No Solution In Sight As Congress Prepares To Tackle Settlement
By Rebecca Carr, CQ Staff Writer
Even before Congress begins scrutinizing the historic $368.5 billion
tobacco agreement, new developments are threatening to undermine the deal
and cloud chances for legislation.
The most significant of these developments came from the Justice
Department on Jan. 7, when it filed its first criminal charge in an ongoing
investigation of the tobacco industry, alleging that a California
biotechnology firm conspired with Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to
develop a high-nicotine tobacco plant that would be used to manipulate
nicotine levels in cigarettes.
The charge against DNA Plant Technology Corp. of Oakland is a
misdemeanor violation of a seed export law which has since been repealed,
but its importance rippled throughout Capitol Hill.
It was seen as a sign that there is more to come from the department's
three-year probe of the industry. And the criminal charge immediately
raised concerns among lawmakers of both parties and others about the
prospect of turning the settlement into legislation.
The settlement, reached June 20 between the tobacco companies and 40
state attorneys general, calls for giving the industry limited protection
from civil lawsuits in exchange for paying $368.5 billion in
compensation to the government, private litigants and education programs
over 25 years.
The Immunity Question
In interviews, members and aides expressed concern over the prospect of
bargaining away immunity from lawsuits, which the tobacco industry badly
wants, at a time when criminal indictments could be pending in another
"This will have a major impact on Congress' effort to pass tobacco
legislation this year," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., co-chairman of
the 90-member bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Tobacco and Health.
Members have doubts about granting "sweeping protections to tobacco
companies that have either been indicted or have pled guilty to criminal
charges," Meehan said.
But the tobacco industry remained hopeful it would prevail with
legislation that included protection from civil liability suits.
"It would be a deal-killer without it," said tobacco industry spokesman
Scott Williams. "The goal of the industry is to establish a national
tobacco policy and to create a predictable environment where companies can
conduct their business."
Public health advocates appeared united in their opposition to giving
the industry legal immunity and vowed to lobby against it. The powerful
American Medical Association, for one, passed a resolution at its December
meeting in Dallas that it would not support a national tobacco policy that
shielded the tobacco industry from civil lawsuits.
Members of both parties said the deal would not pass as it now stands,
but they predicted portions of it, such as curbing teen smoking, would have
"Tobacco has replaced the Soviet Union as public enemy No. 1," said one
senior Republican Senate leadership aide. "The settlement doesn't matter;
The aide suggested that the GOP did not have any intention of giving
the tobacco industry immunity. "I don't see us doing the settlement," he
said. "I do see us doing the right thing on the public health question. We
are not bound, stapled and duct-taped to the settlement."
The Justice Department charge was only the latest development that has
raised questions about the settlement. Others include:
Concern over tobacco industry plans to launch a $25 million ad
campaign to promote the agreement.
Congressional concern about legal fees, as much as $2.8 billion,
for private lawyers who worked under contract with the 40 state attorneys
general on the deal.
The states have been balking at attempts by the federal government to
take at least half of any money recovered from lawsuits against tobacco
companies to pay health care costs for people with smoking-related
illnesses under Medicaid.
Pending lawsuits in Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas alleging an array
of charges against the tobacco industry, including a charge that the
industry intentionally targeted blue-collar workers with special
advertising and promotional campaigns.
Other industries facing an onslaught of health-related complaints,
such as asbestos companies, are looking to Congress for the same type of
protection from civil lawsuits.
Added to all the concerns is President Clinton's desire to use new
revenues from the tobacco settlement to pay for a slew of unspecified
domestic projects. The anticipated revenue from the settlement, estimated
to be nearly $10 billion in 1999 alone, would pay for such projects as
medical research and child care. The White House said it planned to use the
anticipated new revenues to pay for one-third of the cost of a $21.7
billion effort over five years to make child care more affordable.
Aides said Clinton clearly wants to see a tobacco bill in this session.
When asked at a news conference why there was such optimism for a
tobacco bill when no Republican had stepped forward in support of specific
legislation, White House spokesman Michael McCurry said, "There hasn't been
specific legislation written, but there has been an enormous amount of work
done on the issue. . . . And I think our optimism is well-founded."
