FDA Rep Tom Cole introduces bill (HR 2058) to change SE date from 2007 to 2015 for newly deemed products
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
DEA7H INC wrote
"This is a fantastic bill but I fear it has no chance of passing. If it does pass house and senate does the president need to sign it? I don't think he would if that is the case."
While Obama almost certainly would veto HR 2058 if it is enacted this session of Congress (as otherwise Obama wouldn't have allowed FDA to propose the Deeming Regulation last year), Obama leaves office after 2016.
But if we can convince more members of Congress to cosponsor HR 2058 (by pointing out that FDA's deeming reg would ban >99.9% of e-cig products now on the market), it is very likely that Rep. Cole will reintroduce the bill again in 2017 when there is new president.
If Hillary wins the election, she's also likely to veto HR 2058 (as the ANTZ will support her campaign, and because she won't eliminate Obama's misguided policy and program agenda). But if a Republican wins the election, there is a very good chance that HR 2058 will NOT be vetoed (if it is enacted by a Republican controlled Congress).
2017 is the key year, as that's when the FDA's e-cig ban would occur (i.e. 24 months after the Final Rule is issued).
As more people sober up and realize the deeming regulation will ban >99.9% of e-cigs in 2017, support for HR 2058 will continue increasing.
But we should still encourage Congress to enact HR 2058 during this session of Congress, as enactment of the bill will inform everyone that Obama's DHHS, Big Pharma shills, left wing Congressional Democrats and the liberal news media have all been lying about the legal ramifications of the deeming regulation.
"This is a fantastic bill but I fear it has no chance of passing. If it does pass house and senate does the president need to sign it? I don't think he would if that is the case."
While Obama almost certainly would veto HR 2058 if it is enacted this session of Congress (as otherwise Obama wouldn't have allowed FDA to propose the Deeming Regulation last year), Obama leaves office after 2016.
But if we can convince more members of Congress to cosponsor HR 2058 (by pointing out that FDA's deeming reg would ban >99.9% of e-cig products now on the market), it is very likely that Rep. Cole will reintroduce the bill again in 2017 when there is new president.
If Hillary wins the election, she's also likely to veto HR 2058 (as the ANTZ will support her campaign, and because she won't eliminate Obama's misguided policy and program agenda). But if a Republican wins the election, there is a very good chance that HR 2058 will NOT be vetoed (if it is enacted by a Republican controlled Congress).
2017 is the key year, as that's when the FDA's e-cig ban would occur (i.e. 24 months after the Final Rule is issued).
As more people sober up and realize the deeming regulation will ban >99.9% of e-cigs in 2017, support for HR 2058 will continue increasing.
But we should still encourage Congress to enact HR 2058 during this session of Congress, as enactment of the bill will inform everyone that Obama's DHHS, Big Pharma shills, left wing Congressional Democrats and the liberal news media have all been lying about the legal ramifications of the deeming regulation.
Well I hope that means he gets it. But I got a similar letter from my state senator just before he voted in favor of drastic measures for age verification in Texas. It's on the governor's desk now so it's pretty much a done deal. Aarrgghh!!
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
A Democrat! Stopping to THINK!I received a response from my congressman Ed Perlmutter. It is seemingly not a boilerplate response and does show an understanding of what a 2007 grandfather date means to vaping.
The letter is noncommittal, but encouraging in that some thought went into it.
Time for House Democrats to stand up to the forces that have been leading them down a VERY destructive path. Fiercely demanding policy that could kill millions of people could potentially also wipe out an entire political party.
Senate Democrats might be unrehabilitatable, however. Their leaders have REALLY gone off the deep end.
@englishmick
Yeah, most Republicans have been murderous whores regarding vaping, too. Indiana's a good example.
I love it how before 2007 all products were observing stringent quality and health standards. And suddenly they all dropped the ball after that. Must be FDA's negative influence exercised on products after 2007. FSPTCA shall be repealed so we could have great products again.
I also remember how some religious associations were against the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Last edited:
here's the letter i received from Sen. Franken.
Dear mike,
Thank you for contacting me about the grandfather date in the Tobacco Control Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this topic.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates tobacco products for the public health of all Americans. As you know, tobacco is harmful not only to the smoker but also to those who breathe secondhand smoke. While it continues to remain a personal choice whether to use these products in private, Congress has charged the FDA with regulating tobacco products so that their private use does not cause public harm.
The Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gives the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and other products that it deems to be subject to the Act. It also established a premarket review process for new tobacco products, defined as products that enter the market after February 15, 2007. Products that were already commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007 are "grandfathered" under the law -- they may continue to be marketed, so long as they comply with all the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act. The FDA has established several pathways for marketing new tobacco products, including allowing for exemptions for products that have the same characteristics as tobacco products that have been grandfathered under the Tobacco Control Act. Products that do not meet those criteria must go through the premarket review application process before being marketed in the United States.
