Tobacco.org

While the recent tobacco agreement has been hailed as justice long overdue, the devil is in the details -- and the details will be written by a contentious Congress. Here's our analysis of the pitfalls hiding in this sweetheart deal.

Public health groups are outraged that the tobacco deal would limit the FDA's powers, but no one's talking about how it would pinch another federal regulator. OSHA has plans to ban smoking from all workplaces -- including restaurants, bars and casinos -- but if the tobacco deal passes intact, OSHA's power to protect workers will fade in a cloud of smoke.

Tobacco farmers should have been included in negotiations that led to the landmark settlement between state attorneys general and the cigarette industry, former Sen. Bob Dole said Tuesday. But some advocates for North Carolina farmers said tobacco growers deliberately stayed away from the talks, although they now plan to take a more active role. They praised Dole for supporting their interests. "There were people in Congress willing to speed things up for them," Dole said. "Obviously, it's something that's of concern to them. Those are people who depend on (tobacco) for their living." Dole lauded the $368 billion deal . . . saying it was a better settlement than had ever been reached during his tenure in Washington. . . "Congress will take a long view of it," Dole said. "Congress might find a lot of fault with it, but maybe this is somewhere to begin."

The ACS says no matter what happens at the negotiating table, smoking prevention is the most effective form of tobacco control -- especially efforts aimed at preventing children from becoming smokers. "The experience of the past four decades attests that our most effective tobacco control is prevention," says ACS national board chairman Dr. George Dessart. "Ninety percent of all smokers begin before age 19, the overwhelming majority before they are legally old enough to purchase the product. The average age of initiation now stands at 13." In a statement appearing in the journal Nature Medicine, Dessart asserts that the tobacco industry "has become, arguably, the most successful educational apparatus ever devised." "It has set out to persuade children that tobacco use is the normal adult behavior and it has generally succeeded," he adds. "Teenagers, smokers, and nonsmokers alike, believe that most of their age group smokes. What can younger children think?"

TWO WEEKS after state attorneys general reached a tentative $368 billion settlement with the nation's tobacco companies, a few things are clear: the agreement is far from final, some provisions are unacceptable, some are troublesome but possibly worth the trade-offs and others are strikingly positive and could go a long way toward saving lives. What the attorneys general did in bringing the now-reviled cigarette manufacturers to the table for the first time in history was produce a working document that can be altered and refined.

When I sued the tobacco industry last year, I said the litigation had three objectives: to stop tobacco companies from marketing to children, to require the industry to tell consumers the whole truth about its products and to reimburse Illinois taxpayers the billions of dollars paid to cover the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. The proposed $368 billion settlement would achieve all those objectives and more. The benefits far outweigh what we could have gained by taking our case to trial.

However, ATLA's board of governors has declared that the association will not support any legislative settlement of tobacco litigation that: Immunizes the tobacco industry from appropriate regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Allows the tobacco industry to escape full and fair responsibility for the harm its products have caused millions of Americans. Restricts trial by jury or otherwise compromises access to justice, preempts state law or limits compensatory or exemplary damages. Permits tobacco companies to shield or destroy records that may document their own culpability in a national public-health disaster that claims 400,000 lives and costs billions of tax dollars each year. . . . If Mr. Califano is going to play the role of Monday-morning quarterback, he at least ought to acknowledge that these lawyers unearthed the documents and planned the strategy that brought big tobacco to the bargaining table and prompted it to make the first concessions ever in the history of this deadly industry.

Tobacco negotiators may have thought they had a done deal, but Washington thinks otherwise. Here's what to expect as the settlement goes to the President and Congress. Hint: It won't be pleasant--for Big Tobacco.

But Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III has said that document disclosure is an issue of equal importance: "This fight was supposed to be about lies and cover-ups, but this deal allows the and cover-ups to live on."

INCOMPLETE DISCLOSURE The deal does not force the companies to turn over hundreds of thousands of documents covered by attorney-client privilege. RED TAPE Tobacco opponents can appeal industry claims of attorney-client privilege, but that requires approval by a special three-judge panel. LAWSUIT LIMITS Because the settlement imposes barriers on future suits, critics worry that lawyers won't try to obtain attorney-client documents.

In many ways, that hearing in April 1994 epitomized the tobacco industry's fundamental strategy over the past half-century. Concede nothing. . . But don't expect a repeat performance should Big Tobacco's top executives be summoned to Capitol Hill again to testify on a landmark proposed legal settlement on smoking"What the settlement has done is create a new floor on what the tobacco companies can say," said John Banzhaf . . "If they drop beneath that floor and try to say things like nicotine isn't addictive, they risk a lot more now than just being laughed out of the building. Now it could be perjury."

"The deal kills the whistle blower," Kasowitz said. "The deal kills Liggett, which is the company which brought all these other companies to the table." Meanwhile, experts watching this latest chapter in the tobacco wars sounded more optimistic about the chances of Congress approving the larger deal. They said last week's settlement of a Mississippi lawsuit, whereby the cigarette makers agreed to compenstate the state $3.6 billion, provides momentum for congressional approval.

On June 20, the tobacco settlement was announced. . . . Three days later, Eugene Merkow walked into a law office. Several attorneys from the tobacco industry were waiting. They had flown in to take his deposition. It was their third session with him, and cooperation and toleration were not the order of the day. This was old-fashioned tobacco litigation -- long and brutal and endlessly contentious. It was a humiliating experience, he says, and disconcertingly invasive. "We are punishing these bastards." In answer to Butterworth's questions, Eugene Merkow has one of his own. If his rights mean so little, if his chances of winning are so low, why did the tobacco industry fight so long and hard to limit his ability to collect? The answer may lie in what happened to the asbestos industry.

"There are many questions about this proposal that still need to be answered," said ACS President Myles Cunningham, M.D., "but before the American Cancer Society can even consider supporting a settlement plan, we hope Congress will assure legislation which requires: (1) absolute assurance that the FDA will have complete and unfettered authority over the regulation of nicotine and other cigarette ingredients; and (2) a significant strengthening of tobacco industry penalties for failure to reach smoking rate reduction goals set in settlement's 'look-back' provision. . . The longer we look at this, the more we realize how crucial it is that we have a full public and congressional evaluation . . ."

Instead of quibbling over money, Kluger urged Congress to focus on the crucial flaw in the agreement -- federal regulatory control over how cigarettes are manufactured and marketed. Kluger wrote: "All the marketing restrictions in the deal will amount to little if the product remains as deadly as ever," Kluger writes. He contends that unless the Food and Drug Administration has the power "to control not only the nicotine content of cigarettes, already approved by a federal court, but their tar, carbon monoxide, carcinogenic flavorings and other addictives as well . . . the whole settlement package is a toothless wonder and should be tabled." . . On this issue of tobacco regulation, there should be no compromise. But with practically every sentence in the agreement now being picked apart by politicians, Congress should understand that there are limits beyond which the tobacco industry will not be pushed. If lawmakers believe the state attorneys general have signed off on a bad deal, then let them legislate a better one.

Put another way, Big Tobacco has killed more, lied more and profited more than any other industry. If that industry is relieved of liability for punitive damages, what other industry will not line up to obtain similar relief from Congress? If the rule of law is to continue to have meaning, the state attorneys general and the public health community can send only one sensible message to Congress and the tobacco industry: Don't even think about eliminating liability for punitive damages.

The Koop-Kessler report will officially usher the tobacco settlement from the bargaining table into the political arena. And as that shift occurs, a Byzantine web of supporters, opponents and agendas is becoming clearer.

Senate Labor Chairman Jim Jeffords, R-Vt., said his panel will begin hearings on the tobacco settlement in September, following the annual August recess of Congress. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Jeffords said, will first hold a series of hearings exploring the agreement before considering possible legislation to implement it. 'This is a legal agreement that has not had the benefit of comment from public health experts, educators or other knowledgeable professionals,' Jeffords said Wednesday in a statement. 'I believe this input is essential before Congress considers any related legislation.'

Let me restate my position, then specifically answer your question. I am concerned about one thing only, the health of the people of the United States and in particular our children. Secondly, I want to applaud again the attorneys general, the public health advocates, and the others who negotiated this settlement. There are a lot of really important, good things in it. I have reached only one conclusion about the settlement in terms of what has to be changed. That portion that restricts the judgment -- the jurisdiction of the FDA in terms of limiting tobacco content in cigarettes or banning it outright -- nicotine content or banning it outright because some black market might be created it seems to me is a totally unreasonable restriction. What is a black market, after all -- the one percent penetration of the market, a three percent penetration of the market? Would we deny the FDA the right to protect 100 percent of our children because there might be a few black market cigarettes around? I think that's unreasonable. I have reached no final judgment about anything else, but I do think that is a change that ought to be made, and I cannot believe that the tobacco companies or others would bring down the entire settlement over that. I have not reached a final decision on anything else.

President Clinton today termed as "totally unreasonable" a portion of the $368 billion tobacco settlement that would severely restrict the government's power to regulate nicotine. Clinton said he was particularly concerned that the deal forbids the Food and Drug Administration from lowering or banning nicotine in cigarettes if doing so would create a black market for full-strength brands. "Would we deny the FDA the right to protect 100 percent of our children because there's a few black market cigarettes around?" Clinton said at a news conference in Madrid, Spain, where he's attending the NATO summit.

President Clinton (Wednesday) rejected at least part of the proposed settlement with the tobacco industry, saying it contained "an unreasonable restriction" on federal government plans to tighten rules against underage smoking. But Clinton in general reiterated his praise for the efforts of negotiators

In their first direct involvement in the effort to craft a settlement, advisers to President Clinton plan to rewrite the proposal themselves after concluding it surrenders too much of the Food and Drug Administration's ability to control the addictiveness of cigarettes. Such limits, they determined, would roll back their arduous campaign to assert jurisdiction over tobacco. "After taking a serious look at it, they're unacceptable," said an administration official who asked not to be named. "The way it's written, it actually slides back on what we've already won."

Three senior administration officials who reviewed the proposal, speaking on condition that they not be identified, said that President Clinton would not support any deal with tobacco companies unless the FDA's power to regulate tobacco was affirmed and strengthened. "We fought too hard as an administration on the area of FDA jurisdiction to see that weakened," one senior official said. "Certain things in this agreement are good, but we don't want to see one step forward, one step sideways and one step backward. The FDA portion needs to be done in a way in which we're only going forward."

A task force led by antismoking proponents David Kessler and C. Everett Koop wants to ensure that monetary penalties for failing to reduce smoking among youths come out of tobacco companies' bottom lines, rather than smokers' pockets. . . The document also calls for an explicit ban on pre-empting the Food and Drug Administration's authority to regulate nicotine in cigarettes. . . The report, which is expected to be released Wednesday, amounts to a blueprint for a much more restrictive system of curtailing tobacco marketing and youth smoking than was proposed in the settlement . . .

The group, the Coalition for Workers' Health Funds, represents about 350 private worker insurance funds that have sued the industry in class-action lawsuits seeking to recover money they spent treating workers' smoking-related illnesses.

Having anteed up and taken on The Public as their client, it didn't occur to them that the public, through Congress assembled, might have something to say about how much all this public-interest lawyering should cost. Here's some wording Republicans might want to insert into the final tobacco legislation: "ATTORNEY COMPENSATION--No federal court shall authorize or ratify fees to be paid any attorney engaged in this matter by a state or its representatives. Attorney compensation, in total not to exceed 0.01% of the settlement fund, shall be paid from said fund as authorized by the legislatures of each state. . . ." Set aside a total pot of $35 million and let them have it.

Anti-smoking advocates are focused on the FDA's power because if all else fails, and smoking rates do not drop, they want the federal government to have the option of taking more drastic steps, including ratcheting down nicotine levels in cigarettes to wean Americans off the addiction. Experts, however, disagree about whether such a plan would work. No one has ever established, skeptics say, that reducing nicotine below an addictive threshold would benefit public health. And it may even do more harm. . . "I think it would be very unfortunate if this `what if' piece contributes to the failure of some substantial advances here," Kozlowski said. Tobacco companies, having stated for years that nicotine does not have pharmacological and addictive effects, now argue that drastic reductions in nicotine would be tantamount to a ban; the companies recognize that "they are in the nicotine business," Kozlowski said, so "it's just unreasonable to think the companies are going to go out of business with a smile on their face."

Connecticut would receive about $129 million this year -- and a total of $3.6 billion over 25 years -- under a proposed tobacco settlement being considered by Congress, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Monday. Half the money received by the state would have to be spent on health insurance for uninsured children, according to the agreement negotiated between tobacco companies and attorneys general for 40 states. The other half of the settlement -- nearly $65 million in the first year -- could be used any way the state sees fit, including tax cuts, Blumenthal said.

"Only a few months ago the biggest concerns facing growers were blue mold and Mother Nature," said North Carolina farmer Peter Burgess. "Today, growers worry about how they will pay the bills if they are forced off the farm by a sett

Kenneth Moll & Associates filed a lawsuit, known as the Daley Class Action, against tobacco companies in opposition to the recent $368 billion national settlement. The suit was filed today and seeks class-action status on behalf of Illinois residents. In a press release Monday, the Chicago firm said the suit addresses concerns that the settlement bans class-action suits, bans punitive damages and caps compensatory damages.

In light of the recent proposed $368 billion settlement between Big Tobacco companies and a group of attorneys general, the Chicago law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd. responded by filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Illinois residents whose rights would be affected if the settlement is approved . . .

"We are united in a single cause to reduce smoking especially by children," White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed said after a meeting on the proposed settlement. Reed and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala met at the White House with Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore and Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire to review the $368.5 billion deal and discuss President Clinton's concerns about it.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, an aggressive, well-financed lobby with close ties to President Clinton and other Democrats, is poised to fight the proposed $368 billion tobacco settlement unless major changes are made before the deal goes to Congress for its approval. In an unusual twist, the 55,000-member lawyers' group would be pitted against some of its own most prominent members -- the group of trial lawyers who negotiated the settlement and stand to make billions from it. "We've never really been divided on any political issue before," said Russ Herman, a former ATLA president and one of the attorneys who helped seal the tobacco deal. "But if ATLA lobbies against this bill, it will still be extremely effective and powerful."

[E]veryone agrees that the potential for sky-high punitive damage awards in individual injury suits immensely strengthened their bargaining po wer. "It's the lever that brought the tobacco industry to the table," said Michael Pertchuk . . . This is not the first time the specter of unbounded and unpredictable awards has driven corporate defendants to settle, or that legislation was needed to ratify a settlement. "The structure is very close to the lead paint agreement in Maryland," noted Donald Gifford . . . But specialists in business law are deeply divided over the role that unpredictable damages awards in general and punitive damages in particular should play in civil justice. Trial lawyers and many consumer groups argue that punitive awards can stop the bad guys when compensatory damages alone are insufficient.

Industry attorneys have been drafting legislation based on the settlement that they hope will become the working blueprint on Capitol Hill, embraced by GOP leaders and shepherded through various congressional committees. Parts of the draft bill, penned by lawyers at powerhouse New York firms such as Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Davis Polk & Wardell, have already been shared with some key lawmakers. . . The drafting of legislative language based on the settlement is just one part of a meticulously choreographed lobbying campaign that tobacco companies are carrying out at the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services and on Capitol Hill. Tobacco executives and tobacco lobbyists are phoning and visiting lawmakers with whom they have longstanding relationships, efforts that will be followed up by contacts from the industry's big guns, such as former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour. Among the tobacco-state lawmakers targeted as potential sponsors for the tobacco industry's bill is House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley of Virginia

"We look forward to the opportunity to make the case for keeping intact the provisions of the proposed resolution as negotiated," read a joint statement from Philip Morris Cos. Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and United States Tobacco Co. The statement came as Clinton called the parts of the proposal that would restrict the government's authority to regulate nicotine and other components of tobacco products "totally unreasonable." The president predicted the industry will not abandon a deal over the single provision. "I cannot believe that the tobacco companies or others would bring down the entire settlement over that," he said, noting "there are a lot of really important good things" in the proposal.

The risk of creating a substantial black market in tobacco products should be a legitimate concern to all Americans for a variety of reasons. The industry believes that the proposed resolution appropriately balances the various factors that should be considered in any determination to ban nicotine, and we look forward to the opportunity to make the case for keeping intact the provisions of the proposed resolution as negotiated."

The President assailed a provision in the proposed tobacco settlement that limits government regulation of nicotine, and a high-powered committee of health groups promises even tougher tobacco crackdowns.

[P]ublic health experts, leading lawmakers and President Clinton are allied on one key demand. All agree that the Food and Drug Administration must be allowed to regulate nicotine as a drug in tobacco products or the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement reached June 20 is unacceptable.

Despite grave concerns about elements of a proposed tobacco settlement, President Clinton believes he has an opportunity to strike a historic deal with tobacco makers that would reduce smoking in the U.S. Mr. Clinton will insist on changes to the tobacco accord, aides say. But in the end, his goal is to strengthen the settlement, not kill it.

Kessler says the tobacco proposal submitted to the White House by a task force he co-chaired is being offered as a separate proposal, not a replacement to the agreement struck by tobacco lawyers and attorneys general. . . Kessler told reporters that the deal struck by attorneys general is a "settlement document" which actually takes away from the public health tools. "This should not be a battle for money," Kessler told reporters. "The only thing that matters is the number of people who smoke."

In all, the 19-page report makes more than 110 specific suggestions for changes or clarifications in the settlement. The report "Is a pretty big hurdle," said Stan Glantz, a San-Francisco based anti-tobacco health expert. "People are going to think twice before settling what's out there." "What's important about this document is that it's got the full weight of the public health community behind it," said Jeff Nesbit, staff director for the committee

Liggett has acknowledged that nicotine is an addictive drug and has agreed to unfettered regulation by the FDA. Big Tobacco needs to do the same. In addition, Liggett has made a clean break with the past by waiving its attorney-client privileges and work product protections in order to disclose all industry documents pertinent to smoking and health. Big Tobacco needs to do the same.

Had Epstein done his homework, he would have known that the core theories of the cases in Minnesota and other states have to do with the tobacco companies knowing that cigarettes cause disease, but saying they don't; knowing that nicotine is addictive, but saying it isn't; understanding how to produce safer products, but, on the advice of lawyers obsessed with product liability issues, conspiring not to do so. . . The deal can be reformed to protect public health and give the tobacco cartel its just punishment. But presenting a misleading view of what the states' lawsuits are all about and giving them that same old, tired tobacco industry spin doesn't help the American people sort through this complicated, critical debate.

The lesson from these cases, as well as from the tobacco settlement, is that that mysterious masked entity known as a corporation is in fact an ingenious device for collectivizing responsibility. Even when a corporation is found guilty, no actual individual need take the fall. But if the defense lawyer for a mere biological person attempts a similar diffusion of blame--by, for example, pointing out the defendant's history of abuse as a child, or the fact that several upstanding citizens had noticed the missing stop sign and failed to report it--said lawyer can expect these days to be laughed out of court.

Since the tobacco settlement, most alcohol-related stocks have lagged the market. But government action against booze isn't likely. . . [I]n talking to a sampling of the state attorneys general who led the charge against Big Tobacco, Barron's found that they have no plans for a reprise on the booze merchants. "The facts in the cigarette industry cases were unique, and we don't feel that we have any cause of action against liquor companies or any other producers of consumables," averred Tom Pursell, senior counsel to Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III. John Hough, senior assistant attorney general for Washington, goes even further. "Much of the propaganda about state attorneys general and the plaintiff's bar being poised to go after booze, Big Macs and fast cars was apparently fomented by the tobacco industry in an attempt to win sympathy and support. The fact remains that tobacco is the only legal product around that will kill if used as manufacturers intend."

Philip Morris, which has been mum on what it would pay under the global tobacco settlement worked out with the states, said it will pay $6.5 billion of the initial $10 billion due in the $368.5-billion accord. The amount, disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing this week, is about what analysts expected.

"I won't stop no matter what the price goes to," said Craver, 22. "I don't want somebody telling me what I can and can't do." Industry analysts estimate that cigarette companies will have to raise prices by 75 cents to $1 a pack to pay for the settlement -- and that number could go higher if tougher terms are imposed as the deal is examined by Congress and the White House.

"I don't see how that's the case," Oppenheimer & Co analyst Roy Burry said. "Nothing I saw in the agreement said anything about prices."

Pitofsky told a small group of reporters that the tobacco agreement includes an anti-trust exemption. "The exemption is written in such a way that I believe -- maybe they didn't intend it this way -- it could cover price-fixing," Pitofsky said.

Could Filipino kids end up paying Mississippi's Medicaid bills? . . When the U.S. companies invade a market in the Third World or Eastern Europe, they not only capture market share from the sleepy national tobacco companies, they attract new smokers. After the Reagan/Bush threat of trade sanctions forced South Korea to open up its cigarette market to U.S. companies in 1988, smoking rates among male Korean teenagers rose from 18.4 percent to 29.8 percent in a single year. The rate among female teens more than quintupled, from 1.6 percent to 8.7 percent. . . Five years ago, a tobacco analyst with Sanford Bernstein, an investment management firm, told me that the tobacco multinationals' optimism about Eastern Europe is predicated on people in the region "not being well enough educated to have health concerns about smoking." Perhaps "fifty years from now they will realize that it is bad for you, and consumption will drop then," she added. A settlement that excludes the rest of the world would help condemn Eastern Europe and the Third World to this grim fate.

What a difference seven years, and seven individuals, would make. Although many other players were involved at every stage -- and many received far more publicity -- these seven emerged as nothing short of essential. Their motives varied, from economic and political gain to raw revenge. But together, they provided the ideas, the evidence and the strategies that changed the balance of power between cigarette companies and their antagonists and defined the astonishing terms under which they would make peace.

Experts say tobacco-related billable hours for defense attorneys won't dry up: Though the cigarette companies will clearly need fewer lawyers arguing in courtrooms about cancer and addiction, a new type of work requiring a new set of specialties is expected to develop. Also, in the near term, more than 100 lawsuits already filed are going forward. "There are going to be some savings on the legal side, but not as much as many people have assumed," said Gary Black, who covers Philip Morris for Sanford C. Bernstein, a New York brokerage. "The FDA provisions on this agreement are 68 pages long, and when Congress gets done they'll probably stand at 300 pages. Somebody is going to have to figure out what all of those pages mean."

Harshbarger yesterday joined attorneys general across the country in rallying round the pact, saying that, even with its imperfections, it is better than no deal at all. The attorney general said the pact accomplishes much that the nation's leaders have been unable to muster the will to do. "Congress could have and should have done many of these things years ago," he said at a press conference, expressing concern that tobacco companies will walk away if the pact is altered too extensively. "What was missing was the will to do it. We have laid the foundation for them."

"There is a solid agreement here," Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger told reporters at his Boston office. "My next step is to join with other attorneys general in urging the president and Congress to review this in detail as quickly as possible...to avoid this becoming an issue of individual agendas and special interests. "Let's get real here. It (the settlement) will not get tougher," he said.

Philip Morris gave $270,000 in unlimited "soft" money to Republicans in this year's first half and $100,000 to Democrats, new filing records show. The industry's Tobacco Institute gave $66,000 to GOP lawmakers and $47,000 to Democrats.

For Matthew Louis Myers, 50, that fight began when the Federal Trade Commission hired him in 1980 to investigate tobacco advertising. "I didn't have a particular passion about tobacco when I took the job," he said. "Tobacco is an issue that the more you learn the more strongly you feel."

Even public-health experts who oppose the settlement say its combination of stiff cigarette price hikes, anti-smoking media campaigns and new curbs on smoking could ultimately save more than 100,000 lives a year -- twice the number of traffic fatalities the nation sees in the same period.

As cigarette industry representatives meet on Tuesday with a special White House task force reviewing the proposed tobacco accord, they are likely to find a more skeptical audience than they did during settlement talks with state attorneys general.

