2 New Co-Sponsors for HR-2058!

H.R. 2058: FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2015

New Cosponsor: Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC3]

New Cosponsor: Rep. Leonard Lance [R-NJ7]

The bill now has 60 cosponsors (60 Republicans).

Advertisements

AEI Conference on CSPAN – Part 2

Thursday, June 2, 2016

CSPAN2

Regulation of E-Cigs

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Moderator: Alan Virard, AEI Resident Scholar leading 5 panelists

Julian Morris, Research Vice President of Reason Foundation

Personal Note: this presenter was super animated, excited, and amused by topic – WIN!

  • 2004, Chinese scientist Hon Lik invented the Ruyan cigalike with a cartridge (with cigarette holder), atomizer, battery and indicator lamp.
  • Reinvented with heating coil which became first e-cig under his company Golden Dragon Limited and brand Ruyan (meaning “smoke-like”)
  • Tobacco-like flavor
  • Doesn’t burn liquid but rather vaporizes it
  •  Gamucci cartomizer created by Taz and Umer Sheikh (2008); combined cartridge and atomizer with e-liquid and connects directly to battery; simpler, more effective then earlier 3 part design
  • Screwdriver mod by Matt and Ted Rogers (2008) – more power, longer lasting flashlight battery. Became known as mods.
  • All three parties were originally consumers, not manufacturers.
  • Joyetech eGo T (2008) – battery cartridge combination with advantages of screwdriver mod
  • eGo T Battery with clearomizer (2009) – refillable, easier to use, lasts longer
  • Opened market to new innovations in devices, tanks, liquid, batteries.
  • Recent survey of 2807 current vapers found that newer models are more effective and preferable than the older models.
  • Over half of adult “ENDS” users used refillable tanks (60.3%), 24.3% use cartridge-based devices, and only 15.4% use disposable devices
  • Same survey shows for adolescents (ages 13-17), 78.9% use refillable tanks, 10.5% cartridge-based devices, and 10.5% use disposables.
  • New generation devices deliver more nicotine more quickly but still less than cigarette
  • UK study shows fruity flavors are second largest category of flavors “consumed by vapers” – tobaccos is highest, menthol lowers.
  • 2014 – study by Farsalinos et al surveyed 157+ e-liquids and over 74% of those tested should significant quantities of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), chemicals associated with “popcorn lung” (fatal disease). Many manufacturers responded by removing those flavorings.
  • Concentration of diacetyl in one cigarette is approx. 8x as much as a day’s worth of e-liquid.
  • Regarding regulations, no enforcement actions in next 2 years until Aug 8, 2018.
  • Asked question: if you can make a mod out of a 3D printer, are they going to ban 3D printers? Because if not, you can have a mod made out of a 3D printer.
  • Debated difference between banning liquids with nicotine vs. no nicotine
  • “…Whatever you want to call them, (e-cigs) have huge potential and probably, actually, public health benefits. I think there’s a grave risk that the FDA deeming regulations as they are currently going to be implemented, will harm public health rather than help it.”

Stacy Ehrlich, Food & Drug Law Attorney and Outside Council for Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America

