May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5915

an oversight hearing on Tuesday, May

2, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room

485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on the implementation of the tribal

self-governance demonstration project

authorities by the Indian Health Service.

Those wishing additional information

should contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 224–2251.

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to

announce that the Committee on Small

Business will hold a hearing on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room

SD–628. The focus of the hearing is the

Small Business Administration’s 7(a)

Business Loan Program.

For further information, please contact Paul Cooksey at 224–5175.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

f

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BY

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

ETHICS UNDER RULE 35, PARAGRAPH 4, REGARDING EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL

∑ Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, it

is required by paragraph 4 of rule 35

that I place in the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD notices of Senate employees

who participate in programs, the principal objective of which is educational,

sponsored by a foreign government or a

foreign educational or charitable organization involving travel to a foreign

country paid for by that foreign government or organization.

The select committee received notification under rule 35 for William Triplett, a member of the staff of Senator

BENNETT, to participate in a program

in Abu Dhabi sponsored by the Abu

Dhabi Chamber of Commerce from

March 9–23, 1995.

The committee determined that no

Federal statute or Senate rule would

prohibit participation by Mr. Triplett

in this program.

The select committee received notification under rule 35 for Senator BOND

and two members of the staff, Warren

Erdman and Brent Franzel, to participate in a program in the Republic of

China on Taiwan, sponsored by the Chinese National Association of Industry

and Commerce, from April 18–21, 1995.

The committee determined that no

Federal statute or Senate rule would

prohibit participation by Senator

BOND, Mr. Erdman, and Mr. Franzel in

this program.

The select committee received notification under rule 35 for William B.

Bonvillian, a member of the staff of

Senator LIEBERMAN, to participate in a

program in Taipei sponsored by the

Tamkang University from April 10–16,

1995.

The committee determined that no

Federal statute or Senate rule would

prohibit participation by Mr.

Bonvillian in this program.∑

DR. DAVID A. KESSLER’S SPEECH

ON TOBACCO

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently,

I had a chance to read a speech by Dr.

David A. Kessler, the Commissioner of

the Food and Drug Administration, to

the Columbia University Law School.

I have been very favorably impressed

by Dr. Kessler’s commitment and

doggedness over the years. My colleagues will recall that he was an appointee of President George Bush, and

when Bill Clinton became President, I

urged him to retain David Kessler, and

I am pleased that he has done so.

His talk to the Columbia University

Law School was about tobacco and specifically about young people and tobacco. He describes nicotine addiction

as ‘‘a pediatric disease.’’

What tobacco companies are clearly

trying to do, and unfortunately doing

successfully, is to make smoking attractive to young people.

My wife and I recently took a vacation, at our own expense, I hasten to

add, to Portugal and Spain, and the

percentage of young people who smoke

in those two countries, as well as in

the rest of the world, unquestionably is

higher than it is in the United States.

But more young people are smoking in

the United States, and according to Dr.

Kessler, 7 out of 10 who smoke, report

that they regret having started.

He does not mention in his remarks

something I have read elsewhere, and

that is someone who is a cigarette

smoker is much more likely to get involved in hard drugs.

An area where I have some concerns

is his comment on advertising.

I believe the Federal Government has

to move very cautiously when it comes

to first amendment matters.

It does seem to me, however, that it

is only realistic and fair to ask the advertisers to warn more effectively

about the dangers of cigarettes.

We require this of the manufacturer

of other products.

The speech by Dr. Kessler is something we should be taking extremely

seriously, and I ask that the speech be

printed in the RECORD.

The speech follows:

REMARKS BY DAVID A. KESSLER, M.D.

It is easy to think of smoking as an adult

problem. It is adults who die from tobacco

related diseases. We see adults light up in a

restaurant or bar. We see a colleague step

outside for a cigarette break.

But this is a dangerously short-sighted

view.

