Tobacco Documents Online

ist Session 8E~ATE C~lend~r -<-o. / NO° < PL~gI,!C ~ALYY{ CIG~ETTE SMOI<ING ACT OF 1959 ~ovc~ber , 1969---Ordered to be printe~ , from tho Committee on Commerces the fo i l~,in9 sufmmitted R~PORT [Te accomD~ny E.R. 6563] ~!e Cor~i~tee o~ C0~erc@~ to ~ho~. was reCerred the b£!l (H.R. ~543~ to regtlate the labeling of ci~rei%es, a~d for other purposes, having considered the s~T,e, report favorrbly thereon with amendments and recommend that the ~il! ~s em~ended do pass.

~-~ tO prohibit after January_ i, 197i, all television a-%~ radio b~oade~sting of cigarette advertising. Co~anltt~---- !~ M~es b~z television or after January l, the biKi, as-~eoor~ed_ ' by tqe it unlawful to advertise cigarettes r~dio broadcasting on or 1971; 2. Changes ~:e mandatory wo_e~ng on cig~r~£te packages fz-om "Caution: Cigarette Smokin~ 14~y Be Hazardous ~-o You~ Health" to "Warn~ng: Excessive Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to ~o-car Lea_ ~, " hea_uL~ reianed reg~llation er ~. Prohibits ~ " " prohibition of clg~re~e a~vert_~ng by any state or local .... '~ ~. Provides shat uhe suspension of the Eederal 9~ade Co~Ai!~sion ~ending ~ propo~e~ trade re~ia- tio~ ~ule ~-~ to re.~=ng cigarette advemtising, prevmously announced by the Comm:issi@n, shall continue in effect for eighteen mo~ths after broadcast advertising of cigarettes has ceased, ~d that if the Conunission desires to renew or IINI

"i %0 initiate ar~y tra~e zequlation rule in may %hereafter detecmine u~on relating to ~%e advemtisinq of cigaretnes, it shall so notify. ~ong~ess to~e~%e~ %~th a full statement of the reasons u~deriyinq such ~roposal; ~nd 5o Continues ~b-e zequlrement ~hau ~e Fedec~l ~d~c~tion~ and ~elfa~e ~eport to Co~gr~ss <~n~ally o~ the question of s~o~ing ~nd health. Zack~round and Neccessitv Of Conq~pssional Aetio~ ~he Federal Cigarette ~ahelim-g and Advertising ~.ct (pu/olic law S9-92) was enacted on July 27, 1965~ ~/%d made effective on January i, 1966. In su~ary th~ act required each c~arette package to bear the wamnlng ";Caution: Cigarette smoking :~ay be hazardous to your health" and barred until January l, 1969, any federal, state or local au~zority from requiring any "statement relating to smoking and healt~ in cigarette ~dvertising." In reconm~ending the imposition of the labeling requirement this Ce~mittee concurred in the judgment of

"'~., the Surgeon General's ~&v~so:cy~- ~ ComJzittee on Smoking .... E~l~% delivered on J~nu~=~v ~z 196~, that "niqarette s~king iea health hazard of s~fficient importance in ~ United States. to ~arrann appropriate remedial action.'~ After extensive he~ri~cs the CoE~ittee con- eluded "while there remained m subst~ntimL nua~er nf i~divldual physlcians--zh~ Co~<ui~tee received testLnony fwo~ 39 of them - ~,~o do not believe that it ~as been &e[aomstr~ted scientifically ~nat smoking c~uses lung c~ncer o: o:her diseases, no prominent medical or mcienhiflc body undert~J.ng a systematic review of ~e evidenoe has reached oonci~sio~s opposed to those of the Surgeo~ Gener~i's Co.~-~tee~ in reconraending a ~tatutory b~r a~ainst mandatory ~,arnlnqs in cigarette advertising, the Committee s~ated. ~'~onsidering the cou~imed impmct of voluntary limitations on advertising under the Cigarette Advertising ~od~ nhe ex~ensive smoki~ edncation c-~mp~igns ~o~v ~nde~ay~ e~d t~e ce~,p~sory w~r~i~g cn the package w~ich ~l! be required under the provisions of nhi~ bill. it wms th~ e~ittee's u~ani~ous judc~.~nt "~h~t no w~r~im~ in cigarette advertising ~hou~d b~ req/uira~ pendiag ~he sho~ing~ that these vigorous, but less drastic, steps have not adequately alerted the public to nhe p0tenti~i hazard ~rom smoking.'~

~o aid Congress in judqing the effectiveness of tb.e ieqisla~ion we have provided for a~ snn~l ~epo~ by the Secretary of ~ca~_h~ Education and Welf~ce ;~concerninq (a) current informazion on the healS% con- sequences oi smoking and {b) such reco~r~endations fox iegislation as he m~y deem &i3pxop~iate." X~ ~ddltiGn, tho 2odcc~l Trade Coc~nission ~$s di~ecte~ to u~ns~i~ an~al reports concerning "'-~ta2 The effectiveness of cig~-rette iabeling~ (b) current practices and met.hods of ciqarette advertisinq and promotion and <e) such re~on~nend~tions for le~isiation ~s it mny dee~ ~ppropriate.~' The ii~<$ Re~>orts Pmrsuant to ~e Con[ression~l ~andate the $~cretary of ~hT has reported to Con[tess on the he~!nh consequences of s~,oking in 1967, 1968 an~ 1969. Follow- in£ are significant conclusions from the H~[ repor~m. ~27~z ~Y~AL~ CO~SEQU~NCES OF ZN~OKE~IG~ 1967, ]968. ~nd 2969 Smokinq m~.d Cardiovascular Disease: i969 - "Further data from prospective studies con- firm the judgment that cigarette smoking is a significant ri~n factor ~nat contributes to the development of coronary

q hemrt dise~se~ mpparently by pro~Lozlng myocardial infarct and c~rdiac ~rrhyth.~iaso'~ !968 - "Becaus~ of ~c_e increasing convergence of epidemiologicai and /nvsio!ogieal findings relating cigarette smoking to coronaz~ heart disease, it is con- cluded that cigarette smoking ca:i contribute to the development of cardiovascular dusease and particuiari~ death from coronary heart disease." 1967 - ~'...evidence not only confirms t[qe fact ~hat ci[~rette smokers have increased death m~tes from coronary heart disease, but ~lso suggests how these deaths may be caused by cigarette smoking.~' '~Ci~arette s~oki~g ~les have a higher coronary heart disease death rate ~nan non~m~ming males." Smokinq and Chronic obstructive Bronehopulmonarv Diseases: (Emphysema and Bronehitls] 1968 - '~AdditionaL /nysioiogical and epidemio- iogic~i evidence confirms the previous findings ~%mt cigarette smoking is the most important cau~e of ehmonic non-neoplastic bronchopmlmona-~7 disemse in the United States~"

-7- 1967 - "it [cigarezte smoking] greatly increases mhe risk of 6_ying not only fmom chronic ..... ~$ hut also fro~ i~ui~lo~amy emphysema." "Even ~ei~tiveiy yonng ci~nretne s:~.ok~rs f~equently have demonstr~bie respiratory sy,z~ptoms and reduction in ventilato.~y function." $mokin~ ~nd Cancer: 1969 - "[,[ore studies have been done zo identify ~_ose substances i~ te~aeco smoke which take ~amt i~ carcinogenesis. %q%ese studies m~y help to defin~ the ergot biomeehanisms involved in the cause and effect relationship between cigarette smoking and l~ng cancer." 1968 - "Additional evidence substantiates the previous findings that cig~reute ~mokin~ is the main cause of lung cancer in z~en. Cigarctte $z%oki~c is causally related to l~mg cancer i~ women..." "S~oking is a significant f~ct0r in the causation of cancer of the larynx and in the development of aancer of the o9~i cavity. " ~[ Reco~end~tio~ s Pursuant to Section 5(d)l of the cigarette L~beiin@ ~nd Advertising Act the Secretary of Health,

-6- ~d~0ation and We!f~=e ~e zne to~io~Ing recommenda- tions to ~he congres~ in his 1968 report: ~i. The warning ~uatcment required ~y the Federal Cigarette Labeling ar.d Advertising Act should be strenguhened. This Depart- ~t wo~!d support ~e wording reco~.ended !asz year by the 2ederal Trade Co~mission, or a suit~£e parap~hr~e of ~ne wordin~o* "~~. ~ni$ warning should he ~eo~ired to be placed not only on ~%e cigsrenhe p~ck~ge but on cigarette vending machines and i:~ all advertis~mentso ~3o Levels of 't~r~ ~ ~ieotine i:~ c!Darette smoke should be published on cigarette packages~ on cigarette vending ~L~chi~e~, &~d i~ all ~dvertis~me~ts. ~t~rization is also needed to ~ke it possible to ~d other h~rm~ul agents to ~&. Appropriations should be ~de to th~ ~eder~i ~r~d~ Co~Lission to permit the Compression to test ~ cigarette ~r~%d~ o~ a quarterly basis ~or 't~' and nicotine ~n~ • ~ther harmful agents in cigarette smoke." :'~e wording reco~ended by the Federal Tra~e Co~mission (Report to Congress, Jr~ne 30, 1967] was 'Warning: Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Health and May Cause Death from Cancer and 0~Aer Diseases.;" Fe~£ra~ Trade Commission Re~orts i~e Pederal Trade Commission has also made ti%ree a~nual reports pursuant to the requirements Section 5~D)2 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling ~nd