  • “So-called” deeming regs and that extended FDA jurisdiction; tobacco products is very broad definition under statute
  • Feb 15, 2007 is predicate date
  • FDA review period of 1 year for all PMTAs; can stay on market while awaiting review/approval
  • May 10, 2016 – 1st lawsuit by NicoPure Labs in DC
    • Unlawful Statutory Interpretation – broad definition of “tobacco product” is inconsistent with TCA
    • Arbitrary & Capricious – impose enormous burden without rational connection to public health objectives
    • Unlawful Cost-Benefit Analysis (required under Regulatory Flexibility Act)
    • Violation of the First Amendment (MRTP claims, free samples)
      • Requests declarative, injunctive relief
  • May 17, 2016 – 2nd lawsuit by Lost Art Liquids in California
    • Violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act – FDA failed to consider alternatives to statutory objectives while minimizing economic impact on small entities
    • Unlawful cost analysis conducted by FDA
    • Violations of 1st AND 5th amendment (based on required label/warning statements)
    • FDA abused its discretion because its rule lacks a rational basis for the extraordinary burden imposed
  • May 26, 2016 – 3rd lawsuit filed by Altria’s cigar brand John Middleton Company.
    • Unrelated to papers but does challenge FDA’s provision banning use of “mild” because that is used in name of cigar
  • Regulatory Flexibility Act – requires that examination given with respect to affect on small businesses
  • Small Business Administration filed comments that unequivocally stated that the proposed rules of the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis lacked info because didn’t give specific quantitative data on impact to small business and FDA’s response was no better.
  • FDA: “We note that we have not quantified the benefits of the proposed or final rule, and we are unable to quantify any possible unintended offsetting benefits.”
  • This includes costs of PMTA and other compliance measures; exit of manufacturers and B&Ms; etc.
  • Only 4 alternatives FDA has considered:
    • Exempting premium cigars
    • 36-month compliance period for labeling changes
    • 12-month compliance period for labeling changes
    • Enforcement option of not extending premarket review compliance policy to new flavored tobacco products (other than tobacco flavored products)
      • If they had left this unchanged, would have meant all flavored tobacco products would have had to be removed from market by August 2016 until FDA order had been obtained. White House intervened and made them change this.
  • FDA could have instead effected product standards like they did for OTC instead of individual applications and addressed priority issues sooner like exploding batteries which now have been back-burnered.
  •  FDA:
    • “[S]ome evidence suggests that ENDS may potentially promote transition away from combusted tobacco use among some current users and it is possible that there could be a public health benefit.”
    • “FDA agree that use of ENDS is likely less hazardous for an individual user than continued smoking of traditional cigarettes.”
  • Component/Part examples of those covered under deeming regs:
    • E-liquids
    • Atomizers
    • Cartomizers
    • Coils
    • Batteries
    • Digital Displays
    • Flavors
    • Tank Systems
    • Software
    • Bottles containing e-liquid
    • Glass vial containing e-liquid is component/part whereas hard plastic blister pack in which glass vial of e-liquid is distributed and sold to consumers is not”
  • Nicotine Free E-Liquids:
    • If intended or reasonably expected to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product, it is a tobacco product.
  • FDA has expressed intention to regular entire lines of e-liquid, regardless of whether nicotine is included or not
  • Ended presentation with two quotes showing that FDA is aware that the PMTAs will block the availability of ENDS to the detriment of public health.

Alex Brill, Former Republican Chief Economist & Senior Advisor for House Ways and Means Committee 2002-2007 and Research Fellow for AEI

  • Submitted comments to FDA regarding taxation and urged FDA to consider risks to public health
    • Absolutely necessary to pursue child safety requirements but understand broader context.
    • Over 7000 smoking-related fires in homes annually. 14% of all fire-related deaths are result of smoking-related fires.
    • Policymakers need to encourage safety measures with e-cigs but do not discourage tobacco smokers from switching.
  • Congressional attitude: Separate out predicate issue from the rest of the rule.
  • There is bi-partisan support for federal regulatory role with respect to e-cigs
    • Right: No emerging support to advocate zero activity
    • Left: General consensus for strong regulatory framework but not outright prohibition
  • Some strong support for change by Congress; embodied mostly by Cole Amendment – most popular amendment that day in House Appropriations Committee and passed 31-19. Two democrats did vote in favor.
  • US Senate: after deeming regs, Senator Murray, ranking member on Senate Health Committee, and 16 colleagues wrote letter praising FDA.
    • Focused primarily on youth (marketing, restricting youth access, etc.)
    • Concerns about flavoring and mal-intentions of manufacturers
    • Absent from letter was any acknowledgement of predicate date
  • Republicans are looking for “deal” to address safety concerns in exchange for their support.
  • Next battle Congress will tackle is likely taxes; to date, only confined to state policy
    • State already taxing ecigs: DC, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, North Carolina
    • Also various local jurisdictions: Chicago, Cook County, Montgomery County
  • 2 bills have currently been introduced on federal level by Democratic leaders and Democratic co-sponsors:
    • S-450 – Tobacco Tax Equity Act
    • S-1129 – Tobacco Tax and Enforcement Reform Act
    • Both impose high taxes on e-cigs
    • Authorize Secretary of Treasury to pose comparable taxes on e-cigs to tobacco products

