[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 116 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9620-S9623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 1834. A bill to improve the health of Americans through the 
gradual elimination of tobacco products; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious and deadly 
health issue. I am talking about tobacco, a scourge on our society.
  Smoking kills. There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. These are 
not mere platitudes. They are the deadly truth. Tobacco kills more 
Americans each year than alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide, 
suicide, car accidents, fire and AIDS combined.
  My colleague Senator Kennedy has proposed dealing with this shocking 
statistic by having the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco. 
I suggest my colleagues ask themselves: What will it mean to have 
cigarette and tobacco products regulated by the FDA?
  The FDA is the gold standard among public health regulators the world 
over. For the past century, the FDA has protected the public, from 
filthy conditions in meat packing plants to thalidomide, which caused 
thousands of birth defects in Western Europe. The FDA's constant 
vigilance is not just an historical artifact. It seems like every day 
there is something new for the FDA to protect us from. The headlines 
behind me show how we have come to depend on the FDA every day to 
protect us and our children from poisons that could harm or even kill 
us.
  It is evident that the FDA is overworked and underfunded. We, as a 
nation, currently ask the FDA to be responsible for so many things: 
ensuring that new drugs and medical devices are safe and effective; 
safeguarding the Nation's food supply; regulating the manufacture and 
distribution of food additives and drugs that will be given to animals; 
and, increasing the security of our blood supply.
  In each of these key activities, the role of the FDA is to protect 
our health. In providing that protection, the FDA examines key 
scientific facts and weighs the balance of benefit to our society and 
risk to our health. It is incomprehensible to me to extend that 
critical role to an FDA risk/benefit analysis of tobacco and 
cigarettes.
  I will say it again: Smoking kills. There is no such thing as a 
``safe'' cigarette. Any public statement by the FDA under their current 
authority would necessitate the finding that there is no benefit to the 
use of cigarettes, only harm.
  The Kennedy-Cornyn bill would establish the FDA as the regulator for 
tobacco products. However, the bill explicitly states that the FDA will 
not be permitted to prohibit the sale of any tobacco product to adults. 
That is not true regulation. The bill would gut the authority that 
Congress has bestowed and staunchly defended for the FDA, the authority 
to remove health threats from the marketplace. This approach is so 
flawed that I believe the bill cannot be fixed.
  Even having the FDA review and approve cigarettes sends mixed and 
confusing messages to the public, creating the sense that cigarettes 
are safe or can be made safer. The FDA cannot be put in the position of 
approving a product which years of science and the personal experience 
of far too many Americans has shown to be dangerous. Simply put, 
tobacco kills people. Piling on regulations and bureaucracy won't 
change that.
  I commend my colleague Senator Kennedy for trying to do something 
about the evil of tobacco. But this bill is a dinosaur. It has been 
introduced year after year, with barely any changes. In fact, the bill 
would have FDA issue a regulation from 1996 completely intact. A 
regulation, I might add, that was overturned by the Supreme Court. But 
that is beside the point. Instead of resurrecting broken, outdated 
legislation, we should be aiming to make tobacco extinct.
  While some in the tobacco industry claim to share my views on 
smoking, I do not believe they have actually bought in to the idea of 
getting people to stop using tobacco. A case in point is the new $350 
million facility Philip Morris has built in Richmond, VA. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following 
classified ad from the journal Science.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this ad calls for the recruitment of 
scientists to work at this facility, studying how to ``develop relevant 
exposure models'' for smoking related diseases. Or to do large scale 
epidemiology studies on ``the cause of cigarette smoke-related 
diseases.'' Here I thought the cause of cigarette smoke-related 
diseases was smoking. Silly me.
  Clearly, Philip Morris believes it will still be able to operate 
under the Kennedy bill. It will be business as usual for the Marlboro 
Man, and more Americans will die needlessly.
  Trying to make cigarettes safer through a billion-dollar bureaucracy 
is a waste of time and money. The right approach is to get people to 
stop smoking, or better yet, to never start.
  The key failing of the Kennedy dinosaur legislation is that it will 
not reduce smoking. In 2004, this bill did pass the Senate, as part of 
FSC-ETI. The Congressional Budget Office, in scoring the Senate-passed 
bill, examined the tobacco provisions. I suggest my colleagues study 
that score carefully. CBO suggested there would be essentially no 
reduction in adult smoking, and only a 12.5 percent reduction in youth 
smoking. The bill assesses user fees in excess of $450 million a year. 
There are currently 2.7 million youth smokers. When you do the math, it 
comes out to nearly $1,500 per year per youth smoker to achieve these 
reductions. I don't know if you've talked to any teenagers recently, 
but they are pretty entrepreneurial. I bet a lot of them would quit 
smoking if you just paid them to give it up, or even to stay off the 
stuff in the first place.

