[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13920-13924]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, when I yielded the floor to allow Senator 
Brown to speak, I was in the process of describing the substitute 
amendment to the base bill, H.R. 1256. Before I go back to that, let me 
share with my colleagues the response to a letter from the Campaign For 
Tobacco-Free Kids. They assessed the substitute bill and they provided 
in a letter to the committee why they found the substitute to be wrong. 
I will use that word.
  Let me take on some of the things they raised in that letter. One, 
they said that the Burr-Hagan bill would create a new bureaucracy that 
lacks the experience, expertise, and resources to effectively regulate 
tobacco products. I think I made it abundantly clear earlier today that 
under the current regulatory framework for tobacco, every Federal 
agency in the United States has jurisdiction in it, except for the Food 
and Drug Administration. So to suggest that the Food and Drug 
Administration has the experience or the expertise or the resources to 
effectively regulate this would be disingenuous. They have no 
experience, because they haven't been involved in regulation. They do 
have expertise, but expertise to prove safety and efficacy of products, 
not to come to the conclusion that a product is unsafe and kills. Yet 
they are not going to do anything to restrict its access or provide 
resources to effectively regulate tobacco products.
  Incorporated in this base bill H.R. 1256 is, in fact, a surcharge on 
the tobacco industry of $700 million over the first 3 years to fund--to 
provide the resources--for the FDA to regulate the industry. And it 
doesn't stop there, because they can't hire the folks, they can't set 
up the regulation until they have the ability to do the surcharge it 
requires, in putting it in the FDA, that you come up with $200 million 
to fund the initial effort to set up the infrastructure to regulate 
this product. So, in fact, there were no resources. Within H.R. 1256, 
it creates the resources to create the framework, to create the 
personnel, to regulate a product they have never regulated before.
  I remind my colleagues that in the substitute amendment, we set up a 
new Harm Reduction Center under the guidelines of the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, within Health and Human Services, the same 
place that the FDA is. When we asked the Secretary of HHS how much does 
it take to fund that, they gave us a number of $100 million a year; 
$700 million for the baseline, H.R. 1256; $100 million for this new 
Center of Harm Reduction, overseen by the same Secretary of Health and 
Human Services.
  Granted, I will be the first to say that if we are creating a new 
agency, the agency for harm reduction, it does not have the experience, 
the expertise, or the resources yet, but it can search within the 
global marketplace to find the individuals, and the Secretary of HHS 
has already said $100 million will permit us to do that function in a 
harm reduction center. So the first complaint, hopefully, I have 
disposed of.
  The second complaint from the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids as to 
why they would not support the substitute amendment: The Burr-Hagan 
bill does not give the FDA any meaningful authority to require changes 
in tobacco

[[Page 13921]]

