Floor Statements

Madam President, I further ask--and this has been cleared on both sides--unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5:35 instead of at 5:30.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to first thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. We have had a very productive couple of weeks. We had a good markup in our committee. We were able to accommodate some of the concerns that Senator Enzi has had. He has been involved with this issue for a long time. I am filling in for my colleague from Massachusetts who obviously would be standing where I am at this moment and managing this proposal. As we all know, Senator Kennedy is dealing with a health issue himself and would love to have been here to manage this bill, but I am confident we can get this matter done.

Let me say to my colleagues, I know we ended up in sort of a little bit of a knot here as we finished business last week. Having spoken with the majority leader--and I always hesitate to speak for him, but he told me that we want to inform our colleagues that there are a number of amendments that are either germane or close to being germane that the majority leader wishes to accommodate, including I believe the substitute offered by our colleague from North Carolina--both of our colleagues from North Carolina, the Presiding Officer as well as Senator Burr--and our hope is to be able to do that as well. I am told they might not be quite germane, but the majority leader wishes to do that. They have offered an amendment in committee. A case has been made for it and they ought to have the ability to make the case here as well. So our hope would be to get cloture and then deal with the germane and close-to-germane amendments as well so we can have a full debate on this issue, the substance of this debate and issue, which has been about 10 years, I think 10 years--my colleague may correct me--8 or 10 years that this matter has been kicking around.

This is a matter of substantial import. I know I have said this repeatedly over the last several weeks, but maybe the significance of it can't be repeated often enough. That is the number of children every day who start smoking, somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 a day, and 400,000 people who perish every year as a result of smoking-related illnesses. Thousands more live very debilitated lives as a result of their use of tobacco, cigarettes, or other tobacco products.

This is a matter for which it is absolutely essential to have Food and Drug Administration regulation. We know the Food and Drug Administration has the ability to regulate virtually every product we consume, including the irony of every product our pets consume, and yet does not have the power or the right to regulate tobacco products. This is the 21st century. With 400,000 people a year losing their lives, millions more in jeopardy of grave illness or death as a result of this self-inflicted health hazard, this must be addressed. It will give them the ability to deal with sales and marketing, as well as the production of cigarettes, particularly to children. Ninety percent of the adults in this country who smoke started as child smokers. Of the 3,000 to 4,000, as I mentioned a moment ago, 1,000 become addicted and about one-third of that number end up dying as a result of that addiction. Those are numbers that are unacceptable. They ought to be, particularly on the eve of a health care debate, in talking about how to prevent illness, how to make sure we don't end up with more people in hospitals and doctors' offices in dealing with these issues. What stronger step could this body take with a strong bipartisan vote?

The reason this legislation has been around 10 years is because every time this body has acted, the other body has not or when they have acted, we have not. So we have had these ships passing in the night for 10 years. The House has now acted and we have an opportunity to join them in that action for the first time since the court ruled that tobacco products did not have to be regulated by a court order, and clearly, congressional action was necessary. Well, here is the action. We urge our colleagues to support cloture. To accommodate our colleagues on matters they still wish to raise in debate as part of this bill, I will support them in doing that. I may disagree with the substance they are offering, but they ought to have the right to do that and I will do everything I can to see that those opportunities are available.

At any rate, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, who cares deeply about this issue as well. We end up disagreeing on this matter, but no one brings more passion than the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. So I thank him and his staff for the terrific work they have done on this matter.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Wyoming, and then we will see if others wish to be heard.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, let me express my gratitude to my colleagues on both sides. This was a bipartisan effort to allow us to get to more votes. I promise my good friend Senator Burr if I have to vote against a point of order to make sure he gets his amendment up, I will do so.

Tomorrow afternoon, we will set a time for that, and there are other germane amendments, and the leadership will describe how that will work so the germane amendments can be offered and these matters can be considered fully so that we can get to final passage after that.

But I am very grateful to my colleagues on both sides who made this possible. It has been 10 years in waiting to get to this bill that allows us finally to deal with the marketing of tobacco products to children. That is more than 400,000 deaths a year, with 3,000 to 4,000 kids starting to smoke every day. This bill, for the first time, will allow us to step up and require FDA regulation of tobacco products. That is a great accomplishment for the people of our country, and I am very grateful to my colleagues.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will withdraw the request.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I gather we are still in morning business.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about the importance of what we are doing to address the issues raised by my friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, who has raised some important issues. We are debating, of course, very historic public health legislation. The bill before this body will, for the first time, give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the tobacco industry and to put in place tough protections for families that for too long have been absent, when it comes to how cigarettes are marketed to children.

As I have said, particularly over the last couple days, I don't think we can afford to wait any longer on this issue. As I think all colleagues are aware, every single day we delay action on this legislation, another 3,500 to 4,000 children across the Nation are ensnared by tobacco companies that target them with impunity as they try smoking for the very first time in their lives, 3,500 to 4,000 every single day. Smoking kills more Americans every year than alcohol abuse, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drug use, murders, and suicides combined. As tragic as all deaths are, particularly ones caused by the circumstances I have raised, if we took all of them together, they do not total the 400,000 people who lose their lives every year as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. Absent action by this Congress, more than 6 million children who are alive today will die from smoking, including the 76,000 or so in my home State of Connecticut.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill before us would reduce adult smoking by 900,000 Americans. That is not an insignificant number. It represents about 2 percent. The CBO estimates that over the next 10 years, 2 million children will not take up smoking, if we are able to pass this legislation and have an effect on the marketing of these products to kids. That is 11 percent of children across the country. That is 700,000 people we would be able to have an influence on, convincing them not to take that first cigarette, to begin the habit of smoking.

Unfortunately, flaws in the Burr substitute will not achieve those goals. It would result in much less regulation of tobacco products, allow the tobacco industry to play many more games and hide more of the harm their products cause and leave children and others more vulnerable to the scourge of tobacco. Instead of using the FDA, a proven agency of 100 years, with experience in regulatory, scientific, and health care responsibilities, to carry out the purpose of this bipartisan bill, the Burr substitute creates a flawed agency, with inadequate resources, and limits the authority of that agency to take meaningful action to curtail the harm caused by tobacco products and their marketing.

