Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. It is very clear that Americans are feeling the burden of a shrinking economy, empty pocketbooks and also economic uncertainty. What is clear is that the American people are hurting and that we are continuing to lose jobs. The Obama administration and congressional Democratic leadership promised that their trillion-dollar stimulus would create jobs immediately and gave the assurance to the American people that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. In June alone, almost one- half million jobs were lost, driving unemployment now to 9.5 percent, the highest level in almost three decades. I believe the American people know we cannot tax and spend nor bail our way out to a growing economy. So what are we doing here today? We are continuing this practice of reckless spending. Now what is clever is that there is a release that was sent out by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that said, well, it appears as though perhaps we are cutting, actually this bill is cutting, foreign spending. No, it is not. What has to be clear here is that you have to be careful to this appropriations language called ``enacted'' level of spending. So when you look at 2008 and as we go into 2009, we had a continuing resolution, and then from the CR we go into an omnibus. On top of the omnibus, we go into supplemental spending. And now we go into the 2010 bill. So we have this 33 percent increase. What I'm doing is I look at three specific accounts here in Foreign Operations. And I'm saying, okay, fine, keep your increases. But let's try to hold the line with regard to our Federal spending. I have great respect for the men and women that represent our country in Foreign Service abroad. They are serving on America's outposts, and I salute them. They deserve the best the Nation can provide to them. What I oppose is the continued habit of reckless and seemingly endless spending that this bill represents. So with the interests of our Nation's financial integrity at stake, I offer this amendment that cuts $2.2 billion from the bill to remedy this bloated increase. The amendment reduces three accounts to match the fiscal year 2009 enacted funding levels: number one, the diplomatic and consular programs account reduced by $1.2 billion; secondly, the operating expense of USAID by $330 million; and the global health account reduced by $670 million. This represents a total savings of $2.2 billion left in the Treasury and not borrowed against our children's and grandchildren's future. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say the gentlelady's comments still don't address the reason I brought this amendment. I will use two words that you just used to the gentlelady: ``jeopardy'' and ``devastate.'' That is exactly what Congress is doing to America's economy if we do not get our fiscal house in order. This isn't my quote; this is OMB's. In May, OMB projected that if we continue this type of spending, the Federal debt will grow to $23.3 trillion in 2019. That is within 10 years, $23 trillion. I think the American people are getting numb to these numbers. Now to get $1 billion, to get $1 billion, if I take, excluding corporate income tax receipts, every individual working in my congressional district, if I take their Federal income tax revenue, I can get $1 billion. That is just $1 billion. So I think about all the hard work and labor of people in my congressional district in Indiana, that is $1 billion. So you throw numbers around here as though it is just nothing, it is just money. It is more than money. It represents the hard labor of people. They give it to us, and they make sure that we spend it in a fiscally responsible manner. At a time when America's economy is hurting, you plead to me in response, Mr. Chairman, the plea here is that all Members should weep and cry about the challenges that are all around the world. Well, what about the challenges in America? That is what I'm talking about. We are engaged here in a two-front war, actually, a multi-front war, but in two fronts right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate the leadership of our ranking member and what he is doing. But don't stand here on the floor and talk about we need more money for ``family planning,'' which is a code word for us to pay for abortions overseas. No, this is a moment in time. And I am going to ask for a recorded vote on something like this because I want a signal to be sent to the American people to take a look at this vote. That is what I will say to America, Mr. Chairman: watch this vote. Do we have what it takes to cut $2.2 billion or not? I'm even saying, guess what? I will take your 33 percent increase that you had over the baseline. I will just take us back to the 33 percent increase. And, America, watch what this Congress will do. Will they be fiscally responsible with your dollar? Or will they continue the reckless policies that have been going on in this Congress? I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I rise in defense of the Midwest and the State of Indiana to oppose this carbon cap and tax bill. This is the most economically disastrous energy policy our nation has ever considered. It's over 1200 pages and full of last minute changes! This is not the way, or the time, to consider a rushed policy that will devastate our economy. The American people deserve more from their Representatives than a bill of empty promises that will send their jobs overseas, raise the cost of living, and increase our dependence on energy from foreign countries. Over the past few years, I have participated in multiple hearings concerning carbon dioxide emission control. During the mark-up of H.R. 2454 by the Energy and Commerce Committee, I, along with my colleagues, continued to raise concerns about this policy's negative effects on American ratepayers, businesses and industry. Importantly, we offered many amendments in the mark-up we would like to consider on the Floor today, but we have been denied the opportunity. We would have added nuclear energy--the cleanest and most efficient energy generation--but