they smoked and because we tried volunteerism. well, volunteerism filled the graveyards and the constant attacks that have been made on the food and drug administration and the deprival of it to follow out its responsibilities and the personnel it needs have brought us to the situation where we have to do the kind of thing that we're saying. so don't talk to me about volunteerism. understand that it has failed and people are dying every day because they have smoked. now having said that, i want to tell you a little story about when we passed the first legislation to begin to warn people about the dangers of tobacco that were found by the surge general in his report -- surgeon general in his report. a little guy came before the committee and testified before my dear friend, john moss and i, who were the major proponents of that particular legislation at that time. he said, now you don't know but

i'm pathologist and internal medicine man. that means i can tell you why you're going to die or i could tell you why you did die. . he said i don't have a prepared statement but i do have a number of exhibits i would like to present to the committee. he reached in his briefcase and pulled out a human lung. he said this is a normal person's human lung. it had a certain life to it. the next exhibit he pulled out was one of a fellow who had died of cancer. he said these are cells. it looked like a bowl of of caviar. painful way to go. and he then showed us both the lung of somebody who had died of emphysema. it was white, it lacked life. he said this man literally strangled because he did not have the ability to drive oxygen from the air.

i thank the gentleman. he pulled out another lung and he said, now this is the lung of a smoker. it was black, dirty, nasty. you wouldn't want to have it inside you. he said, now my message to the committee is very simple. if you smoke long enough, you're going to die of cancer of the lung or you're going to die of some other kind of ailment which is induced by your smoking. whether it is of the lung or whether it is of some other organ including the mouth, throat, or another part of the body as far away as the fingertips. i just want my colleagues to understand, finally we are doing something. if a person wants to be silly enough to smoke he can still do so. he's going to get a warning. and the tobacco companies are going to have to provide proper decent honorable behavior. they are going to have to do

the things that warn american people of this. and we have a responsible agency which this legislation will properly fund and finance, will give them the authority and the personnel and the capabilities of doing what they need to do. we are going to follow it with other legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this and support the other legislation when it comes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: now yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, many years ago author and commentator bruce hirschenson made the point for every pleasure in life there is a corresponding risk. that's a universal truth. he pointed out that it's true that with enough taxes and laws and restrictions and regulations and penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free

society. but it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious, and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man. i think that is the case. the health dangers of smoking are real and they are well documented. we all agree on that. it's a very bad thing to do. our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of the health risks associated with tobacco products and they do a good job of it. our government warns every adult of the risks associated with tobacco products and they do a good job of it, too. as a result, i don't believe there's a single individual in the united states today who doesn't well and fully comprehend the health dangers of tobacco. but once those issues -- once those warnings are issued, how much further should government go to make individual decisions for rational adults as they weigh the risks of smoking for

themselves? personally i think they are making a very bad decision. but they probably think others are making bad decision when is they decide to go skiing or bungee jumping or skydiving or thousands of other pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks. and i'd ask today what ever happened to the notion of individual responsibility? whatever happened to the notion as jefferson put it of a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, a member of the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized tore two minutes. miss sha -- for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i rise today in

strong support of h.r. 1256, the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. i do it with enormous gratitude to chairman waxman for working for years to get legislation of this sort that would improve public health by strengthening the regulation of tobacco products. there are a lot of of diseases that we don't have the cure for today. there's lots of resources put into medical research that hopefully will find a cure to cancer and to aids and other terrible diseases. but we do know how we can prevent over 435,000 tobacco related deaths that occur each year. and that is by preventing smoking. over 44 million smokers in the united states of america, in illinois alone, 24.3% of adults

and 29.2% of youths smoke tobacco. in illinois 16,000 people die from smoking related illnesses, 29,000 adults and children die of secondhand smoke in illinois. an adigsal $3.2 billion is spent in direct medical expenditures related to smoking in ill boy. every day 4,000 kids try their first cigarette and about half of them become addicted. but finally, we have legislation giving the f.d.a., the power and resources to regulate the tobacco industry. and safeguard the public health and our children. it would lessen the cost of smoking related medical illnesses, and prevent adolescents and teens from smoking at a young age. in illinois i want to congratulate alexandra slain, an elementary school student

from peoria, illinois, who won the tar wars anti-smoking annual poster contest with her drawing of a light bulb shaped as a human head. she wrote the captions, warning america, be bright, don't light. let's start by passing h.r. 1256. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time each side has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from indiana has 10 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: we have no other requests for speakers. i'd like to close the debate. we'll continue to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time of the the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. buyer: thank you, madam speaker. a couple issues i would like to address that i mentioned in my opening. the last two issues that i will address is one on the

constitutionality and secondly is f.d.a. the right agency. while we all agree steps need to be taken to help lessen the use of tobacco products by underaged youth, we must not do so in ways that clearly violate the first amendment. unfortunately, the bill in front of us i believe fails to meet that test. the speech restrictions in this bill are clearly the most sweeping in the history of the united states for any legal product. numerous top legal experts from every point of the political spectrum have looked at these provisions and declared that they will not meet first amendment scrutiny. during the debate on the rule, i questioned the responsibility of this body. i believe it is irresponsible for us to pass legislation that is prima facie unconstitutional.

