[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14902-14909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO 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 532 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 532

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1256) to protect the public health by providing the Food and 
     Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate 
     tobacco products, to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
     make certain modifications in the Thrift Savings Plan, the 
     Civil Service Retirement System, and the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement System, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the 
     House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion.

                              {time}  0915

  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. 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative 
days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 532 provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and 
Tobacco Control Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, House Resolution 532, and 
the underlying bill, 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 the House by a margin of more than 
three to one last July and again passed the House by a vote of 298-112 
this past April will finally give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
the authority to regulate the advertising, marketing and manufacturing 
of tobacco products, and it will also allow them to take additional 
critical steps to protect the public health. Putting a stop to the 
tobacco industry from designing products that entice young people and 
developing programs to help adult smokers quit is the first step in 
prevention.
  Tobacco is currently the number one cause of preventable death in 
America. It is responsible for about one in five deaths annually, or 
443,000 deaths per year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. 
Smoking-related deaths account for more deaths than AIDS, alcohol, 
cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, motor vehicle crashes and fires 
combined. Approximately 8.6 million Americans also suffer from chronic 
illnesses that are related to smoking.
  And yet every day, more than 3,500 youth try a cigarette for the 
first time and another 1,000 will become new, regular, daily smokers. 
One-third of these youth will eventually die prematurely as a result. 
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 and their families.
  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 two-thirds of 
adult smokers became regular daily smokers before 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, 
and this bill is an important step. Congress must work to help make our 
children's lives safer and their daily choices easier.
  The history of low tar cigarettes illustrates the grave danger to 
public health caused by fooling consumers by making false and 
unsubstantiated claims that one kind of cigarette is substantially 
safer than another.
  Millions of Americans switched to low tar cigarettes, believing they 
were reducing their risk of lung cancer. Many were convinced to switch 
instead of quit. It wasn't until decades later that we learned through 
the deaths of those smoking low tar cigarettes that low tar cigarettes 
were just as dangerous as full tar cigarettes.
  Mr. Speaker, as you may recall during the last debate, I spoke of my 
fellow Coloradan, David Hughes, who as a teenager began smoking and 
then died last year at the age of 52. I had the chance to speak to his 
widow.
  In 2002, after his first cancer diagnosis, throat cancer, he 
immediately quit smoking and became one of Colorado's fiercest anti-
smoking advocates. His optimism and strength never went unnoticed as he 
volunteered for Smoke-Free Loveland. His mission was to prevent others 
from dying from cancer due to smoking, prevent others from making 
mistakes, prevent others from making the wrong choices that ultimately 
cost him his life.
  David and so many others of our friends, our brothers, our sisters, 
our cousins, our relatives personify the humanity of tobacco addiction, 
and this is why we must ensure that protections are put in place and 
this bill is passed and sent to President Obama so that we can fulfill 
David's mission and honor the way that so many others have lived and 
died.

[[Page 14903]]