It is as if we entered the theater in the

third act—after the plot has been set in motion, after the stage has been set. For while

the epidemic of disease and death from

smoking is played out in adulthood, it begins

in childhood. If there is one fact that I need

to stress today, it is that a person who

hasn’t started smoking by age 19 is unlikely

to ever become a smoker. Nicotine addiction

begins when most tobacco users are teenagers, so let’s call this what it really is: a pediatric disease.

Each and every day another three thousand teenagers become smokers. Young people are the tobacco industry’s primary

source of new customers in this country, replacing adults who have either quit or died.

An internal document of a Canadian tobacco

company, an affiliate of a tobacco company

in the United States, states the case starkly:

‘‘If the last ten years have taught us anything, it is that the [tobacco] industry is

dominated by the companies who respond

most effectively to the needs of the younger

smokers.’’

If we could affect the smoking habits of

just one generation, we could radically reduce the incidence of smoking-related death

and disease, and a second unaddicted generation could see nicotine addition go the way

of smallpox and polio.

The tobacco industry has argued that the

decision to smoke and continue to smoke is

a free choice made by an adult. But ask a

smoker when he or she began to smoke.

Chances are you will hear the tale of a child.

It’s the age-old story, kids sneaking away

to experiment with tobacco, trying to smoke

without coughing, without getting dizzy, and

staring at themselves in a mirror just to see

how smooth and sophisticated they can look.

The child learns the ritual. It is a ritual

born partly out of a childish curiosity, partly out of a youthful need to rebel, partly out

of a need to feel accepted, and wholly without regard for danger. It is a ritual that

often, tragically, lasts a lifetime. And it is a

ritual that can cut short that lifetime.

Many of us picture youngsters simply experimenting with cigarettes. They try smoking like they try out the latest fad—and

often drop it just as quickly. But when you

recognize that many young people progress

steadily from experimentation to regular

use, with addiction taking hold within a few

years, the image is far different, far more

disconcerting. Between one-third and onehalf of adolescents who try smoking even a

few cigarettes soon become regular smokers.

What is perhaps most striking is that

young people who start smoking soon regret

it. Seven out of 10 who smoke report that

they regret ever having started. But like

adults, they have enormous difficulty quitting. Certainly some succeed, but three out

of four young smokers have tried to quit at

least once and failed.

Consider the experience of one 16-year-old

girl, recently quoted in a national magazine.

She started to smoke when she was eight because her older brother smoked. Today, she

says: ‘‘Now, I’m stuck. I can’t quit ... It’s so

incredibly bad to nic-fit, it’s not even funny.

When your body craves the nicotine, it’s

just: ‘I need a cigarette.’’

In her own terms she has summarized the

scientific findings of the 1988 Surgeon General’s report. That report concluded: ‘‘Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting’’ and ‘‘Nicotine is the drug in tobacco

that causes addiction.’’

Let there be no doubt that nicotine is an

addictive substance. Many studies have documented the presence of the key addiction

criteria relied on by major medical organizations. These criteria include: highly-controlled or compulsive use, even despite a desire, or repeated attempts to quit;

psychoactive effects on the brain; and drugmotivated behavior caused by the ‘‘reinforcing’’ effects of the psychoactive substance.

Quitting episodes followed by relapse and

withdrawal symptoms that can motivate further use are some additional criteria of an

addictive substance.

Are young people simply unaware of the

dangers associated with smoking and nicotine addiction? No, not really. They just do

not believe that these dangers apply to

them.

For healthy young people, death and illness are just distant rumors. And until they

experience the grip of nicotine addiction for

themselves, they vastly underestimate its
S5916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

power over them. They are young, they are

fearless, and they are confident that they

will be able to quit smoking when they want

to, and certainly well before any adverse

health consequences occur.

They are also wrong. We see that documented in papers acquired from one company in a Canadian court case. A study prepared for the company called ‘‘Project 16’’

describes how the typical youthful experimenter becomes an addicted smoker within a

few years.

‘‘However intriguing smoking was at 11, 12,

or 13, by the age of 16 or 17 many regretted

their use of cigarettes for health reasons and

because they feel unable to stop smoking

when they want to . . . Over half claim they

want to quit. However, they cannot quit any

easier than adults can.’’

