nicotine therapy has proven to be a failure. the n.i.h. states that patches are a 95% failure rate. they fail because smokers don't physically use these products like they do cigarettes. they're marketed poorly, aren't designed to be a long-term solution. under h.r. 1256, the base bill, that trend continues. also 1256 does not give manufacturers of nicotine products the regulatory framework needed to market and enhance smoking replacement products appropriately. since we've scratched current nicotine therapy products and abolishment as an effective means to stop smoking that leaves us with few options. the most promising option the federal government can help perpetuate to reduce death and disease associated with smoking is smokeless tobacco products.

until recently the academic community resisted the fact that smokeless products could aid in tobacco harm reduction. skeptics, many of whom helped to write the underlying bill, stated smokeless tobacco products are a gateway product that will lead to more children smoking. mr. president, experience and data shows differently. over the last 20 years, sweden's allowed tobacco manufacturers to promote low snus, a smokeless tobacco product as an alternative to smoking. this is from the royal college of physicians dated 2007. quote -- "in sweden, the available low-harm smokeless products have been shown to be an acceptable substitute for cigarettes to many smokers. while gateway progressions from the smokeless to the smoking is relatively uncommon."

you get where i'm going? the data's out there. never dreamed we would use sweden as an example of where the united states would go. but when the focus is on how you reduce risk, the risk of disease and death, they never lost focus of what that was. they weren't clouded by the introduction of new tobacco products and just a blinded effort to lock in what existed. they experimented and found new products that would actually entice smokers to switch. the claim that in some way, shape, or form that these products are gateway products, that they will take nonsmokers and turn them into smokers. well, from the royal college of physicians in 2007, relatively

uncommon. no statistic is perfect, and i'm sure that there are some that might have made a decision to use one of these products. but as you saw on the chart before, had they decided to use it, the risk of that swedish snuff wasn't 100%. it was 3%. there was no risk of heart disease, copd, lung cancer, the things that one might get from these products over here that the base bill 1256 locks in. as a matter of fact, mr. president, let me bring this chart up. harm reduction. smokers, quitters, switchers.

the question we have to ask is do we want people to be smokers? do we want them to be quitters? or do we want them to be switchers? because this graph clearly shows you that there's a reduction quite dramatic in the relative risk for quitters and switchers in relation to smokers. every member will have to ask themselves when they get ready to decide what they're going to do on this legislation is do we want the american people to be smokers? do we want them to be quitters? or do we want them to be switchers. and if the answer is you want them to be quitters or switchers, then it's real easy. support the substitute bill, the burr-hagan substitute. because the base bill, 1256, does not create any effort to have quitters or switchers. all it does is lock in smokers.

and if the bill's intent is to reduce the risk of death and disease, common sense tells you without creating quitters and switchers, we're not going to do a very good job of reducing the risk of death and disease. mr. president, how much time do i have left? the presiding officer: the senator has 4 minutes remaining of the 30 minutes granted. mr. burr: i thank the president. mr. president, you see the chart behind me, the lancet. i'll be honest with you, i don't know what the lancet is, but i've been told it is a very reputable health publication. but let me quote it. "we believe the absence of effective harm reduction

strategies for smokers is perverse, unjust, and acts against the rights and the best interests of smokers and public health." a reputable health publication that basically says the absence of effective harm reduction strategies acts against the rights and public health. but the base bill 1256 has no effective harm reduction strategy, no pathway to harm reduction products. but they claim to be a public health bill. a health care publication says that can't happen. it's perverse. it's unjust. well, they said it. i didn't. but i think what they mean is that to consider passing h.r.

1256 with the knowledge that's been given would be perverse, unjust, i'm not going to have an opportunity to talk fully at this time because i've got a colleague that will take the floor. but, mr. president, let me say i talked earlier about camel orbs and the way that cnn portrayed this product as candy and staged a news event -- well, news would be -- let's say entertainment event by taking this from behind the counter of a convenience store and putting it in the candy section and having a kid go up and pick the orbs up out of the rack to say that it was candy. oeurbs represents a 99% -- orbs represents a 99% reduction in death and disease associated with tobacco use of cigarettes.

i ask my colleagues if the objective of federal legislation is to reduce the risk of death and disease, and nonfiltered cigarettes are 100% and filtered cigarettes are 90% and orbs is 1%, isn't it perverse and unjust not to allow the american consumer to have this product to switch from cigarettes? i think the answer to the question has already been answered. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. in 1989 was the seminole year in world history, late in the year, november 9, the berlin wall fell. and like dominoes, poland,

hungary and czechoslovakia went from being soviet satellites to democracies. the revolution of 1989 would set the tone for the peaceful breakup for the soviet union. the winds of change were bringing democracy in freedom to the oppressed. i look forward to honoring the peaceful revolutions of 1989 later this year. but i want to speak today about the revolution that never was, an event that took place 20 years ago this week in a country whose people remain subject to totalitarianism and tyranny. a peaceful pro-democracy rally that was snuffed out with the brutality the world hadn't seen since the invasion of czechoslovakia by the ussr in 1968. it started much like the revolutions of 1989. the sixth general secretary of the communist party of china was famous for supporting ideas like political reform and capitalism.