products. Well, I do hope somebody from Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids 
is watching, because what the base bill, H.R. 1256, does is it locks in 
these products, nonfiltered and filtered cigarettes, and legislatively 
says to the FDA: You can't do anything with those products. They are 
grandfathered. As you heard me say, H.R. 1256 does not allow these 
reduced-risk products to come to market. So the tobacco industry, based 
upon how the legislation is written, would basically limit tobacco uses 
to these two categories, the 100 percent risky and the 95 percent 
risky.
  I misspoke. Let me correct it, because within H.R. 1256 it does state 
that any product that was sold prior to February 2007 could, in fact, 
be sold. Some, not all, smokeless products fall into that category of 
having been sold prior to February of 2007.
  One has to ask: Why February of 2007? Why is that magic? It is very 
simple. That is the last time they updated this bill. I am sure they 
updated before the markup in 2009, but they weren't even careful enough 
to change the effective date that cut off when a product could be sold. 
There can't be any other reason, because there is nothing magical to 
February of 2007, except that U.S. smokeless products were included, 
and if you include U.S. smokeless products and filtered and nonfiltered 
cigarettes, you might have one manufacturer that then controls about 70 
percent of the market. And because you have grandfathered it all in and 
you have forbidden FDA from ever changing it, you have basically given 
an unbelievable market share to one company, and you have not allowed 
any other company in the world to participate because if they weren't 
sold before February of 2007, they can't be sold in the future. 
Because, as I discussed earlier, to bring a new product to the 
marketplace, you have to make the claim that no nontobacco user would 
use the product.
  Yet how can you make that claim if the same provision disallows you 
from talking to a non-tobacco user about whether they would use the 
product? It is a catch-22. Yes, we created a pathway, but we also 
designed it in a way that you couldn't meet the threshold needed to 
have an application approved. It is very simple.
  Two was that the Burr-Hagan bill doesn't give the FDA meaningful 
authority to require changes in tobacco products. They are 100 percent 
correct. Nor does H.R. 1256. As a matter of fact, not only does it not 
allow for changes, it legislates there cannot be changes to products 
sold before 2007. If the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is trying to 
reduce the risk of death and disease and usage, it has supported the 
wrong bill.
  Third, the Burr-Hagan bill will harm public health because it 
perpetuates the consumers' misconception that they can reduce their 
risk of disease by switching to so-called low-tar cigarettes. Our bill 
goes further than the Kennedy-Waxman legislation by banning the use of 
terms such as ``light,'' ``ultra-light,'' ``medium,'' and bans the use 
of candy, fruit, or alcohol descriptors on cigarettes even if not 
characterized in the legislation.
  In addition, the risk reduction center is required to establish a 
relative risk ranking for tobacco and nicotine products annually and 
disseminate that information to the public. This preempts any 
unsubstantiated lower or reduced-risk consumer communications by a 
tobacco manufacturer. In other words, under H.R. 1256, the FDA does not 
have to inform the public about the relative risk of the products they 
regulate. So they are not going to share with the people that if you 
smoke filtered cigarettes, it is a 100-percent risk, and unfiltered is 
a 90-percent risk. In the substitute that is being offered, we require 
the harm reduction center to annually print a list of what the risks of 
the products are that are tobacco related and that they regulate.
  The fourth complaint by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is that 
the Burr-Hagan bill doesn't strengthen warning labels in a meaningful 
way. Well, actually, our bill incorporates the same warning levels for 
cigarettes contained in the Kennedy-Waxman legislation and requires 
they be placed on the bottom 30 percent of a cigarette pack, including 
Senator Enzi's graphic warning label language. Also, our amendment goes 
further than H.R. 1256 by requiring the disclosure of ingredients on 
the back facing of a tobacco product packaging.
  Let me state what the claim was: The Burr-Hagan bill doesn't 
strengthen warning labels. The only thing I can think is that the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids didn't read my bill or it doesn't know 
the difference between identical language in H.R. 1256 and the Burr-
Hagan substitute because the wording is actually the same. In addition, 
we require that the ingredients in those products be listed on the 
pack, which I think is beneficial to consumer choice.
  Fifth, the Burr-Hagan bill doesn't adequately protect consumers from 
misleading health claims about tobacco products. Well, once again, our 
bill requires the same rigorous standards used in H.R. 1256 for 
reducing the risk of tobacco products. Furthermore, it requires the 
harm reduction center to establish and publish the relative risk of 
tobacco and nicotine products on an annual basis. Unlike Kennedy-
Waxman, this legislation also requires disclosure on individual packs 
of all ingredients.
  The sixth complaint by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is that the 
Burr-Hagan bill gives the tobacco industry license to create ways to 
market to youth. We have covered this. Our bill is much more 
comprehensive. It eliminates print advertising. There are marketing 
prohibitions and restrictions over and above what H.R. 1256 does.
  Last, the bill gives the tobacco industry undue influence and creates 
gridlock on an important scientific advisory committee by giving the 
tobacco industry the same number of voting representatives as health 
professionals and scientists--a 19-member board with 10 health care 
experts, 4 members of the general public, 2 representatives of tobacco 
manufacturing, 1 representative of small tobacco manufacturing, 1 
representative of the tobacco growers, and 1 expert on illicit trade of 
tobacco products. Somehow, 14 health care experts and 1 trade expert 
can be depicted by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids as being the same 
number as 4 tobacco-related members of the advisory board. So clearly, 
15 without a tie to tobacco, 4 with a remote tie to tobacco, and the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said that by giving the tobacco industry 
the same number of voting representatives as health care professionals 
and scientists--Mr. President, the American people deserve an honest 
debate. They deserve the information on one side of a bill or another 
to be factual. I am not sure how you can look at 15 individuals in one 
category and 4 in another and portray for a minute that is the same 
number. But that is what the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids does. If, 
in fact, they have misled in the letter to the committee about H.R. 
1256 and the substitute, what else haven't they told us or what else 
have they told us that is not accurate? It brings into question that 
effort and, clearly, in 1256, the effort is not to reduce the risk of 
disease or use of tobacco products.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes.
  Mr. BURR. When I ended talking about the substitute, I held up this 
can of Camel Orbs and I told the Members of the Senate that this was a 
product that currently is rated at about a 1-percent risk, or an 89 
percent reduction from typical nonfiltered cigarettes. It is an 89 
percent reduction from nonfiltered cigarettes. I will hold one up. It 
is a dissolvable tobacco. You don't get lung cancer or COPD from it, 
and it doesn't cause heart disease. There is a 1-percent risk. But 
under H.R. 1256, this product is outlawed. Why? Because it wasn't sold 
before February 2007.
  Let me say to my colleagues, if the intent of passing Federal 
regulation of the tobacco industry--and I am supportive of it--is to 
reduce death and disease, why would you exclude a product that has a 1-
percent risk but then grandfather in products with a 100-percent 
likelihood of killing you? Even if you are not debating whether it is 
in the FDA or in the harm reduction center, how in the world can a 
Member of