"We made clear to them that while we see the settlement as a real opportunity, we will insist that it be strengthened in certain areas, including FDA authority, as the president said last week, (and) perhaps other areas as well," Bruce Reed, White House domestic policy adviser, told reporters after a meeting with industry representatives at the White House. "We also gave them a clear message to take back to New York, which is that if this settlement is going to work, they have a responsibility to look out for our bottom line, which is reducing smoking, especially among kids," Reed added.

Representatives from the tobacco industry will discuss their settlement deal with Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and White House domestic adviser Bruce Reed on Tuesday, the White House said on Monday. . . McCurry said representatives from tobacco grower groups were likely to have a similar White House meeting later in the week.

With the clock ticking in Congress on a proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement, the Allen administration recently appointed a task force to try to make sure Virginians aren't short-changed on Capitol Hill. But some critics of the governor's tobacco policies think they've already gotten short shrift. "I think it's a shame the public health community was ignored in this," said Kurt G. Erickson, executive director of the American Lung Association of Northern Virginia. Erickson, who has lobbied for stricter laws on cigarette sales, was referring to the all-government makeup of Allen's tobacco task force announced July 2. The tobacco troika consists of Attorney General Richard Cullen, Secretary of Commerce and Trade Robert Skunda and Secretary of Transportation Robert Martinez.

• OUR VIEW: Camel's Switch Shows Why Industry Must Be Given Potent Incentives to Cut Teen Smoking (LINK DEAD)
• OPPOSING VIEW: Companies Have Made Extraordinary Concessions; Approve the Deal as Written Berl Bernhard is chairman of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, settlement counsel to the tobacco industry.

Somehow, I felt better when the anti-smoking war was about health, not money. When the battlefield was the classroom not the courtroom. As lawyers divvy up their fees, I'm losing my heart in the fight for healthy lungs. Which brings me back to LeBow. Some say he's a hero. Others say he's a zero. I'm not sure who's right, but I know that, where I grew up -- ironically, in tobacco country -- a deal's a deal. The tobacco settlement may help keep young people from smoking. But the attorneys general might keep in mind that dishonesty is another bad habit that kids can pick up from watching adults.

Clearly, the companies tried to deceive the public in denying that nicotine is addictive. Lying to Congress and lying to the FDA are actionable offenses, and Congress should not permit them to be negotiated away.

Forcing the the agency to prove that its actions would not result in an increase in demand for black-market cigarettes is an almost impossible task. Many fear that this contraband "loophole" could prove to be an ideal means for the tobacco industry to sidestep FDA regulation of nicotine. It is particularly distressing that one of the main mechanisms for reducing smoking deaths - enhanced authority for the FDA to control the nicotine and identified carcinogens in cigarettes - has been weakened by the proposed settlement. Along with the resolution of some other problems with the settlement, it is imperative that a final settlement in no way restricts the ability of the FDA to regulate the drug, nicotine.

"CMA has performed an analysis which strongly indicates that the proposed tobacco settlement should not be supported," said the organization's president Rolland C. Lowe, M.D. "Its inability to either increase cigarette prices or decrease cigarette consumption in any significant way shows that the proposed settlement, if enacted, is doom ed to fall far short of the goals we all share." Dr. Lowe also said the CMA is "dismayed" that the settlement would not give the FDA sufficient authority to regulate nicotine.

The debate over the tobacco settlement misses the single, fundamental point: If we fail to act now and grab this opportunity to fundamentally change the way cigarettes are made and marketed in America, we will miss a historic chance to save countless lives. In some sense, critics are right; this is not a perfect agreement. All of us have things we would have liked to have seen done differently. But the historic nature of what was agreed to has to be judged not against the dream of what's perfect, but against a political, legal and constitutional backdrop that makes progress difficult, time-consuming and costly. . . Many other states have strong cases pending. It is the threat of these cases that has brought the tobacco companies to the negotiating table. As these lawsuits either go to trial or are settled, our leverage over the tobacco industry to enter into a comprehensive national settlement that addresses a wide range of public health concerns will disappear. Our chance to protect our children from smoking will disappear as well.

Advice to those who viewed the recent tobacco deal as a settlement in the making and are now waiting for the signing ceremony: Consider asbestos and exhale. . . Developing an administrative compensation system that provides fair and efficient compensation to injured workers, keeps culpable defendants on the hook and avoids expending scarce resources on those with only minor injuries is no easy task. But other governments have managed to do it. . . Perhaps our asbestos problems are more complex than those of others. But if Congress can't devise a way out of the asbestos litigation mess, what makes us think it can deal with tobacco?

Critics may say, "But tobacco is more harmful than chocolate and chips." Maybe so. But in trying to retain the resemblance of a free society, should we not seek to lean over backward and then some in allowing firms and consumers to do what they please, for good and bad reasons?

The deal with tobacco companies provides that the FDA would have to prove that lowering nicotine levels would not result in a black market for higher-nicotine cigarettes -- a tall barrier indeed. . . [I]t may be there are other unreasonable measures in this deal, which seems to please cigarette companies . . The FDA recognizes this provision for what it is: an attempt by the cigarette companies to protect their selfish interests as opposed to the best interests of the health of citizens. The president is right to stand with the FDA, and against the wheeler-dealers from cigarette manufacturers.

The key is this: How well will the agreement cut tobacco use -- particularly among teenagers? And on that point, public-health experts are right: This deal negotiated by a group of state attorneys general isn't nearly good enough.

J. Phil Carlton, an attorney for the industry, said they addressed those concerns with Shalala and domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed, who are leading President Clinton's review of the settlement reached last month between state attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers and cigarette makers. Carlton said, "It was a productive meeting." The talks continue Wednesday. Shalala said it was the first time she had met with any of those involved in the settlement and termed it "a very frank discussion" with no negotiation.

Smoking foes on Capitol Hill want the U.S. tobacco giants to finally say publicly that cigarettes do, in fact, kill. Some even contend that Philip Morris Cos., RJR Nabisco Holding Co. and others must make the admission to win congressional approval of the $368.5 billion landmark settlement with 40 states. Don't expect the big players in the industry to make any such admissions, however . . . "A concession before the settlement is finalized could open them up to lawsuits," said David Adelman, a tobacco analyst with Morgan Stanley in New York. "If they wait until after the settlement (is made final by Congress), it could potentially affect them with international litigation," Adelman said. An admission would also provide ammunition for a Justice Department investigation into whether tobacco company executives lied to Congress in 1994 when they said that nicotine isn't addictive.

Tobacco industry lawyers did not rule out paying higher fines or even giving up tax deductions in return for garnering President Clinton's support of a $368.5-billion tobacco settlement, administration officials said Tuesday.

Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III, a leading critic of the proposed deal, described it as a case of good intentions run afoul. "I regret to say that this settlement could become another sad chapter in the tobacco industry's long history of deception," Humphrey said. "For all its good intentions, the proposed settlement is a Trojan camel." Humphrey's testimony was diametrically opposed to that of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped negotiate the settlement. "As a whole, I believe this comprehensive plan is an unprecedented opportunity to seek to save a generation from the disease and death caused by tobacco," Blumenthal said.

Lawyers representing the major cigarette makers said that they were willing to pay a high price to win reprieve from the legal and political threats they now face but that further financial demands could drive them into bankruptcy. Government officials responded by saying they would not recommend approval of a deal unless it included sufficiently harsh penalties to insure that the tobacco companies would drive down smoking by teen-agers through drastic changes in their marketing and advertising practices.

The White House yesterday rejected another key provision in the proposed $368.5 billion settlement with the tobacco industry, complaining that the deal would not impose tough-enough penalties against cigarette makers if they do not reduce underage smoking in the next 10 years. During a meeting at the White House, Clinton administration officials told industry lawyers they were concerned that tobacco companies were not serious about meeting specified goals for curbing youth smoking as set out in the agreement and insisted on more stringent financial costs for failure.

Representatives of tobacco-state farm bureaus are expected to meet Wednesday with Clinton administration officials, including White House adviser Bruce Reed and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Their message: Any tobacco deal approved by the White House and Congress must include protections for farmers hurt by dwindling demand for tobacco. . . In addition to the White House, lobbyists for tobacco farmers plan to target a big group of sympathetic tobacco-state lawmakers, including House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley of Virginia.

The American Cancer Society . . . today distributed to Members of Congress a comprehensive compilation of background analyses on tobacco-related subjects and issues the ACS believes will be central to the eventual development of legislation leading to a new national policy on tobacco. . . Within a week, ACS will also release its complete analysis of the settlement proposal, an evaluation of the legal and constitutional ramifications of the settlement, and the organization's recommendations for developing legislation to achieve the goals of truly comprehensive national tobacco policy driven by the public health agenda. "While the ACS believes the comprehensive legislation which will result from the settlement discussions has more potential for advancing public health than the uncertain outcome of lengthy continued litigation or piecemeal legislation, we do have concerns," said ACS President Myles Cunningham, M.D. "There are major elements of the current settlement proposal that will require substantial revisions for the agreement to succeed in its most important potential benefit to public health -- reducing tobacco use and therefore tobacco-caused disease and death."

Since the settlement will likely be used as a framework to craft federal legislation, the American Academy of Pediatrics felt it was important to tell the administration and Congress what provisions must be changed to ensure children and adolescents benefit in the short and long term. The following five areas must be strengthened: -- Advertising: The academy supports a ban on all tobacco product advertising. . . -- Class Action Suits/Passive Smoke: The ability to file class action suits must be preserved. . . -- Penalties/Enforcement: The penalties/enforcement measures for reducing children's tobacco use are not sufficient. . . -- FDA Regulation on Nicotine: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be able to modify the amount of nicotine and other harmful ingredients in tobacco products without being exposed to complicated regulatory, judicial and legislative maneuvers.

The settlement "could serve as a very significant instrument to help reduce tobacco use," said Martha N. Hill of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, president of the group. The proposed pact "includes a comprehensive set of provisions that the public health community could not have thought possible several months ago," she said. But Hill and Dr. Edward F. Hines Jr., a Boston lawyer and chairman-elect of the group, also said the agreement needs strengthened provisions for Federal Drug Administration regulation of tobacco.

The Butler case shows how the nationwide settlement is already starting to unravel over efforts to limit the right to sue, said Richard Daynard . . "My question is whether there was a side deal that plaintiff attorneys drop individual cases as part of the national settlement," he said. "It is at least indicative that there is more than meets the eye." Several class-action attorneys scoffed at the focus on documents after the hearing, saying that their own cases have already disclosed enough damning evidence . . . . . . . "It's Attorney General Humphrey who wants to leave people twisting in the wind while he rides on his white horse to the governor's office," said John Coale, a D.C. attorney who is coordinating class-action lawsuits nationwide.

At the urging of Minnesota's attorney general, the chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, said the committee would like to examine documents, uncovered as a result of state lawsuits, that shed light on cigarette makers' scientific research, marketing plans and production methods. Speaking at a hearing of the committee, Hatch, R-Utah, said he did not rule out using the Senate's subpoena power to obtain the records

"We must keep in mind that this is an industry whose principal line of defense has been delay and the withholding of information," Sen. Patrick Leahy said. "To completely evaluate whether this agreement is fair and what changes Congress should suggest making in it, we need to know all the facts."

The problem facing Congress as it considers the proposed landmark tobacco settlement was summed up Wednesday in starkly opposing views from two attorneys general. Seize the moment and "save a generation from a lifetime of addiction," urged Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, who supports the proposed deal. Proceed slowly and beware the "Trojan camel," counseled Minnesota Atty. Gen. Hubert Humphrey III, a leading critic.

A bipartisan group of senators offered a solid front of skepticism Wednesday to supporters of the proposed multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement. While members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned the eagerness to obtain an agreement and its impact on state and local laws, supporters defended the proposed deal as preferable to years of unresolved lawsuits. "If we miss this opportunity for national legislation, I don't know whether we will ever have it again," said Richard F. Scruggs

Minnesota Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey, who has broken with 40 other state attorneys general to oppose the deal, urged a Senate panel to get those secret papers before accepting a settlement he lambasted as a "Trojan Camel."

From testimony by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

As state attorneys general who negotiated the tobacco settlement yesterday urged Congress to endorse it, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said congressional lawyers were writing legislation necessary to finalize the deal. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the committee chairman, stressed that the bill is a nonpartisan, working draft strictly along the lines of the settlement, which he acknowledged is still subject to debate and modification. He also said the Senate leadership would decide who will sponsor the legislation, but then added: "I'd be willing to do it." "It's an amazing document when you stop to think about it," Hatch said.

'I believe that the proposed restrictions on private civil actions fall well within Congress' powers,' said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University. He also noted that many states either prohibit or restrict punitive damages in many cases.

Newt Gingrich cast doubt on prospects for the proposed tobacco settlement, saying it could "suspend free speech, raise taxes, and transfer wealth to trial lawyers." At a minimum, he signaled that Congress might be unable to approve any version of the $368.5 billion accord this year, which could undermine the deal.

Clinton administration officials heard a plea from Gov. Jim Hunt and farm-bureau officials from seven Southern states yesterday to add tobacco farmers to the proposed tobacco settlement, but they made no commitment. . . Bruce Reed, a top Clinton aide, said that consultations with farmers would continue. "Tobacco growers have been left out. We don't have much sympathy for the tobacco companies, but we do have real sympathy for the family farmers who have been growing this crop for generations," he said.

Democratic candidate for attorney general William D. Dolan III last weekend denounced the global tobacco settlement, complaining that it slighted Virginia farmers who depend on the industry. . . Dolan criticized GOP gubernatorial nominee and former Attorney General James S. Gilmore III for not taking part in the national tobacco talks. "Unless you're in the deal, it's no good deal," said Dolan, aiming his comments at rural voters. "There's been not a penny, not a consideration, not an argument in behalf of tens of thousands of family farmers." But Dolan's comments also mean that both he and L.F. Payne Jr., the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor and a former U.S. representative, have broken with the ticket's leader, Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr. Beyer has called the deal a good first step

The war movie "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," made in 1944, features dialogue referring to cigarettes as "coffin nails." You would have trouble finding a smoker who took up the habit in the expectation that it would build strong bones and sound teeth. Becoming a smoker and blaming cigarette-makers when you get lung cancer is like playing professional football and suing the NFL when you tear up your knees. Never mind if cigarette companies have lied about the health effects of tobacco. If you sell me a supposed Rolex watch that I know is a fake, I can't sue you, because I didn't rely on your deception. Anyone with operational gray matter would not conclude that cigarettes were safe merely because some tobacco executive expressed doubt about the link between smoking and cancer. . . Tobacco no more warrants FDA regulation than beer, which also contains a dangerous, addictive drug that is not a medicine. The only reason to concede the agency authority over cigarettes is to let it enact slow-motion Prohibition. Those who want to bleed Big Tobacco say they are defending us from the death and destruction caused by smoking. The protection is no favor to adults who would like to preserve some latitude to live their own lives, of which America still has a few.

The tobacco deal currently on the table is characterized by, more than anything else, simple greed. And the source of the wealth we're all dividing up is the victims, the smokers. As long as they insist on suffering from this irritating affliction, and feeling guilty for it to boot, we might as well soak them for a few more hundred billion. Our best hope now is that Congress and the attorneys and regulators won't be able to restrain their greed, imagining they can sit down to a sumptuous goose banquet without jeopardizing the golden egg supply. The goose will probably draw the line at that point. The rest of us seem perfectly willing to sacrifice a little more science and common sense, a little more freedom.

The Clinton administration today agreed to consider complaints that a proposed tobacco industry settlement does not force cigarette makers to disclose enough of their secrets, After whistleblowers argued the companies still are hiding ways to make safer cigarettes, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said, "The document disclosure part of the settlement, which has to go through a lot of hoops, is something we need to look at very carefully."

Asked what he would regard as a good agreement, DeNoble said: "Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. The creation of a combined body ... to make a safer product ... A real commitment to changing the way the tobacco product is made would begin to make a good agreement."

Wigand . . . meets Friday with Gore, Shalala and White House aide Bruce Reed. "It's a good peek behind the curtain," says Reed, who is helping evaluate the big tobacco settlement.

'This is what people do when they want a deal. They talk tough,' Shalala said. 'We are in a position of strength when we go to the table. They want a deal,' she added. Shalala likened the warnings to the sort of bluff people indulge in when the play poker.

Two leading cigarette industry representatives said Thursday that the key provisions of the pending $368.5-billion tobacco settlement have not been adequately explained to Congress and the public, creating misconceptions that could block the settlement's enactment into law. "It's a complicated deal," said one of the representatives. "What has struck me is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the agreement; we have a lot of work to do."

In a wide-ranging briefing, two industry delegates said they were open to discussing suggestions for changes in the parts of the deal governing the Food and Drug Administration's ability to regulate nicotine content in cigarettes and the penalties tobacco companies must pay if youth smoking doesn't decline. . . . . . Yet some in the industry have become concerned about the pounding the settlement has been taking on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, and the briefing Thursday with six reporters was arranged to draw attention to aspects of the deal the industry thinks haven't been adequately aired. The tobacco representatives spoke only on condition of anonymity. Among other things, the briefing yielded a notion of the industry's "bottom line" for changes to the settlement: One tobacco representative stated flatly that he didn't see any way cigarette makers could give up immunity from punitive liability in civil lawsuits based on past conduct.

The tobacco industry yesterday offered its first detailed defense of the proposed nationwide legal settlement, warning Congress and the White House that the deal could be lost if they dally too long over changes. In a briefing for a small group of reporters, two tobacco industry representatives rebutted criticisms of the most controversial elements of the deal, including a provision restricting the federal government's authority to regulate nicotine that President Clinton has called "totally unreasonable." . . . During the session, the sources said the FDA provision is "critical" to the nation's major cigarette companies, part of a package that could be undone by too much tinkering. . . While they did not rule out possible changes in the deal, the two representatives did not indicate much flexibility. "There may be more than one way to accomplish the same thing and protect everybody's position," one said.

tobacco farmers have asked Congress for $7 billion in economic protections and a requirement that cigarette makers buy a guaranteed amount of U.S. leaf. The growers also want a promise of government compensation for losses in land value and other property if future regulations cause tobacco use to plummet, according to an eight-point plan developed by farm organizations and obtained by The Associated Press. "We're after what the companies got: stability," said Tim Cansler, national affairs director for the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation. "The implications of this negotiated settlement very much put us into a newlight."

"I think if you are interested in trying to curb youth access to tobacco products, it does a good job," Bliley said of the settlement . . . "If you are interested in prohibition (of tobacco products), it won't do the job for you," Bliley added. He said he wants to talk personally to tobacco workers and growers. He seemed wary of taking a lead on the deal.

The tobacco issue has split the Democratic ticket, with both L.F. Payne Jr. and William D. Dolan III lining up against a proposed settlement and Donald S. Beyer Jr. supporting it. Dolan, the candidate for attorney general, called on Gov. George Allen and Virginia's congressional delegation to reject the plan.

Harvard Law School will host a day-long conference on July 31, 1997, concerning the proposed national tobacco settlement. The conference, "Should Tort Law Be On The Table?", which is organized by Professor Jon Hanson, is motivated by "two striking features of the settlement negotiations and their aftermath," says Hanson. "First, probably because of the secrecy and urgent pace of the negotiations, legal theorists and policy- oriented scholars have had little or no opportunity to weigh in on the matter. Second . . . very little attention has been devoted to considering the implications of the settlement's tort law restrictions. The primary purpose of the symposium is to begin a balanced discussion of those implications, while there is still time." Speakers will include some of the key players on both sides of the settlement negotiations, lawyers involved in related tobacco litigation, and policy-oriented academics with a demonstrated interest in the topic. . . Those interested in attending should contact Carol Igoe by email at cigoe@law.harvard.edu or by telephone at 617-495-4863 by July 23. Pre-registration is required. Space is limited.

In addition, ACS will release a legal and constitutional review of the settlement. Experts that reviewed the settlement document on behalf of ACS will also be in attendance. ACS will release portions of a recent national survey detailing public perceptions of specific issues included in the proposed tobacco settlement. The ACS official review and analysis document will be available at the press conference. . . TIME: 11 a.m. LOCATION: Columbia Square Building Litigation and Conference Center Concourse Level 555 13th Street NW Washington, D.C. CONTACT: Shelley Buckingham, 202-546-4011 ext. 115

• 1. Goals for reducing rates of youth initiation and tobacco use must be explicit, and failure to achieve them must be penalized sufficiently to build strong incentives for compliance by the tobacco industry. . .
• 2. The price of tobacco products must be increased substantially and immediately. . .
• 3. The federal preemption of state and local regulation of advertising and promotion must be repealed. . .
• 4. FDA regulation of tobacco products must be strengthened. . .
• 5. The federal government must study, monitor, and evaluate tobacco control measures.

The American Lung Association fears this deal adds up to millions and millions more people suffering from smoking-related disease and death. What's worse will be the disproportionate impact that the settlement will have upon communities of color -- communities already heavily targeted by tobacco industry.

A regulatory document filed by the company this month got the attention of industry analysts already concerned about the impact of the landmark settlement . . . In a July 2 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Philip Morris Cos. Inc., one of Richmond's best-known investments, said it "may evaluate its share repurchase and dividend policies" in light of the financial obligations of the proposed settlement. The deal "would likely materially adversely affect the volume, operating revenues, cash flows and/or operating income" of the company, the filing said. The degree of the financial pain would depend, among other things, on the rate of decline in U.S. cigarette sales and the company's ability to hold on to its nearly 50 percent share of the domestic cigarette market.

The debate over the proposed tobacco settlement branched off to a new area last week: the type of secret industry documents that cigarette companies should be forced to divulge under the $368.5 billion agreement. On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, indicated that he would seek thousands of still-undisclosed documents that Minnesota collected as part of its lawsuit against the tobacco industry. On Friday, former cigarette-company officials who have turned whistle-blowers urged a White House task force reviewing the proposal to require companies to disclose internal documents on ways to make cigarettes less hazardous.

The US tobacco settlement and Mr Brown's tax are both attempts to shore creaking benefit systems with one-off raids on the corporate sector, while ducking the politically difficult task of persuading the electorate to pay more or expect less. Others countries' politicians may not abdicate as much of their job, passing it on to the courts, as do their American counterparts. But as this deal shows, attacking big business offers an internationally tempting escape route from the responsibilities of government.

Now that we have Big Tobacco on the run, the next target for do-gooders, reformers and restless lawyers should be obvious: Big Candy, insidious corrupter of souls and stomachs. Together, perhaps, we can end the tyranny of those companies and advertising agencies who have enslaved millions to the dread scourge of the sugar demon.

But many of the gains won't be realized if the agreement is full of escape clauses. Thus, the White House is right to insist that the goals for reducing teenage smoking be stringently enforced, if not toughened, and that the FDA's authority to regulate nicotine not be easily circumvented. On the other hand, the pact's unwise, unnecessary assault on the 1st Amendment rights of the tobacco companies should be excised.

1. On a scale of one to ten, with one being terrible and ten being terrific, how well do you think the tobacco industry handled the 39 Attorneys' General lawsuits and the tentative settlement?

Tobacco farmers from seven Southern states want tobacco companies to come up with $14.9 billion over 25 years to help them cope with a proposed settlement which threatens their livelihoods.

Fighting for their livelihoods, America's tobacco growers want $7.37 billion in economic relief and other safeguards to protect them from a proposed truce in the nation's cigarette wars. Grower groups, including representatives of Virginia's 8,000 tobacco farmers, appealed to Congress yesterday after being kept out of secret negotiations

Arguing that the proposed multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement threatens their livelihood, tobacco farmers have asked Congress for $7 billion in economic protections and a requirement that cigarette makers buy a guaranteed amount of domestic leaf. The growers also seek a promise of government compensation for losses in land value and other property if future regulations cause tobacco use to plummet, according to an eight-point plan farm organizations have developed.

