Committee Hearing, March 27, 2006

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - - - Monday, March 27, 2006 10:15 a.m. - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - - - BILL NO. 060050 - Amending Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Public Places - Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace. - - - PRESENT: MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. JAMES F. KENNEY JUAN F. RAMOS MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Good morning. We welcome you to City Council this morning, to the Council's Committee on Public Health and Human Services Public Hearing regarding Bill No. 060050. And we would like for the clerk to read the bill, please, title of the bill.

060050, an Ordinance 10 amending Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled, "Public Places - Prohibited Conduct," by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace and providing for penalties, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you very much. It is time. It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free. It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free. (Applause.)

It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free when England, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Peru, New Zealand, and as of yesterday Scotland are smoke free. 3 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free, when 37 states have anti-smoking legislation; states, including California, 5 New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, are 6 completely smoke free; and many of our 7 country's world-class cities like New York, 8 Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Washington, 9 D.C., have banned smoking. 10 Consequently, one-third of the 11 United States is covered by smoke-free laws and more than 100 million citizens have clean air. It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free, when, according to a December 17, 2005, Penn State poll, 84 percent of Pennsylvanians supports smoke-free workplaces. In another poll, 76 percent of Philadelphians support prohibiting smoking in workplaces. And, according to a recent Zagat survey, 83 percent of Philadelphia diners say smoking should be banned in restaurants. It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free when, according to a recent Philadelphia Business Journal article, the 4 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 city's annual healthcare costs related to tobacco are approximately $550 million and, per the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, Philadelphia is the third worst city for people with asthma. It is time for Philadelphia to be smoke free when, in a city with a majority minority population, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that African-American males are 55 percent more likely than other ethnic groups of developing lung cancer as a result of light to moderate smoking. And, for me, this fact is especially personal, since I lost my husband because of smoking. This legislation is about protecting our citizens, residents from suffering further losses; whether it is the loss of a loved one caused by any range of conditions brought on by smoking, the diminishing of their own health from smoking, or from contact with secondhand smoke, or the loss of enjoyment during a relaxing night out that becomes literally and figuratively clouded by 5 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 cigarette smoke. It is obvious that even tobacco companies recognize the health detriments of smoking. Why else would they enter into a massive settlement with numerous states regarding this health issue? Why would Philip Morris have agreed to pay $82 million in damages to the widow of a long-time smoker of Marlboro's. Cigarettes pose a real and constant danger to our lives and our health. That's the idea behind this legislation. It is not about waiting until we have to face these health problems or until we are driven away from our favorite places. It is about steps now to make our nights out more comfortable, our city's air cleaner, and as its residents healthier. We welcome those of you who have come today to offer testimony this morning. We thank you for your interest and your commitment to this important subject. It is my hope that my colleagues will be compassionate listeners, who open 6 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 their ears, minds, and hearts to the information that will be presented today. Today, the time has come for Philadelphia to be smoke free. We want to thank you all for coming. We appreciate and respect your points of view. We will be respectful of those varying points of view, and hope that we will have an open and honest dialogue today. Again, thank you all for coming. I thank those organizations that have been working with us, Breathe Free Philadelphia and the other organizations, who put a lot of time into this. Our first panel this morning will be our City Fire Commissioner, Commissioner Lloyd Ayers; and Acting Health Commissioner, Ms. Carmen Paris. Would you come to the table, please. And Ms. Sarah Mathew of the School District of Philadelphia. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LLOYD AYERS: Good morning.

And thank you 7 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 for coming. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Councilwoman and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee, I am Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers. I want to thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony on smoking and its impact on the Philadelphia Fire Department and the citizens of Philadelphia. Our area of concern encompasses deaths as a result of smoking, fires in properties caused by careless smoking resulting in injuries and damage, an increase in medical responses to patients suffering from respiratory ailments associated with smoking. We believe that the successful passage of this legislation to ban smoking in public places will assist in reducing deaths, injury, property damage, and medical responses caused by smoking. There have been media reports of persons affected by smoking bans who decided to stop smoking and have been successful in 8 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 their attempts. We believe each former smoker represents one more step toward reducing smoking fires, which may end in death or injuries, as well as additional property damage. The current legislation banning smoking in public places and the legislation mandating tobacco product manufacturers to produce fire-safe cigarettes will undoubtedly help with our efforts to reduce death and injuries due to smoking. Attached to this document for information are statistical data denoting deaths and injuries as a result of the fires caused by smoking. The data covers the Years 2002 through 2005. During the committee hearings held on March 7 of 2005, I testified that a smoking ban like the one proposed by this legislation has worked in other places. There are six states which now have smoking bans. California, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island 9 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 prohibit smoking in most in-door public places; including bars, restaurants, and indoor workplaces. Most recently, the State of New Jersey has enacted legislation banning smoking in public places; however, casinos are exempt. At the municipal level, a case study of what occurred in New York City provides a model to review. 7 percent. Employment in this sector had increased by 10,600 jobs since the law's enactment. There was a net gain in active liquor licenses. These statistics, along with New York City's health and public perception results, are hard to argue with. New Yorkers overwhelmingly support the law, and air quality and other benefits for the health of workers have been improved. The New York Times recently reported 10 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 that many of the most passionate and outspoken critics of the ban in New York City have come to agree that the doomsday predictions of negative effects simply have not come true. The local example cited in our previous testimony remains valid, as well. Smoking has been banned in all indoor spaces in the Philadelphia International Airport since April 30, 2004. 7 percent over sales during that same time period in 2003. Arguably, more people continue to choose to patronize these establishments because they are now smoke free. In reviewing the validity of various economic impact studies, the findings remain the same. Our Budget Office reviewed studies of the economic impact of smoking bans across the country and came to the following conclusion: In studies where the methodology checked out as sound, smoke-free workplace laws were shown to have neutral or positive 11 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 effects on business. Further, they found that tobacco- or restaurant-industry-funded studies were most often based on perception of impact, rather than actual tax or employment data. Universally, these studies indicated a negative impact. In short, there is no 9 credible evidence that smoking bans have a negative impact on business and business development.

Finally, I remain firm in the belief that legislation which reduces the number of opportunities to smoke in turn reduces the amount of opportunities to have a fire caused by smoking. We in the Philadelphia Fire Department support this legislation and will continue to educate the citizens on the effects of smoking and the dangers associated with smoking. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you very 12 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 much. (Applause.)

We will have all the presentations, then open the floor to questions. Mrs. Paris.

Good morning, Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services. I am Carmen Paris, Interim Public Health Commissioner. And I am pleased to present testimony today in support of Bill 14 060050, which would amend Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code by adding a section 16 prohibiting smoking in public places and workplaces. The harmful effects of tobacco smoke are well known and exposure to tobacco smoke is clearly a public health issue. I would like to address some of these effects and provide an overview of the department's tobacco control program. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the 13 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 United States. It is responsible for 53,000 deaths annually from heart disease, lung cancer, and sudden unexplained infant death. Exposure to secondhand smoke is also linked to asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, breast cancer, and macular degeneration. Tobacco smoke contains several thousand chemicals, including more than 50 that have been proven to be causes of cancer. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogenic, meaning it is a definite cause of cancer and that there is no safe level of exposure to it. Philadelphia Tobacco Control Program coordinates a variety of efforts to control the use of tobacco through smoking cessation classes, public awareness campaigns, youth counter-marketing activities, and illegal sales enforcement programs. Cessation programs are offered for persons in every city zip code, at eight city health centers, and in several of the neighborhood nursing centers operated by the 14 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 National Nursing Center Consortium. There are cessation classes for youth, Spanish speakers, men, women, pregnant women, and persons in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning community. Public awareness campaigns are offered in a variety of languages, including Chinese, Cambodian, Korean, and Vietnamese, and are targeted to those communities known to have high tobacco use. A youth enforcement program is conducted in conjunction with the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Health Promotion Council conducting compliance checks for illegal tobacco sales and educating merchants of tobacco products about the city's tobacco sales law. These initiatives help us realize our goals of increasing awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, reducing the number of individuals who smoke, and reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. Smoke free legislation protects not 15 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 only persons who are customers of bars, restaurants, and other businesses, but it also protects the employees who must breathe dangerous secondhand smoke in their workplaces on a daily basis. The risk of dying of lung cancer for bartenders and waitresses in establishments that allow smoking is one and a half to two times greater than it will be in smoke-free establishments. Regular exposure to secondhand smoke, such as that found in smoky bars and restaurants, increases by 50 percent the odds of suffering of a stroke. Exposure to secondhand smoke also causes specific concern for the health of pregnant women who work through their pregnancies in smoke-filled environments. Exposure to secondhand by pregnant women is known to contribute to miscarriages, premature birth, low birth weight, and SUID. S. resulting solely from secondhand smoke exposures is nearly $5 16 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 billion, compounding the spiraling cost of healthcare insurance we are all familiar with. Having smoke-free legislation is also an issue of social justice. Most of us here today work in places where smoking is prohibited. In the United States, 76 percent of white-collar workers are covered by smoke-free policies, compared to only 52 percent of blue-collar workers and 43 percent of food service workers.

Exposure of these workers to secondhand smoke is nearly four times the work site exposure of white-collar employees. Clearly, everyone should have their right to breathe clean air where they work. Prohibiting smoking in the workplace can have an immediate and dramatic positive impact on the health of workers and patrons in Philadelphia by protecting them from the dangers of secondhand smoke. A 2005 study conducted in the Chicago area showed that restaurants and bars located in smoke-free jurisdictions have 82 17 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 percent less indoor air pollution than similar establishments in jurisdictions without smoke-free legislation. The more we can do to prevent smoking in the first instance, and to encourage smokers to quit, the better the health of individuals and the health of the community in general will be. Establishment of the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law will be a significant action that will clearly help the Department of Public Health reach its goals of increasing awareness of the harmful effects of smoking, reducing tobacco use, and lessening exposure to secondhand smoke for Philadelphians. Thank you so very much for the opportunity to present testimony on this very important issue. )

Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate your coming. And now we will hear from Ms. Mathew 18 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 from the School District of Philadelphia.

Dear Councilwoman Tasco, the School District of Philadelphia supports Bill 060050 because of the devastating effects of smoking and secondhand smoke on our school children. Asthma has far surpassed epidemic proportions amongst Philadelphia's youth. The School District of Philadelphia has screened over 15,000 school children, and as much as 12 to 27 percent of those children have screened 13 positive for asthma. 14 Asthma is the leading cause of 15 school absenteeism, loss of play time and 16 participation in physical activity, emergency 17 room visits, and prescribed drug therapy in 18 children. 19 Many parents miss work to care for 20 their asthmatic children. It represents a 21 tremendous economic drain on our schools and 22 prevents children from achieving academically. 23 Overall, it is severely affecting the quality of life for over one-quarter of young Philadelphians. 19 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Our data also shows that those children with asthma are actually more likely to experiment with smoking and to live with smokers be themselves. Our youth are increasingly targeted for cigarette marketing and smoke-free laws have been shown to discourage youth from taking up smoking. With one law, we can make a significant contribution to lowering youth smoking rates and improving the health climate for asthmatic youth in our city. Smoke-free legislation not only protects our workers, but sends a strong message to our youth that discourages smoking. By passing Bill 060050 and making Philadelphia 100 smoke free, we are improving the lives and futures of our children. Thank you.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Let me recognize Councilman Goode and Councilman 20 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Ramos, and we will soon be joined by Council Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman Kenney, who are attending a funeral. The Chair now recognizes any Council member for questions or comments. I want to thank you all for coming. I want to ask the Commissioner, Fire Commissioner, you talked about the airport having gone smoke free in 2004, and you talked about the revenue in the bars and restaurants have increased. How do you come to that conclusion? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, we see that the revenue that was generated had to come from people who stopped -- going through the airport, made a decision that they could stop and eat in a restaurant where they see a smoke-free environment, where they can stop and sit. Many of them may have children with them, and they make decisions based on that. I know when I travel, I make decisions based on what the environment is. I don't sit -- my daughter has 21 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 asthma, so I know what it is like with an asthmatic child, and those nights in the hospital. And it is important for me to make decisions that are based on what her needs are, as well as what environment I want to control. I can control my home and my car, and I strictly control those environments. The other environments, we need help with.

Okay. Ms. Mathew, we thank you for your comments about the students and asthma exposure to smoke. Now, we know that they are not going into the bars. They may go into some of the restaurants. I want to be clear that this bill 18 does not prevent people from smoking in their homes, although we do support the campaign for people to stop smoking. But this is only to encourage nonsmoking in public venues and restaurants.

Right.

Any other questions? 22 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Thank you so much for your comments. We have gone through this before, so I don't think we need a whole lot of dialogue. This is the second round on this bill. And I will say that it is the original bill that Councilman Nutter introduced before, and we have gone back to the original bill. Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate the information you provided. You have been very helpful. Thank you. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Thank you for the opportunity. (Applause.)

We now have another panel, Kris Minot, Philadelphia Health Management Corporation; Ann Rappoport, Kids Around Town and Wilson Middle School Students. We will call the students later. Let me know when they are here. Robert Santiago, Concilio; Nicholas Torres, Congreso; Gerald Wright, Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Collision; Michael Walker, Urban League of Philadelphia; Jill 23 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Mumie, restaurant owner; and Greg Walsh, Ogontz Grill and Chestnut Hill Grill. While the others are coming, we will ask Ms. Minot to make her presentation.

Good morning. My name is Kristen Minot. I am a senior research associate at Philadelphia Health Management corporation. And I am here to give testimony today about the health of Philadelphia residents, particularly those of working age, say between and 64 years. 13 Although cigarette smoking has 14 decreased substantially both nationally and in 15 Philadelphia over the past 20 years by about 16 almost 40 percent, the effects of tobacco use 17 and secondhand smoke remain major causes of 18 preventable disease. The data that I will be presenting here today are from a telephone survey of more than 10,000 households in Southeastern Pennsylvania that has been conducted by Philadelphia Health Management Corporation since 1983, and every two years since 1994. More than 4,000 Philadelphia 24 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 households participate in this survey, and the interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The survey addresses many topics in addition to health status, including access and barriers to care, insurance, and health behaviors. Today I will be talking a bit about the results of the survey that was conducted during the summer of 2004. And, hopefully, I will have some visuals so you can see it, too. So to start, on a positive note, the first question in the survey asks, would you say that your health in general is excellent, good, fair, or poor. The majority of working-age adults in Philadelphia do report that their health is either excellent or good. That's the good news. However, many adults have a chronic health condition that requires regular medical care. Nearly one out of four adults in Philadelphia have a chronic health condition; and these include asthma, diabetes, and high 25 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 blood pressure, which I will talk a little bit more about. Adults in Philadelphia are, however, despite the fact that the majority are in excellent or good health, they are more likely, compared to adults in the surrounding suburban counties, to report health problems. Can you just move that forward a little. Differences between the percentage of adults with a chronic health condition are not that different between Philadelphia and the four surrounding suburban counties. But if you look at the actual chronic conditions that people report, adults in Philadelphia are less likely to report allergies and more likely to report that they have asthma. Nearly 15 percent of working-age adults in Philadelphia have asthma or have had asthma at one point in their lives; nearly 10 percent of adults have diabetes; and nearly 20 percent have high blood pressure. This is compared to much lower results in the BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 surrounding suburban counties. Asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Furthermore, when we examine the same health status indicators for African-American and Latino results in Philadelphia, the percentages are even higher. These disparities are particularly important to consider in this discussion of exposure to tobacco smoke because African-Americans and Latinos are often employed in the food-service industry and, therefore, more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke. So if we look at Philadelphia adults who report that their health is fair or poor, we see that, although the majority of African-American and Latino adults in Philadelphia are in excellent or good health, compared to 17 percent of white adults, 30 percent of African-American adults and 35 percent of Latino adults report that their health is only fair or poor. These percentages represent an 27 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 estimated 113,000 African-Americans and nearly 28,000 Latinos between and 64 years of age 4 living in Philadelphia. 5 African-American adults are more 6 likely to have asthma. 17 percent. And both 7 African-American and Latino adults have higher 8 than average rates of diabetes. 6 percent of whites.

13 High blood pressure is also reported 14 by 30 percent of African-American adults of 15 working age and one out of five Latino adults. 16 Many of the health problems and 17 health disparities reported among Philadelphia 18 residents are exacerbated by tobacco use and/or exposure to secondhand smoke. Among those who choose to smoke, restrictions on indoor smoking can also have benefits. National estimates of the smoking prevalence in different occupations reveals that employees of eating and drinking places have the second-highest smoking rates of any 28 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 workers. Nationwide nearly 40 percent of workers in the food and beverage industry smoke cigarettes; however, that means that also 60 percent of workers do not. Workers in the food and beverage industry have also been less likely than persons who work in other settings to work in places that prohibit or restrict smoking. For those who smoke, laws that prohibit or restrict smoking have been shown to lead to less tobacco consumption and also increased cessation among workers who smoke. Simply said, workers who work in smoke-free environments smoke less; and these environments help them to quit, if they choose to do so. In summary, the data presented here reveals that, although the majority of working-age adults in Philadelphia are in good health, many are only in fair or poor health and suffer from chronic health problems; including, asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure. These problems are more pronounced 29 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 among African-American and Latino residents, who frequently work in the food-service industry. Since we know that exposure to secondhand smoke has negative effects on both adults and children, eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace is healthier for both nonsmokers and smokers. The health of those who smoke can also benefit from these laws because they would be likely to smoke less and receive encouragement to quit; therefore, eliminating secondhand smoke in indoor public places is a major step forward to a healthier Philadelphia. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. (Applause.)