The Institute of Medicine, which is highly respected by all of us, and the President's cancer panel have both endorsed giving the FDA this critical authority. The Food and Drug Administration has 100 years of experience in regulating almost every product we consume in order to protect public health. A new agency is not the answer. Obviously, one more bureaucracy is hardly the direction we ought to be going. Our bipartisan bill provides adequate funding to effectively regulate tobacco products through a user fee paid by the tobacco industry.

The Burr substitute does not provide adequate resources to get the job done either. In the first 3 years, the Burr substitute provides just a quarter of the funding provided in the Kennedy proposal, which has been with us for the last 7 or 8 years and has been endorsed by 1,000 organizations, faith-based organization, State-based organizations, and virtually every major public health advocacy group in the United States.

Our bipartisan bill gives the FDA strong authority to regulate the content of both existing and new tobacco products, including both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The Burr

substitute gives the new agency no authority whatsoever over the content of smokeless tobacco products, no matter how much nicotine and no matter how many cancer-causing agents are in those products. The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the Public Health Service have all concluded that smokeless tobacco products, as sold in the United States, are a cause of serious disease, including cancer.

This is not a partisan analysis. When the Surgeon General, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, as well as the Public Health Service, says these products cause cancer and can kill, that is not an ideological conclusion. That is the scientific opinion of the very agencies and organizations we rely on for this information. They are saying, if one uses those products, they could get cancer and could die. Suggesting we ought to have an agency with no power to regulate those products takes us in exactly the wrong direction, given the growing use of smokeless tobacco products. They should be subject to regulation like other tobacco products. This amendment would allow smokeless tobacco manufacturers to make their products as harmful as they may want with no regard for public health.

The Food and Drug Administration regulates the food our pets consume. Products consumed by dogs and cats are regulated by the FDA. The idea that we would have an agency with the power to regulate not only the food we consume and the cosmetics and all variety of pharmaceuticals and so forth that we ingest, excluding tobacco, that we would also give them the power to regulate products our pets consume, but we wouldn't allow them to regulate smokeless tobacco or cigarettes runs counter to common sense in this day and age. This is the 21st century, and 400,000 people die every year from self-inflicted injury as a result of the use of these products. As well, 3,500 children begin smoking every single day. To say we can't use this Agency, which has the power and ability to regulate, do research, as well as engage in public health, flies in the face of logic. The idea that our pets at home have better protection than our children when it comes to tobacco products makes no sense to anyone I know.

The Burr substitute gives the Agency far less authority to remove harmful constituents in cigarettes than our bipartisan bill does, and it will make it far more difficult for the Agency to act.

I mentioned before I was a smoker. I am grateful that most of my colleagues were not. But having been one, I can tell them, it is hard to quit. People struggle every day to quit, and it is hard. I don't have any polling data, but I would bet that if we asked every parent who smokes--my parents did, my father smoked cigars and pipes; my mother smoked Chesterfields for about 20 years before she died of cardiovascular issues that may have been related to smoking--whether they would like their children to begin smoking or using smokeless tobacco products, I will guarantee that number is off the charts. They don't want their children to start this.

The Presiding Officer comes from a State of 12,000 small tobacco farmers in North Carolina. I haven't said this before, and I should have--and I apologize for not saying it--this is not the fault of the tobacco farmer. They are in business. They grow a crop. I don't know enough about the science of this, but I suspect the leaf itself is not the issue. It is the 15 carcinogens that are included. When we light up a cigarette, it isn't just the tobacco leaf that comes from North Carolina that is rolled into a piece of paper. There are 50 other ingredients, particularly ones designed specifically to create the addiction associated with cigarettes.

The last thing I wish to see is a farmer in North Carolina, whose economic well-being could be adversely affected by a decision we make, be harmed. We can help them. I know we try to do that in this bill, and I will be anxious to hear from my colleague from North Carolina with the adoption of this legislation--not that I expect her to support it-- what we can do to help these people. I suspect many of them, if asked the question: Would you like your children to begin smoking, would likely give the same answer. So that farmer out there would need some help, and we ought to provide it.

Our bill allows the Food and Drug Administration to take into account the impact of product changes on potential users, particularly children, and former smokers. The Burr substitute only allows the Agency to consider the narrow health impact on existing smokers. Our bipartisan bill allows the Food and Drug Administration to reduce or fully eliminate substances that may be harmful using the best available scientific evidence. The Burr substitute requires the Agency to demonstrate that a single product change is likely to result in ``measurable and substantial reductions in morbidity,'' knowing that this standard would be extraordinarily difficult to meet, given the large number of harmful substances in cigarettes.

Our bill bans candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes. I hope my colleagues don't need me to explain why there are candy- and fruit- flavored cigarettes. That is not to convince a 55-year-old they ought to start smoking. When they decide to make cigarettes taste like candy, tell me who the audience is. If you think it is some adult, then we are living on different planets because that is designed specifically to get the kids. We know 90 percent of adults who smoke began as kids. Those are the statistics. Our bill bans candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes. The Burr substitute only bans the use of candy and fruit names on products--leaving tobacco manufacturers to market cigarettes that taste like mocha mint or strawberry.

The Burr substitute prevents the Agency from requiring the manufacturer to make any product change that the manufacturer elects to implement by requiring changes in how tobacco is cured or might otherwise impact the tobacco leaf. This would always be used by the manufacturers to challenge the product standard. For example, a new study found that the high level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in tobacco products has probably resulted in twice as many people dying from lung cancer. Under the Burr standard, it is highly unlikely, we are told, that the Agency would take action to address this issue because the simplest solution is to change how some tobacco is cured after it is grown. The Burr substitute allows tobacco companies to continue to deceive consumers in that regard.

The Burr substitute also bases its tar and nicotine standards on the results of a specific test that the Federal Trade Commission recently rejected because it does not provide meaningful information about the health risks of different cigarettes. In its statement discrediting the test, the Federal Trade Commission wrote:

Our action today ensures that tobacco companies may not

wrap their misleading tar and nicotine ratings in a cloak of

government sponsorship. Simply put, the FTC will not be a

smokescreen for the tobacco companies' shameful marketing

practices.