  Under this legislation, by empowering 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 really what 
it claims to be. The bottom line: we have an interest in making sure 
our constituents know the facts, all of them, before making potentially 
deadly choices.
  America must also be made aware of the dramatic health risks 
associated with smokeless tobacco. Many still believe that chewing 
tobacco and snuff are safe alternatives to smoking cigarettes.
  This bill will 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 cheeks and gums, which is the 
formation of leathery patches of diseased tissue on those parts of the 
mouth. The most shocking figure is that one in 20 of these cases of 
leukoplakia develop into oral cancer.
  The American Dental Association, who strongly supports this 
legislation, 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.
  I also want to stress that the bill fully funds FDA tobacco activity 
through user fees on tobacco product manufacturers. All tobacco 
product-related FDA costs are allocated among the manufacturers of 
cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products that are 
sold in the United States based on the manufacturer's respective share 
of the United States market.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates if this bill is passed, we 
will reduce youth smoking by 11 percent over the next decade and adult 
smoking by 2 percent, a small step in the right direction; but there is 
much more work ahead of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding time.
  This bill is being brought to the floor by the majority in a manner 
that is closed again, adding to the record number of closed rules in 
this and the last Congress. Concurring in the Senate amendment blocks 
the minority from offering a motion to recommit. By choosing to operate 
in this way, the majority has cut off the minority from having any 
input into the legislative process and is simply not the way we should 
be operating in this country.
  I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague, 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 
for the time. She and I share opposition to this proposal.
  I rise in continued opposition, Mr. Speaker, 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 this legislation would have upon my 
congressional district and my State.
  It is my firm belief, Mr. Speaker, that allowing the FDA to regulate 
tobacco in any capacity would inevitably lead to FDA regulating the 
family farm. Of course, that is the potential. This could create 
uncertainty for family farmers at a time when they are already 
struggling during the current economic downturn.
  I have spoken to tobacco farmers in my district, Mr. Speaker, and if 
this matter is enacted, they see the door ajar, and their fear is 
tobacco today, the family farm tomorrow. I don't think this is a knee-
jerk reaction. I think it is realistic.
  I also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, regarding the negative impact the 
measure would have upon tobacco manufacturers and their employees, 
retailers, and wholesalers. Previously this Congress has voted to 
implement a 62-cent tobacco tax increase to fund children's health 
insurance. Today we consider legislation that will create further 
hardship for the tobacco industry and consumers who use tobacco 
products.
  I have said this countless times before, Mr. Speaker, but I will 
reiterate it today: we are talking about a product that is lawfully 
grown, lawfully manufactured, lawfully marketed, lawfully advertised 
and lawfully consumed.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1256 remains a misguided piece of legislation. It 
does not achieve the goals identified by the proponent of regulating 
tobacco content, marketing and advertising. Indeed, it will further 
exacerbate an already-stretched FDA, negatively impact manufacturers 
and farmers and create a strain on Federal revenues to the national 
Treasury.
  In my State and in my district and in the district of the 
distinguished lady from North Carolina, H.R. 1256 will result in job 
losses to the beleaguered tobacco manufacturing and farming interests, 
and it will compromise an already overburdened FDA. I cannot in good 
conscience support this measure.
  I again thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of 
H.R. 1256. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Waxman for 
his many years of hard work on this legislation. We would not be here 
today passing this landmark bill without his and Senator Kennedy's 
unwavering commitment to have tobacco regulated and their leadership.
  As a physician and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health 
Brain Trust, as well as a parent and grandparent, I give my full 
support to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
  Today, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in this 
country. It accounts for nearly one in five deaths each year and kills 
more people than AIDS, fires, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, homicide, car 
accidents and suicide combined. It is a major public health issue and a 
key driver of the country's high health care costs.
  This bill empowers States and communities to prevent aggressive 
tobacco marketing that has the greatest negative impact in the hardest 
hit communities and among our most vulnerable. It bans the additives 
used to manufacture flavored cigarettes which are marketed to children. 
And while it does not ban menthol immediately, it gives the FDA the 
authority to do so and sets up a commission to make a recommendation on 
this issue, so important to the African American community, within a 
year. Additionally, it speeds up the development of smoking cessation 
and nicotine replacement therapies, which are key to helping millions 
of Americans overcome nicotine addiction.
  So this bill will help save millions of lives, and in doing so, it 
will also jump-start and complement our efforts to improve health and 
save millions more lives through the broader health care reform bill 
that will also soon be on the President's desk.
  I am pleased that we are taking this bold step necessary to finally 
address this issue in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner, a step 
that has not come easy nor one that has come without controversy, but a 
step nonetheless worth taking.
  I urge passage of the rule and H.R. 1256.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, in many cases, the titles of bills 
here since the Democrats have been in control have been backwards from 
what they do, but this bill I think does have a partially appropriate 
title. It is called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
Act.
  I think it is emblematic of the concern and the attempt by the 
majority party to control every aspect of our lives. Everything that we 
do in this country, they are trying to control. They think they have 
the answers to everything and that what they want us to do is what 
should be done. So the emphasis should be on control, because

[[Page 14904]]

that is what they are trying to do, is control our lives.
  We know that this legislation will have little impact on overall 
tobacco use. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if this 
bill is enacted, smoking by adults would decline by only 2 percent 
after 10 years. This marginal reduction does not warrant this 
legislation's significant intrusion on free speech rights and expansion 
of government-run regulatory bureaucracy.
  I strongly oppose this bill and this rule and urge my colleagues to 
vote against both of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Herbert Hoover in the last century referred to the Volstead Act as a 
noble experiment. It was grounded on the sincere desire to rid society 
of the ills of alcohol. It was designed to improve health, cut crime 
and relieve taxpayers of a portion of the burden of subsidizing 
prisons. The problem is we know it as Prohibition. It failed to take 
into account human nature and the truism that things are apt to go 
wrong when government tinkers too much with personal choices.

