give the f.d.a. jurisdiction. well, senator kennedy made the following remarks during the 1998 senate floor debate to emphasize the need to protect kids. let me quote him: "f.d.a. commissioner kessler called this a pediatric disease with onset of adolescence and most adult smokers began to smoke before 18 and it makes sense for congress to discourage young people from starting to smoke during these critical years. youth smoking in america has reached an epidemic proportion according to a report by the centers for disease control. smoking rates among high school students soared by nearly a third between 1991 and 1997. among african-americans the rates soared by 80%, more than 36% of high school students

smoke by 1991 year high with youth smoking at crisis levels and still increasing we cannot rely on half-way measures. congress must use the strongest legislative tool available to reduce youth smoking as rapidly as we can." well, the senate told the american public that the passage of a massive f.d.a. tobacco regulation back in 1998 contained the strongest legislative tools available to address youth smoking issues. by the way, mr. president, they have decreased since 1998. overall smoking has decreased. i don't want anyone to think that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. as a matter of fact, what this shows is a comparison, a study

done by the centers for disease control and the congressional budget office estimate after reviewing the kennedy or waxman bill h.r. 1256. the cdc said that if we do nothing we reduce smoking to 15.9% by 2016. and the congressional budget office under h.r. 1256 said if we pass the kennedy bill the rate would be 17.8%. as a matter of fact, i miscalculated when i put the chart together and it's actually 2% higher. meaning we do 4% better if we do nothing. you see my point is this: exactly what i said at the beginning, the authors of the bill said the purpose is to reduce the risk of death and disease. and to reduce youth smoking.

i would tell you that a caveat to that should be that we should reduce smoking. and clearly the centers for disease control and prevention says if you do nothing, it goes to this point; and the congressional budget office after looking at the bill suggests it's 2 scrierks o% or f we pass the bill. now, why is that? how could it possibly be higher if you pass legislation that's supposed to fix it? well, mr. president, it's for that reason: because of what h.r. 1256 does. it is not a public health bill. it is a bill that locks in the most risky products and grandfathers them to the food and drug administration and allows no pathway for reduced harm products to come to market. it actually takes some reduced

harm products that are currently on the market but haven't been sold since february of 2007, therefore, they're gone. there's no ability for the f.d.a. to look at this product and say, my gosh, in the name of public health, let's keep this product on the market, because the united states senate legislatively is telling the f.d.a. what to do. why does it matter what agency we put this in if, in fact, congress believes they can fix it, then why haven't they fixed it up until now? if writing a bill that legislates how to fix it would work, why haven't we done it? well, i would contend that all i have to do is go to this chart of 50 states and for the majority of the states, the prevalence of marijuana usage being higher than the prevalence of youth smoking, tells you there's no regulatory body that

can eliminate the usage of an illegal product by those that choose to use it unless -- unless -- it's education. there is no education in h.r. 1256. let me say it again: there is no education in h.r. 1256. if the goal is to reduce the risk of death and disease and education is the only way to accomplish that, if the goal is to reduce youth prevalence of smoking and the only tool to accomplish that is education, then i ask the sponsor: come to the floor, show me where the education is in f.d.a. regulation. well, i'm on day five, now, maybe day six if you count that i was here for a short period of

time last monday but i didn't make it yesterday. i'm on day six yet to have anybody come to the floor and, one, ask the question, refute anything i've said, question the facts that i've produced. why? because i'm using the same agencies that most members come to the floor and reference to. the centers for disease control, the congressional budget office, it's hard if you tell me they're wrong, that they're not reputable entities within the federal government and turn and next week and bring your own statistics down here using the things we use as a gauge. one can question whether the royal college of physicians came to the right conclusion -- and i quote -- "in sweden, the available low-harm smokeless products have been shown to be an acceptable substitute for cigarettes to many smokers, while 'gay way' progression from

smokeless to smoking is relatively uncommon." let me say that again: "while gateway progression from smokeless to smoking is relatively uncommon," because some authors of 1256 say, my gosh, if we let reduce harmed products come to the marketplace this will create a gateway to youth usage of tobacco products that will eventually turn them into smokers. read the substitute bill. the subbil substitute bill reque reduced harm center to actually list for the american public the most risky tobacco products and the least risky. the bill that consolidates all this jurisdiction for tobacco within the food and drug administration doesn't even require the food and drug