were denied. Other amendments would have offered off-ramps should this legislation prove too costly to the American people. Unfortunately, no significant changes providing off-ramps or safety-valves have been offered to the American people, and our concerns have not been addressed. H.R. 2454 would hand down the single biggest energy tax in the history of our country. Now is not the time! The unemployment rate is at the highest we have seen in over 25 years. Our automotive industry is just beginning new business plans. This week we are selling off more of our national debt to foreign countries, and next month we are considering a national healthcare plan projected to cost $3.4 trillion! It is not the time to pass a policy that will result in an annual additional cost of $1,241 more in energy costs for a family of four. It is not the time to pass a policy that will drive up the price of goods and services, or export our hard-earned jobs to countries like China. This legislation will kill jobs. Let's talk numbers. An estimated 1,145,000 will be lost under cap and trade. There is a whole section dedicated to unemployment with a price tag to the taxpayer of over a billion dollars! Farmers will also suffer. This act would lower farm profits by 28: percent in 2012 alone, and 57 percent from 2012-2035. Projections show this would result in total gross domestic product losses averaging $383 billion annually from 2012-2035 and cost our country a total of $9.4 trillion dollars. Where will that money come from? Well, under this proposal, the Midwest, for one. This cap and tax bill unfairly targets the heartland of our nation. Indiana is the sixth highest carbon dioxide emitting state in the nation. As a state reliant on coal for 96 percent of its electricity, Indiana would be unfairly burdened by the current legislative proposal for producing American- made goods with American-made energy. What kind of energy policy is that? Under the current language, permits are allocated to utilities using a basis of 50 percent of their emissions and 50 percent of their retail sales--providing utilities without emissions access to allowances. Sending allowances to those that do not require them does not benefit the people or states that need them most. I offered an amendment in Rules to correct this bad policy. My amendment would have modified the utility allocation formula to being strictly based on 100% of a utility's emissions. It is common sense: the utilities reliant on the costlier fuel should be the ones receiving the help. We shouldn't be handing out allowances to those who do not need them! Under the current formula, utilities of similar size in California would get 2.43 times the allowances of an Indiana utility--and a Washington utility would receive 8.84 times the allowances of a utility in Indiana! That is not acceptable! Under the current bill, our rates will rise by a projected 90 percent by 2035, driving our manufacturing jobs elsewhere and the costs of goods sky high. The State of Indiana has worked hard over the past several years to bring new jobs and industries to Hoosiers. This bill could undo all the progress we have made. Unfortunately, my amendment was denied by the Rules Committee. I call upon my colleagues to see this is not the time for this bill. An energy tax anticipated to slow temperature increases by merely hundredths of a single degree Fahrenheit by 2050 is not good policy. I strongly urge Members to protect the economic well-being of the American people and vote no on this bill.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank both gentlemen for their leadership. In the spring of 2007, it came to my attention that the condition in the 14 national cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service are not maintained at the same high level as the national cemeteries administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these 14 cemeteries, only two of them, Andersonville in Georgia and Andrew Johnson in Tennessee, are still open and regularly inter veterans. While on active duty as a colonel in the Army Reserves, I visited Andersonville with a cadre of JAG officers. I then discovered the conditions of the cemetery to be unacceptable and not up to the standards that these heroes have earned. The grave markers had not been washed in some time, as you can see on this photo. The markers are completely out of line. The weeds have grown up all around the markers. Shrubbery had not been cared for in the manner that it should, and it appears that the attention had not been given to these graves that I believe should have been. I had an amendment that should have been ruled in order, but it was not under the rule. It would have required the Secretary of the Interior to contract with an independent organization to conduct a study of all National Park Service cemeteries and identify the improvements that are necessary for these cemeteries to meet the same high standard of the VA's National Shrine Program that's in the cemetery system. I modeled this amendment after the successful VA shrine commitment legislation in Public Law 106-117. It's because of this study the VA has raised the standards of all VA cemeteries to make them national cemeteries of which we can all be proud. While I'm encouraged by the National Park Service's response in addressing this problem since I brought it to the Nation's attention in 2007, we still have a little ways to go. You can see what Andersonville looked like then. Here is Normandy. Normandy comes under the Battle Monuments Commission. This is like a putting green. It is extraordinary what the Battle Monuments Commission does. Then we have Arlington, under the jurisdiction of the United States Army, then oversight by the VA--a beautiful cemetery worthy of these heroes. Then we have a VA cemetery, a picture here in San Diego under the National Shrine Program--excellent. But what happened when I complained about, Let's get rid of the weeds around the stones? They took a weed whacker, and they removed all the weeds, and now we've got dirt around all the stones. That is not the shrine program that we're talking about.