                              {time}  0930

  We are about to repeat history. There will be speeches here on the 
floor, I just heard one, about how this bill is going to help children, 
how this bill is going to improve public health. Unfortunately, the 
Kennedy bill that has now just come from the Senate back to the House 
here is not going to be able to achieve the goals which it desires.
  What I will do here this morning, and as I also manage the bill 
itself, is bring up some of the highlights and concerns. The first 
highlight and concern is that Members need to do their due diligence 
and read the legislation that is coming to the floor. Please. There is 
a herd mentality that is occurring right now whereby there is blind 
faith that is given to leadership, and people are just voting for 
things. They have no idea what is truly in the legislation.
  So I'm going to highlight some of the great concerns, because we need 
to be a responsible legislative body. A responsible legislative body is 
one that doesn't kick or punt the tough questions to the Supreme Court, 
and that's exactly what we're doing.
  I'm going to address the Supreme Court in the First Amendment and 
Fifth Amendment issues. I'm going to address the same ``quit or die'' 
strategies of abstinence that are being applied to smoking. I'll also 
address harm reduction that should have been incorporated, claimed to 
be incorporated but is not. I'll also mention how this bill further 
burdens the FDA and its core mission while, at the same time, the 
majority is talking about how the FDA cannot protect the American 
people with regard to tainted food and adulterated and counterfeit 
drugs. I also would like to mention how this bill actually locks the 
marketplace to prevent innovation and competition. We are truly on the 
wave of socialism in this country.
  So, first let me refer to the First Amendment. The Kennedy bill 
directs the Secretary of HHS to promulgate an interim final rule that 
is identical to the FDA's 1996 rule which legal experts from across the 
political spectrum have stated would violate the First Amendment. While 
these expert views should carry great weight, even more dispositive of 
the fact that the United States Supreme Court has also weighed in on 
various provisions of the rule, finding them already unconstitutional--
they've already ruled--yet we're going to go ahead and put them right 
back in legislation. Not very responsible.
  So before Members get down here and start pounding their chests as 
though they're doing great things, this is irresponsible for this body.
  In Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, the United States Supreme 
Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that was similar in many ways 
to the FDA's proposed rule. The statute banned outdoor ads within 1,000 
feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, and also restricted point-of-
sale advertising for tobacco products. The Court held that this 
regulation ran afoul of the tests established in the Central Hudson 
case, which defines the protection afforded commercial speech under the 
First Amendment, as it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored and would 
have disparate impacts from community to community.
  The Court then noted that since the Massachusetts statute was based 
on the FDA's rule, the FDA rule would have similar unconstitutional 
effects on a nationwide basis. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for 
the Court, ``the uniformly broad sweep of the geographical limitation 
demonstrates a lack of tailoring.''
  Additionally, the proposed rule in the Kennedy bill would require ads 
to use only black text on white background. Again, the United States 
Supreme Court found a similar provision unconstitutional in Zauderer v. 
Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In that case, dealing with advertisers 
for legal services, the Court held that the use of colors and 
illustrations in ads are entitled to the same First Amendment 
protections given verbal commercial free speech.
  Justice Byron White, in his opinion for the Court, wrote that 
pictures and illustrations and ads cannot be banned ``simply on the 
strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertising 
may, under some circumstances, be deceptive or manipulative.''
  There are numerous other speech restrictions in this legislation that 
raise serious First Amendment issues and will create a swarm of 
lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective 
approaches to tobacco use in the United States.
  To put forward speech restrictions that a broad range of experts have 
stated is almost certain to be struck down would be highly 
counterproductive, and should not be done by this legislative body. 
Actually, there probably will be a record time between when this bill 
is signed into law and when lawsuits begin to be filed in Federal 
court.
  Now, I referred in my opening to these ``quit or die'' strategies. 
The ``quit or die'' strategy, the reason I call it that is this is an 
abstinence approach to tobacco, meaning, you either quit or, if you 
continue to use the product, you die. That's their abstinence approach.
  The previous speaker even talked about, well, this bill is going to 
promote nicotine therapies, and we're going to move people toward these 
nicotine therapies and they'll get a chance to quit.
  Nicotine therapies work for less than 7 percent of the American 
smokers who use them to quit smoking. Each year, approximately 20 
million smokers use nicotine replacement therapies in an attempt to 
quit smoking.
  Now, think about this. You've got over 40 million smokers. Two 
million try to quit, and there's a 7 percent success rate. This bill 
locks in the 7 percent success rate and does not allow the marketplace 
to exercise innovation as a gateway of smokers to smokeless-type 
products in a harm reduction strategy to lower in a continuum of risk.
  Seven percent? So individuals are going to come here to the floor and 
claim that a 7 percent success rate is wonderful; 7 percent success 
rate is failure. Failure. Why should we, as a body, embrace failure? We 
should not.
  This legislation, the Kennedy legislation, locks down the 
marketplace. It locks it down. And it says whoever has what particular 
market share, that's it. That's where it's going to be.
  With regard to introduction of new products, oh, no, no, no, no, no. 
We're going to create a 2-tier standard. You have to be able to show, 
with regard to that product, its impact upon the individual and then 
the population at large. In order to do that, that is a hurdle. It is 
called a ``bridge too far.'' When you create a 2-tier standard that is 
a barrier, as an entry barrier of new products to the market, you lock 
down innovation. You secure competition in a present pattern, and then, 
with regard to these therapies, we're saying okay, this is cool, this 
is good. We're doing something great for public health. We're going to 
lock in a 7 percent success rate. Wow.

[[Page 14905]]