This sense of helplessness and regret was

further tracked in a subsequent study for the

company called ‘‘Project Plus/Minus.’’ It was

completed in 1982:

‘‘[T]he desire to quit seems to come earlier

now than ever before, even prior to the end

of high school. In fact, it often seems to take

hold as soon as the recent starter admits to

himself that he is hooked on smoking. However the desire to quit and actually carrying

it out, are two quite different things, as the

would-be quitter soon learns.’’

Unfortunately, youth smoking gives no

sign of abating. While the prevalence of

smoking among adults has steadily declined

since 1964, the prevalence of smoking by

young people stalled for more than a decade

and recently has begun to rise. Between 1992

and 1993 the prevalence of smoking by high

school seniors increased from 17.2 percent to

19 percent. Smoking among college freshmen

rose from 9 percent in 1985 to 12.5 percent in

1994.

And young people’s addiction to nicotine is

not limited to smoking. Children’s use of

smokeless tobacco, such as snuff and chewing tobacco, is also extensive. Today, of the

seven million people in this country who use

smokeless tobacco, as many as one in four is

under the age of 19.

This epidemic of youth addiction to nicotine has enormous public health consequences. A casual decision at a young age

to use tobacco products can lead to addiction, serious disease, and premature death as

an adult. More than 400,000 smokers die each

year from smoking-related illnesses.

Smoking kills more people each year in

the United States than AIDS, car accidents,

alcohol, homicides, illegal drugs, suicides

and fires combined. And the real tragedy is

that these deaths from smoking are preventable.

A year ago the FDA raised the question of

whether the Agency has a role in preventing

this problem. FDA has responsibility for the

drugs, devices, biologics and food used in this

country. Over the last year we have been

looking at whether nicotine-containing tobacco products are drugs subject to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act. Our study continues. But we

already know this: Nicotine is an addictive

substance and the marketplace for tobacco

products is sustained by this addiction. And

what is striking is that it is young people

who are becoming addicted.

Statements from internal documents by

industry researchers and executives show

that they understood that nicotine is addictive and how important it is to their product.

Listen to these statements made decades

ago:

‘‘We are, then, in the business of selling

nicotine, an addictive drug.’’

‘‘Think of the cigarette pack as a storage

container for a day’s supply of nicotine.

Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a

dose of nicotine. Think of a puff of smoke as

the vehicle for nicotine.’’

And consider what a research group reported to one tobacco company about starter

smokers who assume they will not become

addicted:

‘‘But addicted they do indeed become.’’

More recently, a former chief executive officer of a major American tobacco company,

told the Wall Street Journal: ‘‘Of course it’s

addictive. That’s why you smoke . . .’’ And a

former smokeless tobacco industry chemist

was recently quoted as saying: ‘‘There used

to be a saying at [the company] that ‘There’s

a hook in every can’ . . . [a]nd that hook is

nicotine.’’

Nevertheless, the industry publicly insists

that smoking is a choice freely made by

adults. An advertisement by one of the

major tobacco companies that appeared in

newspapers across the country last year bore

a headline that read ‘‘Where Exactly Is The

Land of the Free?’’ It suggests that the government is interested in banning cigarettes—

although no one in government has advocated such a position. With some 40 million

smokers addicted to nicotine, a ban would

not be feasible.

The ad never addresses youth smoking.

And it says ‘‘. . . The time has come to allow

adults in this country to make their own decisions of their own free will, without Government control and excessive intervention.’’

But listen to the words of one smoker on

the subject of freedom and choice:

‘‘Well, do you think I chose to smoke? Do

you believe that I took a cigarette and said,

‘I think I’ll smoke this one and then maybe

four hundred thousand more?’’

