[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 55 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H4310-H4318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1256, FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND 
                          TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 307 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 307

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1256) to protect the public health by providing the Food and 
     Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate 
     tobacco products. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in part A of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Buyer of 
     Indiana, or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 1256, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 1804, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1256;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 1256 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 1804;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 1804 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 1256, H.R. 1804 shall be laid on the 
     table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 307 provides a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act. The rule makes in order a substitute amendment, if 
offered, by Representative Buyer of Indiana or his designee.
  I rise in support of House Resolution 307, the Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I thank Chairman Waxman and my 
colleagues who serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee for their 
leadership in this bipartisan effort.
  This legislation, which passed this House by a margin of more than 3-
1 last July, would at long last give the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration, the FDA, the authority to regulate tobacco products and 
to take additional critical steps to protect the public health. The 
bill prevents the tobacco industry from designing products that entice 
young people. It develops programs that help adult smokers quit, and it 
funds the efforts through fees to tobacco manufacturers.
  America's youth face intense pressure every day from friends, fancy 
advertisements and irresponsible adults to make bad decisions that will 
affect their long-term health. A 2006 study conducted by the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that 90 percent 
of all adult smokers began while they were in their teens or earlier 
and that two-thirds became regular daily smokers before

[[Page H4311]]

they reached the age of 19. A shocking number of American children are 
at least casual smokers before they can even drive a car.
  As a cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act, I am strongly committed to seeing this figure drastically reduced. 
Congress must work to help make our children's lives safer and their 
choices easier.
  This bill bans flavored cigarettes with names like Mocha Taboo, 
Midnight Berry and Warm Winter Toffee that clearly attract children as 
consumers. The history of low-tar cigarettes illustrates the grave 
danger to public health that's caused by fooling consumers into 
believing unsubstantiated claims that one kind of cigarette is safer 
than another. Millions of Americans switched to low-tar cigarettes, 
believing they were reducing their risk of lung cancer substantially. 
Many were convinced to switch instead of to quit. It wasn't until 
decades later that we learned through many deaths that those low-tar 
cigarettes were just as dangerous as full-tar cigarettes.
  Under this legislation, which simply empowers the FDA to regulate 
tobacco products, we will not have to wait until the deaths of millions 
of more Americans to learn whether a so-called ``safer'' cigarette is 
what it claims to be.

                              {time}  1830

  The bottom line is we have an interest in making sure our 
constituents know the facts, all of them, before making potentially 
deadly choices.
  Americans must also be aware of the dramatic health risks associated 
with smokeless tobacco. Many believe that chewing tobacco and snuff are 
safe alternatives to smoking cigarettes. That's wrong. This bill would 
require warning labels that indicate that smokeless tobacco causes 
mouth and gum cancer, serious oral diseases, and tooth loss. A study by 
Brown University reveals that just a few weeks of chewing tobacco can 
develop leukoplakia of the cheek and gums, which is the formation of 
leather patches of diseased tissue on the mouth.
  The American Dental Association strongly supports this legislation, 
and calls tobacco use the number one cause of preventable disease in 
the United States. It should be a no-brainer to responsibly regulate 
such a dangerous product. And the FDA, the only agency charged with 
food and drug safety, is a logical Federal agency to place with this 
great and important responsibility.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding time.
  This is a terrible bill. And we should vote down this rule. The bill 
is a de facto prohibition of tobacco. It's going to legislate a Big 
Tobacco monopoly. This bill is going to increase taxes, expand 
government bureaucracy at the expense of public health. This bill will 
decimate the family farm. This bill fails to focus on protecting our 
kids and instead, targets adult tobacco users and retailers.
  This bill will increase black market activity, potentially funding 
criminal enterprises and terrorists' activity. This bill precludes the 
development of reduced-risk products. The advertising and communication 
provisions of this bill are duplicative and unconstitutional. This bill 
eliminates Federal preemption of marketing and advertising, allowing 
each State to set its own standards.
  This bill is bad for the U.S. economy. It is another power grab on 
the part of the majority here. This is not something that we need, and 
it is not something that we should do.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to 
vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  On that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a personal issue for me. I have experienced the 
tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users and their loved ones.
  Both of my parents were chain-smokers in their early years. My mother 
and her friends started smoking in their teen years because they 
thought it was cool. My father, a physician, quit smoking when I was 
young, but our house reeked of secondhand smoke, and my mother 
continued to smoke until she could no longer hold a cigarette. Both 
parents died of lung cancer.
  It was a nightmare, one I would spare other families. Now as a 
grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke.
  Mr. Speaker, approximately 4,000 kids try a cigarette for the first 
time each day. By the end of this week, thousands of Americans will 
have died from tobacco-related diseases and thousands more will become 
new, more regular users like my parents were.
  We can take a big step towards breaking this deadly cycle by giving 
the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. This bill, which 
passed this House last July by a huge margin, is the product of a long 
crusade by my California colleague, Henry Waxman, and is a big down 
payment on health care reform.
  Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually 
treating tobacco-related diseases; $9 billion could be far better spent 
on a failing health care infrastructure and increased access to health 
care.
  This bill will save lives and scarce resources. Vote ``aye'' on the 
rule and ``aye'' on the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 6 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my friend from California, 
Congressman Waxman, for his persistence over the past decade and all 
Members who have supported his legislation in the past. However, Mr. 
Waxman's legislation was drafted over 12 years ago and has not taken 
into account the positive outcomes from the Master Settlement Agreement 
and the changing conditions of the tobacco market in our country. 
Additionally, the legislation has unconstitutional provisions, and 
according to CBO, will only reduce smoking rates by 2 percent over 10 
years.
  Over the past 2 years I have participated in three markups of 
Congressman Waxman's bill, and I, along with my colleagues, have 
offered numerous amendments to improve and update Mr. Waxman's bill. 
Unfortunately, no significant changes have been incorporated, and our 
concerns have not been addressed in totality.
  That is why I introduced a new bipartisan bill this year which I 
offer today as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1256. 
This substitute mirrors the legislation that I introduced with 
Congressman Mike McIntyre of North Carolina which has strong bipartisan 
support, including the support of Chairman Collin Peterson of the House 
Ag Committee along with Chairman John Spratt of the Budget Committee 
and other ranking members.
  This strong bipartisan substitute amendment seeks to regulate tobacco 
by creating a new science-based, pragmatic harm-reduction strategy to 
improve public health. The amendment combines education, prevention, 
and cessation goals while using public policy to migrate over 45 
million smokers to nonsmoking tobacco products and nicotine therapies 
which are scientifically proven to be significantly less harmful to 
human health and greatly assist in our efforts to decrease tobacco-
related deaths and disease rates in our country.
  I strongly believe that no tobacco products are safe. However, 
Americans today are left in the dark about the relative risks of all 
tobacco products, and it is false to assume that all tobacco products 
have equal health risks. Adult smokers deserve to understand the 
relative health risks of all tobacco products so that they can make 
informed health decisions.
  According to the Royal College of Physicians, ``The application of 
harm reduction principles, to nicotine and tobacco use, could deliver 
substantial reductions in the morbidity and mortality currently caused 
by tobacco consumption.'' Making such information available to adult 
tobacco users is one of the purposes behind this substitute amendment.
  Tobacco harm reduction adds to current tobacco-control policies in 
order to drastically improve our Nation's health outcomes. It is 
important to note that harm reduction strategies do