That is from the Federal Trade Commission, hardly an ideological or partisan organization. That is their quote on discrediting the test the FTC conducted.

In addition, the National Cancer Institute has determined there is no evidence that reducing tar to a degree even greater than called for in the Burr substitute actually results in a reduction of risk of disease. The Burr substitute makes it likely that Americans will continue to be misled by nicotine and tar figures that appear to have the government stamp of approval, believing that cigarettes with lower tar numbers are safer. The National Cancer Institute is an organization that is highly credible and respected. The Burr substitute does not adequately protect consumers from misleading health claims about tobacco products, a very serious problem. The bipartisan bill sets stringent, but reasonable, scientific standards before manufacturers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are allowed to claim that their products are safer or reduce the risk of disease.

The Burr substitute completely exempts smokeless tobacco products from these standards, no matter how spurious and even if those claims are likely to cause youth to take up tobacco for the first time. Supporters of this proposal argue we should allow and encourage the use of smokeless tobacco because it is less harmful than smoking. But this was refuted in 2003

by Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who was appointed by President Bush, when he addressed a congressional committee.

Let me quote the Surgeon General:

Do not fall for the myth--a very dangerous public health

myth--that smokeless tobacco is preferable to smoking.

Again, this is the Surgeon General. Going back several administrations, Surgeons General, Secretaries of Health and Human Services, this is an issue that does not divide people. President Bush's Surgeon General was a fine man, Richard Carmona. I see my friend from Arizona. I believe Richard Carmona is from Arizona. I had an opportunity to meet with him and talk with him in the past, and he did a good job.

I will quote him again:

Do not fall for the myth--a very dangerous public health

myth--that smokeless tobacco is preferable to smoking.

He went on to say, and I quote him further:

No matter what you may hear today or read in press reports

later, I cannot conclude [as Surgeon General] that the use of

any tobacco product is a safer alternative to smoking.

And the 2008 Update of the U.S. Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guidelines regarding tobacco cessation concluded:

[T]he use of smokeless tobacco products is not a safe

alternative to smoking, nor is there evidence to suggest that

it is effective in helping smokers quit.

Senator Burr's substitute only allows the agency to look at the health impact on individual users of tobacco products. It does not consider whether the reduced risk claim would increase overall public health harms by increasing the number of youth who begin using tobacco products or reducing the number of current users who quit. Senator Burr's and our colleague Senator Hagan's standard would allow health claims that would increase tobacco use levels and increase the total amount of harm thus caused by tobacco use.

To prevent health claims from being used to increase the number of tobacco users, our bipartisan bill gives the Food and Drug Administration authority over how these products are marketed. Senator Burr's substitute eliminates that authority, putting our youth at greater risk. If you eliminate that authority, then, obviously, you have torn the heart out of what we are trying to achieve.

Senator Burr's substitute fails to give even the new agency it creates the authority to reduce youth access to tobacco products. Unlike our legislation, Senator Burr's substitute does not establish or fund a nationwide program to reduce illegal tobacco product sales to children. In addition, because the Burr substitute allows any retailer to fully escape responsibility for illegal sales if the employer's employees have signed a form saying they were informed that it is illegal to sell to underage youth, no matter how often the retail outlet is caught doing so, and no matter how strong the evidence that the employer looks the other way, it provides a significantly less effective approach than the one we have in the substitute, the bipartisan substitute that is before us.

The Burr substitute's minimum standards for State youth access laws are also too weak. The youth access standards in Senator Burr's substitute are riddled with loopholes that make them ineffective. For example, a retailer who never enforces the law against illegal sales to youth cannot be fined if the retailer has conducted a training program for its staff, even if it repeatedly looks the other way when illegal sales to youth are made. In addition, the vast majority of States already have laws in place that exceed the minimum standards in Senator Burr's substitute.

At any rate, these are all reasons why I urge my colleagues to reject the Burr substitute. Our bipartisan bill, as I say, has been endorsed-- I have been here for some time. I have never heard of a piece of legislation being endorsed by 1,000 organizations: faith-based, State, as well as all the credible national public health or health organizations in the country. That is not reason enough, but understand we voted overwhelmingly in both Chambers, just not in the same Congress, over the last 6 or 7 years on this proposal.

Again, I want to say to my colleagues who come from tobacco-producing States, I understand the impact this kind of bill can have, and, in fact, we hope it has, with the reduction of smoking by all generations and all age groups, but particularly among children. I certainly stand ready and prepared to do what we can to help those farmers and others whose jobs and livelihoods depend on this industry, who, through no fault of their own but through their livelihoods, are engaged in this business. We want to provide that transitional help.

But we cannot stop doing what needs to be done. With 400,000 people a year dying--more deaths due to this self-inflicted disease than AIDS, murders, illegal drugs, suicides, alcohol abuse, automobile accidents-- all of those combined--they do not equal the number that tobacco use causes. With 3,000 to 4,000 kids starting every day, I think my colleagues understand this cries out.

We are about to begin a health care debate. Prevention is a major issue. We are all trying to work on ideas to incentivize healthy living styles. What an irony it would be, on the eve of the emerging debate about prevention, that we had an opportunity to make a difference in doing just that, with having 900,000 adults who stopped smoking and 700,000 kids--maybe those are numbers that are not as impressive as we would like them to be--but if we can save 700,000 children's lives and 900,000 adults, to have them stop smoking and not get involved in this habit, what a difference it would make.

I have talked about deaths. There are people who live with this stuff--the emphysema. The cost--even if you are not impressed with the ethics of it, the morality of it, if the numbers is the only thing that drives you, we are spending billions of dollars every year to provide for people who are suffering from smoke-related illnesses.