She continues:

‘‘Choice. That’s a laugh. Within each day I

make dozens—perhaps hundreds—of large

and small choices. From morning until bedtime, I pick and choose. I look at options and

decide. One thing I don’t decide, however, is

whether to smoke. For me, a forty-sevenyear old woman, that decision was made

nearly thirty years ago by a first-year college student. And even she wasn’t intending

to make a lifelong decision; she was just

going to try one cigarette. And then maybe

just one more. Another and then another,

and at some point, she lost her power to

choose. She had become addicted, still believing she chose to smoke and denying the

power and impact of nicotine in her life. Belief in my power to choose, and denial of how

totally nicotine has stripped me of that

power, are my two greatest enemies.’’

We cannot adequately address this pediatric disease our country faces without recognizing the important influences on a

young person’s decision to smoke. One such

influence is industry advertising and promotion. It is important to understand the effects of these practices on young people.

In the last two decades, the amount of

money the cigarette industry has spent to

advertise and promote its products has dramatically risen. Despite a longstanding ban

on broadcast advertising, in 1992 alone the

industry spent more than $5.2 billion. This

makes it the second most heavily advertised

commodity in the United States, second only

to automobiles.

Tobacco advertising appears in print

media, on billboards, at point of sale, by direct mail, on an array of consumer items

such as hats, t-shirts, jackets, and lighters,

and at concerts and sporting events. The

sheer magnitude of advertising creates the

impression among young people that smoking is much more ubiquitous and socially acceptable than it is. In studies, young smokers consistently overestimate the percentage

of people who smoke.

In addition, tobacco industry advertising

themes and images resonate with young people. Advertising experts describe the cigarette package as a ‘‘badge’’ product that adolescents show to create a desired self image

and to communicate that image to others.

As a retired leading advertising executive

has stated: ‘‘When the teenagers loose [sic]

the visual link between the advertising and

the point of sale . . . they will loose [sic]

much of the incentive to rebel against authority and try smoking.’’

In recent years, the tobacco industry has

been spending more money on marketing and

promotion and less on traditional advertising. For example, it distributes catalogues of

items that can be obtained with proof of purchase coupons attached to cigarette packs—

such as Camel Cash and Marlboro Mile.

These coupons are exchanged for non tobacco

consumer items imprinted with product

logos.

These items have proven to be a big hit

with children and adolescents. Half of all adolescent smokers and one quarter of nonsmokers own at least one promotional item

from a tobacco company, according to a 1992

Gallup survey.

Sponsorship of athletic, musical, sporting

and other events is another important way

that the industry promotes its product. This

links tobacco products with the glamorous

and appealing worlds of sports and entertainment. And the logos of their brands are

viewed during televised events, despite the

federally mandated broadcast advertising

ban.

Make no mistake: All of this advertising

and promotion is chillingly effective. The

three most heavily advertised brands of cigarettes are Marlboro, Camel and Newport. A

recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 96 percent of

underage smokers who purchase their own

cigarettes purchased one of those three heavily advertised brands.

The advertisements apparently have far

less impact on adults. By far, the most popular brand choices for adults are the private

label, price value, and plain package brands,

which rely on little or no imagery on their

packaging or advertising.

Let me describe two campaigns to illustrate the effects that advertising and marketing practices can have on young people.

One campaign gave new life to a cigarette

brand with an aging customer base. The

other revitalized the dying smokeless tobacco market.

In the early 1980’s, Camel cigarettes were

smoked primarily by men over 50, and commanded about 3 to 4 percent of the overall

market. So the company began to make

plans to reposition Camel.

The new advertising for Camel was designed to take advantage of Camel’s 75th

birthday. The campaign featured the cartoon

character ‘‘Joe Camel’’ as its

anthropomorphic spokescamel who gave dating advice called ‘‘smooth moves’’ and who

eventually was joined by a whole gang of hip

camels at the watering hole.

The campaign was variously described as

irreverent, humorous and sophomoric. But

Joe Camel gave the company what it wanted:

a new vehicle to reposition the Camel brand

with more youth appeal.

During the same time period, the company

devised what it called a Young Adult Smokers program—which went by the acronym Y

A S. The program was designed to appeal to

the 18 to 24 age group, and more narrowly to

the 18- to 20-year-old audience. The program

also had a tracking system to monitor sales

in these groups.

Let me give you several facts about that

program.
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