Clinton Ups the Anti-Tobacco Ante

WASHINGTON —  President Clinton on Wednesday urged Congress to attack teen smoking through comprehensive legislation along the lines of the giant tobacco peace accord--but with stiffer industry payments to raise cigarette prices and unfettered authority for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Although Clinton refused to embrace the $368.5-billion tobacco deal, he warmly praised the state attorneys general whose mega-lawsuits brought the industry to the bargaining table and led to the agreement announced June 20. And in a ceremony in the Oval Office as several attorneys general and prominent anti-smoking leaders looked on, Clinton outlined principles to be embodied in legislation that largely tracked provisions of the deal.

But there were significant differences as well. Clinton called for industry payments and penalties sufficient to raise cigarette prices over the next decade by up to $1.50 per pack--roughly twice the increase that would result from the proposed settlement. Aimed to discourage smoking by price-conscious teens, such an increase would bring prices more in line with other western countries where cigarette taxes often range between $2 and $4.

“This is not primarily about money,” Clinton said. “This is about changing . . . the behavior of the tobacco companies, the behavior of the American people, the future behavior of our children.”

Dr. David A. Kessler, former head of the FDA and a leading critic of the tobacco deal, hailed Clinton’s statement as a victory for public health in one of many impromptu press conferences that broke out near the White House afterward.

“Saying he’s willing to go up to $1.50, if necessary, is exactly the right approach,” Kessler said.

In his long-awaited statement, Clinton did not say if he would accept the liability protections that had been the cigarette makers’ whole reason for negotiating the tobacco deal. Bruce Reed, Clinton’s domestic policy advisor, said later that administration officials “had some concerns” about certain of the immunity provisions, but he did not elaborate.

Industry response was critical, if a bit subdued. “We agree with his [Clinton’s] stated goal of reducing underage use of tobacco products,” Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and two other firms said in a joint statement. But they said the deal announced June 20 “still represents the most achievable balance.”

“We have agreed to pay a total of $368.5 billion over a 25-year period,” which is “an unprecedented amount of money,” said J. Philip Carlton, an industry lawyer. “It would certainly be unacceptable to try to raise the financial terms of this agreement.”

Congressional response was predictably mixed, with many Democrats praising Clinton’s stance--although some, including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), said the $1.50 increase might not be effective if phased in over 10 years. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), announced that he will seek a $1.50-per-pack cigarette tax increase independent of any comprehensive bill.

Republicans also criticized Clinton for taking three months to weigh in with a general statement rather than a specific legislative blueprint.

“I don’t think he really helped advance the ball,” said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickels (R-Okla).

Administration officials said they believed it would be more effective to outline general principles and negotiate terms with Congress, rather than send up a specific package and let critics pick at the details. They said meetings between White House staff and congressional leaders should begin soon.

Since announcement of the tobacco deal June 20, Congress has been largely in a holding pattern while awaiting Clinton’s verdict. Some attorneys general who had negotiated with the industry--and had been encouraged by the White House to do so--privately had voiced resentment that the deal was languishing and was being attacked as a sellout to Big Tobacco.

“We’re pretty excited today about what the president has done,” said Mississippi Atty. Gen. Mike Moore, who filed the first state anti-tobacco lawsuit and was lead negotiator in settlement talks.

“He [Clinton] thinks we ought to build and toughen up the settlement,” Moore said. “For 90 days, we were trying to get the president to support this thing, and finally he did.”

However, all parties have conceded that it is too late to move a major tobacco deal through Congress before it adjourns in late October or early November. That means Congress will not take up the measure in earnest until early next year.

Tobacco foes have spoken hopefully of a new mood in Congress that could lead to passage of anti-smoking legislation without legal protections or other concessions being given to the industry. But most observers think the cigarette makers will have to be involved for significant legislation to succeed.

“Twelve senators from tobacco states--working together, calling in IOUs--can stop anything,” said Richard Scruggs, a Mississippi lawyer working for attorneys general from several states.

“Anyone who thinks you can just impose anything you want on tobacco is smoking something other than tobacco.”

The tobacco deal would give the industry permanent relief from lawsuits by the states and private class-action lawyers. Although claims by individual smokers would still be allowed, punitive damages would not.

In return, the industry was to reimburse states for smoking-related health care costs and fund public health programs--with the money being raised through cigarette price increases of about 60 to 70 cents per pack.

In addition, the industry had agreed to an array of anti-smoking measures, including protections against secondhand smoke, a ban on tobacco billboards and other marketing restrictions, and industry-financed anti-smoking ad campaigns and stop-smoking programs costing $2 billion per year.

Clinton generally endorsed these measures Wednesday. Industry lawyers and attorneys general had argued that such anti-smoking programs could not be secured through court action, even if states were successful in their suits.

But critics of the deal and, ultimately, Clinton’s advisors concluded that the price hikes and other measures could not achieve the deal’s stated goals of reducing teen smoking by 30% within five years and 60% in 10.

Despite the country’s deepening anti-tobacco mood, teen smoking appears to be on the rise, said Donna Shalala, secretary of Health and Human Services.

Times staff writers Janet Hook and Kasper Zeuthen in Washington contributed to this story.

* RELATED STORIES: Chances increase for a broad-based tobacco bill next year. D1 . . . The House rejects a $50-billion industry tax break. D3