[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 83 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6151-S6152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I have four amendments I wish to 
discuss to the pending bill. I will not call them up but I wish to 
discuss them. When the bill is presented on the floor, then I will come 
back and talk about the specific amendments that are going to be 
considered in the first tranche of amendments.
  First, I rise today in strong opposition to the tobacco regulatory 
bill on the floor. This sweeping legislation would dramatically 
increase the FDA's regulatory authority outside the scope of original 
congressional intent. This is something that Congress did not intend to 
give the FDA when we wrote the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and 
that intent was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. Yet 
there are still some of my colleagues out here who believe it would be 
safer for the American public to regulate tobacco under the FDA. They 
argue that, by doing so, we will help reduce the negative effect of 
smoking and prevent underage smokers.
  As a grandfather of 39 grandchildren, believe me, I want to keep 
cigarettes out of the hands of kids. But the bill before us today does 
not do that. It is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate our 
national tobacco industry. The big problem with this approach is that 
our Nation's tobacco

[[Page S6152]]

farmers are the ones who are going to pay the price.
  Not once in this bill did I read any language that would provide any 
type of protection to our tobacco farmers--not even once. This is why I 
have introduced the four amendments. Let me give you their numbers: 
1236, 1237, 1238, and 1239.
  If the FDA is going to regulate tobacco and require sweeping changes 
within the industry, I want to ensure that farmers have a voice at the 
negotiating table. My amendments do this. Not only do they allow for 
fair grower representation, but they help ensure that those who will be 
most affected by this legislation will not be forced to pay the biggest 
price.
  Let me be clear that I oppose the FDA regulation of tobacco. I have 
said that as long as tobacco is a legal commodity, it should be 
regulated through the USDA, the United States Department of 
Agriculture, not the FDA. If we are going to discuss giving the FDA 
this authority through this or similar legislation, I want to make sure 
that we consider the impact on agriculture.
  In Kentucky, the family farm is the foundation for who we are as a 
State. For over a century, the family farm in Kentucky has centered 
around one crop--tobacco. Tobacco barns and small plots of tobacco dot 
the Kentucky landscape. We are proud of our heritage and proud that 
tobacco plays a role in our history. Even after the buy-out, tobacco 
still plays a prominent role in my State's agricultural landscape.
  We have tried to broaden our agricultural base. We have had some 
success with several types of vegetables, cattle, and even raising 
catfish. But at the end of the day, nothing brings as much of a return 
to the small farmer in Kentucky as tobacco. It is big business for 
small farmers.
  With the current economic conditions, more and more farmers in my 
State are turning to growing tobacco to supplement their income or, in 
a lot of cases, tobacco is their sole source of income. The money they 
get from tobacco pays their mortgages, puts their kids through school, 
and actually allows them to stay on the farm.
  Outside of the western part of my State, Kentucky does not have tens 
of thousands of acres of flat land. We have a lot of green, rolling 
hills and a climate where tobacco thrives. It can be raised very 
cheaply on small plots of land that simply cannot accommodate other 
crops. Whether we like it or not, tobacco remains an economic staple 
for rural Kentucky. It is profitable and farmers rely on it. That might 
not be popular today, but it is an economic reality that we have to 
face.
  Whatever the opponents of tobacco say, there is no denying that this 
bill will add unnecessary mandates and expenses on the farmers in the 
attempt to punish the big tobacco companies. Sure, this bill will hurt 
big tobacco companies. They might have to move offshore. They might 
have to start exporting more of their products. But they will survive. 
But Kentucky's tobacco farmers do not have these options available to 
them. They are the ones who are going to be hurt by this type of 
legislation.
  Some of my colleagues might support this legislation because they 
wish to outlaw tobacco. The last time I looked, tobacco was still a 
legal product in this country. If my colleagues want to make it 
illegal, let them be honest and upfront about it. Let's consider 
legislation to make it illegal. We can fight that here, out on the 
floor of the Senate. But let's not keep trying to slip it through the 
back door, through overregulation and taxes in the name of preventing 
underage smoking.
  Children should not have cigarettes. They should not. This is why we 
have age limits and advertising limits. We should do all that we can to 
keep cigarettes out of the hands of our kids. But the bill before us is 
not the answer. We can do better and should do better. All this bill 
does is move the regulation of a legal product from several agencies to 
another, one that has no jurisdiction to regulate it.
  The only people this bill is going to hurt in the end are not the big 
tobacco companies, but the small and honest farmers who depend on 
tobacco to pay their bills. This is why I have offered four farmer-
friendly amendments to the bill. I want to explain for a few minutes 
the four.
  One, Bunning amendment No. 1236, clarifies that nothing in this bill 
would prevent our farmers from growing and cultivating tobacco as they 
have been able to do for the past hundred-plus years.
  My second amendment, No. 1237, establishes a grower grant program 
that would help ease the financial burden of this bill on our farmers.
  Amendment No. 1238 gives growers a seat at the negotiating table. The 
underlying bill establishes a Tobacco Scientific Advisory Committee 
made up of 12 members. Seven of those members are from the medical 
field to ensure that public health needs are taken into account. There 
is one of the public, and three representatives from the tobacco 
industry. There are two manufacturers and one grower. All members of 
the committee are voting except for the last three--the tobacco 
representatives. My amendment is simple. It gives the tobacco 
representatives the right to vote and adds two more grower positions. 
That way, all three forms of tobacco--burley, flue cured and dark 
leaf--are represented at the negotiating table.
  The final Bunning amendment, No. 1239, asks the FDA if they are going 
to impose any new restrictions or requirements on farmers, then they 
should consider and conduct a feasibility study so that we know the 
effect on the farm level.
  When my amendments come up, I encourage my colleagues to support 
them.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________