[[Page H4312]]

not replace tobacco cessation programs but work along with them. That 
is why when I first put this bill together, I was very, very hopeful 
that Mr. Waxman and I could combine our efforts, but unfortunately, 
that did not prevail.
  If we can move our smoking population away from smoking products, the 
most dangerous tobacco products on our market, and move them to less 
risky tobacco and nicotine products as we move in this effort to wean 
them off nicotine and tobacco, we have a chance to decrease the adverse 
effects of tobacco by up to 90 percent over 20 years, according to the 
American Council on Science and Health. For smokers who are unwilling 
or unable to quit smoking, we must provide them with the information 
they can use to decrease their health risks.
  Additionally, this substitute protects the core missions of FDA by 
creating a new harm-reduction agency within Health and Human Services 
to ensure we have a safe, secure food supply, pharmaceuticals, 
biologicals and medical device supply. Given the numerous news reports 
over the years of counterfeit and adulterated drugs and our tainted 
food supply, the last thing we should be doing is forcing the FDA to 
regulate an inherently dangerous product in carrying out a mission that 
is counter to its culture.
  This substitute also goes further than the Waxman bill in protecting 
children because we require States to spend a larger percentage of 
their master settlement agreement for tobacco education, prevention and 
cessation efforts. In the last 10 years, States have spent just 3.2 
percent of their total tobacco-generated revenue on prevention and 
cessation programs, and in the current fiscal year, no State is funding 
tobacco prevention programs at the level recommended by CDC.
  Additionally, we require States to make it illegal for minors to 
purchase and possess tobacco products, aligning our Nation's tobacco 
policies with our Nation's alcohol policies. Not only will it be 
illegal for retailers to sell tobacco to minors, but now minors will be 
strongly discouraged from purchasing or possessing tobacco.
  We also ensure that the Feds stay off our Nation's farms. We ensure 
that our farmers are not hit with additional Federal regulations that 
affect their traditional farming practices, and we make sure that these 
regulations stay within the purview of the agriculture department.
  Mr. Waxman's legislation will directly and indirectly affect farming 
practices, and I was quite surprised that the Parliamentarian ruled 
that the Agriculture Committee did not have jurisdiction on this bill. 
My amendment expressly prohibits the tobacco legislation from finding 
its way into today's farming practices.
  Finally, this substitute calls for a blue ribbon study of tobacco 
advertising in our Nation. I am very concerned about the first 
amendment potential violations in the Waxman bill. It was discussed 
during the last two markups we have had before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. You see, in 1996, 46 States, plus the District of Columbia, 
reached an agreement with the tobacco companies known as the Master 
Settlement Agreement. This agreement has proved extremely effective in 
regulating tobacco advertisements in our Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.
  Mr. BUYER. It is important to note that the advertising restrictions 
reached in this agreement were voluntary. When we legislate such 
advertising restrictions, we violate the first amendment. So I'm very 
concerned, even if we take the rule that was done, the rule-making 
effort to place restrictions on advertising back in 1996 as then 
incorporated in this bill, in fact the Supreme Court has already ruled 
that unconstitutional. So to put that back in this legislation just 
throws this right back to the Supreme Court. To me as a lawyer, that's 
unconscionable. We shouldn't be doing that here on the House floor.
  So when we legislate these advertising restrictions, we should never, 
never violate the first amendment. This is one of these really awkward 
positions where I find myself as a conservative Republican aligned with 
the ACLU. I also believe we must study ways in which we can better 
address tobacco advertising without violating the Constitution.
  To conclude, we offer this substitute as a bipartisan effort, as an 
innovative and pragmatic health approach in addressing the harms of 
tobacco in this country. This substitute protects our children, jobs, 
farmers, retailers, and wholesalers while protecting our Constitution 
and protecting the health of our Nation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the Buyer version is opposed by many credible 
health organizations, including the American Lung Association, the 
American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, among 
many others who support the Waxman administration because it would 
protect children from tobacco marketing.
  The Buyer bill falls short of banning brands that are potentially 
targeted to children like Mocha Taboo and Midnight Berry. It does not 
protect consumers from misleading health claims about so-called 
reduced-risk tobacco products, and it embraces smokeless tobacco as a 
means to reduce the harm caused by cigarettes. While certainly there 
should be sound, scientific investigation, and there is a process under 
the Waxman bill for doing that, we must not rush to prejudgment of what 
works and what doesn't.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule and in strong support of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act.
  Today, this body has the opportunity to take a long, overdue and 
significant step toward not only the regulation of tobacco--a product 
that is currently totally unregulated--but also on efforts to reduce 
the number of new smokers, especially children and adolescents who have 
been targeted by the tobacco industry for far too long.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Waxman for his 
unwavering commitment and leadership on this issue.
  Because 7 in 10 African Americans who smoke choose to smoke menthol 
cigarettes, I am pleased that this bill provides provisions that 
accelerate the formation of the new FDA Tobacco Product Scientific 
Advisory Committee and directs it to issue recommendations on the use 
of menthol in cigarettes within 1 year of its establishment. It 
empowers States and communities to prevent the aggressive marketing 
that has the greatest negative impact in the hardest-hit communities 
and on our most vulnerable. It bans the additives used to manufacture 
flavored cigarettes that are marketed to children and creates a faster 
track for the development of smoking cessation and nicotine-replacement 
therapies.
  As a physician who has seen firsthand the devastating impact that 
cigarette and tobacco products have on individuals and their families, 
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, to vote ``yes'' 
on the rule and then ``yes'' to pass this legislation so that we as a 
Nation can finally regulate the leading cause of preventable cause of 
death in this country.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. To respond to the gentlelady's concern and her efforts 
promoting nicotine replacement therapies, there are over 45 million 
adult smokers in the United States. Each year approximately 2 million 
smokers use these nicotine replacement therapies in an attempt at 
quitting. The public success rate of nicotine replacement therapies is 
only 7 percent, meaning that only 7 percent of smokers who try to quit 
using nicotine replacement therapies are successful. To me, a 7 percent 
success rate is failure. It's failure. So we need to try something 
different, and that's why we have this substitute.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the Waxman bill does allow something 
different to be tried. It sets up a scientific process for review to 
make sure that all technologies that might help wean smokers away are 
allowed into the marketplace in a manner that makes sure that they 
don't publish misleading claims regarding their health.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis).