Mr. Santiago, Concilio.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Juan. My name is Roberto Santiago, and I am the Executive Director of the Council of Spanish-Speaking 30 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Organization, the oldest Latino social service organization in Philadelphia. I have come today before this committee to testify in favor of the passage of the Clean Indoor Air Workers Protection, otherwise known as Bill 060050. This is a piece of legislation that, if passed, will place Philadelphia within the ranks of a growing number of world-class cities, such as, Houston and San Francisco and New York City, adapting similar measures for the benefit of its citizens. Part of the mission of the organization I represent is to ensure that the wellness of the community we serve. It is based on that principle that I am here today asking you to approve this bill. We firmly and sincerely believe that regardless of age, race, and social status, each and every worker in the city has the undeniable right to breathe clean air and unpolluted air. We also believe that this right is dishonored whenever a person working in a 31 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 restaurant, factory, office, warehouse, shop, or any other enclosed place is forced to endure the smoke emanating from someone else's cigarette. I am not going to talk about the number of people who each year died in the United States as a result of exposure of tobacco products. It is just worth mentioning that, a few weeks ago, we all learned that Dana Reeve, the wife of actor Christopher Reeve, died after unsuccessfully battling lung cancer. She wasn't even a smoker. There are thousands of human beings who die anonymously each year, unlike Dana, from smoke-related illnesses. Many others have to endure life with breathing difficulties, like the thousands of Philadelphia's children. Before you, elected members of the Council, is a possibility of giving the gift of clean air to future generations of Philadelphians. I invite you to vote for it with a 32 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 yes. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Mr. Torres, since you are there.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Let me begin by thanking you, Councilwoman Tasco, acknowledging Juan Ramos, for your efforts to prioritize Philadelphia smoke-free legislation and for recognizing the devastating health implications public smoking has for this city.

Would you identify yourself, please, for the record.

I am Nicholas Torres, president of, Congreso de Latinos Unidos, the largest Latino health, education, social service, and workforce development community nonprofit agency in the State of Pennsylvania. And on behalf of the over 24,000 clients that we serve on an annual basis, 70 percent of whom are Latino, 24 percent whom are African-American, I am honored to be here 33 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 today to emphasize the critical need for their protection from public and workforce environmental tobacco smoke. Latinos represent between to 6 percent of the city's population, but 7 represent 20 percent of the food-service 8 industry employees. 9 Food-service employment leads to a 10 160 to 200 percent greater chance of lung 11 cancer deaths in restaurants and to times 12 that amount in bars. These employees spend eight hours a day in smoke-filled, enclosed rooms, where they inhale 4,000 different types of chemicals from smoke and 69 different types of carcinogens. Many citizens of Philadelphia have spent time either in bars and restaurants, where the 76 percent of us who are nonsmokers have been exposed to secondhand smoke, leading to 26,000 new cases of asthma every year, 150,000 cases of respiratory tract infections and the secondmost preventable cause of death. One could only imagine what this 34 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 looks like for the workers who diligently serve us our drinks, clean our tables, and prepare our food. It is these same workers, percent who are Latino and 12 percent who are African-American, who spend eight hours a day with little ventilation, who continue to be underinsured, underrepresented, and suffer far more health effects than their counterparts. Latinos and African Americans have disproportionally high rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer than other ethnicities in Philadelphia. As a representative of this population, Congreso cannot remain silent and allow preventable health problems, that are exacerbated by lawful public and workforce smoking, to continue to plague the community. We also believe that this smoking ban will motivate current smokers to quit, as it has in other cities and states, because the convenience of it will severely be altered. It is of great importance to us at Congreso, where over two-thirds, 64.7, of 35 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Latinos in our home zip code of 19133 report that they smoke. Latinos throughout the entire city report the highest rate of smoking among any ethnic group, 31.8 percent versus a city average of 25.9 percent. These numbers have drastic implications for public health, quality of life, and for the future and current rising costs of this country's Medicaid, Medicare, and public assistance crisis. Currently over two-thirds of Congreso's constituents who have insurance receive some kind of government-assisted medical plan. Congreso is designated to work with the members of City Council in the campaign for a smoke-free Philadelphia. Congreso recently received a grant from the American Legacy Foundation to begin a smoking cessation program targeting pregnant women. Our future plans include the incorporation of cessation counseling and 36 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 assistance into all case-management services. The passing of the proposed bill 4 will have a tremendous impact on our success with cessation and reduction efforts in the community by supplementing our actions with law. On behalf of Congreso de Latinos Unidos, and its constituency, I thank you for the opportunity to articulate our support of Councilwoman Tasco's bill and the positive health implications it will have for the underserved Latino population. Thank you

Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Good morning, Councilwoman Tasco and good morning to all Council Members present. My name is Gerald Wright. I am the Director of Community Services For the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition. The population that we serve is primarily African-American, but it includes all who are in need in Philadelphia. 37 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 You may know that the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition is a multi-facetted, nonprofit organization, and has provided services to residents of the greater Philadelphia region for 35 years. GPUAC has focused on bringing business, community, government, and stakeholders together to form partnerships that help solve problems. In very broad terms, our target population is people who live in the various neighborhoods of Philadelphia who are low income and need assistance in a variety of areas to improve the quality of their lives. One area that has been proven to impact on the quality of life of our target population is nicotine addiction and secondhand smoke, meaning smoke exhaled by a smoker and that which is the result of a burning cigarette, pipe, or cigar tobacco. The Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition has put anti-smoking in the forefront since the Year 2000 by surveying community members and research at that time. 38 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 This survey resulted in a published report empowering minority communities to reduce the incidence and impact of smoking. As a result of that survey, GPUAC has advocated for smoke-free workplaces, as well as increase in community efforts, while developing strategies to combat tobacco use, especially smoking. In addition, GPUAC has implemented Partners For a Healthier Community, Let's Clear The Air, and YOACAP, which is a project of GPUAC, and has become the coordinating group for Philadelphia BUSTED, which is the statewide effort developed and implemented by youth. YOACAP under GPUAC adopted a peer education model for use in Philadelphia's middle and high schools called Teens Against Tobacco Use, TATU. Also, YOACAP worked in conjunction with the Attic and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to develop three commercials that were created by youth. The commercials were aired by Comcast. The response from the communities 39 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 has been positive, and we really want to emphasize that. GPUAC has provided smoking awareness and education to thousands of individuals in community settings through a network of organizations. In addition, GPUAC has provided smoking cessation, quit smoking efforts, since October 2003. Our experience suggests that people, smokers and nonsmokers, are looking for help with the smoking problem. Smokers and nonsmokers approach our staff with favorable feedback about presentations. Even smokers are shocked to learn that there are 4,000 chemicals produced when a cigarette is burned, and they are even more surprised to learn that about 69 of those chemicals are recognized as cancer-causing agents. Further, after contacting thousands of individuals and groups, only positive remarks have been provided to us by those 40 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 individuals and groups. To date, no individual or group that we have spoken with directly has been hostile or expressed opposition to the need for people to stop smoking to improve their health. Smokers and nonsmokers alike have been receptive to our message to quit smoking or to encourage people not to start. For every eight smokers that die from the effects of their own tobacco use, one nonsmoker also dies from the effects of breathing in someone else's smoke, according to the Pennsylvania Alliance to Control Tobacco. A study published June 2005 in the online journal, BMC Pediatrics, found that a pregnant woman's exposure to secondhand smoke can be harmful to her fetus, causing permanent genetic mutations, as if the woman herself was a smoker.

The CDC has warned persons with heart disease to avoid indoor settings where smoking is allowed because of the risk that even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke 41 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 can cause -- can trigger heart attacks, according to Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Without taking much more of your time, I want to just read a couple of facts from Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Kentucky's College of Nursing and Gatton College of Business and Economics of the Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky comprehensive smoke-free law that took effect April 27, 2004, found that, in general, selected key business indicators in Lexington restaurants, bars, and hotels have not been affected by the smoke-free law. When taking factors into account, such as, population size, unemployment, and seasonal variation, there was a slight increase in restaurant employment. Bar employment remained stable, hotel/motel employment declined in the ten months after the smoke-free law took effect. There was no effect of the smoke-free law on payroll withholding taxes, workers' earnings in restaurants, bars, hotels, or motels in the 42 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 ten months after the law went into effect, after taking seasonal variation into account. The smoke-free law was not related to business openings or closures in alcohol-serving establishments or at nonalcohol-serving establishments. S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention found that a comprehensive smoke-free policy in El Paso, Texas, did not affect restaurant and bar revenue in the year after it took effect in January 2002. The CDC's and the Texas Department of Health's analysis found no statistically significant changes in overall restaurant and bar revenues, bar liquor sales or restaurants and bar revenue and percentage of total revenue. The latter finding refutes arguments often made by opponents of smoke-free laws that, even if bar and restaurant revenues grow after such laws take effect, they do not grow as fast as the rest of the economy. And there are a number of facts in 43 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 this document, which is also attached to my testimony, that shows that a bill such as this, if passed, does not impact on the economy of the businesses that generally argue that such a law will impact on their revenues. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify.

Thank you very much for coming. (Applause.)

Jill Mumie.

Just for the record, it is Mumie. Hello, everyone, today. Thank you for coming out. I am a little nervous, so... This is an issue that's really --

Identify yourself.

Jill Mumie. Hello. I thought we cleared that up. And I work in a restaurant. I don't own one, I am a server. So I am really just here today to represent myself and my views. And I just want to thank 44 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 everyone, especially even the opposition, you know. I might not agree with you, but I'm just really glad that everyone is here. Workers in the restaurant, bar, hospitality, entertainment industry, we're not protected from secondhand smoke. Businesses in Philadelphia will not take the step to protect their workers on their own. When I asked my employer, the general manager or the owner of Budokan, "Can you make this happen for me?" They kind of smiled and they nod and they say, "When the city passes it. I'm sure it will happen soon enough, Jill. The whole country seems to be going in that direction." So I'm here today to ask one last time. Why is this so important to me? Because I became a career server by accident. I am an artist, a daughter, a sister, a girlfriend, and I have been exposed to secondhand smoke for almost ten years now. Recently I mourned the loss of Dana Reeve, a beautiful, talented strong woman, a real woman, only 44, who died of lung cancer, 45 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 even though she was not a smoker. It was said that she had, in the course of being an entertainer, spent a lot of time, the time that I spend very similar, day after day, her time she spent in pubs, in nightclubs, in which there is a lot of cigarette smoke. Dana Reeve, her light went out. Her death comes amid a worldwide debate on the danger of passive smoking. And, as a nonsmoker, it makes me sad to think I might have put myself at risk for lung cancer by working in this environment. My peers, people who went to the same college as me, Drew University, who sat in the same classes, who ate at the same table, these people, who may not have chose this line of work, they get to breath free. So please, City Council, know this: You have the power to change the future, to protect health, to leave a legacy, so let's break some ground. In closing, I will just say, life is short, and life is very precious. And we all 46 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 have a chance to make a difference while we are here on this plant. And I am a firm believer that what makes a legacy isn't what you do for yourself, it's what you do for others. And I am really nervous right now. So I am just asking you today. Thank you, Marian Tasco, and thank you all who support this. But really asking City Council and Mayor Street, think of me when you are voting this forward, and think of all the others who need your protection. And we need you to be our voice.

Thank you very much for your testimony. (Applause.)

We appreciate it. Certainly in order to pass this legislation, you have to let your Council members know how you feel about it. The constituents of Philadelphia have to let us know how they feel about it. 47 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 So they should contact the Council members, particularly those people who live in Philadelphia, who go to restaurants and bars, and let them know how important it is, that they will not stop patronizing these establishments because they can't smoke in these establishments; that they will continue to support them and eat the wonderful food that they provide, but they would like to do it in a smoke-free environment. Now we have one of my favorites, Greg Welsh, who has opened a restaurant on Ogontz Avenue called the Ogontz Grill, in addition to owning Chestnut Hill Grill. But, we appreciate your coming forth. And thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Councilwoman. My name is Gregory Welsh. I have been a businessman, entrepreneur here in the city of brotherly pay-to-play for 30 years. It is not every time that I have come in front of Council to support a position. I worked very closely many years 48 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 ago with Prince Gilliard and many others here to confront the percent liquor tax. 4 As a businessman, I need every dime 5 I can get through my doors so that I can pay 6 my taxes, especially my Business Privilege 7 Tax. 8 We own the Chestnut Grill and 9 Sidewalk Cafe in Chestnut Hill, as well as the 10 Ogontz Grill in West Oak Lane. Chestnut Grill, this is our tenth year, and the Ogontz Grill is now in its third year. We are the largest restaurant employer in the Northwestern part of the city, in excess of 200 employees. The issue of smoking is one that we have looked at carefully. And, unfortunately, too many people say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind." Well, we have tried to open our mind. And we have looked at what's going on in states around us. I have called restaurants in New York, places that employed me in the past. And we decided, we met with our staff, with 49 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 all of our staff, two restaurants, and we discussed this issue. And it was the overwhelming majority of staff that said, we support nonsmoking. And as of March the 1se of this month, we went smoke free in both of our restaurants. (Applause.)

Thanks, mom. What we discovered -- and we had statistics and numbers in front of us. The numbers showed that when independent restaurants -- we're an independent, we are not a corporation -- independent restaurants nationwide went smoke free, for the first six weeks somewhere between 5 and 8 percent of revenue dropped. Beyond that six-week period, revenues increased 12 to 15 percent. I am happy to say that we didn't notice a 6 percent -- I'm sorry, 5 percent or 8 percent decrease in our first four weeks of nonsmoking. One of the positive unintended circumstances is that our bar, which is smoke 50 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 free, now has become one long table where people enjoy eating, where we didn't have nearly as much activity for diners in the past. So if I can allay fears of some of my fellow businesspeople here, we have not lost revenue. We have, in fact, gained people that I hadn't seen for a long time who don't smoke. Granted, we did lose several people; but we have more than made it up with those who have come in to support us, to thank us, and to enjoy what product we put out in a healthy environment. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony, because it is very important to the restaurant owners and the bar owners to have some point of reference to know that you don't necessarily lose business. We went into the Ogontz Grill one night, and the dining room was closed. And 51 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 they said you can eat in the bar. And we said, no, we can't take the smoke. That was before the ban. They were kind enough to open the restaurant for us, but that's because we are local people and we live in the area. But I can see now, if we go there and the restaurant is closed, we can eat in the bar, which we enjoy. And we enjoy being in the neighborhood. So we have so many wonderful neighborhood restaurants, and I doubt seriously that we would lose any revenue when those bars go smoke free. Now we have a health advocates panel. We would like to call Dr. Walter Tsou, former Health Commissioner; Deb Brown; Gertrude DeVose; Dr. Charles Bridges; Jason Feurman; Dr. Richard Wnder; and Thurm Brendlinger. I hope I got all that right. And Marvetta Coleman, from Delta Sigma Theta, if she would like to come forward. Good morning. And thank you so much for coming. We appreciate it. We don't have a whole lot of questions, because we have been 52 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 this round before. What we want to do is just kind of update and reinforce what we talked about when we first had this hearing. And certainly there is new information on the horizon from the last hearing. And we appreciate your coming back again to provide testimony regarding this legislation. Good morning, Dr. Tsou

Good morning, Councilwoman Tasco. I am Dr. Walter Tsou, Immediate Past President of the American Public Health Association, the largest public health organization in the United States. And in 2000, when the first restriction on smoking was introduced by Councilman Nutter, I served as Health Commissioner of Philadelphia. Today I urge members of City Council to support the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law. This ordinance would prohibit smoking in almost all public workplaces in the city. 53 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Six years ago, passage of a similar bill would have placed Philadelphia on the leading edge of cities who put public health over special interests. Today we will be following the lead of almost all our surrounding neighbors who have gone smoke free, including New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. Those cities and states have had similar debates and vocal opposition, but have decided correctly that creating smoke-free workplaces and protecting the public's health was the fundamental responsibility of a legislative body. The link between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease are facts, not suppositions, noted in the Surgeon General's report as far back as 1964. The dangers of secondhand smoke have been well documented, and I will not repeat them. However, it should be obvious that the public does not want to breathe in other people's exhaled smoke in their lungs or clothing. 54 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Levels of tobacco smoke in restaurants is 60 to 100 per higher in restaurants than homes, and between 390 and 610 percent higher in bars. The studies have found chronic respiratory symptoms in more than half the restaurant workers surveyed have detected abnormally high nicotine levels in nonsmoking restaurant workers in their saliva and hair. The perceptions of whether smokers tip better do not justify exposing workers to a Class A carcinogen. In a May 2000, City Council passed Bill No. 314, authorizing the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to create a study group, Chaired by myself, to, quote, study methods of and, if deemed appropriate, develop recommendations with respect to preventing, to the greatest extent possible, secondhand smoke from drifting or recirculating from restaurant bars and indoor smoke-free areas of restaurants, unquote. We conducted the study with representatives from the health community, 55 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 hospitality community, expert witnesses from the EPA, OSHA, the police department, Licenses and Inspections, and ASHRAE, American Society of Heating Refrigeration Air-Conditioning Engineers. Our final conclusion from the report, quote, the least expensive method of preventing drifting of smoke is to eliminate it from the entire indoor restaurant environment, unquote. In short, ventilation systems cannot create smoke-free environments. We presented this report to this Council on November 1, 2000. The American Public Health Association, who hosts the largest public health convention in the world, recognizes the hypocrisy in promoting public health and not supporting smoke-free cities. We have scheduled to come back to Philadelphia in 2009, bringing millions of dollars to the city. However, we have passed a policy that we will only hold our convention in a city that is smoke free. And we believe and will encourage other health-related conventions to adopt 56 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 similar policies in the future. (Applause.)