Mr. BUYER. Please.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. BUYER. I would ask the chairman--this team shouldn't just go to two cemeteries, Norm. It should go to all 14 cemeteries, not just the two that are presently interring. The Department of the Interior, they have made progress; but Chairman Dicks, we can take care of this right now. You and I sat there, along with the ranking member, in discussions in the Rules Committee as to why this should be an open rule; and the three of us should be able to work in the interest of the country right now. And I would appeal to you, Mr. Chairman. We can take care of this right now. You can move that the committee do rise, and I could offer this amendment. We can voice vote it. You can accept it. We can go back to the Committee of the Whole. I would yield to the gentleman for consideration.

Mr. BUYER. What I had hoped to do, instead of saying let's fence off money and do this type of requirement, what I had hoped to do is make it clean and clear. Maybe there's an arrangement whereby the three of us can work with Secretary Salazar and we can ask him that he do the initiative, do the study, move to the National Shrine Program, bring it into next year's budget.

Mr. BUYER. I yield.

Mr. BUYER. Your word is solid with me.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Buyer Bill Number: H.R. 2996 Account: Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater project Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Clinton County Government, Frankfort, IN Address of Requesting Entity: 125 Courthouse Square, Frankfort, IN 46041 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 in STAG monies to continue support of the construction and installation of a multi- pond regional storm water detention facility needed to help alleviate flooding that occurs to low to moderate income households, businesses and restaurants. This area experienced water damage 3 times in 2008.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1016, as amended, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide advance appropriations authority for certain medical care accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and for other purposes. In my view, it is premature for the House of Representatives to consider this legislation. The bill was not considered by the Subcommittee on Health, to which it was referred, nor was there a full Committee legislative hearing, so the Administration has not provided its official analysis. On April 29, 2009, we did hold a full Committee oversight hearing on the future funding of VHA. At this hearing, concerns were raised about not including the ``Information Technology Systems'' and the ``Medical and Prosthetic Research Accounts'' in an advance appropriations bill. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Eric K. Shinseki, testified that information technology is very much integrated into the medical care activities and should be included so that VA is not hindered in its ability to provide health care services and operate new facilities. Additionally, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, testified that funding information technology under a separate, annual appropriation could create a situation where VA would not be able to purchase computer software even though it had procured medical equipment that is reliant on such software. CRS noted potential difficulty for VA in procuring the necessary IT infrastructure for the opening of new clinics, as well as difficulties that could arise in VA research due to a mismatch between accounts. I was pleased that during the Committee markup, my amendment was adopted to include the IT, and medical and prosthetic research accounts to address these issues. However, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, also expressed reservations about its possible role in an advance appropriations proposal. In a written response of June 17, 2009, to one of my hearing questions, GAO made a strong statement which leads me to believe that section 5 of the amended bill is not workable. This section would require GAO to obtain budgetary information from VA before the department makes its fiscal year budget request. GAO questioned whether it could conduct the required studies before the President's budget request is submitted to Congress. GAO cited significant challenges in obtaining, evaluating, reporting on the relevant budgetary and technical