Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to congratulate Henry Waxman and Senator Kennedy and others with regard to their tenacity and persistence over the years. What is unfortunate is that we were not able to incorporate harm reduction strategies. It is also unfortunate that we are continuing to place more burdens and responsibilities upon FDA.

What I had sought to do is to regulate tobacco. I do not smoke, I do not encourage anyone to smoke. The health risks associated with smoking, I believe people recognize them and are cognizant.

Tobacco is an adult product. It's legal. And we are faced with this question of moralism versus pragmatism. And you have to be careful when you go down this path in weighing the balance of moralism versus pragmatism. So what I had sought to do was choose the pragmatic side of the equation and to incorporate a harm reduction strategy with the abstinence approach in the Kennedy-Waxman legislation.

While the authors of the bill, Madam Speaker, would say, Well, Steve, we have harm reduction in the bill. Well, it is mentioned in the bill, but there is a 2-tier standard in the bill that has been cleverly written in a manner to be an entry barrier to new innovative tobacco products. And that 2-tier standard is one that first must be achieved at the individual level, and then you must achieve this standard at the public at large. And the purpose is truly an entry barrier.

Now, if we wanted to work together and truly have a new scientific, pragmatic approach to improve the public health of our country, we would be doing both; we would be doing abstinence along with harm reduction. You see, that's exactly what Henry Waxman and others in this body do when it comes to teenage sex. They say, okay, by this body, Democrats and Republicans enjoin, we have both; we promote abstinence while also we have policies that promote harm reduction in our efforts to lower sexually transmitted diseases.

With regard to HIV, there are needle-exchange programs while we also try to promote abstinence. But all of a sudden now, when it comes to tobacco, approaches that we take in other forms of public health, whether it's in sanitary issues or whether it's in teenage sex issues or in HIV issues, all of a sudden we don't want to apply it to tobacco. It is a curious thing for me that we don't want to apply harm reduction strategies to tobacco.

So I would say to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, I think where we are is that you can have your day in the light, you have earned it, but we are going to have to come back to the table because what we have done is we have locked down the marketplace. You have given a big checkmark to Phillip Morris and said that your market share is okay. And when you lock down the marketplace, and we then stifle innovation and we do not have competition in that marketplace, we truly don't have the ability, then, for these companies to track at-risk capital to make investments in a harm reduction strategy whereby we can migrate people down the continuum of risk.

So if this bill becomes law, we've got some real challenges in front of us. One of them is how do we stand up this new mission within FDA, an agency that is already very stressed and underresourced, and we're already going to be addressing issues in the committee regarding food safety and drug safety while we pile on more missions.

So I would say to my good friend that as soon as this bill is signed into law, a couple of things are going to happen. Number one, the lawyers will make a run to the Federal courts, and the Supreme Court will be back sitting in judgment over the provisions on advertising restrictions, not only potential unconstitutional provisions on the First Amendment with regard to the regulation of commercial speech, but also in the Fifth Amendment with regard to whether it's a constitutional taking or not.

So while that is going on, I will introduce legislation, I'll work with Ms. Harman, I'll work with others, I'll work with the chairman, on how we can best incorporate these harm-reduction strategies to truly improve public health.

Madam Speaker, I embrace the sincerity of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Kennedy that they truly want to improve public health in the country, but this legislation, when we lock ourselves down to only what is presently available and that these nicotine replacement therapies only have a 7 percent success rate, I don't believe anyone here would endorse a 7 percent success rate as a good thing. It's failure. So we are going to have to go back to the drawing board here and figure out how we do a harm-reduction strategy to improve public health.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my good friend Mr. Waxman.

To say that harm-reduction strategies are best left to the FDA gives me great concern. If you truly believe that, then you should have never set a 2-tiered standard and built a paradigm in which they are to make judgments, if you truly believe that they're the ones who should have designed the strategies to improve public health. So I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to repeal the 2-tiered standard if we're going to let them set the standard based on sound science to improve public health.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is nicotine that causes the consumption of tobacco. So I understand how truly, in my words, outraged then Chairman Waxman was and still is with regard to testimony that occurred years ago when he was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Now, if it is the nicotine from which adult users receive their satisfaction, the real issue is how do they gain access to nicotine in a manner that reduces their health risk? That's the issue. That's my passion.

I am not a smoker. I don't advocate for people to smoke. My charge and challenge is how do we improve public health in our country? And I don't want this abstinence-only approach. So if it's nicotine for which people want to gain access to and it's an adult product, then shouldn't we be trying to figure out methods or products where people can gain access to nicotine that is less harmful?

During the debate on the rule, Madam Speaker, I would share to my colleague, Chairman Waxman, an individual brought up a head of lettuce and said that there is more regulation on a head of lettuce than tobacco. And I guess it was an effort to be cute, but the real point here is what I shared, Madam Speaker, and to my friend Mr. Waxman, you could have smoked that lettuce and you would still end up with the same problems. You could cut the grass in your yard, dry it and roll it up in a cigarette and smoke it, and you're still going to have a lot of problems. It is the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. It's the smoke.

So when you look and you say, well, if the smoke is the killer because of the inhalation of the tobacco smoke, that's responsible for the pandemic of cancers, heart disease, respiratory disease, and these deadly results.

So I'm going back to this harm reduction. So despite decades of intense efforts to eradicate smoking, more than 40 million adults continue to smoke cigarettes, and they're likely to continue because we don't have this ability to migrate them to other products. It's extremely important, when we talk about a harm-reduction strategy, that not only is it the access to a particular product, it is the education of the people at large as to what type of products that they can avail themselves to that have less harmful health results. That should be our goal and that has been embraced.

The American Association of Public Health Physicians noted last year, Enhancement of current policies based on the premise that all tobacco products are equally risky will yield only small and barely measurable reductions in tobacco-related illness and death.

So in the public debate, there is sort of this presumption that all tobacco products are harmful. Well, all tobacco products have a degree of health hazards, but some are more harmful than others. So cigar and pipe are not subject to this legislation; yet they are the most harmful to the human body of all of the carcinogens that can be inhaled.

So how do we migrate people? And I think that's what is extremely important. And let's stop this premise that all tobacco products are equally risky; that Swedish snus, even though it's 98 percent less harmful than an unfiltered cigarette, should not be treated as though they're both just as harmful. They're not. If you're able to pasteurize and take away the nitrosamines, yet people can gain access to their nicotine, you know what? That ought to be something we should talk about. That ought to be something we should promote.

And the reason, Madam Speaker, that if we just turn this over to the FDA, like Chairman Waxman has just suggested, and let them come up with these strategies, it's not going to be able to get into the hands of the American people because of the 2-tiered standard that has been set in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

It is with great disappointment that I hear the words of the Speaker because she is truly endorsing a 7 percent success rate as an acceptable level of success for those who are trying to quit smoking. Also, if we really wanted to try to help children, then she should have endorsed what I sought to do; that is, put tobacco on an equal plain as alcohol to make it illegal to possess. But we're not doing that today.

I also said that the States, with regard to the MSA, the Master Settlement Agreement, the States are not spending the money like they should. In the last 10 years, States have spent just 3.2 percent of their tobacco-generated revenue on prevention and cessation programs. In the current fiscal year, no State is funding tobacco prevention programs at levels recommended by the CDC. So I had offered an opportunity here to the body to strengthen and truly protect children, yet it was not adopted by this body. So be very careful about coming to the floor and saying we're doing it for the children when, in fact, the opportunity was there and you did not.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would say that the gentleman and I are not always in total agreement. The substitute that I brought to the floor actually sought to regulate tobacco, and I know you did not agree with my substitute. I believe in the regulation of tobacco. I sought to do that. I just don't believe it should be done in FDA. We tried to create a harm reduction center to do that. But I respect the gentleman's views.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I would like to address that I mentioned in my opening. The last two issues that I will address are, one, on the constitutionality, and, secondly, is the FDA the right agency.

While we all agree that steps need to be taken to help lessen the use of tobacco products by underage 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 is 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 have 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, that is, companies, if individuals seek 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 the Federal Government then step in and begin to regulate speech.

In this case, it is commercial speech, and that is what we are doing. When we take the MSA, the master settlement agreement, and also place these restrictions and then make them statutory, bang, we are right back to the Supreme Court. And I just find that very bothersome.

Larry Tribe, the noted constitutional expert and Harvard University law professor, commenting on the types of provisions in this legislation, stated, ``Given the extensive regulation of tobacco manufacturing (for example, the creation of manufacturing standards, the regulation of cigarette ingredients, and so on) 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 tailored 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 are going to find me quoting the American Civil Liberties Union. You may want to listen to this, because it is probably the first time I have ever cited the ACLU.

They also said in their testimony on identical language contained in this legislation, they stated if this type of legislation were to be passed, it would be ``wholly unprecedented'' and ``will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge.''

On the other side of the spectrum, the Washington Legal Foundation and Judge Bork also have called these proposals ``patently unconstitutional.'' Numerous other legal scholars have taken similar positions.

Now, in our zeal here to restrict tobacco products, there have been these comments by some, Madam Speaker, to say we are doing it for the children. It is wonderful. We can say we are doing it for the children. What does the Court say about that?

The Supreme Court has already examined one of the provisions in the FDA proposal, and that is the 1,000 foot ban on outdoor adds, and has suggested it violates the First Amendment because it is 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 which the Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional, i.e., commercial speech that is not merely tailored to a legitimate government interest.

In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corporation, the court stated that efforts to restrict advertising cannot lower disclosure in society ``to the level of the sandbox,'' and cited in the case Butler v. Michigan that ``government may not reduce the adult population to reading only that which is fit for children.''

So the type of drastic speech 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.

Let me move to the FDA. This bill establishes a general standard that actions by FDA are in the best interest of public health, that they're the ones, that they can 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 is that, in the committee, we are now looking at legislation with regard to food safety and drug safety. The FDA is charged with approving medical products based on scientific evidence that benefits of 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 FDA and say, we want you to regulate the tobacco product. So we take the gold standard of the FDA now, and apply it to tobacco, and now there is this inference that somehow the FDA has said that tobacco's a safe product. That is something we should not be doing. It's why I sought to create a separate agency, rather than the FDA, 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 FDA to create some type of inference into society that somehow it's okay.

President Obama stated on March 14 of this year that 95 percent 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 CDC. 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 to around 30,000 drug packages that are coming into 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 percent of them are either counterfeit knockoffs or adulterated drugs. When, in fact, you do the math and you say, okay, wow, take that 14 times 30,000 times 365, then times 80 percent, we are looking at 96 million. Think about that. 96 million drug packages coming in. So what we're doing now is we're lumping this onto FDA, and FDA is a challenged, a very challenged agency.