So on the eve of the great health care debate, what a great way to begin that by saying, at least in this one area, we are going to do something about the children in this country. We are going to do something that is long overdue on the manufacturing and the marketing, as well as in the production of these products. We are going to say to the Food and Drug Administration: Take over here. Take a look at all of this. Provide the regulations and the guidelines. If we can do it for the produce or the foodstuffs we provide for every pet in this country, we ought to be able do it for the American children.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to begin by thanking the majority leader for his efforts and those of others, and to agree with him. We are prepared to debate these germane amendments, or amendments that are arguably germane, and it is regrettable we couldn't do that. This bill has enjoyed overwhelming support in both Chambers in previous Congresses. Our colleague from Massachusetts has been the leading champion of this effort for more than a decade, if not longer. As I pointed out, every single day we fail to act on this legislation, the statistics are that 3,000 to 4,000 children will begin to smoke every day; 400,000 of our fellow citizens will die this year, not to mention thousands who will live very, very debilitated lives as a result of being contaminated by cigarette smoke and tobacco products. Here we are on the eve of a national health care debate where a major part of that will be about prevention, and what better way to begin that debate than the Congress taking a step in this area which could make such a difference.

So I thank the majority leader for his efforts. I am still hopeful we can get this done. I believe we can. People such as Senator Burr and Senator Hagan who have legitimate interests and concerns about the legislation before us deserve to have their amendments considered, debated, and discussed. In fairness to other Members, it is regrettable that one single Member of this body, on a totally nongermane proposal, can cause us to delay or avoid meeting the obligation of the issues and concerns about tobacco and the effects on our citizenry.

So I thank the majority leader for his efforts. We will be here next week to debate those amendments and hopefully our colleagues will invoke cloture so we can get to this matter.

Madam President, I listened carefully to the conversation between the majority leader and our colleague from Arizona. As the manager of this bill on smoking, I for one have been a strong advocate for the reimportation proposal. Others have also expressed an interest in this. Most of my colleagues have expressed views, and a majority have expressed support for the idea. This is not about denying a vote on reimportation. We would all like that opportunity.

However, this bill on smoking and children is about as fragile a proposal as I have seen here in a long time. There are strong voices that wish to kill this legislation, and they effectively have. The FDA has jurisdiction over almost every product--except tobacco--including pet food. We waited 10 years trying to get to this bill. If you lose one or two votes on this--if we lose this again, we are back to the last decade.

There will be any number of attractive ideas proposed to this legislation, many of which I have either supported or would like to, but we will run the risk of breaking up the necessary 60 votes to deal with children and smoking. So no matter how appealing some amendments may be, understand what you may be doing, and that is destroying the ability to deal with the 3,000 to 4,000 kids who start smoking every day and the 400,000 people who die every year from tobacco. I want to vote on reimportation as well and a lot of other issues. If every time we bring up a bill of this significance and somebody offers a very appealing proposal--understand that the danger is that you fracture that relationship. That has denied us the opportunity to pass this for a decade, despite the fact that both bodies have voted overwhelmingly but not in the same Congress.

We are on the brink of getting this done. What better thing could we accomplish on the eve of the health care debate than to start saving lives of children? I have 76,000 kids in Connecticut who will die because they are smokers if we do nothing. There are 6 million children today who are going to die prematurely because of smoking if we do nothing. As much as I want to deal with reimportation of drugs, if we do that and it is adopted and we lose the coalition on smoking, what have we achieved? The bill dies. You lose both reimportation as well as the smoking proposal.

I appreciate the majority leader taking the position he did. I know where he stands on the issue. Senator Reid has been a strong advocate of reimportation. That is not the issue here. It is whether at long last, a decade later, our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and Senator DeWine, a former colleague from Ohio, Henry Waxman from California, Tom Davis of Virginia, who on a bipartisan basis have tried year in and year out to get this done--we can finally achieve it. So I know the game. But this is not a game, this is life and death for people. For 10 long years, we have not been able to pass legislation involving kids and smoking. We can get it done in the next few days. If people insist upon nongermane amendments based on a short-term appeal that denies us that opportunity, we will have done great damage to our country.

I appreciate the position the majority leader has taken. My colleagues know, because I went through the process last week in committee, there were any number of appealing amendments. I thank the members of the committee who wanted to vote for some of those amendments. I see Senator Merkley here, a member of our committee. He and I would have liked to have supported additional amendments, fines and such, for kids. We knew that if we did that, we might break that fragile coalition that would get to us the goal line of passing the bill.

I thank the majority leader for standing up on an issue he cares deeply about, the reimportation of drugs. He understands, as does the Presiding Officer, as do all of us here who have loved ones who have been smokers and have been affected by tobacco and the damage it does to our citizenry. It is the only disease I know that is self-inflicted. There are more deaths each year as a result of smoking and tobacco products than alcohol, drugs, suicide, automobile accidents, and AIDS combined. It is the greatest killer in America. We have a chance to make a difference. The day will come for reimportation. We ought to get to that. If you do it on this bill, you lose both reimportation and the smoking bill.

I thank the majority leader and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the only amendments in order today after the amendment is offered by myself, Senator Dodd, the HELP Committee substitute amendment, be the Lieberman amendment re: TSP, and the substitute amendment of Senators Burr and Hagan.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. My intention would be to address for a few minutes some comments and then would defer to others who may want to speak until we recess at 6 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1256.

As I understand it from the leadership, while there will be some comments I will make this evening, briefly, about the substitute, and others may have some comments to make before the evening concludes, there will be no votes this evening. The leadership has notified us of that, so colleagues ought to be aware there will be no votes at all this evening.

If I could, I wish to take a few minutes to describe the substitute amendment, and I will yield the floor to others who want to talk before the 6 p.m. hour arrives and others who may come back around 6:30 to make some additional comments.

Amendment No. 1247

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this substitute amendment represents the work of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which was reported out of our committee by a vote of 15 to 8 prior to the Memorial Day recess. In this substitute we have included some very important changes as a result of good work by my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. I thank him and thank his staff, as well as the majority staff, for their work in reaching agreement on this amendment. It was important to my colleague from Wyoming that we improve the language on civil monetary penalties on companies that violate the law, and I agree with those suggestions. Senator Enzi also made clear, and I agree with him, that we need to make sure that over time, Congress and the public need to understand how this bill is being implemented, so we have enhanced the reporting requirements on the Food and Drug Administration and called on the General Accountability Office to make a study of the bill's implementation.

These are strong provisions and I appreciate very much the diligence of my colleague from Wyoming, his work, and the work of his staff as well.

Otherwise, the substitute would still give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the tobacco industry and put in place very tough provisions for families that, for far too long, have been absent when it comes to how cigarettes are marketed to America's children.

