Last year, lawmakers reintroduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation (H.R. 1108, S. 625) to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad new authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, advertising, promotion, sale, and use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Amended versions of both bills have been reported out of committee and await floor action in their respective chambers. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated in a July 21, 2008, letter that the Bush Administration "would strongly oppose this legislation." The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was first introduced in the 108th Congress, the product of lengthy negotiations in which lawmakers sought to balance the competing interests of public health groups and Philip Morris, the nation's leading cigarette company. While these organisations support the legislation, the FDA Commissioner, other tobacco manufacturers, and tobacco industry and convenience store associations have expressed concerns about the bills, which would create a new Chapter IX in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) solely for the regulation of tobacco products. Among their many provisions, the measures would authorise FDA to: restrict tobacco advertising and promotions, especially to children; develop standards that require changes in tobacco product composition and design, such as the reduction or elimination of toxic chemicals; and require manufacturers to obtain agency approval in order to make reduced-risk and reduced-exposure claims for their products. In the mid-1990s, FDA claimed authority under the FFDCA to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products as delivery devices for nicotine, an addictive drug. The agency's 1996 tobacco regulation was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2000. The Court concluded that Congress had clearly intended to preclude FDA from regulating tobacco products. It found that because the FFDCA prohibits the marketing of products that have not been found to be safe and effective, the statute would have required FDA to ban such manifestly harmful products as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco if the agency had jurisdiction over them. Such a ban, argued the Court, would plainly contradict congressional intent. The Supreme Court's decision made it clear the Congress would have to enact legislation giving FDA statutory authority over tobacco products in order for the agency to assert jurisdiction. Lawmakers first drafted such language in the 105th Congress as part of legislation to implement the 1997 proposed national tobacco settlement.