332 



public fears. And the Council's primary activity was not the sci- 

 entific search for truth but rather, an extensive and lavishly fi- 

 nanced public relations campaign that was in the words of the to- 

 bacco executives, "entirely pro-cigarettes." 



Last year, in an article entitled "Smoke and Mirrors", the Wall 

 Street Journal accused the Council of being the longest running 

 misinformation campaign in U.S. business history. Federal District 

 Court Judge Sarokin who reviewed documents in the Council's spe- 

 cial project file was quoted as saying: "Despite the industries' 

 promise to engage independent researchers to explore the dangers 

 of cigarette smoking and to publicize their findings, the evidence 

 clearly suggests that the research was not independent, that poten- 

 tially adverse results were shielded under the caption of special 

 projects, that the attorney-client privilege was intentionally em- 

 ployed to guard against such unwanted disclosure, and that the 

 promise of full disclosure was never meant to be honored and never 

 was." 



The documents Judge Sarokin viewed remain a closely guarded 

 secret of the tobacco industry to this day. The charges raised by the 

 Wall Street Journal and Judge Sarokin are serious and go directly 

 to the heart of the tobacco industries' credibility. 



Today, the subcommittee will explore the extent of the CTR's sci- 

 entific independence and the nature of its interest in public health. 

 The subcommittee is committed to lifting the veil of secrecy that 

 has surrounded research programs of the tobacco industry. I hope 

 today's hearing will help us understand what tobacco industry 

 science really means. 



Before calling on our witness, I want to recognize members of the 

 subcommittee for opening statements and to call on Mr. Bliley first. 



Mr. Bliley. Mr. Chairman, today we will hear in greater detail 

 about the Council for Tobacco Research, a private nonprofit organi- 

 zation that uses funds from the tobacco industry to support re- 

 search into questions of tobacco use and health. As with other to- 

 bacco-related issues that this subcommittee has considered re- 

 cently, only one side of this issue has been aired in the press. It 

 is, therefore, critically important that once again our deliberations 

 attempt to separate fact from fiction and that we opt for good pol- 

 icy rather than good headlines. 



We must approach today's proceedings with an appreciation of 

 the fact that the Council for Tobacco Research has been in oper- 

 ation for 40 years. We must also appreciate the fact that during re- 

 cent times some members of the public or the scientific community 

 and even of this body have come to see tobacco as an item not 

 worth studying and that any scientific organization that is not ac- 

 tively trying to drive the tobacco industry out of business and 

 smokers underground must be instead promoting tobacco use. 



Hopefully members of the subcommittee will treat our witness 

 fairly today and let him explain as fully as he may need to concern- 

 ing what is undoubtedly a long and complex history. 



To emphasize the one-sidedness of this debate, permit me to 

 focus on the second of the purported basis for the requested inves- 

 tigation. In particular, an article that appeared on the front page 

 of the New York Times on May 7. I refer to Chart 1. 