not much different from lech walesa of poland or havel of czechoslovakia. when he died on april 151989, thousands of chinese students began a peaceful protest in tennessee square in his honor and call support for -- in tiananmen square. protesters called for nothing more than a dialogue with their government and party leaders on how to combat corruption and how to accelerate economic and political reforms like freedom of expression and democracy. more than a million people would eventually gather in tiananmen square in the shadow of the forbidden city and the monument in front of chairman mao's mausoleum. that 1 million people that congregated, that was just in bay which i think. protests spread -- in beijing. protests spread across city after city, community after community. on the night of june 3, 1989,

15,000 soldiers with armored tanks storm tiananmen square. on june 4 the chinese red army fired upon the protesters and those in the surrounding areas. on june 5, as the crackdown continued, more than 300,000 -- 300,000 -- chinese troops amassed in and around tiananmen square. there the world witnessed one of the pivotal moments of the 20th century, 20 years ago this week when an unknown protester stood in front of a column of chinese army tanks. he stood alone. surely he wanted the tanks to stop. just as surely he wanted to stop the violent crackdowns. he has become an enduring symbol of freedom and democracy in this country and around the world. but not in china where the image and accounts of the heroic act are banned. attempts to just erase it from history. the identity and fate of this young man are not known.

however, it's generally agreed he died in a chinese prison for this brave act of nonviolence. the chinese government continues to deny western estimates of 300 dead and 20,000 arrests and detentions during the ten men crackdown. the u.s. responded to the crack down by suspending all government and military sales, and commercial military sales and all high-level government-to-government exchanges. that was then. we can't go back and change the past, but we can begin to hold china accountable for its actions. not only does china continue to hold people in jail based on their actions at the ten yen men protest, but the -- tiananmen square protest, but the fear from the crackdowns threatens to remind chinese citizens what they face should they try again to bring reform to their nation. today in beijing, police are on the streets today in and around tiananmen square to preempt, not to control but to preempt any observance of the anniversary. in hong kong, 150,000 people

showed up for a candlelight vigil in remembrance of those who died 20 years ago this week. the government shut down much of the internet, including western news sources for fear that its citizens may learn what really happened. the police are using umbrellas to block cameras. it's a spectacle and it's a travesty. for too long the west has looked the other way as china declares a war on human rights. for too long the west has rewarded china with lob sided trade policies while china continues to carry out a war on minority cultures. the united states should not endorse in any way the brutal and horrific policies of the chinese government. instead we reward them. our trade deficit in the first three months of this year was more than $50 billion. last year it was a quarter trillion dollars. china manipulates its currency. most economists agree that the chinese wuan is 30% under value.

that manipulation is a coerced and false price reduction. it puts our manufacturers at a disadvantage. but there's so much money to be made by u.s. investors that investors and large corporate interests and our government simply look the other way. china profits from its abysmal human rights record. it profits from its -- it profits from its nearly nonexistent environmental standards. but american investors, the american government, american business look the other way. china refuses to enforce its labor laws, but there's money to be made, so american investors, american corporations and the american government look the other way. china benefits from its human rights abuses. but, again, american investors, american corporations and the american government look the other way. even before, mr. president, this current recession, the u.s. manufacturing sector has been in

crisis. 40,000 american factories closed in the past decade. since 2000, the u.s. has lost more than 4 million manufacturing jobs, many in the presiding officer's home state of colorado. 200,000 manufacturing jobs in ohio. 2008 study by the economic policy institute found the u.s. has lost more than 2.3 million jobs since 2001. as a direct result of the u.s. trade deficit with china. we shouldn't let china profit from recession. it is not just the chinese pushing for the status quo. those who -- these are american investors, american companies actively support a regime that is trying to become a global competitor. no no boundaries, too often these companies leave their moral come pass at home. -- compass at home.

the united states should stand up to rather than apologize for china's brutal regime. if china seeks to become a member of the international community, it should match its aspirations. china continued to deny its people basic freedoms of speech and religion and assembly. it increased severe cultural and religious oppression of ethnic minorities such as the uighurs. it increased persecution of chinese christians and increased suppression of dissidents and journalists. earlier today i had the pleasure of meeting, again, my -- someone i worked with 10 years ago. he is about 60 now has been called the father of chinese democracy. he spent 18 years in prison. he spent 18 years in prison for

bringing democracy to his country he was jailed because his government accused him of conspiring against it by writing about knock siment since his release from prison the second time, he was exiled to canada. he has been a force for exactic change for his nation founding the chinese democracy coalition. he has been nominated for the nobel peace prize seven different times. he lives in washington, the capital of our democracy, but he continues to fight for democracy in his home country. the chinese people, like americans, trying to live meaningful, peaceful lives an create a better world for their children. unfortunately they're held hostage by a brutal, one party communist totalitarianism regime. they benefit from lax trade enforcement to the lax response to blatant human rights abuses,

