Joint Testimony of
C. EVERETT KOOP, M.D. and DAVID A KESSLER, M. D.

September 11, 1997

Mr. Chairman, we are here, today to talk about the future of the tobacco industry in this country, and the health of future generations of Americans.

In our view, there can be a national tobacco settlement this year but it must be on public health terms -- and it must contain a number of absolutely critical measures that assure smoking will decline among children in the very near future. We do not believe the settlement, as drafted, will reduce smoking in this country.

The only settlement that makes any sense at all is one that assures the American people that tobacco companies will sell fewer cigarettes, that fewer people will smoke, and that the rate at which children become new smokers will decrease significantly.

Everything else in the settlement -- how much the -industry pays out for past sins, how much the lawyers get, how much the states get, how much the industry is regulated -- is secondary.

So what is critical to a public health resolution?

First, the settlement must force a fundamental shift in the tobacco industry's corporate behavior and the way in which it responds to oversight.

Second, the public must know the full story right now -- not ten or 20 years from now -- before it can grant the tobacco industry immunity for its past actions and assure the industry some measure of economic certainty. Usually when immunity is granted, it is limited immunity in response to total disclosure; the tobacco industry seeks total immunity for limited disclosure.

Third, the price of a pack of cigarettes must increase enough to significantly affect youth's buying decisions.

To date, much of the debate has been over the total settlement amount. Is $368 billion over 25 years enough? Is $I trillion enough? How much do the states or lawyers get? Can the industry afford to pay that kind of sum?

The truth is that none of those questions matter. Focusing on the total dollar amount necessary to settle the tobacco wars is futile. There is no magic number, and never will be.

How much do you need to increase the price of a pack of cigarettes to reduce the rate of smoking in this country? Because we know that raising the price of cigarettes, as well as a concerted education effort, will reduce smoking.

The price for a pack of cigarettes must be raised by $1.50 or $2.00 per pack -- not the 50 cents per pack increase that will result from the current proposed settlement.

And if that kind of price hike doesn't get the job done, then there should be sufficient penalties in place to dissuade, the industry from continuing to prey on children.

Fourth, we are not agriculturists but we are deeply concerned that for many years the cigarette industry has victimized not only the hundreds of millions of smokers hooked on nicotine. There are also the estimated 124,000 tobacco farmers who have been victimized by the tobacco industry -- and the federal government, too, by the way -- who have been paying them to grow the commodity.

As you may well know tobacco has been one of the most valuabl natural products out of this country, right up there with crude oil. That's the kind of economic fact that you cannot ignore.

We are now at the tail end of the most extensive and most successful public health crusade in recent history: the battle against cigarettes. Now we believe we must embark on another crusade. We must be prepared to mount and carry out what may be one of the most extensive agricultural crusades in recent history: a crusade to save tobacco farmers and farms and provide them with real options. Options growing other crops, options using the land for other positive uses, options replacing lost tobacco income.

In order to provide tobacco farmers with these options during the next few years as the domestic tobacco industry gradually declines we need to generate a great deal of new information. In a word, we need a series of authoritative, science-based completely trustworthy reports to provide the country with the knowledge base upon which to make decisions and to act.

If we were talking about health this would be a Surgeon General's report.

For example we need to know how many such farmers there really are ... what kind of expenses they have ... how much they earn ... where they live and farrm...and so on. In other words we need some new up-to-date demographic and socioeconomic data about people who grow tobacco now but who very shortly will be growing much less tobacco in the future.

We also need to know the condition of the land that has been yielding this rich cash crop. Is the land depleted of nutrients, or is it still healthy? Is it too loaded with chemicals? Is it good for anything else at all? Are other places possible? What transitional support is necessary for them and what should it be?

And finally, with the information from these reports, let's take a look at what may really be feasible to keep these people doing what they love to do in the places that they love to do them.

Mr. Chairman, we think that is the next logical step in our nation's evolution toward being a smoke-free society.