6 minutes past 12 broadcast Minnesota meeting are supported by Oppenheimer wolf in Donnelly with offices in both Minneapolis. And st. Paul providing legal services to businesses around the world and it's time now for today is Minnesota meeting off we go to the Minneapolis Marriott City Center Hotel. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen. I am Vance Opperman president of key investment a board member and the past chair of the Minnesota meeting. It's a great pleasure to welcome. All of you to today is Minnesota median are also like to welcome all ready audience throughout the Upper Midwest or hearing this address and program on the midday program of Minnesota public radio broadcast of the Minnesota meeting are made possible. If you won't know by the outstanding law firm of Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly with offices in Minneapolis-Saint Paul major cities in United States and Canada. Members of Minnesota median represent this community as leaders from business government Academia and the professions. This is our 16th year in the marketplace of ideas. It's a great pleasure for me to welcome you to today's Minnesota meeting today. We will discuss probably the single most important news event in Minnesota this year and a critical issue facing our entire nation. I'm talking of course about tobacco is we all know the state of Minnesota and one of our largest insurers and health care providers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota just-concluded in historic legal settlement with their country's major. Tobacco companies. The numbers are truly staggering nearly 7 billion dollars. That's what Abby will be paid to the state by the tobacco industry for the next 25 years Blue Cross will receive an additional $469 lawyers in the case. We get approximately 500 million. It is truly in historic case with national ramifications. Joining us today are the two primary players in this case Andy Jackowski the president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and Hubert H. Humphrey the third Minnesota's attorney general first. Congratulations gentlemen. Thank you. We're not going to hear speeches today instead. I will moderate a discussion with a few questions. I can see that disappointed. Skip then of course, we will open the floor to you our members and guests Gloria McClanahan and Kim darling of the Minnesota meeting will move among you with microphones get their attention. If you have a question. Let me tell you just a little bit about her two speakers a lifelong resident of the Twin Cities and he's York house key has been president of Blue Cross since 1983. He joined the firm in the sixties. He's a board member of the Minnesota Orchestra the Citizens League in the tenant company. He's also I'm proud to say board member and also past year of the Minnesota meaning. Skip Humphrey was first elected Minnesota attorney general in 1982 and was reelected in 1986 and 1990 and 1994 leading the ticket in total votes. All three of those re-elections. He's recognized at a national level. Not only for his Crusade against tobacco but also for his accomplishments as an anti-crime activist and have a good for children and environmental leader and a protector of our consumer interest this year. He hopes to be elected governor of Minnesota and it's turning out to be quite an interesting race. It's a great pleasure to welcome both of you here today. Let's get started. skip first question for you Many of us would love to know what happened behind closed doors is you and Blue Cross brought this massive case to a settlement. Why do you think did Big tobacco give up at the last minute? What happened? Well dance, thanks for that question. Let me let me just go back for just a second. If you don't mind. I think it's important for your listeners and four members of the audience. I know that you've all been tuned into this in detail day after day after day, maybe maybe not quite as close as some of those who have been involved in this but if you'll recall we started this action in August of 1994. And at that point in time, I stated publicly that there were three core goals that we wanted to achieve and I say this in cooperation with our good and strong partner in the private Enterprise of Minnesota Blue Cross and Blue Shield and I want to thank and Tchaikovsky and his company for their efforts and their joint partnership with us it made for a very strong team, but we set out to do with three things first to stop marketing cigarettes to kids. Secondly to make absolutely certain that the whole truth of what has been going on behind closed doors would come forth to the public so they would know what this tobacco industry have been doing and what they had promised that they would tell but in fact, we're not telling and finally to pay damages that were commensurate with the harm that was caused by the violations of this was a law enforcement action. That was brought by the Attorney General's office to enforce our consumer protection laws and our antitrust laws. We allege that these companies violated the laws in which no other company who does business in Minnesota is allowed to do and so that's kind of where we came from at that point. We and when we initiated the lawsuit we meant what we said, we weren't just putting out a lawsuit and a complaint and then trying to negotiate right away for any kind of resolution. We were going to dig deep and in fact having hired the robin Kaplan firm did they win worldwide and searched out information all throughout the world collecting the largest collection of tobacco data in the world's history and it is now here in Minnesota as well as in a depository in London England. Now, there is some 33 million documents that are now stored and are available to the public. And so what we were able to do was we went forward with that lawsuit to get to your point your question Advanced indeed. There were times throughout this. Of time where there was always some possibility of resolution. I said at the beginning that we will get this right either at a negotiating table or at Congress