Advertising Aet~ The foil~ting are significant excerpts from each of these reports. From the 1967 F~C Report "%~ere is virtually no @vidence that the ~ing state~ent on cigaretue packages has had anl~ signific~l%t effect. (p.4) =~ne a-~st recent trend has ~ee~ ~e e~t~nsion of several existing brands into the extra-long ~00 ~m±l~meter length type of cigarette. ~nis trend is Of a serious and disturbing n~t~e since these extra-long cigarettes also ex2ose the smoker to gre~ter a~ounts o~ tar and nicotine, making L~eul potentially more hazardous... (p.7) J'Bec~se cigarette s~oking is so snrongly h&bit-for~ng, it is unlikely that a mild!ll phrased cautionary statement wi±i have any effect on confi~-med cigarette silo][erm. ~or the information Of cigarette smokers, ~e Com~nissio~ favors ma~dato~., labeling of tar and nicotine content on cigarette packages ~,nd in cigarette advertisements and other measures that wiml prompt cigarette manufacturers to develop less hazardous cigarettes. Also, the C0n~ission believes ~]at ~he continual repetition of the warning statement in all

cigarette advertisements a~d on the p~ck~ge will serve as a constant reminder Of ~h~ health hazards; and furt/ner believes that the warning statement should he strengthened° (p.s) "Current elgarette advertisin~ constitutes a stro~g force i~ o~ £ociety to persuade te~age~s to overcome their initial dis~sste for cigarettes. [p.~) "I~tentional or fortuitous, teenagers appear to be a pri~%e target for televised cigarette advertising. (p. 13) "it Sound in 1964 such advertising to contain two principal elements - a portrayal Of the desirability of cigarette smoking and assurances of ~e relative safety Of smoklng. Comparison of the current advertising with the advertising reviewed in "1964 in conjunct±on with the Cm~ission's Trade Regulation ~ule proceeding show~ that there has been no significant change in the bmslc appeals ~ade. Advertising continues to depict smoking as ~n enjoyable activizy while ignoring completely the health hazards. (P. 14 and 15) "...cigarett~ advertisements totally ignore the health hazards posed by smoking. Another aspect of cigarette smoking that is also ignored, ~nd has vital

im~llcatlons in terms of health hazard, is ~e £act that cigarette smo~<ing is strongly h~bit-fo-~ming. (p.23) "Although minor changes have been made in some ~dvertise.~,ents since pro~ulgatlen of ~he cigarette Codep ~hei~ tlne.~,es a.~d basic i~!Jact r~ain unchanged. Cignrctte advcrtisii~ff continues ~o ~romote the idca that cigarette szToking is both ple~sur~le ~nd harmless. " (p.2G) Yro~ the 196~q ETC Report "Tinis rajahs the.t, on the average, each U. $. irhmC~itant viewed 66°75 te!e'~ised cigarette com~nercia!s in o.ne month. During Janua~- 19~8...exposure r~tes o~ 50.8~ ~er teenager ~d 44~5 pe~ clni!d, as o~posed to 66.75 per inhabitant. It "~onld seem that the teanage rake is not ~pprecia~ly lower th~n the inhabitant r~te and that the rate nm0ng clnildren i~ low only ~nen co~- pared to n vexy high adult rate. Certainly the exposure n~t~- ~onc childr~-n is not !0w in any absolute sense. "~eported!y, there have been attempts Dy ~e~rs of ~%e cigarette !~it~skry to discourage the dlspl~}" of Co-~'~issicn t~~. ~nd nicotine yield Cata in

food and drug chains and ~o hal.t a ~ublic Health Service c~mpai~ to publ±cize the fact that imrge nulabers of doctors h~ve given up cignrettes." (p. 24) =_J~ the 1969 FTC ~ep ~ ~'~ile any tre~d to~,ard fe~,er exposures to %~ievised cicarette co.mmerciais is ~pplauded, exposure rates continue to be elt~emeiy high. (po 12) "~ ~ene]za!, c~re~t cigarette advertising la~ves the impression that cigarette smoking is healthy ~ctivity and one whose risk, to the extent ~hat it exists~ can be red~ced through the presence of ~ filter. " (p. 26~) FTC Recommendations ~ursuant to Section 5(D)2 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling amd Advertising Act, the Eedera! m ; ;.OimO~ll~g reoor~--nend~tlons xr~e co.~r~issio~ m~de the ~ "" " to the Congress in its 1969 reporu. ~e Advertisinc on Radio Actions On June 2, !967~ the and Television -- FCC Federal Co~aunications Co~r~ission sustained a listener's complaint that the fainness doctrin~ is appiicable to cig~rette advertising, stating;

-k3- ~'* * * ~%at ou~ h©iding is limited to this private reports (eo~°, ~ne 1964 Report of ~qe S~eo~ General's Co~ittee) ~n~ Con- gressional action (e.g., the Federal Cigarette L~elin~ and Advertising ACn cf 1965) assert that normal use of +dzis product can be a hazard to the health of _~l~ion~ of persons. The advertisements in question ciear!y p~o~ote ~e use of particular cig~ente as attractive a~d enjoy~le, indeed, nb_ey understandably have no other purpose. ~e believe that ~t~tion which prosents s~ch ~dve~tJ~e- ~ents h~s the ~tv of inform!n~ its audience of the onher side of ~his con- troversial issue of public i~port~nce -- chat however ~njoyable, such s~o~ing may ~e ~ h~rd to ~e s~oker's he~!th." in its September 13, 1967, Memormndum Opinion and Order ~ this rulingj the Co~mlssion stressed that, the specifics of the fairness doctrine aside~ the p~0biic interest st&nd~rd o~ the Co~u~ic~tions Act ~:means nothing if it does not include [the] responsi- bility" on the part of those who broadcast cigarette commercials to advise their audie~ces'~nat smoking can he harmful to health. ~he Co~ission's position wss s~stai~ed by the Cou~t Of Appeals f0~ tha District of Colur~ia Circuit (~anzhaf v. Federal Cor~munications Co~mission, ~05 F. 2d 1082, 1968)~ The Ceu~t held that the Cigarette Labeling Act did not preclude the Connnisslon~s

-LL- ~uii~g; that, '*as a p'~blie ' e " ~" n a&~n m~asure addressed to ~Dl%ique danger ~uthentieazed h~ official and con- ~essaonal actlon~" the ruling was a proper implementa- tio~ of ti~e public • ~ ~ ~ lnue~s~ staAda~d of the Communica- tions Act; ~nd that the ruling cad not o~fend the First ~Le~dment. The Supreze Court denied ~qe petitions for eertioazi on 0etober ~3, 1969. AS a result of this ruling~ broadcast stations ~vhieh carry cigarette co~Lmercials are also presenting, to a significant degree On a virtually drily basis (in~ludlng the hours of ~ximum listening), anti-- cigamette messages prepared by the v~rious {-nterestcd health organizations. See, e.g., kTZC--TV ruling, 16 FCC 2d. 956 (1969). Snbsequent to its application of the fairness doctrino to cigarette advertising, the FCC, on February. 6, 1969, issued a no~iee of proposed rzlem&king (FCC Docket No. 18434; 34 F.R. 1959, Febru~r~ ll~ 1969] te b~ cigarette advertising from radio and television, % ~is was done in light of the fort/%coming expiration of the Cigarette Labeling and Advertisil~g Act and for ~he announced purpome of apprising the Congress ~ith

~k respect to the a~tdon the ~CC proposed to take "assuming the absence Of n contrary conqressional direction." ~he Commission, citing the 1967 and 1968 ~W reports and the Banzhaf ~eeision~ stated that it would . . ° appear ~holly at o~<s wi~ llqe public interest for ~ro~dCastirs to presentadvertising promoting the cons~ption of the product posin~ ~his unique danqer -- a dem.ger measured in terms of ~n epZdemic of deaths and disabilities." ~ne Com~ission further asserted that in its view the First ~2aendment does not protect ". . . the advertising of a produc! as to ~ai~n there is a most S~bstmntiml showing that it is the m~in csuse of lung ~n~er, the most important cK,ase of emphysem~ a~d chronic bronchitis, and so on." Einally. it observed that-~hile, in iiqht of the n~tlonalexperlenee wi~% liquor, the prohibition of a pmrticular product such ~s cigarettes ~ay be impracticable, it does not foli~" that the promotion of the product should be permltted~ since remedial actions in h~ne promotion area m~y weli he feasible and serve tree 2"2$oiic interest.

