Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill to help promote and protect breastfeeding in the workplace. The science is undisputable--babies who are breastfed the first 6 months of life have a greatly reduced risk for acute and chronic disease--yet only ten percent of all infants receive this nourishment that they need to remain healthy. One of the primary reasons for this is that working moms face real and serious challenges to expressing milk when they return to work. Well, today is a day to change that. In Oregon, we have enacted strong legislation to make sure that working moms are afforded the time and space they need at work to express milk. In fact, my first event as a candidate for U.S. Senate was at a luncheon celebrating the success of Oregon's breastfeeding promotion law. I said that day that I would work to expand Oregon's efforts nationwide, and today we take the important first step towards enacting legislation to protect working moms across the country. First, I want to thank Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York for her strong leadership on this issue. For years, she has been a champion for working moms everywhere, and I applaud her determination to make it easier for women. We know that 72 percent of moms work full time, and that number is growing. In fact, according to the Center on Work and Family at Boston College, the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce is women with children under three years of age. Women who decide to breastfeed often face unique challenges and at times, social stigmas, for trying to give their baby the healthiest start in life. In an environment where mothers return to work as early as 3 to 6 weeks post-partum, often driven by economic necessity, it is simply an act of human decency to protect their right to continue breastfeeding after they return to work to help meet their basic needs with regard to the care and nourishment of their children. But for most, it is an unachievable goal. If we are to have any hope of increasing the number of babies being breastfed, we need to implement a strategy that addresses workplace conditions. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act that Representative Maloney and I are introducing today is a measured step in this direction. It protects breastfeeding women from discrimination in the workplace, provides tax credits to employers who make accommodations for breastfeeding moms, and most importantly, it affords working moms with the time, space, and privacy they need to express milk. Many of these changes have been successfully implemented in my home State of Oregon where we have seen a tremendous difference in the experiences of mothers, as well as positive impacts for employers, as a result of this type of legislation. Tonya Hirte, a senior customer service representative in Portland, said that before the law took effect, she had to express breast milk in a bathroom on a separate floor from her worksite, but that after implementation of the law, her company converted a storage closet into a private, simply-furnished room, bringing dignity to her experience as a mother, and helping her feel valued as an employee. A Lane County employee said that having a breastfeeding-friendly workplace allowed her to focus better on her work, knowing her daughter's needs were being met emotionally and physically because the work breaks to express breast milk facilitated their breastfeeding relationship when they were together. But it's not just the employees who are seeing positive changes as a result of the Oregon law. Jim Rochs, General Manager of Carinos Italian Restaurant in Bend, Oregon, says that they create a better team overall if they take care of one another. The time and space his employee needed to express breast milk was not difficult to provide. Gretchen Peterson, Human Resources Manager for Hanna Andersson clothing design, manufacturer and retail store, said that ``legislation to encourage longer-term breastfeeding by eliminating potential workplace barriers has been successfully passed and implemented in Oregon with no negative impact to business.'' She goes on to say, ``Without this opportunity, our employees may have made the choice to stay at home or choose to work for another company which would have caused a significant disruption to our business.'' Research from the Maternal Child Health Bureau demonstrates a significant return on investment when businesses support worksite lactation programs. The Mutual of Omaha insurance company conducted a study that found health care costs for newborns to be three times lower for babies whose mothers participate in their company's maternity and lactation program. Per person health care costs were $2,146 more for employees who did not participate in the program, with a yearly savings of $115,881 in health care claims for the breastfeeding mothers and babies. This is truly a public health issue. Encouraging breastfeeding for working mothers will help alleviate the negative effects of low breastfeeding rates, including a 21 percent greater infant mortality rate for babies not exclusively breastfed for 6 months, and greater risk over a lifetime for many illnesses including asthma, diabetes, obesity, and certain cancers. Finally, the timing could not be better as we ramp up our efforts to reform our health care system and work to contain costs. A 2001 USDA study found that if half of the babies in the U.S. were exclusively breastfed for 6 months, we would realize a savings of $3.6 billion in health care costs for the three leading childhood illnesses alone. According to the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, if we replicate that study based on current breastfeeding statistics, the savings could reach nearly $14 billion in health care costs for all childhood illnesses. Colleagues, I look forward to passing the Breastfeeding Promotion Act to help make it easier for moms to breastfeed, which will lead to healthier babies, stronger families, and happier workers.