[[Page 13922]]

the Senate say it is OK to eliminate the ability for an adult to choose 
to use this and to be locked into a certain death?
  We are supposed to pass policy that makes sense and that works for 
the American people, that actually reduces the risk of death, disease, 
and usage of tobacco. When you lock them into the highest risk and 
likelihood of death, you haven't fulfilled that. When you don't require 
States to use the money they were given for cessation programs, how can 
you expect that you are going to reduce youth usage? When you see that 
48 States have a higher prevalence of marijuana use among youth than 
they do of tobacco, how can you conclude that by giving the FDA 
jurisdiction to regulate tobacco, somehow that means you are going to 
have a reduction in youth usage? It is just not going to happen.
  The American Association of Public Health Physicians states that this 
product, Orbs, is the most effective way to fight death and disease 
associated with current tobacco use. Again, the American Association of 
Public Health Physicians states that these are the best tools we have 
to get people to quit smoking. As a matter of fact, I am proud to say 
that yesterday the American Association of Public Health Physicians 
endorsed the substitute amendment and not the base bill because they 
recognize that the base bill does nothing but provide a pathway to 
certain disease or death.
  Just so I am clear, under the base bill, H.R. 1256, Marlboro is 
cemented on the retail shelves. Camel Orbs, which reduces death and 
disease associated with tobacco use, is banned, can't be sold; It 
wasn't on the market before January 2007, and Marlboros are on the 
shelf.
  Snus is banned. In the past 25 years, Swedish men showed a notable 
reduction in smoking-related disease, a decline in lung cancer 
incidence rates to the lowest of any developed nation, with no 
detectable increase in the oral cancer rate, improvement in 
cardiovascular health, and the tobacco-related mortality rate in Sweden 
is among the lowest in the developed world. But in our infinite wisdom 
in this austere body, we are getting ready to pass a bill that takes a 
product that Sweden used to get people off cigarettes, to reduce lung 
cancer, to bring down cardiovascular disease, to reduce mortality by 
tobacco products, and we are going to eliminate it and we are going to 
lock them into everything Sweden is trying to get rid of. Think about 
this before you do it, for God's sake. Once you pass this, it is too 
late.
  Mr. President, the current cessation programs don't work. I said 
earlier that those products have a 95-percent failure rate. Giving 
current smokers an opportunity to migrate to a less harmful product--it 
is a public health initiative, and not creating a pathway to reduce 
harmful products is not a public health bill. But those products are 
banned in H.R. 1256.
  Senator Hagan's and my amendment allows these products to be marketed 
and regulated correctly. Our amendment establishes a tobacco harm 
reduction center within the office of Health and Human Services. We 
provide the harm reduction center with the regulatory authority to 
better protect our children from tobacco use and significantly increase 
the public health benefits of tobacco regulation. We require tobacco 
manufacturers to publish ingredients of products. We require the harm 
reduction center to rank tobacco products according to their risk of 
death and disease associated with each type of tobacco product in order 
to inform the American public more fully about the risk and harm of 
tobacco products.
  We ban candy and fruit descriptors of cigarettes. We ban the use of 
the terms ``light'' and ``low tar.'' We give the Harm Reduction Center 
the authority to review smoking articles and adjust accordingly to what 
is in the best interest of public health. What we don't do is give an 
already overburdened agency the responsibility to regulate tobacco.
  We have a change in administrations. As supportive as I am of the new 
Commissioner of the FDA, Margaret Hamburg--she will do a wonderful 
job--let me turn to the former Commissioner of the FDA. Two years ago, 
Andy von Eschenbach gave his opinion on the FDA regulation of tobacco. 
You might say: Gosh, this was 2 years ago. I think I already made a 
credible case that most of what is in this bill was written 10 years 
ago. Even some of the deadlines that are in the bill have not been 
changed since the bill was updated 2 years ago. So I think it is very 
credible to use the comments of the former FDA Commissioner 2 years 
ago:

       The provisions in this bill would require substantial 
     resources, and FDA may not be in a position to meet all of 
     the activities within the proposed user fee levels . . . As a 
     consequence of this, FDA may have to divert funds from its 
     other programs, such as addressing the safety of drugs and 
     food, to begin implementing this program.

  All of a sudden, we are right back where I started 3 days ago. Why in 
the world would we jeopardize the gold standard of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the agency that provides the confidence to every 
consumer in the country that when they get home at night, after having 
a prescription filled, they don't have to worry about whether it is 
safe or effective; that if they go to a doctor or hospital and they use 
a device on them, it wasn't something crafted in the back room and 
nobody reviewed that it was safe or effective; that it had the gold 
standard, the seal of approval of the Food and Drug Administration; 
that as biologics were created that did not exist 10 years ago, that we 
could feel certain that the FDA looked at this new product and approved 
it for use in humans; that when we went to buy food, our food would be 
safe.
  Do we want to jeopardize the FDA having to divert funds from food 
safety right now when we have had Americans who have been killed? Do we 
want a reviewer at FDA, whose gold standard is to prove safety and 
efficacy on all the products they regulate, except for the tobacco, to 
lower their guard and let something through that did not meet the 
threshold of safe and effective?
  I am not sure that is in the best interest of America. I am not sure 
it is in the best interest of the American people.
  My colleague from Connecticut came to the floor and said the Food and 
Drug Administration is the only agency that has the experience, the 
expertise, and the resources. The Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration said: I don't have the resources, and if you give this 
to me, I might have to divert funds from other programs. As a matter of 
fact, they would have to divert people from reviewing the applications 
for new drugs, new biologics. It could be that somebody who is waiting 
for a new therapy dies before the therapy is available because we had 
to divert funds or people to take care of regulating a product that the 
FDA has never regulated and for which Commissioners of the FDA told us 
they did not have the funds.
  I am not sure how clear we need this. I said when I started on Monday 
this was an uphill climb, the deck was stacked against me. I understood 
the threshold was come to the Senate floor and to spend as much time as 
it took to convince my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats and 
Independents--that this was not a bill where one party trumped the 
other.
  Senator Hagan is a Democrat; I am a Republican. We have come to the 
floor passionately with our substitute amendment because we think it 
trumps H.R. 1256 from a policy standpoint. The American people expect 
us to pass the right policy, not any policy. If the FDA is not the 
appropriate place to put it, the American people expect us to find 
something else that meets the threshold of the right regulation but 
does not encumber the gold standard of an agency on which we are so 
reliant.
  I am hopeful we are going to have a vote this afternoon on the 
substitute. It will be next week before the base bill is voted on. I 
say to my colleagues, they are only going to have one opportunity to 
change this bill. That one opportunity is to vote for the substitute 
amendment. If they vote for the substitute amendment, they are going to 
vote for a bill that actually reduces the risk of death and disease for 
adults who choose to use tobacco products. If they

