Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I want to take a few moments to explain why I am opposed to the OTC reform legislation offered by Senator Isakson. Senator Isakson and I worked together on many pieces of FDA legislation, and I have no doubt that he worked tirelessly to draft this bill in the best interest of patients. I will miss working closely with my colleague from Georgia to improve the lives of the millions of Americans touched by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's work each day. I want to be clear that I agree reforms are needed within the over- the-counter drug division at the FDA. I simply disagree on the way in which this legislation provides the resources to achieve these reforms because I do not believe it will result in my colleague's desired outcome. Here is why. I reformed the FDA in 1997 with the passage of the FDA Modernization Act, which I like to call FDAMA. One of the foundational principles of that legislation was to bring more certainty, predictability, and accountability to an agency that had lost its way, failing to bring new drugs and medical devices to market in the United States in a timely manner. Twenty-two years later, I am starting to see the implementation of major provisions of this law. Two decades after its passage, the FDA is finally putting key policies into practice that Congress demanded. Two decades is an unacceptable amount of time for Americans to wait. One of the components of FDAMA was the reauthorization of certain user fee programs. Over these past two decades, we have seen FDA's user fee agreements increase with each 5-year cycle, bringing more resources into the agency to review drug, biologic and device applications. When the drug industry first agreed to user fees in 1993, the fee to file a new drug application with the FDA was $100,000. Today, that fee is $2.1 million. To that end, FDA has struggled to uphold its end of the deal, falling behind in its commitment to hire the number of individuals the agency needs to actually review the applications that cost millions of dollars to file. The FDA continues to increase the amount of user fee dollars it requires to review applications, eroding the balance of congressional oversight provided by the appropriation of taxpayer dollars to the agency. I would caution my colleagues that we are currently experiencing the effects of a center at the FDA that receives 100 percent of its funds from user fees, the Center for Tobacco Products. The CTP has had 10 years and received over $5 billion in user fee resources. It has yet to finalize a single governing regulation for the products Congress tasked the CTP with regulating. Meanwhile, youth rates of vapor product use continue to increase and 2,000 Americans have fallen ill from the use of unregulated products. I have spoken many times on my concerns with the growth and development of FDA user fee programs because they have not resulted in the development of an FDA that keeps its promises. I promise my colleagues that the user fee program included in this bill will not be any different. While the Senate has wrestled with solutions to high drug costs for the last 18 months, we are voting to approve a bill that increases the development costs for one of Americans' cheapest options for care. The over-the-counter user fee bill provides millions of dollars in new industry funds to reform the OTC system at FDA, and the agency is asking for tens of millions of dollars to deal with a backlog of OTC monographs or recipes to create over the counter medications. User fee dollars are intended to go toward the review of applications, but I can assure my colleagues this is not the full story at the Agency today. Last year alone, $133 million in drug user fees went toward administrative expenses at the FDA, funds that may otherwise help to invest in new treatments or cures for Americans. This is very simple math, the more user fee programs we provide to the FDA, the less the FDA is accountable and responsive to Congress. Through FDAMA and more recently in the 21st Century Cures Act and the 2017 FDA user fee bill, I worked to rebalance the focus of the FDA, to reaffirm its authorities to regulate the cutting edge science facing the agency, and to better leverage and strategically invest its existing resources. So I cannot support legislation that degrades the progress we have made at the FDA.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also rise today to voice my strong support for the President's nomination of Professor Richard Myers to serve as a judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina. I might add for my colleagues that it is the longest court vacancy in the history of our court system. Professor Myers was reported out of committee on a strong bipartisan vote on October 31. I am pleased that the Senate will today consider his nomination. I want to give my colleagues some additional insight into a man whom we are asking them to vote on and that goes beyond his stellar legal credentials. The first thing I want my colleagues to know is that Professor Myers embodies a work ethic and diligence that we deserve in all of our judges. As an immigrant of Kingston, Jamaica, Professor Myers is a first-generation college student in his family. He worked his way through his undergraduate degree at the University of Wilmington, and after college he pursued a career in journalism. He worked for the Wilmington Morning Star. It was his investigative reporting that gave him the desire to earn his law degree. He graduated magna cum laude at the University of North Carolina School of Law and began a legal career as a clerk for Judge David Sentelle of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Second, Professor Myers will be a judge who understands the value of public service, having made a career change from practicing at a prestigious private firm to contributing to our Nation's justice system following the attacks of September 11, 2001. He said that his change in career ``was something I felt that I could do and that I owed to a country that had been really good to my family.'' He did this first in the Central District of California and then in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Professor Myers then took a different path of service at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, instructing the next generation of lawyers to be people who, in his own words, ``do the right thing every day.'' If confirmed, Professor Myers will serve on the Eastern District of North Carolina and, as Senator Tillis said, will hold court in Wilmington. Ironically, this court is currently meeting in the building that once housed the Wilmington Morning Star, his first job as a reporter. However, when considering Professor Myers' story, it seems fitting that someone with the character, work ethic, and servant's approach to life will be returning to the building of his first post-college job wearing the robe of a Federal judge. I have faith in Professor Myers' ability to do the right thing every day in this critically important role, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on his behalf to our colleagues. This is well-deserving, and he will be an incredibly effective serving judge in our district court system. I urge my colleagues to support him unanimously. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for objecting. I want to tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I appreciate their being here giving the passionate speeches they have because they made the case for Senator Alexander's bipartisan bill. You see, incorporated in this legislation is an initiative by Senator Jones and Senator Baldwin. Anybody who makes this out to be a partisan piece of legislation is just flat wrong. I have more historical Black colleges in North Carolina than any State can claim. When those chancellors and presidents have been presented with the question: Do you want 2 years or permanent, they all said permanent. They didn't know there was a permanent option. I say this to my three colleagues because none of them are on the committee: There is a permanent option for funding historically Black colleges. It is in the chairman's bill. We have been told that the FUTURE Act needs to be passed. The FUTURE Act is 2 years long. There is not much of a future there. We ought to match its title with the chairman's bill because this really does address the future. The No. 1 concern of historically Black institutions is predictability of funding. The chairman's bill is permanent. We are not going to come in here in 2 years and seek another reauthorization, but the benefit is that we are passing good legislation. Let me point out to my colleagues that it is important to read legislation. The FUTURE Act is funded by whacking the funding for the State guaranty agencies. By taking away the account maintenance fees that these State-based organizations receive to administer loans, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. These same students who are probably going to go to historically Black universities are also seeking State- based loans to do it, and we are providing the institutions 2 years of predictability on one side, and we are taking away the fees that are needed to administer the loans to allow them to be able to afford it. This is when it is important to look at the details. The way the FUTURE Act is funded, it actually hurts all institutions in North Carolina. Just today, I heard from the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority about how important this funding is for their daily functions in administering student loans. So I believe there is a better way to extend HBC funding but also not to hurt students. At the end of the day, our focus--the human face we see is the student who benefits from