[[Page H4313]]

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Family Smoking Prevention Act; and, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the 
time to thank Mr. Waxman for all of his great work in making it 
possible for us to have a vote on this bill.
  We all know that tobacco is a killer. We all know that it causes 
cancer and respiratory problems. We all know that smoking is addictive 
and that most people who are hooked began smoking as children. We 
cannot and we must not wait a moment longer to protect our children 
from this killer. We must break the cycle. This bill is the right 
approach.
  Children should not see cigarette advertisements from their school 
playground and at sporting events. Children should not be able to buy 
cigarettes in a vending machine. And children should not be the target 
of advertisements designed to get them hooked on smoking.
  We should know what it is in the cigarettes that people smoke. People 
try to fool us and say that certain things are not in the cigarette. 
With the passage of this bill, for the first time, the FDA will know 
the ingredients in a cigarette, and they will be able to reduce or 
eliminate harmful ingredients.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot and must not allow another child to get hooked 
on cigarettes or on tobacco. We must pass this rule, and I support the 
rule and I strongly support the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the dean of the North Carolina delegation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Family Smoking Prevention 
and Tobacco Control Act.
  During my tenure in the Congress, I have consistently opposed 
granting the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate 
tobacco. I do so based upon my philosophical beliefs and the 
ramifications that this legislation would impose upon my congressional 
district and my State.
  It is my belief that allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco in any 
capacity would inevitably lead to FDA regulating the family farm. This 
creates uncertainty and adds another burden to the already overwhelmed 
FDA.
  I, furthermore, have concerns with the negative impact H.R. 1256 
would have upon tobacco manufacturers, their employees, retailers, and 
wholesalers.
  It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the very day a 62 cent tobacco tax 
goes into effect to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program that 
we would debate legislation to create further hardship for the tobacco 
industry.
  H.R. 1256 is misguided, in my opinion. It does not achieve the goals 
identified by proponents. Instead, it will further exacerbate an 
already stretched FDA, negatively impact manufacturers and farmers, and 
create a strain on Federal revenues to the Treasury.
  I do not come to the House floor tonight without solutions, Mr. 
Speaker. The bipartisan Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act 
provides a different alternative, offering harm reduction strategies 
through the Department of Health and Human Services. I encourage its 
consideration and oppose H.R. 1256.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, tobacco is a product that is lawfully grown, 
lawfully marketed, lawfully manufactured, and lawfully consumed. We do 
not need the FDA inserting its oars into these waters.
  I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  Mr. POLIS. I would remind the gentleman that the FDA is the primary 
agency charged with food and drug safety and, as such, to ensure the 
safety of our Nation's food supply and safety of our Nation's drug 
supply is the logical place at which to reside the regulation of 
tobacco products.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in 
support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the bill. I'm an 
original cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act, and I am absolutely delighted to support its passage today.
  There are at least 438,000 reasons to vote for this bill, and each 
one represents a life lost to tobacco use each year. It's staggering to 
realize that smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, 
illegal drugs, murder, and suicides combined.
  My own State of New York mourns the loss of over 25,000 adults each 
year due to smoking, not to mention 2,000 New Yorkers who die each year 
from exposure to secondhand smoke. As if this isn't tragic enough, 
there are thousands of children at risk for the same fate, with over 
3,600 youth taking up smoking every single day.
  And our States, desperately trying to control soaring budget deficits 
and stretch scarce dollars during this economic downturn, simply cannot 
afford the billions of dollars in health care costs, $8 billion lost 
annually to New York alone, caused by tobacco use.
  Today is a new day, Mr. Speaker. It's time that we close the gaps in 
our laws which have allowed tobacco use to be unregulated with 
devastating consequences. Granting the FDA the authority to effectively 
regulate the manufacturing, marketing, labeling, distribution, and sale 
of tobacco products will ultimately have a profound effect on reversing 
the public health crisis we face today.
  So, in conclusion, today we vote for our Nation's children and 
families. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support of 
the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the so-called Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act really doesn't help anyone. It's just feel-good legislation 
that makes Big Government bigger and costlier.
  It certainly doesn't help stop smokers from smoking. Our own 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that smoking by adults would 
decline by only .2 percent a year, or by just 2 percent over the next 
10 years.
  This bill certainly won't help farmers, many thousands of whom will 
struggle to comply with the bill's regulations and who will be forced 
to entertain the Federal tobacco police coming on their properties to 
inspect their crops.
  It certainly won't help anyone who eats, drinks, or uses medication. 
An already dysfunctional and overburdened FDA will become even more 
distracted by this new Big Government program.
  And the bill certainly won't help Federal law enforcement officials. 
They should spend their resources policing real crime rather than 
arresting people for violating the tobacco laws. Regulations that drive 
up the cost of cigarettes and reduce their appeal will only benefit the 
smuggling industry.
  One advocate of the Big Government approach in this bill told a 
Senate committee that, We want to create Marlboros so they are like 
lard, but we want to regulate the contents, we want to regulate the 
toxicity, we want to regulate everything so it sits on the shelf and no 
one uses it, even though it's legal. That, Mr. Speaker, is a 
prescription for more prohibition that will lead to smuggling, lost 
revenue, and lawlessness.
  On top of everything else, H.R. 1256 places additional Federal 
restrictions on tobacco advertising. In other words, it's more speech 
control by the Feds. Some of the Federal regulations on advertising in 
H.R. 1256 include the following specifications for the size of warning 
labels on tobacco products, and let me quote.
  ``The text of such label statements shall be in a typeface pro rata 
to the following requirements:

       45-point type for a whole-page broadsheet newspaper 
     advertisement;
       39-point type for a half-page broadsheet newspaper 
     advertisement;
       39-point type for a whole-page tabloid newspaper 
     advertisement;
       27-point type for a half-page tabloid newspaper 
     advertisement;
       31.5-point type for a double-page spread magazine or whole-
     page magazine advertisement;
       22.5-point type for a 28 centimeter by 3 column 
     advertisement; and
       15-point type for a 20 centimeter by 2 column 
     advertisement.''

  Doesn't the government have better things to do than regulate the 
type of font used in tobacco advertising? Mr. Speaker, we have gone a 
little too far.
  The CBO estimates that the new fees on tobacco companies would be 
about

[[Page H4314]]

$235 million in fiscal year 2009. The country's in a recession, people 
are out of jobs. Is this really the best time to tax companies for a 
program that really, on its face, will not work even though it sounds 
good?
  This is not reform. It's mindless Big Government that will only 
create more problems than the one it claims to address. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against more government bureaucracy, vote against 
this bill that won't stop smoking, vote against the rule and final 
passage.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas mentioned 2 percent 
decrease in smoking over 10 years. I will say that every cigarette not 
smoked, every person who never starts is a life saved.
  One of my late constituents, Ms. Susan DeWitt of Lafayette, passed 
away of lung cancer this last year. Posthumously published on her Web 
site is a very powerful statement which I will submit in its entirety 
to the Record but would like to quote from as follows, in part.
  ``Just prior to being told I suffered from stage IV lung cancer, Dr. 
Karen Kelly, an oncologist at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, 
lifted her arms and emphatically exclaimed, `We have to raise the 
awareness of lung cancer.'
  ``With those words resonating in my head, I thought back to those 
high school moments and the few drags I took from my cigarettes. I 
thought of the precious few years that followed. Years that would 
include a marriage, a son, my youth and cigarettes. I remembered the 
day I said, `No more.' That was the day I was given another diagnosis 
by my doctor, I would again be a mother. That day was 14 years ago . . 
.
  ``The day I quit, I was 27 years old. Lung cancer was something I 
understood the elderly suffered from. It was nothing a young mother of 
two need bother herself with. I was 28 when my daughter was born. I was 
young, in love, and beginning to walk my path of life . . . At 37, I 
was given the gift of another daughter.
  ``Then, standing there listening to this oncologist tell me I have 
stage IV lung cancer. I was only 39.''
  Ms. DeWitt dedicated the remainder of her life to educating people 
about the danger of cigarettes. I had the opportunity to speak to her 
husband just yesterday who shared with me the message that she shared 
with so many Americans. There is no free ride. There is no break. Don't 
start smoking.
  This bill will help prevent children from ever starting to smoke and 
help prevent many, many cases of lung cancer and many, many deaths that 
disrupt families and cause a great risk to our public health as well.

                  [From the Dailycamera, Oct. 4, 2007]

              Lung Cancer Educator Dies After Long Battle

                           (By Cindy Sutter)

       Susan DeWitt, a Superior mom who made a widely distributed 
     DVD about her family's struggle with her lung cancer, died 
     Wednesday. She was 43.
       ``She died at home with her family members holding on to 
     her,'' said DeWitt's husband, Randy.
       DeWitt, a Boulder County court reporter for eight years and 
     founder of the Susan L. DeWitt Foundation for Extended 
     Breath, was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer in 2004 at 
     the age of 39. Although DeWitt was a light smoker in her 
     teens and 20s, she quit in 1992. After her diagnosis, she 
     made it her mission to warn young people that even casual 
     smoking can cause cancer. The DVD--``Lung Cancer, Through My 
     Children's Eyes''--begins with this line from her son, Cody, 
     then 19: ``There are some things in life that people 
     shouldn't have to go through.''
       Then this from his sister, Gabrielle, then 13: ``I was 
     afraid to go to sleep at night.''
       The film, now on You Tube as well as available on DVD 
     through the foundation, has been distributed to school 
     districts in Colorado and around the country. The family has 
     subsequently made music videos about the subject.
       Those who knew DeWitt say she touched people, not only with 
     her DVD, but with the grace and courage with which she faced 
     her illness and treatment--which included multiple rounds of 
     chemotherapy and brain surgeries.
       Dan Hale, who retired as a Boulder County District judge 
     last fall, called DeWitt's spirit even as she became gravely 
     ill ``truly incredible.''
       ``Why this happened is one of those great mysteries of 
     life, but despite that, she wanted to see how she could 
     benefit others,'' Hale said.
       Rob Harter--lead pastor at Larkridge Church in Erie, where 
     the DeWitts attend--remembers being at the hospital with the 
     DeWitts when Susan was being prepped for a second brain 
     surgery. She was giving Randy last-minute instructions on 
     gifts she had bought for them to open during her surgery.
       ``Right before they were to wheel her away for three- to 
     four-hour surgery, what she was thinking about was, `Make 
     sure you get the gifts for the kids in the car,' '' Harter 
     said. ``Her idea was to not have them focused on her pain. 
     It's a powerful example of how she was very other-centered in 
     her approach to life.''
       Randy DeWitt said she touched many people.
       ``Her group of friends is very vast,'' he said. ``She had a 
     way of speaking to and treating people with respect. . . . If 
     you had a troubled look on your face, Susie would attend to 
     you.''
       The DeWitts' story and clips of the DVD were featured on 
     ``Good Morning America'' and ABC's ``World News Tonight'' in 
     2006. The DeWitts estimate that at that time about 15 million 
     people had heard of her documentary through those national 
     news sources, articles in local newspapers, features on local 
     TV news, speaking engagements and distribution of the DVD.
       Susan, who was born in Wheat Ridge and graduated from 
     Arvada High School, got the idea for the film after seeing a 
     group of teenagers smoking outside the Westminster Promenade 
     shortly after her diagnosis.
       With their suburban bedrooms as the simple backdrop, the 
     documentary shows Cody and Gabrielle talking about how their 
     mother's cancer has upended life as they once knew it.
       ``Now comes the hard part,'' Cody says in the film. ``What 
     if my mom dies?'' The DVD shows footage of him graduating 
     from high school with the sound of his family yelling, ``Woo-
     hoo!''
       ``I want her to be there when I graduate from college,'' he 
     says.
       The foundation will continue its work, distributing the DVD 
     and music videos. The family plans to expand its focus to 
     help people deal with a diagnosis of terminal cancer.
       Randy DeWitt said the children are doing well. He and Susan 
     were frank about her illness from the beginning, even with 
     their youngest child, Gianina, now 6.
       Cody is attending the University of Northern Colorado part-
     time. He's in his fourth year. Gabrielle is a sophomore at 
     Monarch High School. Gianina is a first-grader at Superior 
     Elementary.
       ``The kids are pretty resilient,'' Randy said. ``My 6-year-
     old is giving us a lesson on how to deal. She's talked to me 
     about this. She gets it. She knows what death is. She knows 
     that Mommy's not coming back, and she's OK.''
                                  ____