[[Page 13923]]

vote for the substitute, they are actually going to vote for a bill 
that actually reduces youth usage in a real way. If they pass on 
supporting the substitute--and it will be a close vote--if they pass on 
supporting it, they are going to have to live with what they do to the 
FDA. They are going to have to live with the consequences.
  When I came to the Congress, the House of Representatives, in 1995, I 
was given the task of modernizing the Food and Drug Administration. We 
opened the Food and Drug Administration in its entirety. It took 2\1/2\ 
years to produce a bill. It was a bipartisan bill. As a matter of fact, 
I think in the Senate and in the House it passed by voice vote.
  Why did it take 2\1/2\ years, two Congresses? It is because we 
understood, at that time, the delicacy of what we were attempting to 
do. We were attempting to modernize the Agency and to maintain the gold 
standard.
  At the end of the day, no Member of the House or the Senate offered 
an amendment to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco. In 1998, that 
bill became law. Why didn't they? It is because every Member knew it 
was not worth the risk of giving them the responsibilities of tobacco 
when we had spent 2\1/2\ years trying to protect the gold standard.
  We are not that forgetful. Don't forget our commitment to make sure 
the gold standard of the FDA is intact. Don't jeopardize it by giving 
them tobacco. Don't let our kids be sold short by producing a bill that 
does not do the education they need so they never pick up a tobacco 
product. Don't lock the adults who choose to use risky products to 
risky products forever. Give them an opportunity to have less harmful 
products. That can only be done one way. That can only be done if 
Members of the Senate vote to support the Hagan-Burr substitute.
  It does keep kids from smoking. It does preserve the core mission of 
the FDA. It does reduce the risk of death and disease.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. We all know someone who is 
currently a smoker or someone who has been a smoker. I know we all 
worry about their health. That is with good reason.
  Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United 
States. It kills more people each year than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, 
illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
  Let me repeat that because it is hard to believe. The fact is, 
tobacco use kills more people each year than alcohol, AIDS, car 
crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. Tobacco-related 
health problems affect millions more, resulting in skyrocketing health 
care costs every year.
  The cycle of addiction is so hard to break, and the tobacco companies 
work hard to attract smokers with flashy marketing campaigns and by 
including chemicals that are proven to be addictive. Undoubtedly, this 
hurts our Nation's overall health.
  There is no question that one of the most important steps the Senate 
can take to improve health and to reduce costs is to reduce the use of 
tobacco. That is why this legislation is so important, why I am proud 
to be one of the 53 cosponsors of this legislation. Again, over half 
the Senate is cosponsoring this legislation.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership and work on this important 
issue over so many years. I thank Senator Dodd for managing this bill 
on the floor.
  Throughout my career, I have advocated for smoking prevention. We all 
realize the cost in lives and in health care expenses that smoking 
creates, not only to the consumer but also to those who are exposed to 
the dangerous secondhand smoke.
  In New Hampshire, almost 20 percent of adults smoke cigarettes, and 
tobacco-related health care expenses in New Hampshire amount to $969 
million a year.
  During my tenure as Governor, I was proud to sign legislation that 
banned the sale of tobacco products to minors, that prohibited the 
possession of tobacco products by children, and that required the New 
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to disclose harmful 
ingredients in tobacco products.
  The important legislation we are considering expands on what New 
Hampshire has done. It will give the FDA the authority to regulate the 
manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products.
  In New Hampshire this year alone, 6,300 children will try cigarettes 
for the first time. Just over a third of these children will become 
addicted lifelong smokers. The tobacco companies know these statistics 
and target much of their marketing to this vulnerable population. In 
fact, published research studies have found that children are three 
times more sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more 
likely to be influenced to smoke by marketing than by peer pressure. 
This year in New Hampshire alone, the tobacco companies will spend $128 
million on marketing, much of it geared to kids.
  Tobacco companies also attract children to their products by using 
flavors, such as Twista Lime or Kauai Kolada, which says it contains 
``Hawaiian hints of pineapple and coconut,'' or Winter Mocha Mint. It 
doesn't sound like we are talking about tar-filled cigarettes, does it? 
It sounds like we are talking about ice cream or candy. But, 
unfortunately, these fruit and mint flavors not only entice kids to try 
them but also makes the smoke less harsh, more flavorful so it is 
actually easier for kids to smoke.
  Unfortunately, they do not make cigarettes less dangerous or less 
addictive. The tobacco companies do not stop at just the flavors to 
attract kids. They package the flavored products in colorful and fun 
patterns clearly aimed at attracting children to their products.
  Norma Gecks of Derry, NH, reports that her youngest child is 19 and 
is addicted to smoking. He buys the mint- and fruit-flavored products 
and by now is smoking up to two packs a day. Already at age 19, he has 
developed a smoker's cough.
  Keith Blessington of Concord is now an adult, but he is also a victim 
of childhood addiction. He smoked his first cigarette after a 
basketball game when he was only 17. Recently, he was diagnosed with 
advanced stomach cancer and told me he has about a year to live. 
Despite this awful situation, despite the fact that he has cancer, he 
will tell you plainly: I am addicted. He cannot quit.
  We need to enact this legislation to help people in New Hampshire and 
across the country, people such as Keith, people such as Norma's son. 
Tobacco products and marketing geared to kids need to end. We cannot 
afford to let another generation of young people put themselves at risk 
by becoming addicted to tobacco products and suffering the lifelong 
consequences of their addiction or, even worse, dying.
  For decades, tobacco companies have targeted women and girls. But in 
the last 2 years, the industry has significantly stepped up its 
marketing efforts aimed at our daughters and granddaughters, and we 
have a picture of one of the ads R.J. Reynolds uses. It is their new 
version of Camel cigarettes targeted to girls and women, and it is 
Camel No. 9--sort of a takeoff on some other product descriptions we 
have heard. This cigarette has sleek, shiny black packaging, flowery 
ads, and, as you can see, the enticing slogan ``light and luscious.'' 
This advertisement has appeared in Cosmopolitan, Glamour, InStyle, 
Lucky, and Marie Claire magazines, and it has been effective. Today, 
about 17 percent of adult women and about 19 percent of high school 
girls are smokers. That is more than 20 million women and more than 1.5 
million girls who are at increased risk for lung cancer, for heart 
attacks, strokes, emphysema, and other deadly diseases. These 
statistics are staggering, and it is important to remember they 
represent mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, colleagues, and 
friends.
  Seventeen-year-old Cait Steward of Dover, NH, has seen these Camel 
No. 9

[[Page 13924]]

advertisements. She saw them in Glamour magazine. But fortunately, she 
sees through the marketing campaign. She says:

       Tobacco companies advertise to try and get me and my 
     friends to smoke. They try to make young girls think that 
     smoking is sexy, glamorous, and cool. They know that if they 
     get us to start smoking now we will be addicted for years to 
     come.

  It is not just cigarettes that we are attempting to regulate in this 
legislation. The tobacco companies have also developed new products 
that are both smokeless and spitless. They are just as addictive as 
those products you smoke, however, and they are just as deadly. Like 
cigarettes, they do not have any FDA regulation, and the consequences 
are dire.
  I want to show a photo of a young man named Gruen Von Behrens. He is 
an oral cancer survivor. He has had more than 40 surgeries to save his 
life, including one radical surgery, and you can see how it left him in 
this picture. It removed half his neck muscles and lymph nodes and half 
of his tongue. Like too many teenagers, Von Behrens first tried spit 
tobacco at age 13 to fit in. By age 17, he was diagnosed with cancer. 
How can we let this happen? Tobacco companies are targeting our 
children, and it is our job to protect them.
  This legislation is vital to our children and to our Nation's health. 
It will prevent the tobacco companies from marketing to children. It 
will require disclosure of the contents of tobacco products, authorize 
the FDA to require the reduction or removal of harmful ingredients, and 
force tobacco companies to scientifically prove any claims about 
reduced risk of products.
  The FDA is the proper place to have this authority. It is responsible 
for protecting consumers from products that cause them harm. The FDA 
even regulates pet food. Yet it doesn't have the authority to provide 
oversight for tobacco--one of the most dangerous consumer products sold 
in the United States.
  Under this legislation, the FDA will oversee tobacco products with 
the same objective and the same oversight with which it directs all of 
its activities--to promote and protect public health. It has the 
necessary scientific expertise, regulatory experience, and public 
health mission to do the job. We can't wait any longer to make the 
necessary changes that will impact the lives of so many people we know 
and love.
  Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his outstanding leadership on this 
issue and join many of my colleagues in supporting this important 
legislation that will save lives in New Hampshire and across the 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________