Government has a responsibility to steer us in the right direction. Those cities and states that have gone smoke free have heard the same predictions of doom from restaurant and bar owners in their communities. And, contrary to those naysayers, the facts are the sales have increased and not decreased. Furthermore, Philadelphia, like every city, is being buried by the cost of healthcare. We have a chance to take an important step in addressing the number one modifiable risk factor for healthcare costs, smoking. Every health organization and the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce have gone on record in support of a smoke-free Philadelphia. The Mayor has publicly stated his support. It is time for us to do what the majority of Philadelphians want, fresh air 57 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 with their dinner. Thank you. (Applause.)

My name is Deborah Brown, and I am here representing the American Lung Association. The American Lung Association supports Bill No. 060050, introduced by Councilwoman Marian Tasco. This bill will help protect all Philadelphians from toxic pollutants of secondhand smoke and make Philadelphia the next smoke-free city. The American Lung Association has championed clean indoor air legislation for many years. As you already know, secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens. It is a proven cause of heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and many other serious diseases. Secondhand smoke is a strong respiratory irritant. For many people with asthma, secondhand smoke is a trigger. Individuals who have asthma may see their condition worsen by walking into a room where 58 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 smoking is permitted, or the smoky odor on a person's clothing skin or hair. For these individuals, each time they are exposed to secondhand smoke, in many cases not by their choice, they are risking their life. Asthma and exposure to secondhand smoke affects racial and socioeconomic groups disproportionately. Asthma is found in all populations, but culturally diverse groups experience the disease at higher rates, particularly African-Americans and Latinos. According to the American Lung Association's lung disease data in culturally diverse communities, African-Americans have the highest prevalence of asthma of any racial ethnic group, while Latinos may have a higher death rate from the disease. Traditionally certain racial and ethnic groups are overexposed to occupational respiratory hazards because they are more likely to be employed in industries that have been associated with lung disease. Occupational asthma is the most 59 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 prevalent occupational lung disease in the United States, with approximately percent 4 of asthma cases due to occupational exposure, 5 which includes working in the hospitality 6 industry. 7 Exposure is also significantly 8 higher for individuals who live below the 9 poverty level and for those that have a lower 10 educational level. 11 Secondhand smoke is especially 12 harmful to children with asthma, who are at 13 the mercy of their parents and often have no 14 choice but to enter facilities where smoking 15 is permitted. The EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1 million asthmatic children's exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition. It may also be responsible for 8,000 to 26,000 new cases of asthma in children each year. Children with asthma require more medicines, have more emergency room visits, and lower lung function, all taxing our healthcare system. 60 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Studies have shown that secondhand smoke may be a major factor in the development of asthma in children under years. 5 The Lung Association is not the only supporter of this bill. We also know that the general public overwhelmingly supports a ban on smoking in the workplaces and public places. 2005 survey by the Pennsylvania Alliance to Control Tobacco found that 76 percent of Philadelphians want smoke-free workplaces. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up for the right thing. The American Lung Association asks the Mayor and Philadelphia City Council to be courageous and take a leadership role in passing Bill 060050. Each day without this law is one more opportunity lost to save another Philadelphian, another family member, another loved one from the potentially deadly effects of secondhand smoke. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very 61 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 much. Just let me recognize Councilman Kenney, who was here. We have established a quorum for this committee for the purposes of any future votes. I would like to say that, for the record. We thank you for your testimony. And need your support to contact the Council members and the Mayor. This is the Mayor's bill. Next. MS. GERTRUDE DeVOSE: My name is Gertrude DeVose, and I am a volunteer with the American Lung association of Pennsylvania, and I am an asthmatic. As an asthmatic, cigarette smoke is one of my biggest enemies. I am fortunate, in that none of my family members, no one living in my household, smoke. I am also blessed that the people that I spend most of my time with at work, at church, recreationally, such as family, friends, and associates, do not smoke. I encounter the greatest threat to 62 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 my health as it relates to secondhand smoke when I find myself in public spaces and public places that permit smoke. Asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions in the United States. I am only one of tens of thousands of Philadelphians who suffer from this disease. It is unwelcome part of my daily life, and it also leads to missed school, missed work, frequent doctor's visits, even hospitalization, occasionally death. Our quality of life is directly affected by the quality of air that we breath. Unfortunately, here in Philadelphia, asthmatics have it hard. Lacking smoke-free legislation, we continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in places that we work, visit, and dine. Secondhand smoke is the leading trigger of asthma attacks. During an asthma attack, muscles surrounding your airways constrict. Inflammation can then occur, which narrows the airways even further and, during a severe asthma attack, can cause the airways to 63 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 close entirely, preventing air flow to and from the lungs and restricting oxygen from getting to other vital organs. You gasp for breath. And when you cannot get enough air into your lungs, you begin to feel a sense of panic, similar to what it feels like when you are under water too long. It is a horrifying experience. I would like everyone to indulge me for a few minutes and to take a deep breath and inhale. Fill your lungs with air and hold it. Are you inhaling? Are you holding it? Try to release that air without opening your mouth or letting the air pass through your nostrils. Do this for as long as you can. Use your diaphragm, move your stomach up and down, but to not let the air out of your lungs. Do this until you begin to feel a sense of panic, until you begin to feel light-headed and your heart begins to race. Keep holding the air trapped in your lungs until you feel as if you are going to pass out or like you are going to die. 64 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 I don't want anybody here to die today, so you can now exhale. You have a choice, but asthmatics like myself do not have a choice. This is the best example that I can give you of what it feels like to have an asthma attack. You can breathe without thinking about it. Asthmatics, we don't have a choice. Asthmatics' condition is made worse by secondhand smoke. We do not have a choice. There are times when we find ourselves in confined, closed spaces, where we are forced to breathe in secondhand smoke. For some of us, this results in a trip to the ER, a stay in the hospital where we may experience around-the-clock visits from the nursing staff where we have to incur breathing treatments, steroids administered intravenously, the nursing staff waking us up every three hours for us to pop some pills or for them to take some blood. This was my experience when I was first diagnosed as being an asthmatic as an adult 13 years ago. Thankfully, my asthma is 65 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 now under control.

It is upsetting, though, that, when I go out for dinner with family and friends, we have to insist on a table in a smoke-free section as far away from the smoking section 7 as possible. This usually results in a longer wait for a table. A night out with friends must include figuring out whether the chosen spot is smoke free; and, if it is not, are we willing it wait for a table to open up in a smoke-free section. Or, on the other hand, maybe we even have to change our plans and go somewhere elsewhere we are allowed to eat in peace. If I want to eat at a certain establishment, I will risk it and take a seat in a nonsmoking section, but we all know that smoke does not stay in its section. There are so many wonderful places in the City of Philadelphia that I hope to be able to patronize some day, without the fear of encountering secondhand smoke. If the argument not to ban 66 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 secondhand smoke in public spaces is to preserve the rights of individuals who do not smoke, what about the rights of the nonsmokers who are, in fact, in the vast majority? And what about improving the health of all Philadelphians, not just those of us who suffer from chronic respiratory conditions? Everyone should have the right to breathe clean air. This is critical for so many of us who live and work in the city. And I asked all of you to take this important step forward and make Philadelphia the next great smoke-free city. Thank you. )

Next.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. My name is Dr. Charles Bridges. I am Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Pennsylvania Hospital and Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania. I am former member of the American 67 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Heart Association, Southeast Pennsylvania Region Board of Directors. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the American Heart Association in strong support of City Council Bill No. 060050. As a heart surgeon here in Philadelphia, I have seen firsthand the negative health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke. I cannot overemphasize that this bill is about public health. It is critical to save lives and ensure that restaurant and bar workers, patrons, children, people with heart diseases, and all Philadelphians avoid the health problems that result from secondhand smoke exposure. Secondhand smoke contains at least 4,000 chemicals, including more than 70 known carcinogens, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is responsible for more than 38,000 deaths in the United States each year. Secondhand smoke has long been associated with heart disease because of 68 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 tobacco smoke's overall effect on the cardiovascular system. Inhalation of tobacco smoke causes blood vessels to contract, limiting blood flow throughout the body, particularly limiting blood flow to the heart. This reduces a person's oxygen supply, damages arteries, lowers the good, or HDL, cholesterol, and increases the risk of blood clotting. Those exposed to secondhand smoke are more than 80 percent more likely to suffer a stroke, and even occasional exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of developing heart disease by 60 percent. Because of the risks that even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger heart attacks, the CDC has advised persons with heart disease to avoid settings where smoking is allowed. And I want to emphasize this point. Because the problem is that a lot of people who have heart disease don't know they have heart disease. More than half of heart attacks occur in people who have no known 69 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 history of heart disease. It comes as a shock. Therefore, at least half of the people who are going to have heart attacks don't know that they have heart disease, and the CDC would recommend that they avoid settings where smoking is allowed. The best way to protect those people is to enact smoke-free legislation. When you think of people with heart disease, the image that I am sure comes to mind is one of a middle-aged or older person. Heart disease more and more affects younger people, including children. One of the risk factors that young people developing heart disease have is related to an alarming increase in the prevalence of obesity. What does this have to do with today's hearing on a smoking ban? A study released in August of last year showed that adolescents who are exposed to tobacco smoke are at increased risk of something called the metabolic syndrome; the 70 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 syndrome that leads to severe forms of heart disease, including stroke and heart attacks. The metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions that increase cardiovascular risk. The syndrome often develops in childhood and is associated with insulin resistance, a disorder in which the body can't use insulin effectively. In teens, the metabolic syndrome primarily strikes those who are overweight, or a group that is at risk for obesity, and that group has tripled in size in the last two decades. The research available indicates that this is a growing segment of our nation's youth uniquely vulnerable to the development of this syndrome and to premature cardiovascular disease and diabetes. This research found that a youth was almost five times as likely to develop the metabolic syndrome, if exposed routinely to secondhand smoke.

This study is the first to show a link between tobacco exposure and the metabolic syndrome in this age group. 71 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 There is also new information about a study that builds on some information that I testified on last year, when I had the privilege to address Council about this issue. The study was done in Helena, Montana. The researchers found that hospital admissions for heart attacks fell by 40 percent during the six months that a smoke-free workplace law was implemented. The number quickly returned to its previous level after the law was struck down in court. More recently, a similar study in Pueblo, Colorado, was performed. A goal of this study was to see whether the study findings of in Helena were unique to that community, or if they could be the basis of broader evidence that links smoke-free ordinances to a reduction in heart attacks. Pueblo is a community of about 104,000, located 110 miles south of Denver. The city passed its smoke-free law in 2003, restricting smoking in businesses, indoor areas, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, bingo halls, et cetera. 72 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 This study was released earlier this year and showed that heart attacks in Pueblo, Colorado, dropped by 27 percent after enacting the smoking ban. Researchers evaluated the number of heart attacks during a three-year period, including the year and a half prior to the smoke-free air act and the year and a half subsequent to the act and, again, found a 27 percent decrease. In the year before the smoking ban, there were 399 heart attacks in Pueblo, Colorado; in the year after, there were 290 heart attacks. A reduction, again, of 27 percent. This represents several million dollars in healthcare costs, not including the ancillary costs of missed work and loss of livelihood and other personal impacts. This is remarkable, to see a 30 or 40 percent decrease. This is not a trivial finding in heart attacks. And the reason it is so dramatic is because, again, many of the people who have 73 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 heart disease don't know they have heart disease, so that they are exposed to secondhand smoke. When we enter a smoke-filled room, many of us think of it as an annoyance. Unfortunately, for some of us it may be the triggering event that leads to a fatal heart attack that we had no way of predicting was about to occur. The bottom line is simple. First, the study from Pueblo, Colorado, confirms that we can look forward to a significant decline in hospital admissions for heart attacks following the institution of a comprehensive indoor smoke-free ordinance. It not only reinforces the Helena findings, but it shows that, using improved methodology, those findings are consistent. And it supports similar studies elsewhere indicating that the health benefits of uniform smoke-free laws aren't just theoretical; they are real and immediate. Smoke-free ordinances have the potential to rapidly improve the public's 74 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 health and save lives through a substantial reduction in the number of heart attacks. Please remember that this is a public health issue, and a person's actions cannot and should not impede another's right to remain healthy. The time to act is now. It is incumbent upon you as lawmakers of this city to protect the public welfare. Secondhand smoke kills. We must protect the workers of this city who are exposed to secondhand smoke simply because they need to earn an honest living. Their rights must be protected. Their rights must be protected. To ignore this issue or to try to obfuscate the issue, citing economic concerns in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the health risks involved, would be irresponsible. The evidence suggests, in fact, that the economic fortunes of the city are likely to prosper, not suffer, under smoke-free legislation, as some would have you believe. 75 BILL NO. , with clean indoor air laws that protect their citizens' health.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions. )

Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Kenney has a question for you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony. I was wondering if you have an opinion on the bill's exception, allowing for smoking in cigar bars, specialty tobacco establishments, and tobacco distribution businesses, and do you think the health of those employees are equally at risk?

Yes, I do. I mean, from the point of view of the employees, there 76 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 is no question. The only difference is that the people who patronize those establishments are likely to be people who smoke, and have done that willingly and knowingly; in contrast to people who are in restaurants and other areas. But, as far as the employees themselves, the same things that I said earlier pertain in terms of their own protection for their health benefit.

So there is really no justification for the carve-out?

Well, you know --

No medical or health justification.

No medical justification, no. 19

Thank you.

Good morning, Councilwoman Tasco and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. My name is Dr. Richard Wender, and I come before you to testify wearing, actually, two hats. I am Chair of the Department of 77 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Family and Community Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, just a few blocks from here. But in November of this year, I will also be the National President of the American Cancer Society. So I come testifying on behalf of our millions of volunteers and staff, as well. There is simply no controversy, serious controversy, about the health effects of secondhand smoke. In my view, and the view of the American Cancer Society, we should not be engaging in a debate about how many deaths are acceptable number of deaths. We believe that even one premature death that is due to secondhand smoke, a factor that is completely within our control in public places, is simply too many. So the only reason that Philadelphia has not already acted to enact a ban on smoking in public places is the concern about its business implications. But the central aspect of my testimony today is to say that the business implication landscape is changing 78 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 dramatically, and you heard about it just a moment ago from Dr. Tsou. Just a few years ago, a major meeting on tobacco control was scheduled to come to Washington, D.C. And, at an international meeting, somebody raised their hand and said, "We will not go to Washington, D.C., we recommend, because it is not a smoke-free city." So it was not a coincidence that the smoke-free initiative in Washington all of the sudden got a lot of momentum, because they were facing losing a meeting of thousands of individuals from all around the world. You heard just a moment ago about the decision of the Public Health Association to no longer take its major meetings to cities that have not enacted a smoking ban. And I can tell you today that, as we speak, the American Cancer Society is currently considering the same policy, where we will no longer take our national meetings to those cities that either their states or they themselves have not enacted this type of 79 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 legislation. So the business implications of a smoking ban really, to date, even different from when we last met to debate this issue, have changed dramatically and will continue to do so. I have no doubt in my mind, as Dr. Tsou indicated, that the other major public health organizations will follow suit. All of us in the healthcare industry of Philadelphia are very proud of our city. We want our colleagues to visit this city and to enjoy our entertainment, our culture, food, and our drink in all public places. And as they do that, we want them to be able to breathe Philadelphia's sweet, clean, healthy, smoke-free air. (Applause.)