          Raising the Awareness and Prevention of Lung Cancer

       Just prior to being told I suffered from stage IV Lung 
     Cancer , Dr. Karen Kelly, an Oncologist at the University of 
     Colorado Cancer Center, lifted her arms and emphatically 
     exclaimed, ``We have to raise the awareness of Lung Cancer''.
       With those words resonating in my head, I thought back to 
     those high school moments and the few drags I took from my 
     cigarettes. I thought of the precious few years that 
     followed. Years that would include a marriage, a son, my 
     youth and cigarettes. I remembered the day I said, ``No 
     more''. That was the day I was given another diagnosis by my 
     doctor, I would again be a mother. That day was fourteen 
     years ago. That day came after a few precious years clouded 
     by smoke.
       The day I quit, I was 27 years old. Lung cancer was 
     something I understood the elderly suffered from. It was 
     nothing a young mother of two children need bother herself 
     with. I was 28 when my daughter was born. I was young, in 
     love and beginning to walk my path of life. At 37, I was 
     living a life some would call a fairy tale. At 37 I was given 
     the gift of another daughter.
       Then, standing there listening to this oncologist tell me I 
     have stage IV lung cancer. I was only 39.
       I knew at that very moment what God had designed for me. My 
     purpose was to open a Foundation that would focus on raising 
     the Awareness and Prevention of Lung Cancer and save other 
     families of its horrific effects.
       The metastasis to my brain would raise its' ugly head at 
     41. Lung cancer had moved into my brain in September of 2004, 
     which just fueled my passion. The picture attached was taken 
     with my youngest daughter after my first of three brain 
     surgeries. The ``head band'' is actually the incision made by 
     the brain surgeon and sutured shut by 32 staples.
       What you need to know is this; nearly a half a million 
     Americans will die from illnesses due to cigarette smoke this 
     year.
       A third of those will be lung cancer. As a woman, I need to 
     tell you that women with a smoking history are ten times 
     (10X) more likely to die from lung cancer than they are from 
     breast cancer.
       With that, know that the Susan DeWitt Foundation for 
     Extended Breath (SLD Foundation) has a mission to raise the 
     awareness and prevention of lung cancer and related 
     illnesses. Illnesses that endanger tobacco users and non-
     users. Our focus is to: isolate our children from ETS 
     (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), educate our youth as to the 
     consequences of smoking and to assist ``at risk'' people by 
     resolving addiction, creating a method of early diagnosis and 
     increasing survival rate.

  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. FOXX. I would like to enter testimony from Commissioner Steve

[[Page H4315]]

Troxler into the Record, and I would like to recognize Mr. Buyer from 
Indiana again for 5 minutes.

  Testimony of North Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, 
 Subcommittee on Rural Development, Biotechnology, Specialty Crops and 
                  Foreign Agriculture--March 26, 2009

       Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 
     Thank you for inviting me here today to talk about a topic I 
     know very well.
       I grew tobacco in Guilford County, North Carolina, for more 
     than 30 years. I dealt with dry weather, wet weather, the 
     steady decline of quotas, and the end of the federal price-
     support system.
       As North Carolina's Commissioner of Agriculture, I have 
     seen tobacco production bottom out following the end of 
     federal price supports. And I have seen it rebound.
       North Carolina produced nearly 385 million pounds of flue-
     cured tobacco on 171,000 acres last year. We are still the 
     nation's leading producer of flue-cured tobacco, despite the 
     fact that we now have less than 3,000 tobacco farmers. That 
     might seem like a lot, but in 2002, we had 8,000 tobacco 
     farmers.
       When it comes to tobacco, I have seen a lot. But I have 
     never seen the situation facing North Carolina's tobacco 
     farmers today.
       Tobacco farmers are under siege. First, Congress raised the 
     excise tax on cigarettes by 62 cents a pack. Now many states 
     are lining up to do the same. In North Carolina, Governor 
     Perdue has recommended raising the tax on cigarettes by $1 
     per pack.
       The consequences for our farmers will be severe. The 
     increase in the federal excise tax hasn't even taken effect 
     yet, but it has already impacted North Carolina farmers. 
     Cigarette companies have reduced 2009 contracts with our 
     farmers by as much as 50 percent.
       If the state excise tax goes up, too, our growers will be 
     hurt even more. And, this increase could also lead to job 
     losses in the manufacturing sector.
       Tobacco manufacturing employs more than 10,000 North 
     Carolinians and pays average wages of more than $86,000 a 
     year. That's more than twice the state's private industry 
     average of $39,000. The last thing North Carolina--or any 
     state--needs right now is more lost jobs.
       In addition to higher taxes, Congress is considering 
     regulating tobacco. Congressman Waxman's bill would put 
     tobacco under FDA oversight. This is ill-advised. FDA's focus 
     right now should be, and needs to be, on food safety. 
     Expanding FDA's mission would dilute its effectiveness in 
     protecting our nation's food supply.
       Chairman McIntyre and Indiana Congressman Buyer have 
     introduced a bill that would create a new agency within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services to oversee tobacco 
     products. One of the things I like about this bill is that it 
     would not subject farmers to additional regulations on the 
     way they grow tobacco. That's good.
       North Carolina growers increasingly rely on export markets. 
     In fact, tobacco is our most valuable agricultural export, 
     valued at more than $1 billion. Additional regulation would 
     put our growers at a competitive disadvantage in 
     international markets.
       Agriculture is by far North Carolina's largest industry, 
     with a $70.8 billion economic impact. Tobacco manufacturing 
     represents almost $24 billion in added value for North 
     Carolina's economy.
       On average, a single tobacco plant is worth 71 cents in 
     revenue for a U.S. farmer. That same plant will yield an 
     average of $15.74 in state and federal taxes on tobacco 
     products. This money supports a variety of economic and 
     health programs. A decrease in tobacco revenues will 
     ultimately hurt states' ability to carry out programs that 
     benefit many citizens.
       In closing, I want to say that farmers must endure many 
     hardships. They have to deal with the weather and manage 
     their input costs amid fluctuating commodity prices. As I've 
     said many times though, the single greatest factor in a 
     farmer's ability to make a living isn't the weather, but 
     government policy.
       I urge you to make wise policy decisions concerning the 
     future of our nation's tobacco farmers. Your decisions will 
     ripple throughout the states, in communities both large and 
     small. If you regulate and tax U.S. tobacco farmers out of 
     business, America will become reliant on foreign tobacco that 
     is not subject to the same high standards. The situation will 
     be no different from the many problems with imported foods 
     that our nation has experienced in recent years.
       Please choose wisely. Thank you.