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill to help promote and protect breastfeeding in the workplace. The science is undisputable--babies who are breastfed the first 6 months of life have a greatly reduced risk for acute and chronic disease--yet only ten percent of all infants receive this nourishment that they need to remain healthy. One of the primary reasons for this is that working moms face real and serious challenges to expressing milk when they return to work. Well, today is a day to change that. In Oregon, we have enacted strong legislation to make sure that working moms are afforded the time and space they need at work to express milk. In fact, my first event as a candidate for U.S. Senate was at a luncheon celebrating the success of Oregon's breastfeeding promotion law. I said that day that I would work to expand Oregon's efforts nationwide, and today we take the important first step towards enacting legislation to protect working moms across the country. First, I want to thank Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York for her strong leadership on this issue. For years, she has been a champion for working moms everywhere, and I applaud her determination to make it easier for women. We know that 72 percent of moms work full time, and that number is growing. In fact, according to the Center on Work and Family at Boston College, the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce is women with children under three years of age. Women who decide to breastfeed often face unique challenges and at times, social stigmas, for trying to give their baby the healthiest start in life. In an environment where mothers return to work as early as 3 to 6 weeks post-partum, often driven by economic necessity, it is simply an act of human decency to protect their right to continue breastfeeding after they return to work to help meet their basic needs with regard to the care and nourishment of their children. But for most, it is an unachievable goal. If we are to have any hope of increasing the number of babies being breastfed, we need to implement a strategy that addresses workplace conditions. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act that Representative Maloney and I are introducing today is a measured step in this direction. It protects breastfeeding women from discrimination in the workplace, provides tax credits to employers who make accommodations for breastfeeding moms, and most importantly, it affords working moms with the time, space, and privacy they need to express milk. Many of these changes have been successfully implemented in my home State of Oregon where we have seen a tremendous difference in the experiences of mothers, as well as positive impacts for employers, as a result of this type of legislation. Tonya Hirte, a senior customer service representative in Portland, said that before the law took effect, she had to express breast milk in a bathroom on a separate floor from her worksite, but that after implementation of the law, her company converted a storage closet into a private, simply-furnished room, bringing dignity to her experience as a mother, and helping her feel valued as an employee. A Lane County employee said that having a breastfeeding-friendly workplace allowed her to focus better on her work, knowing her daughter's needs were being met emotionally and physically because the work breaks to express breast milk facilitated their breastfeeding relationship when they were together. But it's not just the employees who are seeing positive changes as a result of the Oregon law. Jim Rochs, General Manager of Carinos Italian Restaurant in Bend, Oregon, says that they create a better team overall if they take care of one another. The time and space his employee needed to express breast milk was not difficult to provide. Gretchen Peterson, Human Resources Manager for Hanna Andersson clothing design, manufacturer and retail store, said that ``legislation to encourage longer-term breastfeeding by eliminating potential workplace barriers has been successfully passed and implemented in Oregon with no negative impact to business.'' She goes on to say, ``Without this opportunity, our employees may have made the choice to stay at home or choose to work for another company which would have caused a significant disruption to our business.'' Research from the Maternal Child Health Bureau demonstrates a significant return on investment when businesses support worksite lactation programs. The Mutual of Omaha insurance company conducted a study that found health care costs for newborns to be three times lower for babies whose mothers participate in their company's maternity and lactation program. Per person health care costs were $2,146 more for employees who did not participate in the program, with a yearly savings of $115,881 in health care claims for the breastfeeding mothers and babies. This is truly a public health issue. Encouraging breastfeeding for working mothers will help alleviate the negative effects of low breastfeeding rates, including a 21 percent greater infant mortality rate for babies not exclusively breastfed for 6 months, and greater risk over a lifetime for many illnesses including asthma, diabetes, obesity, and certain cancers. Finally, the timing could not be better as we ramp up our efforts to reform our health care system and work to contain costs. A 2001 USDA study found that if half of the babies in the U.S. were exclusively breastfed for 6 months, we would realize a savings of $3.6 billion in health care costs for the three leading childhood illnesses alone. According to the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, if we replicate that study based on current breastfeeding statistics, the savings could reach nearly $14 billion in health care costs for all childhood illnesses. Colleagues, I look forward to passing the Breastfeeding Promotion Act to help make it easier for moms to breastfeed, which will lead to healthier babies, stronger families, and happier workers.