Advertisinc Section i0 of the Federal Cigarette Lcfoeling and Advertising Act specified that the provisions of that statute "~nieh ~ffect the regular-lon Of ~dvertising should terminate on July i, 1969. The key question presented fox congressional consideraflon~ upon the expiration of the advertising provisions of the 1965 Act, was whether public awareness of the hazards of smoking might he retarded or eroded by massive cigarette advertising, pzrticu!arly on television and radio. ~Tnil~ it is true that cigarette advertising made no direct health claims, it ~as the view Gf the committeo that the constant and highly repetitivo dis- play of smoking as pleasurable might in large measure offset pmblic awareness of the h~zard. According to Reports of the Federal Trade Co1~mission, in excess of $225 million was spent by the ci~arett~ industry in 1967 in television advertising, and the anticipKted expenditures for !969 ~ould prob~ly exceed that ~n0unt. In 1968, over $21 million was spen[ for radio advertising, and a~ain the 1969 expenditures are ~ntieipated to b~ as large if not larger. Overall,

-17-¸ some $250 million in broadcast advertising ms ~nnually expended by cigarette manufacturers. The Federal Trade Commission further reported that over 25 percent of ~ne television exposures on net~ work programs re~ch young people ~nd that radio was a media particularly ~opu!ar with youth. During the pendency before Congress of Z.R. 6543, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Co~ssion announced proposals for regula- tory actions of their ~ in the event that the adver- tising provisions of the 1965 Act were not extended. The Federal Co~Lu~ications Commission on February 6, 1969, proposed an administrative ban on all cigarette advertisin9 on television and radio in the event that industry self-regulation of cigarette advertising would not be forthcoming, or as a~ alternative, that adver- tising of certain categories of cigarettes would be banned. ~%e Federal Comraunications Commission invited industry eo~/aents. On May 20, 1969, the Federal Trade Con~-Lission issued a Notice for the reinstitution of its !964 pro- eeedinqs for the promulgation of a Trade Regulation Rule to require thnt, after a specified date~ all

~ba~~a advewtlsements con~aaa a prescribed wakening ~O~Ice ~.~=~= Congress should extend the provisions oz the 1965 Act so as ~o ~- such action~ On ~ly i7~ i$6~. the N~tion~l Association of 2~o~dcasters ar~ounced ~ gener~i plan pursuant to which its me~bers would reduce the level Gf cigarette adver- tising on teievision and radio in prog~esslve step~ ~o ~.~, effective September i, 1~73, all cigarette advertising would cesse. Pursuant to that pian, beginning January 1. I~70~ ~ere would be a progressive ?ercentage reduction of the total n~ur~ber of ~inutes available for sale to cigarette ~dvertisers measured against the base year July I, i968, to July i, i969. Fox ~ne first nine months of 1970~ there would he 10~ reduction, ~nd ~nereafter 25% reductions successively r~mning through to September i, 1973. ~{earinc~ss ~n the ligh~ of these developments ~nd ~the~s of which the co--tree %~as made aware, the Consumer Sub~ co~ittee of the conur~ittee held hearings on July 22, I~69, for the considers%ion of cigarette advertising and particularly the possibilities of self-regulation of

s~c~ cigam-ette advertising. All me~ers of ~%e full • co;~ittee were invited to ~n~-~^ ~ and the chairman of the --~dli committee and others were in attendance. Zn addition, at ~ne committee's invitation, all five n~embers of the Federal Trade Commission were invited zo ~nd did attend, as did the Chairman of the Pederal Co~%tnications Cor~issiono Although technically ~nese hearings ~vere devoted %o consideration of H.R. 6543, they were devoted 2rincipa!ly to the subject of advertising. Developments a% the hearings were both dramatic ~nd profoundly significant, and in the comm~ittee's view went a long way toward resolving these difficult ques- tions of wide national concern. Appearing On behalf of the nine domestic cigarette manufacturing companies, Hr. Joseph F. Cul~ma~n, ill, ~hairman of the ~xecutive Committee of q'he Tobacco Institute, announced "in consideration of all of t~qe factors c~rent!y prevailing," that each company was prepared to agree to discontinue all advertising of~ cigarettes on television and radio in Septen~er, 1970, when the major contractual arrangements will expire,

-20- ~rovided ~hat the ne~ legJs!auion would include a pro-- vision that an agreer~nt to this effect should not be ieez¢~ed illegal under the ~%titr~st l~ws. 5"he eon~ttee ~qas further advised that if ~ne broadcast industr3, wou~!d si~ult~neously terminate all contractual arr~ngem, ents for ~he broadcast of cigarette advertising, ~%6 tobacco companies ~ve~pme- ~ared to ~gree to discontinue ~ll suet advertising at a~zy time after Dece~er 31, 1969, ~h~t such term.inatio: of contract obligations becaaae effective. It was the view of ~ne cigarette m~fact~rexs that the plan suggested by the ~ation~l Association of Broadcasters presented such co~plex problems on the ~opiication of any percentage reduction to indivldu~i companies, allocations of time periodss and the like, as to make it ~praeticahle. 3it was also noted that brosdcast stations ~nich were not s~bscribers to ~ne Television and Radio Codes of <qe NAB would not be bound, and that this w~uid presenz further cc~plex!tie~. The cigKrette manufacturers further s~at~d to the CO~uittee that with respect to all other advertising, they v~o~ld avoid advertising directed to y0un~ persons,

~n< %~oULd c0~tinue to aos~a~,~ from advertising in ~chool arid college p~b!ic~tions~ would continue not to iistzibu~e s~ple cigarettes o~ engage in promotional ~caivities on school and coi~ege campuses, wouid con- tlnue noi to use testimoni~is fro~ athletes on o~her ¢~e~les who might h~ve speci~i appeai to young ~e0pie, world ~void advertising that represented ~=~ smoking as ess~nti~l to social prominence, Success, or sexual ~t~ac~lo~ an~ ~o~ld ~e~c~i~ f]fOm ~epictinq ~ ~ ~moners engaged in sports or other activities requiring s~amina or conditioning beyond that needed for normnl recreation~ On behalf of the television ~nd r~dio broad- casting industry, the Nationai Association of Broad- casters acknowledged "Jne p0we~ful influence a~ver- tising has on the ~erican public and indicated the ~±iiingness of the broKdcastJng stations it represented to phase-out broadcast cigarette advertising over a four-year period. However, they objected to ~n across-the-board ~ithdrat~al in Septen~er~ 1970, as pro- posed by the cigarette manufacturing industry, on the ground that this earlier cessation would create s~9~ stantial economic dismuption in the broedcasting

-22- industry. They did pledge to continue carrying ~n~-~mok~ng ~essa~es ~Eter the cessation of broad- c~sk ~igarette advertisin~ Th~ ~nnirman of the Yedera! Conu~unications Commission r~viewed its ~ pen~.ng proposK! to prohibit -Z~e broadcast advertising of cagarettes, ~e~_r~d to ~qe Commission's invit~-hion ~er v0!i~Itary industry action, and stated that its a6~inistrative action in the future would b~ dependent upon ~ongressionai ~4 po~-cy. Ee testified that ~n orderly tr~nsltion, up to a year, ~u!d be appropriate, but t/fat a four-year ?has,-out ~:o~Id be innepropri~te because it ",,'ouid generate a great ~any ~rcblems. ~e staked further • thnt if broadcast a~vertising of cigarettes were eliminated, the Fcc wcuL<i not find it necessary to promulgate any rules mr regulations ~ith respect to Du~ing broadcast advertising. Speaking en behalf,of the five C0_~missioners of t/qe ~edem~! Trade Con%m.~ssmon ~no ~ttended the he.rings, Chairman Paul Rand Dixon ~nounced fine conclusion of that ~-cv ~hat ~ cigarette advertising should be removed .0m "~e bro~%~cmst ~e~la by the end of the ream or

-23~ ~hortly thercafter~ the Commission would be disposed to suspend its pending trm~e regulation rule proceedin~ until July, 1971. During that period, the Commission ~9ould report to ~e Congress periodie~lly on ~ne effectiveness of ~ne Act. In its vi~ ~n~ princip~! form of ~igarette edvertis!nq ~o~!d have been eliminated ~¢y the discontinuance of broadcast ~dvertisin~. In ~ddition, <he Chairm~n statmd "dnmt if ~ne~ were fear~ of antitrust difficultiess narx~ antitrust in~unify should be afforded. ~ne = TC expressed apprehension, hot'ever, that the cigarette ~ustr~7 ~ight ~hift its enormous advertising e~penditures on television ~n~ radio to advertisin~ in o~ner medi~, ~nd u~qed ~ne committee not to preempt the agency's p~wers to regulate eigmrette advertising. 2ollowing the hearings, the chairman of tAe subcommittee inquired by letter of each of tlne broad- casting net%~rks ~he~ner it -~'ould be disposed to terminate existing cont~actz ~-ith the cigarette manu~ % facturer~ so as to pecan it the discontinuance of broad- cast ~dvertising of cigarettes by December 31, !969. One net~¢ork r~p!ied '~:~t it believed ~nat terminating

~r0adcast advectislnq alone '~ould be discriminatory, hut ~at ih would be wi!lin~ to follow indicated congressional policy. ~o other ne~'orks responded ~t[~% ~ey could not see their ,~:ay cle~r,'both a~ a ~atter of principle and economics, to do so. (Letters ~tt~ched ~s ~Dpen~ix A. ) S,fmsequently; on ~ove~er 4, the ~ation~ Association of Broadcasters notified the Co~mlitteeby let£er that ~neir Code Reviews, Boards an~ ~oard of Directors 9~emded • h~d their eariier phase-out propos~l so as to ~rovide for texm4n~tlo~ of broadcast clqsr~tte ~dvertisinT on Septe~.~oer i, 1971, ra~Jner than on ~epte~er I, i973. ~%e letter pointed out Enat this action was on behalf Of those stations and networks ~ich are subscribers to the XA3 Code.

