Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. How much time have we have?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first of all, if Minnesota proceeds to litigate its case and gets a judgment, then Minnesota would not be covered by this act. And I would be willing to consider Minnesota's case, because it is somewhat different than most. Perhaps it is more unusual than any of the others. However, I would say this to the Senator from Minnesota, his bill covers all States. It doesn't just cover Minnesota. It doesn't just cover unusual fact situations. It says we cannot deal with contracts in any of the States. I have to oppose his amendment because it applies to every State including States bigger than Minnesota that filed lawsuits just a few months ago. Attorneys have done almost no work on these cases. Yet they would stand to receive billions of dollars in attorney's fees without this legislation. So I would say, first of all, I would be willing to discuss the unique problems of Minnesota. But I cannot, and must resist with every bit of strength that I have this amendment because it applies throughout the Nation and it will prevent this body from being able to stop great windfalls. And that money doesn't need to go to attorneys. It needs to go for the purpose of this lawsuit, which is health care.

Mr. SESSIONS. All of a sudden it becomes important to that lawyer that the settlement be approved so he can get his fee. And if the person he sues, the tobacco industry, says: ``You are being too hard on this issue; give up on this issue.'' ``No, I won't.'' ``Well, we will sweeten your attorney's fee if you will give up on it.'' That puts them in conflict. I am not saying that has happened. But I am saying good attorneys should not allow themselves to be put in a position of interest. So we are talking about, if it is 20 percent of a $600 billion settlement, $100 billion in attorney's fees. We fought for weeks on this floor to raise from $16 to $20 billion the amount of money spent for health care for children. We are talking about $100 billion in this bill in attorney's fees, and in many cases in many States very little legal work has been done on these cases. It is important and necessary for us to act on this matter, and this amendment as presented by the Senator from Minnesota would, in effect, undermine and abrogate the true effect of the amendment that I have offered, so I strongly oppose it. I will yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I think that points out the problem we are dealing with here. This is the first time, in any inquiry that I have made in a number of different instances, that I have gotten a figure on the detail of the fee agreements that have been entered into in these kinds of cases. Twenty-five percent. That sounds fine, but the truth of the matter is the tobacco company has just pleaded guilty. They put $300 billion, $400 billion, the Senator from Kentucky says $500-plus billion on the table. Now the lawyers who were saying they were going to trial and spent these huge sums of money all over America are not going to trial. They are just collecting the money, and they have agreements like this. Now, I would assume, with regard to Minnesota, that they are an average size State and they probably would be entitled to something like a $10 billion settlement of this matter. If that is true, then this law firm would be entitled to $2 billion--$2 billion, not $2 million but $2 billion. That would be probably as of this date the largest legal fee ever paid in the history of this country, largest legal fee probably ever paid in the history of the world. So I submit that is exactly what has happened. Many States, I understand, because less than a year ago I was an attorney general, have entered into contracts of 25 percent. I know of another State which, I understand, has entered into a settlement for 20 percent of the recovery. These cases are not even going to trial if this body acts. If this body does not act and Minnesota goes on and litigates its own case, then Minnesota is not covered by our agreement. So only if there is a congressional action that takes over these cases, should we question attorneys' fees. Otherwise that issue is between the attorneys general and the States. But the plaintiff lawyers, the very same ones who are now complaining about their fees through Members of this body, these very same plaintiff attorneys are the ones asking this Congress to review this settlement and to take appropriate action that we think is just and fair. So, first of all, I want to point out that we are talking about incredibly huge attorneys' fees, not just large. These are incredibly huge. Probably as much as, at 20 percent, $40, $50, $60 billion in attorneys' fees. Publicly the figure has been floated in the press a number of times at $14 billion. If the percentages are the same in most States, 20 percent, the figures will be much higher than $14 billion. So the tobacco lawyers who have entered into this private agreement with these plaintiff attorneys to pay them their fee, all these lawyers are now coming to us and saying just ratify this matter but don't ask us about how much they are paying; don't question these fees because we had a contract. We had a contract. They can't prevail in their cases in an effective way without the legislation of this Congress. So I think it is right for us to question it.

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Just briefly, what is the percentage contingent fee that has been given to the plaintiff attorneys who are representing the State of Minnesota?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Less.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct--$5 million is not a sufficient fee for a lawsuit.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have some comments that I would like to make and my time is getting short, but I think it would support the National Institutes of Health and that is what we would favor. This is a matter of real seriousness. We are not talking about a little game or gimmick here. We are talking about huge sums of money. The Senator from New Hampshire talked in the debate on this floor of from $16 to $20 billion of children's insurance and how $4 billion was considered carefully before the Congress appropriated that money. We are talking about perhaps $40 billion in attorney's fees, and they refuse to tell the American public how much the fees are. They refuse to produce their agreements. These are attorneys representing public bodies, not private individuals. With regard to contingent fees, I am not against private contingent fees. I think in many cases that is an effective and appropriate way to handle litigation for a private party. But I am very concerned about public bodies hiring attorneys to represent them and the people of their States on a contingent fee basis that could result in awards of attorney's fees of tens of billions of dollars. So I would think very seriously about that. I was amazed to hear the comment made that this would intimidate and hamper the public health community. The public health community will benefit from this because we would see this money go to the National Institutes of Health and not to attorneys, so they could use it for research and other good things. It will not stop the ongoing litigation. I certainly believe it will continue in every State in the Nation that chooses to proceed. Finally, I think the Senator from Maine is incorrect in suggesting that this is somehow not money that counts because it was money not made part of the settlement but added on to it by the tobacco industry. If you have been a part of the litigation, before you know it, the defendant, before the award is paid, wants to know the total bill, and when he finally agrees what his total bill is, he does not care how it is spent or how the other side uses it. So he will call it attorney's fees, he will call it anything else. He just wants to spend the $386 plus billion, and that money is money the tobacco company is prepared to spend to end this litigation. Therefore, it is money that ought to be spent, as much as possible, on children and not on lawyers. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Kentucky is here and I will yield for a question, or time. I will yield the floor at this time and yield my time to the Senator from Kentucky for 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't mind responding to the Senator's question. I sought the floor. But I choose to have it on his time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that the correct interpretation of this amendment and the intention of it would be, if a case went on to litigation and was not a part of the global settlement, it would not be covered by this agreement. But any settlements that were entered into now or subsequently that asked to be part of the global settlement by Congress would be appropriately covered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Certainly.

Mr. SESSIONS. Did the Senator know that this Senator refused to take money from the tobacco industry as attorney general and has sought tougher laws against the sale of tobacco to children and is not a tool or pawn of any tobacco company? In fact, I am offended it would be suggested otherwise. I believe tobacco is a very unhealthy substance. I think it is quite plain it causes cancer and premature death, and we ought to do everything we legitimately can to reduce its use. In fact, I am supporting the amendment of the Senator from the State of Illinois and also of the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, that would prevent them from having a $50 billion benefit. My concern is $14 billion in legal fees to many attorneys who do not deserve anything like that kind of fee.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to present my third question.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is the first one. Second, is the Senator aware that, with regard to the receipt or copying of the documents, those are expenses which are not covered by this bill, or at least this bill provides a full payment of expenses to attorneys who incur them legitimately, even in furtherance of these lawsuits, and would be reimbursed? I pose those two questions to the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have three questions. First, do you know whether the attorneys in the Minnesota case are being compensated on a contingent fee basis, that is, in which they would get a percentage of the recovery, and in many of these States they have done not much more than file a lawsuit, and already the tobacco industry is willing to pay large sums of money which would enable attorneys to receive huge fees for almost no work? I understand perhaps Minnesota is different and that they may be, perhaps, the only State in which the attorneys are employed on an hourly basis. Does the Senator know whether that is true or not?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I have not, and I consider $5 million to be a very substantial fee on any market in America, certainly.

Mr. SESSIONS. I don't think it would apply if the case went on to litigation because it would not be part of the global settlement. Our bill does not take effect unless there is an act of this Congress that globally settles the litigation.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. To my understanding, Minnesota is the only State that has objected to the global settlement. They are going to have to be treated separately in any case.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is fair to say.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to table the Wellstone amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.