In another sign that President Clinton will push for a toughened tobacco settlement, administration officials on Friday met with four tobacco industry whistle-blowers, introduced them to the media as "American heroes" and said they had listened carefully to their warnings that cigarette makers have not disclosed everything they know about smoking's health hazards. "I think the major message of today . . . was that we need a lot of document disclosure" by the tobacco industry and that provisions of the pending settlement on this subject must be reviewed "very carefully," Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said.

A high-powered group of independent scientists urged the Clinton administration Wednesday to take a cautious approach in regulating nicotine, warning that dramatic reductions in its levels in cigarettes could

A group of scientists urged the White House today to use caution in trying to regulate nicotine, and suggested a closer look at alternatives to cigarette smoking that may yield a safer means of delivering the drug. The scientists said there is abundant research on virtually all health aspects of tobacco use, much of it locked away from public knowledge. They said the Food and Drug Administration should use some research, such as that on alternative ways of delivering nicotine, to help discourage smoking. Ken Warner of the University of Michigan said the FDA ought to explore ways to allow smokers "at least some options whereby they might be able to get nicotine without inflicting such severe damage on themselves" with cigarettes. "It's very expensive to acquire Nicorette and some of the other products. It's packaged in large quantities, it's made to taste bad," Warner said. "The government ought not to favor the production, distribution and marketing of the dirty forms of tobacco products. ..."

Republican leaders are working to move tobacco off the table before entering final tax negotiations with the White House. The effort dominated a daylong huddle Tuesday in the office of Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose aides spent the afternoon swatting down rumors of further shake-ups in the GOP leadership and emphasizing the Georgia Republican's command of the budget talks.

The Republican leaders emerged from a closed-door strategy session with plans for up to seven Senate committees to conduct hearings on a variety of issues, ranging from the possible impact of the settlement on public health to federal regulation of nicotine to how the agreement would affect tobacco farmers. Their timetable virtually eliminates the possibility that a bill implementing the settlement can be considered on the Senate floor before fall

President Clinton's advisers are expected to complete their review of the tobacco agreement within a couple of weeks.

"There's a lot of work being done on the tobacco settlement, our review continues," McCurry said of the internal administration study of the 68-page agreement between lawyers for the industry and 40 states. "The president has not made any final judgments on the settlement at this point," the White House spokesman said, adding: "I don't anticipate it being done until next month."

The Clinton administration task force reviewing the landmark tobacco settlement probably will recommend that the president embrace the deal, so long as it includes tougher penalties for cigarette companies, greater government authority to regulate nicotine and several other smaller changes. Hoping to finish their review of the proposed $368.5 billion settlement next month, officials have narrowed their demands to two major areas: beefing up provisions asserting the Food and Drug Administration's ability to regulate nicotine and strengthening the penalties tobacco companies would pay if smoking by the young doesn't fall to targeted levels. The task force also will probably offer explicit recommendations for how the money should be spent, including calling for tobacco farmers to receive some compensation for anticipated reduction in demand for their crop. Moreover, the group may push cigarette companies to turn over more documents than the current settlement requires.

The president's task force hopes to finish work before his August vacation. It meets next week with advertisers and retailers to discuss implications of the settlement. Clinton's aides argue against a detailed written report, though, fearing it could be used against them in a court case challenging new FDA regulations. But Congress is slow . . . Some lawmakers suggest a settlement is more useful politically if it passes closer to next year's elections. Gingrich says he will name Reps. Archer, Hyde and Bliley, a longtime friend of tobacco farmers, to head a House tobacco task force.

But as the proposal moves toward battles on Capitol Hill, the rivalry among public health groups makes it easier for pro-tobacco forces to marshal support. On Thursday, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association held separate news conferences to lay out their views of the settlement. The cancer society detailed the changes it will insist on, while the lung association castigated tobacco advertising and reiterated its view that the entire settlement is "premature and wrong." The American Medical Association is to release its own position paper as early as next Wednesday. All three groups are part of the public health coalition headed by former Food and Drug Administration head David Kessler and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that was commissioned by Congress to craft a blueprint for curtailing tobacco use. After three protracted sessions, the Koop-Kessler group, made up of 23 public health advocacy groups, recommended toughening the proposed settlement in a report issued July 9. But that hasn't stopped individual members from issuing reports pressing their own priorities.

CMA President Dr. Rolland Lowe said, "CMA has performed an analysis which strongly indicates that the proposed tobacco settlement should not be supported." He added, "Its inability to either increase cigarette prices or decrease cigarette consumption in any significant way shows that the proposed settlement, if enacted, is doomed to fall far short of the goals we all share." Lowe also expressed concern that the settlement does not give the Food and Drug Administration sufficient authority to regulate nicotine.

CANCER SOCIETY officials said they want Congress to approve the deal but only after making significant changes. THE LUNG ASSOCIATION said the whole settlement should be junked. Next week, another key health group, the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, will announce its evaluation of the tobacco pact. The fourth major health group, the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, endorsed the settlement last week but called for stronger FDA regulation of tobacco and stiffer penalties, saying "shareholders of tobacco companies should lose money every time they addict a child to tobacco."

Two of the nation's top anti-smoking groups said the proposed $368 billion tobacco settlement is flawed on several fronts, including advertising and proposed tax increases on tobacco products.

The ACS recommended changes to seven issue areas which would significantly strengthen the proposed tobacco settlement in order to achieve the public health goals set forth by the Attorneys General when they began their discussions. "The American Cancer Society supports the right settlement -- but this is not that settlement," said ACS Chairman George Dessart.

Calling the proposed tobacco settlement's advertising provisions "a mere inconvenience to the tobacco industry," the American Lung Association and a volunteer task force of advertising and marketing experts today issued recommendations for ways to end tobacco advertising and marketing to adolescents. "Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man may be dead, but cigarette advertising still has an impact on encouraging young people to smoke," said John R. Garrison, Chief Executive Officer of the American Lung Association. The American Lung Association created a Tobacco Advertising Advisory Committee to analyze the proposed tobacco settlement. Based on that analysis, the Lung Association has developed the following guidelines to ensure that cigarette advertising does not reach young people and contribute to their decision to smoke:

The ad, which ran in a recent Sports Illustrated, features a sidelit black motorcycle fender with a Camel logo that bears some resemblance to the Harley-Davidson logo. "To them, it says: Wow -- power, strength, mystery, excitement, speed, competition," said Penelope Queen, a former top official with Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising Worldwide who is now a brand consultant. "This is absolutely a beautifully constructed, powerful, meaningful piece of communication that hooks right into the issues of kids." John R. Garrison, the managing director of the American Lung Association . . . proposed allowing only black-and-white photos of cigarette packs in advertising and no words other than the warning labels.

A study released Thursday by the association cites a new Camel Lights magazine ad, which would be allowed under terms of the proposed settlement, that it complains includes symbols just as alluring to teenagers as those that would be banned.

The National Association of Convenience Stores said . . . landmark agreement . . . would prevent the display of tobacco products in stores, requiring them to undertake costly remodeling "to literally hide the product behind counters," NACS said in a written statement. In addition, it called for "an arbitrary and overly punitive" licensing scheme for tobacco retailers, NACS noted. . . "The settlement may satisfy the lawyers and the states, but it devastates the retailers and ignores the kids," NACS said. "Our industry was not invited to participate in the settlement discussions despite the fact that retailers will be dramatically affected."

Even former Food and Drug commissioner David Kessler sided with the farmers as the Senate Commerce . . . "We should remember the interests of the hard-working tobacco farmers, most of whom run the sort of small family farms that remain a part of our nation's heritage," added Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "They were not at the table when this agreement was negotiated, but they should not be forgotten now." Kessler agreed: "I certainly think everybody should, around the table, pay very close attention to the fate of the farmers, and I would much rather see money going to them ... rather than going to lawyers or even paying smokers who've been harmed in the past." But he and Koop were critical of the settlement worked out by attorneys general and the tobacco industry, telling the committee it should be viewed as a starting point for legislation, not a final deal.

Among those to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee was former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, who is co-chair, The Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health. Former Food and Drug Administration commissioner David Kessler, who is Koop's counterpart on the panel. Attorneys general to travel to Capitol Hill to push for congressional passage of the deal are Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey, III, Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire, and Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore.

"There will be no settlement until these documents are given to the Congress so that it is in a position to take action," Butterworth said in an interview during a break in a court hearing. Butterworth . . . challenged them to "stop all appeals regarding the release of cigarette documents and let all the documents go public." He referred to the tobacco companies' request that Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal reverse a decision allowing secret documents from the Brooke Group Ltd's (BGL) Ligget Group to be used in Florida's lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

It takes a very special person to persuade old-line liberals like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to listen to the tobacco industry. The industry thinks it has hired just that person: former Texas Gov. Ann Richards. A few weeks before it publicly announced the terms of a landmark legal settlement . . . the Texas Democrat cashed in some political chips and got a personal meeting with Mr. Kennedy, D-Mass., to pitch the deal. . . the apparent goal of the visit, Senate staffers later said, was to ensure that even if Mr. Kennedy did not support the settlement, he would voice his objections softly. That way, they said, congressional Republicans would not fear political retaliation if they voted with the tobacco companies . . .

But lawyers for the state of Minnesota, which is suing the tobacco industry, claim that the documents, which have only been disclosed to them in summary form, contain evidence of a decades-long conspiracy by cigarette makers and their lawyers to suppress evidence and deceive the public about the dangers of smoking. . . Humphrey seized on a unique aspect of Minnesota's case -- no other state has plumbed the padlocked files of the tobacco companies with such intensity and single-mindedness. Two weeks ago, Humphrey, in an effort to influence the congressional debate over the proposal, urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena key records from his state's case so that Congress could review them as it considers turning the proposal into legislation. "I want Congress to know the facts to the greatest extent possible before a bargain is made with the American people," Humphrey said in an interview.

Attorneys for states suing the tobacco industry are gearing up for what both sides hoped they could avoid: trials. Mounting opposition among health groups to the $368.5 billion national tobacco settlement raises the likelihood that state lawsuits scheduled for trial between now and the time Congress considers the issue could go forward. Both sides expected those states and the industry to reach separate settlements before trials begin, and ample time remains for that to happen. But so far, only Mississippi has settled. Florida's lawsuit goes to trial Friday unless a deal is reached before then. "Intense" negotiations are under way, says Ron Motley, an attorney representing Florida. Texas' lawsuit goes to trial September 8.

Despite being among the first to sue, San Francisco and other local governments were barred from talks leading to the recent $368 billion settlement against the tobacco industry. As a result, the proposed accord leaves counties "up in the air." We know the accord is intended to "kill" our lawsuits. If so, how much compensation would San Francisco see in tobacco settlement dollars? . . . As proposed, the settlement actually could allow an increase in teen smoking in California if it were offset by decreases elsewhere. That is simply unacceptable. As for San Francisco's monetary interests, the settlement pledges billions for the states but fails to say what, if anything, local governments will recover. Again, the impact will be particularly dramatic in California, where a larger share of costs for treating smoking-related illness falls on counties. . . Whether through litigation or settlement, the tobacco industry first and foremost must meet our public health concerns. Any proposed agreement must be fair to cities and counties. We will not sit by quietly and allow the voices of local government to be stilled in a matter so vital to the public health.

The EPA rules are not the only regulatory moves taking place with little organized political opposition, Mr. Crews said. Others include: . . The Food and Drug Administration's decision to regulate tobacco and its new labeling restrictions on restaurant menus. . . Even more worrisome is the regulatory intent behind the administration's abduction of the tobacco-liability issue, a matter involving states and industry. "This is straight-out extortion," Mr. Hudgins said. Basically, the president is bringing people together at the White House and telling them what to do in lieu of going through a formal rule-making process. "The president is putting more nooses around more necks, and it's just a matter of time before he jerks them," Mr. Hudgins said.

The punishment meted out in the agreement is likely to result in dire consequences for employments and livelihoods in the tobacco industry and in industries directly and indirectly related to tobacco. My hope is that Congress will understand the harmful effects of the agreement and will not ratify it.

The settlement would provide $75 million over 10 years to promoters of sports events to compensate for the withdrawal of brand-name sponsorships, but it sets aside nothing for farmers and farm communities. What everyone is missing is the opportunity to do something hardly ever accomplished in this country: to bring about an orderly transformation of a rural economy.

Gingrich, R-Ga., indicates he will name Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr., head of the House Commerce Committee, among the leaders if such a task force is set up later this summer, a congressional source said yesterday.

"Clearly, whether the goal is fair compensation or reducing youth smoking, the current settlement is inadequate," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass . . . "People are starting to realize that if this isn't done, then nothing's going to be done," Hatch told reporters as the hearing wrapped up. "We'll be back to business as usual with litigation going one way or the other. This is an excellent opportunity to do something to deter the number of children who take up smoking."

Several senators chided Kessler and Koop for making recommendations that they called unrealistic. "If you put all of the antis on this package, it's going to fall of its own weight," Ford warned. Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) said, "Fortunately or unfortunately, we have to deal with the art of the possible -- not the world of the impossible."

"You can do better than the settlement," Dr. David Kessler, former commissioner of food and drugs, said in testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Kessler was joined by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who told the lawmakers that rather than tinker with the pact, they should "face the scourge of tobacco for what it is and legislate a tobacco policy that holds the industry accountable." . . "This shows that they progressively are going more and more into fairy-tale land," Grant Woods, the attorney general of Arizona . . . "They are contemplating prohibition, and that's just not going to happen in this country."

"It would be a major mistake for anyone to sign onto a settlement without knowing the facts," former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler said. In a wide-ranging interview, he and fellow tobacco foe C. Everett Koop, a former U.S. surgeon general, urged the administration to insist on a thorough review, possibly by the Justice Department, of industry documents now sealed under attorney-client privilege.

Their dissatisfaction with the proposed deal . . . by no means dooms it on Capitol Hill. . . But it does raise the ante. Koop and Kessler are saying, in effect, that the choices aren't limited to rejecting the agreement or simply improving it at the margins.

• 07/29/97 KOOP, KESSLER Speak Out on Tobacco Deal Reuters
  
  "The settlement gives the industry practically everythign it wants but shortchanges the public health," said Koop. . . "During the settlement talks, I was everybody's confidante and adviser, I was on the phone with everybody around that table. . . What I was hearing sounded good, very good, and I kept saying I'd be flexible and wait and see what was in it. Then I saw what was in it. . . I got to the fine print. It is so underhanded, and unethical."
• 07/29/97 KESSLER, KOOP Push Congress on Tobacco
• 07/29/97 HISPANIC Organizations Reject Tobacco Agreement; Call for Support of KOOP/KESSLER Report Recommendations PR Newswire
  
  COSSMHO [National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organizations] recommended using the Koop/Kessler Policy and Public Health report as a blueprint for future action. To demonstrate community support of the Koop/Kessler recommendations, COSSMHO announced it is launching a series of community town meetings and rallies over the August Congressional recess.

The critical question is whether the $5.2 billion raised by the new cigarette taxes over the next five years will be credited against the $368.5 billion proposed settlement reached last month between tobacco companies and state attorneys general. Industry sources were uncertain Tuesday what the answer would be.

Mealey Publications has added two bonus sessions to its popular Tobacco Conference in Chicago Sept. 18-19. The proposed settlement between the tobacco industry and the state attorneys general will be the focus of a newly added early-morning session on Sept. 18. Kenneth Moll of Kenneth Moll & Associates will discuss what he sees as "the dangerous precedential effect the settlement could have on future litigation." The Chicago attorney will discuss his opposition to the settlement's controversial ban on punitive damages, class action or consolidated litigation and the yearly cap on payments for settlements and judgments. . . Mealey Publications also has added an early morning session on Friday that will focus on labor union health trust litigation. The conference will be held at The Fairmont Hotel in Chicago and will be chaired by Joseph L. Dunn of Robinson, Phillips & Calcagnie in Laguna Niguel, Calif. Also featured at the conference will be an open forum which will feature representatives from the inner circle of the settlement talks as well as settlement opponents.

"Congress should subpoena those documents," Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) urged Wednesday. "The tobacco industry dreads" the release of some of those secrets--a factor that is driving the "rush to settlement," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Reflecting the complexity and far-reaching implications of the proposed settlement, the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday wrestled with that question and other issues, such as the deal's impact on convenience stores and outdoor advertising, how high the price of cigarettes needs to be to deter smoking by youths, and what lessons can be learned from the ongoing asbestos litigation debacle.

Key senators said Wednesday that tobacco firms may have to offer significantly more money if they want Congress to approve a deal that would give them immunity from potentially ruinous legal damages. The senators spoke after an expert witness testified that the $368 billion tobacco litigation settlement now awaiting federal approval isn't as rich as it appears and probably would cover less than half the government's true cost of providing health care for ailing smokers. Also, cigarette makers could fully cover their outlays by boosting prices 62 cents per pack - an amount that would still leave their products relatively favorably priced, the expert said. "The amount of compensation to be paid. . .is far too low compared to the health damage that cigarettes cause," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

"The lines of consensus are starting to emerge," said Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Can we afford to fritter away the opportunity to stop 3,000 kids a day from (starting) smoking?" . . The only specific change he mentioned was stronger language guaranteeing the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate nicotine, a change also demanded by the White House, lawmakers and public health advocates. "If we do nothing, what is the acceptable alternative?" Hatch said, noting that relying on lawsuits was uncertain.

While taxpayers and some industries could take a beating under the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement plan, leaders of the largest cigarette companies would stand to gain more than $200 million in stock profits, according to Senate testimony and a new study released yesterday. If Congress and President Clinton approve the landmark tobacco pact, the industry's top 15 executives will make an extra $206 million, if their stocks increased the 46 percent that some Wall Street analysts have predicted, a report by the Institute for Policy Studies found. . . . The biggest winner would be Geoffrey C. Bible, the CEO of Philip Morris, whose stock options would rise nearly $73 million. "With this in mind, members of Congress should use caution in evaluating the tobacco settlement to ensure that the tobacco executives are not using smoke and mirrors to obtain a deal that favors their own personal interests above those of public health," the report concluded.

Jeffrey Harris, a doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the $368.5 billion settlement would raise cigarette prices about 62 cents a pack within five years. . . "To reach the target teenage smoking rate," Dr. Harris said, "I calculate that the price of a pack of cigarettes would have to rise by an additional $1.50." He also contended that the penalties tobacco companies would pay if youth smoking doesn't meet the targets aren't enough of an incentive for them to reduce underage smoking.

As part of the national tobacco settlement that was announced in June, Brown & Williamson agreed to release Wigand from liability for anything he did or said about B&W through the day the settlement was reached. On Thursday, the company did so. Wigand, B&W's vice president for research and development from 1989 to 1993, is still bound by a confidentiality agreement with the company until March 20, assuming settlement legislation is passed by Congress. If it isn't passed by that date, Wigand would be bound by the agreement until it is. . . "If he does anything else after that, after June 20, if he makes any libelous statements, the company will take whatever actions are necessary," Milliman said.

However in June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that threw out the asbestos class action known as "Georgine." The nation's highest court agreed that federal class-action laws cannot be used to settle massive personal injury cases where the plaintiffs' injuries and interests are too diverse. The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and some other plaintiffs lawyers have challenged the litigation agreement, arguing that it must be thrown out because of the Georgine [asbestos] ruling. [Leslie Brueckner, an attorney with the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice] said the class in the Liggett case is far too broad, encompassing anyone who might have an injury in the next 25 years. . . `They are trying to extinguish all cases for nothing," she told reporters after the discussion. Brueckner said Liggett was trying to use federal class action law to avoid bankruptcy, in which "all the money would have to be on the table." U.S. District Judge William Schwarzer of the Northern District of California, another speaker on the panel, also said he felt the Liggett settlement was an "end run around bankruptcy laws."

"If the provision in the tax bill remains and we come to the conclusion that $368 (billion) was the right number to start with, then, sure, we'd add the 15 cents on top of that," said White House Domestic Policy Adviser Bruce Reed, co-leader of an admistration task force on the tobacco settlement. "The 15 cents that we won for children's health this week will be on top of any settlement," Reed told reporters after meetings with tobacco retailers, advertisers and public health representatives.

The White House Friday vowed that any tobacco settlement it will consider will have to be boosted enough to offset any credits tobacco companies might receive because of a higher tax placed on cigarettes. In addition, the White House said it has wrapped up its process of hearing public comments on the proposed tobacco settlement and will now start the work of formulating its own proposals. . . 'We are going to make certain that this provision [the GOP's BUDGET insertion allowing cig tax revenues to be credited against industry's settlement duties] will not reduce the tobacco company's liability,' said Bruce Reed, Clinton's domestic policy adviser and one of his chief advisers on tobacco.

"If they wanted to send us a message that they haven't changed their stripes, they certainly did that. . . The tobacco companies did not indicate good faith in what they did on the tax side of the bill," SHALALA told reporters outside the White House. "And that is something that we will remember as we advise the president, advise Congress as to what our position is."

In a potential windfall for cigarette producers, new taxes paid by smokers will save the tobacco industry billions of dollars by reducing the amount of money companies would owe if the proposed tobacco settlement plan became law.

A new cigarette tax will not just pay for children's health care. It will offset anything tobacco companies might have to pay to settle health claims against the industry.

The Senate easily defeated an effort to strike language from the tax cut bill that favors tobacco companies. The bill allows tobacco companies to receive credit from the increased cigarette tax against funds paid into any tobacco liability settlement written into law. The language was inserted by Republicans at the last minute. The proposed tobacco settlement calls for more than $350 billion to be placed in a settlement fund for class-actions suits. It has not been approved and faces a difficult battle in Washington. 'They just got a $50 billion break with a technical correction,' Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said of the tobacco provision.

The money raised by a new cigarette tax would offset anything tobacco companies would otherwise have to pay to settle health claims against the industry, under a provision inserted into the tax bill at the last minute. The tax money, designed to pay for children's health, would be credited toward any settlement of claims. . . The Senate upheld the provision yesterday, 78-22, after Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., moved to strip it from the bill. He said that over 25 years, the cigarette tax would raise $50 billion, which tobacco companies would not have to spend on the anti-smoking initiatives they have promised under the agreement. "It just gave them a $50 billion windfall," Durbin said. "This is a clear indication that tobacco lobby is strong. It's powerful," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who said that the provision was slipped into the tax bill behind closed doors. "The tobacco lobby cannot stand the light of day."

In a move blasted by tobacco critics, the U.S. Congress voted on Thursday to include the new cigarette tax for children's health care in any eventual nationwide settlement for tobacco litigation. . . The provision about taking the tax out of any eventual tobacco settlement was later inserted under the "miscellaneous provisions" section of the companion tax-cut bill. Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the deputy Republican leader of the Senate, said he thought it had been "inadvertently left out" of the spending bill and therefore added to the tax bill. He said the idea of linking the tax to the settlement had been part of the budget negotiations with the White House.

"The cigarette companies don't deserve peace," says Julia Carol, who is co-director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights . . . The upshot is that while some big public-health groups such as the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society have sent mixed messages about the settlement, the grass-roots tobacco-control groups have been clear: Don't fix it, deep-six it. The opening exists to do just that, despite the fragile consensus for the settlement among the industry, state attorneys general and antitobacco plaintiffs' lawyers. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows decidedly mixed feelings over the deal: 37% of Americans are in favor while 34% are opposed . . .

The AMA announced late last week that it formally supports a "...comprehensive legislative solution..." to reduce tobacco use in this country, but at the same time urged modifications to the proposed tobacco settlement.

"The proposed tobacco litigation settlement represents a landmark effort to overcome the scourge of underage smoking and to achieve a substantial and permanent reduction in tobacco use," the AMA board of trustees said. "The danger is that once the tobacco industry gets the relief it seeks, there is no incentive for them to cooperate further," said Richard Corlin, an AMA leader. "In other words, we have to get it right the first time."

