What follows is a summary of the amendments made to S. 625 August 1, 2007, when the bill, as amended, was passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.  These, to the best of my knowledge are the only amendments made to the bill since its introduction in February of this year.  This information was gleaned from the www.smokefree.net web site.

1.  Clove cigarettes -- Senator Kennedy put in a "chairman's mark" to allow clove flavoring. This was reversed by Senator Enzi's amendment to ban clove cigarettes -- leaving this section of the bill unchanged (clove cigarettes still banned).

2.  Claims that tobacco products are approved or certified by FDA -- an explicit prohibition to prevent manufacturers from making such claims was inserted by Senator Kennedy.

3.  Increase in user fees paid by the tobacco companies -- inserted by Senator Kennedy. This was amended by Senator Isakson to change user fees for small cigars and to limit user fees to products regulated under the act.

4.  Canadian style color graphic warnings covering 50% of the package, as proposed by Senator Enzi.

5,  Strike provision on tobacco producers and manufacturers control re "FDA on the Farm" as proposed by Senator Burr

6.  Elimination of duplicate registration requirements (HHS and TTB) as proposed by Senator Burr. 

The following were left unresolved, in anticipation of resolution being worked out on the Senate floor:
    a. Enzi amendment #8 -- double excise tax on all tobacco products; revenue to FDA inspections
    b. Enzi amendment #9 -- Increase fines for violations
    c. Coburn amendment #1 -- include Native American retailers and manufacturers
    d. Coburn amendment #2 --limits Internet, telephone and mail order sails of tobacco products
    e. Hatch amendment #6 -- HHS certification required for all imported tobacco
    f.  Burr amendment #11-- remove labeling and advertising restrictions; prohibit payments for product placements and advertisements at retail  Require RIP cigarettes.

Smokefree.org has endorsed the Enzi and Coburn amendments as strengthening public health protections of the bill. Eric Lindblom, Director for Policy Research at Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK) roundly condemned all amendments to enhance the public health protections in the bill as "poison pill" amendments aimed at defeating the bill. Eric's opposition to this bill, and his use of the term "poison pill" have basically been repeated by the American Heart, Lung and Cancer Associations. This, in turn, has created the curious situation in which these health-related groups have sided with Philip Morris against strengthening this bill from a public health perspective.

From an AAPHP perspective -- we see the provision for color graphic warnings as a major enhancement to the bill, the prohibition against cigarette companies claiming that they products has been approved or certified by FDA as being of little practical value, and generally support other amendments to strengthen this bill.  Our analysis of the original bill left us with the impression that this bill, if adopted in original form, would do much more harm than good, and should be defeated. We basically agreed with opponents who described this bill as "the Philip Morris Protection Act of 2007." The amendment to enhance the warnings on the cigarette packs is a major advance.  My (Joel Nitzkin) recommendation to AAPHP is that we should strongly endorse this bill if the following additional changes could be made:
    1.  Delete wording in the bill specifying the "narrow focus on children and youth."
    2. Addition of wording that would encourage and enable producers of non-combustible tobacco products to accurately communicate the degree to which their products are less hazardous than cigarettes.
    3. Deletion of wording that the regulations cannot be "burdensome" to the industry.
    4. Deletion of the requirement that FDA consider the impact on contraband when proposing regulations.
    5. Addition of provisions by which selected currently marketed tobacco products could be banned from the open market after a specified number of years if the manufacturers are unable to dramatically improve their risk profiles.

The official stance of CTFK, as apparently shared by the Heart, Lung and Cancer Associations, is to the effect that the limitations on FDA authority written into the bill are "trivial, and/or non-consequential."  Having said that, they oppose lifting any of the restrictions on FDA authority as "poison pill" amendments. From an AAPHP perspective -- if such provisions are "trivial and/or non-consequential" there should be no objection to eliminating them.

For additional detail on the AAPHP perspective, please see the "JLN Summary Report of Meeting at CTFK Headquarters, Sunday morning, December 9, 2007 Plus JLN Recommendations for Follow-up."