administration to rank the most risky products. why? because those are the ones we grandfathered. we've said they can't touch them. compassion would tell you that if you want people to switch from smoking and give it up you've got to give them a tool to get there but what we've said is the future will consist of no new tools. only those manufacturers that were on the market before february 2007. some magical date in history that we'll all look back on and probably find that to blame as to why this program doesn't work. mr. president, members in a little over an hour will have an opportunity to come to the floor, have an opportunity to vote on the substitute. let me just say to them, if you want a real public health bill,

vote for the substitute. if you want to reduce the prevalence of youth smoking, vote for the substitute. if you want to reduce the rate of death and disease, vote for the substitute. don't just listen to me. listen to public health experts and authors who now have written on this. this happens to be a book that i'm not sure how long ago it was published. i'm sure i could reasonable find that out. but i think i spent $50 today to get -- either that or it's on loan. it seems like a lot of money. but the truth is, the book about how the senate of the united states is getting shafted. a book about the collusion that happened behind closed doors between the authors of this bill and philip morris.

it's written by an author named patrick basham. i just want to read you a few things that he's printed in his book. and i am quoting: "handy tobacco regulation to the f.d.a. as congress is poised to do is an epic public health mistake. it's tantamount to giving the keys of the regulatory store to the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer. there are significant and numerous problems with the f.d.a. regulating tobacco and virtually no benefits to public health." let me say that again: "there is significant and numerous problems with the f.d.a. regulating tobacco and virtually no benefits to public health." you get it? i mean, if you are going to bill it as a public health bill, for

god's sake put something in there that is in the benefit of the public health of this country. he goes on to say "kennedy, waxman and the public health establishment present the legislation as a masterful regulatory stroke that will end tobacco marketing, prevent kids from starting to smoke, make cigarettes less enjoyable to smoke and reduce adult smoking but f.d.a. regulation of tobacco will do none of these things." this is not a fan of the tobacco industry. this is an author, an individual that has been covered in numerous publications. he's an adjunct scholar with the k.o. center for responsive government, a lecturer at johns hopkins university. he has written a variety of policy issues in his articles that have appeared in the "new york times," "the washington post," "usa today," the new york

post, the new york daily news, just to make a few. his book "how philip morris burned ted kennedy and the antitobacco movement," this is no fan of tobacco. this is a guy that's calling balls and strikes. he's one person that's more concerned about the public health in this country and making sure that what we do accomplishes good public health policy that he's willing to be outspoken. he goes on in his book and he says "the process of validating new, reduced risk products appears to be designed to prevent such products from ever reaching the marketplace, thus giving smokers the start and for man the impossible choice of quit or die." you might remember that part. we can now call the continuum of risk "quit or die." rather than making smoking safer

for those who continue to smoke, it will deny smokers access to new products that might literally save their lives. that is hardly a sterling prescription for good public health. if the objective is public health, h.r. 125 smalls way short. even if the idea of f.d.a. regulation were good in theory and practice, several things, including the f.d.a.'s competence in tobacco policy and science, it's public imimagine, it's fit with the tobacco file and its available resources and overall current competence argue strongly against giving it regulatory responsibilities for our nation's tobacco policy policy. this is a scholar. the f.d.a. regulation of tobacco need not be a public health tragedy, however. by bringing the crafting of

tobacco policy into the light of day by taking it out of the hands of special interest and most importantly by keeping it away from the f.d.a., there is every opportunity to begin to create a policy that not only seasons the interest of non -- that not only serves the interest of smokers and nonsmokers but it is a policy that might really work. to senators of the united states senate, if you want a policy that really works, do not adopt h.r. 1256. consider strongly the merits of the substitute amendment which does focus on the public health of this country. mr. basham writes on a variety of topics and when he took an objective view of the situation, he saw h.r. 1256 as misguided legislate.