  Mr. BUYER. I wanted to touch on just a few things. I don't believe 
that the gentleman from Colorado meant to do this, so I wanted to make 
sure to correct any potential false misperception.
  The Buyer amendment does not allow for false and misleading 
advertising. So when you look at the existing State and Federal law 
adequately today, it protects against false and misleading advertising 
in a range of consumer products, which also includes tobacco.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. What I stated--I believe in the affirmative--is the Waxman 
bill prevents false and misleading advertising.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, the point is that there are existing 
State and Federal laws, including the Master Settlement Agreement, 
which protects against false and misleading advertising in a range of 
these tobacco products. With regard to the MSA--the Master Settlement 
Agreement--it's administered by the attorneys general of the 46 States, 
including the District of Columbia.
  So I don't want the gentleman's affirmative statement to somehow mean 
that we don't. That was my point of clarifying the Record.
  In addition, the consumer fraud statutes in each State are also 
applicable to tobacco products and, at the Federal level, the Federal 
Trade Commission has--and enforces--section 5 regarding false and 
misleading jurisdiction over tobacco products. The FDA currently has 
authority over tobacco advertising and makes therapeutic and health 
claims.
  I would ask the gentleman from Colorado a question because he was 
talking about the FDA. My question to the gentleman from Colorado would 
be: Has the FDA ever regulated an inherently dangerous product, is the 
gentleman aware?
  Mr. POLIS. The program is fully funded with user fees to set up 
within the FDA the ability to regulate tobacco products.
  Mr. BUYER. Today. My question is: Has the FDA today ever regulated an 
inherently dangerous product?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would point out that even though cigarettes kill 
400,000 people a year in this country, it is not regulated by any 
agency of the government. While it is an inherently dangerous product 
because it's the only product that, when used as intended, kills and 
makes people sick. It is not regulated.
  The FDA is the ideal place to have it regulated because they have the 
scientific expertise. They know how to regulate. They have been acting 
as a regulator. This is where our bill would place the responsibility.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, since two speakers chose not to answer 
my questions, I then therefore must assume that by silence they're not 
aware of the FDA ever in its past regulating an inherently dangerous 
product.
  Therein lies the challenge that we have. The FDA is the gold standard 
with regard to the protection of our food supply, our medical devices, 
our biologics, and our pharmaceuticals. So right now the FDA--we all 
know the FDA is overworked and under-resourced.
  So when we look at that agency, the last thing we should be doing is 
taking the FDA and overburdening them with a new mission that is 
counter to their culture. That's the issue here.
  You see, the difference between the Waxman and the Buyer and the 
McIntyre approach is this: Both of us seek to regulate tobacco. Mr. 
Waxman chooses the FDA to do it. We say that the world even recognizes 
that the FDA is stressed in doing its job.
  You see, 80 percent of our domestic drug supply is comprised of 
ingredients produced in foreign countries--increasingly produced in 
less developed nations. So the FDA has the capability to inspect only a 
small percentage of foreign drug manufacturing facilities.
  So when you think about it, we have 3,000, there could be approaching 
4,000, of these foreign manufacturing facilities, and we are only 
inspecting 200 to 300. If we do that at that rate, by the time we get 
through all of them, it will be 13 years.
  So when you think about all the stress that we're presently placing 
on the FDA, the last thing we should be doing is giving it another 
mission counter to its core mission.
  Also, when I think about trying to protect our drug supply, not only 
with regard to how they're manufactured, but let's talk about the 
products that are coming into the country.
  When you look at the 11 international ports of entry run by the 
United States, coupled with the two by FedEx and UPS, that's 13 
international ports of entry. On any given day, each of those ports of 
entry have between

[[Page H4316]]

30,000 and 35,000 drug packages that are coming in.
  Now let's just do the math--and let's be conservative. Of the 13 
international mail facilities, take 13 times 30,000 drug packages. 
That's 390,000.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another 2 minutes.
  Mr. BUYER. So we continue to do this math. Thirteen international 
mail facilities times 30,000 drug packages. That's 390,000 times 365 
days a year. That's 142,350,000 drug packages.
  Now why am I taking time to do this? It's because if 80 percent of 
these drug packages--every time the FDA does a spot check, they find 
that these drug packages are counterfeited, adulterated. They're 
knockoffs. A very small percentage are actually even sent to labs. So 
the FDA is not being able to do its job to protect our Nation's drug 
supply.
  With regard to food, Americans eat food imported from 150 countries 
and processed in 189,000 plants scattered all over the world. Here in 
the United States, FDA inspectors visit every food processor about once 
every 10 years. FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million 
fresh produce lines imported into the United States from fiscal years 
2002 to 2007.
  So what we have here is we recognize that Congress, over the last 20 
years, has continued to lump more and more jobs and missions on FDA. So 
when the gentleman from Colorado said it only makes sense that we give 
it to FDA, well, I disagree.
  That's why we want to create a separate agency called the Harm 
Reduction Agency Under under FDA to--with a laser beam--recruit some of 
those great scientists and build that science base to regulate tobacco 
products along a harm-reduction strategy.
  I don't support tobacco. I don't use tobacco products. But I don't 
want to leave 45 million smokers out there to an abstinence approach, 
whereby it's either smoke or die or go to a harm-reduction therapy, 
which only has a 7 percent success rate. That's what we're kind of 
faced with. I don't want to do that.
  So I think if we combine our efforts here, at some point in time 
we're going to have to get together on this if we really want to 
promote public health for the country.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentleman, Mr. Buyer's proposal, rather than using an 
agency that exists, would create a new agency and then go on not to 
fund that new agency. It's fiscally irresponsible to create a new 
regulatory agency but fail to provide it with any new funding to do the 
job. The FDA is up to the task, given the funding which this bill 
provides with user fees.
  Mr. Speaker, tobacco is the deadliest product on the market today. It 
kills over 400,000 Americans each year. Despite this grim statistic, 
tobacco companies have enjoyed a great deal of influence over public 
policy, avoiding the appropriate oversight of their dangerous business.
  By giving the FDA the authority to exercise their proper oversight 
duties, we strip Big Tobacco of their special privileges and power. We 
owe consumers the same level of protection with regard to tobacco use 
as food and drink consumption, prescription and over-the-counter drugs, 
and even makeup and cosmetics. Why should tobacco, such an obviously 
harmful product, not be subject to the same scrutiny?
  The FDA is more than capable of handling this new responsibility. We 
entrust the most sensitive regulation oversight to the Food and Drug 
Administration. We must give this agency the opportunity to succeed, 
providing the necessary resources, which the Waxman bill does, to get 
the job done. It's the most appropriate agency to regulate these deadly 
products.
  Tobacco companies have long taken advantage of this vulnerability by 
promoting their products through cartoon advertisements, tobacco theme 
merchandise products, and flavored products that appeal to kids.
  By barring the sale of fruit, chocolate, and clove-flavored tobacco 
products, this bill would protect the health of children who are lured 
to smoking by these candy-like flavors, with little if any impact on 
adults' enjoyment of tobacco.
  Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. You have been talking about tobacco companies. I don't 
have tobacco companies supporting my bill. Are there any supporting the 
Waxman bill?
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, we can find that out from the 
gentleman.
  I would read a number of groups that are backing the Waxman bill, 
including the American Lung Association, the American Association of 
Respiratory Care, the American College of Preventative Medicine, the 
Association of Schools of Public Health, the Lung Cancer Alliance, the 
Oncology Nursing Society, and Oral Health America, among many others.
  Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. No. Let me finish my statement. Opponents ask kids to make 
grave health-related choices with incomplete information and hold these 
kids responsible for childhood mistakes as they would a fully aware 
adult.
  When 80 percent of kids smoke the most heavily advertised brands, we 
can't help but infer that the ads influence the children.
  Big Tobacco claims they don't market to kids. Yet, they continue to 
do a pretty good job of getting kids to use their product. This has got 
to change.
  This legislation will require that tobacco products marketed as safer 
than other tobacco products are in fact demonstrated to be safer with 
scientific proof. By providing the Health and Human Services Secretary 
with authority to regulate tobacco product standards and product 
testing based on scientific evidence, this legislation will promote and 
protect the Nation's public health.
  Far too long we have not followed doctor's orders, so to speak, with 
regard to tobacco use. Science tells us a great deal about the causes 
of disease and the risk of certain behavior. This legislation puts 
those scientific findings at the forefront of policymaking by the 
Department of Health and Human Service.
  The bill also promotes public health by requiring the Health and 
Human Services Secretary to consider placing tobacco replacement 
products on a fast track FDA approval process. If we want Americans to 
stop smoking, we must provide them the help they need to kick the 
habit.
  By creating the special category of small tobacco manufacturers, the 
bill ensures that small businesses have the assistance they need for 
the FDA to comply with the new regulations.
  Supported by over 1,000 health and faith groups from across the 
country, this bill preserves States rights by not preempting State 
tobacco laws. It's extremely important to respect that many States, 
including my home State of Colorado, already recognizes the danger of 
smoking and the role regulation can play in keeping cigarettes out of 
the hands of kids.
  My home State of Colorado is recognized as a national leader in 
tobacco control, demonstrated by our leadership in enacting a 
comprehensive smoke-free law that includes casinos and increasing our 
State tobacco tax to fund health programs.
  Even with this legislation in place, health care costs in Colorado 
caused by smoking every year is over $1.3 billion. Nearly 15 percent of 
Colorado high school students still smoke. Nearly 6,000 kids in 
Colorado start smoking every day.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 3 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would like to thank the gentlelady.
  I rise with a little bit of disappointment this evening about the 
state of this bill because we were told when this bill passed last 
year--which I supported this bill--that there would be no money taken 
from the general fund to implement this new program. No money.
  I heard it often repeated, heard it repeated in committee this year. 
No money from the general fund would go to support this new program. 
And let me tell you why that's a good idea not to take any money from 
the general fund to do what we all would agree needs to happen.
  We need to have some form of oversight and regulation of tobacco 
products. Last year, the FDA inspected

[[Page H4317]]

roughly 6,000 of the 189,000 food facilities under its jurisdiction. 
That's about 3 percent. Americans eat food imported from 150 countries 
and processed in 189,000 plants scattered from China to Fiji. But in 
2007, the FDA inspected just 96 of those plants--96 out of 189,000 
plants.
  And what does this bill do? It takes money from those kinds of 
operations from the FDA's general fund to implement this new government 
program.
  The FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce 
lines imported to the United States from 2002 to 2007.

