Tobacco Documents Online

s RICHARD J. DURBIN 20TH OISTRICT. ILLINOIS ATAARGE WHIP COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT sUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Congres,~ of tht ~~nited ~5tatts uouse of Representatiues Va.5hiTIgtDiT, DC 20S1S-i 320 TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD J. DURBIN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS NOVEMBER 18, 1993 2463 RAYBLRN BU/LC:NG WASHINGTON OC 20515_-'320 (202) 225-5271 525 SOUTH 8TH STREE- SPRINGFIELD. :L 62703 12171 492"062 400 ST LOUIS STREET SU17E 42 EDWARDSVILLE. IL 62025 16 181 692-108 2 221 EAST BROADWAY SUITE K iC6 CENTRALIA.-L j2901 1618, 532-a2E5--- Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the tobacco tax in President Clinton's health care reform plan. I would like to start by commending the President for his commitment to health care reform and for the well-thought-out proposal he has delivered to the Congress. While I fully expect the proposal to be changed and improved as it moves through the legislative process, I believe the President is on the right track. He has presented a comprehensive health care reform proposal that offers genuine health security to the people of our nation. He has identified a number of key goals that must be included in the reform package regardless of its final shape. I look forward to working with him and this committee to ensure that all Americans have secure and comprehensive health care coverage and greater assurance about controlling the cost of that coverage while enhancing the quality of care and maintaining patients' rights to choose their doctors. I am here today to talk about the tobacco tax. I am pleased that the President chose to finance his proposal in part through an increase in the tobacco tax. I think we can go further than he did, and I will talk about that in a moment, but I first want to commend him for taking on this controversial issue and establish a benchmark. The final product of our deliberations should not contain any less than the 75 cent per pack excise tax increase that the President has proposed. The tobacco tax is important for reasons that go far beyQnd the revenue it raises. The most compelling reason for increasing the tobacco tax is that it will substantially reduce the number of teenagers who take up the tobacco habit. Most smokers don't believe teenagers should smoke and support efforts to discourage teenage tobacco use. Even the tobacco companies assert they do not believe teenagers should smoke. Increasing the tobacco tax is the most direct way to achieve that goal. Since Canada began raising its cigarette tax in the early 1980s, smoking by teenagers has fallen 61%. In the U.S., the decline in teen smoking has been only 14%. Canada learned that raising the price of cigarettes can substantially reduce the number of teenagers who take up the smoking habit. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

r . That early decision not to smoke can have a life-long effect, because only a small percentage of smokers take up the habit as adults. If we can help them reach age 21 without becoming addicted to tobacco, we can protect them from years of fighting an addiction that is hard to break, an addiction that will maim or kill them if they continue it. Since tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death and disease in America and kills more than 400,000 Americans every year from tobacco-related causes, a public policy that can reduce the number of people who take up this habit is worthy of serious consideration. Mr. Chairman, some tobacco interests have particularly complained about the Clinton plan's increase in excise taxes on smokeless tobacco, or "spit tobacco" as it is more accurately characterized, and on other forms of tobacco besides cigarettes. The proposed increase is higher for smokeless tobacco than for cigarettes simply because the current tax is substantial lower for smokeless tobacco than for cigarettes. Furthermore, tobacco companies are hooking children on smokeless tobacco products at extraordinarily young ages. In 1970, men over the age of 55 were the heaviest users of smokeless tobacco products. By 1985, males under the age of 19 had replaced older men as the dominant users. Today, while the average age of first use of cigarettes is 13, the average age of first use of smokeless tobacco products is 9.5. Let me restate that another way. On average,, a person first uses smokeless tobacco before the age of 10. This is a chilling fact. In Illinois, a state Department of Public Health survey of elementary and secondary school students showed that 27% of the 9th-grade boys in rural areas use smokeless tobacco. An incredible 70 percent of the Illinois children who regularly use smokeless tobacco products are members of organized sports teams. It seems like an obvious contradiction, but many young people think smokeless tobacco is a "safe" alternative to smoking and even a performance-enhancing habit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smokeless tobacco causes cancer of the mouth and throat, nicotine addiction, gum disease, and tooth loss. Unfortunately, the sale and use of this deadly product is on the rise. Smokeless tobacco use has nearly tripled in the past 20 years. So how do we treat this hazardous product that threatens the health of our children? When it comes to the excise tax, we virtually ignore it. A can of snuff contains as much nicotine as one-and-a-half packs of cigarettes. Do their tax levels reflect that? No. While the current tax on cigarettes is 24 cents a pack, the current tax on smokeless tobacco is less than 3 cents a can. The Clinton plan ends this foolish discrepancy in tax rates. By equalizing the tax on various forms of tobacco, we can send the consistent message that all forms of tobacco use are deadly. And the result of the 00 increased excise taxes will be reduced consumption by children. ~ Mr. Chairman, while the Clinton plan's tobacco tax proposal is on the right track, I think we need to go further. We should increase the tax beyond what the President has proposed. While I am not advocating a tobacco tax rate as high as Canada's, which amounts to more than $3 per pack, I do believe we can go beyond 75 cents a pack. In addition, I believe we should devote some of the extra revenue to at least 3 initiatives: w CJi O ~ ~

