Bill Clinton: “Let me, if I could--and I would invite--I know I've got two more panelists I want to call on, and I would invite any of…”

“Let me, if I could--and I would invite--I know I've got two more panelists I want to call on, and I would invite any of you to kick in. You have stated a sort of summary of where you are and where you think the farmers are so well, I think it might be worthwhile to go back to the beginning here. Let's remember how this whole thing came up. There were two things going on. First of all, the Federal Food and Drug Administration opened an inquiry and found, as a factual matter, that there was an effort made to market tobacco products to young people, that it was not only against the law but it was likely to become more addictive to them if kids started smoking when they were young rather than if they started after they were adults when they might use it more in moderation and all that, and that the health consequences were considerable. That was the finding. Simultaneously, they had a number of States that filed suits against the tobacco companies, claiming that they had marketed cigarettes to children in violation of the law all these years, and that that had led to not only injury to the individuals, but vast costs to the States through their medical programs. And then there were the private lawsuits, the people that got lung cancer and all. And all these things came together, and the tobacco companies and basically the State attorneys general and the representatives of the private plaintiffs came up with their proposed settlement in which they agreed, among other things, to pay more money to defray some of the health care costs, to run up the price of cigarettes some to make it less attractive, and to reduce--change their advertising practices. But in order to get all that done comprehensively, they had to pass a bill through Congress, because they also have to deal with the Federal Food and Drug Administration program. So now we're in a situation where, as you pointed out, there are lots of different agendas here and lots of different things going on. I do believe, however, that there is a bipartisan majority of people in the Congress in both Houses, in both parties, who honestly just want to do as much as they reasonably can to reduce smoking by young people as quickly as they reasonably can, in a way that does not put the tobacco companies out of business and, even more important to most of us, is not really unduly unfair to you. So what you're saying to me is that right now the uncertainty is the worse enemy you have and what we need is to get this thing done in Congress this year, do it in a way that achieves our goal of driving down teen smoking as much as we can, as fast as we can, and let you know what the rules are. Now, let me ask you just specifically--I mean, I assume you believe this, but you didn't say it explicitly--it seems to me that the greatest balance of certainty for the farmers in our efforts to reduce teen smoking is in some version of what Senator Ford has proposed. That is, if you assume that--let's just assume that through whatever means the American Medical Association, for example, says that because there are so many kids out there more or less on their own, that the advertising has a bigger impact on inducing kids to start smoking even than peer pressure does. So if you assume all that, then it seems to me the best proposal is something like--something that would offer a buy-out that is generous and fair and adequate to people that want to get out because there is no easy substitution, as all of you have said. Then for all those that don't get out--because you assume that if all the kids start--if you cut teen smoking in half, then, within some number of years, the aggregate demand for tobacco in America will go down. So some people get out, and you pay them a legitimate price to get out; then the other people who are still in operate under a program that controls production and gives the family farmers a chance to survive. That's basically what Wendell wants to do. And in addition to that, since maybe there won't be enough people get out for the market reduction--we don't know that--it also provides a structure within which you get aid to warehouses, aid to communities, and aid to individuals for continuing education and training, as I've said, just the same way we would with people that are dislocated from trade. If we pass something like that, is that the best thing to do? I mean, is that basically what you would recommend that we do? [Mr. Sprague said that he believed so, but that about half the tobacco grown was for export and that efforts to reduce exports would be detrimental to farmers. He indicated he would like to see the exports continue.]”