We cannot afford to wait any longer. Every day we delay, as I have said over and over, another 3,000 to 4,000 children across our country--as they did today and will again tomorrow, will again every single day--3,000 to 4,000 of our young people are ensnared by the tobacco companies that target them with impunity as they try smoking for the very first time. Those numbers are incredible; 3,000 to 4,000 every single day take that first cigarette, begin that process. Almost a third to a quarter of them will actually become addicted. Roughly a third of that number will die, in many cases prematurely, because of that process that starts today with 3,000 to 4,000 children.

A thousand of these children become addicted. Of these addicted, a third, as I said, will die eventually of smoking-related diseases. Absent any action by this Congress, more than 6 million children alive today will die from smoking, including more than 76,000 people in my own State of Connecticut.

The purpose of this historic public health legislation is very simple. It is to protect America's children and to give them the longer, healthier future they deserve. This is a cry from parents as well, including parents who smoke. As I said earlier, parents who smoke, if all of them could be here in this Chamber today and have the privilege that I have to have a microphone attached to my pocket here to talk about this, as smokers, would plead that their children never ever begin this habit. If they could wish anything, they would wish their children would avoid this deadly habit. So it is not just those who do not smoke or those who are offended by it or those who are worried about the health implications. I don't know of anybody who wants to see a young child begin the habit of smoking.

Yet for almost 10 years we have been unable to get this bill passed-- almost 10 years of effort, led by our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who has tried over and over to get this legislation up and to get it adopted by both Chambers.

For the benefit of our colleagues, they should know this Chamber has adopted legislation, but at the time we did, the other body didn't. Candidly, the other body has acted as well, but when they did, we did not. So we have had this kind of circus going on over the last 8 or 10 years, where when the Senate acted, the House didn't; then the House acted but the Senate didn't. We are on the cusp of both Chambers acting and a President who will sign this bill into law to make a difference for the millions of people who have been adversely affected by this subject matter.

I also want to address some of the points our opponents of the bill have been saying about the legislation. Let me be clear. The Food and Drug Administration is absolutely the right agency for this job. It is the one Federal agency with the necessary scientific expertise, regulatory experience, and public health mission to do the job. No other agency of government is able to do all three of these.

Many others can do good work, but they can't do all three. They don't have the scientific expertise, they don't have the regulatory experience, and they don't have the public health mission that the Food and Drug Administration does.

The FDA regulates food, drugs, cosmetics, even pet food, but they do not regulate tobacco. They can regulate what your cat has and what your dog has but not what your child starts today, the 3,000 to 4,000 who do. We have been able to get that done so your pets are OK, but your child may not be because of our failure over the years to make sure tobacco will be regulated by the FDA. Tobacco, we know, is the most dangerous consumer product sold in the United States, or anywhere in the world for that matter. Yet it is currently exempted from oversight by the agency that regulates virtually every other product that Americans consume.

Some have said this bill will drain precious resources away from the FDA. In fact, what we have done with this bill ensures that the Food and Drug Administration is given adequate resources to perform its new tobacco product responsibilities without taking any resources from its other important activities. We do this by setting up a special division within the FDA to do just this job and we allocate specific resources, collected as user fees, to fund the very efforts we are seeking to accomplish. So all of the other functions the FDA does are not going to be adversely affected because of what we have written into this bill. The legislation does this, as I said, by assessing user fees on the companies and the cost of regulating tobacco is paid entirely by these user fees.

Some have also suggested that we should not act because States have squandered the funding provided in the Master Settlement Agreement on smoking and tobacco products. Some States have, and we do not defend their actions. But this is not a reason for inaction now, when we can protect as many children as we will with the adoption of this legislation.

Furthermore, while the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement on tobacco between the States and the tobacco industry was a very positive step, it simply did not go far enough. In order to protect the public and to prevent and reduce smoking, especially among children and kids, tobacco products must be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Since the Master Settlement Agreement was signed, marketing expenditures by the tobacco industry have reached record levels. The industry spends $13 billion a year--$13 billion a year--to market their products to America's children.

This bill would restrict the tobacco industry's ability to market to children. Mr. President, 400,000 people die every year from tobacco- related illnesses. That is more than die from alcohol abuse, automobile accidents, violent crime, illegal drugs, and suicide. All of them combined do not equal the number of deaths caused by tobacco products and by cigarettes. In order to make up those loss numbers, the industry targets the youngest of our citizens, our children. They do it with a $13 billion appropriation to go out and actually solicit the children to become addicted to these products.

Let me be clear that despite what some have claimed, this bill does not grandfather any existing tobacco products. In fact, this legislation will finally allow the Food and Drug Administration to take action on these products that have had special protection for decades. For the very first time, the FDA will have the broad authority to require changes in existing tobacco products and make them less risky or less addictive.

Some opponents have sought to downplay the significant impact of this bill. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will reduce adult smoking by 2 percent over 10

years. This is true. But what opponents do not tell us is that a 2- percent decline in adult smoking is about 900,000 fewer adult smokers. That is not insignificant, almost a million people. That 2 percent sounds small, but when you translate it into actual numbers, it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 900,000 to a million people. More importantly, opponents leave out the fact that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would reduce youth smoking by 11 percent. Such a decline would save the lives of some 700,000 children from premature smoking-related deaths.

For adults to quit smoking is hard. I could be a personal witness to this, having been a smoker. I can tell my colleagues how hard it is to quit. People I know try every day and fail. It is hard. It is a very addictive product. So as a former smoker, I know what this is like and how hard it can be for people to break this habit. But 90 percent of the adults who smoke started as kids. They started as children. If we can break that link with children so that they don't begin this deadly habit, then we can start saving lives. And if lives don't impress you, how about money? It is billions of dollars we spend every year as part of our health care costs. A lot of those don't die but end up being sick or ill for years in a very debilitated fashion as a result of smoking-related products, particularly cigarettes.

