Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct conferees that would insist that the final conference report on the budget include a provision to address student loans. This very simple motion to instruct tracks the amendment introduced by me and Senators King, Warner, and Alexander that was included in the budget resolution by a voice vote. The Senate has already demonstrated its support by unanimously passing this under a voice vote. I yield to my cosponsor, Senator King.

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Warren motion. What the Senator wants to do is to create yet another repayment program, which ultimately ends up costing students more than the income-based repayment. She puts hundreds of billions of private debt on the Federal books and pretends the cost is free. Rather than fixing the maze of repayment programs, she adds to it with a new program that is ultimately less generous than the existing program. Whereas the Federal Government income-based repayment program and other related loan repayment programs will cap payments as a percentage of an individual's income, Senator Warren's legislation would only lower the interest rate on those payments, potentially steering students into higher monthly payments than they face in those other programs. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Warren motion. I yield back.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a deficit-neutral reserve fund amendment to the budget that will allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to revise allocations to provide for a simplified income-driven repayment program for Federal student loans. This budget amendment is offered with the hope that it would allow for legislation similar to the Repay Act, which I introduced earlier in this Congress with Senator King, Senator Alexander, Senator Warner, Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, Senator Rubio, Senator Capito, Senator Collins, and Senator Carper. I wish to spend a moment telling my colleagues what the Repay Act would do. It is very simple. It would streamline the numerous loan repayment programs into two easily understood options for those who take out student loans. No. 1, it would create a fixed repayment program similar to the current law's 10-year standard repayment. No. 2, it would create a new simplified income-driven repayment program that consolidates numerous income-based programs into one program. As we know today, students who go to college have to take out a number of different loans. It is confusing in the system to know exactly what that repayment system looks like--especially for somebody who is trying to determine their job opportunities and the income they need to meet their debt. This allows consolidation and simplification so that if students understand exactly what their exposure is almost from the very beginning, they would be left with a simple set of choices upon graduation. Do I choose a fixed payment plan that would pay off my loans in a straight 10 years? Or do I take the simplified income-driven repayment plan, pay a little longer, and have the remaining loan balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years, depending upon whether it is undergraduate or graduate loans? Now, this is important for a few reasons, which I will illustrate from the quotes that have been made by many associations and financial aid administrators who endorsed the Repay Act. They say, No. 1: ``Consolidating the various federal income-based programs into a single plan will help borrowers understand the benefits and protections inherent in our federal student loan system . . .'' No. 2: Despite many protections in [existing] repayment plans, a frustrating number of student loan borrowers continue to default. This is due in part to the fact that the options require borrowers to take proactive and cumbersome steps to enroll. And, No. 3: ``This proposal to collapse the different plans into one single income-based repayment plan should help ease the enrollment process for borrowers.'' Not only does it sort out the repayment obligations that a student has, it makes the enrollment easier. And this comes from the individuals who are responsible for the implementation of these programs. Those quotes are from associations representing financial aid administrators across the country. They are people who are on the frontlines of helping students as they prepare for payment after college. We should listen to them, and I say that strongly to my colleagues. We should listen to them. The other benefits of this legislation is that students will know, prior to entering college, based on the amount that they borrow, what options will be available to them once they graduate from college. I know that seems like common sense to a lot of folks, but if you haven't been through the student loan process today, then you don't realize they don't have that clarity today--as they enter college--that this will allow them to have. This will promote better consumer behavior. It will lessen the chance students default based upon the confusion of the viable options that they have available to them. Now, I would think, from policymakers, our intent would always be, No. 1: Does the plan fit the need of the individuals to whom it is targeted? Clearly the student loan program does, but, No. 2: Have we done this in a way that is simple, understandable, and workable? If we can't answer that question, and we don't check that box, the likelihood is that the net result is that we have defaults, individuals who don't live up to repaying their obligation. When a student graduates, they face up to 12 repayment options available to them, all with some overlapping purpose or benefit and with great complexity in how you actually sign up for the options. Again, with the Repay Act, there are two options: 10 years straight repayment or a repayment that is structured based on what your income is. Senator King and I think the Repay Act makes for good policy, but we think it makes for bad policy to have 12 cumbersome options that overlap in some cases. Based on some preliminary scores from CBO and estimates from President Obama--since he has proposed much of what we do in the Repay Act--we believe this legislation will save in the area of $4 billion over the next 10 years and $1 billion to $2 billion over the next 5 years. That is up to $6 billion in savings in the student loan program that we could pump back into additional loan value for students in the future. Now, unlike other options we have, which we will be voting on today, that cost money--and pay for it by raising taxes--we save money by making our program more efficient and better suited for students' needs. I say this to my colleagues who might be asking: How do I vote? I have to tell you: You have to wait to have a comparison bill. There will be one. I want you to ask yourselves: Which one saves $4 billion, and which one costs more money? Which one uses the allocations that are currently there, and which one raises taxes to put in place a new plan? This amendment and the Repay Act is bipartisan--overwhelmingly so. If the bipartisan list of cosponsors to the Repay Act isn't enough, many of the recommendations that are formed in this legislation came from the President's very own budget. This legislation also has the support of the Education Finance Council, the American Council on Education, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, as well as the University of North Carolina System, which is important to me, since I represent North Carolina. In short, this amendment represents legislation that, No. 1, is bipartisan; No. 2, saves money; No. 3, is based on the ideas and proposals of the President; and, No. 4, has the support of the financial aid industry, which is responsible for the success of student loan programs. Success means easy enrollment. Success means repayment of the outstanding debt. I urge my colleagues, when given the opportunity, to vote for Amendment No. 622, a bipartisan-sponsored initiative. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order for me to call up amendment No. 622.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate A.B. Combs Leadership Magnet Elementary School, in Raleigh, NC, for being recognized as the top magnet school in the country. On May 16, 2014, A.B. Combs was awarded the prestigious Dr. Ronald P. Simpson School of Merit Excellence Award, which recognizes one school for innovative programming, academic achievement, and promoting diversity. A.B. Combs Leadership Magnet Elementary School prides themselves on their leadership model program, which is based on Dr. Steven Covey's book ``The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.'' It seeks to educate the whole child, not just academically but socially, emotionally, and culturally. A.B. Combs has set the standard for magnet schools. Annually, they host an international leadership day, where educators from around the world come to learn from their success. Magnet schools such as A.B. Combs provide parents with expanded options for their child's education--options that will ensure students aren't confined to schools that might not be serving their individual needs. For that reason, I am proud of the success A.B. Combs has achieved as recognized by this award. Congratulations to the staff, parents, students, and the community at A.B. Combs for this award. It is well deserved.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to Tyler Stephens, a key member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Tyler will leave us shortly to join the private sector. I am honored to have the opportunity to publicly thank Tyler and note my appreciation for his outstanding service to the United States Senate during the past 8 years, including his last 4 years of dedicated service to the Select Committee on Intelligence. Tyler is one of the brightest and most talented individuals on Capitol Hill. He is also among the best connected, a testament to the high regard in which he is held. Beginning as a staff assistant for Senator Johnny Isakson in January 2007, he learned the Senate from the ground up and quickly rose through the ranks to his current position as a senior policy advisor on the Intelligence Committee. Tyler spent most of his time in the Senate as a close personal adviser to Senator Saxby Chambliss, my dear friend and colleague, on both his personal staff and throughout Saxby's tenure as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Tyler worked hard to establish his expertise as a policy and appropriations advisor on foreign relations, defense, homeland security, commerce, transportation, energy, environmental, and technology issues. On the Intelligence Committee, he quickly became a respected subject matter expert on a wide range of national security issues, including counterterrorism, covert action, and cybersecurity. As impressive as Tyler's resume and experience are, it is his personal dedication and quick wit that often carry the day. In an environment filled with threat briefings, hostile nation states, and post-9/11 conflict, it is often easy for some to dwell on the negative. Not Tyler--the consummate team player and totally mission-oriented--no challenge has been too great and no objective too small. His great sense of humor, contagious chuckles, and mischievous grin often lightened the mood and helped those around him perform better during stressful situations. With his boundless energy and enthusiasm, he made it all look easy. My colleagues and I trust Tyler's judgment implicitly. He has played a key role in helping committee members develop successful legislative strategies for resolving difficult national security issues. He was also particularly helpful to me during my transition as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence at the beginning of this Congress. Tyler's dedicated public service and exceptional day-to-day performance on the job have earned our respect and admiration, and it inspired a generation of staff who had the privilege to work alongside him. There is no doubt that Tyler has a bright future in the private sector; however, should the right opportunity present itself, I would strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to entice him back into public service. We will miss Tyler deeply, but his legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Dianne Feinstein, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Committee rules.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to take 60 seconds before the two leaders speak to welcome a North Carolinian, Randy Cash, who was appointed the national chaplain of the American Legion on August 28, 2014, at their annual convention in Charlotte, which I attended, as well as the President. Randy is a native of North Carolina. He spent part of his life in Myrtle Beach, SC, but he attended a number of schools throughout the region. He was commissioned as a Navy chaplain in 1980 and he entered Active Service in 1983. He was assigned to Destroyer Squadron Six out of Charleston, SC. His next tour was staff chaplain, Naval Education and Training Center in Newport, RI, and his life continued from spot to spot. Randy has served as chaplain during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, while he was stationed at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach. He also had a turn at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, which we all talk about today, and was transferred to the 2nd Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, NC, where he served as regimental chaplain. Let me say this is a decorated chaplain. Randy Cash retired from Active Duty in 2009. His military awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, two awards, and the Bronze Star. He is a man of conviction, he is a tremendous North Carolinian, and over the next year he will serve as the national chaplain of the American Legion in a most effective way. Reverend Cash, we are delighted to have you here. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate and celebrate the life of Coach Dean Smith. Dean Smith's accomplishments as coach, mentor, and teacher made him a legend in our State, and far beyond Tobacco Road. Brooke and I were deeply saddened to hear of his passing, but he left his indelible mark on our State. Under his stewardship, UNC-Chapel Hill became the formidable college basketball powerhouse that it is today. While he was a winning coach, he also encouraged his players to excel in the classroom and taught well beyond the locker room. Coach Smith was born in Emporia, KS, in 1931. The son of public school teachers, his lifelong dedication to teaching on and off the court was instilled in him from a young age. Dean was a high school athlete playing basketball, football, and baseball. He earned an academic scholarship to the University of Kansas. While at Kansas he played basketball and was a member of the 1952 national championship team. He began his coaching career there in 1953 as an assistant coach. Dean Smith then served his country in the U.S. Air Force. In 1958 he was asked to serve as assistant coach for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Three years later he would become the head coach for UNC. His first season as head coach was his only losing season in his 36 year coaching career. His early days as coach were not always so smooth. In 1965, the UNC fans hung him in effigy after a loss to my alma mater, Wake Forest University. But, soon enough, he enjoyed tremendous success as a coach. He is considered one of the greatest to ever coach the game. His accomplishments are too many to list. Some of his most memorable feats include 2 national championship titles, 11 final four appearances, 17 regular season ACC titles, 13 ACC tournament titles, 27 NCAA tournament appearances with 23 of those being consecutive. He was the National Coach of the Year four times. Dean had 879 wins in his 36-year coaching career making him one of the winningest coaches of all time. Five of his players went on to be Rookies of the Year in the NBA or ABA. He coached Team USA to gold in the 1976 Olympics. Legendary UCLA coach John Wooden once said ``Dean is the best teacher of basketball that I have observed.'' His philosophy known as the ``Carolina Way'' still rings true today. Play Hard, Play Together, Play Smart. Coach Smith's influence extended far beyond the basketball court. He was a champion for social justice. He was the first UNC coach to offer a scholarship to an African-American player. He encouraged many local businesses to desegregate during the 1960s. He served as a mentor to his players and always taught them that education came first. During his career over 95 percent of his players received their degrees. His former players remember the fact that Coach Smith not only taught them about basketball, he taught them about life. Throughout his career, he was a fierce competitor but was always respected by his opponents. There was never a hint of scandal about how he recruited players or how he ran his program. He was a pioneer in the art of assembling a long-term winning basketball tradition. Basketball, UNC and all of North Carolina have lost a giant with his passing. I extend my sympathy to his wife Linnea and to all of Coach Smith's family.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the town of West Jefferson, NC. Today, February 9 is the 100th anniversary of the charter of this historical town that has become a vibrant community attracting tourists, artists, entrepreneurs, retirees and young families. Development of rural farmland into a town resulted from extending a railroad line into it. Construction of roadbeds and trestles for the steel rails took place in 1914, and depots were created as loading spots. When people of this area learned that the railroad was coming, speculators made investments in villages that would be affected. A new village was also created. The West Jefferson Land Company mapped a farming area in a valley between two mountains and sold lots for commercial and residential uses. Developers and their purchasers were ready when the first train arrived. The West Jefferson depot was central and most prominent. As part of its official recognition by the State Legislature in 1915, the town acquired for its governance a mayor and aldermen. Passenger service was added by the railroad company and enjoyed by many. Then, as the years went by, personal automobiles, paved roads, freight trucks and passenger buses created new transportation options. There were no more large tracts of virgin timber to be harvested. Railroad operation declined in profitability and the end came in 1977. The rails were taken up and trains became a romantic memory for the people of West Jefferson. Trains remain today as images which we see in the local history museum diorama and in some of the beautiful murals on downtown buildings. Murals, galleries, studios and dynamic programs now identify West Jefferson as an arts community, enhancing its image as a desirable place in which to live. The town of West Jefferson has received many accolades for its business and family-friendly environment, low cost of living, lively rebirth of its downtown district, and many other aspects. I join the fine people of West Jefferson as its citizens and leaders celebrate this historic 100th anniversary.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to tell my colleagues that shortly I intend to ask unanimous consent to call up S. 338, but prior to that I would like to say a few things about it. S. 338 was introduced by myself, Senator Bennet, and Senator Ayotte. What it would do is permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It would also guarantee that a small portion of any appropriated money goes toward maintaining access for those who use our public lands, the American people. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is essential to making public lands public, by securing recreational areas, particularly where opportunities for sportsmen and others to access existing public lands are limited or precluded. As I am sure the Presiding Officer is aware, this program expires on September 30 and we can no longer wait to reauthorize what I believe is dollar for dollar one of the most effective government programs we have. This is an investment that rivals any Wall Street honey of a deal that I have ever heard of. Every $1 spent has roughly $4 rates of return in either matching funds or money contributed back into our economy. This is an economic driver. The bait and the tackle shop, the outdoor apparel equipment store, the guide service, the mom-and-pop lodge, these are all local jobs. They cannot be outsourced. I realize this town does not take care of--it does not care much about budgets or responsible spending, but the simple truth is this program is a trust fund codified by law--by law--every year. No less than $900 million in royalties are paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. They are put into this fund--royalties off of energy exploration, something Congress when they in their infinite wisdom set up this program said they were a good thing. Every year no less than $900 million in royalties are paid and go into this fund. The money is intended to, one, protect areas around national parks, rivers, and lakes. I note to my colleagues not ``create'' national parks, to ``protect''; two, to provide buffers for national forests and national wildlife refuges from development; three, to provide matching grants for State and local parks and recreation projects. In fiscal year 2013, the Department of the Interior collected more than $29 billion from offshore production. How much of that went to LWCF--$306 million. That is barely one-third of the amount deposited at the Treasury Department for this purpose. Talk about highway robbery. I can point to numerous years where this has been the case. Over the life of the program more than $18 billion of land and water conservation funding has been diverted into the general fund to pay for programs other than what they were intended to be there for. This is a covenant with the American people that we have broken time and time and time again. It needs to stop. My colleagues, this is not a land grab. It is not a land grab program as some have suggested it is. I would suggest to everyone it is a land solution. It is a tool. The LWCF goes toward the purchase of inholdings, those pieces of property that are inside a protected piece that is valuable for the future. The only reason there are inholdings is that they were not available when that tract was put together. It is used to buy property adjacent to existing boundaries and can help solve management problems rather than add to them. I wish to give my colleagues one example: Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge in the great State of Kentucky. Acquisition of the tract there completed a connection between the refuge lands and the Clarks River. Previously, access to the river required excessive hiking because there was no approved vehicle access. These access issues also limited the refuge's ability to provide environmental education and interpretation programs. Now the site provides access to the river for school groups, their transportation, and allows refuge staff to provide hands-on environmental instruction to students. We went from a situation where you can only walk to this land to an acquisition by a conservation component funded by royalties of oil and gas exploration, and now vehicles can actually ride on it. School children can go there and go through transitional education for the purposes of understanding why this is so valuable to protect. Most lands acquired with LWCF funds are within the existing boundaries of a Federal park, refuge, forest or other recreational areas. Much of the rest is used for conservation easements and State grants, which do not add to Federal management costs. Let me state that again. When we allow this process to take place, we actually reduced the burden on Federal agencies from a standpoint of their management responsibilities with Federal dollars. These partnerships through LWCF easements are a win-win. They keep ranchers and farmers on their land while maintaining wildlife habitat and open spaces. Strategic LWCF purchases can defuse conflicts with private landowners by securing permanent access for sportsmen. With changing land use and ownership patterns, areas that were once open and usable are now either blocked or cut off. Public lands are often sometimes inherently sequestered from roads and towns by narrow pieces of private-ownership land. LWCF funds bring together sportsmen and willing sellers with the intent of open access for everyone. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a down payment. It is a down payment on an investment that sustains the American way of life. The best part, I say to my colleagues, is that it is paid for. I am not here to suggest that I want to tackle the pittance that the fund receives and how much it was promised. I am only here today, along with my colleague from Colorado, to call up the bill to permanently authorize this program so that we don't go through this exercise every time that reauthorization is needed. In a country that continues to explore for energy--and I hope we continue and become self-sufficient--let's use the portion of the resources that we can to fuel the beach renourishment, to rebuild the dunes, to buy those inholdings to get buffer zones around those treasures we try to protect. As we do that, let's open it up to American sportsmen to hunt, to fish, to use. That is what LWCF is about. Let's start acting as if the agreement we made with the American people 50 years ago actually means something. Let's authorize permanently the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 338; that there be up to 1 hour equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues for swift passage of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. This act will build upon the Veterans Choice Act and put in place needed measures to improve responsiveness, reporting, oversight and accountability for mental health outreach, intervention, treatment, and counseling in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Sometimes the greatest hurdle for ailing veterans is just getting started. There is nothing more frustrating and potentially demoralizing and debilitating for a veteran in crisis to seek mental health care from the VA and be told he will have to wait weeks or months for an appointment because VA facilities lack sufficient personnel with an expertise in psychiatric medicine to provide timely care. Left to fend on their own, many veterans become depressed and feel powerless, some resort to high-risk behaviors, from isolation, self-medication with alcohol and prescription drugs, to suicide. This bill authorizes a pilot program to expand the VA's capacity to help repay loans incurred by individuals who are eligible to practice psychiatric medicine and agree to serve the VA in that field. In doing so, we recognize that serving veterans is a noble cause that some are called to, but working in such a demanding field requires economic incentives, especially in areas where abundant career options exist or in more remote locales, where attracting talent is difficult for the VA. The Clay Hunt Act also facilitates greater veteran's access through a consolidated interactive website, where veterans