Clinton Seeks 20-Cent Cigarette Levy Hike

Stepping into the House-Senate budget debate, President Clinton pushed hard Wednesday for a 20-cent-a-pack hike in the cigarette tax as a way to finance children’s health care and discourage young people from smoking.

The president’s remarks, made at a White House ceremony highlighting progress in immunizing children, were designed to put pressure on House negotiators who have not yet endorsed the Senate-backed increase in the cigarette levy. The issue of a cigarette tax hike is among the few unresolved matters in House-Senate talks aimed at finalizing a tax bill by the end of next week.

Separately Wednesday, tobacco growers enjoyed a victory on Capitol Hill, where the Senate defeated an attempt by the industry’s foes to eliminate a taxpayer-subsidized, multimillion-dollar tobacco crop-insurance program.

At the White House, however, officials were emphasizing children’s health care, and in the process pushing a much less tobacco-friendly message.

“By raising the price of cigarettes, it will discourage children from starting to smoke in the first place. It is the right thing to do,” Clinton declared.

As part of the health theme, the White House also released statistics documenting gains in immunization for such diseases as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles and polio. For example, 95% of U.S. toddlers were immunized for diphtheria and tetanus last year, up from 83% in 1992; overall, 90% of 2-year-olds are now vaccinated for key childhood diseases.

The 90% goal was initially set by President Carter, recalled First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who maintained that inoculating children is “a matter of sound economics.”

Said the president, over a din of gurgling and wailing babies: “We are celebrating a milestone, but we have not completed the job.”

The White House also announced new rules to ensure that children in federally subsidized child care get their shots and called for improved record keeping on children’s vaccinations.

Alluding to the bureaucratic-sounding notion of “vaccination registries,” Clinton said: “That’s the kind of thing most people can’t remember, but it may have something to do with whether their children live or die.”

Clinton recalled his own experience of getting a polio vaccine. “I screamed and squalled with the best of children.” But, he added, “I remember being very conscious that some enormous burden was being lifted off of my life.”

Almost 8 in 10 U.S. children are now fully immunized, but that remains below the White House goal of 90% immunization by 2000.

Clinton seized on the occasion to press for congressional approval of a proposed 20-cent hike in the cigarette tax, supported by the Senate. House leaders have not yet endorsed the higher cigarette tax, although there appears to be some support for it there.

The 20-cent increase--to be levied on each pack of cigarettes sold--would raise $15 billion over five years; the Senate plan earmarks $8 billion of that for children’s health care. The money could cover health benefits for as many as 5 million children--half of those in need--although there is dispute over how comprehensive the health coverage should be.

Calling for complete coverage, Clinton said: “It has literally been a generation since we did . . . this much for children’s health insurance.”

Clinton also announced an Oct. 24 White House conference to examine the nation’s child care system.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s 53-37 vote preserving federal crop insurance for tobacco came even as representatives of tobacco growers lobbied the Clinton administration and Congress for funding to offset losses they say they will incur as a result of the proposed $368.5-billion settlement among cigarette makers, state attorneys general and public-health advocates.

The Department of Agriculture’s tobacco insurance program was created in the 1930s to protect crop producers from natural disasters, plant diseases and insect infestations. Tobacco growers have been beneficiaries since 1948.

Critics of the program, led by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), argued that it is inconsistent for the government to promote a deadly commodity at the same time it is trying to discourage smoking.