                              {time}  1915

  We had just the salmonella outbreak. Just the salmonella outbreak, 
550 illnesses and eight deaths in 43 States.
  So what you are saying is, you know what, it is okay to stop those 
programs, take money out of those programs. FDA, this is more important 
to start this new program.
  Well, imagine if you are a pediatric cancer patient and you are 
waiting today for the dozens of approvals that are going through the 
process today. But you know what? This is more important. This new 
government program is more important than pediatric cancer. It is more 
important than chronic pain. There are drugs that would treat chronic 
pain and cancer and other conditions, including new technology to 
prevent pain killer abuse that are going through the process now, and 
you stop it and you slow it down because you take money from the 
general fund. And it is time that you cannot get back.
  They say, well, it only happens for 6 months, Congressman Rogers. We 
only take that money for 6 months, $1, 1 minute away from the scientist 
who is going to develop the cause or the treatment for something like 
cancer or pediatric cancer or chronic pain care. We should not 
interrupt that process. Those dollars, that time is too precious.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really a dangerous precedent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. A vaccine can now protect women from a strain 
of HPV that causes most cervical cancers. Think of this, the FDA is now 
reviewing applications to approve HPV vaccinations for women in their 
mid 40s. And when you do this program the way you are doing it, you 
take money away from those programs. So maybe they don't get it in 3 
months or 6 months, maybe it is 1 year. Maybe you give them a delay in 
this operation that costs the lives of real Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of this bill. We ought to go back 
and say nothing ought to impede food safety and the safety of the 
medicines and the cures that are getting ready to come to the United 
States of America.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlelady if she has 
any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Yes, we do.
  Mr. POLIS. I am the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve my 
time until the gentlelady has closed for her side and yielded back her 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have had some really tough 
decisions lately. We have had to act boldly on many fronts to address 
the current financial crisis. People today are suffering, and they are 
unsure of their future. But I have faith in the American people.
  Throughout history we have shown courage in the face of adversity, 
and today I am asking Members of this Congress to show courage by 
supporting the Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act.
  It is the only bill before this body that directly addresses the 
issue of youth smoking in this country. It is the only piece of 
legislation that builds on the success that we have seen in youth 
smoking rates, which are down more than 50 percent in the last 10 
years.
  How did this happen? It happened because the American people, 
parents, teachers, and the retail community, came together and said 
that we are going to do something about kids smoking, and they have.
  More than 10 years ago, Congress passed legislation that included the 
Synar amendment. This amendment requires the States to enforce laws 
prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18 years 
of age. Synar seeks to develop a strategy to help States achieve a 
retailer violation rate of 20 percent or less.
  In 2006, for the first time, the Secretary of HHS found that no State 
was out of compliance, and the average rate of tobacco sales to minors 
was at its lowest in history. This is a great achievement, but we 
cannot be complacent. We must look to the future and build on the 
success of the last 10 years.
  Our esteemed colleagues, in particular Mr. McIntyre, the chairman of 
the Ag Committee, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking 
members, have given us an opportunity to do just that and vote on this 
substitute.
  The Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act is a tough 
measure that allows us to really address youth tobacco use in the 21st 
century. The substitute requires that the States spend a minimum of 20 
percent of their tobacco settlement money on prevention, cessation, 
education, and harm-reduction programs.
  Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act will not serve to advance the cause of improving public 
health, and instead will serve only to act as an unnecessary and 
expensive regulatory scheme at the expense of our rural farming 
communities, our small businesses, and the American economy.
  This bill includes more than $5 billion in new tax increases on 
tobacco companies and gives sweeping control of the tobacco market to 
the FDA. This bill imposes undue bureaucratic and logistic hardships on 
tobacco manufacturers by burying them under multiple layers of 
regulation.
  FDA regulation will have a devastating economic impact on rural 
tobacco companies, their employees, associated businesses, and the 
largely rural communities which they support. As Department of Health 
and Human Services Secretary Leavitt noted, this legislation could also 
be viewed by foreign governments as a hostile trade action. Many of the 
clove and other flavored cigarettes that are banned under this bill are 
manufactured in foreign countries.
  This also grants de facto power to ban existing conventional tobacco 
products. It will dramatically increase black market activity. It 
favors larger companies over smaller companies. It favors existing 
products over new products. It creates insurmountable barriers to 
development of reduced-risk products. It limits the ability to 
communicate with adult consumers. It eliminates existing Federal 
preemption of State limits on labeling, marketing, and advertising. 
And, it grants FDA indirect authority to mandate changes in farming 
practices.
  In effect, this is a very, very bad bill. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the rule and to vote against the bill. We do not need more 
examples of Big Brother as we are seeing in this Congress and in this 
administration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, protecting the health of our Nation's 
children is of paramount importance to me, personally, to all of us, 
and to the strength and security of our Nation. We need to work to 
ensure that children have access to adequate health care, including 
vaccinations and attention from medical professionals.
  Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death in the 
United States, and yet it continues to receive less regulation than a 
head of lettuce. Indeed, even pet food is regulated by the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  When we pledge to safeguard our children's health, we are investing 
in where the return is, a generation of healthy, productive Americans. 
Congress not only has an obligation to provide adequate funding for 
programs that offer health care access and a healthy start for all 
children, but also a responsibility to step in and provide meaningful 
oversight and restore accountability. This bill embodies both of these 
commitments.
  This is a personal issue for many of us. I had the opportunity to 
talk to another widow of a victim of tobacco

[[Page H4318]]

from Colorado last night. I spoke to Ms. Kathy Hughes of Loveland, who 
lost her husband. David succumbed to lung cancer. Again, the latter 
years of his life were dedicated to combating the dangers of secondhand 
smoke.
  Just as my colleague from California, Ms. Harman, shared her own 
family experience with this, we too in my family have direct 
experience. My partner Marlin's late mother, Wendy Klein Reiss, passed 
away from lung cancer 2 years ago. It was a very painful thing to go 
through; and, of course, her wish and her dying breaths were that she 
never started smoking.
  Americans across all political, demographic, and geographic lines 
have expressed overwhelming support for this legislation. The strong 
endorsement of hundreds of public health organizations for this 
bipartisan bill sends a powerful message.
  The bill simply gives the FDA the long overdue authority to regulate 
tobacco products and reduce their devastating harm, just as they enjoy 
today for pet food and lettuce and cosmetics.
  Today, we have an opportunity to protect millions of children across 
this Nation and to safeguard their future and prevent them from 
starting smoking. We have an opportunity to do the right thing, to save 
lives and to strengthen American families.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________