the educational opportunity they have been given. I would tell you that the FUTURE Act flunks on all counts. It is not permanent. It takes away from some because of how it is funded. We have an opportunity with Chairman Alexander's bill, the Student Aid Improvement Act, which would extend this title III funding permanently, but it would also include other bipartisan support changes in higher education, like expanding Pell grants. Every Member of the Senate has sat on this floor and said we have to do something on Pell grants. Here is your opportunity. It doesn't fit in the timeframe of passing a bill that passed the House that provides 2 years of funding, but we have a bipartisan piece of legislation. It simplifies the financial student financial aid process. You saw the chairman hold up the form. There is nobody who can defend the continuation of that form. It should be one page. The chairman of the Education Committee has tried for now 5 years to transition that to one page. You might look at us and say: Well, we can do this very quickly, but we need time to talk about this. We have taken 5 years to do this, and the people on the committee know this. This is the sixth time you have come to the floor and asked unanimous consent to do the exact same thing: Pass this; don't look at anything else. No, that is wrong, but it is not wrong because we are in the majority. It is wrong because it is not serving the students for whom we are supposed to be here setting policy. It simplifies aid award letters to students. It is actually easy to tell them they got their student aid. It is cumbersome. If you are on the committee, you understand the agony they go through. We are wiping all of that away. I believe Chairman Alexander has a better path. I also would like to remind my colleagues that while this funding should be extended, there has been no lapse. Let me state that again. It should be extended, and there has been no lapse. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter I received from Secretary DeVos, stating that the title III funding in question is available through September 2021, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR. On that basis alone, there is not the sense of urgency that some have come to the floor six times and suggested. I don't disagree with any of my colleagues that this is something we need to do now, but a 2-year temporary bill that doesn't accomplish any of the other reforms when we have had 5 years of bipartisan work--why would we not take this option? Why would we not sit down and find a way for Chairman Alexander's bill--which has many Democratic initiatives in it--to pass and provide historically Black colleges and universities with permanent funding, provide students with a one-page form to fill out for student aid, provide an expedited way for the notification when their loans have been approved? We are there, but for some reason, some want us to do a 2-year temporary fix. It is wrong. I thank the chairman for objecting. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I am here as living proof that he is not the Lone Ranger on this. The committee has worked diligently. We may not be as passionate as he is, but the committee has worked diligently to get higher education done. It is a farce to come in here and think that we are going to pass a 2-year House bill to fund historically Black colleges. Nobody has more historically Black colleges in their State than I do. What they want-- they want predictability, permanent funding. The chairman is willing to do that, but part of the condition to do that is to sit down and, now, quit talking and pass higher education. Reduce the FAFSA application to one page. Let these students go out--and their parents--and be able to fill this out and not miss an education because they can't go through the laborious process. What the chairman has laid on the table is reasonable. The committee has talked about it for years. Now it is time to act. It is not time to act on one little piece of it for temporary funding. It is time to provide permanent funding for that and to do the rest of higher education. As proud as I am of our being the home of the majority of Black colleges and universities, I also have about 70 other colleges and universities in North Carolina, and they are the beneficiaries of everything else that is in this education bill. Compromise is not about ``Take what I have'' and not give anything else. We have been trying to work, with the chairman and the ranking member working together, to find compromise for 5 years. Many times the chairman has come to me and said: I think we can do it this year. Well, we have to have willing partners on the other side of the aisle. Today is a live example of where it is either their way or no way. I hope we can get back, and, before we leave this year, we can get this package passed. It is really simple: Just commit to do what we all have sat down and talked about for 5 years. If there are minor changes that need to be made, let's make them in the next day or two. But to say that we are going to wait until next year and be here a year from now when that timeframe has run out, let me assure you, if the chairman is not here to object to this request, I will be here to object to this request. The time to talk is over. The time to act is now. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, Senator Thom Tillis and I would like to recognize the distinguished service of a great North Carolinian. After a 25-year career with the North Carolina Farm Bureau, Larry Wooten is stepping aside as president at the end of this year. President Wooten has been a steadfast advocate for agriculture and rural North Carolina. Larry has worked tirelessly to advance initiatives that strengthen and improve our State's rural communities. He is an exemplary servant leader that has always encouraged others to ``give back'' to the organizations, the communities, and the State that have provided them with opportunities for growth and advancement. He is a founding member of the NC Rural Economic Development Center where he served on the board of directors and executive committee. He has also served with distinction on the American Farm Bureau Board of Directors, the NC Board of Agriculture, the Agricultural Consortium Board, and the Rural Prosperity Task Force. He has served as chair of the American Farm Bureau Foreign Trade Committee and on USDA's Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee, APAC. Most significant, however, is the impact Wooten has had on North Carolina agriculture. In his role as president, he has been an effective voice for agribusiness and farmers--educating leaders and lawmakers about the State's largest economic sector and helping shape sound State and national policy for its future. A lifelong farmer from Pender County, North Carolina, Larry knows firsthand the positive impact of a sound agricultural education, research, and extension of that research onto his farm. Larry was a key influencer in the inclusion of NC State University's Plant Sciences Building in North Carolina's Connect NC Bond Referendum, as well as supporting the university's efforts to create new paths for more rural students to earn their NC State degree. Wooten, through his leadership of the Farm Bureau, has been a tireless supporter of NC A&T State University's Small Farms Initiative. All these efforts will create pathways for North Carolinians to have an oversized positive impact on farming and economic development in our state and nation. Larry Wooten is a remarkable leader who put the wellbeing of our state and its citizens above his own. It is through the work of selfless leaders like Larry that North Carolina has become a state where the weak have an opportunity to grow strong, and the strong can grow great.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my constituent and friend, John Falkenbury who is retiring this month as president and COO of the USO of North Carolina. John has served the USO in North Carolina successfully since March 2009. In this role, John has been responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the operations of the Sate headquarters, five USO fixed centers, and a mobile center in the areas in and surrounding Jacksonville, Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Raleigh-Durham, NC. These base and airport centers provide a full range of important services including critical resiliency, transition assistance, financial literacy, and children's educational programs; travel assistance at Charlotte Douglas International, Raleigh-Durham, and Fayetteville airports; deployment and homecoming operations; internet and video link access; military and civilian community outreach programs; fallen and Wounded Warrior escort services; holiday feasts; and extensive morale- boosting activities. Remarkably, in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, the USO of North Carolina was able to quickly arrange for nearly 1,000 care packages that were airlifted by Blackhawk helicopters to soldiers and civilians in the stricken areas. For 5 days, the mobile center deployed within 24 hours to establish a center in the Guard's primary and austere ``tent city'' near Lumberton and provided basic necessity items, a BBQ dinner, satellite, and internet services to over 400 soldiers. I also rise today to thank Mr. Falkenbury for his 20 years of service in the U.S. Army prior to his work for the USO. His military experience included assignments throughout the United States and in Germany, including battalion executive officer, 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX; chief of operations and later director of public affairs, 56th Field Artillery Command, Germany; director of public affairs, U.S. Army War College and Carlisle Barracks at Carlisle Barracks, PA. I am honored to congratulate John Falkenbury on his retirement from a career of distinguished public service and to thank him for his commitment to this great Nation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for accommodating the Intelligence Committee's intelligence authorization bill for 2020 to be included in the NDAA. I want to thank Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer for their understanding of why this is important to do. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee. We uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of intelligence programs that keep our Nation safe every day. We ensure our intelligence community has the tools and resources to protect America at home and abroad. So I am pleased that the Senate is considering our intelligence authorization bill as part of the NDAA. Our bill is 3 fiscal years in the making. In May, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously passed the bill with a vote of 15 to 0. Let me say that one more time. We unanimously passed the intelligence authorization bill 15 to 0. I appreciate Vice Chairman Warner's work and his collaboration to achieve that unanimous support of all 15 Members of the Intelligence Committee. The bill is a genuinely bipartisan product that protects the United States, strengthens our national security, and supports the activities of the men and women who are serving in uniform around the clock and around the globe. I would remind the Presiding Officer and the Members that it is the 15 Members of the Select Committee on Intelligence who give the other 85 Members of the Senate and the American people the assurance that our intelligence activities operate within the Constitution and/or the Executive orders of the President. The last intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2017 was enacted May 5, 2017. We have gone too long without critical resources and authorities that our intelligence agencies need to do their work and to keep our country safe from ever-expanding national security threats. Not only does our bill fund the U.S. intelligence activities across 17 agencies, but it enables congressional oversight of the intelligence community's classified activities. The bill ensures financial accountability for the programs we authorize and supports development of future capabilities to stay a step ahead of our adversaries. We do not have time to waste as the threats increase in scope and scale. All of this bipartisan oversight and accountability can exist only when we have a current, enacted intelligence authorization bill. Our intelligence agencies need the authorization, the direction, and the guidance from Congress to protect and defend America, its allies, and its partners. The agencies need these authorizations to collect, analyze, and utilize intelligence and to recruit and retain the personnel they need. Equally important, our authorization bill ensures that those activities abide by our Constitution and privacy laws. I would like to mention some specifics in the bill. First, it deters Russian and other foreign influence in our U.S. elections. It facilitates information sharing between Federal, State, and local election officials. These activities are essential to protecting the foundation of our democracy, our U.S. elections. Next, the bill increases oversight of Russian activities by requiring notifications of Russian Federation personnel travel in the United States, countering Russian propaganda activities within the United States, and by requiring threat assessments on Russian financial activities. In addition, the bill improves our security clearance processes by requiring the intelligence community to take steps to reduce backlogs, improving clearance information sharing and oversight and holding the executive branch responsible for modernizing clearance policies. The bill protects the intelligence community's supply chain from foreign counterintelligence threats from countries such as Russia and China. Importantly, the bill increases benefits for intelligence community personnel by enhancing pay scales for certain cyber security positions and increasing paid parental leave. Finally, it establishes increased accountability for our most sensitive programs. The Senate Intelligence Committee has acted carefully and comprehensively to oversee our intelligence community and its resources. But the current gap in authorities is unacceptable and, frankly, dangerous. Our enemies and adversaries do not take 2 years off. Congress cannot afford to let our intelligence authorization bills lapse any longer. I will end where I started. Without the collaboration and cooperation of the chairman and the ranking member and the entire SAS Committee, we wouldn't have this opportunity, but they recognize as well as we do that the security of America comes first. Any delay in authorizing the intelligence community bill or passing the NDAA is not what America expects us to do. They expect us to pass an authorization bill rapidly and with as much predictability as possible for the men and women in uniform and those who serve in the shadows of our intelligence community. An authorization bill that is done quickly and clearly makes their lives and futures more predictable. America's safety is too important for us to delay any longer authorizations for the military or for the intelligence community. I once again thank the chairman for his accommodations in this bill. I urge my colleagues in this body to pass this authorization bill as quickly as we possibly can and send a signal to the men and women who serve this country and defend this country that Congress is on their side and not in opposition to them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. I ask unanimous consent that we start the 4:30 votes now. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a gentleman by the name of Christian Cook. Christian Cook has been a vital member of the staff on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence for the last 8 years and has been my personal designee on the committee for the majority of that time. Throughout Christian's career, he has continuously put his country above himself and has been tirelessly dedicated to achieving excellence in all areas of his work across the national security spectrum. His passion to serve first led him to become a special agent for the U.S. Secret Service, where he expertly conducted investigations of violations of Federal criminal law and threats against the President and Vice President. He worked diligently to ensure that the safety and security of the President, the Vice President, and numerous foreign heads of state were without question. Christian also served a pivotal role in the design, preparation and execution of the security plan for the 2005 Presidential Inaugural Parade. Christian's focus on supporting national security efforts continued when he transitioned to the private sector. While working with Booz Allen Hamilton, he skillfully developed time- sensitive and complex tactical solutions for classified U.S. intelligence clients. With The Cohen Group, Christian provided strategic insights that enabled key clients to meet their evolving global security needs. At the USIS, he also seamlessly managed complex, classified programs for the U.S. intelligence community and for Federal law enforcement Agencies, substantially strengthening their counterterrorism capabilities. Christian subsequently joined the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is hard to know where to start to list his many accomplishments. In the last 8 years, he has done everything, and he has done it all to his own exceedingly high standards. He initially served with the audits team and was intricately involved in the committee's oversight of the U.S. intelligence community's 17 intelligence Agencies. By conducting thorough reviews of specific intelligence programs, his expert knowledge and deep insight enabled the committee to identify items of concern and outline proposals for their improvement. It quickly became clear to me that Christian had an unsurpassed capability to conduct intelligence oversight but also a unique ability to analyze complex challenges and identify solutions. At that time, I personally selected him to be my designee on the committee. As my designee, he expertly analyzed and advised me on the myriad of threats across the intelligence landscape. He also flawlessly facilitated the development, passage, and implementation of critical intelligence-related legislation in this body. Several of Christian's colleagues have had the privilege to work with him for years. When asked what words best describe Christian, numerous clear themes resound, such as dedication, his passion for our Nation and its security, very high standards, devotion to mission, and for always ensuring that the trains run on time. Without fail, Christian is the person all staff goes to for insight, for guidance, and assistance with getting their job done. His colleagues appreciate his honesty, his integrity, and his ability to disarm anyone with a laugh and a warm word of appreciation. When I became chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Christian was my clear choice to serve as my senior policy adviser and deputy staff director. In these critical roles, Christian expertly led the development and implementation of the strategic direction for the 15 Members of the U.S. Senate who sit on this committee and the committee staff. Regularly arriving at the office long before sunrise, he directed the day-to-day planning and execution of the committee's key oversight functions, to include establishing and managing the committee's complex open and closed hearing schedule, facilitating the confirmation process for numerous Presidential nominees, and managing the ongoing interactions between members of the committee and the leaders of 17 intelligence Agencies. He also adeptly coordinated the collaboration with other congressional committees and managed the daily activities of the committee's professional staff and administrative staff. Separately and concurrently, Christian also continued to serve as my intelligence and national security advisor, providing keen insight and valuable advice on the full range of national security challenges. Throughout my time as chairman of the committee, I have always known I could count on Christian to provide me with critical background and sage advice on every issue, without fail, thanks in part to his uncanny ability to call to mind any facts he picked up in the last 8 years. I note for the record the length of this list of responsibilities reflects Christian's hard work, long hours, and dedication. It also highlights the value he brings to me and to the committee. Christian has the foresight to anticipate problems, the instinct to pick the right time to drive forward, and the superior judgment to know the path right ahead. Christian's tireless service was made possible not just because of his own dedication and character but because he was confident in the love and support of his wife Christina and the adoration of three young and precious sons--Casson, Callen, and Caulder. For their own sacrifice and for their willingness to share Christian with the committee, we are indebted to them. I might say, on a personal note, at times he could, on weekends or breaks, be home with his three boys and his wife, instead he has been on an airplane with me flying somewhere around the world that nobody would consider a vacation site--traveling halfway around the world and back in less than 3\1/2\ days, and that was done regularly. Now he will have an opportunity to get some normalcy to his life. Christian's unwavering support to me has been impeccable. I am delighted to have the opportunity to publicly thank him and to note my personal appreciation for his dedication. He has earned our deepest respect, our admiration, and we will miss his devotion and his friendship. His positive impact on U.S. national security and his legacy within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will remain for years to come. I know I join the other 14 members in publicly saying to Christian that we wish him great success in the next chapter of life. We hope this one gives him the opportunity to see his children grow and to grow his relationship with his wife. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I was not next in the queue. Senator Gardner was, but since I don't see him, I am going to jump in, in great Senate fashion. I rise today to educate my colleagues and the American people on actions that are currently being taken by the Food and Drug Administration. It deals with one specific thing that is familiar to all of us: combustible cigarettes. It revolves around a decision the FDA has just announced earlier this year: their plan to ban menthol combustible products. Their rationale for doing this is that menthol is the doorway for youth usage of tobacco products. Let me start and end at the same point. I am going to start with this chart. This chart displays, from 2011 to 2017, the CDC's annual study of youth usage of tobacco products. Specifically, this one addresses the use of menthol cigarettes, where we have seen a reduction of 5.8 percent to 2.5 percent. Somehow, as this chart displays, we have had a significant reduction in the use of menthol products for youth in this country. With this trend line, we are now making the case, as the Federal Government, that we have to ban this product because it is what is fueling an increase in youth usage. Over the same period, youth usage of combustible cigarettes has dropped by 12.5 percent. By any standard we would look at, we would say that we have an education program in America that is actually having the right impact here. Between what we educate, parental guidance, and school pressures, the usage of our youth is going down. This would be something that typically we would praise, but, no, an administration that came in primarily saying that we are here to reduce the regulation of the Federal Government, has picked one area that not only is it not reducing, but it is disregarding the trends that we see, and it is coming out with new regulations that, at the end of the day, are going to impact adults for whom we haven't either provided the tools to stop using combustible cigarettes or who have made a conscious choice that they want to use a legal product they know up front is harmful to their health. To successfully talk about this, I have to hit rewind and go back 10 years, because it was 10 years ago, in 2009, that the Congress of the United States took up the Tobacco Control Act. I will say that it was a controversial debate. I spent hours on this floor. Here are some of the points I made in 2009--that H.R. 1256, which was the Tobacco Control Act, did not provide a pathway to market for new tobacco products. New tobacco products were products that technologically we could create that provided a level of satisfaction for its users but didn't have the harmful effects of the combustion of tobacco. Innovative products--we see them in the market place today. They are there not because of the guidance of the Food and Drug Administration, with over 10 years of total control over the tobacco industry. They are there because the marketplace demanded it. Consumers said: Give me a tool to switch. We have gone from gum to patches, to now electronic cigarettes. It was believed, at the time, that because we centralized tobacco regulation within an Agency that understands how to use scientific information to make decisions, they would look at trend lines like this and would make decisions that were consistent with it--that as technology became more available, we could determine how to put a heart valve in with it being less invasive through the use of technology. Over 10 years, we haven't figured out how to write a foundational rule to tell companies how they need to apply to get an e-cigarette approved. When we went into this 10 years ago, HHS claimed that the Department would need $100 million to establish an Agency solely focused on tobacco products. We did them one better. We imposed user fees on the tobacco industry. For every piece of tobacco product that is sold, they paid to the FDA a user fee on that product. It is that user fee that has funded the FDA effort. In 2019, the FDA received $712 million in user fees from the industry. Let me put that in perspective. Everybody who buys a tobacco product is paying a higher price today so that this money can go to the FDA so the FDA, hopefully, will create a foundational pathway that will allow them to approve and receive applications for reduced-harm products. It is very consistent with this trend line of money we pumped into education to reduce youth usage and to encourage adults to switch, but until it is illegal in the United States, adults ought to have the freedom to choose the products they want. Unfortunately, 10 years later, we are in no better position than we were 10 years ago, where the choices are combustible products or products that have yet to even have an established pathway by the FDA. Those who are venturing out today offering e-cigarettes and alternatives are doing it with the understanding that tomorrow the FDA could walk in and say: We are going to pull this product off the marketplace because it hasn't been approved. Yet the FDA has never created the pathway and shown an individual or a company the application process to get a product like this approved. Ten years ago, before TCA was signed into law, there were 14 Agencies that regulated tobacco in the United States. It was the Treasury Department, the Transportation Department, Commerce, Justice, the Executive Office of the President, HHS, Education, Labor, and the General Services Administration. It is now consolidated into one. You would think that we would do a much better job of doing it. I am going to share with you the conclusion, and I will come back to this a couple of times. There is an age restriction on the purchase of tobacco today. It is 18. We can have a debate as to whether it should be 21. We can have a debate about moving the age. But when an agency that has the sole control of tobacco cannot enforce the age requirement for it to be purchased, you have to ask yourself, by taking away options that adults have, does that in any way, shape, or form affect youth usage when the youth are illegally accessing the product today? You see, back when 14 agencies controlled it--and being a former Governor, the Presiding Officer may remember some of this--States actually enforced because the Federal mandate was to enforce the age requirements. They do it on alcohol today, and in some places, they do it on tobacco. But when we centralized all of the authority at the FDA, the FDA apparently gave up on the age requirement, and they only focused on things like this, where they can manipulate through government regulation, through onerous actions on the consumers, what they want to accomplish, which I would suggest to my colleagues and to the American people is not driven by facts or science; it is driven by politics. It is driven by those who want to see this product eliminated. I will say what I said 10 years ago: I am ready for the debate. Let's bring it to the floor, and we can talk about it and debate it. This is eerily similar to Canada a few years ago when they banned menthol products. How did they follow that up? This year, they legalized cannabis. Maybe that is the route we are on. We can have that debate at any point, but right now, that is illegal in the United States, and we put up with it with States that have legalized it. I am not sure it is a good move for adults, and I am not sure it is a good move for our youth. It certainly has the same combustible concerns we have with tobacco products. But there is a difference between the two-- this is legal. We have agreed that if you are over 18, you can choose to use it--with an extensive educational campaign to tell everybody why it is harmful to their health. Also 10 years ago, I offered an amendment to create a department within HHS known as the Tobacco Harm Reduction Center, requiring public ranking of tobacco products according to their risk. That amendment would have allowed for the development of new products to encourage individuals to give up traditional tobacco products and turn to less harmful products. I remember the debate well. My colleagues who were opposed to me in the debate said: If we centralize this at FDA, the natural reaction will be that they will migrate to not only the application being understood as to how to process it, but they will be inclined to approve those products quickly because of the alternative that we know today. Here we are 10 years later, and we have no transitional, foundational pathway for a manufacturer to know how to apply to the FDA or what standards they have to meet. It is almost as if we are going to make it up as we go along. Therefore, these products are on the marketplace, but there is no application process at the FDA. They are susceptible to millions of dollars of investment being yanked tomorrow because somebody wakes up and says: My gosh. Youth have started using e- cigarettes. The Presiding Officer knows there is an 18-year-old age requirement on e-cigarettes as well. Is the answer to that to remove all of that product for every American because we can't figure out a way to enforce an age limitation? I would suggest to my colleagues, if that is where we are headed, we are going to eliminate some products that will cause chaos in this country. I suggest that this will not cause chaos, but this will be the wrong signal to send to adults who prefer to use this product, and we do it under the false pretense that we are doing this because of America's youth. America's youth are doing the right thing. They are reducing their usage of combustible products. They are not enticed by things like menthol. Yet they are the ones whom we are using to be the fig leaf of all this new government regulation that the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to do. Within the office of tobacco control, there are 778 employees. There are close to 1,000 employees in the center for drug review. Put that in perspective--all the drugs that are out there, all the applications they are going through. We have almost as many people in the tobacco control agency as we do in drug review. Well, the one thing I can assure you about drug review is that they actually do process applications. It is long. It is laborious. We would like to speed that up. Under the latest PDUFA reauthorization, the user fee for drugs, there is a 304-day average to process an application. Well, the review of a modified risk--if you change the risk of a combustible, if you have decided as a manufacturer that you are going to change the paper on the cigarette because there is technology that assures you that paper is not going to burn and somebody is not going to fall asleep and burn down a house--when they change that, that has to go through a modification review at the FDA. How long does a modification review currently take? It takes 360 days--56 days longer than that of a new drug application actually working its way through the Food and Drug Administration. They can't claim there are not enough people. There are ample people, and the FDA has hired 267 employees in tobacco control since 2017. The numbers may actually be identical now. As I said earlier, in 2019 the FDA will receive $712 million in user fees from the industry. Of the $582 million in user fees collected by the FDA in 2018, which we have just completed, $205 million originated from the sale of combustible menthol cigarettes. So this one proposal is going to reduce by one-third the amount of money that the regulatory agency has. I might share with the Presiding Officer--because I think he would find this of great interest, having left the State of Florida as Governor--that there is a tax revenue piece tied to this. A ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes will generate a significant revenue loss for State, Federal, and local governments. Last year, menthol sales brought in $4.1 billion in Federal excise tax, it brought in $9.1 billion in State and local excise tax, and it brought in $1.8 billion in State and local sales tax. That is a total of $15.2 billion. Two-thirds of it is--State and local governments will lose over $10 billion in revenue from this one decision, the elimination of a choice for adults--all under the belief and sales pitch to the American people that this is going to stop youth usage of tobacco. Bull. We are not going to stop youth usage until we enforce the age limit, whether it is 18, 20, 21, wherever we set it. We eliminated enforcement of the age when 10 years ago we consolidated all of this into one entity at the Food and Drug Administration. So my suggestion to my colleagues is we have gotten no benefit out of this. If anything, we have lost because we don't enforce age. We have gotten no new innovative products. We are not even on the horizon looking at a proposed pathway. There is not a pathway. I question whether there is even one perceived, even though we have 1,000 people working at CTP--soon to be cut by one-third by their own proposal that is going to eliminate user fees based upon the loss of sales of menthol products. So I say to my colleagues, it is extremely important that you understand that when Commissioner Gottlieb announced his reform initiative for the regulation of tobacco on July 28, 2017--and I recognize the fact that we move from administration to administration, we move from Commissioner to Commissioner, and most come in and say: The last guy did it all wrong; I am going to do it differently. I hold him to his word on July 28 when he said that. He said in that announcement: The goals of the new approach will include the development of foundational regulations to provide the rules of the road for the review of tobacco product applications and a path to market for less harmful products as part of the solution to end the cycle of disease and death. Let me repeat what I said earlier. The FDA has yet to issue a single foundational rule as called for in July of 2017. The proposed version of one SE rule is currently under review at the OMB. If you are now the single agency in charge of the regulation of tobacco and you are looking at how to reduce the harm of the product, wouldn't your focus first be on how you approve technological products that meet the threshold of reduced risk? If you saw an increase in youth usage, would you not look at a period of time, like 7 years, and ask yourself, is this an anomaly? We will have a report next month from CDC of their annual tobacco survey. There must be something alarming in it relative to youth usage of e-cigarettes alone, and I don't dispute what they found. If, in fact, we find that menthol took a spike up and they say 11 percent of our youth are using it, I will question the science of their survey, with the trend that has consistently built over the last 7 years. But I would also make this point: If there is an age limitation on e- cigarettes, just as there is on combustibles, are we not smart to first go in and find an enforcement mechanism for age if, in fact, our concern is that our youth are using the product? In essence, what they have done with the menthol rule is they suggested: We don't want to enforce the age thing. That is hard. What is easy for us to do is to do something that is political. It doesn't change much, but we can go out and say ``Look at what we did. We eliminated access to this product.'' The majority of the people who use this product are adults. The tax revenues at the State, local, and Federal levels are huge. As a matter of fact, one of the settlements that were made prior to the Tobacco Control Act was the Master Settlement Agreement. That was before the Presiding Office was Governor and before some in this room might have been born. It was in 1998, and it was a significant change for an industry. They agreed not only to defray Medicaid costs at the State level; they agreed to an annual payment. That annual payment was more than $200 billion in manufacturer funds to defray the cost of healthcare to States through Medicaid resulting from the use of tobacco products and to develop cessation programs to get Americans to quit smoking. Let me suggest to you that it is not the industry that is fighting this; it is the industry that is fueling this. They are funding it. They are the ones funding the CTP. They are the ones funding the education programs. They are actually the ones that are supplementing Medicaid funding in States. Well, let me say to Commissioner Gottlieb and to those bright folks over at CTP: When you do this, you are eliminating a portion of that $200 billion that is calculated based upon the sale of products in the marketplace, and you are reducing the shared cost of Medicaid. For many States that have diverted that money to other things, you are reducing economic development. I think one State was building sidewalks with tobacco money in one large city. I could be critical of how they have done it and what they have used it for, but I do know this: I went far enough in math to know that if you reduce the amount of sales and if the payment is figured based on sales, then you reduce the take States and cities are going to get from taxes or from the settlement. So I say to my colleagues, concentrate on this number--2.5 percent was the last number the CDC came out and said that of our youth, this is the percentage that use menthol products. We should not quit until that number is zero. If you want to make that number zero for youth under 18 today for all tobacco products, I have the answer: enforce the law. Hold retailers accountable. Do the same raids on tobacco that you do with alcohol. We probably will never get to zero, but we might do better than 2.5 percent of menthol or 8.5 percent of overall tobacco usage. I want to summarize because I know there are other colleagues who wish to speak. I assure my colleagues, and I assure Commissioner Gottlieb and all the individuals who work at the CTP at the Food and Drug Administration, I am going to be down here every week. These speeches are going to get longer and longer and they will get more and more detailed because I want my colleagues who aren't here to understand the debate we went through, the decisions we made, and the assumptions that were made for consolidating these Agencies into one Agency versus multiple Agencies, and what they said would happen. I can give my own report card, and I am giving it to you. They have done zero. All of these matters about reduced-harm products that the FDA was going to set up, transitional, foundational rules don't exist. It is 10 years later. It is 2 years after the current Commissioner got in and said: We are going to do this. Well, I am still waiting. Rather than produce things which adults can take advantage of--tools to get off of combustible cigarettes--what is the action all of a sudden they take? To everybody's amazement, they said: We are going to ban menthol from the marketplace. I mentioned Canada earlier. They banned menthol and, 3 years later, they approved cannabis as a legal product. I am not accusing the administration of having that pathway, though it does raise suspicion because it is not the administration of reduced regulation and onerous government when you see what the FDA is proposing to a legal consumer product, but I will state that the Commissioner announced not long ago that they were beginning to review products that were derived from cannabis, oils, and other things that they thought they could safely approve for use in the United States. Well, Mr. Commissioner, you are only fueling my fears that you are following the roadmap Canada followed; that this is all a bait-and- switch situation. Not only is it not valid to suggest we are doing this because of our youth, you are doing it to prove that the Food and Drug Administration can overreach and not be slapped and that somewhere down the road you may come to the same conclusion Canada did; rather than enforce cannabis and illegal drugs, let's just approve them. Let's make them legal. Boy, that is a sad day. It is shocking to me as one who has been engaged in this debate for now 25 years. We are extremely worried about the combustible impact of cigarettes-- and we should be--but States don't have any concerns about the combustible nature of cannabis. There are no filters on it. There are no regulations on the paper that is used, even though it is legal in some States. As a matter of fact, we have less research on cannabis in this country than any legal product that exists, including bandaids. There is more research and development and approval that goes into bandaids than goes into cannabis in the States where it is legal for either recreational or medical use. So I would state to Commissioner Gottlieb, in the insane world you have created, if you are going to head down this road, No. 1, expect Congress to weigh in but, No. 2, understand that if you begin to loosen up the legal use of cannabis, then we are going to hold you to the same standards you display for everyone else, everything that you hold a drug manufacturer to, that you hold a drug device manufacturer to, and, quite honestly, that you hold the tobacco industry to. Don't think you are going to slide this by and there are not going to be regulations or that we are going to adopt the Canada model or we are going to continue letting States do what they are doing. If you are worried about somebody burning a product and inhaling it into their lungs, there better be as much concern about that as it relates to marijuana use. Why is there no effort--given that this is legal from a recreational and medical standpoint--from the FDA to study this and put the science out? It only suggests to me that science is not important. Yet this is the institution that is the gold standard for the use of science. There is a scientific reason for why it takes 304 days to get a new drug approved. There is no scientific reason that it takes 360 days to approve as acceptable changing the paper on a combustible cigarette. I am not creating this pathway, the FDA did. It started with the U.S. Congress providing this much authority to one Agency, an Agency they believed could do everything. Because they are not funded by the U.S. Congress for this piece--they are funded by the industry--do you know what? They think Congress has no say in it. Do you know who funds 75 percent of new drug applications that are filed, reviewed, and approved? The drug industry. Seventy-three percent of applications they review and approve for the medical device industry are funded by the medical device industry. With regard to generic drugs, which we all want more of because they drive down the cost of drugs in America, all of a sudden the FDA has a backlog that is years-long for approving generic applications. They said, if only we had a user fee agreement for generic drugs, and that user fee agreement is over 60 percent of the cost of approving a generic drug. What has happened? The backlog is every bit as big today as it was when the user fee was created. So if my colleagues wonder why I am standing in the way of a user fee agreement for over-the-counter drugs, it is because I figured this out. They get funded by the industry. Their actual work goes down. The American people pay the tab for the user fees that are sent to the FDA, while the price of drugs, devices, cigarettes, and over-the-counter drugs goes up. When Congress stands up and says explain this, they look at us--and we control 25 percent of their budget for any given center-- and they say: We are going to go talk to the people who pay 75 percent of our budget, not to you. The last thing I will share is that 25 years ago it wasn't like this. Twenty-five years ago, we appropriated everybody's budget in the administration. One hundred percent of the money for the FDA was appropriated by Congress. When I, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, picked up the phone and called the FDA, they didn't want to answer my question over the phone. They wanted to come to my office that day and answer it. They wanted to actually solve the problem. I just went through a period of time where I gave FDA 2 weeks to respond to letters and, in some cases, it took a month to get a response. They don't think we play a role in this. Yet we set legislation priorities for the country. I would suggest to my colleagues that this is an isolated example, that is true, but it is an example of a much bigger problem within the Food and Drug Administration and this Commissioner; that Congress is insignificant to them; that you can be called up to provide oversight in front of a committee, and you can say whatever because we have no clarity and no transparency inside the system. So they can tell me the review time has gone down 47 days since last year. I don't know whether it is accurate. I can only tell you this. I don't see it in the numbers of third parties that do reviews. I see actions such as this with no science to substantiate it, and I have to question the science they use across the landscape of products they review. The Food and Drug Administration regulates 25 cents of every dollar of the U.S. economy. This ought to be something that not just my colleagues but the American people should be concerned with. If you believe my argument is half accurate and this is ill-advised, for God's sake, pick up the phone and call the White House switchboard and tell the President, who came in to reduce regulation, that there is an Agency that is not listening. Not only is there an Agency that is not listening, the President has a Commissioner that went on Twitter, and there was a tweet that said the President's numbers are going down, and the Commissioner ``liked'' the tweet. Maybe I will say that a few more times so the President will see it or hear it, but maybe somebody is listening who will tell him. I am not interested in a single individual's political goal. This has to be an individual political goal because there is no science to substantiate what they are doing, and the losers are the localities and States in taxes and States in settlement payments but, more importantly, adults who choose this product because it is legal. Now the FDA says, with the strike of a pen: We can eliminate it. It is no longer a choice you have. That is not the America I signed up for, but I did sign up to come here and fight for things I thought weren't in the best long-term interests of the country. This is at the top of my list right now. You will hear me often. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also mourn Herb's loss. It is odd that I would be here to protect his ability to have that cigarette in his mouth as he was negotiating. I rise today to discuss the recent announcement by the Food and Drug Administration to move forward with a ban on menthol cigarettes. This announcement, to say the least, is surprising. In an administration claiming to decrease regulation on the American people, this announcement works completely counter to that goal--increasing regulation and decreasing the choices for adult consumers in America. Making matters worse, the announcement comes from an Agency that the American people trust. They trust them to make decisions based upon the most sound and reliable science available. Unfortunately, the FDA has not provided a sound scientific argument to move forward with the ban on one type of product that Americans consume understanding fully the risk. On November 30, 2018, I raised this concern with the Food and Drug Administration. As a part of their announcement, the FDA claimed that their regulatory actions are based on information released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. When I asked for the data supporting this menthol decision, I was informed that this data would be made available later this year. I also asked the FDA to explain to me whether the Agency has determined that menthol cigarettes make more children try smoking or whether these products make it more difficult for children to stop smoking. I pause here because I am sure the Presiding Officer is remembering that it is illegal for people under 18 to purchase tobacco products. The FDA simply informed me that the information I requested would be part of a proposed rule available for stakeholder comment. Now, I think you would agree that it is highly unusual for a science- based Agency to refuse to provide the data informing its regulatory decisions to a seated Member of the U.S. Congress. This should set off alarm bells. Any product regulated by the FDA might fall into this category of ``no Member of Congress being able to know.'' Well, it may seem odd, but the FDA regulates 25 cents of every dollar of the U.S. economy--no wonder it takes so long and costs so much for new drugs and devices to come to market. As a result, I did my own research. The chart behind me, with 2017 data from the CDC, shows that children's use of traditional menthol cigarettes has decreased 3 percent since 2011. Let me say that again. Since 2011, usage by youth in America of menthol cigarettes has reduced from 5.8 percent to 2.5 percent. This data runs counter to the need for increased regulation and decreased choices for consumers and calls into question the FDA's own decision. In 2009, Congress debated the regulation of tobacco products. I was here for the entire debate and was an active participant in the dialogue. I alone provided over 16 hours of remarks on the Senate floor so that my colleagues understood my concerns with this type of legislation and to ensure, quite frankly, that the voice of North Carolinians was clearly and deeply understood in the U.S. Senate. One issue discussed during that debate was actually the banning of flavors in cigarettes, including menthol. Congress struggled to come to a consensus on this issue, offering many iterations at the time of the legislation, taking different approaches to the ban of any, all, or none of the flavors available in cigarettes at the time. Ultimately, the decision was made for the FDA to thoroughly study the effects of menthol cigarettes. The Agency issued its report in 2011 and commissioned a third-party entity to study the science behind menthol cigarettes, for which a report was issued in 2013. Now, what resulted from the results of that study? For the remainder of President Obama's terms in office, which ended in 2016, their FDA never attempted to move a menthol ban. Why? Because the results of that information--that scientific data--did not substantiate what, in fact, that would accomplish. In the 5 years since the publication of these studies, the science has not changed to justify the ban of an entire product category by the FDA. Each year, the CDC issues the latest data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey. This survey asks about 20,000 children about their tobacco use, and it has been conducted since 1999. This survey covers details of middle and high schoolers' use and exposure to a variety of tobacco products, and it includes specifics on the use of different product categories, like traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes, as well as data on the percentage of survey participants who tried menthol. The CDC data shows that there has been a 12-point decrease in the percentage of children trying traditional cigarettes since 2011. Let me state that again. The CDC's own data shows that there has been a 12-percent reduction in the percentage of children trying traditional cigarettes since 2011. Now, this is good news. The use of cigarettes among children is decreasing, showing that our education and our public health efforts are, in fact, working. As I mentioned before, the survey shows that the use of menthol cigarettes by children has also declined, decreasing 3 percent since 2011. Even the FDA's own data shows the decline in children's use of traditional cigarettes. Now, this chart I have basically shows that traditional cigarettes have fallen 12 percent since 2011, compared to the latest survey data of 2017. It is probably difficult for some to see, but the red arrow pointing down certainly indicates a decrease. The red arrow pointing up shows an increase. Now, that should be alarming, and it is an area that we will talk about in a second. But the solution here is simple. Data released by the CDC and the FDA provide a clear marker that the FDA's focus should be on areas where children's use is increasing rather than in areas where we are already making significant progress. I might pause and say that if a product is illegal for somebody under 18, I don't know how you ban a product and believe that it wasn't already banned if it was illegal. The FDA's decision does not pass the commonsense test. It is time for the FDA to focus on the things where there is an increase for children. I give them examples: marijuana, opioids, fentanyl, meth. We have debated it on the floor of the Senate. While we are looking at one thing and the FDA has got us focused on it, look at how many children's lives are devastated in this country--again, with illegal products. One can only conclude by what we are doing, which is banning menthol, that we are emulating Canada. Several years ago they banned menthol, and last year they legalized marijuana. That may be the route we are on. I am not sure. Nothing surprises me anymore in Washington. June of this year will mark the 10th anniversary of the Tobacco Control Act, which provided the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products. The law gave the FDA broad authority to regulate these products and was intended to provide a path forward for innovative products--tobacco products, as well--placing hope in advancements in research and development to provide new options for American consumers that are down the continuum of risk for those individuals who choose, potentially replacing their use of combustible cigarettes with electronic ones. The FDA does not have a single governing regulation for the review and the approval of the products Congress put under its regulatory watch. Almost a decade after enactment and more than $5 billion later, the FDA has failed to issue one foundational regulation governing the viable review of any tobacco product. Let me state that again. Almost a decade after enactment and $5 billion later, the FDA has failed to issue a foundational regulation governing the viable review of any tobacco product. This failure would be unacceptable from any other regulated industry. The Center for Tobacco Products receives hundreds of millions of user-fee dollars each year and is still falling behind the other product review centers at the FDA. The FDA has a responsibility to develop clear rules of the road for innovation and potentially less harmful tobacco products--some of the very products that are under scrutiny today because they are in regulatory limbo 10 years later. The Agency has had ample time to act and, instead, focused its efforts and resources on banning a legally marketed product without the data to support their own actions. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at the FDA's decision to ban menthol cigarettes. The FDA chose to decrease choices for the American consumer while their counterpart, the CDC, continues to show a decline in children's use of menthol cigarettes. These two Agencies should, in fact, be in alignment, using the CDC's highly regarded public health data to fully inform the FDA's approach to regulate these products. The information it released on November 18, 2018, shows a steep increase in the use of all tobacco products. However, the FDA has not provided the data to show that traditional cigarettes have contributed to this increase from 2017 to 2018 in any way or that menthol played a part in this increase. If it had--I will take you back to the original chart--we would see a significant change in the trend line of menthol usage of youth. I would bet my colleagues today that when you get to 2018, you will continue to see a decline in menthol. It begs the question of whether the leadership at FDA is making decisions with any regard for years of public health data, coming at the cost of choices for the American people. This argument comes down to whether you believe Americans have a right to choose. As long as I am an elected official, I will advocate for adult consumers to have these choices. I realize this is the floor of great debate, and I am not scared to have a debate on whether tobacco is a legal product. As long as it is a legal product, why would we encumber the consumer with choice when, in fact, we see a trend line like this as it relates to youth? So I say to the FDA and I say to my colleagues: Don't hide behind our children and tell us that is the reason, because the data doesn't support it. The data says that what we are doing in education, what we are doing as parents is convincing the next generation that this is not a product they want to use. But when you ban menthol cigarettes, you take many adults who choose to purchase and to use a legal product with full understanding of the risk and tell them: No, we are going to eliminate the choice of this product. That is wrong. It is wrong for Congress to do; it is wrong for a regulatory Agency to do; and it is a blemish on this administration to announce that they are reducing regulation when, in fact, they are going out and instituting some of the most onerous regulations on America's consumers, the American people who choose. I urge my colleagues to become educated on this. I will give them an opportunity on multiple occasions for the balance of this year to hear more about this industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Rules of Procedure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to add my thanks to my colleague from Arizona. I came to speak on something else, and I will say this: If there is one individual I have tried to emulate since the day I came to the U.S. Senate, it has been Jon Kyl. He represented Arizona well, but, more importantly, he represented the Kyl name well. Jon, I am grateful that you would come back for this short period. Godspeed as you leave.