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in the coming weeks we are going to be taking up what is probably one of the most vexing policy challenges of the last 50 years: how to reform our health care system and provide affordable, accessible health care to every single American. The goal could not be more straightforward: to guarantee access for every American--and the stakes could not be higher. Our small businesses are collapsing under the weight of health insurance premiums. Last month, Oregon's largest insurer announced that the small business premium was going up 14.7 percent. That is on top of a 26-percent increase the previous year. Large employers have the challenge as well. In a global economy, our broken health care system is a major competitive disadvantage. A greater share of the price of each car in the United States goes to health care than goes to steel. Mr. President, $1,500 of the cost of a car goes to health care, while across the border in Canada that price is zero. If we are going to compete in the world, we need a competitive, cost-effective health care system. Of course, the biggest impact of our expensive, ineffective health care is most acutely felt around the kitchen table by our working families. With unemployment skyrocketing, virtually every family is reminded of how tenuous its connection is to health care--just one pink slip away from losing health care for their family. Even those with insurance find health costs out of reach. Nearly half of the personal bankruptcies are by folks who have health insurance but who still could not manage all the health care costs because of when they became ill. So this is what it boils down to: Working families in America, if they have health care, are concerned about the copays, they are concerned about being underinsured, and they are concerned about losing their insurance with the loss of a job. Those working families without health care are worried about getting sick and how they are going to get well if they are already sick. This does not have to be the case. Health care is already devouring a large portion of our economy--18 percent of our gross domestic product--driving long-term Federal deficits and crowding out important State investments in education, in infrastructure, in social services, and pretty much everything else, and it is only projected to get worse as our population ages and health care inflation runs rampant year after year. Put simply, if we do not reform our health care system, our economy will not thrive. That is a stark choice. Our economy and health care are tied together. I know none of this is news to the Presiding Officer or to any Members of this esteemed Chamber. In fact, since President Truman, 60 years ago, called for health care for every working American as a national priority, we have been struggling to achieve that goal, and we have not yet gotten there. We have been periodically trying to fix up a fragmented, expensive, unfair system. But the fear of change has always overtaken the sense of possibility. Those stakes and that history make it all the more critical that we seize this moment to meet the challenge President Obama has laid out for us and that we deliver on health care reform. This is the year-- 2009 is the year. This is the year to deliver on the promise to give every American access to affordable health coverage, to ensure that our economy has the same potential to be the engine of prosperity and opportunity and employment in this century that it was in the last century. To make this happen, we have to find ways to make our health care system more affordable. We need to spend our health care dollar in smarter ways so we can put money back in the pockets of Americans and make our businesses more competitive. The good news is we have lots of examples of how to do this right now. Extensive research has documented that the regions of our country which spend the most per person on Medicare, that is, 60 percent more than the regions with the lowest expenditures on health care, do not end up with better health care. The lowest spending regions actually have the same or better health care outcomes after adjusting for health histories, ages, and occupations. Plus, the beneficiaries are more satisfied. So if we could take the practices and change them in the high-cost regions to match the low-cost regions, we would save, in Medicare alone, hundreds of billions of dollars. Our job in this health care reform effort is to change some of the rules of the road so they encourage and enable all providers to act more like the high performers, those providing and delivering high quality, lower cost health care. That is why this legislation needs to get us to start spending our health care dollars more wisely, investing more in prevention, investing in chronic disease management, building a research base about what works