information. GAO indicated that its role in the process would be inadvisable because executive agencies have consistently resisted releasing detailed information about the President's budget prior to its submission to Congress. Again, VA's official views on this issue are currently unknown, and this issue should have been addressed before H.R. 1016, as amended, was reported to the House. There is nothing before us to indicate that the administration is agreeable to this arrangement. The failure to follow regular order and the unnecessary haste with which this legislation is being advanced results in the House being asked to pass obviously flawed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1016, as amended.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Steve Buyer Bill Number: H.R. 2647 Account: DoD RDT&E, Technology Transfer Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Technology Service Corporation Address of Requesting Entity: 116 West Sixth St., Suite 200, Bloomington, IN 47404 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $3,000,000 to continue support of the National Radio Frequency Research, Development, and Technology Transfer Center, which provides an efficient method of transitioning new technologies into DoD programs of record to provide for performance improvements at lower cost for the war fighter.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Herbert Hoover in the last century referred to the Volstead Act as a noble experiment. It was grounded on the sincere desire to rid society of the ills of alcohol. It was designed to improve health, cut crime and relieve taxpayers of a portion of the burden of subsidizing prisons. The problem is we know it as Prohibition. It failed to take into account human nature and the truism that things are apt to go wrong when government tinkers too much with personal choices. We are about to repeat history. There will be speeches here on the floor, I just heard one, about how this bill is going to help children, how this bill is going to improve public health. Unfortunately, the Kennedy bill that has now just come from the Senate back to the House here is not going to be able to achieve the goals which it desires. What I will do here this morning, and as I also manage the bill itself, is bring up some of the highlights and concerns. The first highlight and concern is that Members need to do their due diligence and read the legislation that is coming to the floor. Please. There is a herd mentality that is occurring right now whereby there is blind faith that is given to leadership, and people are just voting for things. They have no idea what is truly in the legislation. So I'm going to highlight some of the great concerns, because we need to be a responsible legislative body. A responsible legislative body is one that doesn't kick or punt the tough questions to the Supreme Court, and that's exactly what we're doing. I'm going to address the Supreme Court in the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment issues. I'm going to address the same ``quit or die'' strategies of abstinence that are being applied to smoking. I'll also address harm reduction that should have been incorporated, claimed to be incorporated but is not. I'll also mention how this bill further burdens the FDA and its core mission while, at the same time, the majority is talking about how the FDA cannot protect the American people with regard to tainted food and adulterated and counterfeit drugs. I also would like to mention how this bill actually locks the marketplace to prevent innovation and competition. We are truly on the wave of socialism in this country. So, first let me refer to the First Amendment. The Kennedy bill 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 expert views should carry great weight, even more dispositive of the fact that the United States Supreme Court has also weighed in on various provisions of the rule, finding them already unconstitutional-- they've already ruled--yet we're going to go ahead and put them right back in legislation. Not very responsible. So before Members get down here and start pounding their chests as though they're doing great things, this is irresponsible for this body. In Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, the United States 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 tests 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 the Kennedy bill would require