what we are doing in this body are two things. we are taking the regs from the 1996 rule that the supreme court found unconstitutional and we are making them statutory. which means attention to lawyers in america, you ever an access and avenue right back to federal court immediately upon the president's signature of this legislation. also under the constitution, private speech, private speech and the regulation of private speech among individuals or i.e. companies, if individuals speak to restrict their speech between themselves or how they seek to communicate, they can do that in the private marketplace between themselves. where the first amendment comes in is when governments, states, municipalities, or ther federal government then steps in and begins to regulate speech.

in this case it's commercial speech. and that's what we are doing. when we look -- when we take the m.s.a., master settlement agreement and also place these restrictions and make them statutory, bang, we are right back to the supreme court. and i just -- i just find that very bothersome. larry tribe, the noted constitutional expert and harvard university law professor commenting on the types of of provisions in this legislation stated. quote, given the extensive regulation of tobacco manufacturing, for example the creation of manufacturing standards, the regulation of cigarette ingredients, and so on, and elsewhere in the proposed legislation and the mandates for new and improved warnings, it would be difficult to defend the sweeping restrictions on advertising as

being narrowly taylored to an important governmental interest. the paternalistic view that tobacco advertising must be restricted because consumers might find it pervasive is antithetical to the assumption on which the first amendment is based. wow, now you're going to find me quoting the american civil liberties union. you may want to listen to this because it's probably the first time i cited the aclu. they also said that in their testimony on identical language that contained in this legislation stated that if this type of legislation were to be passed, it would be, quote, wholly unprecedented, end quote, and "will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge." on the other side of the spectrum, the washington legal foundation and judge bourque also have called these

proposals, quote, patently unconstitutional, end quote. numerous other legal scholars have taken similar provisions. now, in our zeal here to restrict tobacco products, there has been this comments by some, madam speaker, to say we are doing it for the children. it's wonderful. we can say we are doing it for the children. what's the court say about that? the supreme court has already examined -- examined one of the provisions in the f.d.a. proposal, that's the 1,000-foot ban on ads and it suggested it violates the first amendment because it's not narrowly tailored. the supreme court rejected the efforts of the massachusetts attorney general to "childproof" the flow of information in our society. children deserve to be protected from inappropriate or harmful material, but the government may not use the guise of protecting children to

impose sweeping restrictions on information intended for adults. so we come to the floor and we say, we are doing it for the children. yet we are taking provisions of which the supreme court has already found to be unconstitutional, i.e. commercial speech that is not nearly tailored to a legitimate government interest. in boulder vs. young's drug products corporation, the court stated that efforts to restrict advertising cannot lower disclosure in society, "to the level of the sand box." and citing in the case butler vs. michigan, that, "government may not reduce the adult population to reading only that which is fit for children."

so the type of drastic speech sensorship that is contained in this -- censorship that is contained in this legislation is almost certain to lead to challenges in the federal courts and i find that troubling and counterproductive. . to the issue on harm reduction, and this is an issue that once again -- no, strike that on harm reduction. let me move to the f.d.a. this bill establishes a general standard that actions by f.d.a. is the best interest of public health that they are the ones that they can reasonable -- reasonably be likely to have measured scientific results. what do we mean by results?

substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality rates among smokers, that's what we seek to achieve. so the great challenge that i have here that in the committee we are now looking at legislation with regard to food safety and drug safety. the f.d.a. is charged with approving medical products based on scientific evidence that based on the products outweigh the risks. tobacco products are inherently risk products that cause disease when used as directed. now, we're going to turn to the f.d.a. and say, we want you to regulate the tobacco product so we take the gold standard of the f.d.a. now and apply it to tobacco, and now there is this inference that somehow the f.d.a. has said -- now, tobacco is a safe product. that is something we should not be doing. it's why i sought to create a

separate agency rather than the f.d.a., creating a mission that is counter to their present mission. you see, if you use a cigarette and follow the instructions and you do that every day it will kill you. now, think about that? it will kill you. we don't want the f.d.a. to create some time of inference into society that somehow that it's ok. president obama stated on march 14 of this year that 95% of america's 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses go uninspected each year. wow. each year 74 million people in the united states are sickened by tainted food and about 5,000 die, according to the c.d.c. that's on food alone. then, with regard to drugs. i look forward to working with

chairman waxman, madam speaker, and with mr. dingell with regard to drug safety because right now we have 11 international mail facilities. by the united states government. you count the three private carriers that also have international mail facilities and they are taking up around 30,000 drug packages that are coming in to our country by people who are going on to the internet. every time we do an inspection of those mail packages we find that 80% of them are either counterfeit, knockoffs or adulterated drugs. when in fact you do the math and you say, ok, wow, take that 14 times 30,000 times 365 then times 80, we are looking at -- give me the real math? 80% -- what? 96 million. think about that.

96 million drug packages coming in. so what we're doing now is we're lumping this on to f.d.a. , and f.d.a. is a challenged -- a very challenged agency. i urge individuals to vote no on this legislation. there is a better way to regulate tobacco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: so, madam speaker, it's come down to this. amusing that perhaps f.d.a. is not the right agency. we ought to create a brand new one but don't give them any power to do anything. or what we need is harm reduction. even though this legislation gives f.d.a. the ability to look for ways to reduce the harm from cigarette smoking. but the best way, the best way is to not to smoke. and the best way is to make sure that people don't start smoking. and if they do smoke to give it up. and the next argument. it's not constitutional. and my colleague has cited the

fact that he believes the supreme court when they ruled on the issue of the regulations being proposed by the f.d.a. that they would say that was unconstitutional. well, the truth of the matter is, the supreme court said f.d.a. did not have the legal authority and that congress had to vote to give them the legal authority to adopt those regulations. that is what we are about to do today. i have been working on the issue of tobacco for over three decades. and in fact i thought about this issue as i prepared a book that's going to be coming out on a lot of different issues in the next couple of weeks. and i remember the hearings we had where the tobacco industry had scientists, so-called scientists argue there really wasn't any harm from cigarette smoking. it was just could he incidental. -- it was just coincidental.

i remember well when the c.e.o.'s came before our committee and that was a real turning point and they took an oath to tell the truth and they said no harm from cigarette smoking. it's not connected to cancer. it's not connected to heart disease. it's not connected to all these other problems. it was only a coincidence. they said cigarette smoking was not addictive because nicotine was not addictive. they swore that under oath. they said they didn't manipulate the nicotine to make it even stronger and more addictive a product. and they said with righteous indig nation they certainly wouldn't target -- indignation they certainly wouldn't target kids to smoke. well, after that appearance in 1994 we pierced the veil that hung over the industry and started to find out what they were saying in their own corporate board rooms and what

their own scientists understood the case to be. we later had a hearing where scientists that worked for the tobacco industry said he understood the harm. the industry wanted to know what harm it did and they knew that in fact it caused a tremendous amount of death and disease in this country. they are looking at ways to patent new ways to raise the nicotine levels so they can keep people smoking because they were very well aware of the fact that nicotine was addictive and they could in fact make sure that nicotine grabbed on to those smokers and kept them captive to that habit. and the joe camel advertising campaign was marketed in france to see if it really got kids to be loyal to that brand and in their board room they discussed how important it was to get

kids to start smoking at 14 or 15 years of age. because then they would be loyal to that brand, let alone addicted to the product. we later found out how the tobacco industry spent millions and millions of dollars on a phony operation to say that they were studying whether the harm was there from cigarette smoking and what they did was manipulated the media, deceived the american people to argue the science wasn't really there to claim cigarettes was a problem. the science is still out. by the way, we hear this about global warming today. the science isn't -- even though the overwhelming consensus was there from reputable scientists, they tried to make people believe, n't wore -- worry about it.

you can continue to smoke. it won't do you harm. and they tried successfully for decades to keep secret the fact that nonsmokers were harmed by simply being in the presence of smokers. i remember the power the tobacco industry that kept the congress from acting, and it was by one vote that the house of representatives decided to try an experiment to see if we could have airplane flights, commercial airplane flights of an hour or less without any smoking permitted. and members stood up on the floor of the house and said, smokers would never tolerate such a thing. well, it was so widely popular that it's hard to find any airline in the world that allows smoking on airplane flights of whatever length it

may be. the public has come to understand this industry, and they know the dishonesty of this industry. and they know that the clout of this industry kept the government from acting for decades. but people now don't realize how it was 30 years ago. 30 years ago people who smoked felt they had the right to light up a cigarette no matter where they were. we heard the argument that the court may look at the constitutionality of any free speech matter that might relate to cigarette -- to advisories about cigarette smoking. well, it's hard for me to believe that a supreme court that once said the constitution does not mean that the freedom of speech allows people to yell , "fire" in a crowded room would finally come to the point

where it would be unconstitutional to prohibit an industry from trying to get children to smoke a product that's illegal for them to buy in any state of the union. i think we are today at the last gasp of the tobacco industry's efforts to protect their profits at the expense of the health and lives of the american people and to get children to take up this habit. we're moving away fast in this country. the f.d.a. will help us succeed in the ending this tobacco epidemic. my heart goes out to people around the world. as american tobacco companies are telling people in other countries, be like americans. if you're a woman, you can

smoke. don't let your culture from taking up this habit. as they tell children around the world, start smoking, you can more like americans who you so admire. you can be cool and all the stuff that was blabbered out in the decades in the united states to get so many millions of people to smoke. madam speaker, this bill, authored by senator kennedy in the senate and by myself in the house, has come a long way. it took us a long time to get here but we're here now. and i urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 532 the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from california. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: i ask for the yeas mr. buyer: ik(:v:vzvzvt:v:vt:vzv