I urge individuals to vote ``no'' on this legislation. There is a better way to regulate tobacco.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Veterans' Group Life Insurance Improvement Act of 2009 which increases the amount of life insurance available to veterans. Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI) is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of this program is to give veterans the option to convert their Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage that they carry when they are in service to a competitive life insurance product for them and their family in post-military life.

Under current law, veterans have up to one year to convert the amount of SGLI coverage they carry to VGLI. Many separating servicemembers are young and don't see the need to carry a large amount of life insurance coverage. However, as they get older and have a family, many of these servicemembers have expressed a desire to purchase additional coverage but are barred from doing so under current law.

The Veterans' Group Life Insurance Improvement Act of 2009 allows veterans to purchase up to $400,000 of VGLI coverage in $50,000 increments, every five years, until the age of 60. The costs of such increases in coverage will be offset by premiums veterans pay, so there is no direct cost to the government. This bill gives our veterans greater flexibility in their life insurance choices and I urge all members to co-sponsor and support this legislation.

I thank my dentist friend for yielding, and I thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I come from a family of dentists. My grandfather is a dentist, my father is a dentist, my brother is a dentist, my sister is a dentist, my uncle is a dentist. I chose not to follow halitosis, so I became a lawyer, which means that I sit in the kitchen with the children at Christmas and Thanksgiving.

I come to the floor to honor my grandfather, Dr. Clarence Cornelius Buyer, my father, Dr. John Buyer, Sr., who on February 24 turned 80 and 4 days later retired from his dental practice. That's a lot of years, isn't it, practicing dentistry?

My deceased uncle, Dr. Earl Moore, was an orthodontist in Indianapolis. My sister, Dr. Diane Buyer, practices dentistry on the north side in Indianapolis. And my brother, Dr. John Buyer, Jr., is a periodontist and recently retired in January from the United States Army.

One thing I note about growing up in a family of dentists that has helped me is when you mention the words ``prevention'' and ``wellness,'' when I think of the professions in health that are out there, dentists take the lead. It is almost to the point where I believe that anthropologists, a thousand years from now, are going to dig us up, and they are going to look at our bones and say, look at the stress on those bones, but look at those teeth. They've got to

be Americans. Because, see, Americans, what has happened to us? I will eat what I want, I will drink whatever I want; by golly, the health system better be there to take care of my body, but I'm going to take care of my teeth because my smile means everything to me. I just wish the people would put the same focus they have in their teeth that they also place in their bodies. If we were to do that, how much better in wellness as a society would we be?

The contribution that dentistry has had to me, as a leader in health policy for the country, even goes back to the 1990s, when we began to examine Medicare, for example, and we noted that one-third of our Medicare expenditures was diabetes-related. Well, I spoke up and said, I come from a family of dentists, and we focus on preventive medicine. If we spent billions of dollars on the front end, we wouldn't be spending the multibillion dollars on the back end. So it's about wellness of the whole body. So I want to compliment the dentists.

Now I want to pause and talk about military dentistry, too, for a second. If we are going to compliment the ADA, it is not only in their contributions to our society, but also to military dentists. Military dentists are combat multipliers because there are so many non- battlefield casualties, individuals who are taken off the battlefield because of what happens with regard to the deterioration of their dental hygiene. It is those dentists that put them back in, and I want to truly applaud them.

Let me close with the infinite wisdom of the United States Army. I came out of The Citadel. I received my commission as a second lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps. My first assignment in the United States Army was with a dental clinic. I did everything I could, dad, to get away from dentistry, but for whatever reason, it totally consumes me, even in my life today.

Let me say congratulations to the ADA and to all the dentists and the dental assistants and the dental hygienists and the specialties for which the ADA represents. Thank you, and good job.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition, and I would say to the chairman, as a history professor, I know that you must embrace history and not be a revisionist of history.

I'm greatly disappointed with regard to this legislation. I'm disappointed because this is an attempt to say that he wants to resolve an inequity through discrimination so that your bias towards one specific group is so strong among the veterans community that you will discriminate against others. And I will even use your example of your friend with regard to his service as a merchant mariner, as a prisoner of war building the bridge over the River Kwai. It means that other POWs who served with him would not be entitled to the special monthly payment, that you believe that that merchant mariner is so special that all other prisoners of war should not receive such payment.

You see, there's a reason that those of us who have worn the uniform do not do this. The only time we have provided a service pension, a service pension, are for Medal of Honor recipients. We do not provide service pensions, and that's exactly what this is. So we're paying $1,100 to Medal of Honor recipients, and you want to pay now $1,000 to merchant mariners. Yet there are 28 groups of whom are similarly situated, individuals of whom were contractor status during the war.

Now, we need to stop and pause and think about what we are doing here. Ever since the American Revolution, our government has utilized contractors as our combatants go to war. Whether it was in the Revolution, whether it was the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and, in fact, the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we all used contractors. So after World War II, we created a process whereby these contractors then could be granted that ``veteran status.'' So for merchant mariners, the question of their valor, even the question of their status has now been resolved.

What's before the House is now with regard to a particular group of veterans that we're going to treat them differently, that we're going to say that you have such unique status that we are going to give you a $1,000-a-month payment, a service pension, when, in fact, we don't even do that for anyone else.

So I am greatly disappointed that this type of legislation is brought to the floor. This is legislation that should never have been done. Members are just flying back now, so they aren't even sure about this legislation or what it's about, and they're thinking that, well, because it came out of the committee, it must be great legislation. It must be veterans legislation. We all must be arm in arm and let's go ahead and pass it. Time out. I think we should be very cautious and careful.

Like I said, we don't even give a specialty payment to prisoners of war, and we're going to select a particular group of individuals to give them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I have further comments I would like to make.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This conversation we are having here on the floor with regard to degrees of valor is off the mark. Merchant mariners exhibited valor. They have been granted their veteran status. The question is whether we should now give them a service pension, which we do not do for any other veterans groups except the most highly decorated veterans, our Medal of Honor recipients.

The argument being made is that merchant mariners were shortchanged because they did not receive GI Bill benefits, unlike the members of the Armed Forces who then served in

World War II. However, 28 other groups that also provided military- related service in the U.S. during World War II have received veteran status in the same manner as merchant mariners and, likewise, did not qualify for GI Bill benefits.

If equity were really the issue, this bill would help these groups, too. But H.R. 23, as amended, does not. This bill unfairly ignores them and, thus, does not provide full equity. It creates an inequity among veterans, distinguishing the value of one group over and above someone else, something that we don't do in the military. We're very cautious and very careful not to do that type of thing, to say that, well, if you're a combatant and you're on the front line, then your service is more important than someone who is in a rear echelon, or, gosh, if you were back in the home States or in the National Guard, then your service isn't as important as somebody who is on the battlefield. Time out. We don't do that in the military.

The reason we don't do that is we look at everybody as a team, as one team. So when we go to a theater of operations, it may take seven to actually put one combatant on the field of battle because everybody is important, from the theater Army all the way to the actual combatants. And as a matter of fact, when they fall on the battlefield, maybe when they go to Landstuhl, Germany, they come back to the States. Everybody is an important part of the team, and we don't then make discriminatory judgments that someone's military service is more important than another and, thereby, Congress then awards a service pension.

I'm just appealing to the Members do not do this. It will have consequences among the ranks and the services of our military.

I would like to talk about the other 28 groups. One of these other groups of veterans of whom are being discriminated here against if this legislation passes is the American all-volunteer group famously known as the Flying Tigers. They were American P-40 pilots and ground crews who worked for the Chinese Government in the air defense of Rangoon and other parts of China before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Flying Tigers are credited with destroying an impressive 297 enemy aircraft and had one of the best kill ratios of any air group in the Pacific theater. There were approximately 80 pilots that flew for the Flying Tigers, of which 21 died in service.

An amazing 19 of them were credited with five or more air-to-air victories, making them aces. Nineteen out of the 80 pilots were aces. But they are not worthy for this service pension, okay, because we are not going to do that. Of the over 300 original members of the Flying Tigers, 18 of them are still alive today.

Another one of the groups that is being discriminated against here today I would like to highlight is the Women Airforce Service Pilots, the WASPS. There is even a colleague of mine who has legislation to get them the Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet a vote in favor of this legislation today discriminates against the Women Airforce Service Pilots. These were female pilots who flew every type of mission that an Army Air Force male pilot flew during World War II, except combat missions.

They freed up their male pilots for combat by flying planes from factories to air fields and flew over 60 million miles in every type of aircraft in the Army Air Force arsenal, from the fastest of fighters to heaviest of bombers. More than 25,000 women applied for WASPS service and less than 1,900 were accepted. After completing months of military flight training, 1,078 of them earned their wings and became the first women in history to fly American military aircraft. Thirty-eight of these brave women died while serving their country.

Madam Speaker, these are just some of the stories of two of these groups out of the 28 who all served loyally, selflessly, and courageously. Yet their service also contributed directly to victory in 1945, but they are being ignored and discriminated against by the legislation before us.

In May 11 of this year, a letter to all Members opposing H.R. 23, as amended, the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated with respect to the Merchant Mariners of World War II that ``singling out this group, no matter how valiant their service, will create inequities. Congress should not single them out for special benefits when they are not provided to other groups.''

Madam Speaker, I offered an amendment at the full committee of H.R. 23, as amended, to include these other 28 groups, who are similarly situated. It was rejected on a 15-14 vote.

I would like to insert the May 11, 2009, letter from the VFW and the names of the other 28 groups who have been granted veteran status of World War II to be placed into the Record.

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

Washington DC, May 11, 2009.

Dear Representative: This week, the House of

Representatives is expected to take action on H.R. 23, the

Belated Thank You to the Merchant Marines of World War II

Act. This legislation would grant a $1,000 monthly benefit to

individuals who served in the Merchant Marines between

December 7, 1941 and December 31, 1946, The Veterans of

Foreign Wars of the U.S. has serious concerns with the equity

of this bill, and we urge you to oppose it.

The VFW has no doubt about the dedication and bravery the

Merchant Marines demonstrated during World War II. Their

contributions to the war effort in transporting cargo to keep

forces supplied enabled the Allied forces to win the War.

They suffered heavy casualties. with nearly one-in-26 dying

in the Atlantic theater. We value and salute their efforts.

However, the VFW cannot support a special monthly benefit

for this single group. Merchant Marines are just one of 28

civilian groups that have been awarded Veterans status by

virtue of their military-related service. Not one of these

other 28 groups receives a special monthly benefit such as

this. In fact, the only group of veterans that receives a

special monthly benefit is Medal of Honor recipients.

