House Moves on More Modest Tobacco Bill

By ALISSA J. RUBIN

June 19, 1998 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON —

Seeking to dodge the charge that they are in the pocket of Big Tobacco, congressional Republicans rushed Thursday to craft a slimmed-down tobacco bill.

One day after the Senate killed a massive antismoking measure, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) promised a more modest approach that would crack down on teen smoking and drug use and give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate nicotine as a drug. But the House version would eschew the cigarette price increases that doomed the Senate measure.

“The Senate bill drowned in a sea of money. We don’t want to get lost in the same swamp,” Gingrich said.

The Senate bill would have regulated the tobacco industry strictly, raised the per-pack price of cigarettes by $1.10 over five years and used the revenue to pay for an array of antismoking and smoking cessation programs, as well as cancer research and unrelated programs such as child care and a cut in income taxes for many married couples.

But the House bill, which leaders hope will be debated next month, also could be turned into a vehicle for Republicans who want to ensure that the FDA’s authority over tobacco does not reach as far as President Clinton would like.

Although the FDA’s authority to regulate nicotine is being challenged in court, the administration contends that the agency already has the authority to regulate the content and placement of tobacco ads, as well as to enforce rules banning the sale of cigarettes to anyone under 18 years old.

Already, Democrats such as House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) are deriding the House proposal as merely “a fig leaf bill.”

“Maybe a better word would be a tobacco leaf bill,” said Gephardt, arguing that the proposed legislation is designed to give Republicans political cover in the November elections.

Still, in the last 30 years, Congress has done little, if anything, to regulate cigarette manufacturers. Thus, even a small tobacco bill--depending on what is in it--could represent a significant toughening of federal smoking policy.

One key is how Republicans frame the FDA law, said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), a leading antismoking advocate. “If they don’t go as far as to make sure that the FDA has jurisdiction and power to regulate nicotine as a drug . . . , they may be taking away powers from the FDA.”

It is unlikely that Democrats could oppose such a slimmed-down bill in the House, as they would risk sounding churlish. But it also is hard to imagine such a measure becoming law. Few weeks are left in the congressional work schedule before lawmakers go home to campaign for reelection in November. And even if the House passes the measure, a tobacco bill easily could get hung up in the Senate, where lawmakers are likely to attempt to broaden it.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he would welcome a leaner tobacco bill. He also lashed out at suggestions that his decision to withdraw the broader Senate legislation was the result of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. He retorted that some critics had accused him of pushing the bill to help his brother-in-law, a lawyer who represented states in litigation against the tobacco industry and whose law firm stood to gain hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Was I pushing it because of him or killing it because of the tobacco companies? Which is it? Neither. Greed on both sides caused this problem,” Lott said.

Lott’s defensive tone--and Gingrich’s promise of new tobacco legislation--suggest at least concern about a public backlash.

Republican consultants and operatives said that GOP lawmakers would do well to protect themselves from voter wrath. The most vulnerable are those who have taken campaign contributions from the tobacco industry and voted against antismoking legislation. The voters most likely to be alienated by the party’s reluctance to pass legislation concerning teen smoking are “soccer moms,” said one party operative, who did not want to be identified.

“We’re worried that suburban women won’t come out in November because this cuts across the smoking issue, campaign finance and children’s health care,” he said.

On the other hand, a big anti-tobacco bill would cost the GOP votes from smokers and the party’s antitax conservative base as well as campaign contributions from the business community, the operative said.

A slimmed-down bill would allow GOP lawmakers to “inoculate” themselves, said Glen Bolger, another Republican campaign consultant. A yes vote on such a bill would permit GOP lawmakers to say that they are against smoking without having to vote for a measure that raises taxes, expands government or hits hard at cigarette manufacturers.

“No Republican politician wants to be seen as a stooge of the tobacco companies,” Bolger said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

States Trials

Trial dates for lawsuits against the tobacco industry:

Washington: Sept. 14

Oklahoma: Jan. 25, 1999

Massachusetts: Feb. 1, 1999

Arizona: March 4, 1999

Maryland: April 5, 1999

Oregon: April 5, 1999

New Jersey: May 1999*

New York: May 17, 1999