House Appropriations 4-19-16 - Cole Bishop HR2058

[NoFumus]

"Long story short: This is not finished. Please continue to focus efforts on the HR2058 Call to Action from CASAA: CASAA: Call to Action! Support HR 2058 which would change the grandfather date for vapor products"

 

[zoiDman]

Thank You for posting this NoFumus.

 

[Kent C]

For those interested, I culled the vote here:

Congressional action on electronic cigarette regulations may save vapers

 

[Bill Godshall]

Below is more info about the Cole/Sanford amendment.

US House Appropriations Cmte approves (31-19) amendment by Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA) to prevent FDA from banning >99.9% of nicotine vapor products (because they weren’t on the market before February 15, 2007)
House Committee Votes to Save the Vaping Industry - The American Vaping Association

Cole/Bishop amendment approved by US House Appropriations to prohibit FDA from banning vapor products via the Deeming Regulation
http://vaping.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/COLE_027_xml.pdf

SFATA says US House Appropriations Committee vote is “Good for Public Health”
U.S. House Appropriations Committee Adopts Amendment To Move FDA Predicate Date for Vapor Products

Vapers win big: House committee passes amendment to save e-cigarettes
Vapers Win Big: House Committee Passes Amendment To Save E-Cigarettes

Cigar Exemption, FDA Predicate Date Change Approved by House Appropriations Cmte
Cigar Exemption, FDA Predicate Date Change Approved by Appropriations Committee (Update) | halfwheel

House Committee votes to save e-cigarettes
House Committee Votes To Save E-cigarettes | NACS Online – Media – News Archive

E-cigs, vaporizers, smokeless tobacco products may gain grandfather exemption from FDA rules
E-cigs, vaporizers, smokeless tobacco products may gain grandfather exemption from FDA rules

US House committee votes to smooth e-cigarette regulatory path
U.S. House committee votes to smooth e-cigarette regulatory path

Did a House committee just save vaping?
Did a House Committee Just Save Vaping?

VTA asks vaping industry to urge House Appropriations Committee to support Rep. Tom Cole’s amendment to prevent FDA from banning >99.9% of nicotine vapor products
VTA Appropriations Call to Action - 4-18-16.pdf

CASAA asks vapers to urge House Appropriations Committee to support Rep. Tom Cole’s amendment to prevent FDA from banning >99.9% of nicotine vapor products
CASAA: US - Take action to change the predicate date for vapor products (H. Appropriations)

AVA’s Gregory Conley: Congressional action on electronic cigarette regulation may save vapers
Congressional action on electronic cigarette regulations may save vapers

ATR letter urges House Approps Cmte to keep vapor products legal
https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/ATR Supports TCA Predicate Date Change.pdf

ATR supports predicate date change in the Tobacco Control Act
ATR Supports Predicate Date Change in the Tobacco Control Act

Eve of Prohibition: This committee could stop the FDA attack on e-cigarettes
Eve Of Prohibition: This Committee Could Stop The FDA Attack On E-Cigarettes

Wells Fargo: FDA’s anti e-cigarette regulation will be a bonus for Big Tobacco
Wells Fargo: FDA’s Anti-Ecig Regulation Will Be A Bonus For Big Tobacco

Vapor Technology Association says FDA deeming regulation would “deliver a fatal blow to the vapor industry while harming public health”
https://www.docdroid.net/9TfXYoW/va...n-on-proposed-fda-regulations-41416.docx.html

One imminent FDA regulation could wipe out 10 years of e-cigarette innovation
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/14/o...-wipe-out-10-years-of-e-cigarette-innovation/

FDA approps: it’s rider time
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/p...r-time-ims-drug-spending-up-85-percent-213818

Detroit News editorial opposes FDA e-cigarette deeming ban
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...04/19/cigarettes-regulation-tobacco/83266516/

ACSH’s Hank Campbell: On e-cigarette regulation, the government asked ACSH for advice . . . and listened
http://acsh.org/news/2016/04/19/on-...overnment-asked-acsh-for-advice-and-listened/

31 vapor prohibitionist groups (CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Legacy, ASH, AMA, AAP, etc.) protect cigarettes by urging US House Approps Cmte to reject legislation to keep lifesaving vapor products and low risk cigars legal
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_04_18_fda_appropriation
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/cont...6_04_18_letter_house_appropriation_markup.pdf