So please vote to maintain our status as a world-class city and to create an environment that all Philadelphians and everyone who visits our wonderful home can saving enjoy. Thank you. (Applause.) 80 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I don't want to lose any business here. We are trying to build a new convention center. That would be terrible. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. My name is Jason Feurman. I am the President of Elder Health, a large Medicare HMO here in Philadelphia and a former Board member of the American Heart Association, Southeastern Pennsylvania Region. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you briefly why I support this bill 18 and why everyone must remember that this is a public health issue. Cardiovascular disease and stroke can strike without warning whenever and wherever. It can strike the young and old alike. It can strike those who have risk factors and those who have no risk factors. I should know. I had no risk 81 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 factors. My life changed, however, one evening in a parking lot of 30th Street here in Philadelphia. While trying to get into my car and drive home, I suddenly lost feeling in the left side of my body, became confused, disoriented, and started to slur my speech. I soon recognized that I was having a stroke. Doctors later discovered that I had a congenital heart defect, which may have caused my stroke, and I ended up having to have open-heart surgery to correct it. Today I am a father, a husband, and a stroke survivor. Earlier today you have heard about the medical studies detailing the health effects of secondhand smoke on people with cardiovascular disease. Please do not view this testimony as dry medical information or statistics done in a vacuum. These studies reflect the real threat that secondhand smoke can have on people with cardiovascular diseases. These studies reflect a real threat that secondhand smoke can have on me and that they can have on 82 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 you. Given my medical history, I don't know for sure what will trigger for me another medical event, but I have known that secondhand smoke adversely affects a person's cardiovascular system and has recently been shown to be a trigger for those cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke, for which not only I am susceptible, but, trust me, we are all susceptible. The CDC has advised patients at risk for heart disease to avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking. The CDC research has also reiterated an earlier U.S. Surgeon General statement that much of this important health risk is preventable by the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free policies. So, like most rational people, I will not place my family in harm's way. That means I won't go to a restaurant or establishment where smoking is permitted, and I try to avoid having to go through the smoke that you find around the entrances of many 83 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 buildings, especially here in Center City. I am asking this Council, which has enabled the City of Philadelphia to regulate other public health issues by addressing lead poisoning, abating rat infestation, establishing protocols in flu vaccines, and controlling asbestos, to keep all Philadelphians out of harm's way by addressing the public health issue of secondhand smoke in passing this bill. It is time for Philadelphia to join hundreds of other cities throughout this great country that are protecting their citizens with smoke-free laws. Your actions can save a life. Perhaps that life saved by passing this bill 18 and protecting people from the dangers of secondhand smoke will be that of a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a family member, or you or me. Thank you for your time today. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. 84 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Good morning, Chairwoman Tasco and members of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services. I am Marvetta Coleman, Co-Chair of the Social Action Committee of the Philadelphia Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, one of four chapters in the immediate Greater Philadelphia area. Our chapter membership represents more than 350 members. Our base connection and involvement extends to approximately 1,000 constituents and taxpayers. I am here today on behalf of our Chapter President, Marva Lisa Scott, and to testify in support of Bill 060050, which is to address and prohibit smoking in public places and the workplace. As an organization of predominantly African-American professional women that conducts programs and advocates for issues with economic, educational, physical and mental health, political and international impact, we give particular attention to the passage of this bill because of its potential 85 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 to impact the health of those affected, employees and patrons alike. The impacts of secondhand smoke on the quality of life and health, with both its direct and subsequent ripple effects, cannot be overlooked. Point one. Studies have found that exposure to secondhand smoke is a cause and major contributing factor to serious health diseases in adult nonsmokers and children. S. women. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer, an increased coronary heart disease risk among women who are lifetime nonsmokers. Point two. Many of the workers employed in environments affected by this ban, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, banquet halls, and catering facilities, to name a few, are women. These employees may also be among those who receive limited to no paid healthcare coverage through their employers. In fact, according to the 86 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Pennsylvania Health Status Survey, the majority of uninsured adults aged to 64 are 4 employed, with 62 percent of them working in 5 the service industry. 6 A potential ripple effect is created 7 when health problems, as a consequence of 8 secondhand smoke exposure in particular, arise 9 and yet are diagnosed at later stages. 10 These impacts become more 11 consequential when the affected employee is 12 also a parent and primary provider in the 13 household. 14 Point three. As it relates to 15 youth, a study released in the Year 2000 in 16 the Journal of the American Medical 17 Association found that results from national 18 surveys on youth smoking strongly suggest that smoke-free workplaces and homes are associated with significantly lower rates of adolescent smoking. , and 11 states, including our neighboring states of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, have passed smoke-free workplace laws that 87 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 include restaurants and bars. Two years following passage of the ban in New York, one of the most vocal opponents to the smoking ban, the head of the Staton Island Restaurant and Tavern Association, has admitted that he had seen no 8 fall-off in business for either, and that customers actually seemed to like it. 7 percent over the previous year's receipts. Locally, organizations such as the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce have voiced their support of the proposed ban. Another study has found that 75 percent of Philadelphia residents favor prohibiting smoking in the workplace and that Philadelphians are also more likely to patronize smoke-free establishments. According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, there is no known safe level of secondhand smoke exposure. Policies establishing smoke-free environments are the 88 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Mosey effective method to protect both workers and patrons from secondhand smoke exposure. And restrictions on where smoking is allowed are associated with decreased cigarette consumption.

We note that the freedom of choice, cited as a concern by some, should be available to those who are most directly impacted in these environments, employees and patrons. The proposed ban on smoking is not only good policy, it makes good social and economic sense. Thank you so much for your time this morning.

Thank you. (Applause.)

We thank you for coming down to testify, and thank Delta Sigma Theta for their social action.

Thank you very much for giving Clean Air Council the opportunity to speak to the Council committee meeting. My name is Thurman Brendlinger, 89 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Program Director of the Clean Air Council. Clean Air Council a nonprofit environmental health advocacy organization dedicated to protecting everyone's right to breathe clean air. Founded in 1967, Clean Air Council has long worked on indoor air quality issues, such as environmental hazards in the workplace. In 1982, the Council established the region's first clean indoor air pollution information center for city residents to get information about indoor air pollution issues that directly affect them and their families. Over the years, the question of how to limit the harmful effects from other people's cigarettes in workplaces, restaurants, apartments, and taxis have been a disproportionately high percentage of the calls to the information center. Philadelphia has a long and proud tradition of protecting workers; from adopting the nation's first right-to-know laws, to protecting workers from exposure to asbestos. 90 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Before City Council today is a comprehensive bill that would help the citizens of Philadelphia with this pressing health problem. Workers, as we have heard, in the hospitality industry are at particular risk from secondhand smoke. In a recent study of bars and casinos in Delaware by Researcher Jim Repace, it was determined that air in a smoky bar has up to 50 times more carcinogens than air on a busy highway. Can we really justify making people work in that kind of environment? There is no really good alternative to adopting smoke-free ordinances. In the past, attempts have been made to mitigate the secondhand smoke problem through the use of ventilation systems in bars and restaurants. The Clean Air Council had the honor of being asked by Dr. Tsou, the former Philadelphia Health Commissioner, to serve on a committee studying this issue when City Council first looked at the workplace smoking regulations. 91 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 As Dr. Tsou had indicated, the committee concluded that the ventilation technology cannot ensure the harmful components of smoke are removed from the air. This was also confirmed in June of 2005, when the American Society of Health Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers came out with a position paper stating, "No 10 other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution, ventilation, or air-cleaning technologies have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from environmental tobacco smoke exposure in places where smoking occurs." And they further concluded that they encourage elimination of smoking in the indoor environment as the optimal way to minimize environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Elimination of smoking in all workplaces has shown significant short-term health effects. A University of Wisconsin study of bar workers in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months after their City Council passed and 92 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 implemented a smoke-free ordinance in July of 2005, showed a marked decline in upper respiratory symptoms experienced by nonsmoking employees. In conclusion, Philadelphia City Council has the opportunity to lead our city with this public healthy initiative. The City of Philadelphia can join the ranks of New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., that already protect the health and well-being of its citizens, workers, and visitors. Clean Air Council urges City Council and the Mayor to take that leadership role. And we want to thank you, in particular, Councilwoman Tasco, for being a champion of a smoke-free Philadelphia. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And there are many champions on this Council for the legislation, and we just need a couple more. So we hope to have you help us get those two more. But these champions here, and they are listening to the testimony. And certainly 93 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 a lot of things have happened since we had the last hearing, certainly many more cities and states have passed legislation, information about conventions going to cities where there are clean air is very important. We have 15,000 Deltas who will be here in July and August for their convention. And they will be converging on all of these restaurants and bars, but I daresay they will probably go where there is no smoking. We thank all of you for your testimony. We thank you for taking time out of your day to share with us the information, your new documentation. Studies that have been taken and done in the last year or year and a half certainly help confirm the need to pass this legislation. Thank you very much. We have now Joe Mahoney and Denise Earley, and Mr. Robert McClure. If they are here, come forward, please. Good afternoon. Who is going first? Go ahead, Mr. Mahoney.

Good afternoon, 94 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Councilwoman Tasco and members of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services. For the record, I am Joe Mahoney, Executive Vice-President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Joining me today at the witness table is someone I know that you all know well, Denise Earley, our Director of Public Policy at the Chamber. We are pleased to testify in support of Bill 060050, banning smoking in public places. Almost one year ago to the day, as a matter of fact on March 7, 2005, I testified before this body in support of a bill to ban smoking in public places. As I stated at that time, the Chamber's decision to support the smoking ban was not entered into lightly. Several years ago the Chamber actively opposed the idea of regulating smoking based upon the cost that that legislation would have on the hospitality industry. This legislation is different. Since there are very few exceptions, 95 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 only for lodging and specialty tobacco establishments, the bill before us now puts all restaurant and tavern owners on a level playing field. Statistics are now available to disavow the predictions of doom and gloom of several years ago. New York provides us with a stunning example, as has been cited by the previous panel. 7 percent. Employment had also increased by more than 10,000 jobs. 5 percent from April 2002 to May 2004. In the 2004 Zagat at New York City Restaurant Survey, percent of 21 respondents said they were eating out more 22 often because of the smoking ban, while only 4 23 percent indicated they were eating out less. In every battle for clean indoor air, tobacco interests argue that clean indoor 96 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 air will hurt business in restaurants and bars. In every study released after the clean indoor act legislation goes into effect, data shows the opposite to be true. Rhode Island is the latest state to release figures. 2 percent over the same period in the prior year. California, Delaware, Florida, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Montana, Vermont, Washington, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have adopted comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation for workers, including restaurant and bar workers. In our neighboring State of New Jersey, the ban is effective April 15, 2006. Colorado, Utah, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are considering smoke-free decisions in the coming weeks. In November, Ohio and Arizona will hold ballot initiatives, where voters will 97 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 decide. An analysis by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, released in June 2004, found that restaurant sales were up percent one year 7 after the state's smoke-free law, which made all public places and restaurants 100 percent smoke free. It took effect in 2003. In major cities like Dallas, Texas, and Lexington, Kentucky, bar and restaurant businesses have remained stable since the implementation of their smoke-free legislation in 2003 and 2004 respectively. As America's next great city, it is about time that Philadelphia stepped up to the plate, particularly because of our city's rich medical and pharmaceutical history. The world is changing, and internationally the movement to ban or restrict smoking in public places is well underway. Ireland went smoke free in 2004, and on a recent visit my wife and I personally witnessed the robust pub business, despite the 98 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 ban. In the United Kingdom, last year the government published a bill banning smoking in enclosed public places, but private clubs and pubs where no food is served were exempt. As a matter of fact, Scotland's ban went into effect yesterday, with both Northern Ireland and England expected to follow next year. Smoking in public places is banned in Havana Cuba, as of February 2005.

Similar bans are in effect in Italy, Spain, Australia, South Korea, Norway, and a host of other countries. Finally, the health deterioration directly linked to smoking is staggering. Cigarette smoking has long been identified as a major cause of preventable death and has been factored into underwriting decision and individual risk ratings. The 2004 Surgeon General's report reiterates that over 400,000 Americans die each year as a result of cigarette smoking; and that, on average, a smoker loses about 12 99 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 to 13 years of life expectancy. S. economy nearly 10 billion dollars a year, ranging from medical bills to lost hours of work, according to a recent study commissioned by insurance actuaries. Before ending my prepared testimony on Bill 060050, I would like to inform you that I also testified before the House Health and Human Services Committee in October on House Bill 1489 proposing a statewide ban on smoking in public places. Given the above economic, health, and financial implications directly associated with smoking, I urge you to pass Bill 060050. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. )

Thank you very much. Next, Mr. McClure. MR. RICHARD McCLURE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Public Health and Human Services Committee. My name is Rich McClure, I am General Manager 100 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 of ARAMARK Tower, a 32-story office tower in Center City. I am pleased to be here in my capacity as an Executive Officer of Building Owners and Managers Association of Philadelphia, commonly referred to as BOMA, and as the Chair of the Codes and Legislative Committee, to testify on behalf of the Ordinance 060050. Kudos to Councilwoman Tasco for introducing this important piece of legislation and undertaking to see it through the legislative process. As a means of background, BOMA is a nonprofit organization whose members provide over 116 million square feet of office space for over a half a million office workers. Member buildings include virtually all major high-rise office towers in Philadelphia, including One Liberty, Commerce Square, Bell Atlantic Tower, Wanamaker Building, just to name a few. BOMA fully supports Ordinance No. 24 060050 insofar as it impacts commercial office space within the city. 101 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 On behalf of our members and member buildings, we are affirming BOMA's 2001 and 2005 support for smoke-free legislation which was presented to City Council. BOMA International, with which BOMA Philadelphia is affiliated, has a long-standing position regarding smoking; specifically, secondhand smoke does not belong in buildings. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, it is an indoor air contaminant, as well as Group A carcinogen. Removing this health threat would protect building occupants, remove significant liability concern for owners and tenants, and help improve the overall air quality in commercial buildings. Simply stated, BOMA's goal is to provide a safe and healthy work environment for our tenants and guests. I am not here to testify about the effects of smoking and secondhand smoke. Statistics regarding the impact of smoking on public health have been well represented 102 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 elsewhere. Given the mountains of evidence, I doubt anyone here could deny that smoking causes cancer. BOMA agrees that smoking is a health hazard and that secondhand smoke has no place in commercial office buildings. BOMA also recognizes that similar legislation has already been enacted in cities, in states around the country. Similar action was also taken for federal buildings under executive Order 13058, dated August 9, 1997. Similarly, many private employers in Philadelphia and elsewhere have already instituted their own smoke-free policies within their premises. All this is to say, there is currently tremendous public support for this type of legislation. Ordinance No. 060050, among other things, would enhance the common area and no-smoking policies that already in exist in office buildings throughout the city. It would also reduce the hazard of fires started by inappropriate disposal of smoking materials, aid in the improvement of 103 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 indoor air quality, potentially lead to lower healthcare costs for employers, and reduce cleaning costs for building owners and managers. Most important, however, the legislation would provide a uniform approach for all office buildings throughout the city. Quite frankly, the single most frequent complaint heard by our members has to do with individuals smoking by the entrances to our buildings. Walking through a haze of smoke does not make for a good first impression, nor is it healthy. The proper legislation and enforcement tools are needed to address this situation. While we would prefer a broader no-smoking area for building entrances, BOMA also recognizes that enforcement of the no-smoking policy in these areas presents some challenges. Placing the onus on building owners and managers could have economic consequences that are not necessarily contemplated in this 104 BILL NO.

060050 - 3/27/06 ordinance. Furthermore, the ordinance does not detail the mechanism by which the city would enforce the no-smoking policy in the exterior areas. Insofar as Center City is concerned, perhaps a cooperative effort could be arranged between the Health Department and the Center City District in order to arrive at a uniform means of addressing this issue and enforcement. BOMA would certainly cooperate in this effort. On behalf of BOMA, I want to thank you for your time, consideration of our comments regarding Ordinance No. 060050. As I have already stated, BOMA's goal is to provide a safe, healthy work environment for its tenants and guests. We applaud this City Council for considering this bold initiative on behalf of all who live and work in Philadelphia, and look forward to the eventual enactment of this important legislation. Ordinance No. 060050 is a means by 105 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 you as legislators can promote the safety, health, and welfare of those who work and do business within the City of Philadelphia. Thank you. )

Thank you very much for your testimony. Let me ask you, Mr. McClure -- because you have had such experience with the business community, and Denise if you would like to jump in and give your opinion -- one of the physicians early on, and I agree with him, testified that there really is no 15 argument about the detrimental effects of smoking yourself and secondhand smoke, and he said it is purely an economic issue at this point. And I totally agree with him, it is an economic issue. With all of the studies and all of the things that you have testified to and others have testified to as the benefits to business for a smoking ban, why do you think there is such strong opposition within a certain segment of the bar community, or the 106 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 tavern community? Why can't they see what you are telling us, that their business is going to improve? And then wouldn't people just simply choose, as a business decision, as one gentleman who testified earlier from -- I think he is from Mt. Airy, has two restaurants in the Northwest part of the city, if it is an economic benefit, health discussion aside, why hasn't everyone gone smoke free? I mean, if it is so clear? I mean, restaurant people do demographic research all the time, they do studies all the time as to what effects changing the menu is going to do. If this is so clearly a benefit, why is there still such a strong sentiment against it in a certain niche? Now, I am not a smoker, I am not a smoking fan, and I don't like it in restaurants. But a corner neighborhood tap room 24 is a different environment, health issues aside, a different economic environment and a 107 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 different economic model than a restaurant in Center City. Is it possible that some of these studies have not really looked at the potential detrimental effect to business in that niche of businesses? MR. McCLURE: I don't know if I can give you a good answer to that question, Councilman. I guess that change, when you have a small business -- and, you know, my wife has two small businesses of her own; not in the hospitality sector, but in the retail sector -- and I know when you are used to doing business a certain way, and you have your projections down, and you know what you are doing, health risk aside --

This is purely an economic discussion. MR. McCLURE: Change is always something that a small-business owner, you know, I think, fears. And despite the studies which have been done in other locations, I think that 108 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 sometimes there is a question mark in the back of a person's mind, well, does that really affect, you know, my neighborhood, as well. I think that what we said in our testimony last year is, when you look at 75 percent of -- you know, of individuals do not smoke, that it would seem that, you know, a strategy of marketing to 75 percent of individuals, rather than marketing to 11 percent, you know, is something that would be 12 a powerful incentive, but I can't speak for 13 those -- 14

Have we been 15 able to determine, of the 75 percent of the 16 people who do not smoke, I being one of them, 17 what percentage is that reflected in people 18 who frequent neighborhood taverns? 19 Because, I mean, the neighborhood -- 20 I mean, I grew up in a neighborhood, in a 21 blue-collar neighborhood, and I live in one 22 now. 23 And there is a different expectation 24 of an environment, health issues aside, when 25 you walk into a neighborhood tap room, with 15 109 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 stools, as opposed to walking into somewhere else in Center City, Manayunk, or Old City. When I frequent -- if I choose to frequent a corner tavern or tap room, as I was raised calling them, I have a different expectation as to the environment, as to what is served, as to the cost, as to what's on television, if there is a television. It is a different environment. And health issues aside, what I struggle with is not as much the restaurants. I understand it. It is that niche of people that are employing four, five, six, ten people, who are creating a decent place for people to gather in the neighborhood, they are staunchly and completely afraid of the effects of this on their business. Because I am sure that, even though Zagat has done surveys, they are not doing surveys at Danny Gallagher's pub in South Philly. I am sure that's not the same people they are surveying. So while I understand my own need to be in a restaurant, paying good dollar, and 110 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 being in a smoke-free environment, I also understand the difference that, when I decide to walk into that door of that corner public, I have a different environment. And I understand it seems like it is coming anyway. I understand that. But I still in some ways feel that the decision, the business decision, health issues aside -- because we could extrapolate this argument into alcohol. I mean, certainly alcohol doesn't have a secondhand effect, but it does have a detrimental effect to the person who drinks and drinks to excess. It has a ripple effect to people who get in a car and kill somebody when they are drunk driving. It has a ripple effect in family life and dysfunction. And it has a ripple effect when it comes to health issues. I am not going to go as far as to say, now that smoking has been banned everywhere, we should now start looking at the possibility of banning alcohol because of its detrimental health and safety effects. 111 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Do you understand? MR. McCLURE: I understand. And, as I mentioned in my testimony, when we testified on this matter, you know, a number of years ago, I guess back in 2001, it was the economic impact on particularly small restaurants and bars that were the reason why we opposed the legislation at that time. And we have had a number of -- I know I have talked to several of our members, you know, who own small restaurants or small taverns who said, if it is uniform and across the board, then we are all on the same and, you know, we can support it. It is the exceptions, and it was the exceptions at that time, which caused us to oppose the legislation. But when we have seen studies, you know, not just from Zagat, but from New York State and from Kentucky and from other places that have looked universally -- and I don't know if they have specifically carved out, you know, taprooms and bars, you know, looked at that specifically. 112 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

You will agree that whatever the answer is -- whoever is right and whoever is wrong, we will ultimately find out -- MR. McCLURE: Absolutely.