-25- Committee ~end~ent~ ~. Frohihition of Television or R~dio Bro~dcnstinq pC Cigarette Adv~rtisinc on or after ~anuar¢ ~ !~71. ne-~~ SecSion 6 is preposed to ma~e it ttni~wfu! to adver- tise cigarettes on any medi~ of electronic co~unic~tion s~bjeet to the jurisdiction of t~.e Federal Cormnt~nie~ions Ccm~issien on or ~fter Janu~l, 197!. Th~ co~,-uult~e concluded that this provi~io~ represented a r~asonabie determination of ~e problems presented. The co~Attee unanimous~ly co~.ended the initi~tlve of both the tobacco ~nd brondcasting ind~stnies in ~uelr efforts to terminate radio and television broad- c~shin~ ~hrou~u volthnt?~y self-regul~tion. As previously notch, some $2L5 million annually in advertising exp~ndltures by the indust~, aD.d revent~es ~o the broad- easters is involved. On ~%e other tan6, the committee recognized the general principn! ~'~ ~ in ~_a~, s~ve exceptional ~n~ wh~!Iy unavoidable situations~ exemptions fro~ ~%e bms!~ antitrust laws o'aght to be avoided. For ~nis reason, ~q~ eoT-mitt~e concluded that ~ shatnto~ b~n on t~L~- vision ~nd r%dio breAdc~stlng .:z0u!d ~e pre~rafmle te

~26- the suggested method of ~xen~p~in9 an agreemenn that would endeavom to ~nieva ~e s~T~e result. ~gith Congress havinq declared the public policy in this ~rea, ~n~re would appear to be little likelihood ~natany ~ndustry a~re~ments to min~--mize cigarette ~dvertising ~u~r the conditions ~nich will exist in t/%e future ~ouid be held by ~e courts to constitute ar~ u~reason~le restraint of trade u-%der &he antitrust l~ws. ~r~.e provisions of the bill for periodic reporting by the Feder~i Trade ConUrLission ~eill zfford to the Conqress appropriate opportunity to conslder any future questions relating to %/%e print adver~isin~ of cigarettes as the facts develop under the [aarkedly changed conditions following upon the termination of broadcast ~dvertisi~g. The co~ittee ca~ot overstate its strong desire that the cisarette i~dust~ not only honor its statement carefully to limit print advertisin~ so as not to appeal to you~n~ but nh~t it will also t exerc±me restraint in the overall use oZ print adver- tising ~nd other forms Of promotion. 2. Re2~2~ts bF the Secret~ry of ~e~!th, Educ~- ~and Wekf~ra ~nd the Federal Trade Commission. A

~27- ~ew Sectio~ 7 has been proposed in order to continu~ ~he re~eiremen% that the Secretary of Health, Education, ~nd ~elfare and ~ne Federal Trade Conumission transmit reports to Congress, the forater providi2_g C~r~e~t i~format~on o~ the health consequences of smoking, and the latter on the effectiveness of cigarette labeling and the then ctlTrent practices and methods of cigarette advertising and pro- ;~tion° Bouh Kgencies are also directei to ~ns~it such recon~T, endations for legislation as they deem appropriate° These provisions have been set forth ~n. a separate section for clarification, and the report~ are to ~e dated, beginning on J~muary I~ 1971~ to eoinclde with the beginning of each session of Congress° it is expected that the FTC report will include (i) the effectiveness of cigarette labeling; (2) the imple=enta- tion of the cigarette industry's pledge to withdraw from cigarette advertising~ (3) the volume and effectiveness of public service smoking education c~mpaigns in bread- cast and non-broadcast media; (4) ~he performance Qf the cigarette industry in avoiding advertisements with particular appeal to young people; (5} the utilization by the cigarette industry of print advertising for ~ne

non--deceptive promotion cigarettes which are io%- in tar, n!cotlne~ and hazardous gases; ~6} an analysis of ptgolic opinion polls and other relevant information indicating the ~tent to ~hich the American p~blic, especially youn~ people, have been made tully aware of the hazards of s~oking; (7) a discussion of the action, if any, which the Commission proposes to take to rest~ictcigarette advertising; and (S) such recommendations for additional legAslatlon as the Comalission may deem appropriate. These directives to these t%'o FedermX agencies to keep the Congress tully i~formed in these a~eas do not preclude interested members of the p,a~lic, including the cigarette industry and mthers concmrned ~ith sm~ming ~nd health, from filing materials at any time with the appropriate congressional co~m£ttees. 3. Preemption of State or Local Regulation of Cic~rette Advertising. Preen~tion of State or local r~gu!ation of cigarette advertising based on smmking and health has now hcen moved to Section S(b} and clarified. As a perfecting ~mendmen~, ~n additional sentence has been added to page 3, line 17a, m<m_ich m~kes it clear that the term "State" includes any political 7~--=-!om of ~nv State. Zt zhou!d also be noted that

Section 3 of the amended bill operates to ~eep the pre- sent State preemption in effect ~n accordance with the congressional policy that this entire area should con- %inue to be ~ matter oC congressional control. In some instnnces, co'dnties or n~unicip~ities exercise £helr authority over adver£isinqby local ordinances, or regul~tions~ or even occasionally by ~esolution. In order that full congressional control ~z~- be indicated, ~nd the ~pprehended chaos m~y be ~:oided, the preemptionof State requirements or prohibi- tions ~cith respect to the advertising of cigarettes based on smoking and health is intendnd to include not only action by State statute but by all other ~ministra-- tire actions or local ordinances or regulations by ~rcy politlc~l subdivision of any State. The State preemption of regulation or prohibi- tion with respect to cigarette advertising is n~rrom-Ly phrased to preempt only State action b~sed on smoking and hen!th. Zt would in no w~y affect the power ~f ~]ly State or political subdivision of nny State with respect to t?/e tamatlon or the sale of cmga~ettes to minors, or the pro- hibition of smoking in public buildings, or similar

?oiiee re~al~tlons. ~z is limited entirely ~o State or local re~eirements orprohibitions in the advertising of cigarettes. 4° Federal Aceneies. With respect to Federal administrative agencies, ,~nat the Act contemplates has been separated out as a ne,~ Section 6 ~nic~. deals solely ~i~i-~ that are~. in~s~c~Cf~ as broadcast adve~tising of cigarettes is to be discontinued, there appears to h~ no need to refer specifically to any proposed Federal Co~n~nic~tions Colr~issio~ actlo~. As to the proposed Trade Regulation Rule requirin~ a healS% w~rnin~ in all cigarette advertising; the entire Federal Trade Com~msion uttended the July 22rid hearings and after deiiberation stated that "I~ cigarette advertising should be removed from broadcast media hy the end of the year or shortly thereafter~ the Co,~uaission would be disposed to suspend its now pending trade reguiauion rule proceeding until July, 1971o~' The co,~mittee is of the vie~v that this determina- tion by ~ne Federal Trade Coz~ission represents an appro- pziate administrative deelsion particularly in view of the Con~,ission's detenmiI~ation that broadcasz advertising h~s constituted not only the p~incipa! fo~ ofclg~re~e~ ~ advertising in dollar volume but the ~edia having the most

massive i~pact, particularly upon young people. Under Section 7, the Federal Trade Co~ission will continue to report to the Congress periodical].y ~pon the effective- ness of the Act. Accordingly the proposed Section 6 con- tinues the suspension, annou~ce~ by the Federal Trade Co~ssion, for eighteen months afte~ the cessation of broadcast advertising of cigarettes. In view of the complex social and economic problems concerning the nrodnctioi, t~xation, and manufacture of cigmrettes ~n~ other tobacco products~ ~nd the congressional determina- tion of Congress since !965 that these questions should he detel-mined hy Congress alone, it is further provided that if thereafter the Federal Trade Co~mission desires to rene%z or to initiate any Trade Regulation Rule, it sh~!l notify the Congress ~nd include a full statement of the reasons for any proposed action ~ich the Federal Trm~de Commission desires to renew or to initiate. This provision is not intended to apply to the FTC to require the t~s~ing Of tar ci[arette ads. On the other hand, Section 6 (b) to continue :n-t~a~l~ e by any -" ~ ' ~'~ and ~icotine ~n is designed the provisions <~,ith respect to c~ntinuing

--32- Federal Trade Commission authority now ccntain~ in Sec- tion 5 (e) of the present iaw. ~ne suspension in sub- section (a) of Seclion 6 in no way restricts or limits or curtails the Federal Trade Commission's existing authority over any misleading or deceptive ndvertising by any cigarette manufacturer. The Co~mission r~ains free to proceed by comp!~int against any cigarette m~/~u-- facturer whose advertisements it ~narges ~ake a fmls~ clag~ about any product characteristic Or m~<e any unfonnded health claims. This is no change fro~ the previously existin~ la,~'. Moreover, the Commission retains its authority under Section 6 of ~he Eed~ra[ Trade Commission Act to require e~ch cigarette ~nu- factnrer to make ~ny speci~l or qener~l reports~ to it ?~hich are ~ermane to its preparation of reports to the Congress under Section 7 of the bill. A technicm! ~endment hns been m~de in the proposed Section 3 makin~ the amendments in Section 5 effective as of July I, 1969, mnd all other provisions e:fective ~s of January i, 19711 5, Retention of Pa~aqe Cauti~i Notice, The connnittee is of the view that ~ne existin~ caution notice ~ ~i~rette p~c~[~qes ~rrants revision.

-33- ~ne co~/nittee is concerned that the p~opos~d ~od~fications in H.K. 6543, ~s passed by the House, result in a Warning statement that is so length~ that it may lose its impact. It ~ight also serve to create COnSumer confusion. Ma~y agree tlq~t excessive smoking "is" in all likelihood dangerous to the he~th of th~ particular smoker, and in that respect th~ committee believes ~nat the pa~,age warning statement ~arrant~ strengthenln~ by changin~ the statement from "may" to "is." In the cont~ittee's view, the propose~ w~rnlng statement is both scientifically accurate, in terms of its relation to the smoking habits of an individual smoker, an~ sufficiently s~ort and pointed to con- stitute an effective warning. Cost ~e committee does not anticipate that enforce- ment of H.R. 6543 as proposed to be amended will re~ire any increased appropriation for the Department c~ Justice and it anticipates that the reporting by these Federal " agencies can be met from regular appropriations.