and what financial incentives are necessary to utilize those practices, rewarding care delivery built around coordination and efficiency rather than fragmentation and volume. We know these things work, and we need to make them the norm, not the exception. We cannot stop the bleeding in our health care system costs without also doing something about the convoluted and broken health insurance marketplace. The first thing we need to do is to end the insurance company practices that penalize you if you are old or you are sick or you have ever been sick. I am outraged when I hear stories from Oregonians about being turned away because of their preexisting conditions or their potential propensity toward certain diseases. The folks who need health care the most are being turned away the most, and that is not a health care system. We have 50 million Americans without health care. That is what this conversation is about: taking that 18 percent of our gross domestic product we spend currently and finding a way to provide good quality coverage to every single American--not leaving out 50 million Americans. Those are reforms that anyone can get behind. But I understand as we talk about other changes to how people get insurance, folks can get nervous. They can worry about the system changing in ways that are not beneficial to them. That is why I keep coming back to this point: We are going to provide the health care system we have for the people who have it, but we are going to improve it, we are going to improve it by making it more cost effective, so we can also provide health care to the 50 million who do not have coverage. With these reforms, our citizens will have more choices. And choice in health care options is good. Instead of leaving individuals and small groups at the mercy of insurance companies providing expensive plans with very high administrative costs, those individuals and those small businesses will be able to participate in a marketplace that groups them together with millions of other Americans so they can benefit from the larger pool of health care participants. This marketplace will resemble something very close to the list of options Federal employees have. When you become a Federal employee, you have an option of this plan or this plan or this plan. Well, that is what we are going to do. We are going to provide a list of plans citizens can choose from, being part of a larger pool. We are going to provide a list of plans small businesses can choose from and benefit from, being a part of a larger pool of the insured. This is a structure we are familiar with as Members of Congress. What works for Members of Congress, what works for Senators will work for working Americans. These plans give apples-to-apples comparisons so citizens can pick the plan that fits their family the best. It will ensure minimum standards so our workers are not ripped off, and the access to the marketplace will come with premium assistance so strapped consumers can get help affording the premiums to obtain health care. Given the track record of inefficiencies and cherry-picking by private insurers, I think it is imperative that consumers have multiple choices, including a public option. Public option is simply a way to describe what we are already providing to our seniors throughout this Nation: A public, organized plan, a very efficient plan. Administrative costs of Medicare are around 2 percent, while the administrative costs for the individual applicants to the health care system for our small businesses is 30 percent. Why not let our individuals, why not let our small businesses benefit from a 30-percent improvement in the use of the health care dollar? This public option would compete on a level playing field with private plans, it would further expand choices for consumers, it would be a tool for keeping costs low, and it should be a part of any package we put forward. One would think all of us in this room, hearing from our constituents in every corner of our States, would understand this whole conversation is about addressing one of the highest stress factors for working families in every part of this Nation, but there are opponents of this reform. My colleagues across the aisle hired a consultant, Frank Luntz, to prepare a plan to torpedo health care. This plan came out in April. This 25-page document is about how to kill any plan that is put forward. This goes on to say it doesn't matter what the specifics of the plan are, adopt language that attacks it and present it as the opposite of what it is. Because what this document says is that Americans want this health care reform, so you can't fight it head-on, you have to recharacterize it, reframe it. What does this plan that has been put out to kill health care say? It says: Time is on our side. If we can slow the process down, we can kill it. Well, all windows of opportunity are open for a certain period of time and then they close, so I suppose that is smart advice if you want to kill health care, but if you want to do something for the 50 million Americans without health care, then we need to move forward quickly with health care reform. This Republican document about how to kill health care says: Say the plan is centered around politicians. Say it is about bureaucrats. Say it is about Washington, DC. Well, I am not sure what there is about providing health care options to 50 million working Americans who struggle every day to address the cost of health care, and often end up in personal bankruptcy, and forgo all kinds of other opportunities so their child can go to the doctor. That has nothing to do with bureaucrats. That has nothing