-- but the margin in that type of business, you would at least agree, is a different margin than we have in a Center City restaurant. MR. McCLURE: Yes, sir.

My struggle is, my experience, my life experience, and the fact that my grandfather was a bartender for 40 years, and that I worked in places like that myself, that there is certainly a different expectation, a different cost, and, health issues aside, a different experience than there is in a Center City restaurant. And that's my struggle right now, and I just wanted to get your opinion on the business side of it. MR. McCLURE: I understand, Councilman. Thank you.

Thank you, 113 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Councilman. But it is a health issue, and you can't say health issue aside. That is a health issue. (Applause.)

And that's why we are here. And they don't want to forget that.

But we need an amendment taking out the percent of 11 sleeping quarters in hotels, specialty tobacco 12 establishments, tobacco production 13 distribution businesses. 14 If it is unhealthy for employees 15 everyplace else, it is unhealthy for these, 16 people too. 17 And here is the problem. When we 18 start making carve-out exceptions, the other 19 person whose businesses feel that they are 20 being jeopardized say, well, if you could 21 carve out for them, you could carve out for 22 me, and then we start the carve-out game. 23 And I don't understand where this 24 comes from. That, if it is a health issue, 25 and a health issue only, then they should be 114 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 included, too, because their employees are as much at risk as any other employee in the city. And you can make an argument that it is unhealthy for everybody, but we don't really care about those people because -- I don't know why, but we should carve them out. Then I have other constituencies that say, I need to be carved out. (Applause.)

And, again, I don't mean to be disrespectful. And I am not an advocate of smoking, and I do not smoke and I do not like it. But I find it difficult to go into a private VFW club and tell a World War II vet, who has been smoking, and hurting himself while he is smoking, that now all of the sudden you can't do that in your own private club. Or a Mummer's club, where people are doing bad things to themselves, but it is their private club. When you start carving out, other people expect to be carved out, and that makes 115 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 it difficult for people who have constituencies pulling them in different directions. That's my only point. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Lori Fresina.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Council members. Nice to be here today. My name is Lori Fresina. I work for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. We are an organization of about 60 staff people based in Washington, D.C. And I have one of the jobs where I am a regional person. I live right outside of Boston; and I represent New England, New York, New Jersey, and as of a month ago Pennsylvania. So it is nice to be here in Philadelphia for my inaugural visit to your state as your representative to the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids. Our mission, as you may know, is to reduce tobacco use and its devastating effects, especially among kids, and to protect 116 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 everyone from the harms of secondhand smoke. You have already heard more health information

You can summarize it.

I am going to summarize mine considerably. And I do have stuff to hand in in writing. But, actually, I would love to respond after I am done my remarks to some of Councilman Kenney's issues, as well. I think we need to do a couple of things here. First let me just, I want to really pay some respect to all the folks who are here today, particularly the opponents, who have had to wait their turn patiently on this. I have been involved in local and statewide clean indoor hearings since 1994 and have attended literally dozens of hearings around New New England. And in the first early years, never would we have gotten the Chamber of Commerce from any community to come and stand front and center in support of this. 117 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Many times we had police escorts taking the health advocates out of those hearings. They were volatile, they were painful, they were neighbor against neighbor. And I don't know if it is a sign of how far we have come in this movement that this is as respectful a hearing as it is or if it is a show of the City of Brotherly Love. But I like it. I am comfortable. It was not this friendly in New Hampshire last week, so it is good to be here. This is tough. This is a really difficult issue. And I don't think it is going to matter that when the 50th state has this debate, the last state to go smoke free, it is going to be just as difficult for that state as it was for the State of California Because there needs to be this kind of dialogue, there needs to be this kind of debate. The business community have very legitimate fears here that we have an obligation to respond to with. We now have good facts, and we can respond to those fears. 118 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 And I have been asked to talk a little bit about the economics. But I am also very open to other questions, because I have been playing in this arena for a number of years and have some interesting ideas on this. I think -- and I am going to really cut through some of this, because so many people have covered this. Some of the opponents -- I expect that you have heard from already in previous hearings and maybe in some of the e-mails and phone calls and stuff you have got -- have talked about claims that business has been down, in communities that have gone smoke free, have gone down 20, 30, 40, 50 percent after restaurant and bar smoking laws have gone into effect. The reality is, when you look in the aggregate, including the small neighborhoods bars that you were looking at, sir -- and we look at three different measures. We look at number of permits that are held for those types of establishments pre ban/post ban, tax receipts obviously is something that government is very interested in, and number 119 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 of employees that are employed in those service sectors And have found across the board, West Coast, East Coast, and other places, there is not a negative impact. There have been cases where, for a few months after a ban, business has dipped a little bit; but it has rebounded, and oftentimes gone above that. I don't know want to sit here today and promise you business is going to boon in Philadelphia ten times greater than it was before the ban, because I don't think that's responsible. But we can say with great confidence that it will not hurt the business in Philadelphia, and it will greatly improve the work quality in Philadelphia and help save a whole bunch of money. There is a journal called the Journal of Tobacco Control. And in 2003, they had done a comprehensive review of all available studies at that point on the economic impact of smoke-free workplace laws 120 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 and concluded that, quote, all of the best-designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment.

Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact. And we have seen this across the board. And I am going to give you a few -- we had a fancy Power Point presentation that we're not going to bore you with. But I can get it to you, if you want it. But I am guessing people are getting hungry for lunch. Some of the best evidence we have is from New York City; where we found that, a year after the city's comprehensive smoke-free law took effect on March 20, 2003, business receipts for restaurants and bars increased, employment rose, and the number of liquor licenses increased, and virtually all establishments were complying with the law. Because it was a level playing field, so there 121 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 weren't the difficulties of having things pieced out. 2 percent the year after the smoke free law went into effect. In Massachusetts, there was a study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. And they found one year after our law went into effect in Massachusetts, there was no negative impact on statewide meals and alcohol beverage excise tax collections, and the number of employees in food service and drinking places and keno sales were not affected by the law. In Massachusetts, it was status quo. And we had done it city by city, town by town, over a ten-year period there. In Delaware, comparative data shows that business remains steady one year after the state's smoke-free law went into effect. The state's eating and drinking establishments did not go out of business, as some had 122 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 predicted, and, in fact, there was an increase in the number of restaurant and taproom licenses since the law took effect. Liquor consumption increased, as well. Furthermore, employment within the restaurant and bar industry in Delaware has also increased since the smoke-free law went into effect. In Minneapolis, early data shows positive signs for restaurants and bars nearly a year after the smoke-free law went into effect. An independent analysis by a local newspaper found that the local hospitality industry continued to grow, citing an increase in taxable sales reported by restaurants and bars. Three months later the City of Minneapolis issued a report examining revenues and businesses licensed to serve alcohol on their premises, and they found alcohol and food sales at these establishments had increased 7 percent after the ordinance went into effect. 123 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 And, finally, California, which is the first state that went completely smoke free, so we have the longest period of history to look at there, taxable sales receipts for bars and restaurants in the state have increased every year since 1997, which was the year before the state's smoke-free bar law took place through 2003, which is the year we have most current data available. And, in addition, total employment at bars and restaurants in California have increased every year since 1997. Members of the City Council, if you look and if you hear that smoke-free laws are bad for business, please think twice, think three times. Let me be honest with you. There are two businesses that suffer when smoking bans go into effect. Tobacco companies don't sell as many cigarettes because smokers aren't smoking as many, and dry cleaners don't do -- quite seriously, dry cleaning businesses are hurt. They have not come to testify 124 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 against the bill, I suspect today. But that is the one thing we hear over and over. Not that they are really suffering, but we don't tend to need them quite as much as we used to. We are really asking that you consider the evidence before you. And some of the opposition arguments, the only economic studies that show a negative effect are ones that are in fact funded by tobacco companies.

We are very happy to back up that claim with the facts for you, if that should be something that you would be interested in. We also know, and I think this has been covered, that, in addition to having the positive impact on patronage, when businesses go smoke free, they also save money in employee health costs because there is less exposure to secondhand smoke, and an increase in quiting behaviors. And some businesses, large and small, have reported savings on maintenance and cleaning costs. We know that ventilation is not the answer. There is no form of ventilation on the plant earth, with the exception of a 125 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 hurricane, that could safely remove the toxins in the air from a secondhand smoke fast enough to keep people safe. We hear oftentimes people who oppose these bills saying that it is too much government interference, you are becoming a nanny state. Well, the reality is, this secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death and disease. And if you really look at -- and I wish I had the chance to get it -- what the Philadelphia restaurant inspection and bar inspection form looks like, there are probably hundreds of things that they have to comply with in order to do business in the City of Philadelphia. And it would be crazy to sit and think we would have these debates and say, well, these business owners, it is their business, they should get to decide whether or not there is sexual harassment on their premises, they should get to decide if they serve dairy products or meat that has passed its expiration date, they should get to decide 126 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 whether or not they have fire exits that are accessible to people with disabilities. They don't get to decide those things because they are go doing their business in the public domain, and their rights are balanced by responsibilities. That's the gist of this. These businesses are already regulated from the door to the dumpster, and they are doing well. I think that making this -- making all workplaces smoke free in Philadelphia without exemptions does create that needed level playing field and maybe gets to some of your questions about, if this is so good for businesses, why aren't they doing it anyway. Partly they are not doing it because they don't want to lose to the guy down the street. Partly, again, it is the fear versus the fact. And part of our responsibility as folks who work in the public interest is to take care of that nonsense for them, so they can get to do the right thing and run their 127 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 businesses as well as they would like to. )

Why do I feel like I am at the Oscars, and the music just came on. I am, actually, almost done. This is a great city. And you have got wonderful restaurants and clubs, you have a music scene that is vibrant, it is growing and getting better all the time. A smoke-free law in Philadelphia will make it only a better place for tourists and for the people who live and grow up here. And, Councilwoman Tasco, when you started your remarks this morning, I smiled. I was in a very private meeting with Tom Menino, the Mayor of Boston, probably five or six years ago I was working at the American Cancer Society at the time. And he wanted to start what is now known as the Mayor's Crusade Against Cancer. And I had the opportunity to present the tobacco facts to him, and I was scared to death. Because he is a very imposing man, and he is Tom Menino. And if 128 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 you grew up in the area, he was Tom Menino. It was cool. We laid out all of the facts about secondhand smoke exposure. We laid out for him some of the options that different cities and towns and the State of California had already done. And at one point he just banged his hand on the table and said, "We are going to do this." And his political advisors were crawling out of their skin. They said, "You can't do it. It is too fast." He was months out from an 15 election. 16 He said, "We are going to do it." We 17 did it in two phases in Boston, and we did it 18 because Mayor Menino wants Boston to be a cancer-free city. He didn't wait for the right time. He had the very same attitude as you, this was the time. It was the time for Boston then. It was good for business, it has been good for people who come to Boston, it has been good for people who live and work there, it is 129 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 going to be good for Philadelphia. And the best thing about it, for folks who are worried about the economics, is that smoke free is free, and it really is time. Thank you very much for your time listening to me today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I am just curious as to the phasing in in Boston. What did they phase in, and what period of time?

We did -- it was Valentine's Day, and I can't remember the year. The first phase of the Boston ban banned smoking in all restaurants without alcohol licenses, so what we called family-style restaurants -- small, large, didn't really matter on their size -- and other workplaces. And we did it -- and this was a very interesting debate. We fought very hard with the Public Boston Commission at that point to not require physical separation or separate ventilation. Because we were working with the 130 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Mayor -- who we knew this man could be reelected until death, if he wants to be -- we knew that he was good in his promise to make it go all the way soon. And two years later we had it cover all bars, restaurants, in the City of Boston. The reason that there was a phase-in was, it was political. I mean, he did have a race coming up. People were a little leery about it. We hadn't had another major city in Massachusetts go smoke free at that point. So his political advisors were jumpy. He wanted to do it, they didn't. We didn't want physical separation or ventilation put in because you don't want to put an economic burden on these business owners, knowing full well you are coming back in two years and saying, sorry we told you you had to do that, but what we really meant was, the only way to protect public health and your employee health was to be 100 percent smoke free. So, it was a calculated risk. The public didn't really get it at the time. The 131 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 two years, actually, went pretty fast, and it has worked really well for the city.

Let me ask you a question. Councilman Kenney noted the issue of the hotel. Are your hotels smoke free entirely?

They are not entirely smoke free. The bar/restaurant areas are. Some have -- it is very -- Massachusetts is a little bit funky, because our cities and towns have the authority to go farther than the state law. We have some communities where there is no smoking at all in hotels and motels; others where they have, like, a set aside a percent of rooms that can be reserved for smokers. We have also, though, found at least two major chains -- and I am going to blank. I don't know if somebody can help me. I don't know if it was a Marriott. I know Kimpton had gone 100 percent smoke free in the last year.

The Wyndham 132 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Franklin Plaza has gone --

Well, it is a lot cheaper for them, too. I think they figured it out. I know the Kimpton will charge you $250 a night, if you are caught smoking in the room, which is probably more than the price of a room. So I think we are moving that way. But we did set that aside in Massachusetts, and yet there has been a lot of local movement to take it further.

One other question. Relative to the hotels. From your research or your experience, are the ventilation systems in the hotels separate for the percent of the set-aside rooms? 20

I don't know. I mean, 21 I don't know. 22 I don't think it is written in the 23 law that it is. And I think it would be 24 really difficult for the way some of these are 25 constructed, particularly I am thinking in 133 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 some of the older neighborhoods of Boston.

Can you think as to what's the rationale for set-aside rooms?

I think it is like anything. I mean, we didn't in California or Maine or Massachusetts or New York or anyplace that has done this -- everyone thinks it is an overnight sensation, it is not. In Massachusetts we started with municipal buildings, then stopping malls and schools. Then we started moving into restaurants and bars and other types of workplaces. I think this is an incrementalist movement in many ways, and getting people used to things. And I think there are folks who believe where an area is a residence -- and for some people a hotel or motel, at least for that slice of their life is a residence -- or nursing homes and things like that, they are looking to be more reasonable in those settings. Over time, though, I think, honestly, business owners are seeing less and 134 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 less demand for it, and it is an expense to clean it.

But, as far as you know, there is no separate ventilation or air-flow system?

I would have to look. I really don't know. I can certainly get back to you on that.

So the potential, with percent in a hotel like the 12 Marriott, for example, which is a 1200-room 13 hotel, would be a pretty sizable chunk, and 14 also would continue to expose nonsmokers and 15 employees to the health risks. 16

I will look into it. 17 I can't remember, so I don't want to lie. 18

Thank you. 19

Thank you so 20 much for coming down to testify. We 21 appreciate your testimony. 22 (Applause.) 23

Next we have 24 Mr. Prince Gilliard, Mike Driscoll, Garth 25 Weldon, Adam Xu, Pete Ciarrochhi, please 135 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 forgive me, and Michael McFadden.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. My name is not on that initial list. I am on the second tier, and we just sort of moved things around a bit.

Okay.

And I trust that I can help Mr. Kenney with some of his questions. Madam Chair and members of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic of the proposed government-mandated smoking ban in the City of Philadelphia. My name is Ray Swerdlow, and --

Please. Would you identify yourself. Oh, you are getting ready to do that right now.