Intolerant US Senate Democrats Durbin, Merkley, Blumenthal, Brown, Reed, Markey, Udall, Whitehouse, Murray, Boxer, Warren, Schumer, Franken, Feinstein, Schatz keep protecting cigarettes, send letter urging White House OMB/OIRA to approve FDA’s cigarette protecting vapor Deeming Ban, while deceitfully claiming FDA’s Deeming Ban is necessary to protect children from big tobacco companies
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsro...alization-of-long-overdue-tobacco-regulations
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016 Deeming Rule Letter to OMB.pdf

Legacy’s Robin Koval keeps protecting cigarettes by urging FDA to ban vapor products
http://truthinitiative.org/news/senators-call-omb-finish-job-tobacco-regs

Big Pharma financed CTFK vapor prohibitionist Matt Myers absurdly claims House Approps Cmte vote to stop FDA from banning sales of lifesaving vapor products and cigars to adults “helps tobacco companies target kids”.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_04_19_fda_appropriations

Mike Siegel – A lie a day: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids wrongly accuses tobacco companies of marketing gummy bear e-cigarettes
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-lie-day-campaign-for-tobacco-free.html

Vapor prohibitionist Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) continues protecting cigarettes by lobbying White House to let FDA ban lifesaving vapor products.
http://www.ktvz.com/news/Merkley-decries-lack-of-action-on-e-cigarette-rules/39116964

AAFP congratulates itself for urging the White House to ban lifesaving vapor products
http://www.aafp.org/news/government-medicine/20160419fdadeeming.html

As FDA prepares to regulate e-cigarettes, Congress pushes back http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/04/as_fda_prepares_to_regulate_e-.html

 

[WorksForMe]

Cole/Bishop amendment approved by US House Appropriations to prohibit FDA from banning vapor products via the Deeming Regulation
http://vaping.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/COLE_027_xml.pdf

I'm confused. Does the amendment outlaw internet sales of vapor products? If it does, why is everybody OK with it.

4 (d)(1) A retailer may only sell any vapor product in
5 a direct face-to-face exchange without the assistance of
6 any electronic or mechanical device (such as a vending ma-
7 chine).

 

[Kent C]

I'm confused. Does the amendment outlaw internet sales of vapor products? If it does, why is everybody OK with it.

4 (d)(1) A retailer may only sell any vapor product in
5 a direct face-to-face exchange without the assistance of
6 any electronic or mechanical device (such as a vending ma-
7 chine).

Read the next three lines...

8 (2) This subsection shall not apply with respect to

9 sales of vapor products conducted through—

10 (A) mail-order;

Mail order is the buying of goods or services by mail delivery. The buyer places an order for the desired products with the merchant through some remote method such as through a telephone call or web site.

 

[Kent C]

US House Appropriations Cmte approves (34-19) amendment by Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA)

Bill, just to clarify....the vote on the Cole/Bishop amendment was 31-19. The rejection of the DeLauro amendment on premium cigars was the "34" number:

As a part of the markup session, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) proposed an amendment to remove the premium cigar exemption in the bill. This amendment was defeated in a 34-14 vote, thus giving a huge win for the premium cigar industry,

Meanwhile the original exemption was strengthened when an amendment that included language that changes the predicate date from February 15, 2007 to the date of enactment of any new regulations was approved. The amendment was approved by Rep Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) and Rep. Sanford Bishop (R-Georgia). This proposed amendment passed 31 to 19.

Cigar News: Premium Cigar Exemption Approved by House Appropriations Committee

 

[nicnik]

Intolerant US Senate Democrats Durbin, Merkley, Blumenthal, Brown, Reed, Markey, Udall, Whitehouse, Murray, Boxer, Warren, Schumer, Franken, Feinstein, Schatz

Intolerant is right. They're all preaching intolerance and science denial.

Yeah, you hear a lot of lies from politicians, but not all lies have deadly consequences like their anti-Harm Reduction lies.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Bill, just to clarify....the vote on the Cole/Bishop amendment was 31-19. The rejection of the DeLauro amendment on premium cigars was the "34" number:

As a part of the markup session, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) proposed an amendment to remove the premium cigar exemption in the bill. This amendment was defeated in a 34-14 vote, thus giving a huge win for the premium cigar industry,

Meanwhile the original exemption was strengthened when an amendment that included language that changes the predicate date from February 15, 2007 to the date of enactment of any new regulations was approved. The amendment was approved by Rep Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) and Rep. Sanford Bishop (R-Georgia). This proposed amendment passed 31 to 19.