.7¸ . % 9!st Congress) !st Session ) S~r,A..~ f Calendar .~70. 4~ NO. PI,~L~LYC HEAL~.g. CZGA~ETTZ S3"~OXZ-WG ACT OF 1969 from the Co:%~.ittee on Cont~erce, submitted ~he follow~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R~ [TO aceo:~pany H.Ro 6543] q~*~e Co~-~i~%ee on Co27~,crce, to -~,hcr~ ~s referre~ the hill {il.~. 65.G3,~ to regulate the l~melinc of c!Tn-.et~-eg~ a~d for ~kher p-~rposes~ havin~ co~slde-~ed tl%e sa~,e, report ;-"a~,r~.~!v thereon ~<ith a£~end~zents and recom~mend tha'z t~-e [~ill ~s amended do p~ss. Purpose and Sumn~ar-~ of the Bill ~ne purpose of t~s bile is ho provide adequate %earnin~ to the pu<~!ic o£ the hazards o~ c!g~rehte smoking ~h~ouch c~uticn~v la~eli:~ of all cigarette p~ckaves

~A~ '~o 'orohibit ~fter Jan~aa~ i, i~7!, aii television ~'hd ~dio b~oadc~st±ng of cigarette advertisin~. ~n ~um~ary, the biLi~ as ~e~orte~ by the _~ ~es l~ ~n.Law~ "ho ~dvertise cigarettes ~y television or ~dio b~o~dcasti~g a~ or J~ after January i, i~71; 2~ Changes the ~n~atory wording on ~i~et~ May ~e Hazardous to You~ ~alth to ~Warn~ Excessive Cigarette S~oking ~ Dznge~us to Yo'~Ee~ith;" 3. Prohibits h~aith r~lat~d regulation o~ j prohibition of cigarette adv~rti~in~ by any state or leea~ ~uthorityo 4. Provides ~at the suE~e~sion of the Federa ~rade Commission pendin~ proposed trade re~ula~ tion ~ ~ ~e reiatln~ to cigarette advertising, ~ontinue ~n eZfect for ei~htee~ ~th~ after ~o~dc~st ~dvertising ef cigarettes has ee~ed~ a~d that if the Co~is~ion desires to ~enew o~

uo initiate any Dr&de re~ulatlon ~ie it nlay ~hereafter determine upon relating to ~e advertlsin~ oZ ci~arettes~ it s[%ali so noti~-y Congress to~e~ne~ ~;~'~% ~ full statement of 'dne re~sons underlying such proposml: and ~. Continues ~%e ~equlre~e~t that ~n~ Fede~ ~rade Commfssion arid the D~.~,~en~ ef Eeaf~ Nducation, and Welfare ~eport t~ Congres~ ~unually on the question of smokinq and health. ,,,i ~z~kqr_o~nd and Nemcessitv of Cor~_~essio~{l Actio~] ~ Fede~-alCmg~etme" ~ ~ Labeling and Advertising Act [pzfmlie law 89-9Z) ~¢as enacmed On July 27~ i965, and m~de effective on January i, 1966. in s-o/m~ar-y the act required each cigarette package to bear the war~%ing '~Caution: Cigarette smoking ~y be hazardous to your ~-~=- - ~n•" and barred until January l, i969, any fede--a!~ s~te or local au~-horit~ from mequiring any "state,sent rel~ting to smoking ~d health" in cigarette a~vertising. '~ In recommending the imposition of the labeling requirement this Committee concunred in the judg~lent of

"" "'-"--~.. "--~.~e Surgeon Gene=al: s Advisedly Coz~mittee on Smoking - ~ ~ ~9~-:~ that "cigareu~e "~ '.~l~h ~elivered o~ ~&~ua~l ~ " :~ ~,'~i~i~g is ~ ~a~ith hazard of ~ffieien~ importance in ~"'~_~ United $tates~ to %~arr~.~t a~copriate remedial action. " After extensive he~L~ings the Col?~ittee con-- ~luded *'~ile there romaine& a s~stantial nu}~er of i7~dividumi physicians--the Co,el, it-tee ~eceived heati-~onv from 39 Of them - '.~ho do non believe tha~ it h~s been ~cmonstra~ed scientifically th<~.t smoking causes lung C~oer o~ o~]er diseases, no prominent medic~ or scientific body undert~kin~ a systematic review of the evidence h~s reached conclusions opposed to %hose of the Surgeon Ge~erai*s Cc~?iiztea.~' I~ recommending ~ st~tutor~ b~r ~gainst mandatory • advertising, the Committee state~, ~.;a~r~zn~s in cigarette .~,/ / "Considering the cou~ined impact of voluntary limitations on a~ventising under the Cigarette A~vertisinq Code, the ex~ensive s~o]<inc edumatio~ c~k~aigns now underway, 6~d the compulsory warning on the pack~ge which ~ill b~ required under the provisions of ~hls bill, it was the c~mittee's unanimous judgz~en~ thst no warbling in ciqarette advertising should be required pending the sho~n~ that these vigorous, but les~ drastic, steps h~ve not adequately ~le~ted the public to the potential " hazard from smoking."

-5- Co ~id Congress in jud@ing ~ne exnectivene~s of ~n~ ieqisl~tion we have provided for ~n ~nn~al ~epo~t by the Secretary Of Zenith, Education 5nd Walf&~e ;'ooncerninq (~ current infor~L~a%ion on the health con- ~equences of sn%okir~ ~nd(b) such reco~endaticns for ~egisiation as he may dee~ <~propriata.~' ~ ~d~ition~ %~ ~ederal Trade Commission ~as directed t~ transmit anr.ua! r~ports concerning "<at ~ne effectiveness of ciqareute labeling, (b} current practices and meWnods of cigarette advertising and promotion and (c) such D~co~5~endations for leg!~iation as it ma!7 deem a~r°p/iate'U / i~e HS~ ~e&ort~ P~rsu~nt to the ConE~e$~ional mandate the S~cretary of H~¢ has reported to Congress on the health consequences of smoking Zn i~67, 1968 and 1969. ~ollo~¢- ing are significant conclusions from the I~9 reports. Y~O~4 TP~ HEALed C057S~QIIENCE$ O~ Sb~ZN~ !957r 196~, and i969 @~o~inq and Cardiovascular Disease: % 1969 - "Further data from prospective snudies con- firm the judgment that el{arctic smoking is a significan~ risk factor that contributes ko the develo~menm Of coronary

ziseases: (Emphysema and Bronchitis) 1968 - "P.~dition~l physioio~ical and epidemio- logical evidence confi~s the previous findings that cigarette smoT~ing i~ the most important cause of chronic nOn-neoplastic bronchopulmonary disease in the United States."

-7- L967 - "it [cA%~ec~ si<okin~] ~reatly ~%cre~ses the risk of ~ " - ~ot ey~n~ Only from chronic bzGnchitis but aZso from pulmonary ~, = - " 2~i&mivelv young ci{aret~e sm~mers frequently have ~uns~ra~e respiratory symptoms and red~ction m~ ~m.sking ~d Cancer: l~69 -"Moxe studies have been dono to identify those substances in tobacco smoke which take pa_~t ill carcinogenesis. These stmdies may help to define the exact biomeeh~nisms involved i~ the cause ~nd effect relmtionship between cig~rethe smoking and lung cancer.~' ~d~lu~o~ ev~Gc~ce ~bstan~m~tes ~]e ~wevious findings that cigarette smoking is the main Cause of lunq cancer in men. Cigarette smoking is cau~aily related to lung cancer in%~ome~... " ~'Smoking is ~ sitnificant factor in the causation of cancer of the larynx and in the devcltpment of cancer of ~%e otai cavity. " ~[ Reco~anend ~tlon s Pursuant to Section 5(d)l of the Cigarette Labeling and Advcrtizlng Act the Seercta2y of I{ealth,

J tions to ~_e Congress ~n his i~6@ r~port: ",. -~q-qe war~i~g statement requmren ~y the ~ederal Cigarette Labeling ~nd Advertisin~ ACt should be sK~enqthened. This Depart- ~ent would s~pport tf_e ~OXQl~g reconm~ended las~ year by the 9ederal Trade Con~,ission, or a suitable baraphrase of the wordiu~.* "~ -~hZs ~¢arning should be rabbited to be piaeed not oniV on the cigarette p~ek~ge hut on cigarette vending machines and in ell advertisements. "5. Levels of 'tar' and nicotine i~ cigarette smoke should be p'J/~lished on ciT~rette p~ek~Tes~ on cigarette vendin~ ~chi~es~ ~Ad i~ all ~dvertise~e~ts. Authorization is al~o needed to make it possible ~o add othe~ harmful a~ents ~o t~is listinT. "~. ApproNria~ions should be made to the Federal Tz~de Cop&mission to permit the Co~i~sio~ to ~est ~!I Ci~arett~ brands o~ a quarterly basis zor 'tar' ~nd nicotine and other h~rmful m~ents in cigarette smake.~' "*~le wor~in~ recoa~ende~ ~ the Fea~ral ~m'ade Co~i~ion (~epor~ to Congress, Jun~ 3Q, 19~7) ~as '~arnin~: ~ig~ette $~oking is Dangerous to ~.e~!~n a~d ~ay Cause De~th fro~ C~nce~ an~ Ot~er Di~eas~l'' F~e~i Trade C0mmission Reports ~e ~'ederal Trade C0n~ission has also made ~-~ee ann~al reporti p~rs~ant to th~ requirements Section 5(D)2 of the ~ederal Cigarette Labeling ~nd