The American Medical Association pledged yesterday to throw its lobbying muscle behind legislation based on the tobacco megadeal if key provisions are strengthened. . . Two changes labeled essential by the AMA are strengthening of Food and Drug Administration control over tobacco and quadrupling potential fines for tobacco companies if youth smoking doesn't decline by agreed-upon targets. Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore . . attended the AMA's news conference and welcomed its support. "It's good to have the doctors of the country behind us," Moore said. "This is a tremendous endorsement." AMA officials plan to hold a meeting of public health activists next week in efforts to shape a coalition to push for legislation. The public health community is not united.

In congressional testimony, Lonnie Bristow, who as president of the American Medical Association participated in the settlement talks, declared that this deal "has public-health opportunities which would potentially dwarf the impact of even the polio vaccine." But John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society -- which was not party to the talks -- told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "this is not the right settlement" and that the deal contained "substantial" flaws.

In congressional testimony, Lonnie Bristow, who as president of the American Medical Association participated in the settlement talks, declared that this deal "has public-health opportunities which would potentially dwarf the impact of even the polio vaccine." But John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society - which was not party to the talks - told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "this is not the right settlement" and that the deal contained "substantial" flaws.

Key senators said Wednesday that tobacco firms may have to offer significantly more money if they want Congress to approve a deal that would give them immunity from potentially ruinous legal damages. . . "The amount of compensation to be paid. . .is far too low compared to the health damage that cigarettes cause," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, predicted bipartisan support for requiring more money from the industry. Mr. Hatch, who has taken a leading role in the Senate's review of the tobacco deal, also predicted that Congress would insist on removing the settlement's limits on the Food and Drug Administration's ability to regulate nicotine . . . .

In general, the lawmakers said that they want assurances for growers that tobacco quotas will not be decreased and that tobacco prices will be protected, said U.S. Rep. Scotty Baesler of Lexington. The lawmakers also said that the quota of tobacco American farmers are allowed to grow should be tied to overseas demand. Baesler said more specific details will be worked out in the next 60 to 90 days by the 15 lawmakers who met yesterday with Donna Shalala, secretary of Health and Human Services; Bruce Reed, the president's chief domestic policy adviser; and Daniel Glickman, secretary of Agriculture.

The pending settlement between tobacco manufacturers and state attorneys general is commendable as a first step in addressing teen smoking, but should be carefully scrutinized in light of unfair burdens it could impose on retailers, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores told White House officials today. . . "Community chain pharmacies are committed to limiting youth access to tobacco and agree with the Administration that it is an important national objective," said Ronald L. Ziegler, NACDS President and CEO. . . Among concerns cited by NACDS is a potential quagmire of conflicting and confusing state laws without a uniform federal approach to the regulation of distribution, merchandising and sale of tobacco products. Additionally, NACDS pointed out that certain provisions of the proposed settlement could require retailers to undertake extensive remodeling of stores to reduce customer access to tobacco products. Importantly, the settlement does not fairly distribute the responsibilities among all participants in a tobacco sale transaction -- the customer, retailer and manufacturer/supplier -- for compliance with the terms of the settlement, NACDS said.

Kessler and Koop are right, the present deal stinks. Senators Dick Durbin and Frank Lautenberg and Representative Henry Waxman have already introduced the "No Tobacco For Kids Act" which calls for a 90% reduction in youth smoking in just six years. . . No tobacco approval is needed for this deal to be done. Just Congress making the health of our children as high a priority as a balanced budget.

For instance, Republicans cite the estimated $375 million the county may get from the tobacco industry settlement and the millions of dollars in savings from state and federal welfare and Medicaid reforms.

Clinton can't use the line-item veto on it in the tax bill. He'll rely on Congress to undo it.

But McCurry also indicated that the administration is banking on Congress to undo the action. Since the president is not going to veto the tax bill -- and the tobacco provision is not subject to his new line-item veto power -- the issue is being shunted back to Congress. "There have been indications on Capitol Hill that there will be an effort to repeal that particular provision," McCurry said.

The tax break was tucked into the bill with the blessing of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). . . "Our view is that the net liability that the companies will face as a result of the settlement will not be reduced" by the tax, said White House spokesman Mike McCurry. Although the White House criticized the provision, Gingrich said administration officials knew it was in the bill. "They signed off on it," he said. "They were quite content with it." Lott has publicly recused himself from review of the tobacco settlement because his brother-in-law, private attorney Richard Scruggs, helped negotiate the deal. Nonetheless, Lott said Friday that he thought the tax increase "should count as a credit against" settlement payments. "As I understand, if [the tax] is on top of [the settlement], it could cause the whole thing to blow apart," Lott said.

[Representative J. Joseph Moakley, a South Boston Democrat, yesterday urged Clinton to use the veto to strike a provision that would allow the tobacco industry to use money generated by a 15-cent increase in the tobacco tax to offset its costs in whatever settlement comes out of Congress.]

These are Republicans and Democrats who share a belief that American government can be taken away from special interests and restored to the people. Older heads in Congress have tried to discourage them, knowing that the government - themselves, especially - has been bought and paid for and not wishing that to be changed. Bought and paid for how, you ask? To cite a very recent example: Just as the tobacco agreement between the state attorneys general and the big tobacco companies was about to need an "aye" vote in Congress, and just as there was a move to impose a higher federal tax on cigarettes, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds each donated an extra $100,000 in soft money (entirely legal, under current law) to the Republican Party. Now, far be it from me to suggest that this was an effort to shore up tobacco industry support among the majority party in Congress, even if that is obviously what it was. If the settlement is accepted, the tobacco giants would pay $368 billion to the states but would also be protected from future claims, a protection probably worth more than $368 billion. And $100,000 each is chump change for these companies. Their lawyers pay more than that for shoeshines. Which tells you how much real regard they have for the parties and politicians that they buy. Even the $1.13 million they paid to the Republican National Committee in 1996 was out of petty cash. I think this sort of stuff is wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is some Asian banking family or a labor union or Archer-Daniels-Midland or AT&T that is paying market price for political influence.

(3) Section 9302 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: "(k) Coordination With Tobacco Industry Settlement Agreement.--The increase in excise taxes collected as a result of the amendments made by subsections (a), (e), and (g) of this section shall be credited against the total payments made by parties pursuant to Federal legislation implementing the tobacco industry settlement agreement of June 20, 1997.

The package includes a 10 cent increase on cigarette packs in 2000, rising an additional five cents in 2002. The tax hike would be credited against any tobacco settlement between the industry and 40 states.

"The American taxpayer deserves better than this special interest giveaway that side-steps public accountability through back-room deals and under-the-table favors," Gephardt wrote in the letter.

The tobacco provision cannot be excised with the line-item veto, however, because no tax money has as yet been given away.

An outrageous $50 billion break for the tobacco industry should be at the top of his list. . . One wonders how Congress can reduce the money the companies are to pay under a settlement it hasn't even considered. But to remove any doubt, Mr. Clinton should veto the measure.

But McCurry also indicated that the administration is banking on Congress to undo this action. Since the president is not going to veto the tax bill -- and the tobacco provision is not subject to his new line-item veto power -- the issue is being shunted back to Congress. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., announced she will introduce a bill this fall to overturn any effort to reduce the penalty on tobacco companies.

An adviser to President Bill Clinton said on Monday the $368.5 billion tobacco deal between states and the tobacco industry needs to be toughened to include stiffer penalties against tobacco companies. The White House also wants greater power given to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as a drug, said Bruce Reed, domestic policy adviser to the president. "It needs to be strengthened in some key ways," he told NBC's "Today" program. "We need to make sure that we give the FDA the full authority it needs to do its job."

"If the review is complete before he leaves on his vacation, he may get it," White House spokesman Mike McCurry told reporters. "I don't anticipate him actually acting on the proposed recommendations by his review group until he returns in September."

And nobody gives a damn. . . The end of tobacco in Eastern North Carolina would only mean the companies would make even more money because they can buy it cheaper overseas. . . Eastern North Carolina is traditionally a land of small farms . . . and tobacco is the only crop anybody has come up with that will make a family a good living on such a small plot. Well, there is one other. So when our tobacco farmers -- I say "our" because many of us native North Carolinians are only one generation removed from those hot fields -- start growing marijuana instead, I'm sure their critics are going to applaud their ingenuity. Don't we owe our tobacco farmers as good a deal as we give the boardroom suits who wouldn't know a flue from the flu?

The amendment slipped into the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was only a few scant lines, but it spoke volumes about Big Tobacco's clout in Congress. . . The amendment was inserted so quietly that sponsors of the tax increase were taken by surprise, and when it was discovered, no one in Congress was willing to claim authorship. . . Still, the episode marked the third time in recent days that tobacco interests had flexed their muscles in Congress. First, legislators from tobacco farming states preserved a federal crop insurance program against assaults in the House and Senate. Then, they beat back measures in both chambers to provide $34 million to the Food and Drug Administration to enforce under-age smoking bans. . . Some people saw tobacco's success as a preview of what could happen as Congress takes up the proposed national tobacco settlement when it returns next month.

But the $368.5 billion proposed tobacco settlement reached June 20 by a group of state attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers and tobacco industry representatives will complicate--if not doom--Mr. Butler's case, now carried on by his widow, Ava Dean Butler. Estate of Butler v. Philip Morris Inc., 94-5-53 (Miss. Cir. Ct. Jones Co.). This is so even though two members of Ms. Butler's trial team helped negotiate it. But they also represented parties to the talks, and stand to collect huge fees if it's enacted by Congress, said her lawyer, Shane F. Langston, of Langston Frazer Sweet & Freese P.A. in Jackson, Miss. As a result, a few weeks after the proposal was announced, Ms. Butler fired the lawyers, Ronald Motley, of Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole in Barnwell, S.C., and John W. "Don" Barrett, of Lexington, Miss.

State Attorney General Dennis Vacco said yesterday that Washington should act on the agreement by year's end or risk having it die in 1998 election-year politics. Vacco estimated that if Congress takes up the deal this year, there is a 60 percent chance of getting it enacted. If it waits until next year, he said, the deal is "as dead as the 430,000 Americans who die each year from smoking."

If the state settles its billion-dollar lawsuit with the tobacco companies, could legislators use the settlement money to help build the new schools that Florida needs? That's a question some lawmakers are beginning to ask, as Gov. Lawton Chiles and Republican legislators remain at odds over how to finance the problem of overcrowded schools. If the case is settled, "there will be a windfall for the state," said Rep. John Thrasher, R-Orange Park, the second-most-powerful House member. "The question is, would [money for the schools] be a justifiable use of the dollars?"

The National Medical Association, which represents about 22,000 black physicians nationwide, is highly critical of the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement, saying it protects industry profits and fails to serve the public's best interests. In a telephone news conference yesterday from the NMA's annual convention, held this year in Waikiki, Hawaii, President Randall C. Morgan Jr. said the proposed deal is "better than nothing." But he added that his organization vastly prefers the recommendations of the Kessler-Koop Advisory

WELL, HALLELUJAH for Sen. Lugar. . . "It is not only unfair but it seems to be unacceptable," Mr. Lugar said, "for one chairman to say, `In my committee, I'll be a dictator. I simply will stop the music . . . and anticipate in every other committee others will not do this, and therefore I will retain an advantage by being unilaterally difficult.'" . . . There's no doubt about the merit or usefulness of what Sen. Lugar is doing, on the other hand. He's standing up to a pampered bully.

If Weld gains a hearing and, ultimately, confirmation, would Lugar be beholden to Helms? Such an outcome would hardly constitute progress. Tobacco issues do not belong in the game of congressional give and take. Mounting evidence of its health impact requires that tobacco questions be dealt with exclusively on their merits and not as barter for unrelated issues. Lugar and others will do better to plead the case for Weld hearings on the basis of fairness: . . The public is beginning to perceive some of the Senate's darker side as a consequence of Helms's stance. Lugar should trade on that weakness, not descend into Helms Territory himself.

Lugar's options may be limited in that there is no obvious legislation the tobacco growers want that he could block with his chairman's power. And in any case, Indiana, Lugar's home state, ranks eighth in the nation in tobacco production. David King, a political scientist at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said that what makes this fight unusual is not that one chairman appears to be threatening another but that it has spilled into the open. "It's fun for the Democrats to see this kind of fight take place,

Lugar noted that as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, he has the power to exclude lawmakers from a congressional negotiating team that will hammer out a settlement between the tobacco industry and state attorneys general. Lugar could exclude Helms, whose North Carolina constituents have a vital interest in tobacco.

The threat by Mr. Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, tightened and made personal lines already drawn between conservative and moderate-to-liberal Republicans in the Senate.

Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, vowed yesterday to stop cooperating with Sen. Jesse Helms on tobacco matters until he loosens his stranglehold on international affairs and schedules hearings on a controversial nomination.

In comments to reporters, Lugar noted that as chairman of the Agriculture Committee he has not "devised what to do" about the proposed tobacco settlement, which Congress still must vote on. He remarked pointedly that it is "a big issue for Helms." He added, "I have some options as chairman of the committee."

Throwing a political hardball at Helms, Lugar, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he might try to eliminate federal assistance to tobacco and peanut growers, or impede efforts to compensate tobacco farmers as part of a settlement between cigarette companies and state attorneys general. Lugar, of Indiana, made it clear he is prepared to act on his threat as soon as next month, when the Agriculture Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the proposed tobacco settlement.

The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee warned Thursday that tobacco could become one of the chips in play if Sen. Jesse Helms continues to block a hearing on former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld's ambassadorial nomination. Lugar, a rival of Helms for more than a decade, said he could try to thwart the interests of the North Carolina senator next month, when the Senate begins reviewing a $360 billion settlement between states and tobacco companies.

"There are issues in the agriculture area that are of interest to Senator Helms - tobacco, for example, peanuts, other things of this sort."

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the successor to David Pryor as the Senate's Mr. Ernest Goodboy, never giving offense to anybody while doing not very much for anyone, thinks he may finally win that elusive Eagle Scout Merit Badge with a ride to the rescue of the doomed nomination. The laughter and cheering you hear in the wings is coming from Bill Clinton, who can't believe how clever he is. Neither can a lot of the rest of us. By appointing a Republican nothingburger to a cheeseburger job, the president has set off a Republican face fight that may be the summer's only adult entertainment. . . . Ever the Eagle Scout, he just thinks it would be nice if Mr. Helms would be nice and respect the rights of others and other good stuff. But like it or not, Jesse Helms is a man of steel in a chamber of cardboard cutouts

Sens. Wendell Ford and Mitch McConnell have joined forces to develop a plan that ensures burley farmers will get a piece of the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement. . . Ford, D-Owensboro, and McConnell, R-Louisville, have circulated one plan that sets aside $17.2 billion, primarily for economic development in the face of projected farm losses should Congress OK the settlement.

The most glaring tax break is a amendment that would allow tobacco companies to credit the revenues from the new 10-to-15-cent increase in cigarette taxes against the $368-billion national tobacco settlement. This attempt to cut the tobacco companies' liability in the negotiated settlement is so sneaky and so sleazy that when it was made public, no one in Congress would admit authorship. . . . Some of the measures, such as the tobacco credit, awful as it is, may not be subject to the line-item veto. . . Under the line-item veto law, the light at least is being turned upon them, and the most egregious may even be killed. Sen. Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., says some of his colleagues who inserted the special interest provisions are visibly distressed at the chance they've given the president to make their lives miserable. Maybe it's about time.

With a good settlement, we can reduce the number of future smokers dramatically and add years to millions of lives. As congress dissects the settlement, we can improve it by switching the emphasis from shaking down the industry to protecting the public health.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO STEP IN WHEN CORPORATE ETHICS FAIL. . . No industry, especially tobacco, should be immune from regulation, liability or class-action lawsuits if there is ample evidence that it did something wrong. Congress should send a message to Big Tobacco and say no to the bailout deal.

representatives of 11 public health advocacy groups gathered at the american medical association offices friday to craft a response to the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement. the four-hour session was "very productive," an AMA spokeswoman said, adding that the coalition hopes to deliver a statement to President Clinton by the end of next week. The groups met at the behest of the AMA, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The AMA has promised full lobbying support for the proposed settlement if unfettered Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco regulations is ensured and penalties are toughened for tobacco companies that don't meet targets for cutting youth smoking.

With Congress on recess this month and the president leaving for a three-week vacation Aug. 17, there's little reason for the task force to rush its final report to Clinton. The panel is expected to complete its review of the $368.5-billion settlement next week, McCurry said, yet "probably won't deliver the recommendations to the president until September."

Bennett LeBow, chief executive officer of Durham's Liggett Group, is pushing hard to restructure the company's debt by the end of this month, though his tactics earlier in the negotiations may have hurt his cause. Discussions have been ongoing, with a conference call Thursday among the bondholders to consider LeBow's latest proposal. Liggett missed a $10 million debt payment at the end of last month and has until Sept. 1 to make good on the payment, secure an agreement with its bondholders or file for bankruptcy court protection. Liggett, heavily weakened by its eroding market share, may be able to raise enough cash to make the payment, analysts said. But the company is likely to be crushed by a series of balloon payments, starting with $38 million due in February, if LeBow is not able to work out a deal to restructure the debt. "The bondholders are in the driver's seat," said Joel Luton, an analyst with APS Financial Corp. in Austin, Texas. "I think LeBow has a strong incentive to avert bankruptcy. ... Bankruptcy really ties his hands on a couple of fronts, including the global tobacco settlement."

What's at stake for Griffin, 44, is two-thirds of his $750,000 annual gross income. In a good year, his 100-acre tobacco quota brings in $500,000, more than all his other products combined--cotton, peanuts, oats, corn, soybeans, timber, and wheat. "The deal may change, but in any event, it's bad for us. The question is just how bad," he says.

Q: Could you please explain the recent historic tobacco settlement? A: Sure. Basically, the tobacco industry has admitted that it is killing people by the millions, and has agreed that from now on it will do this under the strict supervision of the federal government.

With President Clinton's ink barely dry on a law enacting a major tax cut, Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II said yesterday he will file legislation to repeal several corporate tax breaks in the measure, including a $50 billion windfall for the tobacco industry. . . . Kennedy, a Brighton Democrat who is expected to run for governor in 1998, called the "the most egregious tax break" a provision that would give cigarette makers a 100 percent credit against the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement for every dollar in increased tobacco taxes. He said the measure would shift a $50 billion tax burden from tobacco company shareholders to taxpayers. "This outrageous giveaway means that $50 billion won't be available for antismoking activities and reimbursements to states for health care costs," Kennedy said. A spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, Kennedy's likely opponent in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, called Kennedy's initiative "a laudable effort, but probably a futile one given the long track record of Congress as a tool

The vice president, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton have long been among the administration's strongest opponents of smoking. But in this latest fight, they face a major hurdle: The person who matters most, the president, wants to approve a deal. . . Clearly, this puts Mr. Gore, Ms. Shalala and their antismoking allies in uncomfortable positions. Whatever their views, it is their job to help Mr. Clinton succeed at policy missions. Still, there are signs that they are finding ways to express their doubts about the settlement, as well as bring about changes they believe are needed.

"As Congress begins its hearings and the drafting of landmark tobacco legislation, it is important that state lawmakers realize the potential for state laws being preempted, including state tort law," [Jeffrey] Barg said. "And if the most malignant industry in American history is exempted from state and federal tort law, who will be next?"

Compromises achieve results, not perfection. But these proposals address longstanding public concerns -particularly with regard to youth access to, and use of, tobacco products - while preserving the right of adult Americans to choose whether to use tobacco products. The negotiated settlement is worthy of consideration and enactment. . . The proposal contains a standard that seeks to establish a rational framework, one enabling the agency [FDA] to fulfill its responsibilities after a careful examination of scientific and societal issues, including the creation of demand for contraband . . In sum, the tobacco proposals constitute a disciplined and carefully balanced approach that could resolve decades of legal, regulatory and legislative conflict. . . As the review and legislative processes move ahead, it is essential that the balance of the proposals be carefully examined, appreciated and preserved. Congress and the White House share a unique opportunity to address, and resolve, tobacco issues now. This moment, this rare opportunity, should be seized, not squandered.

But the settlement is backfiring on the industry, as well it should. Private deals such as this are a bad way to set regulatory policy. . . Business would be wise to treat Big Tobacco like, well...like a cancer. . . Many of the public-health provisions of the deal that step up antismoking campaigns and restrict tobacco marketing are admirable. They should be enacted--and private antitobacco litigation should continue.

With a few conspicuous weaknesses - mostly concerning the Food and Drug Administration's freedom to regulate tobacco as a drug - the proposal is a ringing victory for public health, especially among children. . . A series of votes testing the clout of the tobacco lobby since the settlement was reached indicates that the industry is still getting its money's worth for the millions in campaign contributions it makes each year.

This is the Jesse Helms Center, honoring the five-term senator who wields more power over US foreign policy than anyone else in Congress. It was founded to "preserve and promote the principles of traditional values, democratic government, and free enterprise." The center offers a few lessons to anyone who would get into a fight with Helms . . Other large contributors include tobacco companies, which gave a combined $4 million to the center, according to the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record. . . 'If you're not from North Carolina, you're not going to understand about tobacco. Helms is not taking a position that any other successful politician in this state has not taken." . . [t]he center soon will have a home page on the Internet. . . "Outside of North Carolina, people do not understand that Jesse Helms is a very kind gentleman, a Southern gentleman."

• 08/12/97 Weld Returns to DC Today to Pursue Post Boston Globe
  
  On Sunday, Lugar backed off any specific threat to the tobacco industry but said he might engage in parliamentary procedures to force a confirmation hearing. That was an apparent reference to an obscure Senate rule that allows a majority of committee members to call a meeting over the chairman's objections, something members rarely do.
• 08/11/97 Lugar Admits Grudge Against Helms AP Washington Post
  
  But he says William Weld, President Clinton's choice for ambassador to Mexico, deserves a confirmation hearing nonetheless and the White House should become more engaged. Asked Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" whether the battle between two of the Senate's major powers is a grudge match, Lugar replied: "Well, I don't plead totally guilty but partially guilty." . . `I would say I have high regard, as a matter of fact, for Senator Helms. He is a remarkable American senator and patriot. But I do ask him to loosen up."
• 08/11/97 Weld Debate Heating; Nominee Adrift, Lugar Says Boston Globe
• 08/11/97 White House Isn't Helping Weld, LUGAR Says Reuters/Washington Post
  
  "I'm not aware the administration is doing anything on behalf of Bill Weld," Lugar said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And my guess is that this is a situation that has been sort of set out to drift," he said of the nomination of Weld . . But he said administration inaction on behalf of Weld was "irrelevant to what ought to be done" -- by implication, the scheduling by Helms, a staunch conservative, of confirmation hearings, despite Helms's personal opposition to Weld. "Advise and consent does not mean dictatorship. It means in essence we all participate," said Lugar.
• 08/11/97 2 GOP Titans Clash over US Foreign Policy Christian Science Monitor
• 08/11/97 EDITORIAL: The Helms-Weld Show: Theatre of the Absurd SF Examiner
  
  It is entertaining and sadly revealing of how the Senate works, but it's time to bring the curtain down and start the hearings on Weld. The former governor of Massachusetts is a solid choice for that important and sensitive diplomatic job. . . Besides displaying the arrogance of power, the Helms-Weld brouhaha demonstrates the need to reform Senate rules that allow a single chowderhead with a personal grievance to defy the will of the whole body.
• 08/12/97 EDITORIAL: How to Pressure Helms Boston Herald
  
  As Agriculture chairman, Lugar is at the center of whatever will be done to, for or about tobacco farmers. If you were one, wouldn't you want Lugar on friendly terms with your advocate? Lugar seems to have learned that old Boston political lesson: Don't get mad, get even.
• 08/13/97 OPINION: The Freelance Politics. Michael Kelley doesn't even mention tobacco. August 25, 1997 New Republic
  
  In the context of current politics, Weld has a potential that could grow rapidly and unpredictably. Both parties remain engaged in a struggle to define and control a public philosophy that can capture and sustain a majority. Whichever party comes to it, that philosophy is going to look a lot like Weldism or, to put it another way, post-1994 Clinton-Goreism.
• 08/12/97 OPINION: JESSE HELMS, the Senator from Hell A Fanatical Advocate For A Killer Drug Blocks A Vote On A Man Favoring Benign Pot Use. ROBERT SCHEER, LA Times

Packed inside the hundreds of pages of the balanced-budget deal is the handiwork of Washington's agile lobbyists, who have carved ornate preferences for their clients. . . Just when it seemed tobacco companies couldn't get a break, congressional tax writers inserted a breathtaking absolution worth perhaps $2 billion a year. The provision means the new tobacco taxes that pay for children's health insurance are credited against the $368 billion settlement that tobacco companies have promised to pay.