to do with Washington. That has everything to do with family values and strengthening the foundation of our families. This document about how to kill health care says: Bring in denial and horror stories from Canada or other parts of the world to suggest to people they will lose their relationship with their doctor; that somehow they will be jerked out of the arrangement they have found to be so satisfactory. Scare them. Scare the citizens of the United States. Well, I can tell my colleagues that what is scaring the citizens of the United States is they can't afford their health care, and they want us to do something about it. Bringing up false horror stories that have no bearing on the plan before us to scare our citizens and make them worry even more is not responsible. What is responsible is to do something about a broken health care system. This document has lots more about how to kill health care. It says: Take this and say this will destroy the personalized doctor-patient relationship. Take this and say this will create waste, fraud and abuse, and so on and so forth; every poll-tested set of words designed to decrease support and scare people into forgoing this once-in-a- decade opportunity or pass this once-in-a-generation opportunity we have to change the health care system. One may think I am raising this document before my colleagues--this plan for how to kill health care--and that maybe it doesn't have any bearing on the real debate, but it absolutely does. These talking points are being echoed in this very Chamber--in this very Chamber--in order to kill health care. Let's see. Here we go: Frank Luntz's memo--that is this memo on how to kill health care that came out in April--it says: Talking point No. 5: Health care denial horror stories from Canada and other countries do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You will notice we recommend the phrase ``government takeover'' rather than ``government-run'' or ``government-controlled.'' Why? Because government takeover sounds even scarier. So what do we hear on the floor of this Chamber from our minority leader recently? I quote: ``Americans are concerned about a government takeover of health care, and for good reason.'' It goes on. So recognize that is a point that is coming from a document about how to kill health care, not a responsible debate about the plan we have in front of us. Let's take a look at another example in Frank Luntz's memo. His memo, talking points Nos. 3 and 4: Time is a government health care killer. Nothing else turns people against a government takeover of health care than the expectation that this plan will result in delayed and denied treatment. The arguments against the plan--now, note that this is about a plan that wasn't written; it is about any plan put forward. The arguments against this plan must also center around politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington. Note the emphasis on saying the plan will result in delays and denied treatment. What have we heard on the floor of this Chamber from the minority leader? We have heard recently: Americans don't want to be forced by bureaucrats-- That comes right out of these talking points-- to give up their private health care plan to be pushed into a Washington-run government plan. Right out of those talking points. They don't want to wait 2 years for surgery, and they don't want to be told they are too old for surgery. All of this straight out of this roadmap. My friends, in the face of 50 million Americans without health care and with working Americans in every one of our States going bankrupt as they struggle with health care expenses, it is irresponsible to utilize a roadmap of rhetoric that comes from polling about how to scare people. That is irresponsible. What we need to do is lay out a plan on how we can create affordable, accessible health care for every single American, addressing one of the biggest factors that degrades the quality of life for our citizens across this Nation. We have a unique opportunity. We have an opportunity because small business wants help with those 26-percent increases and those 14.7- percent increases in premiums they are having to pay and they are not able to continue paying them. Large businesses are asking for help to become cost competitive so we can restore manufacturing in our Nation and put people to work and rebuild the middle class and have successful international corporations operating out of America. Families around the kitchen table are asking for help today. They know how they have struggled. They know if they have health care they might lose it next week when they lose their job. They know if they have health care, they might not be able to make the copays if they have something serious happen with their child. They know if they don't have health care, they are going to have to forgo virtually everything else or perhaps forgo the treatment itself because they won't be able to afford to make those payments to the doctor or to the hospital. This is the moment when families and small businesses and large businesses are coming together to paint a new vision to improve the quality of life and to strengthen the foundation of our families. Let us seize this moment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 11 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2009, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Pandemic Flu: Closing the Gaps.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 3, 2009 at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Fresh Start For New Starts.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to refer to these tobacco orb products during my speech.