Alan Viard, AEI Resident Scholar

  • Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Food Act, three ways for product introduced after February 15, 2007 to remain on market:
    • 1. Show product is “substantially equivalent” to product available on market before 2/15/07
      • Substantially equivalent could have two possible meanings here:
        • Identical characteristics to pre-dated device to include ingredients, design, composition, heating source, and other features
        • To say there are difference in design and characteristics BUT no new questions of public health
      • Essentially no device that existed before predicate date, so going to be very difficult for anyone to argue substantial equivalence.
      • Regulations say that manufacturer could choose different category like combustible cigarette and try to show substantial equivalence to that; by not showing identical characteristics but no question of public health. Not recommended because extremely arduous process.
    • 2. Obtain exemption from substantial equivalence. Difference is additive in product and demonstrate that that additive does not pose any health issues. Difficult to prove and will likely be set aside by FDA.
    • 3. Submit Pre-Market Tobacco Application (PMTA).
      • Statutory standard for applications are so stringent. By law, must provide info about ingredients, additives, properties, manufacturer, processing, labeling, and health risks.
      • In order to show it is appropriate for protection of public health to introduce this new product, must take into account both risks and benefits to both users and non-users; consider potential for current tobacco users to stop using tobacco; and likelihood that non-users will start.
      • Will require full-fledged clinical trials of new product in order to make affirmative proof of public health risks.
      • Even product that will comply with ALL of these terms still cannot be introduced unless affirmative showing that will provide net benefit to public health.
      • Not normal requirement for American products; HOWEVER, there are same requirements for cigarettes.
  • February 15, 2007 date essentially protects cigarettes and allows them to stay on the market while effective banishing e-cigs from market.

Additional Details from Q&A

  • Vaping taxes?
    • Dr. Sally Satel – Argue for lower/non-existent taxes on e-cigs when compared to tobacco so that public health can be improved; leave current cigarette taxes intact or increase to cover absence of e-cig taxes. Smokers also often cite cost of smoking as additional incentive to quit, and should taxes be too high, can ultimately discourage smokers from quitting.
    • Alex Brill -Has been some discussion about lower taxes for e-cig but still does not help overall challenges in preserving industry.
    • Julian Morris – lower taxes would also lead to lower overall associated costs for healthcare
    • Alan Virard – states need to make up revenue for loss of cigarette sales so trying to replace that with e-cig taxes
  • How do US regs compare to the approach from other countries?
    • Julian Morris – Better than Australia but worse than Europe.
    • Saul Shiffman – Australia they’re banned, Canada banned but not enforced. UK is jurisdiction we should look to. Do see e-cigs as beneficial with low burden; guidance to support smokers in using e-cigs.
  • If deeming date is changed, how does that affect FDA’s authority?
    • Stacy Ehrlich – Pretty much everything else would be applicable. Predicate date may be changed regarding PMTA but all other requirements would still apply. However much easier to prove substantial equivalence.
    • Julian Morris – would still kill innovation because all new products would still have to go through PMTA.
    • Alan Virard – does not serve to have any kind of predicate date.
  • Any conversation between US & UK with regard to these divergent points of view?
    • Dr. Sally Satel – hope so but all goes as planned, we will constrict our market considerably more than that of UK. US should remove predicate date but have imposition of safety standards instead. UK has more vibrant scene because more devices are available and more e-cig friendly environment. Royal College (UK’s CDC) sees virtue of e-cigs and are very supportive. Don’t have that kind of leadership here.
    • Saul Shiffman – UK may likely furnish data and proof we need here in US to effect and lead change here in States.
  • Required advertising rules and required health warning labels?
    • Stacy Ehrlich – no advertising regs but must include warnings in all advertisements. Networks have own guidelines, some prohibiting e-cigs altogether. Others must just carry disclaimers/warnings. Couldn’t discuss in advertising that it doesn’t exist certain components, things like inclusion of tobacco in ads would be addressed by FDA on a case by case basis.

There’s a lot of information here! Watch my YouTube channel for an upcoming video breakdown 🙂

In the meantime, you can watch the entire conference here.