  Now, Members are also going to come to the floor and say oh, this is 
really great. We're really going to be helping people quit smoking.
  Are you kidding me?
  You know what this bill does?
  This bill increases the success rate, now, of quitting smoking by 
two-tenths of 1 percent. Two-tenths of 1 percent. You're proud of that? 
Two-tenths of 1 percent.
  Now, let's talk about what is two-tenths of 1 percent? Well, let's go 
to our friends, one of our strongest allies in our transatlantic 
alliance, Great Britain. The Royal College of Physicians, also looking 
at this issue in their report, and they're looking also to solutions to 
the smoking epidemic, they write, in their review of other countries, 
it indicates that the best conventional tobacco control measures 
reducing smoking prevalence is between .5 and 1 percentage point per 
year. Whoa. Great Britain went out there and looked at all these other 
countries around the world and found that other countries that are 
taking aggressive measures are able to reduce smoking prevalence by .5 
to 1 percentage points per year. And none of them have even taken into 
account what Mr. McIntyre and I presented to the floor for harm 
reduction strategies.
  So, great. The rest of the world is at .5 and 1, and we're going to 
be at two-tenths of 1 percent, and you're going to claim that's 
success. We're doing great things to improve public health.
  Are you kidding me? We are not. We're continuing failure. Failure. So 
don't come to the floor and act like someone is the champion here, 
because we're not. Two-tenths of 1 percent.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I'll yield to help you with math.
  Mr. POLIS. I'm asking you the source.
  Mr. BUYER. It's two-tenths of 1 percent.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. BUYER. Two-tenths of 1 percent, 2 percent. You think that's 
great.
  Mr. POLIS. I'd like to yield to ask your source.
  Mr. BUYER. What?
  Mr. POLIS. I'd like to ask your source.
  Mr. BUYER. Sure. It's the Royal College of Physicians.
  Mr. POLIS. That's from another country?
  Mr. BUYER. Absolutely.
  Mr. POLIS. Is the gentleman aware the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates it will reduce youth smoking by 11 percent over the next 10 
years, and adult smoking by 2 percent? Those are our own estimates.
  Mr. BUYER. The Royal College of Physicians, I'm indicating, with 
regard to the reduction of prevalence of smoking of .5 and 1 percentage 
point per year of places around the world. Two percent CRS? Yeah, this 
is CBO. I don't know where you're getting your facts. This is CBO. Last 
time I checked, CBO is in the United States, you think? Yeah. CBO is in 
the United States.
  Now, let me also move to harm reduction strategies. Here's why I'm 
really upset. I'm upset because what we really should be doing, if we 
really had an interest in improving public health, we should be 
migrating populations, moving populations. And when you move 
populations, you also want to inform people with regard to choices and 
the risk associated with products. We do that every day in the types of 
automobiles which we buy, whether you're going to wear your seatbelt. I 
suppose, I don't know, if you want to wear a helmet--did you wear a 
helmet to work when you drove your car today? I guess that's a choice 
you could make. People make harm reduction choices every day. In the 
foods we eat, what we drink, whatever we consume, we make these 
decisions every day. But how come we don't apply harm reduction 
strategies to tobacco? We should.
  So, in the marketplace right now, there are many types of products. 
Now, what is unique about what's happening here is that this 
legislation doesn't even touch that which is most harmful, which are 
cigars and pipes. Cigars and pipes, you can directly ingest these 
toxins and carcinogens in a far greater strength into the body, and it 
is more harmful. But that's not even touched in this legislation.
  So let's just talk about what's touched. If you look at the continuum 
of risk and the choice of available products that are out there today, 
the most harmful, which would be under this bill, are the non-filtered 
cigarettes. That's why I put them at the 100 percent.
  Next is if you actually put a filter on that cigarette. We're 
beginning to reduce the harm.
  Then you've got tobacco-heated cigarettes. But we don't understand 
all the science about the tobacco-heated cigarettes.
  Then you have an electronic cigarette, whereby it's a nicotine 
delivery device. Yet we know that when you don't ingest the smoke, that 
you have a less harmful product.
  Then there are the U.S. smokeless products. Now we can reduce the 
risk by 90 percent and say to an individual that you can obtain your 
nicotine you want, but guess what? You can reduce the harm by 90 
percent. But these are still all harmful products.
  Then you can go to a Swedish snus, and now you can reduce almost 98 
percent of the risk. The difference here is one is fermented, and the 
other is pasteurized.
  Then you can go to dissolvable tobacco products that have no 
nitrosamines. And then you can go to almost a 99.5 percent reduction of 
the risk. So you can actually get your nicotine by either an orb or a 
strip you lay on your tongue, or you can have a stick that kind of 
looks like a toothpick and you can roll it and you can obtain your 
nicotine, and you can remove 99 percent of the health risk. Ninety-nine 
percent.
  But this legislation is going to say no to these types of 
innovations. No; that somehow we're going to lock into that which is 
the most harmful, instead of permitting a migration.
  Now, what we want is, as individuals migrate, and you've got then the 
therapeutics and medicinal types of nicotine, what you really want is 
them to quit. And when you migrate them, you migrate them to eventually 
quit smoking.

                              {time}  0945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. BUYER. What we have in the bill is abstinence. It mentions harm 
reduction, but because there is a two-tiered approach to the approval 
process for the introduction of new tobacco products, it is truly an 
entry barrier, so we've locked down the marketplace. When you lock down 
the marketplace, you do not improve public health in this country, and 
that is the greatest concern that I have here today.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, currently a head of lettuce receives more 
regulation than tobacco products. I would simply ask: Which is more 
dangerous to the American people? I would like to quote from The New 
York Times today, which endorsed, through an editorial, this bill, and 
it has been supported in the past as well.
  ``It has now been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that cigarette 
makers have spent decades making false statements, suppressing evidence 
of harm, and manipulating the design of cigarettes to increase their 
addictiveness. Federal regulators should be able to stop many of these 
abuses--and we hope help prevent more Americans from losing their lives 
to smoking.''
  This bill is the first step.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, I thank my colleague from the 
Rules Committee for allowing me to speak for 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my colleague and member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee from Indiana. I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention

[[Page 14906]]

and Tobacco Control Act. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, and I 
am pleased that we will finally send this piece of legislation to the 
President. Again, I respectfully disagree with some of the statements 
earlier.
  For many years, Congress has tried to address tobacco use and the 
impact it has on our country and on our people. Nearly 21 percent of 
Americans smoke cigarettes, which is actually a reduction over the past 
few years, but almost 23 percent of high school students are smokers--
23 percent.
  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, every day, 1,140 young adults start smoking. Over 1,000 
young people start smoking. Every day that these young adults start 
smoking, they're entering a lifelong addiction. Therefore, the number 
of young adults who start smoking every day is tragic, especially when 
you consider that cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable 
death in our country. Once you're addicted to tobacco, it's with you 
for life and death. Most smokers start at 13, 14 or 15 years old.
  The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give the 
Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, the authority to regulate 
tobacco for the first time. As was said earlier, we don't regulate 
tobacco now. We're finally giving the Food and Drug Administration the 
authority to regulate it.
  This bill is fully paid for, and the FDA activity on tobacco will be 
fully funded through a user fee, not through the FDA's existing budget. 
These new funds will not take away or affect any of the FDA's current 
activities. This bill will also subject all new tobacco products to 
premarket review. It will give the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services the ability to restrict the sale, distribution and promotion 
of tobacco products. The Secretary will be able to establish tobacco 
product standards and require manufacturers to provide the Secretary 
with a list of harmful ingredients in tobacco products. We don't even 
know what we're smoking today. The bill will establish new labeling 
requirements to tobacco products.
  I believe the bill is long overdue, and I am pleased that this bill 
has the support of tobacco manufacturers such as Philip Morris as well 
as public health groups like the American Cancer Society and the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Family Smoking Prevention and 
Tobacco Control Act is a step in the right direction to address the 
issue of smoking in our country.
  I ask Members of Congress: How many loved ones and constituents do 
you know who have died from lung cancer caused by smoking?
  This bill can help those 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds, who are growing 
up now, not to become addicted to tobacco. I strongly support the bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a couple of issues.
  It seems to me that, if a head of lettuce has more rules than 
tobacco, then I think we should reduce the regulations on lettuce. I 
think we're going in the wrong direction in terms of this issue.
  The other thing I would like to point out is something that my 
colleague from Indiana pointed out. This bill focuses totally on the 
issue of abstinence. It's interesting to me that I've been in so many 
debates where the majority party completely puts aside abstinence 
education when it comes to sex education in the schools. They say 
abstinence education has absolutely no benefit, and we know the 
research shows the opposite. Yet, on this issue, they'd like to go 
totally for abstinence education.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring up two points.
  During my presentation, the gentleman brought up the 11 percent 
issue. After I gave my remarks, I immediately went to the Congressional 
Budget Office. It was a very clever attempt, Mr. Speaker, of the Rules 
Committee to try to confuse the American people, so I'll read directly 
from the CBO report so the record is clear.
  ``Based on information from academic and other researchers, CBO 
estimates that H.R. 1256,'' which is the Waxman bill, which is not 
being heard here--it is the Kennedy bill which is being referred to 
here--``would result in a further reduction in the number of underage 
tobacco users of 11 percent by 2019.''
  Here is the other part, the rest of the story, that the Rules 
Committee did not share with the country.
  ``CBO also estimates that implementing H.R. 1256 would lead to a 
further decline in smoking by adults by about 2 percent after 10 
years.'' Wow. Wow.
  Now let me refer to the other. Too often, we should be careful about 
being cute here on the House floor. ``Cute'' means the reference with 
regard to lettuce, so I'll follow your logic. If you were to take that 
lettuce, dry it, roll it, and go ahead and smoke your lettuce, do you 
realize that you would end up with similar problems than if you were 
smoking tobacco? It's not the nicotine that kills. It's the smoke that 
kills. It's the inhalation of the smoke. That's what causes and is 
responsible for the pandemic of cancers, of heart disease, of 
respiratory disease, and of other factors. It's the smoke. So, as for 
the migration of people from smoke into smokeless and into other forms 
of therapies, if they want to obtain their nicotine, it's okay. Mr. 
Waxman, himself, would say, I do not want to outlaw tobacco.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the differences between 
smoking lettuce--and I have to admit that this is the first time I've 
heard of smoking lettuce--and smoking tobacco is that tobacco, because 
of its nicotine content, is highly addictive. Again, there is evidence, 
undisputable evidence, that companies have deliberately increased the 
levels of addictive nicotine within those products and that American 
lives have been lost as a result.
  One of the other important aspects of this bill is ending the 
practice of many of these tobacco products which are targeted 
specifically to children--barring the sale of flavored tobacco 
products, such as fruit and cloves and chocolate, with names that 
entice children, like ``Very Berry.'' This would ensure that those are 
properly regulated.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support 
of this rule and of the bill, as amended, by the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, as they say in the intelligence world, ``this is a slam 
dunk.'' I have experienced the tragedy that afflicts many tobacco users 
and their families. Both of my parents were chain smokers. My father, a 
physician, quit 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. After long illnesses, both parents died from lung cancer. 
It was a nightmare and one I would spare other families. As a 
grandmother of three, I hope my grandkids will never smoke.
  Approximately 4,000 children 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, 
regular users. We can take a big step forward in breaking this deadly 
cycle by giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. 
That's all this bill does, and it is long overdue.
  The legislation we are voting on today is the product of a decades'-
long crusade by our colleague Henry Waxman, by Senator Edward Kennedy, 
by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and by scores of public health 
groups. It is a big downpayment on health care reform.
  Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $9 billion annually 
treating tobacco-related diseases. This critical funding could be put 
towards our failing health care infrastructure and towards making 
health care more affordable for everyone. With its passage today, I 
hope this bill will become law promptly, and I hope that the CBO will 
find the way to score the savings that come from this and from other 
preventative health measures.
  If we can do this, we can find a way to cut the cost of health care 
reform, of