The following was released today by Dr. Larry Hastings and Joan Nielsen: A Miami doctor-lawyer who was the first attorney to win a suit against a tobacco company for causing his client's cancer, back in 1960, is sounding an alarm that politics will cause Congress to pass a bill letting the tobacco companies off the hook for punitive damages. Dr. Larry Hastings, who senses a "smoke screen" at work, says, "A settlement has just been negotiated between the tobacco companies and many states' Attorneys General (by a lawyer who is Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's brother-in-law) where the tobacco companies will agree to pay out $368.5 billion in damages, but there's a catch. The U.S. taxpayers will partially pay that amount because it's tax deductible."

Among those at the annual meeting of the national conference of state legislatures urging quick ratification was Dr. Lonnie Bristow . . . "let's work out what can be worked out," Bristow said, "but let's not lose sight of what's really important." . . Jeffrey Barg, an anti-smoking activist from Philadelphia, said the settlement gives away too much to the "devilishly clever" tobacco industry. . . Barg supports further negotiations and suggested states follow the recommendations of a panel of health experts who rejected the proposed settlement as too lenient. . . "I don't think this is the best time to settle. It may be the best time for the tobacco industry to settle," Barq said at the four-day conference, which ended Saturday.

The spectacle of an industry negotiating a once-and-for-all cap on liability and health care payment exposure on the one hand -- swearing that it will take the punishment in return for the stability -- while maneuvering with the other hand to lower that overall liability before the fact is not edifying. It reminds those boggled by the apparent generosity of the dollar figure and the sheer scale of the proposed agreement that a great deal can disappear in the fine print. . . The White House, getting wind of the $50 billion fiddle, added it to a long list of provisions it considers troublesome and declared that any final dollar figure would merely have to add the $50 billion to be deemed acceptable. But far more important -- and less amenable to simple reversal of this kind -- are the provisions being properly insisted on that would affirm Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate nicotine as a drug; disclosure requirements . . . and the array of restrictions on advertising and marketing . . . A clever fiddle of a word or phrase in these areas could be a lot harder to reverse than this piece of financial slick dealing. It underscores the perils of the exercise -- and the sheer vastness of the field for possible mischief.

There are reasons why tobacco money has flowed for so many years into the pockets of politicians in every part of the country, including such great tobacco-producing regions as Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fix is almost in, but time is not on the side of the industry. What the tobacco companies fear more than anything is that their carefully concealed account of their own sins, their internal record of their deliberate and sinister corporate deeds, will somehow be dragged into the light of day. That is exactly what needs to happen. As Congressman Waxman asserted, it makes no sense to consider immunity before that account is made known. You don't make a decision on whether to offer amnesty before you know what really happened. Mr. Humphrey has two huge repositories of tobacco industry documents, and he will likely soon have more. IF CONGRESS IS INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH ABOUT TOBACCO, IT WILL HAVE A LOOK AT THAT HISTORIC TROVE.

The Lexingtonbased burley cooperative yesterday "pretty much endorsed the ideas" in a plan for using tobacco-settlement money to help tobacco farmers, co-op President Rod Kuegel said. He said board members disagreed with a few provisions in the plan, which was drafted in the offices of the state's two U.S. senators, but he called the differences "very minor." "This is an evolving process, and we're certainly not at the end," said Kuegel . . . But he said the burley co-op, the Kentucky Farm Bureau and the fluecured growers co-op in North Carolina are close to agreement, and a joint proposal to Congress is likely to be completed next week.

Directors of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association tentatively reached consensus on the concepts in the proposal yesterday, although they want changes in some of the language, said President Rod Kuegel.

A key tobacco-advisory group yesterday endorsed the idea of a multibillion dollar fund to pay farmers for lost tobacco income. The decision added momentum to a proposal that would create a fund of up to $17.2 billion to pay farmers and set up economic-development programs in tobacco communities. The plan, put together by Kentucky's U.S. senators, Democrat Wendell Ford and Republican Mitch McConnell and backed yesterday by the Tobacco Advisory Committee of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, is a response to negotiations in the landmark national tobacco settlement.

But using the present settlement as a framework, a growing chorus of critics is starting to follow the money--and they're finding a fatal flaw. Thanks to vague wording in the settlement, much of the money could be misspent, they say, doing little to meet the deal's supposed goals: to improve public health and compensate tobacco victims. Now those critics are worrying that what first looked like a landmark public-health achievement could become a public-policy nightmare. . . A major problem with the agreement is that Congress has control over how much the tobacco industry should pay. And Congress has proved remarkably ineffective at taking any punitive action against the industry. Besides, congressional paralysis was precisely what the agreement was supposed to surmount. That's why the state attorneys general took matters into their own hands. Now that their deal has moved to Congress, tobacco has already won a $50 billion prize in the congressional halls and cloakrooms it knows so well. That little victory is a warning sign that, settlement or no, the tobacco industry won't fade quietly away.

Tobacco's $368.5 billion proposed settlement with the states is to be distributed to victims, state coffers, and such things as antismoking campaigns and research, in varying amounts from year to year. But it's not clear the settlement's goals will be met:

The lead negotiators who hammered out the proposed national settlement with tobacco companies are back at the table again, trying to toughen the deal to address concerns raised by the White House and public health groups. "We're trying to make improvements," said Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore

But tobacco company officials and the plan's backers, including Michael Moore, the Mississippi attorney general, have been waging a quiet counter-offensive to keep the settlement on track and anticipate any new criticism by the White House group. Wednesday's meeting was another step in that battle. While indicating some flexibility, industry officials appear to be taking hard-line positions on changes that would significantly increase the plan's overall cost or force individual companies to pay out penalties for failing to reduce the number of youthful smokers. . . In industrywide meetings, the nation's two largest cigarette companies, Philip Morris Cos. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., have opposed changes that would hold individual companies responsible for drops in youthful smoking, people involved in those meeting said.

A Clinton administration task force headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed has been reviewing the complex agreement to determine its regulatory, legal and economic impact. "It's rather complete," McCurry said of the review. He said formal announcement of the findings would be made after Clinton ends his three-week vacation in September.

Critics of a proposed tobacco deal urged President Clinton on Friday to double the cost of the estimated $368 billion settlement, and said cigarette prices should be increased by $1 to $2 a pack to raise the additional funds as well as cut smoking. . . . [Peter] Angelos and Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III, critics of the proposed settlement, said cigarette prices should be raised $1 to $2 a pack. That would raise $30 billion a year -- still below the $50 billion a year in medical bills the nation accumulates from sick smokers, Angelos said. "We're not talking about putting these companies in bankruptcy," Humphrey said. But the higher cigarette price would cause a significant reduction in smoking, particularly among price-conscious teen-agers, he said.

Clinton and his aides are weighing whether the monetary penalties -- particularly if smoking by teen-agers doesn't decline -- should be stiffened before the president and Congress enact the settlement into law. Such a stand could cause a showdown, analysts said. Reynolds, the country's second biggest tobacco company, "cannot afford to pay more," said David Adelman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Discover. The company's debt levels require Reynolds to maintain healthy cash flows, which would be constricted if the company has to kick in more money. Also, Reynolds depends on U.S. tobacco sales for 40 percent of its profit. "Reynolds gave all it was willing to give," Adelman said.

But the executives signaled they were prepared to accept broad Food and Drug Administration authority over nicotine and other cigarette components in exchange for partial immunity from state and private lawsuits, said participants in the White House discussions.

In conversations this week, tobacco representatives disagreed with White House proposals to close loopholes in the settlement that would hamper any efforts by the government to require lower levels of nicotine in cigarettes. The industry is also resisting White House suggestions that penalties for not meeting targets for reducing the level of teenage smoking be increased from those set out in the agreement. Much of the discussions were between Bruce Lindsey, the deputy White House counsel, and Phil Carlton, an attorney representing RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp

The negotiator, Mississippi state Attorney General Michael Moore, met with White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey and domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed to discuss the status of the review. He said one of his objectives was to make the Food and Drug Administration's jurisdiction over tobacco "as tough as we can." . . Moore said he was sticking with his prediction that Congress will pass legislation approving the settlement by the end of the year. Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire told Reuters in a telephone interview that the attorneys general were making "good progress" in revising the FDA portion of the agreement but that they were not planning a formal renegotiation of the entire settlement. "Good, bad or indifferent we've made a commitment to the settlement so we feel duty-bound to stick by the settlement," she said.

The White House may have convinced cigarette-makers that they will have to accept stiffer government control of nicotine under the proposed tobacco deal, Mississippi's attorney general says. But the tobacco industry is signaling the Clinton administration that it will fight other attempts to toughen the proposed $368 billion settlement.

"I think we are going to get there on FDA jurisdiction," Moore said. "I think with the industry's agreement, with the White House's agreement, with everybody's agreement...we are going to make sure that FDA jurisdiction is unfettered" . . . Moore said, however, that he and White House officials, "still have a lot to do to complete the review of the settlement." . . . "We want to clear up language in the agreement on the document issue, make sure that all the documents that we want to be made public are made public," he said.

President Bill Clinton was seen meeting with Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore at the White House, reporters said. No announcement was made about Moore meeting Clinton.

Cigarette makers may accept stiffer government control of nicotine but are signaling the Clinton administration they will fight attempts to toughen other aspects of the proposed tobacco deal, sources said Thursday.

A White House spokesman says (Thursday) President Clinton will get an update from aides on the review of the tobacco agreement before he departs Sunday for a three-week vacation on Martha's Vineyard. Meanwhile, Michael Moore, the Mississippi attorney general who helped draft the agreement, and industry officials will be meeting separately with domestic adviser Bruce Reed.

At least 10 million fewer adult Americans would smoke by 2002 and teenage smoking would be 28 percent lower if Congress and the White House enact a $368.5 billion proposal endorsed by the tobacco industry and the states to settle dozens of lawsuits, according to an economic analysis by the Clinton administration. To pay the cost of the settlement, cigarette makers would have to raise prices by about 62 cents per pack, the report estimates. When the 15-cent federal tax increase contained in the new federal tax law is added, the ultimate 77-cent-a-pack price increase would cut consumption sharply because many smokers would no longer be able or willing to afford the habit, according to the analysis.

An internal Treasury Department audit says that cigarette makers could profit handsomely from a proposed tobacco deal, a finding that puts additional pressure on President Clinton to increase the cost of the settlement. Tobacco critics say that the companies must raise cigarette prices by $1 to $2 a pack to make the deal palatable, but the industry has warned Clinton that such an increase could kill the settlement. And the nation's top health groups appear to be splintering over the deal -- leaving the issue in flux as Clinton leaves for vacation.

But on one key issue, the Burley Belt, which is concentrated in Kentucky, and the flue-cured fields of North and South Carolina have taken very different positions. Flue-cured groups have proposed letting farmers sell quotas -- that is, the amount of tobacco the federal government lets farmers grow under price supports -- taking them out of production. Under their plan, such sales would occur if the settlement reduces demand for domestic tobacco significantly, as farmers think it will. Burley groups, however, have largely eschewed talk of "retiring" quotas. Instead, burley leaders favor a system of supplement

President Clinton has set aside time this vacation to think about an issue that should mushroom into one of the whoppers of his presidency - the glaringly inadequate settlement negotiated this spring with the tobacco racket. Not for the first time on a health care issue in the last two years, the president has been much too slow, timid, and marginal. Fortunately, his choice of a vacation spot, Massachusetts, contains both the genius who has spotted the real issue - money - and the political leader who has labored mightily to keep the health care initiative in Clinton's hands. The genius is Dr. Jeffrey Harris of both Massachusetts General Hospital and the economics faculty at MIT, who has documented the settlement's preposterous inadequacy. And the politician is Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has figured out how to use this knowledge to fashion a real deal that could provide immense assistance to millions of Americans for another generation. . . Moreover, this deal would preserve the essence of the tobacco racket - hooking enough kids to make up the profits from the adult addicts who quit or die. . . So what to do? Simple: makes sure the price really rises and that the people get the money. And the way to do that is to use the vehicle Kennedy and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah have fought for this year - the federal excise tax. . . With that, health insurance for all children would be possible, as well as subsidies for the uninsured working poor. Clinton clearly needs to raise his sights, aware that the politics of this issue approaches a slam dunk.

The deal as written has many skeptics on the economics alone. US Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Democrat from Lowell, suspects the settlement as written will actually strengthen the tobacco companies. He and colleagues have asked the Federal Trade Commission for a financial analysis of the deal. "When the analysis is done, I think we'll see the economics don't work," said Meehan . . But one company could well be strained by the deal as already written. Liggett Group, the nation's smallest cigarette maker, earned just $575,000 in 1995. The payments as written now are all the company can afford, it says, without going bankrupt.

During a one-hour meeting with two top administration officials, Humphrey urged that the White House slow its review of the proposal and demand that cigarettemakers first agree to the public release of more than 250,000 sealed documents. "I think that once the administration sees those documents, they will understand the pervasiveness of the fraud and the deception that has been going on for more than 40 years," said Humphrey, who was joined by representatives of the Maryland attorney general's office. . . If tobacco companies want immunity as part of a financial settlement, Humphrey said, "then they ought to come clean with all of the information, and I think it would reflect well upon the president to be asking for that."

The Clinton administration will demand cigarette companies pay stiffer fines than the tobacco settlement proposes if smoking by teens does not drop, a top White House official said yesterday. The official, Bruce Reed, President Clinton's chief domestic policy adviser, said a decision had been made to call for the tougher penalties if smoking by teen-agers did not drop by specified targets over the next decade. . . Reed's remarks set the stage for a confrontation between industry and administration officials . . .

"We will still be all right if we get protected," said Richard Renegar, a tobacco farmer in northern Iredell County whose family has worked his land since the Civil War. "But if not, farm communities are all in trouble -- the tobacco farmer, the church, the grocery store, the car lot -- the whole thing is going down."

[T] the current system is now more likely than ever to achieve some levels of deterrence, compensation, and basic justice with respect to tobacco claims. However, Title VIII would substantially halt this progress because it contains a unique set of procedural and substantive rules that would tilt the playing field decisively back in the tobacco industry¹s direction. It would ban punitive damages for claims involving past conduct, erect annual caps on compensation, and bar the most promising and innovative legal actions against the industry. Moreover, Title VIII purports to "settle" cases of plaintiffs who were not represented in the negotiating process. As discussed below, each of these provisions runs counter to the basic goals of tort law. Accordingly, tinkering with the civil justice system has no legitimate place in the formulation of national tobacco control policy.

Disputes between private parties cannot be resolved in secret negotiations involving defendants who have the boot of government pressing on their necks, state attorneys general who seek to replenish their Medicaid coffers without fiscal discipline, contingency fee lawyers who wield the sword of the state while retaining a financial interest in the outcome and advocacy groups that have subordinated the rule of law to their health concerns, however well-intentioned. Our courts, not our legislatures, are constituted to deal with these matters; but they can do justice only if the rule of law -- objective and evenhanded -- is scrupulously applied.

[San Francisco City Attorney Louise] Renne, whose office has three suits pending against the tobacco companies, said the pact would settle local lawsuits without compensation, would undermine the effectiveness of local regulatory laws and would not seriously curtail the marketing of cigarettes to minors. "San Francisco was in court against Big Tobacco before almost all of the attorneys general," Renne said in a statement. "It is unacceptable that this settlement steamrolls right over us without a thought to the medical burden cities and counties have shouldered because of smoking-related illness."

Two labor-union health funds in Washington state asked a federal judge to rule that the proposed U.S. tobacco settlement does not apply to their purported class-action lawsuit against the industry.

Workers' health care funds, representing 500,000 labor union beneficiaries in the State of Washington, have asked a federal judge to disapprove, preliminarily, the proposed tobacco settlement agreement between the tobacco industry and 40 state attorneys general, arguing that it wrongfully usurps the judge's power to review and approve any proposed settlement of class action lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The motion applies only to claims by funds within the state. The motion, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, also points out that, under federal rules of procedure, the tobacco industry is required to serve notice on the affected workers before it does anything that would nullify their existing lawsuit.

Attorney George Kargianis, of Kargianis Watkins and Marler, represents the union funds. "Workers and their families associated with the health trust funds could stand to lose the opportunity to recover hundreds of millions of dollars as the proposed settlement now stands. We're asking for the same opportunities to recover funds for our clients that the Attorney Generals sought in their suit."

The $50 billion gift to the tobacco industry does more than raise fresh doubts about the original tobacco deal, which we have argued was already flawed. It also amounts to bad faith by the industry and its Republican allies in Congress, chiefly House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott. . . The industry's clumsy muscle-flexing in Congress has again put everyone on notice that it really does have to be watched, and that this deal must be minutely examined with an eye to making it even tougher on tobacco.

Before conservative lawmakers agree to a deal that transfers half a billion dollars a year into the coffers of liberal activists, they should contemplate how they would feel about having this commercial air in their own districts: . . . . "Each year millions of children take their first puff of a cigarette: One in three of them will die from smoking. What has Congressman [insert one's own name] done to keep your children from taking that first deadly puff? He voted five times to give federal money to tobacco farmers, subsidizing their crop so they could keep the price of cigarettes down. Keeping the price of cigarettes low makes them easier for children to buy and to use. Call Congress, and tell Congressman [insert one's own name] that you want him to stop putting cigarettes in the hands, and lungs, of our children."

The giant tobacco truce is only the most recent and dramatic case of plaintiffs' lawyers shaping public policy in matters of health and safety, where lawmakers and regulators often fear to tread. The massive lawsuits by state attorneys general that triggered the settlement happened only because private lawyers offered themselves as strategists and foot soldiers on a contingency-fee basis, allowing the states to seek a huge payday without spending their own money. . . The tobacco settlement "speaks to the failure of our policymaking by legislation and regulation," said Dr. Ronald M. Davis . . .

One of the more incendiary elements of the giant tobacco truce was purposely left out of the agreement. The accord says nothing about the fees to be paid to anti-tobacco lawyers, which are sure to smash all records. Eager to get Congress and the public behind the deal, negotiators figured the less said about attorney fees the better. To deflect concern, they promised that the lawyers' cut would not come from the $368.5-billion settlement fund. Instead, their fees would be set by a panel of independent arbitrators and paid separately by the industry. But that hasn't made the issue go away.

The real issue that Mr. Clinton is weighing, analysts say, is whether he will be viewed as selling out to Big Tobacco or pushing through the biggest health initiative of the 20th century. Both sides of the debate have put forth a full-scale lobbying effort to win over Mr. Clinton.

"We've made clear that the tobacco industry will have to pay at least $50 billion more to offset the write-off in the budget," Bruce Reed, White House domestic policy adviser, said in a telephone interview.

A $50 billion tax credit for tobacco companies slipped into the recently passed balanced budget package came on the heels of major contributions from the industry to key congressional leaders and the national parties. House Speaker Newt Gingrich's office on Monday remained mum about who sponsored the tax break, which was added without debate.

As Congress raced to pass a massive tax cut bill late last month, Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) insisted on a provision that would give tobacco companies a $50 billion credit against the sum they had pledged to settle anti-tobacco litigation, according to congressional staffers and Clinton administration officials.

Representatives of 15 states and Puerto Rico said on Monday they had drafted a recommendation on how to divide the proposed $368 billion tobacco settlement. While no details of the recommendations were provided, officials said under the proposal some of the funds would be allocated to anti-smoking programs and medical costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. The recommendations will be presented this week to a committee of the five states attorneys general who have been the lead negotiators with the tobacco companies.

"I don't think there's any chance in the world of the thing being passed this year," U.S. Rep. Scotty Baesler told the General Assembly's Tobacco Task Force. That was a surprise to some legislators. The task force chairman, Sen. Joey Pendleton, D-Hopkinsville, and the House agriculture chairman, Rep. Drew Graham, D-Winchester, said they thought the proposed settlement was on a faster track. But Baesler, a Lexington Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate next year, said tobacco state congressmen are digging in for a long fight.

When Ava Butler filed her landmark suit against the tobacco industry over second-hand smoke, standing at her side at a news conference was the flamboyant plaintiffs' lawyer Ronald L. Motley. Monday Mrs. Butler filed another suit -- this one against Mr. Motley.

Playing a lawyer's version of beat-the-clock, Cohen is hoping to file a slew of lawsuits against tobacco companies before Congress ratifies the $369 billion global tobacco settlement. If the deal is approved by lawmakers -- a big if, of course -- it would likely impose caps of $1 million a year in damage awards per plaintiff. But suits filed now wouldn't be subject to such limits, so Cohen is buying television ads and exhorting local smokers to give him a call. He has filed one case in D.C. Superior Court already and says he's got another 75 ready to go. "I hope to bring 1,500," Cohen said, only half-kiddingly. . . So far, though, Cohen is thought to be the only lawyer in the country running television ads trolling for injured smokers.

While a preliminary White House study suggests the proposed deal would curb the number of underage smokers, some health-care economists contend that the 62-cents-a-pack increase prescribed by the settlement would still fail to meet the pact's targets for cutting youth smoking. To reach a goal of a 30% reduction in smoking by 13- to 17-year-olds within five years, the price of cigarettes would have to rise $1.50 more a pack than what the settlement would impose, argues Jeffrey Harris . . . "The 62 cents is not going to be enough," agrees Frank Chaloupka . . . To give cigarette companies a stronger incentive to curb underage smoking, Dr. Harris suggests a tax specifically tailored to teen smoking: Congress, he says, could call for surveys of high-school students to determine what brands they smoke and then tax the companies according to their share of the teenage market.

Helms and his staff plan to launch a scathing assault on former governor William F. Weld's record and personal ethics, if Weld is ever granted a hearing on his nomination as ambassador to Mexico, the Globe has been told.

White House National Security Adviser Samuel (Sandy) Berger rejects charges that President Clinton has been lukewarm in his support of William Weld's nomination as the next ambassador to Mexico. Berger, in a nationally televised interview August 16, said Clinton backed Weld "very strongly" and will seek to get the nomination through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which must approve ambassadorial nominees.

In a letter to Bruce Lindsey, Deputy Counsel to President Bill Clinton, 20 attorneys general said the nation's largest tobacco companies refused to agree to language that would exclude Liggett from the payments. . . "Liggett has taken numerous significant actions which have demonstrated its utmost good faith in breaking with past tobacco industry conduct," the letter states. "Those actions involve not only cooperating with the attorneys general and others in lawsuits against the other tobacco companies, but also assisting public health groups and governmental entitites in seeking to resolve smoking and health issues."

Tobacco companies gave $11.3 million. Their reward: a provision that lets a new 15-cents-a-pack cigarette tax be credited against money tobacco companies will have to pay to settle lawsuits brought by states. The break could lower the industry's eventual cost of the pending settlement by $50 million.

Whatever the personal injury lawyers' motives--and the truth is that the aspirations of personal injury lawyers are as complex and varied as are those of physicians, philanthropists and professional athletes--it seems odd, to say the least, to contend one-sidedly for review and regulation of a privately negotiated fee arrangement.