the u.s. by its acquiescence propped up the chinese communist country. the united states partner is u.s. -- large u.s. corporations. as we walked the halls of the house of representatives in 1999 during the discussion and debate on the permanent normal trade relations with china, he told me that the vanguard of the communist party revolution in the united states, the vanguard of the chinese party revolution of the united states of america is american c.e.o.'s. it was the american c.e.o.'s who walked the halls of congress in 1989, our presiding officer remembers this, who walked the halls of congress in 1989, lobbying on behalf of the communist party chinese dictatorship to get trade advantages to america. it was the c.e.o.'s of america's corporations that walked from office to office in the senate and the house of representatives

begging members of the house and senate to vote to give trade advantages to this communist party dictatorship, this dictatorship that oppresses its people, that -- that -- that inflicted violence on those people in 1989, it has ever since. it was american c.e.o.'s that lobbied for trade advantages for china so that china in the end would take millions of jobs from the united states of america from galion, ohio and akron, ohio, and junctiontown, ohio, dayton -- youngstown, ohio, because c.e.o.'s lobbied congress down the hall to give trade advantages to the communist party dictatorship in china. we have paid a price. the chinese people paid an even more important price. i'm proud to join with senator inhofe to introduce with him a resolution acknowledging the

revolution of the tianamen crackdown. it demands that china release its political and religious prisoners. today, mr. president, we look back on the tianamen protest, we honor those who died in the struggle for freedom. let's remember that brave, unnamed protester who 20 years ago believed that one person can change the world through peace an nonviolence. think what a whole nation can do, mr. president. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. burr: thank you, mr. president. when i yielded the floor to

allow senator brown to speak, i was in the process of describing the substitute amendment to the base bill, h.r. 1256. before i go back to that, let me share for my colleagues the response to a letter from the campaign for tobacco-free kids. they assess the substitute bill, and they provided in a letter to the committee why they found the substitute to be wrong. i use that word. let me take on some of the things they raised in that letter. one, they said that the burr-hagan bill would create a new bureaucracy that lacks the experience, expertise, and resources to effectively regulate tobacco products. i think i made it abundantly

clear earlier today that under the current regulatory framework for tobacco every federal agency in the united states has jurisdiction in it except for the food and drug administration. so to suggest that the food and drug administration has the experience or the expertise or the resources to effectively regulate this would just be disingenuous. they have no experience because they haven't been involved in regulation. they do have expertise, but expertise to prove safety and efficacy of products, not to come to the conclusion that a product is unsafe and kills, yet, they're not going to do anything to restrict its access. and resources to effectively regulate tobacco products. incorporated in this base bill, 1256, is, in fact, a surcharge on the tobacco industry o of $700 million over the first

three years to fund -- to provide the resources for the f.d.a. to regulate the industry. and it doesn't stop there. because they can't hire the folks, they can't set up the regulation until they've got the ability to do the surcharge it requires in putting it in the f.d.a. that you come up with $200 million to fund the initial effort to set up the infrastructure to regulate this product. so, in fact, there were no resources. within 1256 it reyates the resources to create the framework to create the personnel to regulate the product that have never regulated the product before. i remind you in the substitute amendment we set up a new harm reduction center under the guidelines of the secretary of health and human services,

within the health and human services, the same place that the f.d.a. is. and when we asked the secretary of h.h.s. how much does it take to fund that? they gave us a number of $100 million a year. $700 million for the base bill, 1256, $100 million for this new center of harm reduction. overseen by the same secretary of health and human services. now, granted, i'll be the first to say if we're creating a new agency, the agency for harm reduction, it has not got the experience or expertise or the resources yet of the but it can search within the global marketplace to find the individuals and the secretary of h.h.s. said that $100 million will allow that. so the first complaint, hopefully i disposed of that.

second complaint for the campaign for tobacco-free kids for why they will not support the amendment. the burr-hagan bill does not give meaningful authority to change tobacco products. well, mr. president, i do hope somebody from campaign-free kids is watching. because what the base bill, h.r. 1256, does is it locks in these products, nonfiltered and filtered cigarettes, and legislatively says to the f.d.a., you can't do anything with those products. they are grand fathered. -- grandfathered. and, as you heard me say, 1256 does not allow these reduced-risk products to come to market. to the tobacco industry based upon how the legislation is written would basically limit tobacco usage to these two

categories, the 100% risky and the 95% risky. i misspoke, and let me correct it. because within h.r. 1256 it does state any product sold prior to february 2007 could, in fact, be sold. some, not all, u.s. smokeless products fall into that category of having been sold prior to february of 2007. one has to ask, why february 2007? why was that manning dismal it's very simple. that's the last time they -- why is that magical? it's very simple. that's the last time they updated this bill. i'm sure that they updated before 2009, but they weren't careful enough to have the effective date to cut off when the product is sold. there is nothing magical to february of 2007 except that u.s. smokeless products were included.