[[Page 14907]]

national health care reform, which is urgently needed this year. So, as 
I see it, this is a downpayment on health care reform, and it's a 
downpayment on the health of our children and of our grandchildren. 
This bill will save lives and scarce resources. This bill is a slam 
dunk. Vote ``aye'' on the rule and on the underlying legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield briefly to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who has a very important point 
to make on this issue.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my good friend from 
California that I am not an advocate of smoking at all. What I'm trying 
to do here on the floor is to help improve the public health of our 
Nation, and this is a bill that actually locks down the marketplace.
  To the speaker, as to my reference to Ms. Harman, I want you to know 
that that is my sincere effort here. How do we improve public health?
  Other nations around the world are all struggling, like we are, for 
good, sound public policy in how we regulate a legal product by adult 
users. There are restrictions with regard to access to children. Then, 
with regard to adult users, countries around the world are beginning to 
look at harm reduction and at applying those strategies to tobacco.
  We had an opportunity to do that. It failed here on the floor, and I 
recognize that. It's probably something that's new. I welcome the 
opportunity to join with the gentlewoman from California, as we've 
worked really well together our entire time we've been here, and I 
would love to work with you on harm reduction strategies. I'll just 
read this from the American Association of Public Health Physicians. 
Since, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee doesn't want me to cite the 
Royal College of Physicians, I'll cite an American institution.
  The American Association of Public Health Physicians found, In 
practical terms, the enhancement of current policies based on the 
premise that all tobacco products are equally risky will yield only 
small and barely measurable reductions in tobacco-related illness and 
death. The addition of a harm reduction component, however--and that's 
why I want to work with Ms. Harman--could yield a 50 to 80 percent 
reduction in tobacco-related illness and death over the first 10 years 
and a likely reduction of up to 90 percent within 20 years.
  That's why I'm so passionate about a harm reduction strategy. I 
embrace your personal story, and that's why I am so sincere about a 
harm reduction.
  Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I would yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate what you've said, and I do appreciate long 
years of collaboration on very important issues, especially affecting 
the military, like sexual harassment and this wave of sexual assault 
and rape against women. I appreciate that very much.
  On this issue, sure, let's work together on a harm reduction 
strategy. I think this bill, which I'm for and you're obviously 
against, goes only partway. There is a lot more to do, and a lot of 
people have terrible stories like mine, and I embrace the fact that 
you're against smoking. I surely hope that becomes a much more 
prevalent practice by our young kids. That's what my purpose here is. I 
never want anyone else to have the kind of tragedy that I had with 
parents who were addicted like mine.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, I will embrace that, and probably what 
we need to do if the President signs this bill into law, I offer to 
work with the gentlelady and we'll introduce a bill to incorporate harm 
reduction. I agreed earlier when I had spoken with Chairman Waxman, he 
recognizes that a pragmatic approach is truly incorporation of harm 
reduction with abstinence. And when we're talking about teenage sex or 
the use of tobacco, if we really, truly want a hand, four fingers and a 
thumb don't make a hand without a palm. So you have to use pragmatism 
along with new science.
  And I will welcome the opportunity to work with the gentlelady.
  Mr. POLIS. I want to highlight that this legislation is supported by 
over 1,000 public health, faith, and other organizations, including the 
American Cancer Society Action Network, the American Heart Association, 
American Dental Association, and American Lung Association. I would 
also like to think that the recent dialogue between the Representative 
from California and the Representative from Indiana, that, of course, 
this bill is just a start.
  With regard to many strategies that need to be used and employed to 
reduce youth smoking, certainly the banning of targeted marketing 
towards youth and tobacco products that clearly have names that affect 
youth, creating a regulatory structure for the first time around 
tobacco products, are constructive steps; and I would agree with the 
gentleman from Indiana not mutually inconclusive steps, mutually 
inconsistent steps with many other things that we need to do for the 
common goal that we share to reducing youth smoking.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, the tobacco industry has been feeding us 
a line. In addition to selling tobacco, the industry is now selling us 
a story. They would have us believe that this bill, which will allow 
the FDA to regulate their tobacco, will ruin their industry, shut down 
small farms, and hurt already-hurting farmers who just want to earn a 
living.
  The truth is the tobacco industry has lied for decades about the 
addictive nature of tobacco. They have targeted our children as prime 
consumers of their deadly product, and they have produced and marketed 
a product that is the leading cause of preventible death in the United 
States, killing an estimated 438,000 people each year.
  It is past time to empower the FDA to step up and stop the tobacco 
companies from continuing to make false claims about tobacco and start 
telling the truth. For too many years, the tobacco industry has sold us 
a line. They've attempted to tell us what they're selling, but in 
reality, the only thing they've been selling us is sickness and death.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that Mr. Buyer has brought up 
again the issue that the Republicans have alternatives that are proven 
more effective. But those alternatives are not being properly 
considered by the majority party. Department of Health and Human 
Services Secretary Levin has noted that this legislation could be also 
viewed by foreign countries as a hostile trade action.
  Many of the cloves and other flavored cigarettes that are banned 
under this bill are manufactured in foreign countries. However, this 
bill expressly permits production of menthol cigarettes. This could 
lead Indonesia or other foreign governments to file complaints at the 
World Trade Organization claiming discrimination against their 
products. Ultimately, retaliatory measures could be taken against 
American-made products which could lead to unnecessary trade disputes 
with a negative effect on economic growth.
  As Mr. Buyer again pointed out earlier, most of us do not want to 
encourage smoking. But we oppose this bill on the basis that it is 
establishing a new Federal authority for the regulation of the tobacco 
industry in putting the FDA in charge of this. The tobacco industry 
should continue to be regulated at the State level. We should not 
expand the Federal Government to add another layer of bureaucracy to 
the already overburdened Food and Drug Administration and another layer 
of regulation to American consumers and lives. This is not the 
direction we need to go, but it is the direction, again, that the 
administration and the majority party want to go, that is, more and 
more control of the lives of Americans.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, this bill is not a hostile trade action. 
Every sovereign State, every country has the full ability to regulate 
public health issues. Tobacco is a killer: 443,000 deaths per