can visit from the privacy of their own home or wherever they may be when the need arises. Most importantly, the bill directs VA to establish a pilot program for community-based support networks in the VA's Integrated Service Networks to ease the transition of veterans and provide peer-based support for those who are encountering difficulties coping with those life changes. These community outreach teams at each medical center will be aimed at getting care to the point of need with the least amount of delay and help those veterans who are unwilling or unable to seek professional help on their own. Make no mistake, the suicides of our veterans are preventable with the right intervention and proper continuum of care. When a veteran takes their own life due to untreated mental pain, it is a stark and sobering sign that somewhere, someone who loved them was unable to reach them and recognize the warning signs to help or that the veteran just couldn't carry a heavy burden any longer and found stability or some greater peace and solace elusive. It is at these moments, with nowhere to turn and perhaps no one to trust, that some of our veterans want to escape life. The sooner we can fully transform the VA into a place where veterans in crisis at any time can find access to caregivers and peers ready to light the path to a better place in our society, the better outcomes we will see and the surer we will be that the promises we have made to them are being kept.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am pleased to talk about an issue that as Senator Alexander said is near and dear to my heart; that is, ensuring that America's patients have access to the most cutting-edge medical products in as timely a manner as possible. I look forward to the partnership that Chairman Alexander and I have in what I think is one of the most crucial studies and processes we will go through in this session of Congress. Many of my colleagues know that holding the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration accountable for their work on behalf of America's patients is not a new area of focus for either one of us. After I was first elected to serve in the House of Representatives, I was tasked with modernizing the Food and Drug Administration, a Federal agency that controls 25 cents of every $1 of our economy. This work culminated in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1977, FDAMA, a total revamp of that agency. FDAMA sought to ensure that the FDA had the tools it needed to keep pace with modern scientific advances. We modernized the agency in a way that supported regulating in the least burdensome manner, while ensuring that innovative products would reach patients in as timely a manner as possible. As many of my colleagues remember, these reforms were adopted at a critical point in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But while we have made great strides in certain areas, FDAMA's tools haven't been fully leveraged, and the challenges of keeping pace with the cutting-edge technologies have only increased. Today the timely and predictable review of medical products is key to promoting and protecting the public health, just as it was 18 years ago. But the agency's mission and responsibilities have expanded dramatically over that same period of time. The size and the scope of the FDA as an organization has never been more complex than it is today. By its own admission, FDA has struggled to regulate the most cutting-edge medical products at the same time our understanding of medicine and the ability to target treatments to individualized patients has never been greater. The growth of the agency and its responsibilities presents serious management challenges. Our report, as the chairman said, entitled ``Innovation for Healthier Americans: Identifying Opportunities for Meaningful Reform to Our Nation's Medical Product Discovery and Development,'' takes a hard look at the current status quo and poses targeted questions that can help inform how we do things better. We need to identify how we can improve our policies to promote more efficient and effective medical product development and review processes to cut down on total time it takes for these lifesaving products to actually reach America's patients. We have seen how regulatory burden and uncertainty results in innovation going overseas, while America's patients wait for the FDA to catch up. The day-to-day actions and in many cases inaction at the agency has a profound effect on our Nation's patients and our health care. It also directly impacts our economy, as FDA-regulated products account for about 25 cents of every $1 spent by American consumers. The importance of holding the agency accountable for its actions and inactions--all the way from the frontline reviewers to the Commissioner--has never been more important than now. This is what the current landscape tells us: No. 1, it costs too much to bring medical products through the development pipeline to patients. There is no disputing that the costs to bring medical products through the development pipeline have grown over time. No. 2, as science and technology advance, the discovery and development process takes longer for medical products to make their ways to patients. We need to look at the total real time it takes for medical products to reach a patient, not only the time of FDA review. In 2004, FDA's Critical Path Report warned that: Today's revolution in biomedical science has raised new hope for the prevention, treatment, and cure of severe illnesses. However, there is a growing concern that many of the new basic science discoveries made in recent years may not quickly yield more effective, more affordable, and safe medical products for patients. This is because the current medical product development path is becoming increasingly challenging, inefficient, and costly. More than a decade later, these challenges continue to confront us. We must find a way to embrace our advances and to cut down on the total time it takes medical products to reach an American patient. Our report asks for feedback, as the chairman said, on how we do that. No. 3, FDA's responsibilities have grown to include many activities unrelated to the core function of regulating medical devices to advance the public health. Today there are more than 12,000 employees at the Food and Drug Administration. This growth has exacerbated the management challenges of the agency, and the question is, How do we ensure that FDA is equipped to fulfill its mission? No. 4, the disparity in scientific knowledge at FDA and the fast pace of biological innovation are slowing and in some cases stifling innovation in American medicine. To ensure that medical product innovation continues to benefit America's patients, our report asks how we could better leverage the regulatory science initiatives to ensure that the novel