In a few days, we are going to be dealing with health care. There is a lot of division here about what we ought to do on health care. One subject matter we are not divided on is prevention. To avoid chronic illnesses, the best way is to prevent them from happening in the first place. If we thought we could make a dent of even 100,000 lives, what about 200,000 lives because we made a difference in the number of children who started this deadly habit each year? What better way to begin the debate about prevention than going after the one cause, the self-inflicted wound that we impose on ourselves because of smoking habits? That is self-infliction that we do. We know it kills. We know what damage it does. Here we have the ability in a few days, maybe, or less, to actually do something in a meaningful way that has never, ever happened before. Cat food, pet food, dog food get regulated by the FDA, and finally tobacco will, tobacco and cigarettes.

Passing this bill will be a historic victory for our Nation's health, helping parents protect their children, as every parent across the country tonight would pray and hope their child would never begin this deadly habit. Their Federal Government is now going to be of some assistance. We are going to provide for these products the same kinds of protections we do for animals in terms of what they eat every night in your homes. We will now say the same kind of protection ought to be afforded to your children. Parents deserve peace of mind when it comes to how dangerous tobacco products are marketed. With this legislation, that is precisely what we will give them.

I commend my colleagues in this Chamber who over the years have voted, when they have had the opportunity, to implement this legislation. I thank immensely our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I thank Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is no longer with us as a Member. He was Senator Kennedy's partner on this issue, as were Henry Waxman and Tom Davis on the House side. This has had bipartisan support. Tonight, our friend from Massachusetts is at home recovering from his own struggle with illness. But he may be watching at this hour. We want him to know how grateful we are to him for his undying efforts to make this bill a reality.

I thank Mike Enzi. Mike cares deeply about this issue. He gets passionate about a lot of subject matters, but this is one where I have seen the most passion by my colleague from Wyoming. He can tell his own personal stories of what he has witnessed over the years. While he may have some problems with this particular proposal, he has no problem with the idea that we ought to be cutting back and making significant inroads in children beginning this deadly habit.

Our substitute is a bipartisan effort to bring together these ideas and once and for all to do something in a way that will make a difference in the lives of millions of people in this country and hopefully one day around the world as well. This habit is not confined to our own Nation. We can't legislate for the world, but we can legislate for ourselves, to say to America's parents that tonight and over the next day or so we will make a huge difference, I believe, in their children's lives by limiting the ability of this industry to appeal and market directly to their children. That is what this bill does.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Regina McCarthy to be Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. I would also like to thank Chairman Boxer and the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their support of this excellent and deserving nominee. While I think it is regrettable that her confirmation was delayed for so long, I am glad that she will soon be able to get to work on finding solutions to the many important environmental issues facing our nation.

I congratulate President Obama on nominating such a remarkably qualified, energetic, and passionate individual to serve as Assistant Administrator. Commissioner McCarthy has 25 years of experience working at all levels of local and State government and has a depth and breadth of knowledge on environmental issues that few can rival. She has also served under both Democratic and Republican Governors, in Massachusetts as well as my home State of Connecticut. In both States and in all capacities, Gina has been universally recognized as a uniquely talented environmental advocate.

As commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection since 2004, Gina has amassed an impressive record of accomplishments. She spearheaded the ``No Child Left Inside'' initiative in Connecticut and nationwide, which combines environmental education with numerous outdoor programs to promote physical activity while teaching kids to become good stewards of the environment. She has also been a key proponent of sustainable economic development in Connecticut, has worked tirelessly to reinvigorate our State park system, and has been a terrific advocate for open space and conservation initiatives.

Perhaps most prominently, Commissioner McCarthy was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, the Nation's first mandatory cap and trade program, which was adopted by 10 States in the Northeast to address the grave threat of climate change. The commissioner's work on the issue of climate change has been recognized and lauded nationally, and her experience will be invaluable when she is confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. President Obama has made it clear that addressing climate change is a top priority for his administration, and as Assistant Administrator, Gina will play a vital role in developing and implementing policies to control greenhouse gas emissions.

In my view, this incredible list of accomplishments does not do justice to the qualities Gina will bring to her new position once she is confirmed. Across my State she has a well-deserved reputation for her boundless energy, incredible passion and determination, and willingness to speak frankly in order to address challenges head on.

Indeed, she has made such an enormous impact that on March 14, the Hartford Courant ran an editorial entitled ``DEP Chief Gina McCarthy a Hard Act to Follow,'' which praised both her passion for the issues and her pragmatic approach. The Courant specifically noted her ability to revitalize a department which had lost the public's trust and engage people across the State in preserving Connecticut's landscape and Long Island Sound.

Once again, I congratulate Gina McCarthy and strongly urge all my colleagues to support her nomination. Connecticut's loss is a win for our Nation. And, while we are sad to see her leave Connecticut, I am confident that Gina will continue to be the outstanding advocate for the environment and public health she has always been and I look forward to working with her in her new capacity at the EPA.

Madam President, I rise in support of S. 982, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the matter that is before the Senate. This bill would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the tobacco industry and put in place the tough protections for families that for too long have been absent when it comes to how cigarettes are marketed to our youngest citizens--our children.

This is an issue that many in this Chamber have worked on for a long time. For those who have been here for some time, this issue is not a new issue. It has been before the Congress now for over a decade, and for various reasons along the way--the other body has adopted this bill or we have adopted the bill but not at the same time the other Chamber has; the committees have acted but never in the same year or in the same Congress--so we have had sort of a disjointed process that has never brought the other Chamber and this one together around the importance of this legislation.

So once again we are here, this time I think with the greatest opportunity to do something I believe most Members--I cannot believe anyone in this Chamber could be adverse to the notion we ought to do everything in our power to limit the 3,000 to 4,000 children who every day--every single day--begin smoking in the United States.

Madam President, 400,000 of our fellow citizens die every year because of smoking-related illnesses. We are about to begin, in a few weeks, a debate on health care. One of the major provisions of that effort will be in the area of prevention. There are a lot of divisions I suppose about how we ought to proceed with health care, but as I have listened over the last number of months to our colleagues talk about health care reform, one issue--one issue--enjoys almost unanimous support; and that is, what can we do to reduce chronic illness in the country? How do we do a better job of having a health care system, not a sick care system? How do we prevent people from acquiring or contracting these illnesses that are so debilitating and so costly? One of them is, obviously, smoking-related illnesses and the 400,000 who die every year.