Congressman Tom Cole introduced legislation to change the grandfather date for tobacco products, which would make additional products exempt from premarket review. H.R. 2058 would tie the grandfather date of the Tobacco Control Act to the date that the FDA finalizes its deeming regulations, which are the regulations it will use for deciding which products fall under its purview. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services has not yet finalized the FDA's tobacco deeming regulations, so this legislation would effectively grandfather all products that have entered the market since February 15, 2007. A Senate companion bill has not yet been introduced on this matter.
As a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before the Senate for consideration. Thank you again for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so again on any matter of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator
i haven't heard from my congressman at all.
i hope no one has any doubt that in the eyes of the governmant
we are no more than tobacco product users.
mike
Dear mike,
Thank you for contacting me about the grandfather date in the Tobacco Control Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this topic.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates tobacco products for the public health of all Americans. As you know, tobacco is harmful not only to the smoker but also to those who breathe secondhand smoke. While it continues to remain a personal choice whether to use these products in private, Congress has charged the FDA with regulating tobacco products so that their private use does not cause public harm.
The Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gives the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and other products that it deems to be subject to the Act. It also established a premarket review process for new tobacco products, defined as products that enter the market after February 15, 2007. Products that were already commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007 are "grandfathered" under the law -- they may continue to be marketed, so long as they comply with all the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act. The FDA has established several pathways for marketing new tobacco products, including allowing for exemptions for products that have the same characteristics as tobacco products that have been grandfathered under the Tobacco Control Act. Products that do not meet those criteria must go through the premarket review application process before being marketed in the United States.
Congressman Tom Cole introduced legislation to change the grandfather date for tobacco products, which would make additional products exempt from premarket review. H.R. 2058 would tie the grandfather date of the Tobacco Control Act to the date that the FDA finalizes its deeming regulations, which are the regulations it will use for deciding which products fall under its purview. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services has not yet finalized the FDA's tobacco deeming regulations, so this legislation would effectively grandfather all products that have entered the market since February 15, 2007. A Senate companion bill has not yet been introduced on this matter.
As a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before the Senate for consideration. Thank you again for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so again on any matter of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator
i haven't heard from my congressman at all.
i hope no one has any doubt that in the eyes of the governmant
we are no more than tobacco product users.
mike
I mentioned in an earlier post that you should check out where your charitable contributions go. The letter head on this ANTZ letter should give you a good list of the ones you should consider withholding donations to. And please don't forget the Democrats.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
There are now 24 cosponsors of Tom Cole's bill (HR 2058), although it appears that all are Republicans
THOMAS (Library of Congress) (to obtain bill info, type in HR 2058 in bill search)
List of cosponsors
H.R.2058
Latest Title: FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] (introduced 4/28/2015) Cosponsors (24)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2015 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
by date)
Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] - 5/14/2015
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] - 7/9/2015
Rep Brat, Dave [VA-7] - 6/15/2015
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 5/14/2015
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [TN-3] - 6/15/2015
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 7/9/2015
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-14] - 5/21/2015
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 6/15/2015
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 4/29/2015
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 5/14/2015
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-50] - 5/1/2015
Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] - 6/9/2015
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/14/2015
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-16] - 6/25/2015
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 5/21/2015
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 5/18/2015
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] - 6/15/2015
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] - 4/29/2015
Rep Rouzer, David [NC-7] - 4/29/2015
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-15] - 7/9/2015
Rep Valadao, David G. [CA-21] - 5/21/2015
Rep Walker, Mark [NC-6] - 7/22/2015
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 6/9/2015
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] - 6/9/2015
THOMAS (Library of Congress) (to obtain bill info, type in HR 2058 in bill search)
List of cosponsors
H.R.2058
Latest Title: FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] (introduced 4/28/2015) Cosponsors (24)
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2015 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
by date)
Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] - 5/14/2015
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] - 7/9/2015
Rep Brat, Dave [VA-7] - 6/15/2015
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 5/14/2015
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [TN-3] - 6/15/2015
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 7/9/2015
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-14] - 5/21/2015
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 6/15/2015
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 4/29/2015
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 5/14/2015
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-50] - 5/1/2015
Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] - 6/9/2015
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 5/14/2015
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-16] - 6/25/2015
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 5/21/2015
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 5/18/2015
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] - 6/15/2015
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] - 4/29/2015
Rep Rouzer, David [NC-7] - 4/29/2015
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-15] - 7/9/2015
Rep Valadao, David G. [CA-21] - 5/21/2015
Rep Walker, Mark [NC-6] - 7/22/2015
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 6/9/2015
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] - 6/9/2015
I see Duncan Hunter is on there.
That doesn't surprise me.
He is representing the district next to me.
And I've talked to him before.
I guess I need to talk to Darrell Issa again though.
He is my representative and his name is not on there.
That doesn't surprise me.
He is representing the district next to me.
And I've talked to him before.
I guess I need to talk to Darrell Issa again though.
He is my representative and his name is not on there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
