existing tax revenue from 

erosion due to counterfeiting while increasing revenues. The proposed approach 

would use layered security combining overt and covert counterfeit deterrent features 

in the printed design of the tax stamp. This approach provides multiple hurdles for 

counterfeiters and a ready ability to change or adjust individual features—enabling 

the governing body to stay ahead of counterfeiters without having to redesign the 

entire stamp every time a threat is discovered. The SICPA stamp design has built 

in flexibility to allow cost effective incremental features to be incorporated over time 

to continually improve counterfeit protection. While each feature is individually secure, the combination of overt, covert and machine readable security features provides a significant barrier of protection. Although copies of stamps will be attempted 

we provide sufficient sophisticated elements that they are virtually counterfeit proof. 

Costs and Implementation 

In the absence of detailed information on the number of manufacturers, number 

of manufacturing lines, separate locations, shipping and delivery methods, number 

of scanners required, etc., it is premature for us to provide an estimated timetable 

for implementation or approximate costs. In Turkey, the Federal system was implemented in 6 months and in Brazil it was completed in 8 months; the Federal system 

in Canada is planned to take 6 months. In all cases the requirements differ to some 

extent but give an indication of the time requirement. In the State of California, 

SICPA was awarded a contract in August 2004, and full implementation of the 

SICPATRACE® system began January 2005. By June 30th, 2005, the system was 

fully operational in the State, but this system only covered licensed distributors. 

Stamp costs will also vary substantially dependent on what is also to be provided 

by way of stamp content, equipment, information systems and other services, and 

therefore the indicative price range is very broad from $4.00 to $30.00 per thousand. 

We respectfully decline to speculate on the amount of increased cigarette tax revenues the Federal Government would be likely to obtain from the introduction of a 

stamping system, with or without a tax increase. In the State of California, $125 

million in revenues were recovered in the first 20 months of the SICPATRACE® 

system. It had been estimated that nearly $292 million was lost annually in the 

State. It is arguable that with any tax increase, the opportunity for counterfeiters 

becomes more lucrative and a digital stamp becomes more necessary. 

The stamping of other tobacco products (OTP) is feasible using a similar stamp 

to that recommended for cigarettes. However, given the variety of products in terms 

of size, shape, packaging materials, etc., different machines may be required for different manufacturing environments but the principles remain the same as for cigarette packs. Again, due to limited information on the scope of such a system, we 

respectfully decline providing estimated cost information at this time. 

SICPA Systems: Proven Tobacco Stamping Success 

In order to provide additional information on the feasibility of a national system 

for Federal stamping, we include two case studies of our stamping systems on FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:41 Jan 31, 2011 Jkt 058277 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\58277.XXX APPS06 PsN: 58277

dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
106 

eral levels which have been implemented with much success. Additionally, SICPA 

has been awarded the contract for Federal cigarette stamping in Canada, to be implemented following further negotiations with the Canada Revenue Agency. We 

hope this information will be helpful in determining how a Federal system in the 

U.S. could be established. 

BRAZIL 

SICPA is currently managing secure, nationwide tax stamp programs for Brazil. 

The program in Brazil provides fiscal stamps on packs that account for some 5.3 

billion cigarettes per year. Elements of the system in Brazil include: 

• Overt and covert security features for the fiscal stamp. 

• Data Management System (DMS) to control national cigarette production, 

which will be integrated with the government’s taxation system. 

• Coding activation systems incorporated into the production lines at 152 manufacturer locations. 

• Use of invisible SICPADATA® codes for product authentication, production control and track and trace. 

• Supply and installation of hardware and software for track and trace and codification of the ‘‘intelligent tax stamp’’ with an overt security element. 

• Technical support and ongoing training of technical personnel necessary for the 

fulfilment of the scope of this contract. 

Turkey: TURKTRACE® 

Turkey has become the first country in the world to implement a single technology to monitor all excisable tobacco, alcohol and beer products—more than seven 

billion packaged items per year. The product tracking system required the installation of non-intrusive automatic tracking units onto manufacturers’ packing and filling lines for product monitoring and transmission of the relevant information to a 

central data management system. To handle the monitoring of imported products, 

dedicated facilities have been set-up close to customs points at Istanbul, Izmir and 

Mersin. 

The reach of this tracking system is broad and extensive: 

• 137 tobacco packing lines at 8 sites, applying 6 billion security stamps per year. 

• 50 filling lines for alcohol products at 39 sites, applying 140 million security 

stamps per year. 

• 24 filling lines for beer at 9 sites, applying 1 billion security codes per year. 

Conclusion 

SICPA applauds the efforts of lawmakers who have brought the issue of contraband cigarettes to national prominence. It is increasingly apparent that the safeguards currently in place against counterfeiting are not enough. By moving to an 

encrypted stamp system, the U.S. Government will protect legitimate tax revenue 

and protect national security. We have seen the success of such systems and trust 

that it is feasible in the U.S. We also believe such a system should complement, not 

hinder the efforts of individual States to control their own stamping programs, 

whether encrypted or not. We strongly believe that a Federal stamping system and 

a State stamping system are not mutually exclusive. Any Federal system should not 

undermine the efforts of an individual State to secure and monitor their own tax 

revenues. 

SICPA thanks you for the opportunity to provide this additional information in 

support of a Federal stamping system. SICPA remains available as a resource for 

further information on system implementation and continues to encourage efforts 

against counterfeit and diverted products. 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING
107 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.044
108 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.045
109 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.046
110 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.047
111 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.048
112 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.049
113 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.050
114 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.051
115 

f 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.052
116 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.053
117 

Æ 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with HEARING58277a.054