May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5917

First, on January 10, 1990, a division manager in Sarasota, Florida issued a memorandum describing a method to increase the exposure and access to the Young Adult Market for the Joe Camel campaign. The memorandum asked sales representatives to identify stores within their areas that ‘‘are heavily frequented by young adult shoppers.

These stores can be in close proximity to colleges [, and] high schools . . .’’ The purpose

of the memorandum was to make sure that

those stores were always stocked with items

that appeal to younger people—such as hats

and tee shirts—carrying the Camel name and

imagery.

A Wall Street Journal article revealed the

contents of this letter and it also contained

the company’s response that the memo was a

mistake. The company said the mistake had

been corrected and explained that the manager had violated company policy by

targeting high school students. However, on

April 5, 1990, another division manager, this

time in Oklahoma, sent a memo to all areas

sales representatives and chain service representatives in parts of Oklahoma. The

memo refers to what it calls ‘‘Retail Young

Adult Smoker Retailer Account[s]’’ and goes

on to say:

‘‘The criteria for you to utilize in identifying these accounts are as follows: (1) . . .

calls located across from, adjacent to [or] in

the general vicinity of the High

Schools . . .’’

Second, an additional element of its Camel

campaign was known as FUBYAS—

FUBYAS—an acronym for First Usual Brand

Young Adult Smokers. The company’s own

research in the 1980’s revealed a noteworthy

behavior among smokers: the brand that

they use when they first become regular

smokers is the brand that smokers stay with

for years. There is a great deal of brand loyalty among smokers.

Third, the next slide shows the effect of

the YAS or young adult smoker campaign.

Prior to the campaign, about 2 to 3 percent

of smokers under the age of 18 named Camel

as their brand. By 1989, a year into the campaign, Camel’s share of underage smokers

had risen to 8.1 percent and within a few

years it had grown to at least 13 percent.

During this same period, Camel’s share of

the adult market barely moved from its four

percent market share.

The campaign succeeded in resurrecting

the moribund Camel brand. But it also managed to create an icon recognizable to even

the youngest children. Two studies, one by

an independent researcher and one company

funded, found that children as young as

three to six easily recognize Joe Camel and

know that he is associated with cigarettes.

The company’s researcher found that children were as familiar with Joe Camel as they

were with Ronald McDonald. This fact is significant because children this young get

most of their product information from television advertising. But cigarettes have not

been advertised on television since 1970.

The campaign was clearly very effective

with the target group—the YAS smokers.

But it was also effective with the younger,

under 18 smokers.

The second example of industry promotion

concerns the largest smokeless tobacco company in America. It was also trying to revive

the declining market for its product. By 1970,

these products were used predominantly by

men over 50. Young males had the lowest

usage.

The company set about to redesign its

products and refocus its advertising and promotion to target younger people, especially

younger men. Its high-nicotine delivery

products were apparently not well tolerated

by new users. But as part of the redesign, it

developed low-nicotine delivery snuff products in easy to use teabag-like pouches.

Company documents indicate that these

products were developed to create ‘‘starter’’

brands that would attract new users who

could not tolerate the higher-nicotine delivery products.

A cherry-flavored product was also developed. In fact, one former company sales representative was quoted in the Wall Street

Journal as saying that the cherry product

‘‘is for somebody who likes the taste of

candy, if you know what I’m saying.’’

The documents also show that the company set out to produce a range of products

with low, medium, and high nicotine deliveries. One document shows that the company

expected its customers to ‘‘graduate’’ upward through the range of nicotine deliveries. This chart, prepared by its marketing

department shows the hierarchy of products,

with arrows going from Skoal Bandits (the

teabags), through Happy Days and Skoal

Long Cuts, and ultimately to Copenhagen—

the company’s highest nicotine delivery

product.

The idea behind the advertising and marketing strategy was captured in a statement

a few years earlier, in 1968, by a company

vice president:

‘‘We must sell the use of tobacco in the

mouth and appeal to young people . . . we

hope to start a fad.’’