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I want to start by thanking Senator Dodd for his tireless advocacy on this issue. The need to regulate tobacco products has been evident for many years, and for year after year it has been impossible to accomplish this goal. It is frankly unbelievable that while we heavily regulate the production and sale of aspirin, a product that is not addicting and not destructive, tobacco, which is addictive and is destructive, goes without regulation. This bill will go a long way in helping to keep these addictive tobacco products out of the hands of our children. This bill gives the FDA the legal authority it needs to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising targeting children. It provides the FDA with the authority to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors as well as the authority to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Additionally, this bill takes important steps in the regulation of smokeless tobacco. We are all familiar with the dangers posed by cigarettes--the health effects have long been documented--both on users and bystanders. We are also familiar with the steps being taken in many cities and many States to rid our public areas of secondhand smoke. These actions, thankfully, have been quite successful, but they lead to a major dilemma for tobacco companies: if smoking becomes socially unacceptable, how can the industry replace the hundreds of thousands of tobacco addicts who die every year? The industry's response has been to bet heavily on smokeless tobacco products and to bet on addicting youngsters to those products. Chewing tobacco has been around for a while, but it has its own limitations. There aren't many places--outside of this very Chamber--in the United States where you can find a spittoon. So the tobacco companies are looking for hip new smokeless tobacco products that don't require spitting and that can appeal to a new generation of children. This picture was taken just a few blocks from this Capitol. It is of a new product called ``Snus'' that R.J. Reynolds is selling nationwide. It is a flavored, pouched tobacco product advertised as not requiring spitting. And as you can see here, it is advertised next to displays of candy and Peppermint Patties. I should note that this container was not the original designed for the Snus container. The original container was round. As reported by the Portland Oregonian last December, it came in containers similar to chewing tobacco, but teachers in schools noticed these containers in their students' pockets. So now R.J. Reynolds has redesigned them so that teachers can't recognize that these are smokeless tobacco products in their students' pockets. Clearly, the marketing is aimed at young people. But it gets even worse. Now R.J. Reynolds has come out with another product that they are test marketing in three cities across the country, one of which is in my home State of Oregon. Portland, OR, is a site for the test market of tobacco candy. Tobacco candy, as you see here, also comes in what was designed to look like a cell phone in your pocket rather than a traditional can of smokeless tobacco. They have done two other things to make this product appealing, and I have a sample right here. First, they come in candy flavors. This one is euphemistically called ``fresh.'' It is a mint candy. This one is euphemistically called ``mellow.'' It is a caramel- flavored candy. So they have thrown in the candy flavoring and a really cool dispenser. And not only does the dispenser look like a cell phone--so teachers can't tell what it is--but it has a feature taken from the world of the Pez candy dispenser. You pop it open, and out pops a single tobacco tablet. You close it and shake it around, open it up again, and out pops another one. So we have three features here designed specifically to market to children: the cell phone shape, the candy flavoring, and the Pez-style dispenser. Now, why is it tobacco companies need to market to children? It is because when adult testers try out a tobacco product, they rarely continue using it. Therefore, they rarely become a customer of a tobacco company. A teenager who tries one of these products--whose brain is still being wired and, therefore, is much more susceptible to the influence of nicotine--is much more likely to become addicted and become a lifelong customer or reliable customer. That is why the tobacco companies are marketing tobacco candy to our children. There is no question that this tobacco candy is dangerous. The Indiana Poison Control has estimated that each tablet delivers 60 to 300 percent of the nicotine in a single cigarette. The product is addictive. The product causes cancer. And unless we pass this bill and give the FDA the authority to regulate, soon you will see this tobacco candy in a convenience store near you, and we will see more displays such as the one shown here in Portland--tobacco candy advertised right next to ice cream. Once the companies master the technique of turning tobacco into kid- friendly candy, there is no end to the variety of products that can be turned out. Already RJR has announced they are planning to launch two new forms of tobacco candy; sticks, which look like toothpicks you suck on, and strips, which are nearly identical to breath mint strips that dissolve on your tongue. Everywhere I go and talk about these products, people are outraged. Meanwhile, the tobacco industry and its champions are trying to justify these products as safe alternatives to smoking. That just isn't so. And that rhetoric poses a real