But the president's view that the money should come from the settlement
appeared to be at odds with the view of members of his own party on Capitol
Hill, where support for turning the settlement into law as it stands is
lackluster. The main stumbling block is the immunity question.
"If I were a member of the industry, I would say, 'Listen they have us
cornered,'" said Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. "It's time to give in, instead
of their constant effort to conceal things and hide things."
When told that the tobacco industry said there would be no deal without
immunity from civil lawsuits, Lautenberg echoed others by saying, "Tobacco
says everything is a deal breaker, but believe me, they can't wait to talk."
To Tax or Not to Tax?
The White House remained convinced that the money for new domestic
programs would come from the settlement, not new taxes. "The revenues are
not tax increases; they come from revenue generated by comprehensive
tobacco legislation," said Bruce R. Lindsey, White House deputy counsel and
assistant to the president.
But the tobacco companies are clear that they will not support the deal
without immunity. And without the tobacco companies at the table, the new
revenues would inevitably have to come from additional taxes or fees.
Lindsey would not say how Clinton's programs would be paid for if a
comprehensive tobacco bill failed to pass in Congress, or if the tobacco
companies then withdrew from their commitment to pay $368.5 billion
over 25 years.
Academics suggested that the money could come from a mixture of
cigarette taxes and user fees. Several tobacco bills pending before
Congress call for raising cigarette taxes by at least $1.50 per pack.
But the tobacco industry has opposed such an increase, warning that
raising prices too quickly could create a "Canadian problem." When Canada
raised its cigarette prices to $7 a pack ($5.26 in U.S. dollars),
it created a black market for cigarettes.
As these issues are ironed out, the White House intends to work closely
with congressional committees to draft legislation.
Perhaps learning from its lost battle over creating a national health
care plan in 1994, the White House does not intend to dictate to Congress
what it wants in the tobacco bill.
"We have no plans to introduce our own tobacco legislation," Lindsey
said. "The president's budget will include both new programs and an
expansion of programs using tobacco-related revenues, but Congress will be
in charge of legislating the settlement. We, of course, will work with them
to make sure the president's priorities and concerns are addressed."
The tobacco industry sees the president's move as evidence of a definite
will to pass legislation this year. The industry is betting on legislators
eager to pass a national tobacco policy before they go home to campaign for
re-election in the fall.
"The president's continued endorsement of a national tobacco policy is
important toward moving this forward," said Williams, the tobacco
spokesperson. "The more he can highlight the plan, the more support there
will be for legislation."
The lobbying effort is expected to be fierce as the industry pushes to
end its liability problem.
"I don't believe that you can both exact vengeance on this industry and
produce a good public policy tobacco-control law at the same time," said J.
Phil Carlton, a tobacco lobbyist, before an editorial board in October.
Is the Deal Off?
But academics and anti-tobacco activists remained skeptical about
passing legislation that granted immunity to tobacco.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said the settlement is no longer
viable. "There is no settlement," he said. "Now it is in the hands of
Congress." The focus of any future legislation should be on smoking
education programs and on raising the price of cigarettes by $2 a pack
to discourage smoking amoung youth, Koop said.
Legal experts see trouble on the horizon for legislation, too.
As more players enter the fray, the chance for legislation lessens, said
John F. Banzhaf III, a law professor at George Washington University.
In Minnesota, where one of those lawsuits is pending, the criminal case
against DNA Plant Technology Corp., the California company, was seen as
vindication for holding out against signing the deal with the other
"This is just the first of a series of federal charges," said Thomas
Pursell, senior counsel to Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III.
"We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Justice will be
coming out with."
Pursell said it has become clear that Congress does not "know all that
it needs to know before it passes a law granting immunity or regulating
But Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore, who led the negotiations
between the attorneys general and the industry, stood behind the settlement.
"The proposed agreement is a compromise," Moore said. "We got what we
wanted, and they got a very few items."
© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All rights reserved.