ads to use only black text on white background. Again, the United States Supreme Court found a similar provision unconstitutional in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In that case, dealing with advertisers 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 free speech. Justice Byron White, in his opinion for the Court, wrote that pictures and illustrations and ads cannot be banned ``simply on the strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertising 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 is almost certain to be struck down would be highly counterproductive, and should not be done by this legislative body. Actually, there probably will be a record time between when this bill is signed into law and when lawsuits begin to be filed in Federal court. Now, I referred in my opening to these ``quit or die'' strategies. The ``quit or die'' strategy, the reason I call it that is this is an abstinence approach to tobacco, meaning, you either quit or, if you continue to use the product, you die. That's their abstinence approach. The previous speaker even talked about, well, this bill is going to promote nicotine therapies, and we're going to move people toward these nicotine therapies and they'll get a chance to quit. Nicotine therapies work for less than 7 percent of the American smokers who use them to quit smoking. Each year, approximately 20 million smokers use nicotine replacement therapies in an attempt to quit smoking. Now, think about this. You've got over 40 million smokers. Two million try to quit, and there's a 7 percent success rate. This bill locks in the 7 percent success rate and does not allow the marketplace to exercise innovation as a gateway of smokers to smokeless-type products in a harm reduction strategy to lower in a continuum of risk. Seven percent? So individuals are going to come here to the floor and claim that a 7 percent success rate is wonderful; 7 percent success rate is failure. Failure. Why should we, as a body, embrace failure? We should not. This legislation, the Kennedy legislation, locks down the marketplace. It locks it down. And it says whoever has what particular market share, that's it. That's where it's going to be. With regard to introduction of new products, oh, no, no, no, no, no. We're going to create a 2-tier standard. You have to be able to show, with regard to that product, its impact upon the individual and then the population at large. In order to do that, that is a hurdle. It is called a ``bridge too far.'' When you create a 2-tier standard that is a barrier, as an entry barrier of new products to the market, you lock down innovation. You secure competition in a present pattern, and then, with regard to these therapies, we're saying okay, this is cool, this is good. We're doing something great for public health. We're going to lock in a 7 percent success rate. Wow. Now, Members are also going to come to the floor and say oh, this is really great. We're really going to be helping people quit smoking. Are you kidding me? You know what this bill does? This bill increases the success rate, now, of quitting smoking by two-tenths of 1 percent. Two-tenths of 1 percent. You're proud of that? Two-tenths of 1 percent. Now, let's talk about what is two-tenths of 1 percent? Well, let's go to our friends, one of our strongest allies in our transatlantic alliance, Great Britain. The Royal College of Physicians, also looking at this issue in their report, and they're looking also to solutions to the smoking epidemic, they write, in their review of other countries, it indicates that the best conventional tobacco control measures reducing smoking prevalence is between .5 and 1 percentage point per year. Whoa. Great Britain went out there and looked at all these other countries around the world and found that other countries that are taking aggressive measures are able to reduce smoking prevalence by .5 to 1 percentage points per year. And none of them have even taken into account what Mr. McIntyre and I presented to the floor for harm reduction strategies. So, great. The rest of the world is at .5 and 1, and we're going to be at two-tenths of 1 percent, and you're going to claim that's success. We're doing great things to improve public health. Are you kidding me? We are not. We're continuing failure. Failure. So don't come to the floor and act like someone is the champion here, because we're not. Two-tenths of 1 percent.