or in a courtroom. There there didn't seem to be any real initiative by the other side until we got close to the end of the trial each time. They thought that they were going to have a better deal. There in Congress which they negotiated with other Attorneys General and we when we saw that what they were trying to achieve was going to compromise our goals we stood apart from them. And finally we went to we were prepared to go to trial each time. This industry didn't believe we were actually going to go to trial we ended up going to trial and the O's negotiations broke down at least a couple of times in the last several weeks of that trial, but finally they understood that they were either going to face a jury or they were going to deal with us at the table having said that we were able to achieve all of the goals that we set out and a whole lot more and that's when any good lawyer should say we're going to settle this case and we settled it with permanency. We do not have a peels we have the resources that will be coming on the basis of the agreement that is there and the court orders that are in place to enforce protecting our children. I just give Annie let let me let me ask you for years ago. A lot of people said it was foolish to take on big tobacco. Most lawyers in the country has been a 40 year history of big tobacco victories no losses, but you decide to take on that risk. Anyway, how come well, we knew there was an epidemic of health related to smoking and that costs were rising or being driven partly of I buy tobacco. We knew that more kids were smoking which was particularly disturbing because we just saw the problem getting worse rather than better in about that time. They were the Waxman hearings were a lot of information came out about what the industry was doing how they were creating a false controversy about smoking other activities that were misleading the public. I think we worked with the attorney general Humphrey and I can say that that partnership has been without problems. We have been consistent throughout we've never had any serious disagreements. So was a strong partnership in with Robins Kaplan available to take on this way. It seems like the right thing to do and he will let me follow up on that. The settlement accomplished for example have all those industry. Tobacco industry documents really amounted to anything in the courtroom without those documents. We couldn't have made the progress that we did and bear in mind that went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep us from getting that information so know the information was extremely important and now that they're housed in a warehouse where they will be available to the public. I think it will be of value to anybody else who is interested in studying at the back when the problems and also for other a little against as well. Skip are with you if anyone was watching C-SPAN last week as Congress took up for more than 4 days the debate of Senator McCain's bill, you understand the importance of the Minnesota documents in the Minnesota case there. You saw it United States senators from all over this country. Literally making reference to a bulletin boards indicating what had been revealed in the Minnesota case what the Minnesota settlement was all about. And it basically set the standard this case shifted the agenda and allowed Congress now to come to grips with the real issue of what is the proper national public policy related to tobacco and help without that kind of research without that documentation without understanding the full depth of that story. I don't believe that we would have the kind of debate that is going on even as we speak today. Skip when you were talking earlier about the settlement question that I've often heard, I'm particularly right after the historic settlement was announced was why not? Let the 12 jury process go to final conclusion after all that would give the jury their chance to weigh the evidence render a decision and especially with a case going right up to the 11 through the 11th and 1/2 hour before closing Arguments for a plaintiff's attorney general Humphrey at you made the decision to settle how do you justify that decision and not letting the jury make its final final decision while I'm sure that those jurors as we saw in their news conference. They were extremely frustrated having been patient for more than 4 months to sit and listen to the testimony to take notes to be deeply involved and committed in that case and then to see literally at the last minute that the case was resolved without their decision be made so I can understand their frustration. But as I said when when litigants who set out to achieve goals are able to achieve all of that and a whole lot more when literally this industry surrendered and surrendered on our terms then I think it is a responsibility for us to resolve This matter is resolved in the favor of the client that we serve the people of Minnesota and I believe that that's what this settlement has achieved now beyond that understand this though to the jurors into the people of Minnesota particularly those jurors. They were the Anvil of the hammer and Anvil that we brought to bear on this industry. They knew that we were going to be aggressive. They understood that no matter how many thousands of motions or appeals they made we were going to be there as litigants and we were going to take them to task all the way as Mr. Tchaikovsky. I said to the Supreme Court a couple of times but understanding that there was the Anvil and the Anvil was the jury no matter what they were going to do. They were going to have to face that jury. If we did not resolve our differences in any other way and resolve them in favor of the goals of we had set out. So without that jury, we literally would I have been able to achieve this goal and I want to thank the jury I want to thank the people of Minnesota the strength of this state its commitment to the health of its kids and protection of our children is nothing short of phenomenal. I'll never forget the testimony that was brought forth in which was a statement made by one of the representatives of one of the tobacco Research Institute. When asked about that Minnesota case and the response to the question about what what do you think about that Minnesota case? He said well, you know in Minnesota we expect the worst and I like to think that we expected to the people of Minnesota expected the best and that was the result of what happened but it will could not have happened without that jury sitting there and without those other the other side knowing full well that they were going to face the full burden of weight of evidence that was going to be weighed by that jury, but let me follow that up with a question. I have a friend and Associates who is a sometime radio talk show host. 2 is often made the point that some states like the State of Florida. He alleges change the law specifically to get the tobacco industry attorney general Humphrey were any specific laws change in this day just to get the the tobacco industry know we didn't have to do that. We have a very strong Foundation of statutory law and common law that does provide protection for consumers, and those laws have been enforced consistently both the in my Administration and in others administration's before me and that is made the difference and so are the foundation of an active of a comprehensive antitrust law and active enforcement of those laws. We had in place those kind of standards that were the standards that every business that's represented here at this meeting complies with and what we asked this industry to do was hey if everybody else can do it, so well here and makes a pretty good prophets in the rest. Why can't you And why can't you tell the truth about your product? I got a question. I'd like to throw a to both attorney general Humphrey and you should Kowski for those of you listening. We're talking about the tobacco settlement to the tobacco issue with attorney general. Skip Humphrey and the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and you should Kowski and this is me to both of you. A lot of people have argued both and letters to the editor and on various talk programs that this settlement is really with taxpayers and ratepayers who are paid too much over the years to cover the health cost of smokers. Does that mean the most of the tobacco money should be returned to taxpayers and members of Blue Cross Blue Shield in the form of tax cuts or rebates and you let me pull that one to you first. Well, I think that we eat we want to look at the long-term but short very short-sighted view would say well let's just refund money, but bear in mind that this lawsuit was about a changing the culture of tobacco. It was about stopping an epidemic that was out of control. We can't really be effective in stopping at epidemic unless we can provide programs. First of all to help people quit smoking but more importantly looking at Youth and smoking on marketing tobacco to youth I think is a very very important part of whatever we do in the future a lot has been expended to Market tobacco to use but not very much to unmarketed. So I think there are a lot of programs that need to be carried out. This is just the beginning winning. The lawsuit was the start I think of a long campaign to change this whole culture of smoking in our society, which has been accepted for so long and which so many have acquiesce And through the billions at the tobacco industry spends every year on advertising and lobbying. We need a counterforce and the only way we can have an effective Carter for us is to have funds available to do some of the things to change the whole culture of smoking. Skip you know I I just want to add on to what the India said by and large, you know, that is exactly what this lawsuit was all about us about protecting our children. It was about promoting public health and I think that should be the very first priority for any use of the resources but I must say this that there are resources of Plenty and understand that the legislature will have its decisions to make up with a vast majority of those dollars that come to the state of Minnesota. I have suggested that we ought to set aside over these first initial years a good portion of that about 12% of it in an endowment fund that would allow us to have a pool of dollars in perpetuity for the use of health concerns related directly to tobacco and the cessation of the use of tobacco products and that will allow us to spin-off perhaps 60 to 80 million dollars a year for those purposes Beyond out there is Substantial amount of other funds that could be used for reforming education making our tax system Warfare there any number of other things that the legislature could look at but I firmly believe and hope that the legislature would first look at the proper use for making making sure that we have resources available year in and year out to make for a healthier life thing for a moment as a generation as the last generation of this Century. We have the unique opportunity to give a gift to the first generation of the 21st century. It's the gift of life. It's a gift of literally 10 maybe 15 years A Better Health your life to your children tonight. When you go home when you visit with your grandchildren, or see your children at Bed think about what you can give that child if we use these resources in a proper fashion a better healthier life a longer life. That is at least worth the same amount if not a whole lot more than a few bucks in our pocket. Another another question that I see you then raised sometimes in the political Arena aren't the lawyers in this case being paid a lot doesn't they're kind of the kind of compensation. I involved here fees of approximately five hundred million dollars or approximately percent. That doesn't raise questions Andy, can I throw that to you for? Sure. Well, I think that the circuit is a lot of money, but if you look at the tremendous effort that's been expended them and the fact that this was taken out a contingency basis without with a lot of rest because at that time there weren't any examples of anybody who had to come up the against the industry and one but the I think the important thing to keep in mind as far as the public is concerned that this was an agreement between the tobacco industry and the attorneys they they agreed on the amount we did that did not come out of our settlement of the states so discreetly cost the public nothing. And I think that's the important thing. Also. If you look at the fact that they had dozens of liars. It defense had dozens of lawyers in the courtroom tremendous amount of money was expended to defend this case. We had to have the same caliber of attorneys in the same effort as they did actually had a Better Effort which was even even more important. But without that without the robins Kaplan firm, I don't think we would have been successful. Skip well, first of all, let me understand make sure that everyone understands that we negotiated that settlement without reference to the fees and we obtained the goal that we achieved and then there was a reference to fees but you know when you said they were paid a lot. Yes, they've been paid a lot but they risked a lot. They risk their whole company. They were willing to go out on a contingency. I recall of some four years ago. There was an editorial in the starch of unit said 25% is a pretty good deal. We understood full well and they did to that if we lost we would pay nothing and I said at the very beginning that if we do win we will go back to the court as we have a right to do Under the statutes. And ask for reasonable attorneys fees, I believe that what has been negotiated here and has been resolved and paid for by the other side is is in the best interest of all of us and frankly as far as I'm concerned when you get to pay zero fees, that's pretty good. That's that's really where I think it is but understand this in comparison to some of the other states to it's the lowest amount paid by any state that has settled it is in fact, I understood that last week or two Governor George Bush Junior complained to his attorney say why couldn't you get a deal like, Minnesota Because both Texas and Florida's fees were paid out of the state settlement. I suspect that there will still be criticism and that's something I'm sure that people will look into but the reality is that for what was risk. It was phenomenal. There are some I'm sure there's some sophisticated investors out here some Adventure capitalist. I suspect four years ago. You weren't exactly lining up on this case as a good odds deal. You were probably stand in line for the Powerball before you got to that but the fact is The odds were bad. But we have changed the odds we made our commitments and we have changed the odds and we have changed the odds in favor of that next generation. Now I have one other question. I want to throw to both the Andy Jackowski the CEO Blue Cross Blue Shield and is Skip Humphrey our attorney general MN to throw this question of the both of you, but for those of you in the audience, you should be thinking of your questions and look for the either can't or or is Mary is going to be Lori is going to be walking amongst. Yeah, that's right. Answer be thinking the questions you like like it filled up her the question. I'd like to ask Andy is this a year ago? You had the first effort at the Congressional Settlements a national settlement in Inskip stood against and frankly stopped it. I'd like to ask you given what's happened last year like to ask both of you to give some predictions and how the Congressional debate over big tobacco is likely to turn out and how is Minnesota made a difference in your predicted outcome and even try that first shirt or first I think it's important to recognize skip for ability to withstand. All of the pressure is It Came Upon him when the national settlement risk going forward a year ago scripture lot of Courage, I thinking standing up to a lot of pressure from a lot of people to say this isn't good enough and it wasn't good enough now, I think we're moving forward from that basin. Result of the Minnesota settlement. I think we've set the floor here for a much better settlement. So assuming that the Minnesota settlement is at 4 that I think there is a good opportunity for the Congress to move forward. The Senate bill seems to be something that the president is endorsed and whether or not it'll survive the house. I think is another matter but my prediction is when all is said and done I think because of the Minnesota case we will see a pretty good national settlement. Skip well, I would just say that I'm as I as I mentioned before I believe the Minnesota case has changed the Dynamics of the washing to the bait and I I think you saw that last week whether or not the tobacco industry will regroup and reorganize and put on their traditional pressure and we'll just have to see whether or not things change so dramatically, but if you'll recall during last week's debate the special liability that was being asked for the special liability immunity Provisions that were being asked for by the tobacco industry were removed. In fact what has happened because of the Minnesota case is that it is been well stated on the floor of the United States Senate that we don't need the permission of the tobacco industry to do what is right for the American people in public health and to protect our children. I think a lot of that emanates from the kind of work that we have seen done here in Minnesota. Actually. What I'm hoping for is that we will see the special liability provision. For the industry that stay dead and they should stay dead because frankly we need the full Authority and the full strength of our court system to make sure that this industry abides by the new terms that are going to be dealt with in Congress. I want to see Full FDA Authority. They are dealing with a drug they admit in their own documents that they are delivering a drug called nicotine and it's the only thing that a cigarette is is a good delivery device for it. But if it's a drug than it ought to be regulated by the FDA, I want to see strong look-back provision. So it will allow for a checking to see whether or not we are making progress towards removing this product from the used by young people and I want to use the Dynamics of the marketplace of competition. We want competition to see that those numbers come down on a company by company basis and obviously there needs to be strengthening and all of these areas, but I would ask you to watch care. To be involved and to get in touch with your Congressman in your Senator. If you don't believe that they're going in the right direction open up the questions Glory mcclenaghan can darling both have microphones. They both been doing this a lot longer than I have and we're all set over here with the first question from Sarah Stace who's the vice president of communications at Allina Health System. Thank you, since the settlements of tobacco litigation in the other states, Texas Mississippi in Florida have occurred we've seen those states to send into a fair amount of political chaos around the question of how to allocate the money. What should we in Minnesota be thinking about in that regard to ensure that similar chaos does not erupt in our state and you might want to add something. Go ahead. Skip I've already visited openly with the public about that and I joined with other health organizations to to say that initially those dollars as they first come to us and understand that a year from this January this forthcoming January. We will have very close to a billion additional dollars that will be coming to the state out of this element. So it's not a small amount and you are right. There is a potential for debate and discussion. Look what this legislature went through when it had somewhat close to 900 million dollar Surplus it kind. Went through all sorts of things. I don't think the priority should be stadiums. I don't think they're playing by the things that it shouldn't be the priority should first and foremost be on Healthcare and initiating efforts that will help young people stay off tobacco and help other individuals who are smoking to get off. In fact, there is a hundred million dollars and $2000000 fund that is in the settlement that is directed specifically by the court for smoking cessation. So that's a direct use of those dollars to get in the hands of taxpayers and people who are smoking that's a direct benefit to them. I want to see the legislature frame that structure so that in fact we can have early access to those dollars eyes. As I said, I think there are education reforms which tied when you tie education and prevention programs to the smoking cessation programs, you get kind of a double whammy I think that's where it all to go. I think we ought to then looking ass. Legislature to consider other reforms and perhaps perhaps tax reforms that would be my agenda that will make our tax system fair and certainly in the area property taxes. I think that we ought to continue strategic change in our property tax structure and I realized that your settlement is for the benefit of your corporate Enterprise. But what are your thoughts on that question that we need to use those money is primarily for health related issues and me clearly this whole lawsuit that was about health and cost to healthcare. So I think it needs to be used to mitigate their future healthcare costs. So that's where I commitments will be. Another question, Laura. Our next question is from Mary Edwards. She's vice president for public policy at Fairview hospitals. First of all, let me say thank you for both to both of you for what you've done. It is an amazing accomplishment. Mr. Humphrey you refer to the national settlement a couple of times and now you stayed at what you'd like to see happen. I have a two-fold question and knowing that you've been very actively involved would like you to tell the audience what you've been doing in your involvement there. And what do you think will exactly happen it at this particular time? Well, thanks very much for the question first. You have to kind of go back a year or more where some of my colleagues were actively lobbying the Congress to make to take quick action to settle up on the basis of their resolution of the case. None of which of their cases of course have been tried. I when we took a look at that and when doctors Coupe and dr. Kessler and their commission took a look at it, they made a clear distinction in just a 30-day review. They said this this settlement does not meet basic fundamental important go. Health public health goals for the nation I agreed with that analysis and I felt that it did not reach our our goals that we had set forth in our lawsuit. So you know it for the first year so I had to play defense we had to basically a go to Washington keep informing congressman and their staff and the White House about what was coming out in the Minnesota case and that how important it was to get the full truth out. The key of course was the industry did not want that truth about because they knew what would happen. If it did get out now, we're at a different time the truth is out and they are seeing what is happening. In fact, I think the reason that they wanted to shorten their lawsuit and they did they pulled mr. Tchaikovsky and I off the witness list. They shut down there at the base of a shutdown their defense here and I think the reason is they didn't need any more leaks and any more stories coming out of Minnesota because they were going to try and cut the deal in Washington, but they have not been able Do that. And the reason they have been able to do that is once again, we are there we have won the battle on the Western Front. We now have to move to the Eastern front and we are actively involved in making sure that Congress has all the information to do. What is right and I have to commend Senator Conrad Senator wellstone so many of the others Congressman Waxman and others who have really set forth the strong basis of efforts and I also want to say I want to compliment Senator McCain. He has tried to draw balance I think is with the manager's amendments. We have seen his bill improved and it will continue to be improved upon I believe and he's taking a stance it's kind of hard but he's also realize something that I think all of us came to a conclusion on this is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of public health. Can thank you very much tourney General Humphrey. Mr. To ask you a question now from Steve Young prominent Republican in town for Medina to Hamline law school and inform patient. And yes, thank you and good afternoon. Good afternoon before both of you of the legal fees the contingency fees which was a political issue and if it is political, so be it and let's have good politics in Minnesota. Skip my question is that old first. I think use of contingency fee in this case is not good contingency fees were designed to help poor people not to put 566 million dollars into the pockets of some very good but very well-to-do enable lawyers in the state. I worry that a boil has been started to roll here that if attorney general's want to start moral Crusade only have to do is go outside the box hire private law firms doing a contingency fee basis they have Talking to Governor's they've a talking to legislators. The basically they can abused their power. Secondly you mentioned in this case. We should accept contingency fees and the plug the Robbins firm because they took a risk my reading of your contingency agreement, which I happen to have a copy of 1994 indicates. That was no risk. You even agreed paragraph 7 that if a firm were discharged in the case was lost you would get public dollars to pay their fees and they're closed. This contract is I read it protected that firm in any manner of circumstances. So yes pay them something nice maybe $100. I could live in a hundred dollars. You can live in a hundred million dollars, but 566 million. There was no cap in the fee agreement. So I think frankly skip for all your good intentions you have left us with a dangerous precedent. Thank you. Well, I think we've met before you answer that so Steve if you just get the money back. What I have suggested to the Board of Professional responsibility is that they determine a reasonable amount of money which the lawyers could accept what's a hundred million dollars. You could probably get to a hundred million taking fees cost in some premium for risk the balance 466 million dollars. I suggested be put into a foundation to pay for legal services for the poor. So you wouldn't give it back. Skip go ahead while I may just say this. First of all, I don't read that contract the way you read it, but I don't think we made it absolutely certain for that company by any means at all to be risk-free. They were not and that by the way, when you say that it's outside the parameters of anybody looking at this that contract was on file has been on file with as all outside contracts are required to be on file with the Secretary of State for more than four years. The public has had full access to that. They have had a full opportunity. It has been discussed fully in the Press. And you know now it's rather interesting that we moan and groan about fees that are paid by somebody else when the public pays zero and the reality is also 33% is an average is a standard of contingency fee. We negotiated 25% We were supported by that by public comment and all the rest what happened ultimately was there was a proximately a 7% fee over all of all of that amount of money. And actually it's lower than that because remember why we talked about 6 billion dollars over 25 years of payments go on in perpetuity. So long as the companies are selling product in the state of Minnesota. So the reality is that I think that you take a look at this there is no abuse of power and the fact is that the state of Minnesota and certainly under my Administration. We have constrained ourselves significantly and using any outside fees, but I understand also of the 41 states that are now suing the tobacco industry that have sued or suing the tobacco industry. There is only one state that is doing it internally and that is the state of California. They just started their case last year. They have full access to all of the Minnesota documents all the work that we've done and when they decided to it internally know what they had to do. They went to their assembly my at my colleague attorney general a good Republican out there. Which of the assembly and said I need 35 more lawyers. I need 17 million dollars more this year. And by the way, we're not going to trial and for another couple of his or baby 3 years at least and I'm going to be back to see you for another 17 million dollars at least every single year that you think that the people of, Minnesota. The average citizen of Minnesota would stand up for us just go to the legislature and say oh sure. Here's another 17 million dollars for you to go out on this. I don't think so. Now I'm more importantly we needed the expertise. We could not do our work as Attorneys General in the office and provide all the services that were required to do under statute for the legislature for the state agencies and all the rest and for the citizens of Minnesota consumer protection the rest if we were to pull away more than a third of the individuals to try and prosecute this case so we went outside where did we go? We weren't right in our backyard to a Minnesota Law Firm that had expertise that is one of the finest law firms in the world and they went to bat for us and they have done a great service for Minnesota and we ought to be proud of that rather than complaining about it particularly when we're not paying anything. Andy do you want a cracker that and throw I think he's answered it. I thought maybe and you dance for the defense Ramsey of all their money back to private colleges. Thank you. Let me assure you before you ask my question that I'm not running for anything and I brought no legal documents with me to the store today. It's workout to call you when I'm around my question compensating smokers and the public for the damages that occurred before the dangers of smoking were known is appropriate particularly. Now that we know the covert action for the tobacco industry, but at