The company’s reliance on the graduation

process can also be seen in a company document that depicts a ‘‘bullseye’’ chart. This

chart shows the company’s plan to advertise,

promote, and provide free samples of the

lower nicotine delivery products to new

users. The highest nicotine products were to

be advertised only to current users, and only

in a highly focused manner.

This product development and marketing

strategy has been extremely successful in recruiting new users. Use of smokeless tobacco

products has risen dramatically since the

1970’s. Moist snuff sales tripled from 1972 to

1991 and use by 18 to 19-year-old boys increased 1,500 percent from 1970 to 1991.

The Camel and smokeless campaigns demonstrate how marketing and promotion targeted at younger tobacco users can also

reach children and adolescents. And those

young people who choose to smoke have easy

access to the products. Tobacco products are

among the most widely available consumer

products in America, available in virtually

every gas station, convenience store, drug

store, and grocery store. And though every

state in the country prohibits the sale of

cigarettes to those who are underage, study

after study demonstrates that these laws are

widely ignored. Teenagers can purchase tobacco products with little effort—and they

know it. A 1990 survey by the National Cancer Institute found that eight out of 10 ninth

graders said it would be easy for them to buy

their own cigarettes. By some estimates, at

least as many as 255 million packs are sold

illegally to minors each year.

Younger smokers are more likely to buy

their cigarettes from vending machines,

where they can make their purchases quickly, often unnoticed by adults. The vending

machine industry’s own study found that 13-

year-olds are 11 times more likely to buy

cigarettes from vending machines than 17-

year olds. The 1994 Surgeon General’s Report

examined nine studies on vending machine

sales and found that underage persons were

able to buy cigarettes 82 to 100 percent of the

time.

But the easy access does not stop with

vending machines. Self-service displays

allow buyers to help themselves to a pack of

cigarettes or a can of smokeless with minimal contact with a sales clerk. This makes it

easier for an underage person to buy tobacco

products.

I’ve told you today that 90 percent of those

who smoke began to do so as children and

teenagers. I’ve told you that most of them

become addicted and that 7 out of 10 wish

they could quit. I’ve told you that the tobacco industry spends more than $5 billion a

year to advertise and promote an addictive

product and it uses cartoon characters, tee

shirts and other gimmicks that appeal to

children. I’ve told you that one company

went so far as to develop a young adult

smoker’s program which, intentional or not,

increased cigarette sales to children.

Some may choose to ignore these facts.

Some will continue to insist that the issue is

an adult’s freedom of choice. Nicotine addiction begins as a pediatric disease. Yet our society as a whole has done little to discourage

this addiction in our youth. We must all recognize this fact and we must do more to discourage this addiction in our youth.

A comprehensive and meaningful approach

to preventing future generations of young

people from becoming addicted to nicotine in

tobacco is needed. Any such approach

should: First, reduce the many avenues of

easy access to tobacco products available to

children and teenagers; second, get the message to our young people that nicotine is addictive, and that tobacco products pose serious health hazards—and not just for someone

else; and third reduce the powerful imagery

in tobacco advertising and promotion that

encourages young people to begin using tobacco products.

These types of actions have been advocated

by many public health experts and organizations, including most recently the Institute

of Medicine which recently issued a report

on smoking and children. And a recent public opinion poll sponsored by the Robert

Wood Johnson Foundation showed widespread public support for measures to reduce

smoking by young people.

When it comes to health, we Americans are

an impatient people. We venerate the deliberate, cautious scientific method but we

yearn for instant cures. We grow restless

waiting years or even months for answers,

yet today I am telling you to look to the

next generation.

Certainly some of the forty million addicted adult smokers in this country will

succeed in quitting. Every addictive substance has some who are able to break its

grip, and we should do all we can to support

those who want to quit. But let us not fool

ourselves. To succeed, we must fix our gaze

beyond today’s adults.

Of course we all want freedom for our children. But not the freedom to make irreversible decisions in childhood that result in devastating health consequences for the future.

Addiction is freedom denied. We owe it to

our children to help them enter adulthood

free from addiction. Our children are entitled to a lifetime of choices, not a lifelong

addiction.