Advertising Act. _~Zne foiiowing are siiF~.ific~nt excerpts ~_~ each of these ~ / ~ro:n the 1967 FTC Report ~/ "~nere is virtually no evidence that the ~#arnlng statement on cigarette packages has had ~ny significant effect. (p.~) nlo~ recent ~re~d has been the ~xtension of several existing brands into ~e extra-long i00 millimeter length type of cigarette~ ~his trend is of ~rlo~s ~ne dist~rbin~ nature since these extra-!ong cigarettes also expose the s~oker to ~reater ~0unis of tar and nicotine, making them potentially more hazardous... (p.7) "Because cigmrente smoking is so strongly habit-forming, it is unlikely that a mildly phrased CaU~ionary statement will have any ~= ~ on confirmed cigarette smokers, For the information of cigarette smokers, the Co~m1%ission favors mandatory labeling of tar and nicotine content On cigarette packages and in cigarette advertisements and other measures that will prompt cigarette manufacturers to develop less h~zardou~ cigarettes. Also, the Conmlission believes ~%at the w/ continual repotition of the warning statement in all

cigarette a~vertise~,ents and on -Zr~ package will sexy= ~ a con~nt reminder of the health hazards; and furthe~ be!laves that the ~arnin~ statement should be strengthened. "Current cigarette advertising constiuutes a ~tron~ force i~ o~r society to parmuade teena~ecs ~o overcome theim initial distaste for cigarettes. (p.6) "inte~tional or fortuitous, teenagers appe~ ~o be a ~ri~e target for televised ciq~rette advertising, (po 13) "It Cound in 19~4 ~ueh ~dvertisinq to co~t~in ~;o princip~l elements - a 2ortrayal of the desir~ility of cig~rltte smoking e~_d ~ss'urances of ~Le reistive s~fety of smoking. Comparison of the currenn advertising with the advertising reviewed in 1964 in conjunction wiEn the C0.n~ssion's Trade xequlation Rule proceeding sho~s ;dn~t there has been no si~nlficant chaise in the b~sic appeals made. Advertising continues to depict smokin~ as ~z enjoyable activity while ignoring comp±e~e!y ~he hea!zh hazards. (P. i~ and 15) "...cigarette advertisements tot~iiy ignoro d~e health hazards posed by smoking. Ano~he2 aspect Of cigarette smoking that is also ignored, and has vital

-!l- implications in terms of health hazard, is the fact ~%at cJganette smoking is stro~g!y h~bit-forming. (p.23) "A1;~hough minor changes have been made in some advertisements s~nee pron~llgation of dqe Cigarette Code, ~nei: ~qe~es ~nd basic i~2~ct remain unchanged. Cig~ette ad-T~rtising continues to promote ~ne idea ~$na% cigarette smoking is ho~n pleasurable ~d harmless." (p.2S) ~ro~ ~ne 195~ YTC KeDort "-~q~is ~e~ns that, On the avera~et each U. S, inh~it~n% vlew~d 66.75 televised cigarette co~qu~enci~!s in one mon~n. During January 1968.°.exp0sure ratgs of $0.~8 per teenager and 44.5 per child~ as opposed to ~6.75 per inh~itant, it ~oui< seem that ~ne teenage rat~ J~ not appreciably l~#er ~an ~n~ inhabitant rate and t/qat the rate amc=g children is io-~~ only ~d%en com- p~ed to a very high ~dult rate. Certainly th~ exposure r~te ~ong <--ildren is not low in any absolute sense. (P. dO and ll) "Reportedly, t])er- have been ~ttempts by me~ers of %he cigamette in::ustry to discourage the dis~l~ of Co~mlssion tzr a~d nicotine yield data in

food and drug chains and to halt a Public H~alth Service c~Daign to publicize -~he f~ct that large numbers Of doctors h~ve given up cigarettes." (p. 24) ?tom the i969 FTC Repcu~ '~Tnile any trend toward fe~er exposures to teievised cigarette commercials is ~ppl~uded, expos,are rates continue to be extremeiv high. (p. 12) ":~ general, currenm cigarette mdvertisinZ leaves the impression that cigarette smoking is a heal%i%y activity ~nd one %~hose risk, to the extent ~nat it exlsts, can be reduced tb~rongh the presence of = filter." (p. 26a] FTC Recommendations Pursuant to Seetlon 5(D)2 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, the Federal ~rade Co~mission made the following recommendations to the Congress in its 1969 report. C~garette Advertisinc On Radio and Television ---- FCC Actions On June 2j 1967, the Federal Communications Co~mission sustained a listener's complaint that the fairness doctrin~ is applicable to cigarette ~dvertising, stating:

"~ ~ e that our hoieing is ±imi~ed ~o this ~ro~uc~ -~ cigarettes. Cov~rnmental a~ private reports (e.g., the 196G Report of ~2~e Surgeon General's Committee} ~nd Con- ~re~sional actian (e.g., the ~eder~i Cigarette Labeiin~ and A~vertising Act ~f 1965) as~er~ that normal us~ of this ~roduc~ can be a hazard to ~he h~a!th of ~.~ilion~ of persons. ~e advertisements !~ question clearly promote ~he ~se of a particular cigarette as attractive ~nd enjoyable. ~ndeed, ~he~ unders~anda%ly ~av~ no o~her p~ose° ~e ~e~ieve ~q~t a sta~io~ ~icb presents su~n adve~tlse- ~ents has ~ne ~u~y of informing its ~udie~e of ~ne other side of this con- tr~ve~sial issue o~ p~bl~c ~mportance -- ~hat however enjoy~le, such smoking may ~e ~ h~za~d to the s~oker's health.~ ~n ~<s Septe~er 13, I~o7, ...... ~ Opinio~ and Order reaffirming this rulinz, zne" Commission stressed ~h~_a~, tile specifics of the f~irness doctrine aside, th~ p~iic interest standard of the Communications Act ~means nothinq if it does not include [the] mesponsi- biAity" on the part of those who broadcast cigarette commercials to advise their audiences that smoking ca~ be harmful to health. The Co~nission's position ~as sustained by ~%e U~ S. Cou~t of Appeals for the District o~ Columbia Circuit (Banzhaf v. Federal com.muniemtions Cos~issio?!~ 405 9~ 2d 1082, 1968). ~he Court held that the Cigarette Labeling Act did not preclude the Conunission:s

-i4- r~l~g; that. "as a public health measure ad~ ~,~ed to -~r~ique danger authenticated by official an~ .zon- gre~sional action," the ~uiing w~s a proper implementa- tion of t/qepubli~ intenest stan<ard Of the Com~luni~a-- ~ions Act~ and that the ruling did not offend the First ~endment. Ti~e S'~preme Court d%nied the petitions lot cer%ioari on October 13, 1~69. As a res~it of this ruling, broadcast statlo~s which carry~ cigarette cora~ercials are also present4--n~, uo a ~ignificant degree on 5 virtually dmily basis (including the hours of ~axim~m listening), anti-- cigarette messages prepared by the various interested health organizations. See, e.g., ~C-TV ruling, 16 FCC 26. 956 (1969). S~ubseayaent to its application of the fairness doctrine to cigarette ~dvertising, the FCC, on February 6, 1969~ issued a notice of proposed rvlemaking (FCC Docket No. 18434; 34 F.R. 1959~ Februar~ ii, 1969) to ba-~ cigarette advertising from radio and television. ~nis was done in light of the forthcoming expiration oZ the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and for ~e a~ou~ced purpose of apprising the Congress with

respect to the action the ECC proposed to take "assuming the absence of ~ contrary congressional ~ ~ ~ " ~ne Commission, citing the 1967 and 1968 H~? reports ~nd the B~nzhaf decision, stated that ih would ". . . appear wholly at odds ~ith the public interest for broadcasters to present advertising promoting the consD/~ption of the product posing ~is uniq~ae danger -- a d~n~er measured in terms of an epidemic of deaths and disabilities." The CorL,mission further ~sserted that in its view t~e First Amendment doeg not protect ". . . ~ne ~dvertislng of ~ product es Co which there is a most subst~nti~l sh~ing that it is the main cn~se of lung c~cor~ ~/%e most important cause of emphysem~ and chronic bronX%iris, and so on." Finnlly, it observed tna~ ~hmle, xn xm~h~ of the national experience ~ith liquor, the prohibition o£ a particular product suoh as cigarettes may be impracticable, xt does not follow that the promotion ef the product should be permitted, since remedial ~ctions in the promotion area may well % De feasible and serve the pl~blic interest~

-16- Advertisin~ w Section l0 of the Federal Cigarette L~eling a~d Advertising Act specified that the provisions of that atatute ~ich affect the regulation of advertising should tern~inate on July i, 1969. T~e key q~estion presented for congressional consideration, upon the ~piration o~ the advertising provisions of the 1965 Act, was whether public ~wareness of the hazards of smoking might he retarded or eroded by massive cigarette advertising, particularly on television and radio. While it is true tlnat cigarette advertising made ~o direct health clashes, it was ~he view of the committee that the constant and highly repetitive dis- play of smoking as ple~surahie might in large measure offset public awareness of the hazard. According to Reports of the Federal Trade 0o~quission, in excess of $225 million was spent by the cigarette industry in 1967 in television advertising~ ~nd the ~nticipated expenditures ~or 1969 would probublv exceed that amount. In 1968, over $21 ~illion was spen~ for r~dio advertising, and again the 1969 expenditures are anticipated to he as large if not larger. Overall,