Mr. BUYER. I'll yield to help you with math.

Mr. BUYER. It's two-tenths of 1 percent.

Mr. BUYER. Two-tenths of 1 percent, 2 percent. You think that's great.

Mr. BUYER. What?

Mr. BUYER. Sure. It's the Royal College of Physicians.

Mr. BUYER. Absolutely.

Mr. BUYER. The Royal College of Physicians, I'm indicating, with regard to the reduction of prevalence of smoking of .5 and 1 percentage point per year of places around the world. Two percent CRS? Yeah, this is CBO. I don't know where you're getting your facts. This is CBO. Last time I checked, CBO is in the United States, you think? Yeah. CBO is in the United States. Now, let me also move to harm reduction strategies. Here's why I'm really upset. I'm upset because what we really should be doing, if we really had an interest in improving public health, we should be migrating populations, moving populations. And when you move populations, you also want to inform people with regard to choices and the risk associated with products. We do that every day in the types of automobiles which we buy, whether you're going to wear your seatbelt. I suppose, I don't know, if you want to wear a helmet--did you wear a helmet to work when you drove your car today? I guess that's a choice you could make. People make harm reduction choices every day. In the foods we eat, what we drink, whatever we consume, we make these decisions every day. But how come we don't apply harm reduction strategies to tobacco? We should. So, in the marketplace right now, there are many types of products. Now, what is unique about what's happening here is that this legislation doesn't even touch that which is most harmful, which are cigars and pipes. Cigars and pipes, you can directly ingest these toxins and carcinogens in a far greater strength into the body, and it is more harmful. But that's not even touched in this legislation. So let's just talk about what's touched. If you look at the continuum of risk and the choice of available products that are out there today, the most harmful, which would be under this bill, are the non-filtered cigarettes. That's why I put them at the 100 percent. Next is if you actually put a filter on that cigarette. We're beginning to reduce the harm. Then you've got tobacco-heated cigarettes. But we don't understand all the science about the tobacco-heated cigarettes. Then you have an electronic cigarette, whereby it's a nicotine delivery device. Yet we know that when you don't ingest the smoke, that you have a less harmful product. Then there are the U.S. smokeless products. Now we can reduce the risk by 90 percent and say to an individual that you can obtain your nicotine you want, but guess what? You can reduce the harm by 90 percent. But these are still all harmful products. Then you can go to a Swedish snus, and now you can reduce almost 98 percent of the risk. The difference here is one is fermented, and the other is pasteurized. Then you can go to dissolvable tobacco products that have no nitrosamines. And then you can go to almost a 99.5 percent reduction of the risk. So you can actually get your nicotine by either an orb or a strip you lay on your tongue, or you can have a stick that kind of looks like a toothpick and you can roll it and you can obtain your nicotine, and you can remove 99 percent of the health risk. Ninety-nine percent. But this legislation is going to say no to these types of innovations. No; that somehow we're going to lock into that which is the most harmful, instead of permitting a migration. Now, what we want is, as individuals migrate, and you've got then the therapeutics and medicinal types of nicotine, what you really want is them to quit. And when you migrate them, you migrate them to eventually quit smoking.

Mr. BUYER. What we have in the bill is abstinence. It mentions harm reduction, but because there is a two-tiered approach to the approval process for the introduction of new tobacco products, it is truly an entry barrier, so we've locked down the marketplace. When you lock down the marketplace, you do not improve public health in this country, and that is the greatest concern that I have here today. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring up two points. During my presentation, the gentleman brought up the 11 percent issue. After I gave my remarks, I immediately went to the Congressional Budget Office. It was a very clever attempt, Mr. Speaker, of the Rules Committee to try to confuse the American people, so I'll read directly from the CBO report so the record is clear. ``Based on information from academic and other researchers, CBO estimates that H.R. 1256,'' which is the Waxman bill, which is not being heard here--it is the Kennedy bill which is being referred to here--``would result in a further reduction in the number of underage tobacco users of 11 percent by 2019.'' Here is the other part, the rest of the story, that the Rules Committee did not share with the country. ``CBO also estimates that implementing H.R. 1256 would lead to a further decline in smoking by adults by about 2 percent after 10 years.'' Wow. Wow. Now let me refer to the other. Too often, we should be careful about being cute here on the House floor. ``Cute'' means the reference with regard to lettuce, so I'll follow your logic. If you were to take that lettuce, dry it, roll it, and go ahead and smoke your lettuce, do you realize that you would end up with similar problems than if you were smoking tobacco? It's not the nicotine that kills. It's the smoke that kills. It's the inhalation of the smoke. That's what causes and is responsible for the pandemic of cancers, of heart disease, of respiratory disease, and of other factors. It's the smoke. So, as for the migration of people from smoke into smokeless and into other forms of therapies, if they want to obtain their nicotine, it's okay. Mr. Waxman, himself, would say, I do not want to outlaw tobacco.