I wanted to say hi first. My name is Ray Swerdlow, and I represent the Philadelphia Delaware Valley Chapter of the Pennsylvania Restaurant 136 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Association. We speak for our statewide membership of nearly 30,000 restaurants, food service and beverage establishments all across the Commonwealth. Our members represent individuals and organizations operating both large and small independent, multiple-unit chain and franchise food and beverage establishments. This committee, I am sure, is fully aware of the economic impact of the restaurant, food service, and beverage industry in our city and the Commonwealth. And I would like to take a moment, however, to share with you for the record the impact of our industry in Pennsylvania. 4 billion this year. We directly employ approximately 484,700 individuals and represent the largest retail employer and the second largest private sector employer in the Commonwealth. One out of every four retail outlets in Pennsylvania is an eating or drinking 137 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 place. 5 jobs. Restaurants serve more than meals. Nine out of ten restaurants in Pennsylvania are involved in charitable, philanthropic, and fundraising activities in the local communities. And our business owners, their families, and their employees are your voting constituents. As a member of this committee can see, our restaurant industry contributes significantly to the economic viability of our city and the Commonwealth. It is also a highly competitive industry that operates on a narrow average profit margin of about 5 percent. Because restaurants already operate on such slim margins, proposed government mandates that affect their ability to meet the demands of their customers in the marketplace cause grave concern about the future success and viability of businesses. Also of concern to many liquor licensees in our city is Act 39. This 138 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 legislation affects each and every takeout beer and restaurant licensee, and creates $600 in additional fees to allow takeout beer sales on Sunday, as well as many onerous penalties which no other licensee in the Commonwealth is subjected. These affected licensees contribute sales tax to the city and Commonwealth, Business Privilege Tax, and a tax of 10 percent for liquor and beer sales over the bar and takeout beer that goes directly to the School District of Philadelphia, in addition to other taxes and fees large and small. The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association supports the existing provisions of the Commonwealth's Clean Indoor Air Act. And, under the act, restaurants are able to go smoke free and, more importantly, they have the ability to accommodate the demands of their respective customers. We believe that the marketplace is currently responding to these customer demands, as it should. Effective January 2006, the Westin 139 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Hotel and Resorts became the first hotel chain to go 100 percent smoke free, including all guest rooms and public areas. And this policy is as a result of their customer data and the desire for guests for a healthy smoke-free environment. The Red Robin Restaurants a, Pennsylvania chain of restaurants, went smoke free this year because the majority of its patrons prefer nonsmoking environment. Their stated policy is to provide a healthy environment for their staff and guests and create a more family-friendly establishment. Restaurants and taverns stay in business by offering their customers the choices they are seeking. In more and more cases where the majority of an establishments customers desire a smoke-free environment, that establishment will ban smoking on their own, and it will prosper. Many of our association members are doing so successfully today. In other cases, where an establishment must cater to a 140 BILL NO.

060050 - 3/27/06 majority of smoking customers, that business is currently able to offer both smoking and nonsmoking sections, meeting the demands of its customers, and should not be required to ban smoking completely under a one-size-fits-all government mandate. PRA has concerns about the uncertainty over the ability of local governments to enact their own smoking ban. The issue uppermost in the minds of local and state legislators in the seemingly ever-changing issue of zoning control of the two gaming ventures in Philadelphia. The State of New Jersey will be tied up in court because they chose to exempt their casinos from the statewide smoking ban. This has become an issue because the state's claim that their ban is a public health issue rings hollow to the tavern, restaurant, and bowling interests, who have predictably brought suit against the state, feeling that exempting casinos is nothing more than pandering to the gaming industry at the expense of others. 141 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Bingo halls, bowling lanes, taverns and restaurants are patronized by a large percentage of people who choose to smoke. Should New Jersey implement a complete smoking ban, and all surrounding states also go smoke free, then we would all have a level playing field for our businesses. We believe that state preemption on this issue is important. Senator Stewart Greenleaf introduced Senate Bill 602 sent to the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, and Representative Sue Cornell introduced House Bill 1489 sent to the House Health and Human Service Committee. We have learned from our states that a local patchwork of different and confusing ordinances has created serious problems for local governments, businesses, and the public. The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association is most concerned about any exemptions to smoking ban bills that are being considered in the House and Senate and also the local ordinance that is being considered in Philadelphia. 142 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Any exemptions to proposed smoking bans would be unfair to businesses, their employees, and their customers. And I thank the Chairman and members on the Committee of Public Health and Human Services to be able to provide testimony and share our thoughts and concerns on the important topic of smoking bans. We appreciate your requesting our participation in a process that allows all stakeholders to work together, crafting changes that will benefit the smokers and nonsmokers in our Commonwealth. We encourage the committee to call upon us again as a resource for this and other topics of interest to the committee and restaurant, food service, and beverage industry. And thank you, once again.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Next.

I just wanted to acknowledge Prince Gilliard. He is not 143 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 speaking today, although he serves as President of the Hospitality Alliance here in Philadelphia.

And you are?

I am Garth Weldon. I operate a business here in Philadelphia, a steakhouse. But I also serve on the Board of the State Restaurant Association in Harrisburg. And I would like to just quote something on their stand. The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association and its Philadelphia-based chapter, the Philadelphia Delaware Valley Restaurant Association, strongly opposed any attempt to ban smoking in restaurants or any other food and beverage establishment in the City of Philadelphia. Hospitality businesses are in the business of serving our customers, some of whom smoke and some of whom do not. We stay in business by giving our customers the choices that they want. The Pennsylvania Restaurant 144 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Association supports Pennsylvania's existing Clean Indoor Air Act, which requires establishments with 75 seats or more to offer a nonsmoking section. Under the current act, only cities of first-class, that is, only Philadelphia, may enact further restrictions on smoking. The PRA believes this a Philadelphia-only smoking ban would be especially burdensome to the hospitality industry in the city, since customers will be able to smoke in establishments close by. City establishments are already burdened with a 10 percent city drink tax. The association sees no further need to restrict the social behavior of its members' customers. I would like to talk a little bit about my personal experience with this issue. I have been before you on other occasions. I think in about 2000, since the Year 2000, and I appreciate you hearing me again. At that time I think I recommended the same model as the -- I heard some people 145 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 talk about the disability requirements. ADA was put into effect in businesses all across America. But what did they do? Did they say that immediately overnight you had to make your business conform? No. They said, as you remodel, as you open a new license, you have to meet these requirements for railings, for refitting, for that, and this. And that's the way -- the model I think should have been on nonsmoking. If we had required all licensees back in 2000 to be nonsmoking, you would have almost half your establishments, as the licenses have turned by now, smoke free. People that have made that investment going in willingly, eyes open, knowing what they are getting into. But as it is now, the kind of investments we have made at the Prime Rib, to make our people comfortable and accommodate, these are not being considered. For almost 30 years in the business I have seen the smoking section shrink and 146 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 shrink and shrink to just, basically, the bar area. And that's okay. It has happened not due to government regulation, but because we responded to our customers' desires in a free market. The Prime Rib restaurants in Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia today all offer just the bar area as an outlet for our patrons who smoke. Revenue from the bar, by the way, contributes much more to the bottom line than revenue from the dining room. This smoking at the bar does not bring complaints from our nonsmoking customers or staff members. My customers and employees are not hesitant to complain about anything. I hear about the potato's not warm. So what we did, we invested over $10,000 to put some machines that filtered the air around the bar. And I have three or four hundred people on a Saturday night that never say a word about the smoking at the bar. It is because they are not even aware of it. 147 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 As a matter of fact, the Mayor, after the last hearing, came over for a tour and walked through the restaurant. Guy smoking at the bar. " No, you can't smell it. That's what the hospitality business is at its best, by making people comfortable. The City Council of Philadelphia has been in deadlock for several years. It has failed to reach consensus, I believe, because the proponents do not seek consensus.

They want to impose an extreme one-size-fits-all-ban on every single bar and restaurant, regardless of the business segment it occupies. For our particular market niche, the classic steakhouse, an after-dinner cigar at the bar is an anticipated and enjoyable part of the experience for many, many patrons. I would be happy to lose the cigarettes. They are the ones that have all the chemicals, all that additives and everything. The cigar is a natural product, 148 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 natural leaf, and that's what I would hate to lose. I wouldn't care if they banned cigarettes. But I support the idea of tax credits for smoke-free establishments and increase fees for smoking-choice businesses. All restaurants and bars should also be required to post smoking prohibited or smoking permitted signs out front so the consenting adults, who choose to occupy the same space as a legal substance, tobacco, will do so with free will and awareness. I oppose the extreme measure of a total ban because it tells my customers they cannot have dinner in my 100 percent nonsmoking dining room, with a separate air filtration, it gets a separate feed of air completely -- and I am a hundred percent outside air, so there is no mixing of air -- that they can't come and have dinner in that dining room, and then retire to the bar for an after-dinner drink, cigarette, or, God forbid, a cigar. My bartenders tell me that many 149 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 nights they make half their income in that hour or hour and a half period after dinner We listen closely to our customers at the Prime Rib. And those that live across the city line in Virginia, Maryland, and suburban Pennsylvania have told us they would rather not drive into the city, if it means they cannot have a smoke at the bar. Proponents of a total ban tell us that there are people out there ready to replace our smoking customers. Perhaps people who haven't dined with us, because we permit smoking at the bar. But I hesitate to meet my payroll obligations by hoping for a phantom populous that may be hiding behind the curtains at home. There is a longstanding philosophy in my business which believes it is better to hold on to one regular customer than somehow find ten new ones. How many businesses in any industry can do without 5, 10, 15 percent of their clientele? That can make the difference 150 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 between staying in business or going out of business. And I guess in that note, we are getting back to the mystery of this morning, that Councilman Kenney alluded to. Because, you know, I said I thought the same thing. If half of what we heard was true, why wouldn't all businesses just completely do it? And the reason is, the secret is, some of our customers smoke, and those tend to be the ones that spend. So I could have helped out the fellow from the Council on his demographics, percent, 75 percent. 17 If you have got 25 percent in there 18 all night spending, versus 75 percent stop in 19 and go, I mean, these are the ones you don't 20 want to lose. I mean, you want both, but you 21 don't want to lose any. So, I could have 22 helped him out on that. 23 But as far as the Ogontz Grill, I 24 applaud the gentleman for making a decision. 25 He made an investment, and he made a decision. 151 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 I think that's the way it should be done. And one last thing I would like to point out. I sat there in Washington during the City Council hearings. As you know, they did vote to 1, although the Mayor refused 7 to sign the legislation, the Mayor who is 8 responsible for the vitality of the 9 hospitality industry in the city. They did 10 vote. C. He said, "The first one of our places to go smoke free was by a county ordinance, in Columbia, Maryland. Every year our revenues grew and grew and grew until they put the smoking ban, and they dropped. We have never recovered that business. " But maybe that's just an isolated case. C.

border, downstairs bar, three bartenders, very 152 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 busy place. I have been there. Three bartenders, busy all the time. They had to put three bartenders on that bar. When they put the Montgomery County smoking ban, and the people were able to still smoke right across the line, they went down to one bartender, and he has got time on his hands. So, I mean, I know I have heard all the other statistics. But I am telling you, certain segments and certain niches, it does have a drastic effect. But, I mean, they heard the same thing, and they said it has no economic impact. C. Council member, David Catania, on why he proposed a delayed implementation of the law. One of the reasons -- quote, unquote, One of the reasons I selected the January 2007 deadline for a smoking ban implementation, first and foremost, was to 153 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 give employees a chance to make some financial accommodations, either change careers or at least have a good head start on saving some money for themselves. So that, once this is implemented, they can be able to sustain themselves. I think that's really very, very revealing for a fellow that was in support of it. But I thank you for your time. And I have, really, one other question, if this is legislation is going to apply to the casinos that are coming to Philadelphia. I don't know if we have an answer on that. I know it is in the bill. But I remember last time we were here, no one could say that the city regulation would override the state.

The city never overrides the state. But we hope that the state is looking at the whole issue of cigarette smoking. It is also looking on statewide ban. So, we don't know what the state will do. 154 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

And I have gone on the record in the past as saying a statewide ban would be fair. Thank you for your time. (Applause.)

Thank you. I am told that the Senate is trying to work out some issue around the casino's position relative to smoking. I will tell you, I don't see any difference in the patronage of Delaware. And I find that the casinos in Atlantic City seem to be empty, but Delaware is jumping. Yes, sir. Councilwoman Brown, let me recognize, she is here. And Councilman Nutter, you have a comment or question?

I had a question. But if this is a panel, I can wait until the panel is complete.

We have one more.

Thank you. MR. MICHAEL J. McFADDEN: Thank you, 155 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Madam Tasco, Councilpeople. My name is Michael J. McFadden. I am the author of the book Dissecting Anti-Smokers' Brains. I am here to testify against Bill No. 060050, the smoking ban bill. In my five minutes of testimony, I cannot possibly contradict everything that you have heard from the other side on the health issues, but I hope I can at least make you think a little bit about what you have heard. There is an awful lot that you have heard that is not quite true, is not quite how it sounds. There has never yet been a single scientific study showing that the low levels of exposure to secondary smoke that would normally be encountered in any decently ventilated modern bar or restaurant has ever killed anyone. You have been told that workers will be protected from heart attacks by a smoking ban. You haven't been told that two of the largest and most recent studies in that area clearly show no such effect. 156 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 One of the studies that we cited today was Helena. If we said that the heart attacks bounced back after their ban ended, that is false. If you go to the online British medical journal, read the responses. You will see clearly that the heart attack rate in Helena bounced back up to normal during the course of their smoking bans, not afterward. You have been told that air pollution levels in bars that ban smoking go down by 80 percent. What they haven't told you is what they really measured was cigarette smoke in the air. They spent $50,000 to do a study. And they found that, if you ban smoking in a bar, there is less smoke in the air. They have told you several different times today that there are 69 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. That is simply wrong. Go to the International Agency For Research on Cancer, IARC. Look at their figures on elements that they consider carcinogenic. Go to the Surgeon General's 157 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 reports. You will find that there are between and elements in tobacco smoke that are 5 known human carcinogens, not 69. 6 You have been told that bartenders 7 are healthier after a smoking ban. You were 8 not told that the studies that have looked at 9 this generally don't separate the smoking 10 bartenders from the nonsmoking bartenders. Or, if they do separate them, that it is largely the smoking bartenders whose health improved because they don't smoke as much. They have told you that the smoking ban is needed to protect the pink, pure lungs of children, and then they try to ban smoking in the strip clubs. If you have got little kids getting lap dances and down at Delilah's Den after school, you have got a lot more problems than smoking. They have told you lots of things, but very little of what they have told you is really completely true, once you look at it closely. 158 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 It is kind of like, if I was a fast-talking lawyer, and I'm running for Governor, and I'm sitting here speaking to a big crowd of people. And I say, I believe firmly in giving to organized charity and in giving to the homeless on the street regularly. And everybody stands up and applauds me. And then I get up and I walk out and I see a Salvation Army bucket, and I reach in my pocket and you pull out a penny and I throw it in the bucket. I see a homeless guy on a vent, and I take out another penny and I throw it at him. Well, I told the truth. I give regularly to organized charity and to the homeless. But I wasn't really telling the truth; I was lying through my teeth. That's not giving. And that's a lot of what goes on with these studies and what you hear. Things are distorted, things are exaggerated, things are skimmed over. Even things like the 69 carcinogens. People who said that today are 159 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 people who should know better, the heads of the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association, yet they have basically told you false facts.

You might ask me, why would they lie about this stuff? The answer is very clear and very simple. These people believe that smoking bans will reduce smoking, and they feel that that goal is important enough that it is worth lying a little bit long the way. I disagree. Your vote on this smoking ban should be based on truth, not on lies. Council, my time is limited. com and read what is there and the pages link from it. Go to the British Medical Journal, read the Helena study, read the responses to it. See if it matches up with what you have been told. Don't go by the reports you hear, go and look at the studies themselves. I want to close by saying that this 160 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 ban will hurt real people with real lives and real businesses. It will not protect workers from bad air; it will simply remove smoke from that air. It will cause social disruption to the city, as crowds hang around outside bars, and it will drive wedges and divisions between people who should be friends. This ban is not about protecting workers, it is about pressuring smokers to quit smoking. That is Communist-style social engineering, and it is simply wrong. It does not belong in America, and it certainly doesn't belong here in Philadelphia. I will be happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you all for coming. Mr. Weldon, I want to go back to you for a minute, because your last comment was that you would welcome a statewide ban. But you talked about the loss of customers 161 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 because they can't come and stay in your restaurant at the bar, if there is no smoking. And are you saying that these people would go outside of the city so they could smoke? Because the statewide ban would have the same impact, they couldn't smoke.

A statewide ban would level the playing field in Pennsylvania, as it has in other states.

Philadelphia is known for all of its wonderful restaurants, including yours. And they go there for food and socialization. And, so, if there is a statewide ban, and these people can't get -- can't smoke, they are not going to come, and you are still going to have a revenue loss.

If there is a statewide ban, we will be facing the same market that my competition faces right across the city line.

Who is your competition?

Well, any restaurant along City Line Avenue. 162 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Not too many of them. Most of them are downtown. And we love the restaurants in the Delaware Valley, period. We appreciate the business in Pennsylvania. But we know the better restaurants are in Philadelphia.

But I guarantee you the air inside my bar is cleaner than standing out in any of these office building the fellow complained about. Because they are out there, and you have to run that gauntlet. And that's what this law would do, it would make another gauntlet even bigger to run through without filtration. And I put the kind of machines in that do the job, and simply no complaints. If there were complaints, we would change it.

Thank you. Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just as a start, I want to thank you for your leadership and your commitment on this very important public health issue, and 163 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 my colleagues who are presently at the table, Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Ramos, strong supporters on the right issue. Good afternoon, Mr. Weldon. Just a couple items. You are absolutely correct that we have been down this road a couple of times. You and I have talked both publicly and privately. You know that I respect your opinion as an individual and as a businessperson. You run a fine establishment, and I have been there on a number of occasions. The only issue that I will take with any of your testimony, beyond the fact that we generally don't agree on the issue, is, I took down a note -- I don't have a copy of your testimony -- but I think I got it pretty close, you made reference to the proponents of the clean indoor air, paraphrasing, you said were not interested in compromise. I have to take great issue with that because, I mean, it has taken longer to have this conversation about smoke-free air in Philadelphia than it took to design and sign 164 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America. We have been having this discussion --

Which took place in those smoke-filled taverns.