what point do we have to begin to hold people accountable for deciding to consumer product that they know to be hazardous to their health? Maybe disco, I think just a comment that what I lost. It was about as a fact that it wasn't about individual accountability. It was about the fact that the industry had created a false controversy about tobacco spread a lot of misinformation their own research which demonstrated one thing was never disclosed about the truth of smoking in hell and they chose opso from from my standpoint. I think that it was a matter of getting the truth out and I think we did that. well, I think I think that's that's really the the point the truth was gotten out and I I think that there is some point once you do inform the public once you provide that information once we have the option to not Use the product because we know of its dangers then there is going to be obviously some responsibility, but I asked you and I ask the listeners the next time that you look at your Rice Krispies box. Look on the back. You'll find every single thing that is in that box on the box the ingredients then take a look at a cigarette package. There's nothing so you don't have the information. I everybody says. Oh, yeah, there's we know there's kind of a problem. You don't begin to know the problems and the ingredients and the carcinogenic ingredients and all the rest that causes that is caused by problems. And so this industry needs to be held accountable. It needs to be held responsible and act like every other industry does in the marketplace and that's what this lawsuit was all about. It was about the conduct of the company's not individuals in their smoking habits attorney general Humphrey District housekeeping out a question from Sister Mary Madonna Ashton who's with a healthcare facility. in town I'm absolutely delighted with what you two have accomplished with your team. But I have some concern from what I've been hearing that the Congressional settlement could possibly cancel out the states settlements. Is that possible? Well, first of all, let me just say sister. I I want to thank you you were the leader and I had a chance to see some of the documents of referencing your efforts in the 80s and I want to tell you this industry was afraid of you and I think for very good reasons cuz they knew you were going to get to the truth and you were going to help us change Minnesota and I just want to personally thank you and I'm sure that the people of Minnesota would say that secondly And all your your question I think is important but the reality is in our agreement we made absolutely certain that that would not happen. If in fact what Congress does is better for Minnesota. We are able to access that if it is not as good for Minnesota ours is preserved and preserve without a peel remember if we went to a jury and we had one and that jury and perhaps God and billions of dollars worth of penalties. We would be sitting here today twiddling our thumbs waiting on pending on appeals that would go on for years and years and years and perhaps those appeals would be resolved and settled in Congressional hearings, but that does not occur until we have the best of both worlds. We have the opportunity to do better if Congress does better and we have what we have which is the standard of the country and loved the world so far in Where we are today? Gloria do you have another question? Next question is from Lester Collins. black minnesotans number one. Good afternoon. Skip number one. I want to thank you for having brought this message and your Communications to the community. We have a form that's called Lucille's Warren and the attorney general and others have common spoken you have mentioned the word truth any number of times and turns of that which has been revealed and I guess my question is as it relates to individuals of color protect the African American Youth and the targeting you love them in terms of the settlement that has been made and me how might it look or how differently might it look in terms of targeting equally you are community community communities of color and particular in terms of cessation education advertisement except Thank you Lester, and I've enjoyed our opportunity to visit up there at Lucile's that's a great form and indeed this industry did Target Target in minorities and frag that adds it frankly and its own documents had some pretty derogatory remarks to say about minorities. But the fact is that what we have in place now is a permanent injunction against any marketing to young people at the first in the country and I know this court is strong and will if we see any kind of marketing whatsoever whether it is in the communities of color or anywhere else we are going to be very direct at going back to the court and seeing imposition of other penalties and fines and other means of restricting their efforts in that regard. The other thing is except we are going to be taking down all of those Billboards and many of those Billboards are placed with preference in communities of color and we want to see all those come down. I want to see him come down around schools and other places and those are going to be basically they'll be down by the end of this year. And so we have many other kind of Provisions that will help us. The other thing is that there's this ban on the promotional products of the payment for the promotion of their products in movies. And sometimes those are targeted towards communities of color the reality is that our children get their messages and lots of different ways and we tried to identify as many as we could in this settlement with specific means of stopping that marketing but we hope we all have the resources and that's where this legislature comes into account to figure out just how to counter advertise and how to make a difference with some of those dollars. That's why I call on the citizens of Minnesota to keep a discipline on the legislature so that we use those dollars for what they're intended for. Thank you. We got a question now from NED walls with the Oppenheimer firm good afternoon