  In another example of very little bang for very big bucks, a recent 
Institute of Medicine report from May says that if we keep doing what 
we are doing, we will reduce smoking from the current 20 percent of the 
population to about 15 percent over the next 20 years. If we do 
everything in the report, which is basically the Kennedy bill plus a 
number of other steps, some of which maybe unconstitutional, we might 
reduce it to 10 percent. At an unknown, but likely very high, cost.
  This bill can't be fixed. I know we can do better. We just have to 
think bigger. We must win the war on tobacco, not sign a peace treaty 
with Phillip Morris.
  I have developed my own tobacco legislation that would truly have an 
impact on the number of smokers in this country, and I am pleased to 
introduce today the Help End Addiction to Lethal Tobacco Habits or 
HEALTH Act.
  My bill contains a novel cap-and-trade program--guaranteeing that

[[Page S9623]]

fewer people suffer the deadly consequences of smoking, while providing 
flexibility in how those reductions are achieved.
  Cap-and-trade programs have a proven track record in the 
environmental arena. In the 1980s, lakes and forests were dying from 
acid rain. The acid rain was caused by emissions of sulfur and nitrogen 
oxides from power generation at electrical plants. The Clean Air Act 
amendments of 1990 instituted a system of allowances for emissions of 
sulfur and nitrogen oxides that could be used, banked, traded or sold 
freely on the open market. The number of allowances decreased each 
year. This system achieved the desired results faster and at lower cost 
than had been anticipated. The cap-and-trade program for sulfur and 
nitrogen oxides has made dramatic differences in our air quality over 
the past 15 years, and is a resounding success. I propose to carry this 
market-oriented system over to the tobacco control arena. Although this 
has never been tried for a health issue, I think it will work.
  My legislation will contain a cap-and-trade system for shrinking the 
size of the tobacco market over the next 20 years. Smoking reductions 
are guaranteed, and companies are given time and flexibility to make 
the reductions or divest. In addition, small tobacco companies would 
have a valuable asset in their allocations, leveling the playing field 
a bit between the smaller and larger industry members. Finally, and I 
think very importantly, public health groups could buy and retire 
allowances to achieve the reductions in tobacco use even faster than 
specified in my bill. I would like to issue a challenge today to those 
groups, use your clout to help me make this work. Stand with me to 
fight tobacco and protect the health of all Americans.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the FDA approves cures, not 
poisons. Forcing the FDA to regulate tobacco but not letting them ban 
it, as my colleague Senator Kennedy proposes, would undermine the long 
history of the agency protecting and promoting the public health.
  In closing, every day, we hear about some new problem the FDA faces 
in protecting our health. From contaminated seafood to tainted 
toothpaste, this agency is in dire need of congressional support to 
carry out its mission. We should be focusing our efforts on increasing 
the number of inspectors, and on renewing the expiring drug and device 
user fee laws.
  I ask my colleagues to think hard about what they are proposing when 
they suggest FDA regulation is the way to defeat tobacco. My record is 
clear when it comes to tobacco. I am no friend of big tobacco and I 
have never taken a dime of tobacco company money for my campaigns. I 
don't intend to start now. But I absolutely reject the notion that the 
way to show you're ``for kids'' and ``against Big Tobacco'' is by 
sending the Nation's premier public health watchdog out to fight for 
safety with one hand tied behind its back. We must not mandate the FDA 
seal of approval on a deadly product that has no health benefit 
whatsoever. We can do better. Will you join me?

  Health Science Research for Harm Reduction--New Positions at Philip 
                               Morris USA

       The Health Sciences Research Division of PM USA is seeking 
     Leading Scientists in several biomedical-related research 
     areas.
       The primary goal of the Health Sciences Research Division 
     (HSR) is to conduct health science research to facilitate the 
     development of new methods and technologies with the 
     potential to reduce harm associated with our products.
       In June 2007, PM USA research scientists will begin 
     occupying the new 450,000 sq. ft., state-of-the-art Center 
     for Research and Technology (CRT) facility. HSR scientists 
     will work in collaboration with other PM USA scientists at 
     the CRT to investigate and discover technologies for the 
     reduction of harm associated with our products.
       Cigarette Smoke-Related Disease Scientists: Will 
     participate in the development of models and biomarkers of 
     cigarette smoke-related diseases including: Cancer Scientists 
     investigating cancer with emphasis on lung cancer. COPD 
     Scientists investigating chronic obstructive pulmonary 
     disease. CVD Scientists investigating cardiovascular disease.
       Experimental Pathologists: Will participate in the 
     development and use of microscopic and imaging techniques to 
     investigate the cause of cigarette smoke-related diseases.
       Oxidative Stress Scientists: Will participate in studies 
     investigating the role of oxidative damage and cell death 
     processes in cigarette smoke-related diseases.
       Inflammation/Immune System Scientists: Will participate in 
     studies investigating the role of inflammatory/immunological 
     processes in cigarette smoke-related diseases.
       Inhalation Toxicologist for Aerosol Dosimetry: Will 
     participate in studies investigating in vitro and in vivo 
     exposure to cigarette smoke to quantify airway smoke 
     deposition and develop relevant exposure models.
       Toxicologist for PK-PD Studies: Will study the PK-PD of 
     exposure to cigarette smoke during smoke inhalation for the 
     purpose of developing clinically predictive cell and tissue 
     dose models.
       Epidemiologists (Molecular/Genetic and Chronic Disease): 
     Will participate in the design, conduct and analysis of 
     large-scale, high-throughput, molecular and chronic disease 
     epidemiologic studies on the cause of cigarette smoke-related 
     diseases (CVD, COPD, Cancer).
       Biostatisticians: Will participate in the design and 
     analysis of large-scale epidemiologic, in vitro and in vivo 
     studies on the cause of cigarette smoke-related diseases 
     (CVD, COPD, Cancer).
       Geneticists (Statistical and Population): Will participate 
     in the design and analysis of large-scale, high-throughput, 
     molecular epidemiologic and in vivo studies on cigarette 
     smoke-related diseases (CVD, COPD, Cancer).
       Complex Systems Analysts (Systems Biology): Will 
     participate in the integration and modeling of high-
     throughput, cross-platform, trans-species data on cigarette 
     smoke-related diseases (CVD, COPD, Cancer).
                                 ______