Singling this group out--no matter how valiant their

service--would create inequities. Congress should not single

them out for special benefits when they are not provided to

other groups, such as the Women's Air Force Service Pilots

(WASPs) or those honorably discharged members of ``The Flying

Tigers.'' Further, many World War II veterans who served on

the front lines are not receiving any form of compensation,

and certainly not a $1,000 monthly benefit. We cannot put one

group ahead of all others.

The VFW is also concerned about the funding for this

proposal. The special monthly benefit would consume almost

$500 million of the VA's budget over the next five years.

With waves of service members returning from Iraq and

Afghanistan and presenting challenges for the entire VA

health care system, especially for those who are grievously

wounded, taking away money to give a special bonus to one

segment of veterans is not right. This is especially true

because the vast majority of the Merchant Marines covered

under this bill are already entitled to VA health care and

most veterans' benefits.

The VFW greatly respects their bravery and their

dedication, but we cannot support legislation that singles

them out above other deserving groups. We ask you to keep

these issues in mind, and to oppose this bill's passage.

Very truly yours,

Robert E. Wallace,

Executive Director.

World War II Service by Particular Groups

A number of groups who provided military-related service to the United States can receive VA benefits. A discharge by the Secretary of Defense is needed to qualify. Service in the following groups has been certified as active military service for benefits purposes:

I urge all Members to oppose this legislation before us, and I appeal to them, do not create a service pension that will differentiate members' service from others. This is the wrong approach.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on S. Con. Res. 13 the democrat budget for Fiscal Year 2010. This budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.

The overall democrat budget is not good for Americans, including veterans. The democrat budget contains the largest tax hike in American History, a $1.5 trillion tax hike, including a tax hike on veterans and their families, and veterans who own small businesses.

While I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game. Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama and the Democrats had promised, this budget contains many of the same old tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about our real fiscal situation and the impact this budget will have on our current economy and our children's and grandchildren's future.

This budget also allows the use of the reconciliation process to force government-run health care down the throats of the American people without even considering how such a proposal could adversely affect the VA healthcare system. We don't need a government run health care system that takes life changing medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and puts them in the hands of government bureaucrats, while dulling the innovative and radical research that has increased the quality of healthcare in America.

Madam Speaker our nation's veterans deserve a budget that funds their priorities without causing harm to these same veterans with radical new taxes and a ballooning deficit, unfortunately this budget does not do this. I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report on the democrat proposed budget.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work, and I thank you and your staff also for creating this alternative budget. It is a budget I believe that you can be very proud of.

Madam Chair, this alternative budget for fiscal year 2010 would provide $106.4 billion for veterans health care and programs. This budget is $540 million above the administration's request.

The Republican alternative also reduces spending, it brings our national debt under control, and creates 2.1 million jobs, actually, more than the Democrat plan, all while not raising taxes.

This alternative budget also reflects the priorities of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Republican views and estimates for FY 2010, which included ensuring a seamless transition from DOD to VA. It also provides for the innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and good-paying jobs, and making sure the VA provides world- class health care to veterans; and, ensuring that veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately. I believe all of these are issues for which both Republicans and Democrats would equally embrace.

Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposed for veterans, the overall budget request, for which we are having to vote on here, is nothing more than the same old shell game that we have come to know here in Washington, D.C.

President Obama had promised this open and transparent budget; however, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the real truth from the American people about the real fiscal situation.

Earlier this year, it was rumored and later confirmed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, that the administration was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of their service-connected injuries. I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal. We strongly believe that the same military values help guide us in our military service, and define the principles and allow us to say unto the administration that you should not be billing veterans to pay for their disabilities. It is one of the solemn obligations of government.

The budget views and estimates of the Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee took a very strong stand, while the Democrats' position was very muted. It wasn't until the veterans service organizations met with President Obama at the White House did this proposal then get out unto the American people. Only then did some of my Democrat leaders here in the House then, in order to get in front of that parade, said, ``Oh, yes, I am just as outraged.''

I look at it like this: Character is defined at the moment of calling. What do you do at the moment of call? Are you muted, or do you stand up and take charge and take control? It didn't happen, and I was greatly disappointed.

Thank you, for the time Mr. Ryan and I thank you and your staff for your hard work on this alternative budget. It is a budget of which we can be proud.

Madam Chair, the Republican Alternative for Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution would provide $106.4 billion for Veterans healthcare and programs. This budget is $540 million above the Administration's request.

The Republican Alternative also reduces spending, brings our national debt under control, creates more than 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrat plan all while not raising taxes.

The Republican budget alternative reflects the priorities of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Republican Views and Estimates for FY 2010 which include:

ensuring a seamless transition from DoD to VA;

providing innovative programs to help veterans gain job skills and good paying jobs;

making sure VA provides world class health care to veterans; and

ensuring the veterans disability compensation claims are adjudicated quickly and accurately.

Madam Chair, while I am supportive of the increase that the President's budget proposes for veterans, the overall budget request is really nothing more than more of the same old Washington shell game. Instead of proposing an open and transparent budget, as President Obama and the Democrats promised, this budget contains many of the same tax hikes and gimmicks that hide the truth from the American people about our real fiscal situation.

Earlier this year it was rumored, and later confirmed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shineski, that the Administration was planning a proposal to bill veterans' health insurance to pay for VA treatment of their service connected injuries.

I, like many of my fellow veterans, was outraged by this proposal and I strongly believe that the same military values that guided me and my fellow servicemembers should define how our government provides benefits and assistance to them now as veterans.

The prospect of VA collecting from third-party insurers for care provided for service-connected conditions is contrary to these military values and our obligation as a grateful Nation.

This proposal was soundly rejected by the Republican Members in our FY 2010 Views and Estimates and in the March 18th letter to the President by all members of the Republican House leadership and all of the Republican members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

It was only after the voice of reason was heard from Republicans and numerous veteran service organizations that President Obama dropped his proposal.

However, by dropping his proposal the President left a $540 million hole in the VA budget. And, I am proud to say that the Republican Alternative budget includes $540 million to fill the gap.

While I am happy that this crisis was averted and this outrageous proposal was rejected, the fact that President Obama would even consider such a proposal is worrisome to me and other veterans advocates.

Madam Chair, the overall Democratic budget is not good for Americans, including veterans. The Democratic budget contains a $1.5 trillion tax hike. This includes tax hikes on veterans and their families, and veterans who own small businesses.

It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to try to pass the largest tax hike in American history. This is the wrong message to send to our veterans and their families when our country is in a recession.

Madam Chair, we are a nation at war, and we will win these wars. The best way to maintain morale of our servicemembers is to make tough decisions here that will engender their confidence in our capacity to preserve the vitality of this nation while they fight for its freedom.

I believe that the Republican alternative helps do exactly that, while honoring the promises we have made our veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my friend from California, Congressman Waxman, for his persistence over the past decade and all Members who have supported his legislation in the past. However, Mr. Waxman's legislation was drafted over 12 years ago and has not taken into account the positive outcomes from the Master Settlement Agreement and the changing conditions of the tobacco market in our country. Additionally, the legislation has unconstitutional provisions, and according to CBO, will only reduce smoking rates by 2 percent over 10 years.

Over the past 2 years I have participated in three markups of Congressman Waxman's bill, and I, along with my colleagues, have offered numerous amendments to improve and update Mr. Waxman's bill. Unfortunately, no significant changes have been incorporated, and our concerns have not been addressed in totality.

That is why I introduced a new bipartisan bill this year which I offer today as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1256. This substitute mirrors the legislation that I introduced with Congressman Mike McIntyre of North Carolina which has strong bipartisan support, including the support of Chairman Collin Peterson of the House Ag Committee along with Chairman John Spratt of the Budget Committee and other ranking members.

This strong bipartisan substitute amendment seeks to regulate tobacco by creating a new science-based, pragmatic harm-reduction strategy to improve public health. The amendment combines education, prevention, and cessation goals while using public policy to migrate over 45 million smokers to nonsmoking tobacco products and nicotine therapies which are scientifically proven to be significantly less harmful to human health and greatly assist in our efforts to decrease tobacco- related deaths and disease rates in our country.

I strongly believe that no tobacco products are safe. However, Americans today are left in the dark about the relative risks of all tobacco products, and it is false to assume that all tobacco products have equal health risks. Adult smokers deserve to understand the relative health risks of all tobacco products so that they can make informed health decisions.

According to the Royal College of Physicians, ``The application of harm reduction principles, to nicotine and tobacco use, could deliver substantial reductions in the morbidity and mortality currently caused by tobacco consumption.'' Making such information available to adult tobacco users is one of the purposes behind this substitute amendment.

Tobacco harm reduction adds to current tobacco-control policies in order to drastically improve our Nation's health outcomes. It is important to note that harm reduction strategies do

not replace tobacco cessation programs but work along with them. That is why when I first put this bill together, I was very, very hopeful that Mr. Waxman and I could combine our efforts, but unfortunately, that did not prevail.

If we can move our smoking population away from smoking products, the most dangerous tobacco products on our market, and move them to less risky tobacco and nicotine products as we move in this effort to wean them off nicotine and tobacco, we have a chance to decrease the adverse effects of tobacco by up to 90 percent over 20 years, according to the American Council on Science and Health. For smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit smoking, we must provide them with the information they can use to decrease their health risks.

Additionally, this substitute protects the core missions of FDA by creating a new harm-reduction agency within Health and Human Services to ensure we have a safe, secure food supply, pharmaceuticals, biologicals and medical device supply. Given the numerous news reports over the years of counterfeit and adulterated drugs and our tainted food supply, the last thing we should be doing is forcing the FDA to regulate an inherently dangerous product in carrying out a mission that is counter to its culture.

This substitute also goes further than the Waxman bill in protecting children because we require States to spend a larger percentage of their master settlement agreement for tobacco education, prevention and cessation efforts. In the last 10 years, States have spent just 3.2 percent of their total tobacco-generated revenue on prevention and cessation programs, and in the current fiscal year, no State is funding tobacco prevention programs at the level recommended by CDC.

Additionally, we require States to make it illegal for minors to purchase and possess tobacco products, aligning our Nation's tobacco policies with our Nation's alcohol policies. Not only will it be illegal for retailers to sell tobacco to minors, but now minors will be strongly discouraged from purchasing or possessing tobacco.

We also ensure that the Feds stay off our Nation's farms. We ensure that our farmers are not hit with additional Federal regulations that affect their traditional farming practices, and we make sure that these regulations stay within the purview of the agriculture department.