medical products are reaching America's patients in that timely fashion. No. 5, we know that a working FDA is essential to be continuing biomedical innovation in the United States and maintaining America's global leadership in medical innovation. Therefore, we ask for feedback on how Congress and the FDA can work to align public policy and regulation to support biomedical research as a vibrant and healthy component of the U.S. economy. We have a unique opportunity this Congress to take a hard look at what is and is not working and advance solutions that will ultimately ensure that the NIH and the FDA serve America's patients better. We have an opportunity to focus on these issues without a crisis demanding action, such as the unfortunate meningitis outbreak in 2012. The drug and medical device user fee negotiations have not yet begun. I should add that these negotiations should not begin until everyone has the data to inform how well the agency is currently meeting what was agreed to in the last round of negotiations. It makes no sense to me why anyone would rush to engage in a negotiation before they have the data to know what they are getting or what they are currently paying for. It is my hope that looking at these issues without the pressure of an eminent, expiring, user fee reauthorization will help to facilitate candid dialogue among all stakeholders about where we are, where we need to go on behalf of America's patients. While we do not have these pressures upon us today, we do bring an urgency to this work because of what is at stake. These issues impact every single one of our constituents and every single American, but they affect not only our patients but our economy and our global competitiveness. Our goal is simple, to align public policies to support accelerated medical innovation and patient access to medicines and medical technologies, because when we advance innovation, we help America's patients be able to access the most cutting-edge, lifesaving medical devices, and products in as timely a fashion as possible. We foster and facilitate the next generation of cutting-edge products which, in turn, help to ensure America's continued standing as the world leader of innovation. This is good for our innovators, it is good for our patients, and it is good for North Carolina. Dr. Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress was right when he pointed out that innovation is not an option, it is a national imperative. Innovation is central to addressing our Nation's unsustainable health care costs. It is also central to improving the treatments, outcomes, and ultimately the quality of life for the American people. Former FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach was kind enough to pen the foreword of this report. The chairman has already alluded to some of his statements, but in that foreword he writes: Government policy can either inhibit or accelerate the next revolution in science and technology. The time has come to examine whether our nation has the right public policies in place to realize the full promise of discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century medicine. Toward that end, I really do look forward to working with my good friend Chairman Alexander, with our ranking member, Senator Murray, and with all the members of the HELP Committee as we begin this important process of ensuring that the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration work as well as they can for patients today and, more importantly, into the future. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to work with him on this issue. It won't be an easy road, but it is one we are committed to tackling. I urge those who might have input for the purposes of this study and this initiative to please visit the HELP Web site and submit feedback to innovation@help.senate.gov. I am glad to see we have put that in place. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, health care doesn't distinguish between parties. Health care requires us to come together and to put policies in place that drive innovation and drive quality outcomes. If we can do that, we might set a new pathway for how we cure disease, for how we bring down health care costs, and for how Americans look forward to a generation that grows up with less genetically transmitted diseases. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I will be brief, but I would like my colleagues' attention because we have an opportunity today to take a program that functions well, that this body designed, funded from royalties off of exploration of energy, that has never been fully funded at what the statute said we would do, and every so often it comes up for reauthorization. That is sort of stupid. What this amendment does is it makes permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I say to my friends and colleagues, if you want to change the makeup of the fund--what it does, how it works--that still exists, but let's not have the debate as to whether this is going to continue. Let's continue it permanently, and let's make sure that what they do in their work, where they leverage a few Federal dollars with a lot of private dollars, not to acquire massive amounts of lands or create parks but to put adjoining lands together that stops encroachment on some very sensitive areas--this is a smart investment, and it is an investment we make off of the production of energy in this country. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 92. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have spoken very briefly on this reauthorization because it is a very simple measure. I urge my colleagues, because it is now pending, when we have an opportunity to vote, and I think that will be sooner rather than later on a whole host of amendments, that you take the opportunity to permanently reauthorize a program that is clearly one that benefits this country and our National Treasury. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pledge my overwhelming support to Senator Tillis on the Outer Continental Shelf amendment that has been placed on the Keystone bill, and I think it is apparent with the direction the administration is going that they finally realize this is the right thing, but I think codifying that into this bill is important. Amendment No. 92 to Amendment No. 2 I also come today because many of my colleagues in this body support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Just to remind some who might not have been here as long, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was created and funded by royalties off of this exploration explosion we have had over decades in this country. I might say a disappointment to me is that over the life of this trust fund we created, it never received the appropriations that it accrued in a balance. It accrues a certain amount off of royalties and it was directed in statute that money goes to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let me say to my colleagues, this is the best organization to choose where to make that investment. This is not about a land grab; this is about providing contiguous pieces of land that have restored value. But this is not about initiatives to create new national parks. It is to protect the infrastructure that is out there in their control, and we have battled for years. I would love to come to the floor right now and say I want to offer an amendment for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which should be $900 million a year, but we appropriate $350 million to $450 million a year to fund it. Unfortunately I am not here to offer that amendment, although I think it would receive tremendous support in this body, primarily because I would have to find about $8 billion worth of offsets. This is incredible, that we could have a trust fund that is funded with the royalties off of production that has an $8 billion balance but to actually say if we are going to begin to fully fund it, you have to come up with $8 billion worth of offsets because we spent the money on something else. We spent the money on something else, therefore we have got to find an offset. So I am not coming to the floor today to propose we fully fund it, although I am an advocate of it, and I think many people are. In a minute I will ask unanimous consent to have amendment No. 92 pending, which is the Burr-Bennet-Ayotte amendment. It is to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am sure the President is aware that the program expires the end of September, and we can wait, but I don't think we should wait to reauthorize what I believe is, dollar for dollar, the most effective government program we have. We can save any kind of funding-level fights for another day. The simple truth is this program is a trust fund that is codified in law. So we are not debating whether this exists or doesn't exist. It does exist and every year $900 million in royalties are paid by energy companies that drill for gas or oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and are put into this fund, but for some reason, that group, that conservation effort, only finds what the appropriators are willing to pass on to it. Our amendment would reauthorize the program itself on a permanent basis, and I am going to ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 92.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet, and I thank them for what they propose in the FAST Act. As a parent who went through two kids going to college, when I was presented that form, I realized I wasn't capable of doing it. I remember a story still today of a dear colleague of mine in the House of Representatives--many know Sonny Bono. We asked Sonny one day: Why did you come to Congress? How did you get into politics? He said: Well, I became mayor of a city for one reason--because I opened a restaurant. When I went to get a sign permit, they gave me 50 pages to fill out. I didn't graduate from high school, but I figured out it was easier for me to run for mayor, win, and make the sign permit 1 page than it was for me to fill out 50 pages. That is how he got his start in politics. I might say, as a parent, to be able to--on a post card--apply and know whether I was eligible for my children's student aid would be a tremendous thing for all parents. Senator King and I are on the floor to talk specifically about the Repay Act. As we have looked at student loans and as the government has become the primary loan component for student loans, what we have seen is that the consolidation of one's loans has dramatically increased in an incoherent way. Now, some might say that is exactly what government does. We say we are going to fix a problem, and we fix it in a way that you don't understand it; it is way too cumbersome. What we have tried to do is we have made an effort to provide more avenues for or options for children to choose or parents to choose how to pay back student loans. What we have done is we have made it as complicated as the form that Senator Bennet showed, which determines eligibility. Currently, the Federal Government offers 12 repayment options for students. Among these 12 options, students are offered a series of terms and conditions that often overlap amongst several other programs with very similar sounding names and stated benefits. The problem gets worse annually. The administration continues to do new regulations every time we see a problem, and those regulations then overlap with existing regulations on student loans to where individuals don't know exactly what their options are--what Senator King and I want to do. We will introduce, hopefully later today, the Repay Act. It provides two options that kids choose from: a fixed-rate option for repayment and an income-based option for repayment. We also realize that under the income-based options that are out there today an individual who is married could file as married--filing an individual tax form--and their household income isn't considered for the amount they are going to repay on a monthly basis. That is not how we designed it. We designed it so what their income capability was, their repayment would reflect it. In other words, we have people who are gaming the system today because their one spouse makes a lot of money and one spouse doesn't make much, and they pay a minimal amount of monthly student loan repayments. When they do that, they cheat the other students behind them because they take money out of the system that can be used for those individuals who desperately need it. The Repay Act streamlines a multitude of loan programs and creates a fixed-base and income-based repayment. It does it by consolidating all income-based repayment programs into one repayment program that caps borrowing at $57,500 for 20 years and limits to 25 years the repayment period for loans over $57,500, while ensuring the monthly payments rise at a reasonable rate based upon that annual income level--again, the household income level. The benefit for students is they will up front have the knowledge they need of what they will expect to pay based upon the amount they borrow. We believe this will drive smarter borrowing decisions and will lead students to limit the amount of debt they take prior to going to school. Behavioral economists argue that when an individual's options are less complex and straightforward, individuals are more likely to make rational decisions. Senator King and I believe the changes included in the Repay Act will promote those rational decisions that will ultimately lead to smarter borrowing that leads to repayment and ultimately healthier financial situations for our Nation's graduates. Why are we here? It is because only 80 percent of our student loans are being repaid. That means 