legislation. in my amendment, we accomplish exactly what mr. basham raises. our amendment sets up a new agency under the auspices of h.h.s. that will examine all tobacco products and set up a regulatory framework that saves lives. that's in the public health interest of america. we don't preclude new reduced-risk products from entering the marketplace. let me say that again. we do not preclude reduced-risk marketplace from coming into the marketplace. h.r. 1256 does. we mandate the tobacco harm reduction center post the relative risk of each tobacco product currently on the market. wouldn't that be incredible if we had a ranking between cigarettes and all the other things. well, you wouldn't need that if 1256 passed because you would only have nonfiltered cigarettes, filtered cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

i can tell you the ranking would be unfiltered cigarettes the worst. filtered cigarettes next to the worst. and smokeless third. and those are the choices that adults would have in this country and for somebody that's addicted to smoking if smokeless wasn't something that enticed them to quit smoking, they'd be left out because the legislation doesn't create a pathway for new products. we also give current users the information they need to decide whether they want to migrate from a more harmful product like cigarettes to less harmful products. mr. president, i've heard my colleagues and many other advocacy groups boast about how the underlying bill would give the f.d.a. authority to remove toxins in cigarettes. to boast about how granting f.d.a. the authority to regulate advertising will encourage people to not use and current smokers to quit. and i agree to better warning

labels will act as a deterrent to nonsmokers. but what about current smokers. there is an study cited in canada. the study consisted of showing current smokers packages of their favorite cigarettes with an increased warning label and graphic pictorials of cancer and other disease. the study concluded that no statistical significant change in smoking behavior could be expected to be followed from the redesigned packages. if you noticed over this 45 minutes so far, i've sort of knocked all the things out that the sponsors of this bill said it accomplished. it doesn't do any of them. it does do one thing. it grandfathers the most risky products and consolidates their regulation at the f.d.a.

it doesn't reduce risk of death, disease, or youth prevalence of smoking. since h.r. 1256 bans any reduced-risk, smokeless products from entering the marketplace, it blocks current smokers only into cigarettes. however, our amendment doesn't lock them into just cigarettes. we provide this consumer with the ultimate amount of choice. the purpose of my amendment, as i said, is to reduce the risk of death and disease and to reduce youth prevalence of smoking. the regulated products under my amendment, mr. president, all tobacco and nicotine product. there are no holes in this substitute. it covers the entire scope of tobacco products. new smoking provisions in 1256 -- and i quote -- "change current tobacco advertising to black and white only and require warning labels on packages of

cigarettes." we require bracket warning labels on the package of the cigarettes and we eliminate print advertising. somehow the authors of this bill would have us believe that if we go from color to black-and-white advertising that people under 18 actually won't read it or can't read it. maybe today's youth can only read it in color. but they suggest that theirs is a stronger regulatory bill. but the substitute eliminates print advertising. no longer will the magazine that a mom finds in the grocery store, attractive that might not be one of those publications that is considered a publication that youth would purchase, but a 14-year-old might go to her mother's "vogue" magazine and flip open and see a tobacco advertisement by mistake.

it will happen under h.r. 1256 but only in black and white. h.r. 1256 uses kwraours fees to fund the f.d.a. -- user fees to fund the f.d.a., about $700 million over three years. we asked the secretary of health and human services, how much do you need to stand up a complete new agency that is only focused on tobacco regulation. $100 million a year. because these fees that we charge tobacco companies are passed on to the consumers, the people least likely to fund it, the ones who are already funding a children's health insurance program, funding a majority of the state medicaid programs. let's give these folks a break. let's not put this entire thing on their backs, especially if it's not going to do any good. mr. president, it's not just

mr. basham. as a matter of fact, brad rodu wrote march 26 -- and brad rodu is the endowed share tobacco harm reduction research school of medicine, university of louisville. i'll read a couple of excerpts. according to the public health physicians, the bill will do more harm than good in terms of the future tobacco-related illness and death. while the aaphd favors effective regulation of the tobacco industry, this bill does not meet that standard. the bill introduced by henry waxman and supported by medical groups that are engaged in a crusade against the tobacco industry, that's a problem. in a blind desire to kill tobacco manufacturers, the waxman bill may end up hurting smokers. and it goes on and on and on.

