Tom Harkin: “again, let's be clear what we are talking about when we are talking about SAMHSA. SAMHSA and the States can pass a law…”

“again, let's be clear what we are talking about when we are talking about SAMHSA. SAMHSA and the States can pass a law and they can deal with retailers. But there are no hard targets in SAMHSA to say: Here is what you have to do or you will certainly lose your block grant. The State can pass all kinds of laws but, if the State laws don't meet a target, then SAMHSA has no way of going to the State and saying, ``Look, you didn't meet the requirements of the law and therefore we will take away your mental health and substance abuse block grants.'' If there were, in the Synar amendment, a provision that said that, if a State, for example, cannot show that by year one they have taken this step and this step and this step, and that they have met the target--if in that case they then would lose their block grants, I would then agree with the Senator from Kentucky. That is not the case in the Synar amendment. It is a lot of nice words, but it doesn't really get to the heart of it, because there are no effective penalties, there is no real trigger, there is no hard target that, if a State doesn't do something, they then will lose their block grant. On the other hand, the proposed FDA rule upheld by the courts goes to the retailers, and FDA can--not must--but can contract with States and contract with local jurisdictions for enforcement of the FDA rules. FDA will also provide information, resources, support and help through outreach.…”