Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. The Senator's question is a very good one. It is normal for us to report out. We thought we had a deal with the Democratic leader. That is why we didn't discharge him. That is why we didn't have a business meeting this week. I regret that I didn't schedule that, but it certainly could have been, and I will not make that mistake again.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes on each side.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement of the Senator from Oregon. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, let me just tell Members that Congressman Pompeo has made himself available to every Member on the Committee for private meetings in their office. For everyone who would take a meeting, he met with them. He came before the committee in open session and in closed session. In open session, he stayed for as long as Members had questions, and all questions were answered. Congressman Pompeo received from the committee over 150--may have been over 200--questions for the record. Today all questions are answered. I can't address whether there was ever a CIA Director who was confirmed on inauguration day, but I can't think of a time where the country has been more challenged with threats around the world and at home than we are right now. We carried out military acts last night and the night before. We have just gotten through with one of the highest security events in the history of this country in Washington, DC. Why aren't we taking up Representative Pompeo today? It is not because there is disagreement, it is not because we haven't had an opportunity to ask enough questions or talk to him face-to-face and get answers. It is because some people don't want to vote on it today. They want to wait until Monday. I am willing to debate this as long as it needs to be debated. I don't want to cut off anybody's debate, but I think we owe it to the country to have a vote today. That can be in an hour, it can be in 5 hours, but I think we ought to provide this President with a CIA Director who is in charge.

Mr. BURR. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me conclude and then the Senator can claim his own time. We ought to do this. We ought to do it for the country, not for ourselves. It is not about us. This is about doing something for the country. An Acting Director of the CIA is just not sufficient, whether it is for a day or whether it is for a week. Right now they need leadership that is permanent. They need to know tomorrow who is heading that Agency. I would urge my colleagues, let's confirm him today. We have had enough time to ask every question possible, and now is the time to vote on confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I am pleased to rise to talk about the 21st Century Cures bill we have before us today. At the beginning of this Congress, my good friend Senator Alexander and I issued a report entitled Innovation for Healthier Americans in which we asked a simple, but critical, question: how can we do it better? Chairman Alexander and I asked this question because we must do it better for our constituents and their loved ones who are battling devastating diseases--diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, and rare pediatric conditions--for which we have no treatments today, but hope that we will in time to help the courageous individuals with these diseases to win their fight. I commend Chairman Alexander for his resolute focus on this critical work and for his leadership in bringing forward the bill we have before us today. For decades, our Nation has led the world in medical innovation, but the challenges to maintaining this global edge have never been greater. We recognized that our Nation's biomedical discovery and development must work as well as possible to ensure that Americans are able to benefit from the most cutting-edge medical innovations in as timely a manner as possible. We are at a tremendously exciting era in medicine that will be defined by innovation. Innovation holds great potential. Our ability to respond to public health threats, including those that pose a direct threat to our national security, will in large part be defined by whether or not we embrace innovation. In other words, the stakes could not be greater and innovation will be the key to our success in these endeavors. The bill before us today reflects a tremendous amount of bipartisan work and covers many areas of health care. I want to take just a few moments to highlight a handful of provisions on which I have partnered with my colleagues and that I believe answer the question of how we can do it better. I am pleased that the final Cures bill includes the Advancing Targeted Therapies for Rare Diseases Act, legislation that will help advance the development of targeted drugs for patients with serious or life threatening rare genetic diseases. Each of us has met constituents facing a difficult diagnosis, and these cases are particularly devastating when the patient is a young child who should have a lifetime ahead of them, but for which we have no treatment to offer them. These are the patients who move us to bring an unapologetic urgency to our work on these issues. The choice between nothing and nothing is not a choice. And so I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Bennet, Senator Hatch, and Senator Warren, for their work on the Advancing Targeted Therapies for Rare Diseases Act. Developing drugs for rare diseases is particularly difficult, but as our genetic understanding of rare diseases increases, there will be new opportunities to pursue treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and certain cancers, and these provisions will help to pave the way for these therapies to reach patients sooner. With these opportunities will come renewed hope for the children, adults, and families battling these conditions. I am particularly pleased that the final Cures bill also includes the Advancing Breakthrough Devices for Patients Act. This legislation builds on the Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act, which was enacted 4 years ago and has been very effective in helping to bring forward breakthrough therapies for patients. I want to thank Senator Bennet and Senator Hatch for their collaboration and partnership on these breakthrough bills. Like our 2012 bill, these provisions will ensure an all-hands-on-deck approach, this time for devices, with the goal of expediting the development and review of breakthrough technologies. These provisions are appropriately focused on what these technologies will mean for patients. In order to qualify for FDA designation as a breakthrough device, a device must provide more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. These devices must represent breakthrough technologies, have no approved alternatives, offer significant advantages over existing approved alternatives, or their availability must be in the best interest of patients. These devices might be the next technology that better prepares us to respond to needs in a disaster or life-threatening situation or the innovation that improves the manner and quality of an individual's episode of care. In other words, bringing forward these breakthrough devices will improve health care. The timely and predictable review of medical products is key to promoting and protecting the public health. The FDA Modernization Act I authored in 1997 sought to modernize 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. The FDA Device Accountability Act's bipartisan provisions included in the final Cures bill build on these efforts. I want to thank Senator Franken for his collaboration on this legislation, which will ensure that FDA eliminates unnecessary burdens when reviewing devices. It will also permit more efficient device clinical trials. In addition, the bill will require FDA to update guidance on certain tests performed in doctors' offices to ensure that the guidance on this matter aligns with the FDA Modernization Act's intent that, if the results by trained and untrained users are comparable, a test is considered to be accurate for CLIA waiver purposes. If we are going to ensure devices are able to reach Americans in as timely a manner as