Cigar News: Premium Cigar Exemption Approved by House Appropriations Committee

Alright there K, too balled up in several projects elsewhere. And I guess kinda unfocused on this for the lack of fanfare. But if I'm readin' right and my head's not still stuck up in the nether-regions…this is a BFD. Isn't this what we've been clamoring about for a year now? A change of the deeming date to the point of bill enactment?

Now I haven't exactly been a fan of a grandfather bill to quantify exemptions by any criteria. I'm opposed and have hoped that the presumption of deferral of authority to the FDA would be invalidated by the courts if not those parts of the original tobacco bill itself. I feel any legislation controlling the free commercial exercise of an otherwise unregulated enterprise is a taking. You simply can't grant privilege or right to one without taking from another. And disparate treatment would definitely be in play if only cigar producers were exempted at this juncture. Especially as regulatory authority was so callously originally enacted under specious principles of preemption of harm. What troubles me is that certain technology is given a pass and future development discriminately encroached upon. Same argument applies.

However, if I'm trackin' right, where's the parade?

(Or at least a sigh of relief from the bleachers.)

I know the bill remains to be passed but are we that numb by now?

Good luck.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Bill, just to clarify....the vote on the Cole/Bishop amendment was 31-19. The rejection of the DeLauro amendment on premium cigars was the "34" number:

Thanks, I corrected my post above.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The challenge is to get the Senate Approps Cmte to include the same or similar amendment in its FDA budget bill.

 

[Kent C]

The challenge is to get the Senate Approps Cmte to include the same or similar amendment in its FDA budget bill.

Unfortunately, some rabid opposition exists in the Senate Committee on Appropriations: (those Democrat "FDA &OMB letter writers" urging quick adoption of the Deeming as written):


Majority

• Thad Cochran, Mississippi, Chair
• Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
• Richard Shelby, Alabama
• Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• Mark Kirk, Illinois
• Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Jerry Moran, Kansas
• John Hoeven, North Dakota
• Shelly Moore Capito, West Virginia
• John Boozman, Arkansas
• Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
• James Lankford, Oklahoma
• Steve Daines, Montana

Minority

• Barbara Mikulski, Maryland, Ranking Member
• Patrick Leahy, Vermont
• Patty Murray, Washington
  
• Dianne Feinstein, California
  
• Dick Durbin, Illinois
  
• Jack Reed, Rhode Island
• Jon Tester, Montana
• Tom Udall, New Mexico
• Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
• Jeff Merkley, Oregon
• Chris Coons, Delaware
• Brian Schatz, Hawaii
• Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
• Chris Murphy, Connecticut

 

[Kent C]

Alright there K, too balled up in several projects elsewhere. And I guess kinda unfocused on this for the lack of fanfare. But if I'm readin' right and my head's not still stuck up in the nether-regions…this is a BFD. Isn't this what we've been clamoring about for a year now? A change of the deeming date to the point of bill enactment?

Now I haven't exactly been a fan of a grandfather bill to quantify exemptions by any criteria. I'm opposed and have hoped that the presumption of deferral of authority to the FDA would be invalidated by the courts if not those parts of the original tobacco bill itself. I feel any legislation controlling the free commercial exercise of an otherwise unregulated enterprise is a taking. You simply can't grant privilege or right to one without taking from another. And disparate treatment would definitely be in play if only cigar producers were exempted at this juncture. Especially as regulatory authority was so callously originally enacted under specious principles of preemption of harm. What troubles me is that certain technology is given a pass and future development discriminately encroached upon. Same argument applies.

However, if I'm trackin' right, where's the parade?

(Or at least a sigh of relief from the bleachers.)

I know the bill remains to be passed but are we that numb by now?

Good luck.

This is a first step in a BFD. The appropriations bill has to go to the full House, Senate Committee on Appropriations, full Senate, likely a "conference committee" between House and Senate to iron out any differences, back to full House and Senate and then survive a veto from Obama, (or Hillary, Trump, Cruz or Bernie). :- )

And yeah, any grandfather date will freeze innovation at that point in time, but:

"I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you're not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they've misread is times in which I have compromised -- for example, our entire economic program.

I proposed three 10-percent-a-year cuts in the income tax, retroactive to January 1st, 1981. There was no way I could get that with the House of Representatives dominated by the other party. So, I settled for a 5-percent cut the first year, not retroactive but on October 30 -- or on October 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year; then two following 10-percent cuts. Well, I think 25 percent, a little delayed in starting, was better than going down fighting and not getting anything at all." Ronald Reagan

I'd point out that the 'Reagan recovery' was delayed because of that too. Opponents (and David Stockman) were saying in Nov. of '81 that 'trickledown didn't work'. They didn't say that when the full tax cut was finished in '83, when we had the biggest and longest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. Of course, since, they've 're-instated' the 'trickledown doesn't work' now, but people who lived through that era knew it worked. And we could use a dose of it now too.