Mr. Waxman's legislation will directly and indirectly affect farming practices, and I was quite surprised that the Parliamentarian ruled that the Agriculture Committee did not have jurisdiction on this bill. My amendment expressly prohibits the tobacco legislation from finding its way into today's farming practices.

Finally, this substitute calls for a blue ribbon study of tobacco advertising in our Nation. I am very concerned about the first amendment potential violations in the Waxman bill. It was discussed during the last two markups we have had before the Energy and Commerce Committee. You see, in 1996, 46 States, plus the District of Columbia, reached an agreement with the tobacco companies known as the Master Settlement Agreement. This agreement has proved extremely effective in regulating tobacco advertisements in our Nation.

It is important to note that the advertising restrictions reached in this agreement were voluntary. When we legislate such advertising restrictions, we violate the first amendment. So I'm very concerned, even if we take the rule that was done, the rule-making effort to place restrictions on advertising back in 1996 as then incorporated in this bill, in fact the Supreme Court has already ruled that unconstitutional. So to put that back in this legislation just throws this right back to the Supreme Court. To me as a lawyer, that's unconscionable. We shouldn't be doing that here on the House floor.

So when we legislate these advertising restrictions, we should never, never violate the first amendment. This is one of these really awkward positions where I find myself as a conservative Republican aligned with the ACLU. I also believe we must study ways in which we can better address tobacco advertising without violating the Constitution.

To conclude, we offer this substitute as a bipartisan effort, as an innovative and pragmatic health approach in addressing the harms of tobacco in this country. This substitute protects our children, jobs, farmers, retailers, and wholesalers while protecting our Constitution and protecting the health of our Nation.

To respond to the gentlelady's concern and her efforts promoting nicotine replacement therapies, there are over 45 million adult smokers in the United States. Each year approximately 2 million smokers use these nicotine replacement therapies in an attempt at quitting. The public success rate of nicotine replacement therapies is only 7 percent, meaning that only 7 percent of smokers who try to quit using nicotine replacement therapies are successful. To me, a 7 percent success rate is failure. It's failure. So we need to try something different, and that's why we have this substitute.

I wanted to touch on just a few things. I don't believe that the gentleman from Colorado meant to do this, so I wanted to make sure to correct any potential false misperception.

The Buyer amendment does not allow for false and misleading advertising. So when you look at the existing State and Federal law adequately today, it protects against false and misleading advertising in a range of consumer products, which also includes tobacco.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, the point is that there are existing State and Federal laws, including the Master Settlement Agreement, which protects against false and misleading advertising in a range of these tobacco products. With regard to the MSA--the Master Settlement Agreement--it's administered by the attorneys general of the 46 States, including the District of Columbia.

So I don't want the gentleman's affirmative statement to somehow mean that we don't. That was my point of clarifying the Record.

In addition, the consumer fraud statutes in each State are also applicable to tobacco products and, at the Federal level, the Federal Trade Commission has--and enforces--section 5 regarding false and misleading jurisdiction over tobacco products. The FDA currently has authority over tobacco advertising and makes therapeutic and health claims.

I would ask the gentleman from Colorado a question because he was talking about the FDA. My question to the gentleman from Colorado would be: Has the FDA ever regulated an inherently dangerous product, is the gentleman aware?

Today. My question is: Has the FDA today ever regulated an inherently dangerous product?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, since two speakers chose not to answer my questions, I then therefore must assume that by silence they're not aware of the FDA ever in its past regulating an inherently dangerous product.

Therein lies the challenge that we have. The FDA is the gold standard with regard to the protection of our food supply, our medical devices, our biologics, and our pharmaceuticals. So right now the FDA--we all know the FDA is overworked and under-resourced.

So when we look at that agency, the last thing we should be doing is taking the FDA and overburdening them with a new mission that is counter to their culture. That's the issue here.

You see, the difference between the Waxman and the Buyer and the McIntyre approach is this: Both of us seek to regulate tobacco. Mr. Waxman chooses the FDA to do it. We say that the world even recognizes that the FDA is stressed in doing its job.

You see, 80 percent of our domestic drug supply is comprised of ingredients produced in foreign countries--increasingly produced in less developed nations. So the FDA has the capability to inspect only a small percentage of foreign drug manufacturing facilities.

So when you think about it, we have 3,000, there could be approaching 4,000, of these foreign manufacturing facilities, and we are only inspecting 200 to 300. If we do that at that rate, by the time we get through all of them, it will be 13 years.

So when you think about all the stress that we're presently placing on the FDA, the last thing we should be doing is giving it another mission counter to its core mission.

Also, when I think about trying to protect our drug supply, not only with regard to how they're manufactured, but let's talk about the products that are coming into the country.

When you look at the 11 international ports of entry run by the United States, coupled with the two by FedEx and UPS, that's 13 international ports of entry. On any given day, each of those ports of entry have between

30,000 and 35,000 drug packages that are coming in.

Now let's just do the math--and let's be conservative. Of the 13 international mail facilities, take 13 times 30,000 drug packages. That's 390,000.

So we continue to do this math. Thirteen international mail facilities times 30,000 drug packages. That's 390,000 times 365 days a year. That's 142,350,000 drug packages.

Now why am I taking time to do this? It's because if 80 percent of these drug packages--every time the FDA does a spot check, they find that these drug packages are counterfeited, adulterated. They're knockoffs. A very small percentage are actually even sent to labs. So the FDA is not being able to do its job to protect our Nation's drug supply.

With regard to food, Americans eat food imported from 150 countries and processed in 189,000 plants scattered all over the world. Here in the United States, FDA inspectors visit every food processor about once every 10 years. FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce lines imported into the United States from fiscal years 2002 to 2007.

So what we have here is we recognize that Congress, over the last 20 years, has continued to lump more and more jobs and missions on FDA. So when the gentleman from Colorado said it only makes sense that we give it to FDA, well, I disagree.

That's why we want to create a separate agency called the Harm Reduction Agency Under under FDA to--with a laser beam--recruit some of those great scientists and build that science base to regulate tobacco products along a harm-reduction strategy.

I don't support tobacco. I don't use tobacco products. But I don't want to leave 45 million smokers out there to an abstinence approach, whereby it's either smoke or die or go to a harm-reduction therapy, which only has a 7 percent success rate. That's what we're kind of faced with. I don't want to do that.

So I think if we combine our efforts here, at some point in time we're going to have to get together on this if we really want to promote public health for the country.

Will the gentleman yield?

You have been talking about tobacco companies. I don't have tobacco companies supporting my bill. Are there any supporting the Waxman bill?

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have had some really tough decisions lately. We have had to act boldly on many fronts to address the current financial crisis. People today are suffering, and they are unsure of their future. But I have faith in the American people.

Throughout history we have shown courage in the face of adversity, and today I am asking Members of this Congress to show courage by supporting the Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act.

It is the only bill before this body that directly addresses the issue of youth smoking in this country. It is the only piece of legislation that builds on the success that we have seen in youth smoking rates, which are down more than 50 percent in the last 10 years.

How did this happen? It happened because the American people, parents, teachers, and the retail community, came together and said that we are going to do something about kids smoking, and they have.

More than 10 years ago, Congress passed legislation that included the Synar amendment. This amendment requires the States to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18 years of age. Synar seeks to develop a strategy to help States achieve a retailer violation rate of 20 percent or less.

In 2006, for the first time, the Secretary of HHS found that no State was out of compliance, and the average rate of tobacco sales to minors was at its lowest in history. This is a great achievement, but we cannot be complacent. We must look to the future and build on the success of the last 10 years.

Our esteemed colleagues, in particular Mr. McIntyre, the chairman of the Ag Committee, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking members, have given us an opportunity to do just that and vote on this substitute.

The Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act is a tough measure that allows us to really address youth tobacco use in the 21st century. The substitute requires that the States spend a minimum of 20 percent of their tobacco settlement money on prevention, cessation, education, and harm-reduction programs.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would note that the gentleman read a list of individuals that supports his bill. But what he left off the list and the prior speaker under the rule, the gentleman from Colorado, was very critical of the tobacco companies. But Altria supports the Waxman bill. Now what is interesting about this is I would ask the gentleman from Colorado, he was so critical of tobacco, but obviously he didn't know that a tobacco company was supporting the Waxman bill.

I truly believe in my heart, since I had written Altria, and they have sent me a letter here in response to the substitute, H.R. 1261, I truly believe that had they not endorsed the Waxman bill 8 years ago that they would be endorsing this bill. And the reason I say that, I just find it in my heart, they let me know in their bill dated to me by the chairman and chief executive of Altria, he says, ``We specifically support H.R. 1266 and supported its predecessor bills for more than 8 years.'' That is the Waxman bill. But he goes on further in his letter, and he says, ``Your letter seeks our input on several aspects of tobacco regulation. You recently introduced H.R. 1261, including harm reduction, product design standards and the appropriate public health standard for tobacco regulation. Before addressing these topics more specifically,'' and they do that in the letter, he said, ``I want to commend your thoughtful leadership on the topic of comprehensive tobacco regulation. Your focus on H.R. 1261 on harm reduction strategies will, we believe, encourage further meaningful conversation about how Federal regulators should exercise authority over tobacco products. We especially appreciate the focus you are bringing in the public policy debate in an important principle that regulation should ensure and certainly not discourage adult consumers access to accurate, objective and non-misleading information about the relative risks of all tobacco products. We have consistently expressed our view that it would be wrong for the Federal regulatory framework to deny adult tobacco consumers access to information about potential benefits to products that could ultimately reduce the harm caused by smoking.''

Now that is the harm-reduction strategy that we have incorporated in this bipartisan bill. And so I wanted to bring that to everyone's attention that this harm-reduction strategy is extremely important. We should not have this abstinence approach that is in the Waxman bill. Now this was an approach that was drafted many, many years ago, and a lot of things have taken place since Mr. Waxman drafted this bill. And he is not taking these things into account. I respect the gentleman. I respect his efforts. I respect his tenacity and his persistence. And hopefully we will have a meeting of the minds one day, and we can incorporate both of our dual-tracked efforts here to move people to stop smoking.

The supporters of the Waxman bill, as I noted from some of the speakers, they claim that it is designed to protect children from the dangers of smoking. But H.R. 1256 does not include any provision that actually protects minors from tobacco use. The American Association of Public Health Physicians wrote on March 3, 2009, ``The current bill, the bill which is before us and being debated, referred to as the Waxman bill, H.R. 1256, in its current form would ensure current levels of tobacco-related deaths while doing nothing of significance to reduce the number of teens who would initiate tobacco use with no bill at all.''