again, an endowed share of a major academic institution which says don't do this. well, how about michael seagull, professor in social and behavioral science. get this: boston university. school of public health, home of the author of the bill. los angeles time op-ed, june 3, not long ago. let me read a couple excerpts out of mr. seagull's op-ed. "in the end, it ensures federal regulation of tobacco products will remain more about politics than about science. h.r. 1256 gives the f.d.a. the ability to lower nicotine levels in cigarettes. since h.r. 1256 locks current users into cigarettes only by banning, reduced risk products, h.r. 1256 ensures that 40 million americans who currently

smoke are doomed to death and disease associated with cigarette smoking. h.r. 1256 will cost lives, not save lives. this is a professor in the boston university school of public health talking about his senators' bill. he goes on to say even worse, by giving the federal agency the appearance of a regulatory authority over cigarettes without the real ability to regulate, the legislation would seemingly create an f.d.a. seal of approval for cigarettes, giving the public a false sense of security about the increased safety of the product. in fact, the bill's crafters are apparently so worried about the harm effects of such a public perception -- get this -- that they've written a clause into the bill that prohibits the

cigarette companies from even informing the public that cigarettes are regulated by the f.d.a. or that the companies are in compliance with f.d.a. regulation. the legislation forbids a company from even referring to their regulator. he goes on to say this is clearly an unconstitutional provision, as it violates the free speech rights of the tobacco companies. nevertheless, it suggests that even the supporters of the legislation are aware that the bill creates a false perception of the increased safety of cigarette smoking. you know, there's a charge i haven't made. the bill is actually unconstitutional. when we recognize things as unconstitutional, i know it's the inclination of some members of the united states senate to wait and have it patched and somebody to refer it to the supreme court so that the supreme court can tell us it's unconstitutional. when scholars tell us it's

unconstitutional, i believe our responsibility is then don't pass it. don't do it. let me just conclude with michael seagull, professor, school of public health, boston university. during the previous administration, the f.d.a. was accused of making decisions based on politics, not health. if the senate passes the f.d.a. tobacco legislation, it will be institutionizing rather than ending the triumph of politics over science in federal policy making. this is not the way to restore science to its rightful place. i'm not saying it. professor, school of public health, boston university.

what's this bill about? its authors said, reducing the rate of death, disease and prevalence of new smoking. michael seagulls' assessment, about politics. patrick basham's conclusion in "butt out," the book. it's about politics. it says on the back of the book outwitted the coalition of useful -- "phillip morris outwitted its coalition of useful idiots at every turn." the decision in front of members of the united states senate is simple, mr. president. if you want to reduce the risk

of death, if you want to reduce the risk of disease, if you want to reduce the prevalence of youth smoking, you only have one chance, and that's support the substitute amendment. if you want to do politics as usual, if you want to let politics trump science, if you want to lock in a category of products that have a high likelihood of risking the american people, if you want to ignore the science of research from around the world that suggests by allowing lower-harm, smokeless products on the marketplace to, allow smokers to get off of tobacco products, support the substitute. it's not permitted in the base bill, h.r. 1256. i really believe five days ago when i came to the senate floor

that that's all i needed to put up to win this debate. and i actually believe, mr. president, that's all i need to put up for the american people. i've learned over the past five days just how stubborn members of the united states senate are. i hope -- i hope -- that now after six and a half hours of coming to the senate floor on this one bill, that staff members, through every office -- republican, democrat, and independent -- have taken the opportunity to check the facts that i've presented and found out i'm right. found out a study did exist in sweden. i didn't make it up. they found out that the c.d.c. did to a -- did do a study. and if we did nothing, we'd

reduce smoking more than if we passed this bill. they found out that in sweden people did become healthier because of a decision that use smokeless products. but i think this is all it took for the american people to understand it. that you can't take an agency of the federal government that's -- whose responsibility for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy and biological products, medical devices, nation's food safety and products that emit radiation, that it is impossible to take an agency that that's their core mission and give them a product where you ask them to ignore the standard that they follow on everything else that they regulate. i think the american people would say it seems reasonable to create a new entity to regulate tobacco. if for no other reason, if you didn't believe any of