 

[MacTechVpr]

This is a first step in a BFD. The appropriations bill has to go to the full House, Senate Committee on Appropriations, full Senate, likely a "conference committee" between House and Senate to iron out any differences, back to full House and Senate and then survive a veto from Obama, (or Hillary, Trump, Cruz or Bernie). :- )

And yeah, any grandfather date will freeze innovation at that point in time, but:

"I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you're not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they've misread is times in which I have compromised -- for example, our entire economic program.

I proposed three 10-percent-a-year cuts in the income tax, retroactive to January 1st, 1981. There was no way I could get that with the House of Representatives dominated by the other party. So, I settled for a 5-percent cut the first year, not retroactive but on October 30 -- or on October 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year; then two following 10-percent cuts. Well, I think 25 percent, a little delayed in starting, was better than going down fighting and not getting anything at all." Ronald Reagan

I'd point out that the 'Reagan recovery' was delayed because of that too. Opponents (and David Stockman) were saying in Nov. of '81 that 'trickledown didn't work'. They didn't say that when the full tax cut was finished in '83, when we had the biggest and longest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. Of course, since, they've 're-instated' the 'trickledown doesn't work' now, but people who lived through that era knew it worked. And we could use a dose of it now too.

Regrettably compromise with an adversary intent on your elimination is illusory; and the potential of reconciliation if any then obviously, posthumous. Pretty much my perspective on extra-constitutional political practice. It's mutually assured destruction in the long run. I would add…

"We all want progress, but progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." —C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Good luck.

p.s. Wasn't very fond of Reagan going in given his propensity for compromise and expansive budgets in CA. I couldn't argue with his results in the long run. They were based on principle. Today most who lived through the era would agree, they were happy times for Americans.

 

[Kent C]

"We all want progress, but progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be."

For me, this amendment is a step 'nearer to the place you want to be'.

And.... I think you know my stand on 'compromise'.

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . ." Rand

This amendment, if adopted as part of the whole bill by both Houses and signed, stops the bleeding, but the "wound" will still need treatment, and we must stop the individuals who inflicted the wound. That will take some time.

 

[MacTechVpr]

LOL, we both know what a parasite is. Good luck.

 

[Katya]

However, if I'm trackin' right, where's the parade?

My fireworks are ready, but no parade yet... We're not out of the woods yet, Mac. But things are looking up, IMHO.

 

[Katya]

"I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, (snip)

So have I. I'll take that half a loaf now and worry about the other half later. Another day, another battle.

 

[Bob Chill]

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I have a fairly strong hunch that the GF date is changing no matter what. I see it as a logistical nightmare to step back 9 years after what has transpired the last 3-4 years. I started vaping nearly 3 years ago and the market then barely resembles the market now.

The sheer amount of equipment already in the hands of consumers is massive. Could you imagine if every vaper in the US tossed all their gear in a pile? How big would it be? What would the pile look like 2 years after the reg date?

In my honest opinion I believe the ship has sailed (at least to an extent anyways) on reigning in the market and sticking it back in 2007 technology. Everything we use is still really low tech anyways. Especially mechs. Even regulated can be easily assembled by anyone with some mechanical skill.

Another thing is that it all seems backwards. Making the "paraphernalia" illegal but allowing the intended use product to remain legal really doesn't make any sense. Obviously a lot of what is being proposed doesn't make any sense when you look at all available data but I know like everyone else that what we're "really" up against.

 

[DC2]

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I have a fairly strong hunch that the GF date is changing no matter what. I see it as a logistical nightmare to step back 9 years after what has transpired the last 3-4 years. I started vaping nearly 3 years ago and the market then barely resembles the market now.

The sheer amount of equipment already in the hands of consumers is massive. Could you imagine if every vaper in the US tossed all their gear in a pile? How big would it be? What would the pile look like 2 years after the reg date?

I have always felt that it is important to keep your eye on the ball.
And when it comes to vaping, the ball is the nicotine.

It doesn't matter what happens to the hardware if there is no software.
But yeah, if they allow free-roaming nicotine, then nothing to worry about.

I'm not entirely sure how a change in grandfather date would affect liquids.
But I definitely believe that it can't hurt.