-17- s~e $250 million in broadcast ~dvertising is ~nnualiy e~oended by cigarette manufacturers. The Federal Trade Commission further reported that over 25 percent of the television exposures on net- work programs re~ch young people and that radio was a media parti=ularly 9opular with youth. During the penden~y 5efore Congress of ~.R. 6543, both the Federal Colr~dnications Conu~,ission and the Federal Trade Conunission announced proposals Zor regula- tory actions of their c~vn in dle event t~hat ~le adver- tising provisions of the" !965 Act ~ere not extended. The Federal Communications Co~.~issJon on February 6, 1969, proposed an adu~inistrative ban on all clqarethe ~dvertising on television ~nd radio in the event tbat industry self~reg~lation of cigarette advertising would ~ot be forthcoming, or as an alternative, that adver- tising of cert~i~ categories of cigarettes would be banned. ~ne Federal Co~municaiions Co!~uission invited i~d~stry comments. O~ May 20, 1969, the Federal Trade Coum~ission~ issued a Notice for the reinstitution of its 1964 p~o- ceedinqs for the promulgation of a Trade Regulation Rule to require thnt# after a specified date, all

~_b~et~ advertisements co~in a pres~ribad w~i~g ~otice '~un!ess Congress ~hould ex~end the provisions of the 1965 Act so as to bm~ s~ch ~ehion." On July i7~ ~$69~ "-~-- ~ational Association of ~ro~dcasters a~louneed a 9ener$i plan pursuant to which i~s ~n~ers %1ould rad~ce the level of cigarette adver- t!sing on television znd ~adio in progressive steps so ~!%a%, effective Septel~er i, i973, all cigarette - 2. ~avert~slng would cease. Pursuant to that plan, ~oglnnznq Sanuary i, 1970; there would be a pxogressive percentage reduction of the total number of minutes available for sale toci~arente advertisers measured against the bzse year July l, i~68, to July l~ i969. ~or the first nine months of 1970, there would be a i0~ reduction, and tne~e=~t~ 25% reductions suecessive!y xunnin~ hhrough to Septen~er i, 1973. ~earin~s In the ~i~ht of these Of ~hich ~he committee v~as made developments and Others aware, the Consumer Sub~ committee of the co[mnittee held hearings on July 22, 196g, for the consideration of cigarette advertisin~ and particularly the possibilities or self-regulatlon o~

zuch cigarette advertising~ All me]:~ers of ~e full eonu~ittee were invited to a~cend~ and the chairman of the full conu~ittee and others were in attendance. an addition, at the col~ittee's invitation, ~il five ~e~.nbers of the ~ederal Trade Ce~ission were invited %0 and did attend, ms did the Chairman of the Pede~ai Co~unlcations Co~?~ssion. Although teehnicaily these hearings were devo%ed to consideration of E.R. 6543, they were devoted principally to the subject of advertising. Developments at the hearings ~#ere both dramatic an~ profonnd!v significant, and in the con~iftee's view want a long way toward resolving these difficult ques- tmons of wide nntional concern. Appearinq on behalf of the ~ine aomestic cigarette manufacturing com~anies~ ~ir. Joseph F~ Culiman, iiI, ~nairmnn of the Executive Corznittee of The ToDm~CO institnte, announced "i~ consideration of all of the factors currently prev~ilin[," that each company { was prepared to agree to discontinue all advertising of" ci~arehtes on television and radio in Septem~er~ 1970, whe~q tile major contractual arrangements will expire,

-20- ~xovided that the new iegi~i~ion would include a pro- vision that ~n a~ree~ent to this effect should not be i~emed illegal under the antitrust laws. ~ne committee was ~rther advised that if tile brom~c~st in~ustr~j woul~ simultaneously terminate ~l co~t~t~l a~ra~ge~en~s for t~e ~o~cast of cigarette advertising, rite uob~cco companies were pre- pare~ to agree to discontinue all such advertis~n~ at may time after December 31, 1969, that such termination of contract oh!igations bec~e effective. It was ~%e view of the cigarette ~uf~ctu~ers ~hat the plan sugges~ my t~e National Association of Broadcasters presented suc?. complex problems on the a~plic~tion of ani~ percentage reduction to individual cow,panics, ailoc~tions of t~me periods, ~nd the iike, ~s to make it impracticable. Xt was ~iso noted that b~o&dc~st stations ~icn were ~o~ subs~iber~ to the ~eievis±on and Badio Codes of ~ne NAB ~ould not he bound, and that this would p~esent further com~lexi~ie6. ~he cigarette manufacturers further sta~cd to the co~u~ittee that ~ith respect to all other ~dvertisinq~ ~h&~wouid ~void advertising directed to young persons~

~-= ~Touid continue to abstain from ~dventising in Dchool ~nd college publications, would continue not to distribute s~ple cigarettes or an~age in promotional ~ctivities en school andcu~--~-~ c~mpuses, Would con- tinue not to use testir~onials from athletes o~ othe~ cclefa~ities who m~gnt h~ve special ~ppeai ~o youn~ ~3o~Io, ~o~ld avoid adve~=isin~ ~qat represented cigarette smoking as essential to social prominence, S~ccess, o~ sexuml attraction, ~nd would refrsin fro~ 6eplcting smokerseng~ed in s2orts o~ o~er acv-ivities re%~iring stamina or con~o.~_n~ beyond ~hmt needed ~ur no-~mal re~eafion. On behalf of ~he television ~nd rmdio broad- c~s~n~ industry, the N~tional Association of Broad- c~sters ~ck~owledged the powerful influence adve~- hisin~ has On the ~erican pubi±c and indicated the willingness of the broadcasui:~g stations it represented ~o phase-out broadcast cigarette advertising over a four-year period. ~owever, they ~jected to an ~cross-the-board witlndrawal in September, 1970, as pro- po~ed ~j the ci~rett~ manuf~l~t~ring industry, o~ the [round that th~s e~rlier cessation would create su~- stmntial economic disruption in the broadcasting

-22- Endustry. They did pledge to continue carrying ~/ anna-smoking messages aZter the cessation of broad- c~st cigarette advertising. The CChai~m~n Of t~e ~e~er~ Communi~atlo~s Co~mlssio~ reviewed i~s ~ending proposal to prohibit ~2~e broadcast advertisin~ of ~ ~ c~g~re~_~o, referred to ~he Co~_ssion's inviSatlon for vol-/ntary industry notion, ~nd stated that its a~ministrative action in the future ~ould be dependent upon congressional 901iCy. He testiZied that an orderly transition, up~ // / / 'to a yeam-, ~vould be appropri~te~ but that a four--year ~qaze-out ~ould be in~mpropriate because it ~ould generate a great many problems~ He stated f~r~ner thnt i~ ~roadc~st advertising of cigarettes were e!i'~inated" the FCC w°'~id n°t find it necessary t° I J~ promul/~a any rules or re~latlons ~¢ith respect to b~qnln~ br0mdc~st advertising. Speaking on behnlf0f the five Co~7~issioners Of ~he Federal Trade Coa~ission %~o attended tha hearings, Cb~airm~n Paul Rand D~xon ~nounced the concl~sion of that agency ~qat if c~g~rette ~dvertising should be remo%.ed fro~ th~ broadcast m~di~ by the end of ~%c year or

shortly thereafter, the Co~misslon would be disposed 'ho suspend its pending trade reGu!Etion rule proceed4--n~ ~h~ the ~;~tii July~ !971o During ~ ~ period, Co.~ission ~¢euid report to ~qe Congress ~eri0dically on t~he effectiveness of the Act~ In its view the principa~ term of ciqarette advertising would have been eliminated by the discontinuance of ~2o~dc~st ~dvertisin~o In nddition, the ChaLrmE~n stated that if there were fears" of ~ntitrust difficuities, na~rG~ antitrust L~uni~S should be zfiorded~ -~ze FTC expressed %pprehension~ however, that the cigarette industry might shift its e~or~o~s adve~l~-._q e~cDe~dit'ores o~ television an~ radlo to a~vertising in other m~-~, a~d ~rge~ the con~ ittee not to 2ree~i~t the ~gency's powers to reg~l~te cigarett~ adverti~inq. Eollowlm~ the hearings, the chairman of the siLbco~ttee inquired ~- i~ttnr of each of t~e broad- casting ~. ~ whether : --~ " ne~ o~ns ~t ÷:~ul~ be disposed to ~_rmlna~e existin~ contracts with the cigarette me~u- "& fact~rers so as to p~rmit the discontinuance of ~ro~d- c~t advertisinq of cigarettes by Dece~er 31, !969. O~e ~e'bvork replied that ;~ ~ ' " ~ that terminating W /

broadcast ~dvertising alone would Be discriminatory., ~ut that it would be ~i!ling to follow indicated congressional policy. ~,~o other networks responded ~h~ they cou~ not see -their way cle~, both as a m~tter o~ principle and economics, to do so. (Letters ~cn~d ~s Appendlx A.) Smbsequently, on Nove~foer 4~ the ~tion~l Association of BrOadcasters notified the Co..,~mittee by letter that tlneir Code ~eview Boards arid Board of Directors ~ended • had their eari~er phase-out propos~l so as to provide for termination of Droadeast ci~ar~tt~ a{vertising on Septea%ber i~ 1971, ~ather than on September i, 1973. ~%e letter pointed out that tk~is a~tlon was on ~ehalf of those stations and net~.~orks ~ich are sm]'~scrihers to the X~B Cede~