Mississippi, the first state to get money from cigarette makers for the cost of smoking related diseases, should use some of the money to create a trust for children's healthcare, Mississippi treasurer Marshall Bennett said this week. Bennett told Reuters in an interview Tuesday that setting up a 10-year trust and using the interest for this purpose, would help stretch out the benefit of the $3.4 billion, 25-year settlement. "We can invest the principal over the next 10 years and use the interest to pay for childrens' healthcare." . . Estimating the fund could end up with $1 billion to $2 billion, he added: "I will propose it in the next legislative session in January."

Dallas Smith, the deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is among those scheduled to attend a tour that tobacco farmers plan this week in Halifax County, organizers said. Representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services, the American Cancer Society and the National Center for Tobacco Free Kids are scheduled to attend the two-day meeting, as are representatives of the Northern Virginia chapter of the American Lung Association, said Rebecca Reeve of the Institute for Quality Health, one of the organizers. . . Their counterproposal seeks $7.37 billion in economic relief, including economic development and job training in rural areas. Organizers hope the tour will prompt some consideration for the farmers during congressional debate over the proposed settlement . . Among the people who were invited, but who have not accepted, are some of tobacco's harshest critics, including former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David A. Kessler, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., and Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. . .

The GOP is the party of money. When money talks, the GOP is the ventriloquist often as not. Check out the tobacco deal. Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich snuck in that $50 billion tax break for King Tobacco in the dark, when no one was looking, and Clinton had to swallow it, otherwise he wasn't going to get his balanced-budget deal with extra dough for medical insurance for poor kids. By my lights, Clinton made the deal that had to be made, stinky as it is, but if we're talking sellout, then Lott and Newtie are the seller-outers, not Bill. And the average voter has figured that out. Which is why Clinton's golf cart carries that presidential seal and why Trent and Newt are unavailable for comment on just how that $50 billion for King Tobacco got snuck into the budget.

Those were the major topics of a unique, four-hour tour of rural Virginia yesterday by representatives of state and national health groups, as well as a number of federal and state officials. . . "For us to say, 'Grow something else' is simplistic," Ballin said. "But for (the farmers) to say they can't do anything else is also simplistic." Ballin said he favors public hearings throughout the South to develop a viable, long-term economic relief plan for growers who are bound to be hurt . . . The two-day briefing, sponsored by the Concerned Friends for Tobacco, a Danville-based lobbying group, and the Southern Tobacco Communities Project at the University of Virginia, attracted leaders from the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and the American Heart Association.

"I cannot say too strongly that if this bill goes through . . . it would affect entire communities in a way the stock market crash did," said state Del. W.W. "Ted" Bennett, D-Halifax. The prediction was repeated by Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., D-5th, who said he wouldn't support any deal in Congress that left out farmers. "You're going to have grass growing in a lot of streets and towns" across the South, said Goode, who represents Southside Virginia.

As supposed proof of its intentions, R.J. Reynolds cites its retirement of Joe Camel -- a notably effective marketing tool until it became a heavy political liability. But the new Camel ads . . . are no more benign. . . Kids don't pick up cigarettes to emulate other teens; they smoke to associate themselves with the adult world of sex, glamour and adventure that provides the backdrop in tobacco advertising. . . . For another recent example, consider its stonewall insistence that the settlement isn't open to modification, while its lobbyists quietly negotiated a $50 billion tax credit against anticipated payments. Or, closer to home, the haste with which distributors rolled out two- and three-pack specials to dodge Minnesota's ban on single-pack countertop displays. The settlement has been a dubious deal from the outset, providing clear benefits for the tobacco industry and debatable gains for public health. But no settlement can work if one side can't be trusted to honor it in spirit as well as detail. This industry's recent behavior underlines anew the question of whether it merits such trust.

But the attorneys general, whose prolonged negotiations brought what they thought would be new openness from the industry, can hardly be happy with what came to pass in the tax bill. For, as this giveaway orphan painfully demonstrates, the industry remains a back-room political player with special clout, especially among Republicans, on any legislation where it elects to push its special interests.

Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Trent Lott of Mississippi have the "Who, me?" attitude of young boys caught in the act of sneaking sips of beer. What the House speaker and Senate majority leader are suspected of, however, is not nearly so forgivable. . . Even more important, Clinton needs to act on his conclusion, shared by eminent advisers such as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler, that the FDA must regulate nicotine levels in tobacco. No other provision in the settlement would do more to help smokers quit and prevent youngsters from becoming hooked than minimizing nicotine, which is powerfully addictive. Big Tobacco may balk at any significant tinkering with the tentative settlement, but it entered into these negotiations aiming to set a finite limit on its losses. Can it really want to take the risk of far greater liability costs in the courts?

The longer the settlement agreement is studied, the more questions that are asked. Consequently, tobacco interests are hoping for quick action by Congress, which must approve the deal for it to take effect. The tobacco industry has one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, and it knows that money talks. So it should come as no surprise that the tobacco companies gave $2 million to the Democratic and Republican parties in the first six months of this year . . . In the coming months, it will be easy to judge the influence of money on Congress, and whether Congress will shake its dependency. Just watch the progress on the tobacco settlement and campaign-finance reform.

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Communications Decency Act marked an important victory in the digital war for free speech. But the $300 billion-plus tobacco settlement may give censors a back door to more government control of the Internet. . . But information, including advertising, is accessible on the Net from almost anywhere in the world. The tobacco agreement "could cause a lot of general problems for cigarette companies, because if they want to advertise where it's legal, they can't," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies speech on the Internet.

The escalating war of words over the tax break, along with a remarkable admission Thursday about smoking dangers by the head of tobacco giant Philip Morris Cos., point to a pitched battle come September when Congress takes up the tobacco settlement.

Hundreds of leaders in the war on smoking will soon be debating the U.S. tobacco settlement proposal at the 10th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health beginning next week in Beijing China in a last-minute attempt to influence President Clinton's position. Since many have already vigorously protested the deal's lack of any protection for the 95% of the world's smokers outside the U.S., it is quite likely that the Conference will forward a strongly-worded resolution condemning the settlement to Mr. Clinton. This special session was added at the last minute at the request of Professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

President Bill Clinton will insist the tobacco industry pay an extra $50 billion in any tobacco settlement in spite of Big Tobacco's threat to pull out of the deal if the demand is not withdrawn, the White House said on Thursday. . . White House spokesman Barry Toiv said in reaction that Clinton would not change his mind. "It's our position that this provision in the budget legislation should not be allowed to actually reduce the cost to the industry of the settlement," he said.

"Nothing is final in any part of the tobacco agreement until the House has held hearings, the trial lawyers have told us how much money they are going to get, and the bills are written," Gingrich said in an interview. Gingrich said the level of uncertainty is so great that Congress ultimately may reject the entire lawsuit settlement agreement. What's more, he said, even the controversial language added to the balanced budget package and characterized as a sweetheart deal for the tobacco industry is not "written in stone." "In my mind, the provision is a signal that says anything that has to do with tobacco should be seen in the context of everything being done with tobacco," Gingrich said. "Otherwise, what you write is an agreement that will collapse. Some liberals have this mythology that they can tax the tobacco industry out of business and they will still make payments," he added.

"I think people were misreading the tax provision," he said. "We're not cutting a break for the tobacco folks. . . Whatever the final package is, we want to make sure that it's real," he said. "It's all one pot of money, and I'm in favor of maximizing the amount of money available for children's health."

The state attorneys general who brokered the tobacco pact are threatening to torpedo it if the industry is allowed to reduce by $50 billion the $368.5 billion it agreed to pay as part of the settlement reached in June. In a letter to J. Philip Carlton, a lawyer for the three biggest tobacco companies, the attorneys general characterized the budget provision as an "unacceptable" alteration of their agreement and said they would exercise their option to reject any final pact unless the industry break is eliminated. The letter marks the first time attorneys general have threatened to abandon the landmark settlement since it was signed. "This concept was discussed and rejected by us during our negotiations," five attorneys general wrote on behalf of the 39 states and Puerto Rico that signed the tentative pact. "The industry has agreed to specific dollar amounts in the settlement, and we will not agree to any diminution of those amounts."

Posing a direct challenge to the White House, the tobacco industry's top attorney said yesterday the cigarette companies would abandon this summer's historic $368.5 billion settlement if President Clinton tries to extract more money from them. "I'm telling the White House as bluntly and directly as I can, my (corporate) boards aren't going to vote for it" if the agreement is changed, said J. Phil Carlton, the North Carolina attorney who is representing the biggest tobacco companies. "The boards should not be asked to put their companies in precarious financial straits."

Smoking can't be effectively banned or eliminated. It can be controlled. Cigarettes can be heavily taxed. Education campaigns should relentlessly expose young people to the dangers. Flawed though it is, even unnecessary, the national deal attempts to be realistic. It makes the tobacco industry pay for its duplicity. It also recognizes the role of personal responsibility.

The Florida settlement demonstrated that state attorneys general and the tobacco industry can agree on a number. That, in turn, increases the chances of June's $368 billion settlement - covering 40 states - becoming law. . . At the moment, the American tobacco business is valued at next to nothing; free of the litigation threat, it should be worth £4 billion, or about 130p a share. Buy.

When the smoke clears from all this, it will be in the government's interest that the smoke doesn't clear. Tobacco companies will have to get on with the business of selling tobacco again, if the federal government and states want their settlements paid off. We'll have an investment in their success. We'll be lienholders on lung cancer.

By securing his own settlement with US tobacco companies, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles won billions of dollars for his state. But public health advocates said the deal was limited and might derail the effort to secure a national settlement. Foes of the tobacco industry fear that if other states follow Florida and Missisippi, which settled with tobacco companies seven weeks ago, then momentum could falter in Congress for a national settlement. And it is only through a national deal, they said, that teenagers - the industry's future financial base - can be forced to give up smoking.

But Congress is unlikely to act before another state tobacco lawsuit -- in Texas -- goes to trial late next month. Cigarette makers are expected to cut a deal there too. "That they gave more to Florida than to Mississippi means they've got to give more to Texas than to Florida," said James Tierney, a consultant to the suing states. He noted that Florida extracted potentially damaging evidence it didn't get to use in court -- such as Philip Morris chief Geoffrey Bible's deposition that smoking "might have" killed 100,000 Americans -- that could influence other lawsuits. That pressure adds to Tierney's belief that tobacco companies won't walk away if Clinton insists that the national pact be strengthened.

"Based on the information we have received, we don't think it should have any impact on our review of the proposed national settlement," White House spokesman Barry Toiv said

The growing scale of smuggling could scupper a key part of the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement with US companies. According to the deal, before the Government can order them to cut nicotine levels in cigarettes, it must prove that this would not lead to a black market in high-strength cigarettes. Tobacco-opponents fear that new evidence about the surge in smuggling, partly caused by the opening of huge new markets in Russian and Eastern Europe, makes this impossible.

• 8/25/97 Cigarette Makers are Seen as Aiding Rise in Smuggling The New York Times. This long, important article is also posted as Smugglers Might Get Help from Tobacco Cos at the Lexington Herald Leader
  
  The largest tobacco companies are selling billions of dollars of cigarettes each year to traders and dealers who funnel them into black markets in many countries, say law enforcement officials and participants in the trade. In the last decade, the volume of cigarettes smuggled around the world has nearly tripled, according to a leading tobacco research organization. . . The companies say they do nothing to encourage the smuggling and do not condone it. But recent criminal investigations in several countries show that people in the tobacco industry have played a significant role at times in stimulating and fueling it.
• 8/23/97 Jury Probes Smuggling, RJR Link AP/Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
  
  In a note contained in a recent quarterly filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, R.J. Reynolds, the nation's second-largest cigarette maker, said it had received subpoenas for documents on July 24 from a federal grand jury in the Northern District of New York. The grand jury in Syracuse, N.Y., indicted 21 people in June for allegedly participating in a huge smuggling operation that moved tax-free cigarettes and liquor across the Canadian border via the Akwesasne Indian Reservation from 1992 through 1996.
• 8/22/97 Smuggler with High-Priced Pals? Montreal Gazette
  
  Larry Miller owned a private jet, hobnobbed with prominent actors and politicians and sponsored lavish fishing parties at a remote B.C. lodge. Tens of millions of dollars poured through his bank accounts. Miller, arrested last month in Syracuse, N.Y., made most of his fortune smuggling cigarettes and liquor through the Akwesasne reserve on the Canada-U.S. border, say court documents unsealed last week by a U.S. grand jury. The documents, including reports by undercover agents, provide a rare glimpse at a criminal operation of startling sophistication and scale. The documents also raise questions about possible corruption among customs agents on both sides of the border, and hint at links between Miller's organization and the tobacco industry.

The deal approved in June by the 40 attorneys general and the tobacco industry does not go nearly far enough toward such regulation. This failing and others have led to the perception that the national agreement is more favorable to the industry than to consumers. But nothing prevents Congress from acting, and each multibillion-dollar state settlement should embolden the lawmakers to do what's right for the nation as a whole.

"There won't be any movement by the industry unless the President of the United States helps us. We need his help right now," Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore told Reuters . . . "I believe we are coming close to getting some language on FDA jurisdiction of nicotine that can be agreed to by all parties and supported by the public health community," Moore said. "It's probably premature to say we're there yet, but we're very close."

One key negotiator, Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore, contended they were close to agreeing on new language that would remove "all the artificial hoops that the FDA would have to jump through" to require, for example, a gradual reduction in the nicotine levels of cigarettes. On the other hand, the industry's chief negotiator, Phil Carlton, asserted the five cigarette companies still haven't agreed to change "one syllable" in the tobacco pact. Both men confirmed, however, that they have been discussing ways to allay President Clinton's deep misgivings about terms in the proposed deal requiring the FDA to prove that low-nicotine cigarettes wouldn't create a huge black market in "contraband" cigarettes.

Koop said yesterday that the new language is still not satisfactory. He said that it postpones nicotine control for 14 years. "The so-called settlement actually nullifies the statutory right of the FDA to regulate tobacco," Koop said. "I don't think we should ever take away from the FDA its right to regulate nicotine." Moore said he expects that legislation in favor of the tobacco settlement to be introduced in Congress the week after Labor Day and that a final bill will be passed by the end of the year. He also cautioned that stronger language on the FDA's control over nicotine might be struck down by a federal court.

Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore said Sunday that the issue has been renegotiated with the industry. 'We are now in agreement with the strongest language that will be agreed to by the White House,' Moore said on ABC's 'This Week.' But White House officials were unavailable to confirm Moore's account.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has become the man in the middle of tobacco. . . Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has assured Hatch that he will play a pivotal role.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in Richmond to raise money for Republican lieutenant governor candidate John H. Hager, defended last night a proposed new $50 billion tax credit for the tobacco industry. The slimmed-down Gingrich said the credit will enable more money to go for children's health, rather than to trial lawyers. . . He said the Clinton administration knew about the tax provision when the bill was passed. Now Clinton officials say they will oppose the credit. "I wish the president and his staff would make up their minds," Gingrich said.

The growing scale of smuggling could scupper a key part of the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement with US companies. According to the deal, before the Government can order them to cut nicotine levels in cigarettes, it must prove that this would not lead to a black market in high-strength cigarettes. Tobacco-opponents fear that new evidence about the surge in smuggling, partly caused by the opening of huge new markets in Russian and Eastern Europe, makes this impossible.

• 8/25/97 Cigarette Makers are Seen as Aiding Rise in Smuggling The New York Times. This long, important article is also posted as Smugglers Might Get Help from Tobacco Cos at the Lexington Herald Leader
  
  The largest tobacco companies are selling billions of dollars of cigarettes each year to traders and dealers who funnel them into black markets in many countries, say law enforcement officials and participants in the trade. In the last decade, the volume of cigarettes smuggled around the world has nearly tripled, according to a leading tobacco research organization. . . The companies say they do nothing to encourage the smuggling and do not condone it. But recent criminal investigations in several countries show that people in the tobacco industry have played a significant role at times in stimulating and fueling it.
• 8/23/97 Jury Probes Smuggling, RJR Link AP/Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
  
  In a note contained in a recent quarterly filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, R.J. Reynolds, the nation's second-largest cigarette maker, said it had received subpoenas for documents on July 24 from a federal grand jury in the Northern District of New York. The grand jury in Syracuse, N.Y., indicted 21 people in June for allegedly participating in a huge smuggling operation that moved tax-free cigarettes and liquor across the Canadian border via the Akwesasne Indian Reservation from 1992 through 1996.
• 8/22/97 Smuggler with High-Priced Pals? Montreal Gazette
  
  Larry Miller owned a private jet, hobnobbed with prominent actors and politicians and sponsored lavish fishing parties at a remote B.C. lodge. Tens of millions of dollars poured through his bank accounts. Miller, arrested last month in Syracuse, N.Y., made most of his fortune smuggling cigarettes and liquor through the Akwesasne reserve on the Canada-U.S. border, say court documents unsealed last week by a U.S. grand jury. The documents, including reports by undercover agents, provide a rare glimpse at a criminal operation of startling sophistication and scale. The documents also raise questions about possible corruption among customs agents on both sides of the border, and hint at links between Miller's organization and the tobacco industry.

The abrupt $11.3 billion settlement of Florida's case against cigarette companies this week has stirred a sharp debate over whether to adopt the proposed nationwide tobacco accord or to continue the state-by-state lawsuits. . . Backers of the nationwide settlement proposal said the Florida deal proved the industry's willingness to compromise and paved the way for enactment of public health advances. These advocates contended that the Florida case, which featured startling admissions by tobacco executives and new cigarette marketing restrictions, had undermined the bargaining position of the tobacco producers. They argue that the White House and Congress should move quickly to seal the broader deal with a weakened industry. Foes painted the Florida settlement and Mississippi's earlier $3.3 billion payoff as merely tactical moves by an industry seeking to escape the potentially crippling state lawsuits by winning the broad legal immunity promised by the proposed nationwide package.

"It is my belief that the administration will insist that the tobacco farmer be part of any settlement. I clearly don't want to be part of any process that will throw small farmers out of work." [Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman] declined to endorse any of the specific proposals for protecting tobacco growers that are now circulating in Washington.

Glickman assured North Carolina tobacco farmers on Wednesday there will be no settlement between the federal government and cigarette makers that does not involve them,

A coalition of public interest organizations sent a letter to President Clinton on Wednesday asking him to oppose a tobacco settlement that fails to include strict controls on the overseas operations of U.S. tobacco companies. . . The letter was signed by more than two dozen organizations . . . that gathered in Beijing for the World Conference on Tobacco or Health. "While the U.S. government must do everything in its power to stop the tobacco industry from addicting children in the U.S., it must not do this at the expense of the rest of the world," the letter says. Critics of the proposed settlement have said they fear that if it becomes law, U.S. cigarette companies will step up their overseas marketing to make up for decreased sales in this country that could result from price hikes that will be levied to finance the deal.

We're hopeful that the states' settlements won't derail the proposed wider agreement but rather prod Congress to move it forward, making necessary adjustments. We hope, too, that the global settlement will live up to its name. Its benefits should extend not only to the 40 states involved in lawsuits, but also to China and beyond.

How good can it be if the tobacco industry is lobbying for its approval by Congress? Now another industry has big plans for emasculating the FDA. . . . We need public agencies because the temptations are simply too great when industry polices itself -- and the consequences of private lapses too tragic. The senators whose heads have been turned by the importunings of private businesses should direct themselves instead to the public's business.

Let's say that half of the $50 billion in new taxes is paid by smokers and half is paid by tobacco companies (in the form of slightly lowered pre-tax prices). That means Big Tobacco will get a $50 billion break in its liability payments in exchange for a tax that costs maybe $25 billion. Not bad.

Ultimately, the global black market could damage U.S. public-health initiatives to reduce nicotine content. Under the proposed tobacco settlement, for example, the nicotine-reduction effort could be suspended if lower-nicotine cigarettes are thought to compete against more potent, black-market brands. This raises the grotesque possibility that American cigarette makers could support an overseas black market as a way of escaping stricter controls at home. . . [I]t would be shortsighted to think that Americans pay no practical or moral price for tobacco companies' misconduct elsewhere.

And there is the larger point: It is difficult to feel much sympathy for any cigarette company, even those that belatedly see the light. But the tobacco giants should not be allowed to bully industry whistleblowers into submission. The separate settlement with Liggett ought to be retained as part of the overall agreement.

A hallmark danger of this era is that the public's business is becoming privatized. Industry wants to replace public processes and public agencies with private contractors and private deals. And there is far too little public protest. Private enemy number one seems to be the Food and Drug Administration. Consider the proposed tobacco accord . . . How good can it be if the tobacco industry is lobbying for its approval by Congress? . . . We need such public agencies because the temptations are simply too great for industry to police itself - and the consequences of private lapses too tragic. The senators whose heads have been turned by the importunings of private businesses should direct themselves instead to the public's business.

Most Americans believe the proposed tobacco deal won't raise cigarette prices nearly enough to meet its prime objective -- cutting teen-age smoking, according to an Associated Press poll. Two-thirds of those surveyed expect tobacco companies to sell as many cigarettes as ever. More than half say the deal is not worth giving up the key concession that cigarette makers demand -- banning class-action lawsuits. And 70 percent said cigarette prices must rise more than $1 a pack to deter young people from smoking. That includes 61 percent of the smokers whose wallets would be hit.

Almost half of Americans support a national tobacco settlement, but those opposing the far-reaching proposal are growing in number, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. The poll finds an almost even split: 45% favor and 43% oppose the national deal. Two months ago, 45% supported the deal but only 25% opposed it. The rest were unsure.

The White House is working on recommendations for changes, which are expected to be announced soon after Labor Day. And when the deal reaches Congress later in September, nine House committees and five Senate committees with stakes in it may develop their own proposals. All of that creates the possibility that there will be no congressional action this year, although advocates of the deal say they hope developments such as Monday's $11.3 billion settlement between the industry and Florida will help provide a renewed sense

If he goes to trial first, Humphrey promises to dish out precisely what the industry hoped to avoid by settling in Florida and Mississippi: an ugly trial with massive negative publicity. Indeed, many of the state AGs who drafted the pact are "very concerned" that Humphrey's courtroom attack would put the industry in such a bad light that it could torpedo the entire deal, says James Tierney . . .

The tobacco deal is now in the hands of the White House and Congress, which expects a vote by mid-1998. But lawmakers are veering into unknown territory, and it could be years before the courts resolve many of the pact's troubling constitutional issues. Every potential claimant--from individual litigants to advertisers to industries beleaguered by product-liability suits--will be awaiting the outcome.

But for the moment tobacco has got centre stage. It is going to be a monumental issue on Capitol Hill over the next several months. The action will start shortly after Bill Clinton returns from holidays at the end of next week.

A world anti-smoking conference demanded Thursday that tobacco be treated as a "uniquely dangerous" drug, but disappointed activists by failing to criticize a proposed U.S. settlement with cigarette makers. . . A resolution approved at the closing session of the meeting of 1,500 health experts urged governments only to make sure settlements don't hurt other countries.

A coalition of public interest organizations sent a letter to President Clinton on Wednesday asking him to oppose a tobacco settlement that fails to include strict controls on the overseas operations of U.S. tobacco companies. . . The letter was signed by more than two dozen organizations . . . that gathered in Beijing for the World Conference on Tobacco or Health. "While the U.S. government must do everything in its power to stop the tobacco industry from addicting children in the U.S., it must not do this at the expense of the rest of the world," the letter says. Critics of the proposed settlement have said they fear that if it becomes law, U.S. cigarette companies will step up their overseas marketing to make up for decreased sales in this country that could result from price hikes that will be levied to finance the deal.

Delegates at the 10th Annual World Conference on Tobacco or Health were adamant that the U.S. settlement shouldn't be seen as a global deal with the tobacco industry. A resolution passed at the gathering this week points out that settlements should protect the legal rights of those not involved in the settlements and that a deal in one country doesn't preclude the scrutiny of the tobacco industry by other countries.

