HEALTH FUNDS LOSE IN TOBACCO TALKS

WASHINGTON -- The promise of the tobacco legislation before the U.S. Senate
has been, from the start, a sweeping national campaign to cut back on
smoking and dramatically reduce the toll it takes on American health.

But funding for that ambitious public health goal has become a big loser in
the fierce political struggles surrounding the measure, as funding for
programs to get Americans to stop smoking and to persuade children not to
start has been cut back by changes made on the Senate floor.

The fate of the legislation may depend on the outcome of a meeting
Wednesday of Republican senators to determine whether they will agree to
end debate and vote on the measure or perhaps pull it from consideration.

"It's time to fish or cut bait," said Senate Republican Whip Don Nickles of
Oklahoma, an ardent opponent of the measure. Sponsor Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) also said he expected a Senate decision on the bill by the end of
the week.

During the weeks of debate, the Senate measure has been expanded to include
such unrelated causes as the income tax's so-called marriage penalty,
anti-drug programs and even school vouchers. Funding for these programs
would come at the expense of the anti-smoking initiatives that were the
original purpose of the legislation.

Some $14.3 billion originally set aside over the next five years for a host
of anti-smoking activities has fallen by about a third, according to
Clinton administration estimates.

An amendment approved last week allows up to $10 billion of the remainder
to be diverted to anti-narcotics programs, setting up the anti-smoking
campaign for an annual head-to-head funding competition with the
politically popular war on drugs.

As a result, there is no longer a guarantee that any money would go to the
tobacco legislation's package of anti-smoking activities, including
smoking-cessation programs, anti-tobacco advertising, stricter enforcement
of tobacco laws and health education campaigns.

Public health advocates expect some of the funding to be restored if the
legislation makes it to a House-Senate conference, where the Clinton
administration would exert greater influence.

Moreover, regardless of the funding, the package includes an array of
powerful anti-tobacco elements, including a $1.10 per-pack cigarette tax,
stringent restrictions on tobacco marketing and new powers for the Food and
Drug Administration to regulate nicotine.

But, said longtime tobacco foe Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), "It's taken the
heart out of this bill from a public health funding standpoint."

The provisions were added in an effort to win enough support for the
legislation to win Senate passage.

"I'm sorry that public health groups are upset that their share has gone
down," McCain said. "It's still a heck of a lot of money. I think the
bill--from a conservative, smaller-government standpoint--has been
strengthened, particularly since it would entail the largest tax cut in the
last 20 years."

On Tuesday, the Senate added another amendment designed to make the package
more palatable to conservatives. By a 49-48 vote, it set a ceiling on fees
paid to plaintiff's attorneys handling tobacco lawsuits settled by the
legislation.

The anti-smoking initiatives have been a part of the tobacco package since
40 state attorneys general in June 1997 reached a settlement with tobacco
companies over lawsuits seeking reimbursements

The legislation initially offered by McCain allocated $65 billion over the
next five years from settlement payments by tobacco companies and cigarette
tax revenue.

The money was to be shared by state governments, farm programs designed to
lessen the impact of the settlement on tobacco growers, a biomedical
research program geared to smoking-related illnesses and a public health
fund for anti-smoking initiatives. The public health fund received 22
percent of the income.

However, McCain first added an amendment to divert $3 billion equally from
all funds to restore veteran's benefits for tobacco-related illnesses. That
funding had been cut a month earlier by a separate measure in order to
offset overspending in federal transportation programs.

Next, an amendment sponsored by Sens. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and Pete
Domenici (R-Ariz.) transferred $16 billion to pay for a reduction in the
"marriage tax" penalty paid by some two-income couples. That money also was
taken in equal proportion from all funds.

Finally, an amendment by Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.) authorized up to $10
billion in spending on a range of anti-drug programs, including stepped-up
interdiction programs and school vouchers for victims of drug-related
on-campus crimes.

The anti-drug program would be entirely funded from the public health
account, but it would be up to congressional appropriators each year to
allocate money among smoking and anti-drug programs.

"It's an absolute disgrace. The Senate has voted to divert virtually all
the funds that were earmarked to stop smoking," said Matthew Myers, general
counsel for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a coalition of public
health groups backing the legislation.

But a lobbyist for the American Lung Association was more sanguine, noting
that the funding was always less important than toughening tobacco laws,
and the Clinton administration likely would improve funding for public
health programs in negotiations before a final law is enacted.

The Republican House appropriations subcommittee chairman who would oversee
spending of tobacco revenue has been friendly to public health programs,
said the lobbyist, Paul Billings. "Congressman John Porter from Illinois is
going to have more to say about how much money is spent on public health
than anything the Senate has done in the past two weeks," Billings said.
"We're plenty comfortable with Congressman Porter leading that process."

White House spokesman Barry Toiv said that the Clinton administration is
focusing on getting the Senate to pass the tobacco legislation.

"We consider the public health programs to be a very important element of
the legislation. As the process moves along, we are going to try to reduce
the impact of those amendments that make serious inroads into those health
priorities," Toiv said.

Congressional Republicans are not the only ones who have proposed diverting
funds from the tobacco settlement. President Clinton's budget called for
using a substantial portion of the money for unrelated purposes.

The White House budget devoted $7.3 billion over five years to fund
Clinton's plan to put 100,000 new teachers in elementary schools. And his
child-care initiative would have taken another $7.5 billion from tobacco
revenue.

McCain's package does not directly fund either initiative. But a portion of
the payments that state governments would receive under the bill are
restricted in use, with child-care and early education programs among the
allowed expenses.