The one certain way is to try to limit the number of people who begin smoking every day; that is, our youngest citizens, our children. That is what this bill is all about. It comes down to simply that. We will have a long debate about various provisions in this bill, but in the final analysis, we will have to decide in the coming day or two whether, for the first time--the very first time--the Food and Drug Administration of our Nation will have the power and the capability to regulate tobacco products and begin to restrain--to restrain--the 3,000 to 4,000 who begin smoking every single day. So even in the 2 or 3 days we will debate this bill, keep in mind that during those 2 or 3 days, close to 10,000 children will begin smoking, 1,000 of whom will become addicted every day, and of that 1,000, anywhere from 300 to 500 will die. I have 76,000 children in my small State of Connecticut today who are going to die because of smoking-related illnesses, because they are already hooked and addicted to tobacco products. So there are a lot of things we debate and discuss and there is a lot of rhetoric and talk about protecting our children and protecting families, but here is an opportunity we have, as Democrats and Republicans coming together in common cause, to make a difference for literally millions of people in our country for years and years and years to come.

When the Supreme Court struck down the FDA's tobacco rule in 2000, it became very clear that legislation was going to be necessary in order to protect our children and the public health from deadly tobacco products. Eight years ago, I introduced comprehensive children's legislation that included, with the help of my good friend Senator Harkin, the Kids Deserve Freedom From Tobacco Act to give the authority to the FDA over these products. In the 108th Congress, our colleague from Massachusetts, who has been a champion on this issue--who has been the leader and champion on this issue for literally years and years and years, Senator Kennedy, and who is the major sponsor, by the way, of this legislation--was able to take this issue to the next level. He worked out a bipartisan bill called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act with our colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, Representatives Henry Waxman, and Tom Davis of the other body and the other party, and other members of the HELP Committee on a bipartisan basis. The bill we consider today is virtually the same legislation that Senator Kennedy and Senator Mike DeWine, Henry Waxman and Tom Davis worked on before. It has a long history, having passed each Chamber, but never at the same time.

So allow me to share a little of that history with my colleagues as we enter this debate. In July of 2004, the Senate voted 78 to 15 to add it as an amendment to another bill; that is, this tobacco bill. Unfortunately, the language was removed in conference between the House and the Senate. Three months later, Senators Kennedy and DeWine reintroduced the legislation and it was passed by unanimous consent, but the other body did not consider it at that time. Refusing to give up, of course, as he always does--he never gives up--Senator Kennedy reintroduced the bill in the 109th and the 110th Congresses. In August of 2007, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on which Senator Enzi and I serve, reported out this bill by a vote of 13 to 8. In July of 2008, the House passed a very similar bill by a margin of 326 to 102. Although the Senate version had 60 cosponsors, there was not enough time left in that year for the Senate to pass the House- passed legislation.

On April 2 of this year, the other body--the House--once again passed its version of this legislation, with very minor changes, by an overwhelming vote of 298 to 112.

The point I wish to make to my colleagues is simply this: Over the years, this bill has been reviewed, it has been vetted, it has been debated over and over. I think all of us, I would hope, agree that the time has come to act with uniformity in both Chambers, with the President committed to this issue to protect our Nation's children and pass this legislation into law.

Frankly, we can't afford to wait any longer. Every day, as I mentioned at the outset of these remarks, another 3,500 to 4,000 children are ensnared by tobacco companies that target them with impunity as they try smoking for the first time--every single day. One thousand of these children who will start today--that close to 4,000 across our country--will be addicted probably for life as smokers, and a third of that number will eventually die--if not more--from smoking- related diseases.

The tobacco industry is well aware of these numbers. They know that if they can't bring children into the process, then they won't have any more smokers. If you lose 400,000 people a year who lose their lives from smoking-related illnesses, then you have to replenish those numbers somehow. You can't lose 400,000 people every year, year after year, from smoking-related illnesses and not replenish the numbers. How do you do it? You do it by drawing in children, by getting kids to start smoking. That is why they have been so successful. When you get 3,000 to 4,000 every day--every day starting--40,000 in a 10-day period, then do the math yourself and you see what happens very quickly. You begin to replenish those numbers. If a quarter of that number remains addicted for life, you make up that 400,000 rather quickly and that doesn't include, by the way, the foreign sales of tobacco products. That is just right here in our country.

I would suspect that if you have been a smoker or are a smoker--and let me say in truth in everything, I was a smoker and I know how difficult it is to give up tobacco products. Anyone who tells you it is easy doesn't know what they are talking about. It is hard. It is difficult. It is extremely difficult. But even people who smoke, I will tell my colleagues, the one thing they pray every day is that their children will not begin it. In fact, I suspect some of the strongest advocates of this legislation are the people who have been hooked on tobacco products and they would tell you that the one thing they pray and hope is that their children don't become addicted to this product because they know how damaging it is. They know what it does to them. They know the potential harm to themselves and to their families. So this is not an issue, in my view, that ought to cause any division among parents and family members when it comes to what happens to their children.

Tobacco companies, as I say, are well aware of all of this. Almost 90 percent of smokers begin as children, and that is an astonishing figure. Equally astonishing is the fact that smoking kills more Americans every year than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drug use, murders, and suicides combined. Take all of those causes of death in our Nation, combine all of them, and they don't equal the number of people who lose their lives as a result of tobacco-related illnesses.

In my home State of Connecticut, more than one in five high school students smokes. Every year, 15,000 children in my State try cigarettes for the fist time and another 4,600 become regular smokers. Absent action from our Congress, of course, more than 6 million children who are alive today will die from smoking, including the 76,000 I mentioned in my small State of Connecticut. This ought to be entirely unacceptable to all of us.

Here we are soon to begin a debate, as I said a few minutes ago, on health care, with the common cause of trying to create a health care system, not a sick care system, where prevention is going to be a major focus of our attention. I can't think of a more significant step we could take on the eve of dealing with the health care debate than having this Congress stand up with an overwhelming vote and say we are going to begin an effort here to reduce that 90 percent who end up beginning smoking over a lifetime--that is our children--and that is what this bill is designed to do.

If ever there was a moral obligation to act, I think it is at this moment. No one suggests that any law is going to stop every child--of course it won't--from lighting a cigarette or beginning that process. Obviously, parents have to do their part in educating their children, as do others. But we shouldn't be making it harder on them than it already is, which is precisely what we are doing every second that we fail to act on a bill such as this.