As Congress prepares to consider this summer's controversial deal to regulate tobacco, almost everyone agrees on two things: The settlement will be changed, and making those changes without blowing up the agreement will be an extraordinary challenge.

House GOP leaders Dick Armey (Tex.) and John Boehner (Ind.) sometimes light up on the House floor ‹ Boehner in the back corner so he's not caught on camera. . . Some in Congress want even more ‹ for personal reasons. McCarthy acknowledges that her habit makes her angrier at cigarette makers. When she found out that tobacco companies raised the additives in her cigarettes to make them more addictive, she thought: "My God, what are these people doing to us?"

Tobacco industry representatives wrote the provision of the balanced budget law that allows cigarette makers to reduce their future liability in smoking-related lawsuits, Congress's chief tax writer told USA TODAY. "The industry wrote it and submitted it, and we just used their language," Kenneth Kies, staff director of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Kies declined to identify the lobbyist who presented the provision or the company the lobbyist represented.

Q House Speaker Newt Gingrich reportedly slipped a provision into the tax-cut bill giving tobacco companies a $50 billion tax credit against the sums they had pledged to settle the anti-tobacco litigation. Since President Clinton now has the line-item veto, why didn't he simply veto that section? A He couldn't, because the administration already had signed onto the package including the tobacco tax credit during negotiations. Clinton said he wouldn't turn around and line-item veto provisions that he already knew about and had agreed to.

Almost by definition, any deal the tobacco companies find congenial is against the public interest. Our own instinct is that the politicians should go carefully and slowly. Among other things, they need to see what a few more of the pending state suits, the one in Minnesota particularly, turn up by way of evidence that the companies knowingly put the many millions of people they hooked on their product at risk. Which politicians want to vote for a limit on future lawsuits and other liability in advance of that?

Sen. Don Nickles, the Republican whip of Oklahoma, has already put together legislation to implement the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement. He has held an initial meeting with administration officials to talk about it. Nickles, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, received $12,000 in campaign money from tobacco companies in the first six months of 1997, more than any other member of Congress from a nontobacco state. Lobbyists have focused their firepower in recent weeks on the White House, which they hope will come out in support of the deal by mid-September.

At the same time it has been lobbying for Congressional approval of a proposed settlement, the tobacco industry has kept up a steady flow of campaign money to the lawmakers it is courting. Leading tobacco industry political action committees funneled $566,721 to pivotal lawmakers in the first six months of the year, Federal Election Commission reports compiled by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics show. That giving came on top of $2 million in "soft money," the unregulated and unlimited amounts given to political parties. Nearly 80 percent of the total went to the Republicans who control both houses of Congress. In the House, top recipients of industry contributions included GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner, recipient of $10,300 from January through June; Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley, R-Va., $9,000; Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $8,000 each.

While Clinton and his family ducked into the store for coffee and blueberry muffins . . . Koop and two friends . . . were ushered inside. "I encouraged him to stay tough on tobacco," Koop later told reporters. Did the anti-smoking health advocate win any assurance from Clinton? "The look in his eye said he's going to stay tough," Koop said.

But Moore urged a Senate panel today to strike while the iron is hot. Moore says that, "To use a 'Clintonesque' term, we've got this thing teed up right now and it's time for somebody to follow through on the swing." Moore says strong backing by President Clinton could spur action this year.

"I've got my foot on his neck right now," Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore said of a lawyer for the tobacco industry sitting next to him at a Senate Labor Committee hearing. "Let's don't miss this opportunity."

Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore . . . said the industry was close to accepting stronger FDA authority over nicotine in the proposed accord. "We'll have that done," Moore told a Senate committee hearing. Gesturing at a tobacco industry lawyer sitting next to him, Moore added, "They may not admit that today in front of you," but the industry has been in talks about strengthening the Food and Drug Adminstration powers. The attorney, Scott Wise of the firm Davis, Polk and Wardwell, which represents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, did not comment specifically on the FDA, but he told the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, "I don't disagree with the attorney general's interpretation of the situation."

[O]ne thing is clear. The proposed $368 billion deal is proving to be a boon to Washington's main industry: lobbying. Or as anti-tobacco activist Scott Ballin puts it, "Everybody's at the trough." This pitter-patter of Gucci-clad hooves, which is growing louder by the day, is not good news for settlement proponents - including the tobacco companies - who want swift congressional approval. They still hope the necessary legislation can be enacted by the end of the year. But with this herd gathering on Capitol Hill to press their clients' conflicting interests, that will take a legislative miracle.

Q: Do you think we should settle with the tobacco companies on the terms currently being considered by Congress? A: Certainly. There are some benefits here that haven't been truly examined. In the continuing absence of a major war, there is a considerable danger of overpopulation. The aggressive promotion and use of cigarettes will solve that problem nicely. And since the restrictions being considered apply only to the U.S., consummating this agreement will also mean that a good many young people in other countries will be hooked on cigarettes and die early and painfully, thereby reducing the threat to us from abroad.

It's already looking too late to get necessary legislation passed before Congress adjourns in early November. And some of the most withering attacks are coming from an unexpected source - anti-tobacco lawmakers who complain that the package doesn't go far enough in punishing what they view as an outlaw industry. The last hope, supporters acknowledge, rests with President Clinton.

Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley is confident that President Clinton and Congress will line up behind the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement because no one has come up with a better alternative. . . "When you boil it down, the critics don't have an answer about what to do about teen smoking," said Chesley, who currently is involved in several tobacco-related suits. "We have the only plan."

Burley growers needn't fear lawsuits from smoking victims as a result of the proposed tobacco settlement. D. Scott Wise, a New York attorney representing R.J. Reynolds, told members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on Wednesday that growers are protected under the $368.5 billion agreement . . . " . . . the contemplation in our agreement is that there would be no tort liability for anybody in the distribution chain of this product other than the manufacturers if these things all work right," Wise told Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

It now appears unlikely that the historic settlement of four decades of war over tobacco, anticipated when the proposal was announced in June, will be achieved any time soon. While the cigarette companies, lawyers and health advocates who produced the deal continue to push for rapid action, the agreement faces congressional scrutiny and lobbying muscle the likes of which have not been seen since President Clinton's health care plan hit Capitol Hill in 1993.

Complexity of deal hinders swift enactment, Daschle says. Growing list of experts, lawmakers agrees.

"The best time to enter a settlement is at the time of greatest uncertainty," Moore said. "What my biggest worry is, is that we let this opportunity pass."

The proposed tobacco settlement took a drubbing from members of yet another Senate committee . . . Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, the third Senate panel to hold hearings on the settlement, found much in it to criticize. Opinion on the $368.5 billion agreement now appears to be polarized: One camp believes the deal, while imperfect, represents the best available step to curb youth smoking while the other sees it as a massive giveaway to the tobacco industry.

A top-level meeting between the Clinton administration and the tobacco industry failed to resolve key differences regarding the historic settlement, raising new doubts about the accord's future. J. Phil Carlton, an attorney for the industry, met for three hours Tuesday with Bruce Lindsey, the White House deputy counsel. Carlton said yesterday that he was unable to convince Lindsey that the tobacco companies can't pay more than the $368.5 billion incorporated in the historic accord or that the government shouldn't get more authority to regulate nicotine.

"We've got a long way to go" in studying and debating the far-reaching settlement proposal, the Virginia Republican said. "I do not feel this issue will be completed in this session." Several framers of the pact contended yesterday that delay until next year could kill it. They found little reason for optimism at a hearing of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, where lawmakers voiced skepticism about the settlement and the tobacco industry's credibility.

"It has got to be studied enormously by several committees on both sides of the building," Mr. Armey told reporters. "I don't expect to see much completed on that other than maybe some preliminary committee investigations in preparation, perhaps, for hearings at the beginning of next year."

Clinton would like to be remembered as the president who tamed the tobacco industry. With the companies obviously eager to make a deal, he may well be able to negotiate major new concessions from them. But if he can't, he ought to walk away from the table and let the state lawsuits proceed. Fifty different small settlements are better than one big bad one.

The fix is almost in, but time is not on the side of the industry. What the tobacco companies fear more than anything is that their carefully concealed account of their own sins, their internal record of their deliberate and sinister corporate deeds, will somehow be dragged into the light of day. That is exactly what needs to happen. As Waxman asserted, it makes no sense to consider immunity before that account is made known. You don't make a decision on whether to offer amnesty before you know what really happened. Humphrey has two huge repositories of tobacco-industry documents, and he will likely soon have more. If Congress is interested in the truth about tobacco, it will have a look at that historic trove.

Ms. Butler acknowledges and appreciates the efforts of Langston, Frazer, Sweet & Freese as well as Ness, Motley, Don Barrett end David McCormick for their significant contributions to the tobacco wars. Without the tireless efforts of the attorneys of these firms, "big tobacco" would never have been brought to their knees. Ms. Butler looks forward to pursuing her case against tobacco with her trial counsel Langston, Frazer, Sweet & Freese and with the cooperation of Ness, Motley. Further, Ms. Butler generously acknowledges that the proposed national resolution negotiated by the Attorneys General is full of benefits to individuals and families devastated by the ills of tobacco.

Some state attorneys general who favor the tobacco deal seek to keep information given to their ally, the Washington Group, from colleagues in states, such as Minnesota, opposed to the deal. Data "should be shared only" with those backing approval by Congress, Ohio's attorney general says in a letter.

Anti-tobacco forces in Minnesota, armed with Washington lobbyists, are pressing Congress to subpoena and release millions of tobacco industry documents now protected from disclosure by order of a St. Paul judge. The document-disclosure effort, part of a broader campaign against the proposed $368 billion settlement with cigarette makers, represents an unprecedented attempt to use the power of Congress to unveil an industry's court-protected secrets. "We do not want the industry and its allies to get a (settlement) bill through without the disclosure of these documents,.'

Amid a chilly congressional reception of the proposal in recent days, the executives of the major tobacco companies gathered in Washington to discuss moves that might appease White House concerns, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Already, the Congressional Research Service . . . has been gathering information for members regarding the lucrative fee arrangements struck between private lawyers and their clients, the states that sued the industry for reimbursement of Medicaid costs. In addition, lawmakers are upset about potential conflicts among attorneys who are working on the global settlement but who also represent plaintiffs who have sued the industry seeking damages. . . "I bet you couldn't throw a stone and not hit a lawyer who didn't have a conflict," says Susan P. Koniak, a Boston University law professor. When the state attorneys general chose attorneys to file their lawsuits and, later, to help them negotiate the settlement, they "sought out people who already had tobacco cases," she says. . . [P]eople familiar with the settlement negotiations say a gentlemen's agreement was struck between the lawyers and the industry: The industry would pay the attorneys' fees from a fund separate from the settlement itself. Ultimately, negotiators of the settlement say an independent panel of mediators is expected to review the work attorneys have done on the settlement and decide how much compensation they should receive, based on criteria such as personal expenses and the newness of legal arguments they advanced.

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers Thursday mounted a campaign to repeal a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry that they said was secretly slipped into the tax bill passed this summer. "This one-sentence provision just magically appeared at the end of the 327-page bill," said Susan Collins, a Maine Republican co-sponsoring the repeal effort. "It is absolutely outrageous."

The Illinois Democrat, along with freshman Sen. Susan Collins, R- Maine, wants to repeal the provision, which enables cigarette makers to deduct a 15-cent-a-pack cigarette tax boost from the $368 billion they have agreed to under the "global tobacco settlement" with 40 states. The deduction for boosts in taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products is estimated to be worth about $50 billion. Durbin's proposal, matched by a similar move launched in the House by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., appears to face an uphill climb.

The effort to overturn the tobacco provision is a direct challenge to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who were instrumental in getting it passed. . . Public anger over the maneuver was cited as a factor in the Senate's vote Wednesday to reverse itself and approve the full $34 million Clinton administration request for a program to discourage sales of cigarettes to teenagers.

Citing Maine's high percentage of smokers, Sen. Susan Collins joined with Democrats this week to attack a backdoor deal for the tobacco industry and its targeting of young smokers. Collins and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Thursday introduced an amendment that would revoke a tax credit for tobacco companies that was slipped in to the recently signed tax bill.

To pay for the $368.5 billion settlement, cigarette companies will raise prices 60 to 80 cents a pack, industry analysts predict. The increase could cut cigarette consumption 10 percent to 20 percent in the next few years. For Kentucky tobacco farmers, that could translate to a short-term financial hit in the range of $40 million to $70 million, according to an analysis by Will Snell, a University of Kentucky agriculture economist and an adviser to burley advocates. That's a 6 percent to 10 percent drop in a crop that brought $700 million to Kentucky farmers last year.

While Clinton is doing his homework, Congress is posturing. Too many Democrats who find fault with the proposal unreasonably expect the tobacco industry to sign its own death sentence. They are more focused on forcing the industry out of business than on improving the public health. Meanwhile, too many Republicans cannot bring themselves to do anything that would reduce the flow of political contributions from tobacco interests. . . The attorneys general advanced the public interest further than members of Congress or any other politicians did before this. The proposed settlement needs serious work, but it is not irreparable. If Congress cannot find the time to study it, improve it and vote on it this year, then Congress better be prepared to come up with a better plan.

The 1997 federal budget and tax bill lowered a proposed cigarette tax hike from 20 cents to 15 cents a pack and allowed the estimated $50 billion in revenue from the tax to be subtracted from the $368 billion the tobacco industry has agreed to pay as part of the agreement with the state attorneys general. . . Shutting down the flow of soft money will not solve the entire problem, but it is a good place to start.

Small wonder that a bill to sneak a $50 billion tax credit to tobacco slipped into law silently and submerged, like a submarine, just before the recent congressional recess. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, playing rubes at the carnival, profess dismay as to how such a thing could have happened. It happened, of course, because Congress has been bought, every bit as much a retail item as cabbages or bug spray. . . The Thompson hearings, with weeks to go, already have uncovered enough grime to justify a thorough house cleaning, but most in Congress not only balk but are left unprodded by an electorate that, rather than bestirring itself, prefers the lazy comforts of cynicism and indifference.

With Big Tobacco's power on Capitol Hill, Clinton may be the last chance (short of a Senate filibuster) to turn this settlement into something that truly will reduce teen smoking and protect the public health. The public interest is better served by a tough and tenacious presidential position (if necessary, over several months) than by a late summer White House ceremony with rhetorical flourishes to gussy up a bad deal for our children and taxpayers.

Two cigarette industry representatives say the White House told them last week that three crucial concessions must be made . . . the deal must be amended to give federal officials a freer hand in regulating nicotine levels in cigarettes. . . . heavier fines be imposed if the industry did not meet targets for reducing youth smoking over the next decade . . . eliminate or restrict a provision in the new federal budget that allows the industry to deduct $50 billion raised from new tobacco excise taxes over the next 25 years.

This summer, Reed and Shalala, a political odd couple who regularly find themselves on opposite sides of the most divisive questions facing Clinton, have been the twin poles of a roiling internal debate about tobacco: She loathes the tobacco companies and wants to punish them; he regards them with detachment and mild disdain, but is eager for a compromise.

"The attorneys general had an overly simplistic view of Congress," said Meehan, who has campaigned against tobacco companies and criticized the agreement as too lenient. "This is one of the most complicated bills I've seen in my five years in Congress. This would have far-reaching and long-lasting implications for the country."

Despite a round of discussions over the weekend, cigarette makers have yet to gain the administration backing they believe is needed to secure passage of the proposed national tobacco settlement.

Chances of swift U.S. government approval of the landmark tobacco settlement are receding because the White House has yet to take a strong stand on the deal and Congress appears ready to delay action into next year, government sources said.

Tobacco-state lawmakers have vowed that the deal will die if it does not allow some economic help for growers. The Senate Agriculture Committee has scheduled a hearing Thursday to examine the deal's effect on growers. "I don't like the settlement because the farmers are not in it," said Democrat Wendell Ford, Kentucky's senior senator and tobacco's chief champion in Congress.

The tobacco deal, lauded as an historic truce just two months ago, now appears to be in serious trouble. Supporters say President Clinton can save it but only if he acts within weeks. . . But Clinton, whose own aides still are fighting over the deal, is under growing pressure to let the deadline pass from critics who say Congress could make a serious mistake by acting in haste.

"I suspect we'll get a watered-down version of the settlement, and in the long run, the activities of the tobacco companies probably will not be much different in two or three years than they are now," Koop said. "I think the deck is stacked because Congress has always been treating the tobacco industry as if it were a most favored nation. Therefore, I don't have great expectations."

Sources tell Business Week Online that the President will act shortly after returning to the White House on Sept. 8 from Martha's Vineyard, Mass. And he likely will conditionally approve the settlement, sources say, if Congress toughens certain provisions, including Food & Drug Administration oversight of tobacco and fines against the tobacco companies in case goals to reduce youth smoking are not met. With the exception of a five-minute chat with former Surgeon General C. Everettt Koop, Clinton has had no meetings or conversations about the pending deal while on vacation, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said on Sept. 4.

President Clinton is delaying a formal verdict on the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement until at least next week, as heightened antitobacco sentiment in Congress underscores the fragility of the accord between the industry, states and public-health groups.

President Clinton will not offer an opinion on the proposed tobacco accord until next week at the earliest, aides said Monday, further diminishing chances that Congress will act on the accord this year. Senior advisers, including Donna Shalala, the health and human services secretary, and Bruce Reed, the president's chief domestic-policy aide, are completing recommendations on the complex proposal. Those recommendations will be presented to the president this week, officials said. The president was originally to have offered his views on the proposal, which was announced on June 20, in late July. But that timetable slipped as aides discovered that the 68-page settlement document negotiated by state attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers and tobacco executives raised perplexing questions of law, economics and public health.

President Clinton will be holding last minute talks with members of Congress on a proposed tobacco deal in order to craft a recommendation that has a greater chance of eventually being enacted into law, according to White House Spokesman Mike McCurry. As a result, Clinton likely won't make a final decision on what recommendations on the tobacco deal to accept until sometime next week at the earliest.

Following his review of the tobacco settlement, the president said he hopes to shepherd passage of tobacco legislation "that focuses first and foremost on reducing smoking among young people."

A tobacco industry lawyer vowed on Monday that there will be no more settlements of tobacco lawsuits with individual states like the ones that pledged billions of dollars to Florida and Mississippi. The new posture looked to some like an effort to push Washington to approve a national settlement. "The tobacco companies are either going to get the global resolution or we'll go to trial one state at a time, starting in Texas," said Dan Webb, the lead attorney representing the tobacco industry.

A split between farming interests in the nation's two biggest tobacco-growing states over what they should get out of the pending national settlement on smoking is increasing the danger they might not get anything at all. On one side are tobacco growers and allotment holders in North Carolina, who think the settlement should include provisions to buy out government allotments if the deal dampens future demand for the golden leaf. On the other side are growers and allotment holders in Kentucky, who have little interest in a buyout but think the deal should include billions of dollars in economic development funds for tobacco-dependent communities.

However, a deal that drives farmers out of the fields and into the factories could have other costly effects. The most visible might be the conversion of those lush, green fields into buildings of brick and vinyl. "The best crop we can raise right now is houses," said Rusty Thompson, a Woodford County farmer who grows 60 acres of burley.

Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle predicted the Senate would repeal a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry slipped into a mammoth tax bill over the summer.

The effect of the Gingrich-Lott proposal would be to leave less for these, drive up the deficit or transfer part of the cost from the companies to the general taxpayer. All three of those are wrong directions for which it is hard to imagine any member wanting to vote. The president is about to decide where he stands on the tobacco deal. Then Congress too will have to decide. It's useful, at a moment such as this, to have a show of sentiment such as Sens. Durbin and Collins propose.

It's not just that the deal represents, as Joe Califano put it, the "quintessential corruption" of the political process by an off-site cabal of lawyers and statehouse intriguers. . . at bottom, what you have here is a bunch of grimy state politicians trying to whip up a cigarette tax hike they could never get from their own state legislatures. Only difference: Between 10% and 30% of the proceeds wouldn't go to the state treasuries, but into the pockets of the private lawyer pals of the state attorneys general, as a sort of commission.

Liberty is an empty concept if we are not free to make these choices for ourselves - even mistaken choices that may turn out to be harmful. Our government has made smoking into a battleground for freedom. If we allow it to outlaw the Marlboro Man, we are paving the way for another symbol to take his place: the swastika. Clearly, most Americans don't realize what is at stake. But anyone who values individual rights should unequivocally denounce this massive expansion of government power. It makes no difference whether you smoke or not. The fundamental issue is whether you are free to live as you choose, or are forced to live as the state commands.

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he sees "more of a go-slow attitude now" compared with the fanfare surrounding the deal's announcement two months ago, because of the tangled legal, health and business issues involved. "I think what's changed is that the closer you look, the more complicated this becomes," Daschle told reporters. "We shouldn't rush to judgment here. ... We need more thoughtful consideration."

A bipartisan group of senators mounted a major effort last night to repeal a controversial $50 billion tax credit that tobacco companies can claim against costs of a national tobacco settlement.

A vote on Durbin's amendment could come as early as today. It is expected to be approved.

An attempt to strip the tobacco companies of what critics called a "$50 billion giveaway" was temporarily derailed on Tuesday night when a small group of conservative Republican senators shifted the focus from the tobacco settlement to attorneys' fees.

Florida Republican Connie Mack and Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin said they would introduce legislation to cancel out the tax break, worth roughly $100 billion over 25 years, and direct the money to the National Institutes of Health. "I was stunned that there was virtually no mention of those funds going into research," said Mack. Instead of shifting the cost of part of the settlement to taxpayers, Mack said, he wants the tobacco industry payments to help finance the search for cures for cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other deadly ailments linked to smoking.

The Senate last night approved a non-binding resolution calling for tobacco farmers to be "fairly compensated" by any legislation implementing the proposed tobacco settlement. The "sense of the Senate" statement introduced by Sen. Wendell Ford also urged aid for tobaccogrowing communities and said the legislation should do nothing to hurt the existing tobacco price-support program. The resolution, which had support from Sen. Mitch McConnell and other tobacco-state members, was attached to an amendment to repeal a $50 billion tax credit for the tobacco industry.

Farmers fighting for a piece of the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement got pledges of support yesterday from the White House and Senate. But the precise nature of that support remained unclear, as officials inched along in their review of the agreement to settle state lawsuits against cigarette makers. President Clinton won't back any settlement plan that doesn't include economic help for growers, White House aide Bruce Lindsey told Gov. Paul Patton, U.S. Sen. Wendell Ford and Rod Kuegel, president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association . . . In separate action, the Senate expressed support for ensuring that any legislation based on the settlement includes help for growers. The vote for the measure, which is similar to a resolution, came during discussion of whether to repeal a $50 billion tax break for tobacco companies that was slipped into last month's balanced budget bill.

The Southern Governors Association on Tuesday asked Congress and the White House to protect tobacco farmers when working out details of a settlement with the tobacco industry.

Sen. Connie Mack wants to change the national tobacco settlement to force the industry to pay an additional $100-billion. The settlement allows tobacco companies to take a tax deduction of about one-third of the $368-billion they would pay over 25 years. But the Florida Republican and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said they want to prohibit that deduction and divert the $100-billion to medical research.

The Clinton Administration will call for fewer restrictions on the Food & Drug Administration's authority to regulate nicotine and for tougher penalties if kids' smoking doesn't decline fast enough, sources tell Business Week Online. But White House advisers are still debating whether those penalties should be in the form of higher payments from companies or boosted taxes. And sources say President Clinton is undecided whether to back legislation encoding a revised deal or to simply advocate a general tobacco-control policy.

Spokesman Mike McCurry said the Senate's 95-3 vote on Wednesday to repeal the tobacco tax break was "not a surprise." "It will have no effect on our overall consideration of the other elements of the proposed settlement," he told reporters.