f ) 1 o First, we should earmark some of the revenues for medical research. Perhaps an amount equal to 25 cents a pack could be set aside to address the need for greater medical research funding. Today, for millions of Americans who are battling illness and disease, medical research represents their only hope for an improved life. Yet, of the medical research grant applications received by the National Institutes of Health last year and identified as having merit, less than 23% received funding. No one expects every grant application to be funded, but if more of these research proposals could be funded, the results could be life-changing. The beneficiaries could include you or me, your children or mine, your neighbor, your mail carrier, your grocery store clerk, your pastor, your doctor, or any other ordinary American who could be stricken with an illness in need of a medical research breakthrough. We could fund research that might find cures, treatments, or preventative measures to fight cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, tuberculosis, alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, Alzheimer's disease, hearing loss, multiple sclerosis, and many other lesser-known medical afflictions with names like fibromyalgia -- a disease that causes chronic pain throughout the body for unknown reasons -- and metachromatic leukodystrophy -- a disease that cuts short a child's life in just a few short years. I am aware of these last two diseases because I have constituents who suffer from them. But there are many nameless individuals with other diseases most people have never heard of. Each of them could benefit from an increased federal commitment to medical research. o Second, we should set aside some of the revenues from an increased. tobacco tax for counteradvertising and other educational efforts designed to counteract the tobacco industry's enormous investment in promoting its products. To replace the 400,000 smokers who die of smoking related causes each year and the 1.5 million smokers who quit smoking or die of other causes each year, tobacco companies have developed a variety of advertising and promotional gimmicks that often appeal more to children than adults. This year, tobacco companies will spend more than $4 billion on tobacco advertising and promotion. They will spend as much each day as the federal office that has primary responsibility for educational efforts regarding smoking has available to spend for an entire year. The state of California has demonstrated that counteradve.rtising aimed at children, young women, and other targets of tobacco company advertising can help our vulnerable young people resist the tobacco temptation. A similar federal program could make a big difference in helping these young people to adopt a smokefree lifestyle. o Third, we should earmark some of the tobacco tax revenues for a program designed to help tobacco farmers switch to other crops. Tobacco sales have entered a period of inevitable decline as a result of _~ the mounting evidence of adverse health effects associated with tobacco use. But I have nothing against tobacco farmers, just as I have nothing against t~ tobacco users. I think smoking cessation programs should be available to all ~ smokers, to help them overcome their addiction. Similarly, I think tobacco farmers should be offered assistance to get out of the tobacco business and

t grow a more beneficial crop. I hope this committee will work with our tobacco-state colleagues to develop such a program, so that we can reduce tobacco use, improve the nation's health, and give tobacco farmers an alternative. One final note is worth mentioning. Opponents of the tobacco tax often suggest that proposals such as mine are not feasible because demand for tobacco will decline by such a large amount as to eliminate the potential revenue gains. The evidence from Canada, which has raised its tobacco tax far more than has been suggested for our country, indicates that this claim is false. While a tobacco tax increase and counteradvertising will help reduce tobacco use, a core of tobacco users will remain. While many smokers will quit and many children will never take up the habit, others will continue to smoke despite our best effort to discourage them. As a result, a tobacco tax increase of the magnitude that has been proposed for this country will produce significant new revenue even if a portion of it is set aside for worthy programs like those I have outlined. Mr. Chairman, the President's tobacco tax proposal is good health policy as well as a source of revenue. A tax increase of greater magnitude than the President has proposed would be even more beneficial for the health of this nation, especially for the children of this nation, and a portion of the additional revenue could be used to promote some important goals for the health and well-being of our citizens. I hope you and the other members of this committee will see fit to adopt the measures I have proposed. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on this important subject.