danger to consumers who might think smokeless tobacco is harmless. In fact, this very rhetoric shows why we need to have the FDA regulating this product. In fact, the Surgeon General has determined the use of smokeless tobacco can lead to oral cancer, gum disease, heart attacks, heart disease, cancer of the esophagus, cancer of the stomach. This is not a safe product. This is not safe tobacco. It is a product like cigarettes that causes cancer and kills. Further, it is not a method of helping smokers to quit smoking. The purpose of smokeless tobacco candy is not to help people quit tobacco products, it is designed to addict them to tobacco products. The idea that the tobacco companies would be out marketing a product designed to get people to quit using tobacco products is, quite frankly, obviously ridiculous. Unlike Nicorette or the nicotine patch, which are designed to help people quit smoking, tobaccoless candy does not help you quit and the doses do not get any lower over time. The U.S. Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline notes: The use of smokeless tobacco products is not a safe alternative to smoking, nor is there evidence suggesting it is effective in helping smokers quit. It is no secret these products are dangerous. Six years ago to this very day, Surgeon General Richard Carmona talked about what he called the ``public health myth'' that smokeless tobacco is a good alternative to smoking. He emphatically said that was simply not true, and I think it is worth quoting him at some length: I cannot conclude that the use of any tobacco product is a safer alternative to smoking. This message is especially important to communicate to young people, who may perceive smokeless tobacco as a safe form of tobacco use. Smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco does cause cancer. That statement is from a 2003 House hearing on tobacco harm reduction, and I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have printed in the Record the entire prepared testimony delivered that day.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it is a travesty that R.J. Reynolds can launch an addictive carcinogenic candy targeted at children with no review by the Food and Drug Administration. Nicorette--designed to help you quit smoking--went to the FDA for approval, but caramel tobacco candy or mint tobacco candy--designed to hook kids on tobacco--is on the shelves in Portland, OR, right now with zero oversight. This bill will finally bring some transparency and common sense to the regulation of tobacco. Finally, the FDA will be able to address the single greatest public health menace in our Nation. I am pleased that this bill does include an amendment that Senator Brown and I authored to require the Tobacco Advisory Committee to expedite the review of tobacco candy. I look forward to passing this bill and to keeping tobacco candy from store shelves before the industry succeeds in hooking a whole new generation of our children. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for all of the great work he has done to put this supplemental together. It is my understanding that the House version of the bill includes a study aimed at examining how the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement will be met, specifically as the agreement relates to withdrawal timelines. As the conferees work to resolve the differences of the two bills, I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure this report remains in the final bill language.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kaufman amendment, No. 1179, be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the amendment I offer this evening is very straightforward. Put simply, I offer this amendment to support and affirm President Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the funding provided in this bill will be used in accordance with the United States-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed this past fall. This agreement--SOFA as it is often referred to--makes it clear that our combat mission in Iraq will end next summer. President Obama has been unwavering in his commitment to get our troops out of Iraq. He has repeatedly stated--and in very straightforward terms--that by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. President Obama has gone further and declared that any troops remaining in Iraq after that date will be either training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, or protecting U.S. personnel still in Iraq. After 6 years of intense military operations in Iraq, the time has come to empower the Iraqis to provide their own national security. We must continue to provide training to protect U.S. personnel in the country and to conduct narrowly focused counterinsurgency missions when necessary. The United States should also provide funding for projects that rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, strengthen its economy, and improve the living conditions of its citizens. Colleagues, next month, the 41st Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon National Guard will send 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. This is the largest deployment of the Oregon National Guard since World War II. I honor these men and women for their valiant and critical service, but I hope in the near future we will know that this is the last such deployment of our men and women we will send to Iraq. I urge adoption of this amendment. Amendment No. 1138 Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeMint, I would like to call up amendment No. 1138 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.