So the purpose of this historic public health legislation is very simple: It is to protect our children and give them a longer, healthier future--the future they deserve. It will give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to prevent the sale and marketing of tobacco to children, require changes to cigarettes to make them less harmful, and protect the public health, and to prevent tobacco companies from using misleading marketing practices to encourage tobacco use. It would accomplish this by prohibiting outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. Parents ought not to live in fear that their children are being marketed cigarettes when they are at school every day. It would limit advertising in publications with significant youth readership to a black-on-white, text-only format; no pictures, mascots, or other eye-catching logos. It would restrict promotions that appeal to children and adolescents, and stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children and adolescents. Lastly, it would prohibit tobacco product vending machines except in adult-only facilities.

For this first time, the bill would regulate tobacco products, requiring all tobacco product manufacturers to register with the Food and Drug Administration and to provide that agency with a detailed product list. The legislation would assess user fees on manufacturers to pay for the cost of the FDA tobacco regulation. And it would mandate larger and far more informative health warnings on tobacco products, including prohibiting misleading terms such as ``light'' and ``mild'' on products that offer no health benefits whatsoever, and instead are intended to kill.

This bill is supported by over 1,000 organizations, including every major public health group in the United States: the Campaign for Tobacco Free Children, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, and many others. Thirty national faith organizations and over 800 State and local organizations support this bill. In addition, former Secretaries of Health and Human Services, both Democrats and Republicans, including Tommy Thompson and Donna Shalala; former Surgeon Generals, Republicans and Democrats, David Satcher and Richard Carmona; David Kessler, the former FDA Commissioner; and Julie Gerberding, the former CDC Director, have all expressed their support of the legislation now before us.

In its 2007 report, ``Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation,'' the Institute of Medicine urged Congress to: ``Confer upon the Food and Drug Administration broad regulatory authority over the manufacture, distribution, marketing and use of tobacco products.''

That is precisely what we give them in this bill. It deals with the manufacture, the distribution, and the marketing of tobacco products, particularly to our children.

Again, I hope my colleagues will gather behind this.

Lastly, let me say we would not be here on the cusp of winning this fight without the tireless efforts of our committee chairman, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has made the public health the cause of his lifetime. It has been his passion over the past 40 years that he has been involved in his public career. This bill is but one more example of good policy he has shepherded through the Congress which puts children and their families and the public first. All of us ought to thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Passing this bill will be a historic victory for our Nation's children--protecting children from aggressive marketing by tobacco companies and establishing sound manufacturing practices of tobacco products. It will be an historic step for parents who have enough to worry about in today's day and age without having to be concerned that cigarettes are being marketed directly to them, or tobacco products designed in ways to be specifically appealing to the youngest of our citizens in this country. Parents deserve peace of mind when it comes to how dangerous tobacco products are being marketed. With this legislation, that is precisely what we are trying to do.

I will emphasize again, this is not going to stop all of the problems of children starting smoking every day, but if we can make a difference and cut those numbers down. Then we will have achieved a great deal for our Nation. This is an opportunity to do so.

I should point out as well, I am not unsympathetic at all to the tobacco States--the States that grow tobacco where literally thousands of farms, their livelihood, and jobs depend upon this industry. This bill takes into account the needs of those small family farmers to provide help to them as they transition. All of us know what it is like to be in a State where there are certain things that occur, products that are made, services provided where they could be adversely affected by changes through no fault of their own. This bill tries to accommodate, to the extent possible, the industries and the businesses in those States that would be adversely affected, obviously, by the reduction in the use of tobacco products by our citizenry as a whole. I think all of us here, and again particularly parents, whether you are a smoker or a nonsmoker--you ask any parent in this country whether they would like to see their children begin smoking--ask them that simple question. I don't care where you live, the last thing you want to see is your child begin a lifetime of use that you know is going to put their life in jeopardy from the moment they start. So if nothing else, as you think about this bill and you think about these amendments coming along, many of which may be appealing on a certain level, remember, we have tried for 10 years and we have failed. Think about how this bill might have made a difference 10 years ago, if it had been adopted, and how many young children might not have started because of the inclusions and the provisions in this bill.

We cannot wait for another Congress, another 2 or 4 or 5 years to get back to this again. This is the moment. This is the hour. This is the time when we can accomplish that kind of achievement. We have a chance to do something in a meaningful way, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Let me also say this to my friend and colleague from Wyoming, who is a champion on this issue and cares deeply about it. We had a very good and extensive markup of the bill a couple of weeks ago. There are some outstanding amendments Senator Enzi has raised, and our staffs are working together to try to resolve those matters, as I promised we would, before we get to offering a substitute that may include some of the provisions we are in the business of trying to resolve. I thank him for his cooperation, and also the members of the committee, who stayed 2 days to mark up this legislation.

I commend my friend from Wyoming for his diligence in all of this, as he always demonstrates, and our colleagues on both sides of the committee, who worked on this legislation; I am grateful to them as well. I look forward to a good, healthy, and vibrant debate, with the final conclusion being strong support for this bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his eloquent comments and his commitment to the issue.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during today's session the recess time for the caucus luncheon period and any period of morning business be counted postcloture.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 2, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 2, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask that the previous order regarding the cloture vote commence.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make a point of order, en bloc, on the pending amendments.

Madam President, I make a point of order, en bloc, that the pending amendments are not germane postcloture.

Yes, I would be happy to yield.

That is my understanding.

That is my understanding. It is not the intent of this provision to eliminate deferred interest programs that help consumers. In fact, the payment allocation provisions in the legislation envision the continued availability of such programs.

Madam President, I will reserve my remarks until after the vote. I know my colleagues want to vote. I thank my colleagues--Senator Shelby, the leadership--for bringing us to this moment. This is a very important bill. We would not have gotten here without a tremendous amount of cooperation. This is a good moment for all the people in our country and a good moment for consumers.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives a message from the House with respect to S. 896 the Senate concur in the amendment of the House, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that this order is only valid if the House amendment is identical to the text which is at the desk; that if the text is not identical, then this order is null and void.