You see, those of whom are supporting the substitute, we support steps to require the States to use more of their Master Settlement Agreement funds to combat underage smoking and promote smoking cessation while also strengthening the Synar amendment which prevents the underage purchasing of cigarettes. Unfortunately, H.R. 1256 does not contain these important public health provisions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman just spoke about his concern with regard to product standards. It is one of the chief concerns in the Waxman bill. The provisions on product standards allow the FDA to impose any requirements or prohibitions it sees fit, except that it may not ban the product or reduce nicotine delivery to zero. FDA need not consider the cost or feasibility of imposing a standard. FDA does have to consider

the possibility of a black market, but can impose a standard even if it will lead to the creation or expansion of a black market. That should concern everyone with regard to illicit trade.

The Waxman bill also prevents communication about significant differences among levels of risk presented by different types of tobacco products, and it clamps down on any effects to develop and market modified-risk tobacco products. Modified-risk tobacco products are defined as any existing or new product that bears a claim or where the manufacturer conveys to consumers through media or otherwise that: It presents a lower risk or is less harmful than other tobacco products; has a reduced level of substance or reduced exposure to a substance; is free of or does not contain a substance; or uses the descriptor ``light,'' ``mild'' or ``low'' or a similar descriptor.

Approval of a modified-risk product requires under the Waxman bill that the product will significantly reduce harm and the risk of disease to the individual users and that approval benefits the health of the population as a whole. You see, this is a two-tier standard and is almost impossible or nearly impossible to satisfy. So I completely understand why the gentleman came to the floor concerned about product standards. So if you want to embrace a harm-reduction strategy to migrate people from smoking down the continuum of risk to eventually quitting, the Waxman bill does not permit that. We don't permit the innovation of science to drive people to lower-risk products. And that is what the substitute tries to do.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman, the ranking Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, such time as he may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield now 3 minutes to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman of Georgia an additional minute.

I reserve my time.

We have two speakers that I'm aware of that are on their way.

To the gentleman's question, you wanted to know how many more speakers do I have. I was not prepared that you would not have speakers in support of your bill, so I thought that we'd be going back and forth, so I have Members coming from their offices to the floor. But I would be more than happy to take some of my time.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker--actually, we're on your time, I guess, at the moment. I guess, on your time. May I ask how much time both of us may have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We've had a discussion here on the floor, Mr. Speaker, with regard to other concerns over the Food and Drug Administration and its ability to regulate tobacco products, products that will never qualify as safe and effective, and could have significant negative impacts on all Americans.

Congress has spent a great deal of time investigating the ways in which the FDA has been unable to fulfill its core mission. Burdening the FDA with additional responsibilities outside the agency's expertise and core missions at this time will have dire consequences for the American people and the FDA's ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of our Nation's food, drugs and medical devices.

H.R. 1256 allows the FDA to divert resources from its core mission, including funds from food safety inspections and drugs and devices approvals to fund the startup costs of a newer tobacco center. At a time when FDA is struggling to perform many of its core functions, diversion of its limited resources will negatively impact the safety of the American public.

Now, in a bipartisan manner, we share the concerns of many in the public health community that effectively giving FDA's stamp of approval on cigarettes will improperly lead people to believe that these products are safe, and they really aren't. So there actually could be this perception, when people see that the FDA has approved it, there could be this public perception that there's an FDA approval of a particular nicotine delivery device.

Now, what we seek to do is to turn this over to a different agency, whereby we can learn about the different relative risks among that continuum of risk, so that people can make, then, informed decisions and choices relative to the use of tobacco products.

Now, I agree with the American Association of Public Health Physicians, which wrote on March 3, 2009, in regard to H.R. 1256, ``The current bill, in its current form, would assure current levels of tobacco-related deaths, while doing nothing of significance to reduce the number of teens who would initiate tobacco use with no bill at all.''

Now, I read that earlier, but it's so important I had to read it again. Now, Congressman McIntyre and I have authored this bipartisan alternative to establish the Tobacco Harm Reduction Center under the Department of Health and Human Services. The alternative is based on public health policies that acknowledge a continuum of risk among all tobacco products, and referenced scientific literature which shows that smokeless tobacco products are 90 to even 99 percent less hazardous than cigarettes in their risks of causing tobacco-related illnesses and death.

Now, why wouldn't we embrace that as a form of public policy?

Unlike H.R. 1256, the alternative substitute would have insured adult tobacco users are given complete, accurate and truthful information about the risks and relative risks of all tobacco products so that they can make informed health decisions, while providing incentives to develop reduced-risk tobacco products.

See, that's really one of the chief concerns I have about Mr. Waxman's legislation is that when he creates a two-tier product standard with the implementation of new products, how can we ever migrate people to a lesser-harm nicotine delivery device in our efforts to get them to quit? That's why we have this position by Mr. Waxman, either you smoke or you die. And that's not what we should be embracing.

The alternative substitute, which Members will have a chance to vote on, strengthens prevention against minors' tobacco use, ensures that States properly fund anti-tobacco education and smoking-cessation programs, and protects American jobs.

Now, this alternative legislation will significantly improve the public health, while also protecting the already overburdened FDA from new responsibilities that take away from its ability to protect, once again, our Nation's food and drug supply.

In 2001 the Institute of Medicine noted, ``The potential for reduction in morbidity and mortality that could result from the use of less toxic products by those who do not stop using tobacco, justifies the inclusion of harm reduction as a component in a broad program of tobacco control.'' That was my appeal to Chairman Waxman as to why the harm reduction strategy should be endorsed.

You see, if enacted, H.R. 1256, Mr. Waxman's bill, significantly curtails, if not entirely eliminates, incentives for manufacturers to develop and market products that reduce exposure to tobacco toxic substances. In order to obtain approval of a modified risk product, an applicant must demonstrate that the marketing and the labeling of the product will not mislead consumers into believing that the product is or

has been demonstrated to be less harmful than current products.

Further, it has to be demonstrated that the product reduces risk for both the individual and for the population as a whole. This is the two- tiered standard I keep referring to. It is unlikely that such a standard could ever be proven. You see, that is what is so clever about Mr. Waxman's legislation. He puts in a standard that can never be achieved. And if you want to move people down a continuum of risk and improve public health, it cannot be done under Mr. Waxman's approach.

Now, those of us that support the substitute are concerned that such disincentives will effectively freeze the current tobacco market and prevent innovation that could lead to significantly less harmful tobacco products and improve the Nation's health. That is the exact position that Altria took in their letter to me.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1256 directs the Secretary of HHS to promulgate an interim final rule that is identical to the FDA's 1996 rule, which legal experts from across the political spectrum have stated would violate the First Amendment. While these experts' views should carry great weight, even more dispositive is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on various provisions of the rule, finding them unconstitutional.

In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that was similar in many ways to the FDA's proposed rule. The statute banned outdoor ads within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds and also restricted point-of-sale advertising for tobacco products. The Court held that this regulation ran afoul of the test established in the Central Hudson case, which defines the protection afforded commercial speech under the First Amendment, as it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and would have disparate impacts from community to community.

The Court then noted that since the Massachusetts statute was based on the FDA's rule, the FDA rule would have similar unconstitutional effects on a nationwide basis. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the Court, ``the uniformly broad sweep of the geographical limitation demonstrates a lack of tailoring.''

Additionally, the proposed rule in H.R. 1256 would require ads to use only black text on a white background. Again, the U.S. Supreme Court found a similar provision unconstitutional in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In that case, dealing with advertising for legal services, the Court held that the use of colors and illustrations in ads are entitled to the same First Amendment protections given verbal commercial speech. Justice Byron White, in his opinion for the Court, wrote that pictures and illustrations in ads cannot be banned ``simply on the strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertisements may, under some circumstances, be deceptive or manipulative.''

There are numerous other speech restrictions in this legislation that raise serious First Amendment issues and will create a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use in the United States. To put forward speech restrictions that a broad range of experts have stated are almost certain to be struck down would be highly counterproductive, and the only winners in this effort will be the litigants' constitutional lawyers rather than the American public.

I reserve the balance of my time.

You would not rob me of the opportunity to put my chart on display, would you, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you.

I am prepared to show a chart on my debate time.

I thank the gentleman.

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I want to thank both gentlemen--Mr. Platts and the chairman--for his bill. As I've said, I complimented you earlier about your persistence and about your tenacity, about your drive and your sincerity. I don't question it at all. I have a different approach on how we can improve public policy, and this has been a good debate. I want to thank the chairman for allowing this debate to occur. It was a healthy debate at the committee during the markup. I think it's a healthy debate for us to have.

Over 100 countries around the world are struggling with how they answer these public health questions on how to deal with individuals who become addicted to nicotine. When you look at this approach of, ``Well, let's just quit. Stop smoking and just quit,'' I just take a simple look at this. I say there are 45 million smokers, and then there are 2 million who are trying to stop smoking. Yet there's only a 7 percent success rate. Something is not working. To me, that's a rate of failure.

So that's why Mr. McIntyre and I came up with a different approach. We came up with a harm-reduction approach, and what we seek to do is to put our arms around everything. Not only are we trying to accomplish some of the similar goals of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Platts and of others who support Mr. Waxman's approach, but we wanted to include everything. We could include abstinence. We could include cessation programs and prevention and education. We seek to do that because we have a harm- reduction strategy to do that, and we want to move people down a continuum of risk.

When you look at the 45 million smokers, 85 percent of them are smoking light or ultralight cigarettes. Now, the reason they do that is they make a subconscious decision that somehow it's a healthier or a safer cigarette. The reality is it's not. It's not.

So Mr. Platts is absolutely correct, but what we seek to do in the substitute is we want to regulate tobacco. That's what Mr. McIntyre and I seek to do. We want to regulate tobacco. We don't want to do it under the FDA. We want to do it in a harm-reduction center, and we want the tobacco companies to come forward. We'll regulate that tobacco, but we want to migrate smokers into other forms of products. I'm going to talk about that in greater detail on the substitute.

At this point, Mr. Waxman, I don't have any other speakers, so we can proceed to the substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Because this is my substitute, do I speak last on the substitute?

Thank you.

With that, I will yield to the cosponsor of this bipartisan substitute, Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina.

I would say to the gentlelady who just spoke in the well that Mr. Waxman's bill was drafted years ago, and it was drafted prior to the Master Settlement Agreement. And it is the Master Settlement Agreement itself that has great restrictions upon advertisers. So there is a reason that I don't have it--I say to the gentlelady, there is a reason I don't have that part in the bill because the Master Settlement Agreement that is now administered by the attorneys general in 46 States, including the District of Columbia, who work in concert not only with the FDA but also with the Federal Trade Commission. These tobacco companies are not even advertising today in these types of magazines.

