tv [untitled] CSPAN June 4, 2009 3:30pm-4:00pm EDT
smokeless products in filtered and nonfilterred cigarettes, you may have one manfacturer that controls 70% of the market. because you grandfathered it all in and forbidden f.d.a. from changing it to 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 2007, they can't be sold in the future because as i've discussed earlier, to bring a new product to marketplace, you have to make the claim that new nontobacco user would use the product. yet how can you make that claim if the same provision disallows you from talking to a nontobacco user about whether they would use the product or not? it is a catch-22. yeah, we create add pathway, but we also designed it in a way that you couldn't meet the threshold needed to have an
application approved. so, very simple. point two of the burr-hagan bill does not give the f.d.a. meaningful authority to require changes in tobacco products. they are 100% correct. nor does h.r. 1256. as a matter of fact, not only does it not allow for changes, it legislates there can't be changes to products that were sold before 2007. if campaign for tobacco-free kids is trying to reduce risk, the risk of disease and death, and youth use age is, they've supported the wrong bill. the third complaint, the burr-hagan bill will actually harm public health because it perpetuates consumers' misconceptions that they can reduce their risk of disease by switching to so-called low-tar cigarettes. let me say, mr. president, our bill goes farther than the kennedy-waxman legislation by
banning -- banning -- the use of terms like "light," "ultra light" or "medium," and bans the use of candy, fruit, or alcohol descript terse, on cigarettes even if not characterizing player. 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, we will require under 1256 the f.d.a. does not have to inform the public about the relative risk of the products that they regulate. so they're not going to share with the american people that if you smoke unfiltered cigarettes it is 100% rifnlg if you smoke filtered cigarettes, it is 90% rifnlgt but if in the substitute
that's being offered, we actually require the harm reduction center annually to print a list of what the risk of the products are that are tobacco-related that they regulate. fourth complaint by the campaign for tobacco-free kids: the burr-hagan bill does not strengthen warning labels in a meaningful way. well, actually, our bill incorporates the same warning levels for cigarettes that are contained in the kennedy-waxman legislation and requires that they be placed on the bottom 30% -- 30% -- of a cigarette pack, including senator enzi's graphic warning label language. also, our amendment goes further than 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 does not strengthen warning labels in a meaningful way. now, the only thing i can think is the campaign for tobacco-free kids either did not read high bill or does not know the difference between identical language in 1256 and the burr-hagan substitute. because the wording is actually the same. in addition to that, we require that the ingredients that are in those products be listed on the pack, which i think is beneficial to consumer choice. fifth, the burr-hagan bill does not adequately protect consumers about misleading claims about tobacco products. once again, our bill requires the same rigorous standards used in h.r. 1256 for review and approve, for reduce risk claims of tobacco products. furthermore, it requires the harm reduction center to
establish and publish a relative risk of tobacco and nicotine products on an annual basis, but unlike kennedy and waxman, this legislation also requires disclosure on individual packs of all ingredients. the last and number six complaint by the campaign for -- kikes me, number six, burr-hagan gives the tobacco industry license to market to youth. our bill eliminates print advertising. their marketing -- there are marketing prohibitions and restrictions over and above what 1256 does. the last one, the burr-hagan bill gives the tobacco industry an undue influence and creates gridlock on an important scientific advisory committee by giving the tobacco industry the same number of votes -- voting representatives as health professionals and scientists. a 19-member board, 10 health
care experts, four members of the general public, two representatives of the tobacco manufacturing, one representative of small tobacco manufacturing, one representative of the tobacco growers, one expert on elicit trade of tobacco products -- somehow 14 health care experts, one trade expert can be depicted by the campaign for tobacco-free kids as being the same number as four tobacco-related members of the advisory board. so clearly 15 without a tie to tobacco, four with a remote tie to tobacco, and the campaign for tobacco-free kids said 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 that's set on one side of a bill or another to be factual. i'm not sure how you can look at 15 individuals in one category and four in another and portray for a minute that that's the same number, but that's what campaign for tobacco-free kids does. if in fact they've misled in the letter to the committee about 1256 in the substitute, what else haven't they told us or what else have they told us that's not accurate? it brings into question that effort and clearly if they support 1256, the effort is not to reduce the risk of death and disease or youth usage of tobacco products. mr. president, can i inquire as to how much time i have left? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina has 16 minutes remaining.