Yes, but they still figured out their business.

I grant you that, Councilman. You are right, that we have tried several compromises and approaches on both sides, and it seems like we are still at the impasse.

So, one, that's why I take issue with that. Second, you may recall Bill 00314AAA

A.

Right. Now, this is not because it was such a great bill 20 that it has all those A's behind it. It has the A's because in two separate hearings there were amendments made in an effort to compromise in committee. The A's come as a result of subsequent amendments made on the floor of this City Council in a 165 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 regular Council session. Every time you amend a bill in Council, we put an A next to it. So that bill had six different sets of amendments in what someone would refer to I'm sure as a Kabuki process, where you negotiate against yourself. Because the reality is, the opponents never compromised on anything, ever. And we kept moving, and they stayed in the same place. And that's fine. It was a great lesson, it was a great exercise, and I learned a great deal. That went nowhere. Last year, Bill 050063A, which is a version of the bill that's in front of us today. In another effort to compromise, with a number of colleagues here who wanted additional provisions, that bill was amended on the floor. Went nowhere because, once again, we were compromising with ourselves. The industry has put up every possible roadblock, everything that you have mentioned, tax credits, carve-outs, separate rooms. We had more amendments and more efforts at compromise in the first bill than 166 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 any bill in the United States of America. And we come back to this conversation. And now, six years later, people want to engage in a conversation about all of the wonderful components about a bill 7 from six years ago, that no one in the industry was supporting. So I do take great issue with the notion that somehow the proponents have not been willing to compromise. The proponents have been the only people willing to compromise, for which we got zero. That has been the sum total of all of the compromise efforts. So I do take great issue, because I spent a lot of time and my colleagues have spent a lot of time. Six years is too long about anything so important. It really is. So that's the leadership of the Councilwoman. Let me ask you a question. Prime Rib, I don't know the entire corporate structure, it is a chain of restaurants across the country?

Just three. 167 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Where?

Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia.

Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia. Okay. And your testimony ultimately lays out that not only do you have, of course, because of the investment that you made on your own to provide separate environment and clean air and coming in from the outside, et cetera, et cetera, but ultimately it seems the discussion comes down to the issue of spending and money. Is that what this is fundamentally about?

Well, you know, going back to your other point about the compromise. I have always advocated that they leave one outlet at the bar, and I just don't see that in this legislation anymore. That has been my position all along.

You are of the understanding that you are in a quite unique situation. Everyone can't have a 168 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Prime-Rib-like existence. You understand that?

I am aware that my place is probably more comfortable to the nonsmokers than many other places, that's why I don't get complaints.

Right. I understand. But you do comply with all the other public health regulations that everyone else has to comply with; right?

Absolutely. And I even went to the maker of this machinery and got them to reduce their price to 2,000 from 3,400 as a way of encouraging bars to put this in. So I have been trying to reach compromise, and I have been trying to make an accommodation. What I should have said earlier was, we haven't been able to get there. We haven't been able to get to an agreement.

Last question. What do you think the impact of Washington 169 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 legislation will be on the Prime Rib in Washington D.C.?

Well, I sit there and I see them having their cigars all afternoon. We will just have to see what happens. And that is a good test case, because it is the only one that's going to be affected.

Last question.

But, of course, Virginia turned it down and Maryland turned it down three weeks ago, as far as the state.

How do you explain the lack of the collapse of the restaurant and bar industry in New York City?

Well, I think, number one, the baseline for that was 2001, which was the worst year when they are comparing. But, also, they have got every establishment in there, from a Wawa, to a McDonald's. The steakhouses bar business was affected.

I am talking the regular restaurants.

That's what we were 170 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 talking about earlier.

2001 was 2001. I mean, I was in New York, like, earlier this year, I was in Boston, I guess, in '04 for the National Convention. I mean, none of these cities has experienced this calamity that everyone seems to think is possibly going to happen. Why is Philadelphia so uniquely different than New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco?

Chicago's legislation has a provision for ventilation in your bar. Chicago says, if you can prove to the Public Health Commissioner that your ventilation in the bar is cleaner than the air outside of your bar, then you are allowed to have smoking at your bar.

That's going to be a fairly high test. Chicago just went in December. The other cities have been around for a while. Why has it been able to work everywhere else, and not here? How is that 171 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 possible?

I'm not saying it can't work here. I am saying, I wish we had the provisions to allow a little outlet somewhere that wouldn't affect the other customers, like I have, and allow me to get that smoking customer into the place and off to the side so they are not bothering anybody.

Because you really believe that that smoking customer is not coming to the Prime Rib, one of the premiere restaurants in Philadelphia? You are convinced of that?

No. We are going to find out. We are going to find out together.

Let me just ask, any of your customers ever fly on an airplane? Do you think any of them come from out of town?

Certainly.

What do they do? Your customer comes from Chicago to Philly or from wherever they come from, you can't smoke on an airplane. 172 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

I have always said all along, I don't care about the cigarettes. Anybody can stop smoking cigarettes for a couple of hours. Just, I like to include that cigar after-dinner experience at the bar. That doesn't affect the other patrons.

I got you. Thank you.

Anybody can give up a cigarette.

You can smell that cigar smoke a mile away. It's terrible. Thank you all so much for coming in to testify. We appreciate your testimony and your dialogue. Of course, Councilman Nutter, we do appreciate his efforts to try to come to some compromise with this legislation. And, in the end, we are back where we are. And that's why we started all over again. And I said, if New York is doing it, if New Jersey is doing it, Delaware is doing it, then Philadelphia can do it. And, so, that's why we are here. 173 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Next we have Mr. Towey, Derrick Wanamaker, Daniel Cordero, John Jonik, and Christie Montolleo. Mr. Victor Tsung, are you here? If I missed anyone in this group, this panel. Daniel Bonner, and Allen Barag. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Would you please state your name for the record.

My name is John Jonik. I am from Philadelphia. I am a member of the Green party. I have been a long-time healthcare activist. I am an environmentalist going back to Green Peace, Save the Whales in the high school days. And I have been supporting labor issues for quite a long time as an illustrator and a writer, attending demonstrations to protect workers' rights. In light of all this, I oppose this ban on all these different grounds that relate to what we said. It is unfair to workers. It has been unfair to workers ever since government officials decided not to tell 174 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 workers what was in the cigarettes, ever since they refused to put labeling on there to tell them about the many pesticide residues that are in cigarettes. Some of them are chlorinated pesticide residues, which create, when it is in manufacturing, chlorinated pesticide residues and chlorine paper bleach create dioxin. We all know about dioxin. If anybody knows about Agent Orange in Vietnam or Times Beach Missouri, which had a huge epidemic of cancers, it is because of dioxin-contaminated products dumped into the streets. A town called Seveso in Italy had the same problem. And, of course, there is always Love Canal, which is pretty famous. These are all dioxin issues. I sat here this morning listening to all the lists of diseases that are supposedly tobacco related or smoking related. Almost every single one of them, except maybe irritation of the throat or eye 175 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 irritation, is exactly identical to symptoms of dioxin exposures. There's the high levels of dioxin in typical cigarettes. I have the documentation. I presented it in my testimony, which I passed around. There is enough dioxin in one pack of cigarettes, according to comparing two studies -- you can't find this in the government. You have to go to one science place and put it together yourself. There is enough dioxin in just one pack of cigarettes, cigarettes, to give a 14 person an overdose of 716 times the U.S. low 15 threshold tolerance for dioxin. 16 And, incidentally, it is one of the 17 most famous chemicals in the world and 18 notorious chemicals in the world for having no 19 safe dose. One bit of dioxin can 20 bioaccumulate in your fatty tissues. It is indicted in causing breast cancers, colon cancer, and every type of cancer possible, except maybe melanoma it doesn't cause. So 716 -- now, I am sorry. I am 176 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 getting lost. The 716 times over the limit I think represents a kind of a crime against consumers. I think I did mention I was a consumer advocate also looking for safe products. I like safe products. I accept tobacco, people except tobacco. People think they are smoking tobacco because it is called a tobacco industry, because we call it a tobacco bill, we have tobacco smoke, environmental tobacco smoke. Well, you do a little research at the patent office, and you can find out that a typical cigarette could be made entirely out of popped corn, peanut hulls, wood chips, pine cellulose, right down the line. If we are going to talk about tobacco smoke, we need somewhere some evidence that what is being studied is tobacco. The EPA did not mention what they studied. They said, "tobacco." They didn't qualify it for pesticide contamination or chlorine bleach paper wrapping it or adhesives 177 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 going down the strip or 12.3 percent sugar as we find in a typical Marlboro, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Could you sum up, sir.

What I am saying is, there are three bricks in this law that seem to make it illegitimate. The language about tobacco is not clarified or qualified. As Mr. McFadden already said, the 69 cancer causing things, I went through the list yesterday on just easily Googling, and every single one I found is a product that is not possible to be in tobacco or tobacco smoke. These are industrial chemicals that are used in the fields, get into the cigarettes, into smokers' lungs. And then the studiers come along, the scientists come along, and attempt to blame tobacco for this. The 69 things, most of them are industrial and not tobacco related. And the third thing is, the 4,000 chemicals. I called your office the other day, Friday. Apparently nobody had a copy of these 178 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 4,000 chemicals. I went to Tobacco-Free Kids Site, couldn't find it there. Finally, after Googling, about seven pages down I found two hits for the 4,000 chemicals finally. I went down the list. Do you know what I find in there? I find fig juice, plum juice, maple syrup, butter. These are all considered these 4,000 chemicals which have not been listed or noted in any documentation or testimony. And I think until those things are put together and resolved, the bill should maybe be brought back to some other level to be rewritten.

Thank you very much. Would you just hold it a moment, please. We have a Council member who has to go to a meeting, won't be able to come back. We want to pass this bill out of committee, and then we will come back into the Public Hearing. (Public Hearing was recessed. 179 PUBLIC MEETING - 3/27/06 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICE - - - Monday, March 27, 2006 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Health & Human Services, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 060050 - - - PRESENT: MARIAN B. TASCO, Chair BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN JUAN R. RAMOS - - - 180 PUBLIC MEETING - 3/27/06

So we are going to recess the Public Hearing, go into the Public Meeting. And I would like to call on Councilwoman Brown for a motion.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 060050 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

I further move that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060050 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and that a request for the Council's Rules be suspended so this bill can have a first reading on the next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. 181 PUBLIC MEETING - 3/27/06 Any opposition? There being none, we will go back into the Public Hearing. Thank you so much, Councilwoman, we appreciate your help and your support. (Public Meeting adjourned.) - - - 182 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Thank you. Now I am here to hear you.

Madam President, a point of information. The gentleman that was just on, you are opposed to the bill, right?

Opposed to the bill.

Because I listened to you. You sounded like a very good environmentalist, but then you started off by saying you are opposed to the bill. So you are definitely opposed to this bill?

Yes.

You are one of few environmentalists that I have run into that is against this bill. I appreciate your point of view. Thank you very much.

Mr. Tsung.

My name is Victor Tsung. Personally, of course, I have been listening the well organized, the campaign 183 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 from the entire smoking ban. I myself, I never touch cigarettes. I never drink a drop of liquor in all my life. But I do own business in Philadelphia. In this past more than 30 years, I went to two diners and six you call tavern or restaurant with the liquor license. Today I just want to present commonsense. We can't put any idea over etiology to the extreme. Okay? This is my personal opinion. If I use Chinese, I mean four words. It means you push your idea to the extreme, you step into the territory of evil. So let's back up and use our commonsense. With my personal experience, my two diner that I had before, the smoke and nonsmoke issue wouldn't be that severe. But for the tavern that I went through before -- and I got seven of them, and I got only one left. The reason I drop them out is because the harsh environment I keep getting more and more from the City of Philadelphia, until the point I thought I should quit. 184 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Now, today I haven't complete given up yet, because there might be a hope that I could retire on it. So hopefully -- of course I don't prepare like the -- everybody that making the speech here. I just -- I was notified only a couple of days ago that, Victor, can you speak a few words. I said, okay, I just present my personal feeling. My patron so far, I, of course, in many, many years, mostly, mostly, I would say 99 percent are smokers. And in reference to my help, in the short time of course I got a couple of mine here, I haven't seen any my help that doesn't smoke or didn't smoke. So I myself, I just want -- you know, use a knowledge on my street to give my honest opinion. We should find a common ground for this matter. If we are human being loss commonsense and bring propaganda up to sudden or huge war that you could sue the media, sue the campaign -- like this morning I listen so 185 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 closely to the well-organize entire smoking ban campaign, I am scared. And I do hope just one gentleman sit in the middle here just about half hour ago, he said, when the playing field level, we'll see what happen. I do pray by then, then my business will be booming, but who knows. But according to my personal experience, plain language, it ain't going to happen that way. Thank you for listening, Councilwoman Marian Tasco. I do appreciate. Actually, I personally know you for a while, through friends and associates that explain to me your position and stuff like this. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for taking time to come down to testify. (Applause.)

Yes, sir. Who is next.

John Towey from Towey's Tavern in Chestnut Hill. 186 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 I would like to address -- some of the things that I am going to bring up were brought up by Councilman Kenney. The fact that the local club and VFW, or any kind of club or neighborhood bar, is a little different atmosphere than a restaurant or a Prime Rib or any kind of place that specializes in food. And what I am saying is, they should be treated a little bit differently than a restaurant-type business. And it was brought up the fact that the -- I agree with most of the comments made earlier this morning, about the definite problems that cigarette smoking causes. I don't smoke, I chose not to smoke. That was my decision, not the city's decision. I decided not to spoke smoke. And, like I said, my wife decided to continue to smoke, and that was her decision. It is not the city's right to come in and tell the individual what they have the right to do and not to do. Now, maybe, maybe if this came from 187 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 a higher level, like the person from the Prime Rib said, if this comes on a state or national level, where they legislate into existence, where they level the playing field and make everybody equal, then we have a fighting chance. But what happens to me in Chestnut Hill is, there is a section right beside us called Wynnemore. And people will absolutely, if they are addictive smokers, they will go to another place. Only places where they come into a restaurant for an hour or so, they are willing to tolerate the ban on smoking. But if they have to -- if they have to be told that they have to maintain no-smoking ban over the period of time that they stay in my establishment, they are going to rebel and go to another bar. That's going to eliminate the liquor tax that the city has imposed also indiscriminately on Philadelphia bars, not the neighborhood bars. So I am saying that Philadelphia 188 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 should back up and wait until what Jersey -- what happened in Jersey, that it came down from the state level, and that the playing field is equalized where everybody has to compete under the same field. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. (Applause.)

We just want to make it very clear, we are not telling people not to smoke. They have a right to smoke. What we are saying is, you don't have that privilege to smoke in a public place.

Not in my bar. You are telling me I can't let people smoke in my bar, and I don't think that's the city's right.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your opinion. (Applause.)

First, I want to a thank you for allowing me to speak. And I 189 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 feel like David against Goliath right here. I have been in the bar business for 39 year --

Identify yourself, please.

My name is Alan Barag. I have been in the bar and restaurant business for 39 years. I have owned restaurants in Center City. I now own a neighborhood bar, which we are using in these meetings constantly over and over again, but there is no such thing as a neighborhood bar. I have the same liquor license as Le Bec-Fin and some of the other steakhouses and the Prime Rib who spoke, but I do under $300,000 a year business. Some years under 200,000, in the neighborhood that I am located. I don't sell steaks for $39 and drinks for 12 bucks. My customers are poor people, neighborhood people. They come in to enjoy themself, to watch sports game, to shoot a game of pool, to smoke a cigarette if they smoke, and to -- the small amount of food that 190 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 we offer is there for them. They don't bring their families and kids in for dinner. Okay? And I am speaking for that majority of bar owners right now, which make up more than 30 percent in the City of Philadelphia. We are the most taxed business in the Commonwealth, between the city, the state, the percent tax, your $300 takeout tax the 10 city just imposed on us, and then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania imposed a takeout tax on us. Now, there are already two things on the City Charter that gives seating places of under 50 a break. One of them is that, we do not need an Occupancy side. The second is that we only need one entrance or exit to our location, even though most bars have two. Okay. My personal opinion of this ban is that, it may not affect where I was lucky enough -- it was my 38th Anniversary last week, and my children gave us a gracious gift to go to Lequa, and it was $210 for dinner. There are shifts where I don't do $210 total 191 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 business. If you take away my smoking customers, and if you pass the law and allow them to go feet out away from my 6 property -- the neighborhood is up in a roar 7 now about the neighborhood bars throughout the 8 city -- I could imagine how happy they are 9 going to be that my customers are going to 10 walk 20 feet down the street and smoke a 11 cigarette in front of their house and then 12 come back into my bar. 13 So that if there is no exceptions or 14 some exclusions in this bill, it will 15 definitely hurt the neighborhood bar. 16 Now, as far as the airport, why the 17 revenue is up there. I did a little research, 18 even though I don't have the money or the 19 means of other people. 20 The reason the revenue is up in the bars in the airport is because Southwestern Airline has now made Philadelphia its hub, and there is a thousand flights a week more coming into the City of Philadelphia. Now, to compare Philadelphia to New 192 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 York City or to Florida or to any other city or state, we are a monopoly state right here. We have to buy our liquor from the state store, and we cannot sell bottles of liquor. You go into New York State and you go into a neighborhood bar, all he has to do is fill out a form and a $200 license, and he can sell you a bottle of Vodka. So he may lose his smoking customer who would drink a Vodka, but he still could sell them a bottle. Not in this state. We have to buy from the state. Now, the state has did us a favor, too. They opened up two wholesale stores, one in the Franklin Mills and one in Delaware Avenue, where anybody could walk in and -- they push large quantities, you have to buy a liter. 95 cheaper at this state store, only if you go there. So the state itself is pushing alcohol down their customers and the patrons and the inhabitants of this state. 193 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 And cigarette smoking is horrible, and secondhand smoke is horrible, but I'm sure alcohol is -- kills more people than secondary smoke. Okay? So, basically, that's all I have. And if there was -- if other members were here, I would be able to answer any questions when you compare one state to another.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Chairwoman, Councilman Ramos, and any other Councilmen that are here that I can't see. Thanks for letting me speak.