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today--and it was my intent to ask unanimous consent with my colleague, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee--for the Senate to confirm Bill Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Bill has served our Nation for over 23 years, including service as a supervisory special agent and assistant section chief with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Prior to joining the NCSC, Bill served as the chief of counterespionage at the CIA. Bill has served honorably as the Director of the NSC since June of 2014, before the position required Senate confirmation, necessitating a vote by the U.S. Senate. Here is a guy who has served for 3\1/2\ years, and we changed the statute and said that this is a position that the Senate needs to confirm in the future, and, all of a sudden, the same guy who has been there is now being held up. Intelligence threats facing our Nation are numerous. They are growing, and they are significant. Bill is experienced, professional, and understands the threats through real world experience. We need a Director who can ably lead our Nation's counterintelligence security activities during a period of unprecedented threats. We need someone who can actively and effectively engage and educate the private sector on the threats--something Bill has done time and again. Director Evanina was unanimously approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in May, and it is time this body moved forward. We cannot continue to let politics or nongermane issues get in the way of confirming good people. I ask this body to confirm Bill Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence Security Center without further delay. I yield to my vice chairman of the Intel Committee.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Executive Calendar No. 1111, Robert H. McMahon.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Daines and Gardner for their critical support for backing this program. If there is only one takeaway anybody has from anything I say today, let it be this: This costs zero in taxpayer money, zero. For those who are budget hawks, it is a great bill. In June, the three of us, along with some of our colleagues, convened in front of the Capitol to commemorate the 100th day until LWCF expires. It is unfortunate we are here today, less than a week away from its expiration, with no extension of this program. I believe we ultimately will win this fight because our colleagues know it is the right thing to do. As Senator Daines pointed out, the majority of the House of Representatives and the majority of the U.S. Senate is supportive of this. It costs zero in taxpayer money, and it provides so much at the State and Federal level. I appreciate my colleague's comments on public access. That is usually the focus of my LWCF monologues. Not a lot of my constituents are thinking about outdoor recreation right now; they are dealing with Hurricane Florence and her aftermath. As you all know, North Carolina recently experienced a hurricane of epic proportion. Flooding has reached record levels. People's homes and businesses are in disrepair, and flood levels continue today at dangerously high levels in some areas. Obviously, much of this is unavoidable. If we ensure our infrastructure is well positioned to deal with major influxes of water, we can minimize the devastating impact we saw from Florence. I am not referring necessarily just to bridges, dams, and roads; I am talking about our natural infrastructure. If we strategically create green spaces in our cities and in our river basins, we can mitigate some of the flooding. Guess what. LWCF dollars help us do that. A great example is the South Cape May Meadows Preserve and the surrounding Cape May National Wildlife Refuge which LWCF helped create in New Jersey. The State of New Jersey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Nature Conservancy have worked together to restore wetlands, which now include engineered structures, as well as natural features like marshes, dunes, and wetlands. This wetland area has since withstood several major storms, including Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. The wetland was positioned in such a way that it was able to absorb enough of the impact and water in order to protect many of the surrounding communities. In 2016, a study by the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with a risk modeler for the insurance industry, showed that the marsh wetlands saved over $650 million in property damages during Hurricane Sandy alone and reduced annual property losses by nearly 20 percent in Ocean County, NJ. This isn't just about protecting lands and public access; it is about those things we can do that provide a better community--a lower cost of insurance, a better way to mitigate some of nature's challenges. Did I mention it is also a bird sanctuary? Did I mention it is a recreational destination? It also serves as critical infrastructure in times of disaster, like the one my State is dealing with today. More and more, our civil engineers are incorporating these pieces of green infrastructure. At first glance, one would naturally think they are for aesthetic reasons. In Charlotte, a series of greenways wind through the city. One of the greenways, Four Mile Creek Greenway, used an LWCF grant to develop the land into a multipurpose area, rather than actual acquisition of the land. It has trails winding through it. It is home to hundreds of different animal species. Yet it is also used for natural drainage. It absorbs water. It slows down the water with the vegetation and the winding creekbeds. Our cunning civil engineers have us thinking they are building a park, but what they are really building is a flood mitigation program. As you can see, LWCF is used for projects in our cities and our rural areas--big and small projects. Ultimately, the biggest filters of water in North Carolina are our own natural forest and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Healthy forests in these public lands help us to slow the flow of water, and we need those units to have the integrity so they can do their job of feeding healthy river systems that are much less prone to that flooding. In conjunction with traditionally engineered structures, preserving strategic pieces of land in their natural state or restoring others to better take in water saves us money in the long run. Ocean County, NJ, proved that. I can go on for hours. I can go on with hundreds of examples. There aren't a lot of facts I can give you about the program that I haven't already laid out in the past opportunities to be on the floor, but I think it is useful to end my speech by restating the original mission laid out 54 years ago when LWCF was created--authorized for 25 years, reauthorized for 25 years, and then only reauthorized for 5. What do we want? We want permanent reauthorization. It is a program that has proven to be successful, regardless of your political views, a program that uses zero in taxpayer money, a program that produces benefits to every State in America that started with this mission statement: To assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America of present and future generations . . . such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable . . . to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal assistance to the States in planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and facilities and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other areas. I am not sure you can sum up any differently what the definition of a good program is, a successful program. It is not just in the mission statement; it is in the examples of what over those 54 years we have accomplished. There are not many things I can walk away from and believe that my grandchildren and my great grandchildren will be positively impacted by, but I can assure my colleagues of this: Permanent reauthorization of LWCF is one of those things. I am committed, along with my colleagues, to make sure there is no temporary reauthorization; there is a permanent reauthorization. We have met the burden of proof as to why this should never go away and why the American people support it in overwhelming numbers. I am grateful to my colleagues for their support and their time to be on the floor today. I yield back to Senator Daines.

Mr. BURR. Will the Senator from Montana yield?