mr. burr: i thank the chair. mr. president, when i ended talking about the substitute, i had held up this can of come he will orbs. and i -- of camel orbs. i had told the members that that was product that was currently rated at about a 1% risk, a 99% reduction from typical nonfiltered cigarettes and a 89% reduction -- my math is a little fuzzy after all the time i've spent on the floor -- 89% reduction from nonfiltered cigarettes. i just want to hold up what a dissolvable tobacco. you don't get lung scwer. you don't get copd. doesn't cause heart disease. 1% risk. but under h.r. 1256, this
product is outlawed. why? because it wasn't sold between -- before february 2007. now, let me say to my colleagues, if the intent of passing federal regulation over tobacco industry -- and i'm supportive of it -- is to reduce death and disease, why would you exclude a product that has a 1% risk but grandfather in products that have a 100% likelihood of killing you? even if you're not debating whether it's in the f.d.a. or whether it's in the harm reduction center, how in the world can a member of the united states senate say that it's okay to eliminate the ability for an adult to choose to use this and to be locked in to a certain death? we're supposed to pass policy that makes sense that works for
the american people, that actually does reduce the risk of death, disease, and youth useage 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 that they were given for cessation programs, how can you expect that you're going to reduce youth usage? when you see that 48 states have a higher prevalence of marijuana use among youth than they do above tobacco, how can you conclude that just by giving the f.d.a. the jurisdiction to regulate tobacco that somehow that means you're going to have a reduction in youth usage. itit's just not going to havment the american association of public health physicians states that this product orbs are the most effective way to fight death,
disease associated with current tobacco users. let me state at that again. the american association of public health physicians states that these are the best tool we have to get people to quit smoking. as a matter of fact, i'm proud to say that the american association of public health physicians yesterday endorsed the substitute amendment and not the base bill. because they recognize the base bill does nothing but provide a pathway to certain disease or death. just so i'm clear, mr. preside mr. president, under the base bill, h.r. 1256, marlboro is cemented on the retail shelf. camel orbs that reduces death and disease related to tobacco use is band, can't be sold.
swedish snus -- it wasn't on the market before february 2007. marlboros are on the shelf. snus? it's banned. even though the swedish experience that i talked about earlier -- during the past 25 years, swedish men showed notable reductions in smoking-related disease, a decline in lung cancer incidence rate to the lowest of any developed nation, no detectable increase in oral cancer rate, improvement in cardiovascular health, tobacco-related mortality in sweden is among the lowest in the developed world. but in our infinite wisdom in this austere body, we're getting
ready to pass a bill that takes a product that sweden used to get people off of cigarettes, that sweden used to reduce lung cancer, that sweden used to bring down cardiovascular disease, that sweden used to reduce mortality by tobacco products, and we're going to eliminate it. and we're going to lock them into everything sweden is going to try to get rid of. think about this before you do it. for god's sakes, once you pass this, it's too late. mr. president, current cessation programs don't work. i said earlier, those products have a 95% failure rate. given current smokers an opportunity to migrate to a less harmful product, it is a public
health initiative, not creating a pathway to reduced harmful products. it is not a public health bill. but those products are banned in h.r. 1256. senator hagan's and my amendment allow these products to be marketed and regulated. marketed and regulated. marketed and regulated correctly. our amendment establishes the 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 to 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. -- risk 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 in cigarettes and give the harm reduction center the authority to reduce smoking articles and adjust accordingly if the best interests -- in what is the best interest of public health. what we don't do is give an already overburdened agency the responsibility to regulate tobacco. now we've had a change in administrations but as supportive as i am of the new commissioner of the f.d.a. f.d.a., she will do a wonderful job, let me turn to the former
commissioner of the f.d.a., two years ago. he gave his opinion on the possibility of f.d.a. regulation for tobacco. "the provisions in this big," and you might say, gosh, there was two years ago, well, i think i've already made a credible case that most of what's in this bill was written 10 years ago, even some of the deadlines that are in the bill haven't been changed since the bill was updated two years ago so i think it's very credible to use the comments of the former f.d.a. commissioner two years ago. "the provisions in this bill would require substantial resources and f.d.a. may not be in a position to meet all the activities within the proposes user fee levels~... as a consequence of this f.d.a. 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're right back
where i started three 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 hope at night after having a prescription filled that they don't have to worry about whether it's safe? when they go to the doctor or the hospital and they're going to use a device, they aren't going to use something crafted in the back room that nobody reviewed to see if it was safe, it had the gold standard, the seal of approval of the food and drug administration. that the bu biologics that were created that didn't exist 10 years ago and we could be certain the f.d.a. looked at the new product and approved it for use in humans; that when we went to buy food our food would be safe. do we really want to jeopardize
