No Immunity For The Tobacco Industry - Statement On The Gregg-Leahy Amendment

May 19, 1998

[Following is the statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy on the Gregg-Leahy amendment they will offer to the tobacco bill, which is on the Senate Floor this week. The amendment will eliminate the legal immunity the bill offers to the tobacco industry in the form of $8 billion annual caps on legal judgments against tobacco firms. Leahy points out that the caps could threaten payments to Vermont and to other states that have not yet won settlements or judgments against the industry. Gregg and Leahy are fighting both the bipartisan Senate leadership and the White House in pushing for their amendment.]

I am pleased to join my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg; former Surgeon General Koop, and former FDA Commissioner Kessler.

We all understand that there is no need to give Big Tobacco any special legal protections.

I hope a little Yankee common sense will prevail in the Senate when we offer our amendment.

Over the past few months, we have learned more and more about documents that reveal industry schemes to market their deadly products to children, thanks to the State of Minnesota lawsuit against Big Tobacco.

Marketing cigarettes to our children is outrageous. Is that the kind of conduct that we should reward with unprecedented legal protections? In the words of today’s 14-year-olds, "Get real."

Congress will have lost all its common sense if it grants special immunity to this rogue industry. But that is exactly what the bill before us would do. It would in effect give Big Tobacco immunity by establishing a $8 billion annual cap on past and future damages for tobacco claims.

The liability cap of $8 billion equals about $20,000 per family for the 400,000 Americans who die from tobacco-related diseases each year. These special legal protections are unjust and unnecessary.

A liability cap for the tobacco industry would eliminate the incentive for the tobacco industry to change its corporate culture.

Why should the industry stop marketing to children, manipulating nicotine and hiding health research when it knows its liability cannot exceed a certain amount?

If Big Tobacco can turn its liability exposure into a fixed cost, which they can pass on to consumers and taxpayers, then they can keep doing business as usual without the regular risks of litigation.

And how will this liability cap work? Will it reward today’s plaintiffs at the expense of future injured parties?

Because most lawsuits settle, I believe the tobacco industry will have a unique negotiating edge with a liability cap. The tobacco industry will have every incentive to do sweetheart deals with favored plaintiffs and their attorneys first and then use the prospect of delayed payments in the future to force smaller settlements with everyone else.

Payment delayed will result in justice denied for thousands of tobacco victims.

This bill is also a huge corporate giveaway. It bars claims by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield health care plans, the union health care plans and other claims. Why are we doing this? This is the biggest corporate welfare giveaway in the history of the Congress.

When I go home, Vermonters are not stopping me on the street and asking that Congress grant immunity to the tobacco industry.

Vermonters, who are known for their common sense, are telling me that immunity for Big Tobacco makes no sense. The public health community agrees that immunity for the tobacco industry makes no sense.

Months ago, General Koop and Commissioner Kessler, wrote to Congress:

"We oppose granting the tobacco industry immunity against liability for past, present, or future misdeeds. Congress should focus its efforts on public health, not on the concessions the tobacco industry seeks."

I agree. Congress can seize this historic opportunity to curb teenage smoking without giving Big Tobacco any special legal protection.