BUZZ ALDRIN ELEMENTARY

∑

fSCHOOL

∑ Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last

Tuesday I had the privilege of attending the dedication ceremony naming

the Buzz Aldrin Elementary School, in

Reston, VA.

The school’s namesake, Dr. Aldrin,

delivered a very moving statement at

that event. He reminded the students

that ‘‘no dream is too high for those

with their eyes in the sky.’’

Who among us does not remember

being riveted by the words ‘‘one small
S5918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

step for man; one giant leap for mankind?’’ Buzz Aldrin’s inspiring remarks

brought back that momentous day—

July 20, 1969—when the Eagle landed

and man’s first steps were taken on the

moon. Most importantly, he made it

clear to the students in the audience

that they, too, can and will accomplish

great things.

I am pleased to share Dr. Aldrin’s remarks with my colleagues and ask that

they be printed in the RECORD.

The remarks follow:

A SPEECH BY BUZZ ALDRIN UPON THE DEDICATION OF THE SCHOOL NAMED IN HIS HONOR

Few people have the opportunity to attend

the dedication of a school that has been

named for them. My family and I are appreciative that the leadership of Fairfax County

named Aldrin Elementary School in my

honor, rather than in my memory! Thank

you very much. It is a privilege to be here.

Twenty-five years ago it was a privilege to

be there. It was incredible to be someone

who lived the words, ‘‘to go where no man

has gone before,’’ and science fiction became

scientific fact when we walked on the moon.

Some of you in the audience may still remember where you were when you heard

that the Eagle had landed. Some of you sat

glued to a television screen as I climbed

down to the surface of the moon. For a nation unwilling to accept second place in the

race for space, it was a declaration of victory. For a world believing that space was an

unconquerable frontier, it was a shout of triumph. ‘‘One small step for man; one giant

leap for mankind.’’

I still hear those words in my ears, just

like the hallways of this school echo with

the steps of boys and girls and adults. Each

day students, teachers, and administrators

alike are taking small steps together to embrace the future. Some steps are taken in

wheelchairs. Some steps are aided by walkers. Some steps are the small steps of two

year olds and the larger ones are the steps of

12 years olds. But no one really moves toward the future alone. Each of us has been

helped in our stride toward tomorrow. The

steps that occur within this school are not

steps taken alone. Parents bold the hand of

their children, each step a step of love.

Teachers hold the hands of students, each

step a step of knowledge. Administrators

hold the hands of students, parents, and faculty so that each step is supported. And community people, business leaders, people like

Brian M. Mulholland, government officials

like Senator Robb, Senator Warner, and so

many others join hands and walk with this

student body because the steps of students

and faculty may look like small strides, but

actually they are the steps that will take us

into a world that will look very different.

It is here that you must take advantage of

the latest in science and technology. It is

here that you must realize that no dream is

too small. And it is from here that a new

generation of All-Stars have been born. Your

theme this year has been ‘‘Reaching for the

Moon With Its Stars,’’ and appropriately so.

Schools are places for those small steps that

later become giant leaps. It is here that

hopes are nurtured and cultivated. It is here

that children can be instructed to do what

others have done, and be challenged to do

what no one else has accomplished.

My message to you today is that ‘‘No

dream is too high for those with their eyes in

the sky.’’

You honor more than me and my name

with this school. You honor the dreams that

propelled our nation to explore space and the

hopes that continue to lead us toward the future. May we continue to honor our hopes

and dreams by enabling the small steps of

children to become giant leaps for humanity.

It is obvious that ‘‘It’s one small step for

man; one giant leap for mankind’’ every day

at Aldrin Elementary School.

f∑

CUT CORPORATE WELFARE

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there has

been a great deal of praise to various

people for direct lending, including

some to PAUL SIMON.

But the person who really pioneered

direct lending for the student loan program and was convinced of its usefulness before I was, is Congressman TOM

PETRI, a Republican Member from Wisconsin.

Recently, he sent a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’

letter on direct lending because it is

now threatened by people who profit

from the present system.

His ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ is titled ‘‘Cut

Corporate Welfare,’’ and I ask that it

be printed in the RECORD.