the f.d.a. having to divert funds from food safety right now when we've had americans that have been killed? to we really want a reviewer at the f.d.a. whose gold standard is to prove safety and efficacy on all the products they regulate except for tobacco, lower their guard and let something through that didn't meet the threshhold of safe and effective? i'm not sure that's in the best interests of america. i'm not sure it's in the best interests of the american people. my colleague from connecticut came to the floor and said the food and drug administration is the only agency that had the experience, the expertise, and the resources -- well, the commissioner of the food and drug administration said, i don't have the resources. 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 applying -- from reviewing the applications for new drugs, new biologics. it could be that somebody 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 the f.d.a. had never regulated and that commissioners of the f.d.a. told us they didn't have the funds. i'm not sure how clear we need this. i said when i star started on my this was an uphill climb. the deck was stacked against me. i understood the threshhold was to come to the senate floor and to spend as much time as it took to convince my colleagues, republican and democrat and independent, that this was not a
bill where one party trumped the other. senator hagan's a democrat, i'm a republican. we've 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 f.d.a. is not the appropriate place to put it the american people expect us to find something else that meets the threshhold of the right regulation but doesn't encumber the gold standard of an agency that we're so reliant on. i'm hopeful we're going to have a vote this afternoon on the substitute. it will be next week before the base bill is voted on.
let me say to my colleagues, you're only going to have one opportunity to change this bill. that one opportunity is to vote for the substitute amendment. and if you vote for the substitute amendment, you're going to vote for a bill that actually reduces the risk of death and disease for people who choose, adults who choose, to use tobacco products. if you vote for the substitute you're actually going to vote for a bill that actually reduces youth usage in a real way. if you pass on support of the substitute -- and it will be a close vote -- if you pass on supporting it, you're going to have to live with what you do to the f.d.a. you're 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 up 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 united states senate and the house it passed by a voice vote. why did it take 2~1/2 years and two congresses? because we understand, 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 f.d.a. jurisdiction over tobacco. and in 1998 that bill bill law. -- that bill became law. every member knew it wasn't worth of risk of giving them the responsibility of tobacco after spending 2~1/2 years to protect the gold standard. we're not that forgotful.
don't forget our commitment to make sure the gold standard of the f.d.a. is intact. don't jeopardize it by giving them tobacco. don't let our kids be sold short by producing a bill that doesn't do the education they need to do the education so they never pick up a tobacco product. don't lock the adults who choose to use risky products, give them an opportunity to have less harmful products. that can be only done one way. that can only be done if members of the united states senate vote to support the hagan-burr substitute. it does keep kids from smoking. it does preserve the core mission of the f.d.a. it does reduce the risk of death and disease. mr. president, i yield the floor.
the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i rise today in support of the family prevention and control act. we all know someone who is currently a smoker, someone who has been a smoker. and i know we all worry about their health. and that's 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's hard to believe, but the fact is, tobacco use kills more people each year than alcohol, aids, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders and suicides -- combined. and 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's 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's why this legislation is so important. why i'm proud to be one of the 53 cosponsors of this legislation. again, over half the senate is cosponsoring this legislation. i want to 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 second-hand smoke. in new hampshire, almost 20% 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 that we're considering today expands on what new hampshire has done. it will give the f.d.a. the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products to youth. in new hampshire this year alone 6,300 children will try sphwrets for the first time -- try cigarettes for the first time. just over a third of the children will become addicted and become life-long smokers. the tobacco companies know these statistics and target 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, flavors such as twist-a-lime saying they contain hawaiian hints of coconut or winter mocha mint sounds like we're talking aboutic cream o tr candy, not cigarettes. but these i intice to try them t
this makes it easier for the kids to smoke. they don't make cigarettes less dangerous or less addictive. the tobacco companies don't stop at just the flavors to attract kids. they package the products in colorful patterns aimed at attracting children to their products. norma, from new hampshire, 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's developed a smokers cough. keith, from concord, 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 diagn