20 percent is in default. What we want to do is we want to see kids get a great education. We want to see the ability for that to be paid for, and we want that money to be repaid based upon their success in the marketplace. I believe this act will put us on that road to do it. Now, I don't want to pretend, and I don't think Senator King will pretend, this isn't something that we crafted and created. This is the result of ideas that were put forward by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Lumina Foundation for Education, the Education Finance Council, the American Council on Education, the Young Invincibles, the Institute for College Access and Success, the New America Foundation, and many other groups. This is truly Congress, the Senate at its best, reaching out to organizations that do this day in and day out, just as I think the chairman did on the application-card student aid form. We have tried to search the best ideas. From that we have gleaned them and put them into the Repay Act. We will introduce this bill. I thank the chairman. It does complement very much the FAST Act. I thank my colleague, Senator King, for his help on the introduction of this bill. I yield back.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet, and I thank them for what they propose in the FAST Act. As a parent who went through two kids going to college, when I was presented that form, I realized I wasn't capable of doing it. I remember a story still today of a dear colleague of mine in the House of Representatives--many know Sonny Bono. We asked Sonny one day: Why did you come to Congress? How did you get into politics? He said: Well, I became mayor of a city for one reason--because I opened a restaurant. When I went to get a sign permit, they gave me 50 pages to fill out. I didn't graduate from high school, but I figured out it was easier for me to run for mayor, win, and make the sign permit 1 page than it was for me to fill out 50 pages. That is how he got his start in politics. I might say, as a parent, to be able to--on a post card--apply and know whether I was eligible for my children's student aid would be a tremendous thing for all parents. Senator King and I are on the floor to talk specifically about the Repay Act. As we have looked at student loans and as the government has become the primary loan component for student loans, what we have seen is that the consolidation of one's loans has dramatically increased in an incoherent way. Now, some might say that is exactly what government does. We say we are going to fix a problem, and we fix it in a way that you don't understand it; it is way too cumbersome. What we have tried to do is we have made an effort to provide more avenues for or options for children to choose or parents to choose how to pay back student loans. What we have done is we have made it as complicated as the form that Senator Bennet showed, which determines eligibility. Currently, the Federal Government offers 12 repayment options for students. Among these 12 options, students are offered a series of terms and conditions that often overlap amongst several other programs with very similar sounding names and stated benefits. The problem gets worse annually. The administration continues to do new regulations every time we see a problem, and those regulations then overlap with existing regulations on student loans to where individuals don't know exactly what their options are--what Senator King and I want to do. We will introduce, hopefully later today, the Repay Act. It provides two options that kids choose from: a fixed-rate option for repayment and an income-based option for repayment. We also realize that under the income-based options that are out there today an individual who is married could file as married--filing an individual tax form--and their household income isn't considered for the amount they are going to repay on a monthly basis. That is not how we designed it. We designed it so what their income capability was, their repayment would reflect it. In other words, we have people who are gaming the system today because their one spouse makes a lot of money and one spouse doesn't make much, and they pay a minimal amount of monthly student loan repayments. When they do that, they cheat the other students behind them because they take money out of the system that can be used for those individuals who desperately need it. The Repay Act streamlines a multitude of loan programs and creates a fixed-base and income-based repayment. It does it by consolidating all income-based repayment programs into one repayment program that caps borrowing at $57,500 for 20 years and limits to 25 years the repayment period for loans over $57,500, while ensuring the monthly payments rise at a reasonable rate based upon that annual income level--again, the household income level. The benefit for students is they will up front have the knowledge they need of what they will expect to pay based upon the amount they borrow. We believe this will drive smarter borrowing decisions and will lead students to limit the amount of debt they take prior to going to school. Behavioral economists argue that when an individual's options are less complex and straightforward, individuals are more likely to make rational decisions. Senator King and I believe the changes included in the Repay Act will promote those rational decisions that will ultimately lead to smarter borrowing that leads to repayment and ultimately healthier financial situations for our Nation's graduates. Why are we here? It is because only 80 percent of our student loans are being repaid. That means 20 percent is in default. What we want to do is we want to see kids get a great education. We want to see the ability for that to be paid for, and we want that money to be repaid based upon their success in the marketplace. I believe this act will put us on that road to do it. Now, I don't want to pretend, and I don't think Senator King will pretend, this isn't something that we crafted and created. This is the result of ideas that were put forward by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Lumina Foundation for Education, the Education Finance Council, the American Council on Education, the Young Invincibles, the Institute for College Access and Success, the New America Foundation, and many other groups. This is truly Congress, the Senate at its best, reaching out to organizations that do this day in and day out, just as I think the chairman did on the application-card student aid form. We have tried to search the best ideas. From that we have gleaned them and put them into the Repay Act. We will introduce this bill. I thank the chairman. It does complement very much the FAST Act. I thank my colleague, Senator King, for his help on the introduction of this bill. I yield back.

Mr. BURR

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