one issue that I think has not been well understood in the Press is the present value of the funds that Blue Cross in the state of the attorneys have received and that notion. Of course is that a dollar received in the next couple of years is significantly more value than a dollar that is not received for 25 years. Could you tell us what the present value is of the Blue Cross share the attorney fees share in the states share and compare that to the negotiated settlement that you turn down and almost half of our mouths will be paid by the 1st of January and the rest is payable over the next several years. So there's not we'll start immediately. So I don't think the present value of figures into our settlement I'd I am not clear on what the attorneys fees are into it related just to the Blue Cross. Her case but I assume it's in that same as 7% range repair in mind that did not come out of our settlement that the attorneys fees were negotiated as a separate matter and I'll let skip a comment on the state settlement. I can't give you the specifics on the present value. I think it maybe I'm looking at my chief Deputy but it's what day are you how much 3.5 billion obviously that of course is assuming that you can walk out today to some bank and say guess what we got this little deal here to pay for over a depressive and I'd like you to give us 3.5 billion today. Course that is going to happen. What we have in fact is an ongoing permanent resource for the state of Minnesota. As I said literally in perpetuity. We always like to talk about 25 years, but it goes on in perpetuity. And I think that's what we ought to focus on. I know there's all sorts of, you know, if you want to play with dollars and with numbers you can do that, but the reality is the money is there and it will continue to come to Minnesota. So I think that that's probably the best focus and I wish I could give you a little more of the detail on how that fits in relationship to the attorney fees. Once again, remember present value if its 3.5 billion dollars and the attorneys fees were zero. 0 remember that we didn't pay you the people of Minnesota paid 00 on fees. Zeron cost. That's pretty good deal. Thank you very much. Mr. Tony General. We have time for one last question one more question. And this is from prabath. Nana said he who was with Eagan High School Eagan highest here as guests of Blue Cross. Figure like it like you said, I'm a student of Eagan High School and as a student this whole lost to pertains clearly to me and my peers and I was interested in knowing how exactly the proof the state is proving the influence of the media on us at as a youth and this excerpt by clarify because personally I see the media as simply a tool of getting awareness of tobacco and I was wondering how to do how the state has proven the influence as opposed to just awareness of media. Well, I maybe I'll just take that briefly but that's a very good question the way that state of Minnesota. And actually I'll tell you it would be very interesting for you to write or at least invite. Mr. Ceresi to come visit your school and he will tell you very directly through all of the documents that were revealed the rest that indeed the industry. We proved through the industry's own documents that they had very directly targeted young people. They used to call them young smokers or your youth you smoke it was interesting in the first part. They would reference anyone under 17 and then say you Smoker's then they got smart. And so I want that is going to work with some of the stuff may come out. So then they started just talking about young smokers including others that were up to age 21, but the fact is they spent billions and continue to spend billions targeting young people that perfect example is Joe cam. It was Joe Camel ads. I am sure they are here to influence all of the older adults all the gray-haired guys that are here. We're really into camels. I'll tell you that the funny thing is a very clearly they knew and we now know that young children as of the age as early as Age 5 is referenced in a court order in review of one of the documents. That is so prevalent. That is that is one of the secret documents. They were targeting young people and E. Can you make a brief comment? I'll just to say that I agree that they have clear retarded young people by giving me all these free promotions for years and that's no longer part of part of the settlement calls for that to be done away with night think that's important. Thank you very much. Angel Kowski attorney general Humphrey. Thank you again. This has been an excellent conversation. It's been a great pleasure. But please don't leave the stage yet. On behalf of the Minnesota meeting. I would like to present each of you with the well, we need to leave we're out of time, but we'd like to thank you for joining us this our live broadcast of the Minnesota meeting Minnesota vs Big tobacco. Now what that was the title of today's presentation featuring trained General. Skip Humphrey and a Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Andrew Jackowski. If you missed part of the program by the way will be rebroadcasting is program at 9 tonight. You're on Minnesota Public Radio broadcast are supported by Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly with offices in both Minneapolis and st. Paul providing legal services to businesses around the world. That's it for midday today Gary I can hear thanks for tuning in and we sure hope you'll join us tomorrow. I'm learning Benson a new Twin Cities magazine has some literary advice for parents struggling to find good children's books that story on the next All Things Considered weekdays at 3 on Minnesota Public Radio. Can o w FM 91.1 You're listening to Minnesota Public Radio. Sunnysky, it's up to 74°. Now. I have to know FM 91.1 Minneapolis. And st. Paul eye weather forecast for the Twin Cities. Sunny all afternoon. It should hit the upper 70s yet today clear tonight with a low in the upper 50s and then there's a 30% chance for a thunderstorm in the Twin Cities tomorrow with a high in the low 80s.