The letter follows:

CUT CORPORATE WELFARE

DEAR COLLEAGUE: Those of us who call ourselves fiscal conservatives won’t have one

shred of credibility as budget cutters if we

are unwilling to go after corporate welfare

with the same zeal we apply to other types of

waste. And in this kind of effort, liberals

should be willing to join us. Please consider

the following case carefully.

Suppose you were a banker and you were

able to make loans that: were fully guaranteed by the federal government (i.e. as safe

as t-bills); paid you interest directly from

the federal government for a period of years

at 2.5% more than the interest on t-bills;

were fully as liquid as t-bills (or even more

so) because you could sell them at any time

at face value or even a slight premium in a

large secondary market with plenty of eager

buyers; require no credit-worthiness analysis

up front; and required no collection effort for

a period of years (you do nothing but sit

back and collect your interest), after which

you could still sell them or start collecting

on them and receiving an extra .6% interest?

Wouldn’t that be a great deal? Wouldn’t

you fight like Hell to keep it? You bet. And

the deal exists—it’s the guaranteed student

loan program. But it’s a lousy deal for the

taxpayers. They’d be much better off selling

t-bills themselves to finance the loans (rather than renting banks’ capital at 2.5% more

than the t-bill rate) and then contracting for

loan servicing with the current private

servicers on a competitive bid basis. And

guess what? That’s what direct lending is.

It’s still a public/private partnership, but the

one useful function the private sector performs—loan servicing—is priced in a market

process rather than a political negotiation

over interest rate premiums.

Think about it another way: what useful

function are the banks providing? They can’t

assess risk. They take no risk. We can get

cheaper capital. And we wouldn’t even need

their servicing if we collected these loans as

income taxes through the IRS.

Make no mistake—guaranteed student

loans contain an enormous bank subsidy.

That’s one of their four main sources of

waste (the others are default costs, administrative complexity, and mistargetted subsidies for students). If we don’t get rid of this

corporate welfare, we’ll have to cut more

somewhere else.

The choice is clear—are you for the banks

or for the taxpayers? True fiscal conservatives should have no doubt about whose side

to take.

Sincerely,

fTHOMAS E. PETRI, M.C.∑

VETERANS’ COMMUNITY-BASED

CARE ACT

∑ Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

rise to support S. 725, the Veterans’

Community-Based Care Act of 1995, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator ROCKEFELLER. I am

honored to be an original cosponsor of

this bill that I deeply believe is of signal importance to veterans and to the

future of VA health care.

The VA currently is planning to revamp its health care system to reduce

its strong emphasis on inpatient hospital care in order to provide more veterans with health care in outpatient

and noninstitutional settings, including community-based facilities when

such care is appropriate. This bill will

not only support VA’s restructuring efforts, but also help some of our most

vulnerable veterans—those with substance abuse problems who require rehabilitation services; elderly veterans

who are infirm; and homeless veterans

who suffer from severe mental illnesses

or substance abuse problems.

Let me stress that these are proven

programs with successful track records

and this bill will extend existing authorities for these worthwhile and innovative programs for about 5 years.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly

describe these programs so that my

colleagues may more fully appreciate

their value to needy individual veterans and to the VA health system as a

whole:

One provision would extend VA authority to contract with non-VA halfway houses for rehabilitation services

for veterans with substance abuse problems. This worthwhile program was

first authorized in 1979, and currently

operates at 106 medical centers, with

6,300 veterans treated in fiscal year

1994. These community half-way houses

perform a vital function in facilitating

a veteran’s successful transition from

inpatient substance abuse treatment

and detoxification to independent living within the community. The halfway houses provide a supervised, substance free environment, and help develop independent living and social

skills. I strongly and unequivocally

supported extension of this program in

the 103d Congress and I firmly believe

it merits further extension.

The bill also would extend VA’s authority to provide health and healthlinked service to veterans who otherwise would need nursing home care. It

enables veterans to live at home and

receive, at less cost to VA and the taxpayer, the same type of services that

would otherwise be provided in a hospital or nursing home. Mr. President,

this can be best described as a win-winwin program. Veterans would be able

to continue living at home, costs to the

taxpayer would be cut significantly,