Would you identify yourself.

My name is Dan Cordero. I managed the Last Shot Bar at Richmond and Allegheny. I go down this morning, handing out these letters that are on your desk. I hope 194 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 you take time to read them. I sent letters two years ago to every member of Council, to Mayor John Street all about this smoking ban. I received two responses; one from Councilman Rizzo, one from Councilman Clarke. No one else deemed it necessary to respond because they don't care. Just a little bar up in Port Richmond. So this morning I was appalled by quite a few things while I was up there, and I am very upset about them. One was how we are trying to make this smoking ban racial. Not supposed to be a divided city, but we are making this thing racial. The blacks in the industry, the Hispanics in the industry, no one mentioned me standing at the bar. No one mentioned the white people in this thing. But I don't want to continue that on a racial basis. But that was brought up in here, and it shouldn't be. That shouldn't be allowed. Number two, not defending anyone, I was hoping Councilman Nutter would walk back in the room, because I don't want to talk 195 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 behind his back. But he has been here approximately 30 minutes; and the only time he was listening, when he was talking. Other than that he has been talking to different Councilpeople over here, he has left the room, he is not here. He only listens when is talking, and that is not right, either. If we are going to have a meeting, we shouldn't be here now sitting here at the end of the day with just a couple of us still here. If we are going to have a meeting with Council over something this important, they should all be here. There was reasons this morning, a funeral, this here, a meeting, whatever. They should be here now. When they are here, they shouldn't get up and walk out of the room unless they are talking. That's number two. I get upset I start to lose my train of thought. Oh, I wrote letters to the Police Commissioner regarding what this gentleman here just said, 20 feet from my door. I also 196 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 wrote the same letter to every district commander in the city, without response. If you pass this bill, not only can they not smoke in my bar, they can't smoke within feet of either of my doors. All 7 right? 8 There is a pizza store on the 9 corner, a Chinese restaurant, they are under 10 the smoking ban. They can't go down there and 11 smoke. There is a empty building across the 12 street that possibly they can, but it is 13 within 20 feet, that steps within 20 feet of 14 my door. 15 This puts these people at up to and 16 including 2 o'clock in the morning on my 17 neighbor's step smoking. Now, it is not 18 marijuana, so it is not illegal. So they are 19 not going to sit there quietly and smoke, they 20 are going to sit there and smoke, maybe five ten of them at a time, as they walk out of the bar. When they get done, they are throwing cigarette butts on the pavement. These people being on the phone call 911, get down here and disperse these people 197 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 off the pavement. Where is the money and resources coming from to get the policemen out there at 2 o'clock in the morning, when they should be fighting other things in the city that are wrong? We can't stop marijuana. We can't stop the guns. Can't stop any of the drugs. But we can stop these damn cigarettes, because the fine will go to the tavern owner. If you want me to police my street, you want me to police my pavement, you want me to enforce this law in my bar, then I think I should be put on the payroll of the city. I should receive a check every month, just as you do, to enforce these laws, because you aren't coming out there enforcing them. I asked you before when I wrote you before, please stop in the neighborhood bar and see what a neighborhood bar is. 95 percent of my people smoke. And the 5 percent that complain, I invite them to leave. 198 BILL NO.

060050 - 3/27/06 And as I told one gentleman, if you will come in here and spend $2,000 a week in this bar, you and I will sit here alone so you don't have to bother with the smoke. So either come in because you enjoy the people here, because they smoke, or stay out of the bar. That's your choice. And as I said in this letter, we have been fighting wars all these years over the right to have the freedoms that we have. Don't start taking our freedoms off of us. All these other states and all these other cities that are doing this are in violation of our Constitution, of the freedoms that we have. Let's petition Congress. Let's make them outlaw tobacco, make it illegal. Right? We will all make money running tobacco from Florida and Canada to subsidize the losses that we are going to take. So I am asking you now to -- I oppose this bill. I ask you not to vote on it. You had opportunities over the last 199 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 few years to vote this bill in. When you seen that you didn't have enough members to pass it, you tabled it. To my knowledge, if you take a vote on this bill, and it loses, you can't bring this bill up again for another five years. So if you are going to bring this up to the table, bring it up, vote on it when you have your members. If you win, you win. 11 All right? 12 Then I want to be reimbursed for 13 enforcing your law in my neighborhood. But 14 other than that, do away with it, do away with 15 the bill. 16 And before I get even more upset, 17 thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much. You don't have to. (Applause.)

I would like to respond to you, sir. I would like to respond to you. I think the issues raised this morning around race in the Power Point was to 200 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 show that the high rate of disease caused by smoking and secondhand smoke on those communities, and it didn't mean that we cared any less about any other group. They were trying to demonstrate that these groups have a high incident of disease, heart disease, and cancer, and that the numbers of people in these races work in the public-service industry. So that was what the analysis was, as I saw it.

Point taken.

A lot of members, when we scheduled these hearings, have other things. It is very difficult to get everybody on the same page on the same day, because they keep their own schedules. But that's why we appreciate those Council members who were here. And they do have other commitments during the day, but they come in. And a lot of them listen on their -- we have a box in our office, we hear. We have it on television. So it doesn't mean that they are not interested. And, so, don't think 201 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 that. They are interested.

Because you called me back, I did have one more point. We sat here for two hours and listened to all these experts testify. They almost read the same letter. Understood whether it is fact or fix, but we sat here for two hours and listened to them. I stopped a couple of them going out the door and asked them, as we sat here and listened to every word they said, when they are done talking, they leave. Why not sit here and listen and see what other people have to say? They don't care. I don't know if they were paid by Council to show up. I only found out Saturday about this meeting. But I do know that they are paid by their people who sent them here. Now, most of us sitting here -- my bar is closed now, waiting for me to get up opening it up. I am losing revenue that I could be generating up there right now. Most of the people behind me are in the same situation. 202 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 But the people, the experts who were here testifying, they are all getting paid by somebody, they are on the clock. That's not right, either.

Well, we took the participants in order of their calling into the office. So -- and they, too, are on a clock. So they can't -- they are paid by the agency they work for, but they are not paid to stay here all day, either. So we appreciate -- and certainly they have copies of the testimony. There is a public record that they have exposure to and can read, so everything is of a public nature. And we have your testimony. You will have theirs. And sometimes we would hope that they would stay, but people are bound by their own schedules. And we can't make them stay, and we do not pay them to come and testify. This is a public testimony.

I will take it to a court hearing. But a court hearing, you have an expert witness and an expert rebuttal. We 203 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 have none of that. We had two hours of just people talking their causes, and then they left.

We got the opponents at the last minute, too. They did not call. Thank you for your testimony, and your comments are well taken. Thank you very much. We would now like to call on the students, Kids Around Town, and the Wilson Middle School students. Ms. Ann Rappoport, and Ms. Marilyn Krutnick, she the teacher. They are coming to testify. Would you all like to come to the table. We have a nice group here.

Thank you City Council for allowing me to speak. I do not want to die from secondhand smoke.

Who are you?

I am Anna Sutton.

And you are from?

Wilson Middle School. 204 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 I do not want to die from secondhand smoke. I do not want to die because I eat in Philadelphia restaurants. Secondhand smoke releases toxic chemicals into the environment and the air that I breath. Here is some of them. STUDENT: Benzene. STUDENT: Ammonia.

We can't hear you. STUDENT: Arsenic. STUDENT: Butane.

I don't want to inhale these chemicals. Do you? If you ban smoking in all public places in Philadelphia, that will help protect me and others. Pass the Indoor Clean Air Ordinance today.

Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

Would you like to sit down, or are you going to stand? Speak up. 205 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

Thank you City Council for letting me speak.

What is your name?

Emily Bok. One out of every six deaths in the United States is a result of cigarette smoke. The nicotine in cigarettes is a powerful drug that raises your blood pressure, dulls your senses of smell and taste, reduces your stamina, wrinkles your skin, causes deadly heart attacks, fatal strokes, emphysema, and cancer. I will not allow my health to be further affected by cigarette smoke. Pass the Indoor Clean Air Ordinance now. You have the power to keep us safe. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you City Council for allowing me to speak. My name is Margaret Barskoviak from Woodrow Wilson Middle School. 206 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Smoking in public places should be made illegal. Smoking is affecting everyone. I refuse to inhale smoke because I choose to eat at a public restaurant. With every pack of signatures in someone's hand, another life is shortened. We need to make public environments safe for everyone. And with the heart and the fight, you can make Philly's public places smoke free. Thank you.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank you, City Council, for allowing me to speak. My name is AnnaMaria Levich. How would you like it done, fresh or smoked? Please pass the Indoor Clean Air Ordinance today for us. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you.

Thank you, City Council, for allowing me to speak. My name is Debra Shamalese from Woodrow Wilson 207 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Middle School. Do you care about me? Do you care about us? Do you care about your family? Do you care about your grandchildren? Look at all the diseases secondhand smoke causes. STUDENT: Asthma. STUDENT: Depression. STUDENT: Cancer. STUDENT: Heart disease. STUDENT: Nicotine addiction.

And gingivitis. Please let Philly have clean air by passing the Indoor Air Ordinance. We don't want a Filth-adelphia, we want a clean air Philadelphia. Thank you.

Thank you. (Applause.)

My name is Chantel Wilson.

My name is Samantha Kramer.

My name is Altana Mirtage. 208 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

My name is Ashana Hines.

We are from the National Academic League from Wilson Middle School. Thank you for allowing us to speak At our young age, we have been exposed to toxic waste. Smoking does not just affect you, but the people around you In our brief presentation, we will show you the effects of secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke can make asthma worse, causing more frequent and more severe attacks. Adults who are exposed to secondhand smoke as children are twice as likely to develop asthma in the future. Secondhand smoke may cause asthma in children. Secondhand smoke can make allergy symptoms worse.

Children and adults who live with smokers have more respiratory infections, including colds, bronchitis, and pnemonia, than those that don't life with smokers. 209 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 In the United States, secondhand smoke causes 150,000 to 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and young children each year.

Secondhand smoke makes the heart beat faster and work harder. Secondhand smoke -- if you are exposed to secondhand smoke on a daily basis at work or at home, it doubles the risk of having a heart attack. Each year 37,000 people die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains over 40 cancer-causing chemicals. It also causes approximately 3,000 cases of lung cancer each year in nonsmokers. Recent studies have shown that secondhand smoke is linked to the cancer of the pancreas, kidney, bladder, cervix, breast, and bladder.

Smoking is especially dangerous for children. More children die from parents smoking than die from any other unintentional injuries combined. 210 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 A baby has twice the risk of sudden infant death syndrome, SIDS, when the mother, father, or any other caregiver smokes. Exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking while pregnant are both linked to miscarriage, low birth weight and stillbirth. Thank you.

You have the power to keep our city air clean. Support the Indoor Air Ordinance law today for a clean air tomorrow.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony.

The chemicals we expose our children to -- and they do become adults in working Philadelphia. STUDENT: Benzene is a chemical.

My name is Deanna Fogerty, ammonia.

My name is Taylor Taylor Isaac, and I am turpentine.

Julianna shield, and I am ammonia.

My name is Judy 211 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Sang, and I am formaldehyde. MS. LAUREN McMENAMIN: My name is Lauren McMenamin, and I am propylene glycol.

My name is Carol Tsou, and I am lead.

My name is Jasmine Kent, and I am embalming fluid.

Again, some of the diseases that we expose our children to when they work or eat in Philadelphia restaurants.

My name is Patrick Haley, and I am asthma.

My name is Korena Glick, and I am blindness.

My name is Nancy Lee, and I am bronchitis. MS. ALEX McMENAMIN: My name is Alex McMenamin, and I have arthritis.

My name is Shana Grick, and I am depression.

My name is Catherine Nam, mine is oral cancer.

My name is Feba Geragese, and I am heart disease. 212 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06

My name is Dianna Consalve, and I am nicotine depression.

Debra Shamalese, and I am gingivitis.

My name is Tabo Mocadia, and I am heart disease.

My name is Hans Mustafa, and I am dead brain cells.

My name is AnnaMarie Livich, and I am pancreas cancer.

My name is Margaret Barskoviak, and I am mental illness.

We want to thank you so much to Dr. Ann Rappoport, who is the Director for Kids Around Town. These students are from the Woodrow Wilson Middle School, who came today to testify on our bill. They are from six classes and have been studying the issue of smoking this year under a Charter Education Service Learning Grant, awarded through the Philadelphia School District. They are partners in this study with Kids Around Town, a national award-winning 213 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 nonpartisan civic education program sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania's Citizen Education Fund. This is a diverse group of young people, as you can see. And we appreciate them taking part in the research and all the efforts in dealing with the issue of smoking. We also want to thank Ms. Rachel Millenbach, who is the Director of the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program, Health Promotion Council, and Councilman Michael Nutter. We thank you students for coming. We appreciate your testimony. And we are glad you are engaged in the whole issue of anti-smoking, but also engaged in civic government, and to understand the importance of government in your lives. And we welcome you here today and hope it has been beneficial. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Yes.

Good afternoon 214 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 my name is Brian Lawrence. I am a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Philadelphia, not to mention the father of four children who have gone through or are still going through the Philadelphia school system. There is an awful lot to address. I will keep it as concise as possible, because it has been a long day and I know you are all very tired. There is an awful lot of things about today that I find rather disturbing. First of all, the preponderance of hired guns that were brought in here to present points of views from organizations that time and time spewed out the same facts and figures that were limited and distorting. Let's go straight to the issue, the money issue. Okay? Let's go straight to that issue. The simple fact is, that study about the City of New York and the revenues impacted are misleading. Not study, but the facts and figures that are presented. Because it measured it from the time the ban was enacted. Which was after 9/11. 215 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Which, in case somebody missed it here, was the worst economic time in the history of the City of New York for some half a century. So the fact that the food and beverage business rebounded percent by the 7 next year was significantly less than all 8 other businesses in New York rebounded. So in fact, the business level for bar and restaurants was down. Stop trying to mislead us. If you want to say that the health issue is more important than the financial issue, then that's a case you can make. That's a case we can discuss, when we talk priorities. But it is simply patently untrue that New York did not suffer as a result of that. Now, is New York Philadelphia? Is our financial situation the same? No, it is not. I could be mistaken, but having followed Council meetings previously, for instance, concerning the budget that Mayor 216 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 Street talked about, we couldn't find the money for additional policemen. Instead, we will have to rely upon overtime to make up the staffing problem we have. Why? Because we don't have enough money in the city. Our school system, how can I say this in the most delicate manner I can? It is not functioning, it is not good, it is not safe. The children are not educated properly, they are not safe. The streets they walk down going to school and coming from school are not safe. Now, I haven't seen any of you come up with answer as to how you are going to solve these problems. You have not made the streets safe, even though all of you have now been on the Council for some time. The streets are not safe and the schools are not good And the only excuse you have to any of these is the fact that you don't have the financial resources to solve them. But, yet, 217 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 you can spend an inordinate amount of time on this particular issue, an inordinate amount of resources on this issue, and you are still selling us a good of goods that no one believes. No one believes this is not going to impact us adversely financially. No one believes that And the only thing working in the city right now, the only thing that is bringing us revenue, is the fact that we have resurgence of the bar and restaurant business, which is making it a more interesting city, a more livable city, and people are moving in here and buying places and we are getting money from that. That's all we have. It is very simple. Until you find other sources of revenue to pay for those things, that are more important -- yes, policing is more important, our schools are more important -- until you can find a way to pay for them, you have no right to do what you are doing, no right. It is irresponsible and it is immoral. And I just love all these little 218 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 hired guns who come in, Philadelphia has now been added to her area. She is the new representative for Philadelphia.

She is going to come in and tell us what's better for our city, because we will be much better off with this ban. Well, excuse me but it sounds like Marie Antoinette telling the people to eat cake instead of bread. She is not the one whose children are going to have to suffer when the school system is resulted, is she. She is not the one who has to walk through the streets of North Philadelphia and be afraid to go to school. You need to address this issue and tell the truth. If you think it is worth us suffering and having less money because it is more important, then say so. Then say, yes, we know it is going to impact us adversely financially, but we think more lives will be saved through the smoking ban than through allowing the streets not to be policed properly. Say it, but tell the truth. 219 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 What you have done is dishonest and immoral. Tell the truth. And do you know what, why not be really responsible and have a vote on it? Take it to the City of Philadelphia. Let the citizens decide what they are willing to put up with or not put up with. Or, excuse me, or do you simply know much better than the average adult in Philadelphia what's good and not good? Are the great unwashed masses not able to decide for themselves? I think you need to stop and you need to think and you need to be fair. You need to table this, put this away, and you need to take it to the city and make your case. Make your case and say that we believe this is more important. We know it is going to be tough, but we believe it is better for you, and we want you to vote for this. Have a referendum about it.

Thank you very much. 220 BILL NO. 060050 - 3/27/06 (Applause.)

Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? There being no further testimony, this committee is recessed until the call of the Chair. (Public Hearing adjourned at 2:00 p.m.) - - - 221 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, March 27, 2006, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ___________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD