CONGRESS - Turning Over a New Leaf on Tobacco

Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
March 21, 1998, 7 a.m.

When the Wash­ing­ton watch­dog group Pub­lic Cit­izen put out a re­port last month on to­bacco-in­dustry cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions to law­makers, it slapped on the title ”Sweet­hearts of Big To­bacco.” But the ro­mance between in­dustry donors and their friends on Cap­it­ol Hill may be turn­ing sour.

Some erstwhile con­gres­sion­al al­lies are step­ping up their anti-to­bacco rhet­or­ic as evid­ence of pos­sible in­dustry mis­deeds con­tin­ues to sur­face. So to­bacco ex­ec­ut­ives are in­creas­ingly pin­ning their hopes—and an ever-lar­ger share of their con­tri­bu­tions—on the one group that’s nev­er let them down: mem­bers of Con­gress from to­bacco-pro­du­cing states.

Even con­gres­sion­al stal­warts from such key to­bacco states as Geor­gia, Ken­tucky, North Car­o­lina, South Car­o­lina, Ten­ness­ee and Vir­gin­ia, however, are strug­gling with di­vided loy­al­ties.

To be sure, to­bacco-state law­makers—in­clud­ing Sens. Wendell H. Ford, D-Ky., and Jesse A. Helms, R-N.C., and Reps. Thomas J. Bli­ley Jr., R-Va., and Ed Whit­field, R-Ky.—still top Pub­lic Cit­izen’s list of to­bacco-money reci pients. But the big worry for these mem­bers as Con­gress labors to pro­duce a mam­moth to­bacco bill is how to pla­cate farm­ers and grow­ers, not in­dustry ti­tans.

Farm­ers were the one group left out of the na­tion­al to­bacco set­tle­ment that the in­dustry ne­go­ti­ated with a group of state at­tor­neys gen­er­al and tri­al law­yers last June. The set­tle­ment called on to­bacco com­pan­ies to pay $ 368.5 bil­lion over 25 years to fin­ance health and an­t­i­s­moking pro­grams, and offered them pro­tec­tion from class-ac­tion law­suits.

The ne­go­ti­at­ors’ fail­ure to ad­dress the con­cerns of to­bacco grow­ers riled both farm­ers and their Hill rep­res­ent­at­ives. ”When the set­tle­ment was an­nounced on June 20, the grow­ers felt a large sense of be­tray­al,” said Al­bert K. Glass, who dir­ects the Vir­gin­ia Farm Bur­eau’s com­munity and mar­ket­ing de­part­ment. In­dustry of­fi­cials ”were look­ing out for their in­terests, and we were left out.”

Fal­lout from last year’s deal may help ex­plain the hard line that Bli­ley has taken with the in­dustry. With a dis­trict that rep­res­ents both farm­ers and em­ploy­ees of Philip Mor­ris Cos. Inc., Bli­ley has long been con­sidered one of Con­gress’s staunchest to­bacco de­fend­ers; and as Com­merce Com­mit­tee chair­man, he will play a pivotal role in shap­ing to­bacco le­gis­la­tion. But this year, he’s sub­poenaed and pub­li­cized thou­sands of in­crim­in­at­ing doc­u­ments from ci­gar­ette makers. He’s also ac­cused in­dustry lead­ers of ”un­ac­cept­able” be­ha­vi­or.

A Com­merce aide in­sisted that Bli­ley’s ”views on to­bacco are the same that they’ve been for ages, and that is that in­formed adults should be able to (smoke) but that teen­agers should not.” In any case, Bli­ley is play­ing his cards close to his chest; he’s held hear­ings but has yet to draft a pro­pos­al.

It’s fallen to his com­mit­tee’s oth­er to­bacco-state mem­bers—Reps. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Whit­field—to be­gin filling in the blanks. So far, they’ve fo­cused squarely on the need to pro­tect the na­tion’s 124,000 to­bacco farm­ers from eco­nom­ic dev­ast­a­tion. (A con­gres­sion­al deal that jacks up ci­gar­ette taxes and curbs con­sump­tion could, by some es­tim­ates, lower to­bacco sales as much as 30 per cent over five years.) To­bacco-state Sen­at­ors have like­wise made de­fend­ing farm­ers their top con­cern.

At is­sue in both cham­bers is the fate of the fed­er­al to­bacco price-sup­port sys­tem, which lim­its the total amount of to­bacco that may be grown in the United States and guar­an­tees a min­im­um price for farm­ers. Ford and Sen. Charles S. Robb, D-Va., have in­tro­duced meas­ures that would com­pensate farm­ers for lost ”quota,” that is, the amount of to­bacco each farm­er may sell un­der gov­ern­ment rules. (Quota is a mar­ket­able as­set that farm­ers buy and sell among them­selves.)

The fo­cus on grow­ers by law­makers from to­bacco states is noth­ing new, of course; it’s long been more pop­u­lar to de­fend fam­ily farm­ers than to go to bat for R.J. Reyn­olds To­bacco Co. or Philip Mor­ris. In the past, in­dustry lead­ers could count on farm­ers to shield them polit­ic­ally, and their in­terests were vir­tu­ally syn­onym­ous.

But re­cently, grow­ers have be­gun to find their own voice. As to­bacco com­pany ex­ec­ut­ives in­creas­ingly looked over­seas for profits, U.S. grow­ers wor­ried about the price of to­bacco back home lob­bied more vig­or­ously to de­fend their unique in­terests.

Sev­er­al groups rep­res­ent­ing grow­ers, in­clud­ing the Bur­ley To­bacco Grow­ers Co­oper­at­ive Inc. and the Vir­gin­ia To­bacco Grow­ers As­so­ci­ation, have formed an un­usu­al co­ali­tion with a long list of health or­gan­iz­a­tions, from the Amer­ic­an Heart As­so­ci­ation to the Amer­ic­an Can­cer So­ci­ety. This odd al­li­ance of grow­ers and pub­lic health ad­voc­ates met the week of March 16 to an­nounce a series of ”core prin­ciples,” in­clud­ing the need for farm­ers to be com­pensated for lost quota and the im­port­ance of strong laws to pre­vent to­bacco products from be­ing sold or mar­keted to teen­agers.

”(To­bacco) com­pan­ies do not like what we’re do­ing, ob­vi­ously,” said Scott D. Bal­lin, a Wash­ing­ton con­sult­ant who works on be­half of the Cam­paign for To­bacco-Free Kids and who helped bring the two camps to­geth­er. The co­ali­tion between grow­ers and health groups, Bal­lin ad­ded, ”makes it dif­fi­cult for to­bacco-state mem­bers (of Con­gress) to use the farm­ers as a front for pro­tect­ing the com­pan­ies.”

Rep. Henry A. Wax­man, D-Cal­if., an out­spoken to­bacco foe, noted, ”There’s a dif­fer­ence between the goals” of the to­bacco in­dustry and those of the to­bacco farm­ers. ”In the past, whenev­er le­gis­la­tion was presen­ted that had any­thing to do with to­bacco, there had al­ways been a sol­id front between those rep­res­ent­ing to­bacco com­pan­ies and the farm­ers,” Wax­man said. ”But I don’t think their in­terests are the same now.”

In­dustry rep­res­ent­at­ives deny that to­bacco ex­ec­ut­ives and farm­ers are at odds. The grow­ers’ fate is of great con­cern to to­bacco com­pan­ies, said in­dustry spokes­man Scott Wil­li­ams. To­bacco farm­ers were not in­cluded in last year’s agree­ment, Wil­li­ams said, be­cause they were not part of the lit­ig­a­tion be­ing settled.

In­dustry ne­go­ti­at­or J. Phil Carlton, a North Car­o­lina lob­by­ist, said ”there has al­ways been a nat­ur­al ten­sion between buy­er and seller. There’s noth­ing un­usu­al about that.” Still, Carlton ac­know­ledged that hard-to-re­solve ques­tions over how best to help grow­ers have slowed the pace of the to­bacco ne­go­ti­ations on Cap­it­ol Hill. ”We are look­ing for­ward to get­ting the grow­er is­sue re­solved,” Carlton said, ”be­cause we be­lieve it will help solve the whole is­sue” of what form to­bacco le­gis­la­tion fi­nally takes.

A com­plic­at­ing factor is that not all to­bacco farm­ers think alike. U.S. farm­ers prin­cip­ally grow two to­bacco types, known as flue-cured and bur­ley, which place dif­fer­ent eco­nom­ic de­mands on grow­ers. Flue-cured to­bacco is more cap­it­al-in­tens­ive, for ex­ample, while bur­ley is more labor-in­tens­ive. As a res­ult, bur­ley grow­ers are very price-sens­it­ive, while flue-cured-to­bacco farm­ers are more in­ter­ested in keep­ing pro­duc­tion high.