-25- Co~ittee Amendments Prohibition of Television or Radio Broadc~stin~ of Cigarette Adv~rtisin~ on or a@ter Janua1-~. J i~ n~w Section 6 is pro~o~"cd to m~e it -~nla~-~ul to ~-~r-~ ti~ ~i~arettes o~ ~ny ~edi~l~ of electro~ic Co~ic~tion ~ubject to the j~risd~ction of ~h~ Federal Co.<~unic~tions Com~i~sio~ on Or~±~ ~er J~ry l~ 1971. ~ ~ommlttee con~l~d~d ~t t~is provision r~pr~s~nte~ a reasonable e~em-mln~t!on of the prob!ems Dresentedo COF~L~ ~i~Sl~ CO~d~ t-he ...... m~t~ve of both the tobacco and broadcasting industries -in their efforts to terminate r~dio and television Dro0.d- cmstinq through voluntary self-regu!stion. AS previously m, eted~ ~ome $225 million annually i~n advertising e~.reno~tures b~~ the iP-dustry and revenues to the bro~d- e~s%ers is involved. On the other hand, the con~mittee recognized 9/%.~- genera! principal that, s~ve in exceptional and ~.~ho~-3.~~ unavoidable situations, mxe~,~ptions from t~he basic m~+~-~.___~_~u l~%~s ought to be ~voided. For this reason, the c~.~ittee concluded that a statutory ban on team- vislen and radio br0adcastin~ would be preferable to

-2~- "~ suggested method of exempting an agreement that would e~deavor to ~chieve the s~me result. ~qith Congress having declared the public 2oilcy in this area, there would appear to be little likelihood that any indus~ agreements to min~aize c_ga~e~te ~dvertising u~.der the conditions ~hich will exist in the future would be held by the courts to constitute ~ unreascn~Dle restraint of trade under the antitrust laws~ ~ne provisions of the hill for periodic zeporting by the Federal Trade Colm~ission will ~fford to the Congress appropriate opportunity to consider a~y Zuture questions relating to th~ print advertising oC clga~ettes as the facts develop under the marke<ly changed conditions following upon ~ne termination off broadcast advertising. The committee cannot overstate its strong desire that the cigarette industry not only honor its statement carefully to limit print advertising so as not to appe~l to youth, hut that it will also n exercise restraint i~ the overall ~se o~ print adver- tising and other forms of promotion. 2. ~ the Secretary Of Health~ Educa- tlon, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Conlmlssion. A

~27- ~ew Section 7 has been pro[~osed in order to continue the requirement that the Secretary of ~ealth, Education, and Welfare and the Federal Trade Co~lission transmit reports to Congress, the former providing current infe~ation on the health consequences of smoking, and the latter on the effectiveness of cigarette l~eling and the then current p~actices and ~etbods of cigarette advertising and pro- ~otion. Both agencies are also directei to transmit such reco~endltions for legislation as they deem appropriate. ~nese provisions have been set forth in a separate section for cl~-ification~ and the report~ ~re to ~e dated, beginning on January l, 1971, te coincide with the beginning of each session of Congress. lh is ~:pected that the FTC report will include (1) the effectiveness of cigarette labeling; (2) the iraplementa- tion of the cigarette industry's pledge to withdra~ from cigarette advertising; (3) the volume and effectiveness of public service smoking education car.paigns in broad- cast and non-broadcast media; (4) the performance @f the cigarette industry in avoiding advertisements with particular mppeal to young people; (S) the utilization by the cigarette industry of print advertising for !he

-2B- non-deceptive promotion cigarettes which are low intar~ nicotine, and h~zardeus g~ses; (6) an ~nalysis of public opinion polls and other relevant information indicating the extent to ~hich the ~nuerican public, especially youn~ people, hav~ been made fully a~Tare of the hazards of smoking; (7) ~ discussion of the action, if ~ny, %'hich the Commission proposes to take to restrict cigarette advertising; and (8) such reco[~mend~tions for additional legislation ~s the Commission may deem appzopriate. These directives to ~hese t-~o Federmk ~qencies to keep the Congress f~l!y izformed in these areas do not preclude interested members of the public, including the cigarette industry and offers concerned ~ith smoking ~nd he~!th, from filing materials at any tim~ with the appropriate conqressionnl committees. 3. Preemption of Stmte or Local Rcqul~tion of Cicnrette Advertising. Freemption of State or locml regulation of cigarette a~vertising based on smoking and hea!th has now been moved to Section 5(b) an~ clarified. As a perfecting ~mcndment, an mddition~i sentence has been added to page 3, line 17~ which makes it clear that the term "State" includes any political di"~icn of ~ny State. it s~ou!d also he noted that

-29- ~ection 3 of the amended bill operates to keep the pre- ~ent State preemption in effect in accordance with the con~ressionai policy that this entire area should can- finite to be ~ mntter of conqression~! control~ En some instances, counties or municipalities exercise their authority over advertising by local ordinances, or reg~iations, or even occnsionali~ by resolution. ~ order that full congressional control may be indicated, ~nd the apprehended chaos may be ~%'oided, the preemption of S%~te requirements or prohibi- tions ~ith respect to rice ndvertising of cigarettes based on smoking ~nd health is intended to include not only action by State statute but by all other a~ninistr~- tire actions or local ordinances or regulations by apy political subdivision of any grate. ~%e State predn\ntion of regulation or prohibi- tion ~ith respect to clq~rette ~dvertising is narrewly /nr~sed to preempt onl~" State nction based on smokinq ~nd health. It would in no w~y affect the power of ~ny State or political subdivision of any State with respect to the t~c~atJ.on or the sale of cAga~_-~es to minors, or the oro- hibition of smoking ~n p~o!ie buildinqs, o~ similar

-gG~ ~olice re~culations. It is lir~ited entirely to State" or iocai re~airem.ents or prohibitions in the advertising of c~garettes. 4. Federal Agencies. With respect to Pederal a~inistrative agencies, what the Act contemplates has bee~ separated o~ as ~ new Section 6 which deals solely ~i~l that area. inasmuch as broadcast advertising of cigarettes is to be discontinued, there ~ppe~rs to be no need to refer specifically to any proposed Feder~l Comn~unications Commissio~ action. As to the proposed Trade Regulation Rule xeoc~iring a health warning in all cigarette advertlsin~, ~e entire Federal Trade Commission attended the July 22nd hearings and after deliberation stated ~nat "If cigarette advertising should be removed from broadcast media by the end of the year or shortly thereafter, the Commission would be disposed to suspend its now pendingl ~/| trade regnlation rule proceeding until July, 1971." The committee is of the view that this determina- tion by the Federal Trade Commission represents an appro- priate adr~inistrative decision particularly in view of the Commission's determination that broadc&~t advertising has constituted not only the principal form of cigarette advortising in dollar volume hut the media havin~ the most

-31- mnsslve impact, particularly uponyoung people. D~ider Section 7, the Federa! Trade Co~%~nis~ion will continue to report to the Congress periodically upon the effective- ness of the Act. Accordingly Wne proposed Section 6 con- tin'~es the suspension, ~nnouncedby ~%e Federal Trade Com~ssion, for eighteen months after the cessation Of bro~dcsst advertising of cigarettes. In vie%~ of the complex social and economic problems concer~ing the prodnctlon, tec~ation, and manufacture of ciqmrettes and other t~macco products~ and the congressional determlna- tion of Congress since 1965 ~n~t these questions should be deter~ained by Congress nlo~e, it is fur~<er pnovided that if thereafter the F~deral Trade Commission desires to renew- or to initiate ~ny Trade Regulation Rule, it shill noti~ the Congress and include i full statement of the reasons for amy proposed action ~¢hich the Federal Tre~e Conz~isslon desires to reneb" or to initiate. This provision is not intended to apply to any initiative by the FTC to requir~ the testing of tar ind nicotine ~n $ cigarette mds. On the other hand, Section 6(b) is designed to continue the provisions -~ith respect to continuing

-32- Yederal Trade Conzmission authority now contained in Sec- tion 5(e) of the present law. The suspension in sub- section (a) of Section 6 in no way restricts or limits or curtails the Federal Trade Commission's existing authority over any misleading or deceptive advertising by any cigarette manufacturer. The Co~missicn remains • free to proceed by complaint agaizst any ci~am~tt~ mmnu, facturer whose advertisements it charges make a f~[se claim about any p~oduc~ characteristic o~ m~e ~ny ~-nfounded health claims. This is no chanqc fxo~ the previously existing law. ~90reover, ~he Commission retains its authority under Section 6 of the ~edexaX Trade Commission Act to re~ire each ciqarette m~n~- facturer to make ~ny special or gener~l reports to it 4 ,. S which are germ$~ne to ~u, p~epar~bion of reports to ~ne Congress under Section 7 of the bill. A technical amendment has been made in the proposed Section 3 making the effective as of July l, 2969, amendments in Section 5 and all other provisions effective as of January l, !971. 5. Retenticn of Pa~e Caution Notice. ~ne committee is of ~he viev~ that the exist4n~ caution notice o~ ~z!ga~etfe Dace<aces ~rr~nts revision.

-33- • he committee is concerned that the proposed modifications in H.R. 6543, as passed by the }louse, result in a ~rarninq statement that is so lengthy that it may lose its impact. It might nlso serve to create consumer confusion. Many agree that excessive smoking "is~ in all likelihood dangerous to the health of ~h~ particular smoker, and in that respect the committee believes that the package warning statement warrants strenghhening by changing the statement from "may" to "is." In the co~aittee's vie~', the proposed%,arning statement is both scientifically accurate, in terms of its relation to the smoking habits of ~n individual s~loker, and sufficiently short and pointed to con- stitute an effective w~rning. Cost ~ne commitfee does not ~nticlpate that enforce- ment of K.R° 6543 as proposed to bd amended will re~aire any increased appropriation for the Depa~tment of Justice and it anticipmtes that the reporting by these Eederal agencies cs]] be met from regular appropriations.