[[Page 14908]]

year. Smoking-related deaths, as I mentioned earlier, are more than the 
deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, 
motor vehicle crashes, and fires combined. It is a matter of national 
sovereignty, a concept that I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
is also a strong supporter of, that countries have the ability, in fact 
a duty, to regulate public health issues.
  Madam Speaker, this bill specifically achieves critical public health 
goals. This legislation would ensure that tobacco products are not 
advertised or sold to children. And as I mentioned, 90 percent of adult 
smokers start before the age of 19.
  Addiction to tobacco begins almost universally in childhood and 
adolescence. Tobacco companies have long taken advantage of this 
vulnerability by promoting their products through cartoon 
advertisements, free, tobacco-themed merchandise that appeals to kids, 
and sponsorships of sports and entertainment events.
  By reinstating the FDA's 1996 rule, we will be able to ban all 
outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and 
playgrounds. Again, common sense. We will ban free giveaways of any 
nontobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product that appeals to 
children; we restrict vending machines and self-service displays to 
adult-only facilities; and require retailers to verify age for all 
over-the-counter sales and provide for Federal enforcement and 
penalties for retailers who sell to minors.
  Barring the sale of certain flavored tobacco products, such as fruits 
and chocolate, will protect the health of children who are lured to 
smoking by these candy-like flavors with little, if any, impact on 
adult enjoyment of tobacco.
  The opponents of this legislation often cite the American value of 
individual or personal responsibility. Certainly informed adults are 
responsible for making their own choices and dealing with the 
consequences, including the choice of whether to smoke. Where we differ 
is our treatment of the fact that 90 percent of the Americans who smoke 
began as teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17. Opponents ask kids to 
make grave, health-related choices with incomplete information and hold 
those kids responsible for childhood mistakes with their lives. When 80 
percent of kids smoke the most heavily advertised brands, it's easy to 
infer the influence of advertising on children.
  Big Tobacco claims they don't market to kids. Nevertheless, they do a 
remarkably and suspiciously good job of getting kids to use their 
products. This has to change.
  This legislation will also require that tobacco products marketed as 
safer and claims to be safer are in fact demonstrated to be safer by 
scientific proof. No more will consumers be duped into believing there 
is such a thing as healthy cigarettes, light or low tar. By imposing 
scientifically backed, new labeling requirements for such products, 
this bill will ensure that tobacco consumers not only receive accurate 
information about what is in such products, but also are protected from 
poisonous substances that are injurious to health.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from Colorado.
  I rise in support of the underlying legislation, and I thank my 
friend from Colorado for his passion on the subject.
  We know that if we can deter teenage smoking, we can deter a lifetime 
of health risks and health costs.
  I must confess, Madam Speaker, some concern about accepting the 
Senate provision here. There were other provisions in the House bill 
that I passionately supported that protect our Federal workforce, and I 
specifically refer to the provision allowing the counting of sick leave 
for retirement and allowing those who are under the Federal Employment 
Retirement Service to re-employ, pick up where they left off. These are 
important provisions, Madam Speaker, because the Federal workforce, as 
we look out to the future, is going to be challenged with a brain 
drain.
  The baby boom generation is going to be retiring. As many as 40 
percent of the current workforce will be retiring over the next decade. 
In order to attract talent for the future Federal workforce, we need 
more flexible work rules; we need to provide more amenities for that 
workforce. I was disappointed that the Senate, on an amendment by Mr. 
DeMint of South Carolina, dropped those provisions from this bill that 
were carefully crafted from the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform here in the House, and I hope we can revisit those issues in the 
future.
  But the underlying bill with respect to tobacco is a very important 
bill. And, again, I thank Mr. Polis from Colorado for his leadership 
and passion to the subject.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
bringing up another important issue that is no longer included in this 
bill, and hopefully he and other of our colleagues can work to ensure 
that we have a competitive workforce for our Federal Government.
  Madam Speaker, tobacco is the deadliest product on the market today. 
It kills over 400,000 Americans every year. Despite that grim 