While the big tobacco manufacturers suffered a defeat in the Senate yesterday, small retailers lobbied the House for legislation that would require teen-agers to share the burden of the crackdown against underage smoking. "There is a responsibility by the person who is underage to understand that buying tobacco products illegally is not something we can wink at," said Jim Tudor, the president of the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores, who met with Mr. Gingrich. . . "It's the kid who's the real bad actor in this deal," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Sanford Bishop, Georgia Democrat. "He's the one who's furnishing a false ID or engages in some other trickery in this purchase of this product, and he should assume some of the consequences.

The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi; House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia; the White House chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, and the chief White House lobbyist, John Hilley, all approved its insertion in the tax cut bill. They were the last ones at the table in the final negotiations over the balanced budget and tax-cutting agreement. On Wednesday, Lott voted to repeal the credit.

Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, chief sponsor of the amendment to repeal the tax credit, added language calling on states to make public their fee arrangements with lawyers. As adopted Wednesday, both issues will be attached as riders to a $269 billion spending bill funding the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services.

But criticism of the provision began to mount after details became public of how the industry got the provision into the bill -- without debate or a known sponsor -- and climaxed with an overwhelming 95-3 vote to revoke it. . . Three Republicans -- Sens. Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- voted against the repeal. Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., did not vote.

In the second defeat for the tobacco industry within a week, the U.S. Senate Wednesday voted to repeal a measure that would have allowed cigarette companies to slice $50 billion from the payments they would have to make under the proposed national tobacco deal. The vote was 95-3.

The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee holds the first of two hearings examining the proposed $368.5 tobacco settlement and its potential effect on tobacco growers. The committee today will look at the deal in broad terms, hearing from some who worked it out and from some critics. At a hearing next Thursday, the committee will hear more directly from farm communities. . . it has received some extra attention because of a high-profile rift between its chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., over the nomination of William Weld as ambassador to Mexico.

While the legislative battle over the proposed national tobacco settlement is just getting underway, Washington lobbyists already have hit the jackpot, pulling down nearly $8 million in fees and expenses for pressing the industry's views on tobacco issues during the first six months of this year. The industry's multimillion-dollar payments to an army of nearly 30 law and lobbying firms come on top of several million dollars spent by their own corporate lobbying offices. Philip Morris Companies Inc., for instance, reported lobbying expenses of $5.9 million at its Washington shop during the same six months, although a spokesman said that includes payments to outside lobbyists and work on non-tobacco issues. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. spent nearly $1 million on its in-house lobbying efforts.

Glendening (D) and Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. (D) said the proposed restrictions on advertising should be expanded to ban all ads that target children. Although the tentative settlement would sharply curtail advertising, Glendening said, some ads that appeal to youths still would be allowed.

"If the settlement goes through, we have the potential to see children in the streets of Manila paying for Mississippi's Medicaid bills 10, 20 years later," said Greg Connolly, head of the Massachusetts public health department, at last month's World Tobacco Conference in Beijing.

White House officials and tobacco industry representatives are negotiating a possible overhaul of the provisions on youth smoking in the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement that could reduce fines against companies and increase cigarette costs, people involved in the talks said Tuesday. . . Top administration officials also said Tuesday that there was also growing division among White House officials as to whether President Clinton should simply endorse policy guidelines next week on a national approach to a tobacco accord or come out in favor of the proposed settlement reached in June. "We still have to find out where Clinton is," said one top White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Whether he is in favor of a general policy or whether he is for a bill."

"He was presented with options, not a series of final recommendations," a senior administration official said of the meeting. "He wants to review them, and get more information."

With virtually no possibility that Congress will take up a proposed tobacco settlement before next year, President Clinton's advisers urged him yesterday to avoid revealing his own bottom-line position when he makes a long-awaited statement on the subject next week. Instead, administration officials said, it is more likely Clinton will offer broad comments . . . , but avoid a line-by-line critique revealing precisely what changes would be needed to win his signature. That Clinton should lay out general themes instead of decimal-point detail was among the consensus recommendations of his senior advisers at a Cabinet Room meeting late yesterday afternoon

White House officials say the proposed tobacco deal (story, Page 28) has divided the administration more than any other issue since the battle over a balanced budget two years ago.

President Clinton announced Friday he would nominate Dr. David Satcher to be his next surgeon general and took the opportunity to reaffirm his commitment to pushing through 'sweeping legislation' on tobacco.

Aides presented Clinton with a memo Friday detailing "consensus positions" on such issues as strengthening the government's ability to control nicotine in cigarettes, said an administration official. Aides would not discuss Clinton's reactions after the 45-minute meeting. "He'll take it away and we'll hear from him when he's ready to make an announcement," said spokesman Joe Lockhart.

Clinton met at the White House with members of a special administration task force headed by Donna Shalala, secretary of health and human services, and Bruce Reed, White House domestic policy adviser. "He was presented with options, not a series of final recommendations," a senior administration official said of the meeting. "He wants to review them, and get more information." Administration officials have been examining the complex agreement reached in June between the industry and the states in which big tobacco would pay $386.5 billion in exchange for protection from liability lawsuits related to smoking. "I'm going to do whatever I think will best further public health and will best increase the chances that we can dramatically reduce smoking among young people," Clinton told reporters before the briefing.

Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler and Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore met Wednesday and agreed to jointly prod the industry to increase the youth-smoking penalties, the most important obstacle to a White House endorsement of the settlement. "It's up to the industry, in major part, whether it wants to go the distance to make this deal," Dr. Kessler said. "If it doesn't give ground, this deal is dead."

Yet the settlement would not be funded directly by the companies but through higher cigarette prices that amount to a de facto tax on smokers. And a comparison with other countries where tobacco companies also operate profitably shows that U.S. cigarettes would remain among the cheapest even after the settlement kicks in. When it comes to taxing cigarettes, "the United States is way out of step with everyone else," said Eric LeGresley, legal counsel for the Smoking and Health Action Foundation of Canada.

Tobacco will simply pass along the costs to millions of addicted customers and reap the rewards of higher stock prices, economists say. "The deal is a very good deal for the tobacco industry," says Gary Black, a tobacco analyst at investment firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

The Coalition for Workers' Health Care Funds today applauded the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for its courageous stand strongly urging President Clinton to thwart efforts by Big Tobacco to take away the right of the funds to sue for recoupment of monies spent on tobacco-related diseases.

Senate Agriculture Hearings

The landmark tobacco settlement should include provisions to buy tobacco farmers out of the business, possibly at a price of $8 for every pound of leaf they are allowed to grow, the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee said yesterday. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said a buyout would be part of a move to abolish the federal price-support program that has helped prop up tobacco farmers' income for 60 years. "The government should remove itself from the business of managing tobacco production," said Lugar, who has long opposed crop subsidy programs. "The market should set the prices."

David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Thursday asked Congress not to endorse any tobacco settlement unless it ensures a reduction in teen smoking. That would only happen, he said, if prices were increased by at least $1.50 to $2 a pack.

Dr. David Kessler, a leading critic of the proposed tobacco settlement, said Thursday the accord "might be worth it" if it included a sharp $1.50-to-$2-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes to discourage teen smokers.

An attorney for tobacco companies warned Congress on Thursday that his industry is at the breaking point. The companies cannot afford to pay more than the $368-billion in the national tobacco settlement, nor can they withstand a new proposal for an additional tax of $1.50 or $2 per pack. "They are at the edge," said J. Phil Carlton, a lawyer who represented the companies in the settlement talks.

In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee and in conversations with reporters, Phil Carlton, a private attorney from Raleigh, N.C., also said the industry had not agreed to tougher language on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He said the industry wanted the settlement as drafted in June. "(That is) the document we are committed to support," he said. "We believe this represents the best resolution we can do." Asked if the industry would agree to bigger penalties or payments, he said, "No. No. Absolutely no."

A leading Republican senator added a new wrinkle Thursday by proposing that some of the money be used to buy out tobacco growers. Dick Lugar, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the settlement's goal of cutting down smoking would damage the 124,000 tobacco farmers and the rural economies that depend on them. "If Congress does pass tobacco legislation, the needs of tobacco farmers should be taken into account," said Lugar, R-Ind. . . "We must be prepared to mount and carry out what may be one of the most extensive agricultural crusades in recent history: a crusade to save tobacco farmers and farms and provide them with real options," said former surgeon general C. Everett Koop.

But in testimony both said Congress should keep focused on the basic question of whether a pact with the industry would be successful in reducing teen smoking. If a revised pact can meet that goal, then it should be approved, they said. "I do believe today there can be a tobacco settlement. It can't be a bailout of the tobacco industry," said Kessler, now dean of Yale University's medical school.

After weeks of review, President Clinton has decided against seeking line-by-line changes in the complicated tobacco settlement and won't press Congress to act on the accord this year, White House aides said Monday. Clinton plans instead to broadly outline his demands for the shape of legislation and tell Congress that the time is ripe for action next year, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

President Clinton will launch a bid Wednesday to salvage much of the proposed $368 billion tobacco settlement worked out in June between the tobacco industry and most state attorneys general, sources told CNN Monday. Clinton apparently has decided against seeking line-by-line changes in the complicated settlement and won't press Congress to act on the accord this year, White House aides said Monday.

"It wouldn't be damaging because there's going to be an ongoing effort to protect America's young people from tobacco," McCurry told reporters. McCurry said President Bill Clinton may offer his long-awaited comments on the tobacco settlement on Wednesday, but could also wait to think the matter over further. "He's going to have some ideas on principles that should guide our public policy-making on that issue," McCurry said.

President Clinton won't propose specifics to rewrite the massive tobacco settlement but, instead, will call in general for big changes, thus ruling out any chance of the negotiated accord becoming law this year -- and perhaps diminishing its chances for later. . . Mr. Clinton met Friday with his top advisers on the issue. Despite their differences on the settlement's particulars, they agreed that, because Republican leaders have made clear that Congress won't act this year, anyway, the president shouldn't spell out his stance in the detail that had been expected.

Proposed changes include full Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over nicotine regulation, stiffer penalties designed to reduce smoking by children and faster disclosure of secret company documents.

In a shift in White House strategy, Clinton no longer is expected to give a complete, detailed assessment of the $386.5 billion agreement between the tobacco industry and 40 state attorneys general, officials said. Instead, Clinton -- most likely on Wednesday -- will announce a call for changes to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has unquestioned authority to regulate nicotine as a drug -- a concern he already has voiced publicly.

Approval of a national tobacco settlement may still be a long shot, but there's one sure thing: Some lawyers are going to get rich. And not just trial lawyers, whose potentially bountiful return already has been the target of so much criticism. Lawyers and lobbyists from huge Washington law firms and smaller lobbying boutiques have raked in nearly $8 million from the industry for pressing its views on tobacco issues this year. A gaggle of firms has been signed to either support the deal, oppose the deal, revamp it, modify it or protect some little bit of turf carved out in its 68 pages. . . "They are doing boutique hiring, hiring lobbyists to target particular members," said one noninvolved and slightly envious lawyer.

"I think it's clear that people want to take the provision out," the Georgia Republican told ABC's "This Week" program. "I am very comfortable voting to take it out." "I would certainly encourage my colleagues to vote to take it out," he added.

North Carolina senators Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms are good at mouthing platitudes about standing up for the state's working folks. But when the whistle was blown on the tobacco industry's $50 billion tax heist last week, Faircloth and Helms showed where they really stand, in the hip pocket of the wealthy multi-national tobacco companies. These are the same companies, it should be noted, that have left Eastern North Carolina's worried tobacco farmers to fend for themselves with their deal to escape expensive lawsuits that are making their way through the courts.

But today, the proposed tobacco settlement is all but dead. And what, if anything, will rise in its place remains the subject of intense debate. Though White House officials helped shaped the proposed tobacco accord, the administration has steadily backed away from it. Advisers to the president urged him this week to offer only a general outline of what a national tobacco policy should contain, rather than a detailed legislative proposal.

"I've been all over [Capitol] Hill talking to people, and they're all looking to Clinton, waiting to see what he says," a tobacco lobbyist said Thursday.

Prosecutors have long sought special breaks for witnesses who turn against their alleged coconspirators. But rarely have top state prosecutors pressed the White House for such help, as 23 state attorneys general, including Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, did recently. In a letter to President Clinton, they asked that the cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. not be held to the terms of the national tobacco settlement.

C. Everett Koop, the former surgeon general and long-time tobacco opponent, argued in a TV interview last month that the tobacco companies were not to be trusted -- said it was in their corporate culture. Must be nice to be proved right in such a timely fashion.

The swiftness with which the Senate acted to rescind the tax break should send messages to the House of Representatives and to tobacco lobbyists. House members should note that even members of the upper chamber ---who operate at a greater remove from the voters than the representatives ---have read the public's anger with the tobacco industry.

Secret deals to do favors for special interests are an odorous commonplace when tax legislation is written, and no deal in recent memory stinks more than the $50 billion break for the tobacco industry that was furtively inserted into the 327-page tax bill Congress approved and President Clinton signed this summer. . . The deceptions practiced by the tobacco companies were not an ordinary business practice but were criminally irresponsible, as their own internal documents show, and the costs now to be paid should deservedly be punitive as well as compensatory. The Senate, under public pressure, has righted a wrong it ought never have committed in the first place. The House must do no less.

There is nothing like a little sunlight to disinfect a smelly political deal. When forced to act in broad daylight this week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to rescind a $50 billion tax break that Congress had previously awarded the tobacco industry in stealthy bargaining . . .[T]he episode provides yet another example of slippery behavior by the well-heeled tobacco lobby and its minions in Congress. The tax break effectively undercut the proposed tobacco settlement reached between the industry and state attorneys general and perverted an otherwise laudatory effort by Congress to help needy children.

The brazenness of this credit and its stealthy approval are typical of the historic treatment of the tobacco industry. That favoritism and submission to the industry have contributed to the growing backlash against tobacco manufacturers.

Not everyone in the Senate is as obtuse as Sen. Jesse Helms. Take this past week's tobacco vote, for instance.

The deceptions practiced by the tobacco companies were not an ordinary business practice but were criminally irresponsible, as their own internal documents show, and the costs now to be paid should deservedly be punitive as well as compensatory. The Senate, under public pressure, has righted a wrong it ought never have committed in the first place. The House must do no less.

It's not for nothing that the cigarette industry spends millions of dollars lobbying Congress and underwriting campaigns. But this time the industry was just a little too cute. . . This vote demonstrates how the tide has shifted. It is heartening that, in this instance at least, big bucks can be counteracted by an enraged and energized populace.

The Senate's action was a triumph of truth and justice over checkbook lobbying. It was a case in which many politicians had to decide whether to vote for their tobacco industry sponsors or for the American taxpayer. Not surprisingly, the only three votes against repeal in the Senate were three "tobacco-state" stalwarts: Sens. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.; Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C.; and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. More interestingly, others, Republicans and Democrats who have enjoyed the tobacco industry largess, voted to do away with the tax credit.

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and former FDA Commissioner David Kessler could call for a crusade against smoking and a bailout of tobacco growers in the same breath. And there was not a question asked about whether either was an appropriate role for government. The Economist magazine, which always knows how to hit us where it hurts, says the United States has become a nanny state whose new "clients and consumers are mollycoddled in ways that astonish pink-tinted Europeans."

The tobacco and B-2 deals are easy to understand, whichever way Congress comes down on them. Huge amounts of money are involved that could be directed to other projects that could improve the nation's well-being. But the most fundamental thing that is at stake with these two matters is who owns Congress.

politicians and the public should not be too hasty in condemning to oblivion the proposed $368.5 billion tobacco settlement that is being considered in Congress. While the proposal as written has serious weaknesses, negotiations are under way to correct the defects. . . Congress should listen to the concerns, but should keep them in context --this settlement is a work in progress, not a final document. . . The national settlement could enact curbs on marketing and advertising targeted at young people that could never be achieved by jury judgments or regulatory decisions. A national settlement is still worth working for.

Commissioner Irvin will testify to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on the "Tobacco Settlement and the Future of the Tobacco Industry." Testimony will take place in the Capitol in SD 106.

President Clinton has decided to call for anational tobacco settlement today that would increase cigarette prices by $1.50 a pack, which could more than double the $368.5 billion price tag on the current proposal. Dramatically raising the stakes, Clinton sided with public-health advocates who believe that a steep price increase is the only sure way to stop teen-agers from smoking, a senior White House official said last night.

Senior Republicans said Mr. Clinton's refusal to offer a bill virtually kills chances of congressional action this year and may cast the settlement's long-term future into doubt. "It'll be difficult if not impossible to pass anything this year," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla. "Next year, we'll have to take a look at it."

Announcing his long-awaited verdict on a proposed settlement with the tobacco industry, President Clinton today will endorse an agreement but insist that it include sharply increased penalties on cigarette makers if they don't meet targets for reducing youth smoking over the next decade, administration officials said. If all the penalties were imposed, Clinton's plan would increase the per-pack cost of cigarettes by as much as $1.50

President Clinton will decisively reject a proposed tobacco deal negotiated by state officials and cigarette company lawyers and will outline his own tobacco policy in an Oval Office speech on Wednesday. Clinton will insist that his chief goal -- reducing the number of teen-agers who smoke -- can be accomplished only by a sharp increase in the price of cigarettes, by as much as $1.50 a pack over 10 years, White House officials said on Tuesday.

But President Clinton today will ask Congress to toughen penalties on tobacco companies, mollifying critics but sinking prospects for pushing the agreement through Congress this year.

The tobacco wars are headed back to Square One -- away from Washington and back to courtrooms in St. Paul and elsewhere.

Ignoring calls for specifics, President Clinton has decided against proposing detailed changes in the massive tobacco settlement and won't press Congress to act on the accord this year. Instead, the president plans to broadly outline his demands for legislation and tell Congress the time will be ripe for action next year, aides said. His announcement is expected Wednesday.

The president's plan would take the form of a general statement of principles in fighting teen smoking, with an important exception: the $1.50-per-pack maximum price increase, which would only reach that level if the industry failed to meet targets for reducing underage smoking over 10 years. This is more than double what the industry would have to pay under the proposed settlement.

The White House on Monday sent another signal that it is backing away from the landmark $368.5 billion tobacco settlement, saying it would not be upset if Congress fails to take up the pact this year

President Clinton has decided to call for anational tobacco settlement today that would increase cigarette prices by $1.50 a pack, which could more than double the $368.5 billion price tag on the current proposal. Dramatically raising the stakes, Clinton sided with public-health advocates who believe that a steep price increase is the only sure way to stop teen-agers from smoking, a senior White House official said last night.

Senior Republicans said Mr. Clinton's refusal to offer a bill virtually kills chances of congressional action this year and may cast the settlement's long-term future into doubt. "It'll be difficult if not impossible to pass anything this year," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla. "Next year, we'll have to take a look at it."

Announcing his long-awaited verdict on a proposed settlement with the tobacco industry, President Clinton today will endorse an agreement but insist that it include sharply increased penalties on cigarette makers if they don't meet targets for reducing youth smoking over the next decade, administration officials said. If all the penalties were imposed, Clinton's plan would increase the per-pack cost of cigarettes by as much as $1.50

President Clinton will decisively reject a proposed tobacco deal negotiated by state officials and cigarette company lawyers and will outline his own tobacco policy in an Oval Office speech on Wednesday. Clinton will insist that his chief goal -- reducing the number of teen-agers who smoke -- can be accomplished only by a sharp increase in the price of cigarettes, by as much as $1.50 a pack over 10 years, White House officials said on Tuesday.

But President Clinton today will ask Congress to toughen penalties on tobacco companies, mollifying critics but sinking prospects for pushing the agreement through Congress this year.

The tobacco wars are headed back to Square One -- away from Washington and back to courtrooms in St. Paul and elsewhere.

Support appears to be growing among senators of both parties for a cigarette-price increase much higher than that envisioned by the proposed national tobacco settlement, possibly as much as $1.50 to $2 a pack, as the best way to deter underage smoking. On the day before President Clinton is expected to propose a combination of payments and penalties that could raise the price as much as $1.50 a pack over 10 years, antitobacco Democrats and at least one prominent Republican in the Senate said they agreed with this basic approach and planned to push for increases at least that big and possibly bigger. . . "The critical thing that's happening in the Senate," said the spokesman, Andy Fisher, "is that many of the relevant committee chairmen are lining up behind these figures."

In France, a pack of cigarettes costs about $3.50 - most of that tobacco taxes. In England, cigarettes cost about $5.25, with the tax exceeding $4. Comparisons with the United States, where cigarettes cost on average about $1.90, have surfaced in the tobacco settlement debate amid growing concern that the deal won't lift cigarette prices enough to seriously discourage smoking - particularly by price-conscious teenagers.

What there might be, however, is an odd-bedfellows coalition, one combining tobacco supporters who want to bail out the industry with tobacco critics who think the public-health benefits of a settlement justify making some deals with the devil. If this is to work, the tobacco industry must accept that the fate of the big settlement it wants lies largely in the hands of the tobacco foes it hates. . . And [Sen. Durbin] thinks it's possible to get such a deal without making "sea changes" in the current tobacco settlement. "You're going to have to find a centrist bill that really addresses the public-health issues so clearly that people say it's worth it," said Sen. Durbin.

Ignoring calls for specifics, President Clinton has decided against proposing detailed changes in the massive tobacco settlement and won't press Congress to act on the accord this year. Instead, the president plans to broadly outline his demands for legislation and tell Congress the time will be ripe for action next year, aides said. His announcement is expected Wednesday.

The president's plan would take the form of a general statement of principles in fighting teen smoking, with an important exception: the $1.50-per-pack maximum price increase, which would only reach that level if the industry failed to meet targets for reducing underage smoking over 10 years. This is more than double what the industry would have to pay under the proposed settlement.

The White House on Monday sent another signal that it is backing away from the landmark $368.5 billion tobacco settlement, saying it would not be upset if Congress fails to take up the pact this year

Three possible scenarios loom in the absence of a settlement, according to Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton. The first is that courts continue to rule in favor of tobacco companies. No private plaintiff has yet collected an antitobacco judgment, Ms. Norton told a congressional hearing. The recent settlement by the state of Florida was due to singular legal reasons, she said. The second scenario is that lawsuits are successful, and existing tobacco firms are driven into bankruptcy as individuals collect millions in judgments for firms selling them an addictive, dangerous product. The third possible outcome is a mix that wastes huge amounts of time and energy in the courtroom. . . "Our choice is between a settlement that provides predictability and a chaotic situation with unpredictable results."

In the 87 days since the announcement of a proposed $368.5 billion settlement between the tobacco industry and the states suing them for smoking-related health costs, an estimated 261,000 more teens have taken their first drag on a cigarette. That unceasing toll is the main reason President Clinton is expected to speak out Wednesday on the settlement. Asked Monday what concerns the president has about the pact, White House spokesman Mike McCurry said: "The impact on children, the impact on children, the impact on children."

"When the R.J. Reynolds company stopped using Joe Camel, don't for a moment think they stopped advertising to kids," said Matthew Myers, executive vice president of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. He pointed to toy cars with cigarette logos on the side and said, "These aren't meant for adults. Let's not kid ourselves." The hearing about youth smoking and advertising reflected a new momentum for the national tobacco settlement. Three senators and all but one of the witnesses spoke in favor of the deal, although each had reservations.

Change is coming to the state's biggest cash crop, like it or not, and those officials who protect farmers' interests had best be willing to explore alternatives to the status-quo they would prefer to protect. Lugar's proposal, while not perfect or likely to be adopted as is, offers a starting point for innovative thinking. At least he is looking for ways to directly help those who have staked their future on a now uncertain crop. That's more than the state's own senators are doing.

A Senate panel postponed one in a series of hearings on the proposed tobacco settlement until the White House comments on the deal. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee had a hearing scheduled for Tuesday to examine the Clinton administration's views on the $368.5 billion proposal. But President Clinton has not yet announced his position. The committee said the hearing will be rescheduled.