But one of the reasons I didn't go further in advertising is that when we work in concert with the Harm Reduction Center under Health and Human Services, what we seek to do is to inform the public with regard to the relative risks among different types of tobacco product, and that's what we seek to do. We seek to migrate people from the smoking to other types of products.

If I could, I would like to show exactly what I am about to share.

What I would like to share here with you is a chart, and what is important about this chart is about the continuum of risk and about all of the different types of products that are available in the marketplace today.

So when you think about this and you think about the continuum of risk, what I did is I sought to say, All right. Let's think about the products that are presently available out there.

So when you think about that, we have non-filtered cigarettes. That's the worse. I mean, you get those toxins. You get them right into your body and substance, and that's really bad. Non-filtered cigarettes.

Then you've got filtered cigarettes. We know that's a little bit better--all of these tobacco products are harmful. So we go from non- filtered cigarettes to a filtered cigarette.

Then I have a vented filtered cigarette, but those are really bad, too, because people try to gain access to that nicotine so they suck a little harder on that cigarette and they draw it deeper into their lungs. That's not a good thing.

Then we have tobacco-heated cigarettes like the Accord. Now, we know that that reduces a lot of the toxic substances, but we're really not sure where on the continuum of risk does it lie along with the electronic cigarette because there isn't sufficient science yet to back that up.

And these are products that--innovation that is coming out in the marketplace because people every day are making conscious decisions about what we eat, what we drink on a risk assessment, and that's what we are trying to do here in the statute.

So after electronic cigarettes, we have smokeless tobacco products. Now, when I think about this, we can go from a non-filtered cigarette and go all the way down 90 percent down the health risk chart, 90 percent, to get to a U.S. smokeless product.

Let's talk about the difference between a U.S. smokeless product and a Swedish Snus. The U.S. smokeless tobacco product is fermented. So through that fermentation and the natural processing of tobacco and the nitrosamines, you still have some serious carcinogens and some toxic substances. But it is still scientifically shown to be a much better and safer tobacco product than that of smoking.

You see, it is not the nicotine that is killing people. It's the smoke. It's the

smoke. It's the smoke. That's killing people.

So to get away from that--I heard somebody coughing. It was the smoke, I am telling you.

If we can pull them away from the smoke and move them down the continuum of risk chart--actually if we could get them into a Swedish snus, get them into a pasteurized product, we take away 98 percent of the health risk. And then if we can get them to--actually they are now called dissolvable tobacco products. These are orbs or strips that you can lay on your tongue or a stick that's a little like an oversized toothpick that you can stick in your mouth. These are tobacco products that contain no nitrosamines, and you can eliminate 99 percent of the health risk, but an individual can still gain their access to nicotine if they like.

And what we're trying to do, though, is move then down the continuum of risk, make informed decisions in order for them to be healthier but still gain access to their nicotine.

Then you have therapeutic nicotine devices, which are your gum, your patches, your lozenges.

And then we have pharmaceuticals. We want people to quit smoking. But in order to do this, what we've done--not only Mr. McIntyre but Mr. Shuler and others here in a bipartisan effort--is to create a harm- reduction strategy. And we embrace--so not only the goals of Mr. Waxman on abstinence, but we also embrace the goals of education, prevention and cessation activities as we try to move people and make informed choices along this continuum of risk.

Now, what is so, to me, unconscionable is that if, in fact, Mr. Waxman's bills were to pass, is that these new innovative types of nicotine delivery devices could not make their access to the market. Now as I said--I will say it for the umpteenth time--I respect Mr. Waxman and his desire to try to get people to eliminate smoking. We just recognized that today only 7 percent success rate with regard to these type of nicotine replacement therapies, and that's a failure rate, and we shouldn't do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to one of the cosponsors of this substitute, Mr. Shuler of North Carolina, for as much time as he might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

According to the Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, dated 2008, ``There is a very strong basis in science for believing that the harm caused by current cigarettes can be massively reduced by alternative nicotine delivery systems. Anti-tobacco campaigners who refuse to discuss harm reduction will merely be ensuring that they are not part of the ongoing dialogue that will shape this key area of policy.''

I also would like to cite Britton and Edwards in The Lancet, 2007. ``The risk of adverse effects associated with Snus use is lower than that associated with smoking, overall by an estimated 90 percent. Whatever the true overall hazard, use of low nitrosamine smokeless products is clearly substantially less harmful than tobacco smoking.''

Also citing the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified

Health Risks, dated 2007, ``The magnitude of the overall reduction in hazard,'' meaning switching from cigarettes to smokeless, ``is difficult to estimate.'' But as outlined in their paper, for cardiovascular disease, it is at least a 50 percent reduction; for pancreatic cancer, it is at least 30 percent; for oral and other GI cancer, it is at least 50 percent reduction and probably more; and for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it's possibly even 100 percent.

Now, what I'm hopeful is that at some point, I'm going to make this quest that Mr. Waxman and I can somehow come together, because according to CBO the reduction in the rates of smoking in the Waxman bill is two-tenths of 1 percent per year. So we're going to take over $6 billion to reduce smoking rates under Mr. Waxman's approach by two- tenths of 1 percent per year. Which means over a 10-year time frame, the total that we're going to reduce for smoking in the entire country is 2 percent. We are going to reduce smoking rates in the country under Mr. Waxman by 2 percent.

We can do much better than that, and that's why we have this substitute is that we want to move people from smoking down the continuum of risk to eventually quitting, and I think that's exactly what the chairman embraces.

Please support the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Why was I not given the opportunity to ask for the yeas and nays and it's reserved for tomorrow?

Do I have to be present tomorrow to ask for the yeas and nays? I know you said further proceedings are extended.

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Isn't it normally a custom at the end of the bill for me now to ask for the yeas and nays?

Further inquiry.

You will then place the House on notice as to when we could then ask for the recorded vote for tomorrow, not only on the substitute, but also on Mr. Waxman's bill?

Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I hereby certify that my Substitute Amendment to H.R. 1256 does not contain any earmarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1171, as amended, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Ranking Member John Boozman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity introduced this bill to extend the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program (HVRP) through fiscal year 2014, and I am proud to join him as an original cosponsor.

I would also like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and Chairman Filner of the Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs for moving this important measure with our first group of authorizing bills.

Madam Speaker, I am also proud that H.R. 1171, as amended, also includes an amendment that I offered in the full committee markup. My amendment is similar to H.R. 293, The Homeless Women Veterans and Veterans with Children Act of 2009, or what I refer to as HVRP-W.

H.R. 293 was one of several bills I suggested that House Leadership include in the original stimulus package and is part of what I call the Noble Warrior Initiative which has received widespread support from the VSO community. My amendment adds the provisions of H.R. 293 to H.R. 1171, as amended, to create a new grant program that complements the current HVRP program with a focus on homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children.

As amended, H.R. 1171 authorizes a separate appropriation of $10 million to fund grants to community organizations that provide services to homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children.

Today, VA estimates there are about 154,000 veterans counted among the homeless. With women comprising a larger percentage of our military, in addition to sexual trauma, women are increasingly exposed to the same stressors and dangers as the men and we are now seeing more women in need of homeless services including the training and employment services offered through HVRP.

Therefore, I believe we need to add the focus of the HVRP-W to make sure that job skill services are being provided to homeless women veterans and veterans with children. These two groups have separate and unique needs and wants from those of what we think of as the traditional homeless veteran population.

Here are a few facts from VA regarding homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children:

VA's March 2007 Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) contacted 38,667 homeless veterans. About 4 percent were women.

In 2008 VA and communities held 157 Stand Downs and aided 2,347 homeless women veterans and 1,327 children.

Last year VA's community based Homeless Grant and Per Diem program served 19,345 veterans including 1,277 women veterans.

VA's Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans treated 5,905 veterans including 242 female veterans.

The HUD-VASH housing voucher program for homeless veterans referred 8,000 veterans of whom 880 were women. 1040 veterans (male and female) housed through HUD-VASH had dependent children.

Madam Speaker as you may know, despite the headway in reducing the number of homeless veterans, there is still much more work ahead of us to end homelessness among our nation's heroes. I believe H.R. 1171, as amended, will go a long way towards this goal and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I would ask of the gentleman, representing the views of the minority leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, that there are some outstanding issues and that the dynamic has, in fact, changed, that there are bipartisan alternatives to Mr. Waxman's legislatkion. And so what we are asking is for there to be regular order for the House to be able to work its will.

This bipartisan legislation is a completely different type of alternative approach to public health policy with tobacco. So while the gentleman was active with regard to what occurred in the last Congress, this is a very different Congress. So we are asking for regular order.

And there is a particular issue that is highly sensitive to the House Armed Services Committee because the Waxman legislation mandates the inclusion of the military in the Roth program. So what we have is, the Energy and Commerce Committee is dictating military personnel policy. In order to protect this about 160 million over a 10-year, for that to remain in the personnel budget of the Armed Services Committee, the Armed Services Committee would need to have an amendment that goes through the Rules Committee. You see, if, in fact, you allow it to come on suspension, the suspension then denies the House Armed Services Committee's ability to fence off those dollars for it to remain in the personnel budget. It would also deny the bipartisan substitute and would also deny Dr. Burgess his amendments.

So the dynamic, I just want to inform the majority, has changed. And we are very hopeful that you will take that under advisement and that that bill will be brought to the floor under a rule.

We have been working very hard. And I would place the majority on notice that please do not bring this on suspension, because we have the votes to bring it down.

Mr. Speaker, it is pronounced ``Buyer.'' My family is Alsatian; so if you go back in my ancestry, I know the gentleman is new here to the Congress, it was de Buyer. So my sense is that the gentleman will remember it for a while.

I come to the floor here to talk about a very pivotal issue that will be facing the public health of our country, and this is the issue of tobacco. Members of the House will be presented with a choice here relatively soon about which Federal regulatory structure over tobacco products we should use.

Now, it is interesting, for a long time the issue was whether we should regulate tobacco or not regulate tobacco. There is now this growing concensus that the Federal Government in some way should regulate tobacco, and now we are trying to figure out with regard to who should do that regulation. Should it be the FDA under Health and Human Services; or, as Mr. McIntyre and I are proposing, that it be a separate agency under Health and Human Services, we call it a harm reduction agency, that will focus on reduction of the risk associated with many different types of tobacco products.

So I believe that the critical issue to be considered is, how do we measurably and effectively reduce the disease and death associated with tobacco use while products remain legal and over 45 million Americans have not, cannot, or will not quit?