AEI Conference on CSPAN – Part 1

Thursday, June 2, 2016

CSPAN2

Regulation of E-Cigs

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Moderator: Alan Viard, AEI Resident Scholar leading 5 panelists

SAUL SHIFFMAN, Psychology Professor from the University of Pittsburgh

  • 500 million people will die from cigarettes this year.
  • Smokers who do not attempt to quit will face a 50-50 chance of dying prematurely.
  • “It’s not the nicotine that’s the problem, it’s the dirty delivery vehicle of smoking.”
  • Public misinformed on supposed danger of e-cigs by media, scientists, and CDC
  • Kids using e-cigs; measured by whether had a single puff verus regular use; regular use is VERY low
  • Nearly 75% of kids that have ever tried e-cigs were previously smokers!
  • 2 studies that show in states that restricted e-cig sales to minors, smoking went up among teens
  • With rise of e-cigs, decline in teen smoking – this negates gateway effect because one does not in fact encourage the other
  • From federal data, quit attempts among adults is much higher in last year
  • Teen non-smokers not interested in e-cigs because of flavors; adults, on the other hand, did find e-cigs more appealing because of flavors
  • Studies conclude e-cigs much safer than smoking and can save lives

DR. SALLY SATEL, AEI Resident Scholar and Staff Psychiatrist for Partners in Drug Abuse Rehabilitation & Counseling

  • Smoking for teens AND adults are at lowest rate ever in history!
  • FDA utilizing “over-cautious approach in my opinion for a harm reduction product”
  • Two tobacco companies, Altria and Philip Reynolds both make e-cig products

Part 2 with additional panelists coming soon. Watch the entire conference here.

No Response from FDA to Senate Committee

In a previous post, I reported on Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and his letter to the FDA, asking several questions and demanding accountability from FDA Commissioner Califf. The letter included a deadline of May 31, 2016 for Califf’s response.

Unfortunately, that deadline came and went without an acknowlegement or response from the FDA.

 

Indiana Law Upheld in Court

Yesterday a judge ruled to uphold Indiana law SB539 that bans all out-of-state e-liquid vendors from shipping into Indiana. The only exception are the six companies that were able to obtain special permits to do business within the state. As of July 1, 2016, Indiana residents will be confined to either in-state companies or DIY liquids. Indiana residents aren’t even allowed to re-enter the state with other liquids; they will be considered “contraband” and subject to a ticket and/or fine. Any e-liquid companies who ship into the state will face criminal charges for “unlawful distribution without a permit.”

Residents continue to purse legal action, but as of right now, all shelves must be cleared by 11:59pm June 30, 2016. It is estimated that 200 shops and 2500 people will not hold the required permit and will essentially lose their jobs. Absolutely ridiculous.

Hoosier Vapers went live yesterday to give the news.  They had received a 3pm call from their attorneys that the judge had denied their request for a preliminary injunction, because they had failed to adequately prove that they “were likely to win the case.” That ruling on the injunction rendered other arguments useless, because the injunction is required to move forward with other steps. “It was a long shot” getting the injunction as Indiana judges rarely rule on them, so now they will continue to explore various appeals.

~

FDA Q&A Webinar

May 25, 2016

The FDA hosted a special Q&A webinar today specifically targeted towards retailers. (A separate webinar tailored toward manufacturers will be announced at a later date.) This webinar was supposed to answer questions but many participants walked away more confused and concerned than ever. Hopefully, this will clear up some of the confusion and once again, light a fire under everyone to get on the phones and spread the word.

To summarize:

  • Stores may no longer offer free samples and/or testers. There must be a charge; however, there is no mandatory charge specified. Some stores have discussed perhaps charging a $2 tester fee and then crediting that $2 to the customer’s purchase. This ban on free samples also pertains to all parts and components.
  • Zero nicotine liquid, cotton, wire, batteries, and the like are all now considered tobacco products. It does not matter to the FDA that they do not in fact contain tobacco or even nicotine. The qualifier here is that they could potentially deliver nicotine, and so they are all classified as tobacco products.
  • DIY is safe for now. As long as you are making it for personal consumption and that alone, you are not subject to the regulations and also will not require any kind of licensing to buy or use nicotine.
  • Stores can no longer advertise and/or perform coil builds for customers. Doing so would immediately classify the store as a manufacturer. Some stores have suggested coil “repairs” as a way around this, but it remains to be seen.
  • If a person sells any vape-related device or product, then he/she is immediately considered a retailer. You do not have to own a B&M or even a business to be considered a retailer; it is the exchange of goods for money that now classifies you as a retailer.
  • If you choose to give away a device or product for free, you are no longer a retailer but you now are subject to the ban on free samples.
  • By this December, all manufacturers must register their businesses with the FDA. There is no cost to do this, but the document with the instructions is 104 pages long so it is not recommended that you delay this task. Shops do NOT have to register unless they make their own e-liquid. (Note: I have the instructions and am happy to share them if you email me at lena@bumblebeevapor.com.)
  • Age verification of 18 and older is required for all B&M and online retails. The FDA will begin sending secret shoppers in to check both age verification and no free samples as soon as August 8, 2016. When asked about the specific parameters concerning age verification guidelines, the FDA representatives did not answer the question.
  • May 8, 2018 is when new warnings will take effect.
  • Multi-pack promotions such as “Buy 1, Get 2 Free” are allowed.
  • On August 8, 2016, you may continue to manufacture products that were already on the marketing prior to the effective date while you prepare, submit, and await response on your application/s. The approval period can take up to 36 months.
  • Pre-market authorization will be required before releasing any new products after August 8, 2016.

The webinar will be edited and then posted to the FDA website. I will let you know when it is available for viewing on the site.

Personally, I think there was a lot of tap dancing going on. Beyond the infuriating saccharine smiles on their faces, their refusal to acknowledge some of the more detailed, upfront questions made the entire experience that much more frustrating. I can hardly wait (note the heavy sarcasm) to see what they do with the manufacturer’s webinar. It was glaringly obvious to me that instead of taking our questions and comments as legitimate, educated responses, they instead used our thoughts and ideas as further ammo to obliterate what few loopholes the regulations had afforded us. We fed them the very details that could be used against us, and it was very difficult to keep up hope while we awaited their return from their many “breaks” throughout the webinar.

This only further demonstrates the need to hold our elected leaders accountable. Passing legislation is not enough; they need to explain themselves and the reasoning that led them to these laws, and when they do not make sense and do not fit the needs of the people they represent, well then by God they need to be changed.

PETA Joins the Fight!

 

url

We have a new ally in PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). They have spoken out against the FDA regs, stating that they were adversely affect animals through heightened animal testing.

In their press release, PETA states the following:

“To obtain FDA approval, tobacco manufacturers will be required to show that their products reduce the risk to current tobacco users and do not increase the risk to non-users. In a guidance document accompanying the rule, the FDA encourages manufacturers of electronic nicotine-delivery systems to meet with its Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) early in the development process to discuss what, if any, animal testing the agency considers ‘appropriate’ or whether non-animal tests may be acceptable.

The FDA has stated that animal tests will still be required for toxicological issues that it claims cannot be addressed by non-animal approaches—even though we know that the link between tobacco and lung cancer in humans was obscured for years because animal tests did not demonstrate this relationship.

PETA fears that despite the existence of robust human-relevant animal-free tests, the number of animals suffering and dying in tobacco-related testing will rise dramatically. In the most common tests, rats are immobilized inside tubes and test substances are pumped directly into their noses for up to six hours each day.

‘The CTP will expect manufacturers to conduct animal tests in support of marketing applications, and CTP is funding dozens of its own animal studies at universities and the National Center for Toxicological Research,’ says Joseph Manuppello, senior research associate for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ‘However, history has shown us that animal tests will not result in safer tobacco products.’

Animal tests for tobacco products have already been banned in Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.”

RICO Charges Against Former FDA Commissioner Hamburg

Margaret-Hamburg

Former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg

And the plot thickens.

Yesterday an article published by Blasting News United States blasted former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg for her pending RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges. Hamburg served as the Commissioner from May 2009 until March 2015. She has been charged for accepting kickbacks from Johnson & Johnson for concealing the deadly risks associated with the company’s drug Levaquin. Also charged is her husband Peter Brown, a hedge fund manager for Renaissance Technologies.

Prior to these charges, Hamburg was actually celebrated in the medical community for her many public achievements. Stat News reported the following in an article glamorizing Hamburg: “Named the youngest-ever health commissioner for New York City in 1992, at age 36, Hamburg helped slow the spread of AIDS, boosted childhood immunization rates, and reversed a crippling tuberculosis epidemic. Seventeen years later, as commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, Hamburg inherited an agency battered by a series of drug scandals and food poisoning outbreaks. And although her tenure wasn’t without controversy, when she left last April, after a nearly six-year stint, she was widely seen as having cleaned up the FDA and laid the groundwork for speedier drug and device approvals, more oversight of tobacco products, and a modernized food safety system.”

While Hamburg may have effectively concealed her corruption during her term as Commissioner, the cat is out of the bag now.

Blasting News USA reports: “While Hamburg was acting Commissioner, she was instrumental in forming e-cigarette regulations before she left the FDA. Her replacement, Dr. Robert Califf also has financial ties to pharmaceutical giants AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and more. While he was the director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute (DTMI) he received a consulting payment from Johnson & Johnson of $87,500.”

While these charges may not have a direct effect on the FDA’s regulations on the vape industry, they certainly go a long way in undermining the credibility of these appointed officials who are supposed to treat legislature with honor and integrity.

It appears that Califf was not only heavily influenced by his predecessor Hamburg, but he is continuing her shameful legacy through his attempts to shut down the vape industry. Thankfully Senator Johnson is all for accountability, and he is calling the FDA down to the carpet.

For more information, the article can be found in its entirety here.

Robert-Califf-FDA-Money

Current FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf

 

Updated: 54 Co-Sponsors for HR 2058

We now have 54 co-sponsors for HR 2058!!!!

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7] 04/29/2015
Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2] 04/29/2015
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL-17] 04/29/2015
Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. [R-CA-50] 05/01/2015
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] 05/14/2015
Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1] 05/14/2015
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] 05/14/2015
Rep. Ellmers, Renee L. [R-NC-2] 05/14/2015
Rep. Pompeo, Mike [R-KS-4] 05/18/2015
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO-7] 05/21/2015
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA-14] 05/21/2015
Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-21] 05/21/2015
Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] 06/09/2015
Rep. Whitfield, Ed [R-KY-1] 06/09/2015
Rep. Hurt, Robert [R-VA-5] 06/09/2015
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA-7] 06/15/2015
Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9] 06/15/2015
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [R-TN-3] 06/15/2015
Rep. Rigell, E. Scott [R-VA-2] 06/15/2015
Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16] 06/25/2015
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA-11] 07/09/2015
Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-15] 07/09/2015
Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17] 07/09/2015
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC-6] 07/22/2015
Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1] 07/28/2015
Rep. Forbes, J. Randy [R-VA-4] 07/28/2015
Rep. Blum, Rod [R-IA-1] 11/02/2015
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] 11/04/2015
Rep. Kline, John [R-MN-2] 11/05/2015
Rep. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN-7] 11/18/2015
Rep. Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX-19] 12/01/2015
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC-1] 12/01/2015
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2] 12/03/2015
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] 12/10/2015
Rep. Holding, George [R-NC-13] 12/10/2015
Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-At Large] 12/11/2015
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN-6] 01/05/2016
Rep. Collins, Chris [R-NY-27] 01/05/2016
Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8] 01/11/2016
Rep. Thornberry, Mac [R-TX-13] 01/11/2016
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] 01/13/2016
Rep. Stivers, Steve [R-OH-15] 02/03/2016
Rep. Byrne, Bradley [R-AL-1] 02/03/2016
Rep. Rogers, Harold [R-KY-5] 02/03/2016
Rep. Heck, Joseph J. [R-NV-3] 02/03/2016
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 02/11/2016
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6] 02/11/2016
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-3] 02/11/2016
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] 02/24/2016
Rep. Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [R-LA-3] 02/24/2016
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR-3] 03/02/2016
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] 05/12/2016
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4] 05/13/2016
Rep. Marchant, Kenny [R-TX-24] 05/16/2016

Please be sure to thank them for supporting us!

If your district is missing, take action here!!!