statistic, tobacco companies have enjoyed a great deal of influence 
over public policy--indeed, a privileged state--avoiding the 
appropriate oversight of their dangerous business. By giving the Food 
and Drug Administration the authority to exercise their proper 
oversight duties, we strip Big Tobacco of their special privileges and 
power.
  We owe consumers the same levels of protection with regard to tobacco 
use as we do with 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 
as a head of lettuce or mascara or a drink?
  The FDA is more than capable of handling this new responsibility. We 
entrust the most sensitive regulation and oversight efforts already to 
the FDA: the regulation of what we put in our own bodies. We must give 
this agency the opportunity to succeed, providing the necessary 
resources to get the job done; and this bill does that.
  By providing the Health and Human Services Secretary with the 
authority to regulate tobacco product standards and product testing 
based on scientific evidence, this legislation will promote and protect 
the Nation's public health. And as my friend and colleague and 
Representative from California, Ms. Harman, said, this is an important 
nexus in the health care debate in reducing costs and helping ensure 
that Americans are healthier.
  For far too long we have not followed doctors' orders with regard to 
tobacco use. Science tells us a great deal about the causes of disease 
and the risks of certain behaviors. This legislation puts those 
scientific findings at the forefront of policymaking for the Department 
of Health and Human Services.
  Mr. BUYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. Yes.
  Mr. BUYER. I want to make sure the record is clear.
  Earlier in your remarks you referred to the issue on spiking. Spiking 
was an allegation that was made in a newspaper article; the 
investigation had taken place. Former FDA Commissioner Kessler found 
that spiking allegations of nicotine were found to be false.
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you for clarifying.
  This bill also promotes public health by requiring the Health and 
Human Services Secretary to consider placing tobacco replacement 
product on a fast-track FDA approval process. If we want Americans to 
stop smoking, we must provide them with the help they need to kick the 
habit. Holding up these smoking cessation aids, in an age of 
bureaucratic red tape, is no longer an option. I believe that that's a 
concept that's consistent with the harm-reduction strategy that my 
colleague from Indiana had discussed earlier.

[[Page 14909]]

  By creating a special category of small tobacco product 
manufacturers, the bill will ensure that small businesses have the 
assistance they need from the FDA to comply with the new regulations. 
Supported by over 1,000 health and faith-based groups from across the 
country, including the American Cancer Association, the American Heart 
Association, the American Lung Association, The Campaign for Tobacco 
Free Kids, and the American Dental Association. This bill also 
preserves States rights by not preempting State tobacco laws. It's 
extremely important to respect that many States, including my own home 
State of Colorado, already recognize the dangers of smoking and the 
role that regulation can play and have excellent laws on the books that 
keep cigarettes out of the hands of children and also regulates second-
hand smoke.
  I'm very proud to say that my home State of Colorado is recognized as 
a leader in tobacco control, as demonstrated by our leadership in 
enacting a comprehensive smoke-free law that includes casinos. 
Additionally, Colorado is working on enacting a youth-access policy 
statewide. A senator from my district, the State senator, introduced a 
bill last year that required ID checks for tobacco purchases and 
prohibited youths from possessing tobacco products.
  I would like to highlight, in conclusion, a story of a hero in the 
cancer awareness movement from my district, a type of heroism that, 
unfortunately, is all too common.

                              {time}  1015

  Susan DeWitt was a typical soccer mom from Superior, Colorado. She 
made a DVD video about the struggles of her family during her 8-year 
battle with cancer that ultimately cost her her life. She had earlier 
worked as a reporter in Boulder County. She had been a light smoker in 
her teens and continued into her twenties, and she quit in 1992, in her 
early thirties.
  She passed away at the age of 42 from lung cancer. She created 
``Through My Children's Eyes'' as a legacy, and her family founded the 
Susan DeWitt Foundation to continue her work.
  How many more Susan DeWitts must there be in this country? This 
plague has touched almost all American lives. How many of us have lost 
a friend or relative to lung cancer and to smoking?
  This bill is a critical important first step in finally creating a 
regulatory structure to discourage young people from ever beginning to 
smoke and regulating the safety of tobacco products.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Madam 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.

                          ____________________