Keeping the American tobacco consumer and the public uninformed about the differences in risk between smoking cigarettes and using nonburning forms of tobacco or other nicotine products will not help our Nation to overcome the death and disease attributed to tobacco use.

Telling current tobacco smokers to ``Just Say No,'' to quit now, is not the most effective way to save lives. Creating a regulatory scheme that discourages and in fact chills the development of new, lower risk products is directly opposite of what many in the scientific and public health communities even advocate today. But those are the underlying tenets of what is referred to as the Waxman tobacco legislation called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

What do experts say about Mr. Waxman's approach on tobacco?

Well, the prestigious health organization, the Royal College of Physicians, says, ``The current situation is perverse, unjust, and acts against the rights and best interests of smokers and the public health. Harm reduction has the potential to play a major part in preventing death and disability in millions of people who currently smoke and who either cannot or will not otherwise quit smoking. These smokers have a right to be able to obtain and choose from a range of safer nicotine products, and they have a right to accurate and unbiased information to guide that choice.''

From the American Association of Public Health Physicians, ``In the judgment of AAPHA, the current bill in its form will do more harm than good in terms of future tobacco-related illness and death. The current bill,'' referring to the Waxman bill, ``with all its seemingly promising elements, has so many restrictions on Federal regulatory authority that it will be unable to effect favorable change. This bill is based on the false premise that cigarettes can be made safer and that all tobacco products are equally harmful. This bill places barriers to truthful communications about the relative risk of less hazardous smokeless tobacco products and near insurmountable barriers to the development of new lower risk products.''

Now, these are two examples of organizations that have some growing concerns about the Waxman legislation. Now, in the face of that there is a growing consensus that significant harm reduction policies and programs, when combined with prevention and cessation, are, in my belief and that of Mike McIntyre, the chief cosponsor of North Carolina, that it is the key to a significant reduction in disease and death from tobacco use.

So the Waxman legislation, despite the years of characterizations and representations by its proponents, does not incorporate in any meaningful way a comprehensive prevention, cessation, and harm reduction strategy. Actually, on the contrary; for a very long time, those of whom believe that a harm reduction strategy in fact threatens cessation and prevention programs. I look at this and say that they should all work together, that four fingers and a thumb makes a hand. And so, without the phalanges, do you really have a hand? So I believe that they all should have to work together, and that is what we are seeking to do here is having a harm reduction strategy that incorporates prevention, education, and cessation.

I am also greatly concerned that the Waxman legislation continues to ignore the evolution of opinion in the scientific and public health communities, and relies on tactics taught and thought that were effective in the early 1990s, such as it includes provisions that the Supreme Court had thrown out with regard to restrictions on First Amendment on advertising these issues. I was really concerned about it, and Mr. Waxman believes it is okay. I have great, great concern here.

Congressman Mike McIntyre and I have introduced H.R. 1216, the Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act. This legislation imposes significant regulatory oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services over tobacco products, and incorporates many of the provisions included in Henry Waxman's legislation.

It includes serious policy and programs of prevention, cessation, and harm reduction, which we believe will lead to saving thousands of lives over the next decades. It will squarely address the issue of tobacco use by minors through additional resources and enforcement at the State levels.

In fact, Mr. McIntyre's and my legislation is even stronger in the protections for minors on two points. Number one, we say unto the States that with regard to the Master Settlement Agreement and monies that were supposed to be spent by the States on tobacco cessation and education and prevention programs, at the end of the Master Settlement before it was signed there was this last-moment agreement. Rather than dictating unto States on what percentage of the monies are to be spent on tobacco prevention and cessation programs they said, well, we will just leave it to the discretion of the States. The CDC then every year publishes a report with regard to what the percentage that States should be spending, States are not spending on those programs. So Mr. McIntyre and I come in, and we are dictating unto the States that they are to spend their Master Settlement Tobacco Agreement on programs to help children.

The other point that Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina and I have is on protecting children. We are also saying to the States that we want you to treat tobacco like alcohol. So where it is illegal for a minor to possess alcohol, we also say: States, you should make it illegal for minors to possess tobacco.

With that, let me yield to a major cosponsor of this legislation. This is bipartisan legislation. It is an alternative to Mr. Waxman. And, actually, what Mr. McIntyre and I were really hopeful is that our bill here would have been adopted in the Energy and Commerce Committee as a substitute. If we could have combined our effort with that of Mr. Waxman's, we would have 435 votes here on the floor, and we could make this a reality and make our society a healthier and safer place.

I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts. He is a strong advocate of our agricultural policies and is very concerned with regard to ensuring that the Federal regulatory oversight from Health and Human Services does not interrupt with growing practices by our farmers.

I thank the gentleman for his help and his support on the bill. This is an issue about the public health of our country and the fact that we have a bipartisan approach here, a bill that we seek to decrease the mortality and morbidity rates is extremely important. There are over 100 nations around the world that are struggling with this issue. Tobacco is a legal product. It is the smoking that really hurts and harms and kills people. It is not the nicotine. And so what we are trying to do is to migrate people from smoking products to smokeless products. The very large risk differential, it is the difference between combustion and noncombustion products.

The gentleman understands that. And he is embracing the harm reduction strategy from a public health perspective. And he also wants to make sure that we work in concert with our growers, that we have very sound export policies with regard to our trading partners around the world so we don't have any World Trade Organization violations, while at the same time we are cognizant of illicit trade issues. The gentleman is an expert in these areas. And I welcome his support. And I thank him for being here tonight.

What I would like to do is I'm going to share a chart that the world has never seen. And I am hopeful that here in the United States we can continue to lead the world and to make the world a healthier place. And so what I'm going to do here is I want to talk about our harm reduction strategy and to talk about the risk differential among a continuum of risks. So the best way for me to do this is to put a chart up so all the Members can have a look at this. And I will talk about it here for a second.

I have continuum of risk here at the top, along then with the relative risk of chronic disease here on the side. And what I have done is what is not on the chart, I don't put cigars or pipe tobacco in here. That is outside of the regulation of not only our bill but also of Mr. Waxman's bill. But pipe and cigar is the most toxic. If I were to go on this chart, what I put on this chart listing 100 percent as the most toxic, under that which of tobacco products are to be regulated by our bill would be your nonfiltered cigarettes, so that would be your roll-your-own cigarettes or a Lucky Strike or other forms of generic cigarettes that are nonfiltered.

So I think common sense is going to tell you if there is not a filter on it, you're going to smoke it, you're going to inhale a lot of toxic substances and carcinogens deep into your lungs.

The next, as we look at continuum of risk, among available products that are on the marketplace here in the United States in North America, so you have your nonfiltered cigarettes. Next are your filtered cigarettes. That kind of makes sense. If I'm going to put a filter on it, I'm going to reduce the risk between those two types of instruments that deliver nicotine. So that is what the key here is. People want access to their nicotine. And it is the smoking that harms them. And so how do you reduce the harm? And so what drives some people a little crazy here is that can you really say that there is a safer type of cigarette? Well, if you want to take a science-based approach, you really have to be very honest about this and say, well, among the types of cigarettes, there are different types of cigarettes as a delivery device of nicotine that are safer than others. But they are all not entirely safe. But there is a risk differential. And it should be discussed. So we have from nonfiltered to filtered cigarettes.

What I don't have here, which sort of comes up next, is you actually have vented filtered cigarettes. But what we are finding out from the science-based approach is that if you put vents into the filters, even though you're trying to reduce the smoke and a lot of the bad, toxic substances, people will draw on that cigarette a little harder, and so they are sucking it deeper in their lungs. And that is not a good thing.

Next we have our tobacco-heated cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. The reason I put question marks with regard to both of these types of nicotine delivery devices is that with regard to tobacco-heated cigarettes there are a couple of products that are out on the market. Philip Morris has the Accord and Reynolds American has the Eclipse. So these are out on the marketplace. We do know that these types of nicotine delivery systems are a much less riskier product than say your strictly just filtered cigarette or your nonfiltered cigarette. But where do they fall on the chart? There isn't enough science to tell us exactly where. We know it is better. It is not completely safe, but it is better. And we don't know exactly where, but we know it is falling downward on the continuum of risk chart. So we really do need some science here to tell us where the electronic cigarette and tobacco- heated cigarettes fall on that.

So that is part of the reason we want to create, under Health and Human Services, a separate agency that will focus our Nation's expertise on tobacco. And I want to be able to do that without people believing that, well, if FDA is regulating tobacco, that somehow that it is an okay product. No. This is a high-risk product. And what is important is that somehow we get to the American people they get informed, they can make an informed choice among an array of products along the continuum of risk.

So after electronic cigarettes, if we can truly move an individual out of smoking, if they are looking on how I can gain my access to nicotine, I think people know that, hey, the surgeon general is right. There is some risk that will accord anything that has to do with smoke. If you can transition, or migrate, a population from smoking to a smokeless product, I assure you, we can take out up to around 80 percent, based on the science, almost 80 to 90 percent of the health risk can be taken away.

Now the American public needs to know that. So you say, okay, what's

the difference between a U.S. smokeless product and Swedish Snus? Well, the difference is the U.S. smokeless product is fermented, and the Swedish Snus is pasteurized. So if you can actually move to the Swedish Snus, you can eliminate about 98 percent. Think about this. Ninety- eight percent of the health risks can be taken away, yet people can still gain access to nicotine.

Now, if you wanted to go on a little bit further, there are dissolvables of tobacco that have no nitrosamines. That is the really bad stuff, and you can remove that and you can still gain access to your nicotine. And these dissolvable products that are just being introduced and tested in the marketplace are these Orbs or a tobacco stick or a strip that you can lay on your tongue and you can gain access to the nicotine.

Now, I assure you, you don't gain as quickly the access to the nicotine and get the sensation upon the brain as you would smoking the cigarette. But you can gain access to the nicotine, and people then can make an informed choice, gosh, I can gain access to my nicotine, I don't get it as quickly, I can get it, but, gee, maybe it is worth it for me to live a few more years and enjoy my family. I can enjoy my nicotine and, gee, I'm not going to die from smoking. You see, that is extremely important. And as we move people and then migrate them down from this continuum, you can move then to therapeutic, there are therapeutic methods to gain access to nicotine, through the gum, the patch, the lozenges, and then for the individuals who seek to quit.

And that is part of the process of what we are doing here is we want to incorporate a harm-reduction strategy to inform a population that if you want to gain access to your nicotine, it is the smoke that is really going to kill you. So if you can get them off of smoking and move them to smokeless products and then move them from there to therapeutic and then pharmaceutical to eventually cessation and quitting.