The up­shot is that Ford, who rep­res­ents mainly bur­ley grow­ers, and Robb, whose state is home to flue-cured-to­bacco pro­du­cers, have di­ver­gent plans for how to help U.S. farm­ers. Ford’s pro­pos­al would con­tin­ue the gov­ern­ment price-sup­port pro­gram, for ex­ample; Robb’s would re­place it with a privat­ized sys­tem that would still lim­it the over­all to­bacco sup­ply. One com­prom­ise may be to let dif­fer­ent types of farm­ers fol­low dif­fer­ent sets of gov­ern­ment rules.

Some on Cap­it­ol Hill, in­clud­ing Sen. Richard G. Lugar, R- Ind., and Rep. Thomas W. Ewing, R-Ill., have set out to end the gov­ern­ment’s to­bacco price-sup­port pro­gram al­to­geth­er. The pro­gram’s only costs are ad­min­is­trat­ive, but ”even as a no-cost pro­gram, it’s been a light­ning rod for at­tack,” Ewing noted.

De­fend­ing grow­ers, in fact, has proved com­plic­ated and time-con­sum­ing for mem­bers of Con­gress from to­bacco states. As a res­ult, they have not taken as ag­gress­ive a lead in craft­ing an over­all to­bacco deal as some had ex­pec­ted. Once the grow­er is­sue is settled, Carlton pre­dicted, to­bacco-state law­makers will start play­ing a more vis­ible role in push­ing through a com­pre­hens­ive bill.

To­bacco-state law­makers may well be temp­ted to kiss and make up with in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives. Some of these mem­bers are count­ing on a com­pre­hens­ive set­tle­ment to pay for the bil­lions in fed­er­al as­sist­ance that they hope to fur­nish farm­ers. Farm­ers’ dis­agree­ments with in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives won’t mean much, moreover, if to­bacco com­pan­ies move over­seas or go out of busi­ness. ”My con­cern lies primar­ily with the farm­ers,” Whit­field said. ”But the farm­ers are ob­vi­ously not go­ing to be able to make a liv­ing un­less the com­pan­ies stay in the United States.”

But even some to­bacco-state law­makers warn that sweep­ing le­gis­la­tion, par­tic­u­larly a deal that grants the com­pan­ies’ re­quest for pro­tec­tion from law­suits, may not be polit­ic­ally feas­ible this year. ”Giv­en the polit­ic­al dy­nam­ics of a short le­gis­lat­ive year, and the cur­rent dis­trac­tions at the White House, I think a com­pre­hens­ive deal is very dif­fi­cult to achieve this year,” said Burr.

If ne­go­ti­ations to pro­tect com­pan­ies from li­ab­il­ity fall apart, Con­gress may re­vert to a less-am­bi­tious plan. A scaled- back to­bacco bill would very likely take aim at teen smoking, and raise ci­gar­ette taxes to pay for com­pens­at­ing to­bacco farm­ers. If Con­gress re­sorts to this ”lite” ver­sion of to­bacco le­gis­la­tion, it will be the in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives’ turn to feel left out.

What We're Following See More »
WEDNESDAY?
Judiciary Committee Counteroffers on Ford Appearance
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
THIS WILL NOT HELP
Trump Says Ford Should Have Filed Charges 36 Years Ago
17 hours ago
THE LATEST
DOESN'T WANT TO BE NEAR KAVANAUGH
Ford Would Like to Testify on Thursday
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in the 1980s, is reportedly willing to publicly testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday. Lawyers for Ford told committee staffers during a call Thursday evening to negotiate details of a potential hearing that she wanted Kavanaugh to testify before her and she does not want to be in the same room as him, according to multiple reports."

Source:
PER LETTER TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Kavanaugh WIll Testify Monday
1 days ago
THE LATEST
BUT CANCELLATION WILL NOT COME SOON
Grassley Says Hearing May Be Pushed Past Monday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley said Wednesday a planned Monday hearing on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would likely not go on without accuser Christine Blasey Ford," but said any decision to cancel would be made at the last minute.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login