Now, that is part of the harm reduction strategy. And what I believe is extremely important is when we have this as a strategy, you have about 40 million smokers over here on this end of the chart, and you only have about 2 million down here that are actually trying to quit. In the meantime, of the filtered cigarettes, about 80 to 85 percent of the individuals who are smoking the cigarettes are smoking lights or ultralights. Now why are they buying lights or ultralights? Because somehow they believe that if they smoke a light or ultralight that it will be less harmful for them. You see, people are trying to make an informed decision, and they think it will be less harmful for them. The reality is these are products that are going to be harmful to you. I think people need to know and understand that.

So what we are hopeful here is that in our legislation, we create this Harm Reduction Center under Health and Human Services where we take our great minds and we do science. We do science on the entire array of products along a continuum of risk, and we inform the public so that the public, when they buy these products, that we can actually migrate our population from combustion to noncombustion products and hopefully quitting, while at the same time, we want to make our investments in education and prevention programs, not just for children and minors, but also for adults.

What is important here, what we are finding, is that when people migrate from smoking to smokeless, some fear that, wow, if somebody starts here, the smokeless product, will they actually migrate this direction on the chart, headed up the chart? The reality is it is not what is happening in the marketplace. So that is why we have created an alternative public health position for tobacco.

My good friend, Mr. Waxman, I applaud his perseverance over the years and his persistence. His legislation has sort of an abstinence-only approach on tobacco. I respect Mr. Waxman. We have had a good working relationship over the years. And I really was hopeful that he would incorporate this harm reduction in his bill. Now, he said, ``Steve, I have got harm reduction in my bill.'' I said, ``well, Henry, you may have it in the bill.'' But what he has are unrealistic standards that products that may gain access to the marketplace. He has a two-tiered, a two-pronged tiered test, one that will test at the individual and one at the public with regard to the impact of a particular product. It will almost be impossible for new products to gain access to the market.

If we truly wanted to make our society healthier, what we should be doing is encouraging people to move from combustion to noncombustion products. And we can do that, if I can take out 80 percent of the health risk, we are making our country healthier and hopefully then move to cessation.

That is why I call this the continuum of risk chart. And it is open and free to the world to use this chart, to scrutinize the chart. And I'm hopeful that other legislative bodies around the world will incorporate harm reduction as a strategy for a nation for them to be healthier.

The harm reduction policies advocated in H.R. 1261 are an important method to figure out how we can satisfy the nicotine cravings among all of these legal type products.

What I would like to share are what some of the scientists actually say about tobacco harm reduction as a public health strategy. From the American Association of Public Health Physicians, dated 2008, ``tobacco harm reduction is taken to mean encouraging and enabling smokers to reduce their risk of tobacco-related illness and death by switching to less hazardous smokeless tobacco products.''

You see, the reason I don't have advertising restrictions in my bill is I think it is extremely important. Mr. McIntyre and I created this bipartisan piece of legislation for a purpose. We want to make sure that people are informed with regard to their entire array of products, tobacco products. And you need to be able to inform them as to what products have the higher risk, which ones have less risk.

And what really concerns me is, if you make, let the FDA do this, of which the FDA it is counter to their culture, even, to somehow say that one cigarette, this is a safer cigarette among an array of cigarettes that are harmful. That is a very, very challenging endeavor for them. And so it is why some in the public health community are a little concerned.

The International Journal for Drug Policy, their quote, ``Numerous alternative systems for nicotine delivery exist, many of them far safer than smoking. A pragmatic public health approach to tobacco control would recognize a continuum of risk and encourage nicotine users to move themselves down the risk spectrum by choosing safer alternatives to smoking without demanding abstinence.'' That is the International Journal of Drug Policy, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here.

There is another quote from the American Association of Public Health Physicians, ``In practical terms, enhancement of current policies, based on the premise that all tobacco products are equally risky, will yield only small or barely measurable reductions in tobacco-related illnesses and death. Addition of a harm reduction component, however, could yield a 50 to 80 percent reduction in tobacco-related illness and death over the first 10 years, and likely a reduction of up to 90 percent within 20 years.''

Now you see why Mr. McIntyre and I are so excited about this alternative approach, because abstinence only does not achieve the goals to make a society healthier with regard to tobacco. And this is exactly what we are trying to achieve, that is also being endorsed here by the American Association of Public Health Physicians.

The Royal College of Physicians in 2007 stated, ``Harm reduction is a fundamental component of many aspects of the medicine and, indeed, everyday, life, yet for some reason, effective harm reduction principles have not been applied to tobacco smoking. It is very clear that for most of the major health effects of tobacco, smoking is many times more dangerous than smokeless tobacco use.''

The American Council on Science and Health stated, ``The American Council on Science and Health believes that strong support of tobacco harm reduction is fully consistent with its mission to promote sound science in regulation and in public policy, and to assist consumers in distinguishing real

health threats from spurious health claims. As this report documents, there is a strong scientific and medical foundation for tobacco harm reduction, which shows a great potential as a public health strategy to help millions of smokers.''

With regard to--here is another one from SmokeFree Pennsylvania. ``Although smokeless tobacco is just as addictive as cigarettes and should not be used by those who are not addicted to nicotine, cigarettes are about 100 times deadlier than smokeless tobacco products.''

Here is a quote from Britton and Edwards, The Lancet, in 2007. ``The risk of adverse effects associated with snus,'' now snus is pasteurized product, Swedish snus, ``is lower than that associated with smoking, overall by an estimated 90 percent. Whatever the true overall hazard, use of low nitrosamine smokeless products is clearly substantially less harmful than tobacco smoking.''

Why am I pulling out these quotes? I am pulling out these quotes because what has been talked about as those who support the Waxman legislation is that somehow all of these products are equally harmful. That is false. That is what I want to convey to everyone. They are not equally harmful. And it is extremely important that the public be informed about all that these types of products, along a continuum of risk, so people can make informed choices. We do that every day. We make decisions on what kind of automobile we want to drive. We do the continuum of risk. How about what we eat, what we drink? We make choices and decisions every day. Should I put on my seatbelt, should I wear a helmet. All kind of things. We make judgments.

When I look at the farmers, my gosh, there are all types of risk out on the farm, and a lot of judgments are made along a continuum of risk along with the farm machinery.

We make these judgments. Why don't we do that as a public health strategy for tobacco? It only makes sense. And what I am really hopeful here--I had a really good discussion last week with Mr. Waxman about some tweaks on amendments, some of which he didn't agree to of which I was hopeful.

I really appeal to my good friend from California because we could combine, and I shared this with him. We could combine our efforts here. If he would endorse this harm reduction strategy with his bill, we could get this to the President's desk. I really believe that this could pass in a very large number.

I remember years ago when Joe Kennedy and I combined our efforts together, and when we would come to the floor it would pass 435 to nothing. And I was really hopeful, I had an earnest effort here, good discussions with Mr. Waxman, and I told him I would take a good hard look at his bill and I would recommend some changes, and I was really hopeful that he would combine a harm reduction strategy with his abstinence only approach, and we would truly have the four fingers, a thumb that will make a hand. But without this, he is only going to have, I don't know what you call it, a thumb and a palm. I guess he is only going to have a palm. And that is really not going to be good. So I want to build a hand and not just a palm to help our country.

The other point I have is, Madam Speaker, I would submit for the Record a letter from the American Council on Science and Health from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan dated March 12, 2009, and, dated October 18, 2008, the AAPHP Tobacco Harm Reduction Resolution, titled Resolution on Tobacco Harm Reduction.

American Council

on Science and Health,

New York, NY, March 12, 2009.

Hon. Steve Buyer,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike McIntyre,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Buyer and Representative McIntyre: On

behalf of the more than 400 scientists who advise our

organization, and the hundreds of thousands of consumers we

represent, thank you for your work on H.R. 1261. Our

scientists understand the urgent need to reduce the dreadful

toll of cigarettes on the American people--with over 400,000

smoking-related deaths each and every year in our country.

Your bill is a tougher, science-based alternative to Rep.

Waxman's HR 1256.

H.R. 1256 will not only fail to reduce the ravages of

cigarette-induced disease and death--it will likely worsen

it. The new regulation of tobacco ``additives'' will not

lower the toxic and carcinogenic mixture induced by the

combustion and inhalation of cigarette smoke. The enhanced

restrictions on lower-risk tobacco products, such as

smokeless tobacco and ``clean'' nicotine--which have been

shown to assist addicted smokers in quitting--will condemn

the over 40 million addicted smokers to the same old ``quit

or die'' pair of options.

Successful quit rates are under 20% utilizing the

currently-approved remedies. The Waxman legislation would

codify this failed policy into law.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this Waxman approach is that it

gives FDA responsibility for overseeing tobacco issues. This

will allow the cigarette makers to cloak themselves in the

mantle of being ``FDA Approved,'' shielding them from

liability for their irresponsible marketing schemes and

manipulation of cigarettes' addiction capabilities.

Your bill--H.R. 1261--will obviate most of the detrimental

and counterproductive effects of the Waxman bill. Truthfully

telling the American consumer about lower-risk tobacco

products--harm reduction rather than ``quit or die''--along

with stringent marketing restrictions and attention-getting

warning labels, and the establishment of a tobacco-regulation

section in the Department of Health and Human Services--not

the FDA--will all be of major benefit in reducing the toll of

cigarettes in America.

Sincerely,

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan,

President.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide an increase in the amount payable to disabled veterans under the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Program.

Known as the HISA program, this important VA benefit provides grants to seriously disabled veterans who require home adaptations to provide access to in-home medical care.

Typically, HISA grants are used for such things as widening doors; putting in handrails or special lighting; making kitchens, bathrooms, windows, or electrical outlets and switches more accessible; building ramps or improving entrance paths and driveways.

The benefit is paid from the medical care appropriation and is available to both veterans with service-connected and non-service connected disabilities. A service-connected veteran can receive a HISA grant in addition to other home adaptations grants available through the Veterans Benefits Administration.

Congress first authorized VA to establish the HISA program as part of outpatient care for home health services in 1973. We have been engaged in the Global War on Terror for nearly eight years and are seeing an increasing number of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan utilizing VA health care. It is especially important that this program remains relevant and can meet the needs of our newest generation of veterans.

The current maximum amount of a HISA grant is $4,100 for service- connected veterans and $1,200 for non-service connected veterans. This amount was established by Congress in 1992 and has not been raised in seventeen years.

My bill would increase the maximum amount of the grants to $6,800 for service-connected veterans and $2,000 for non-service connected veterans. This recommended increase reflects a three percent increase for each year since 1992. It accounts for inflation and the increased cost of home modifications.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. It would have a direct and immediate impact on improving health care and the quality of life for our disabled veterans.