possible, we need to focus on what is necessary to know to meet FDA's gold standard for approval. What might be nice to know is not necessarily central to what FDA needs to know to make regulatory decisions. These provisions will help provide needed regulatory certainty and focus when it comes to FDA's review of medical devices. As we worked on the Cures bill this Congress, we have been reminded of the need to be prepared for the full range of public health threats that may present themselves, whether naturally occurring, like the Zika virus, or the result of a deliberate attack. I want to thank Senator Casey for his partnership in making sure we are as prepared as possible for these threats. The final Cures bill includes provisions from our bipartisan bill, the Medical Countermeasures Innovation Act, which will encourage the development of the medical products needed to protect the American people in the event of a global pandemic or biological weapons attack. Cochairs of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, wrote that this legislation would further strengthen the underpinnings of biological preparedness by creating new incentives for public-private partnerships; clarifying and streamlining contracting processes at the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; and ensuring that our Nation's health care providers have the guidance they need to use medical countermeasures in an emergency. The Alliance for Biosecurity has said that the medical countermeasure priority review voucher provided for in our legislation, and the final Cures bill, would be a game changer for investment in biodefense. Researching, developing, and getting a medical countermeasure across the approval finish line to market is a long, difficult, costly, and very risky but necessary endeavor. The priority review voucher for medical countermeasures will help to invigorate partnerships to ensure we have the medical countermeasures we need against the most serious identified threats--threats that have been found to affect our national security. We have heard that this program will benefit not only our civilian needs, but those of our Nation's warfighters, and, in doing so, better protect the American people. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure we fully leverage this provision, including ensuring that partners and innovators in this space have the certainty of knowing the Federal Government is committed to seeing this work through and not undercutting it by stopping our work on these fronts before we are fully prepared to protect the American people from these serious threats. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Casey for working with me in our annual efforts to advocate for the National Institutes of Health having the robust resources it needs to advance its lifesaving work. In addition to the funding increases the NIH has been provided through the appropriations process, this legislation will give NIH a meaningful booster shot in dedicated funding to enhance its work in promising areas. While passage and enactment of this legislation is a significant step, it is by no means the last. I will continue to hold the NIH and FDA accountable for their work on behalf of America's patients, and I look forward to continuing to partner with my colleagues on these important issues. As I have said before, the day-to-day actions--and, in many cases, inaction--at the FDA has a profound effect on our Nation's patients. It also directly impacts our economy, as FDA- regulated products account for about 25 cents of every dollar spent by American consumers each year. The importance of holding the agency accountable for its actions and inactions--all the way from frontline reviewers to the Commissioner--has never been more important. The former FDA Commissioner, Dr. Andy von Eschenbach, once wrote that government policy can either inhibit or accelerate the next revolution in science and technology. We must continue to advance and see through policies that spur, foster, and support the innovation and regulatory pathways necessary to realize cutting-edge treatments. Like the FDA Modernization Act in 1997, the bill before us today represents a remarkable opportunity--the opportunity to embrace innovation for healthier Americans. The director of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill summed it up well when he wrote to me and said that passage of this legislation will not only touch lives, it has the potential to save them. Therefore, it is my strong hope that the tools provided by this legislation will be leveraged and the medical products our constituents are counting on accelerated. This will be good for America's innovators, North Carolinians, and our Nation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Nashville Fire Department in North Carolina. On December 17, 2016, the men and women of the department will celebrate their 100th anniversary. The Nashville Fire Department has a tremendous history of dedicated service to its community. On December 17, 1916, it was outfitted with their first hose and reel to replace the previous bucket brigades. As the oldest fire department in Nash County, NC, its volunteers and employees continue, to this day, risking their lives to protect the welfare of their citizens. I am so proud of their dedication to keeping us safe in the Tar Heel State. The mission of the Nashville Fire Department is to ``protect lives, property, and the environment by providing skillful and cost effective fire and life safety services.'' The Nashville Fire Department goes above and beyond accomplishing this by answering approximately 1,700 calls for service yearly for either fire protection, EMS response, or vehicle extrication. Additionally, this department specializes in trench rescue--one of the most challenging rescue events that emergency responders can face. I salute the brave men and women of the Nashville Fire Department for 100 years of protective service to the people of Nashville, NC. Through their efforts, they make their community a better, safer place.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, former U.S. Senator Robert Morgan of North Carolina passed away on July 16, 2016, after a lifetime of public service. Senator Morgan served as a State senator, State attorney general, U.S. Senator, and director of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. He was a man of integrity who was well respected by our citizens. Senator Morgan was devoted to doing all he could to make his community, his State, and his Nation a better place for everyone. He will certainly be missed by his family and all who knew him. At the request of Caroll Legget, the former chief of staff to former U.S. Senator Robert Morgan, I ask unanimous consent that an obituary from the News & Observer published from July 18 to July 20, 2016, and the entirety of two editorials from the July 18, 2016, edition of the New York Times and from the July 20, 2016, edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senate's passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act, bipartisan legislation that I introduced in April with Congressman John Lewis. We were joined in this effort by Senators Leahy, McCaskill and Blunt, as well as Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. The goal of this legislation is simple and noble: to bring truth to light and bring justice to the victims of racially motivated murders. The original bill was championed by Representative Lewis and civil rights activist and cold case researcher Alvin Sykes in 2007, and it aimed to ensure that those who had quite literally gotten away with murder during the civil rights era were prosecuted under the law. And recognizing that while many of these civil rights era cases can't be prosecuted due to legal challenges, the investigation of these cold cases is important to revealing the truth about the injustices committed against African-Americans and the failure of the legal system to protect them. Uncovering and confronting this dark part of our nation's history is invaluable to strengthening our rule of law. Mr. President, it was important to pass this bill today because on August 28--a day that will arrive during the Congressional recess--the Till family and others in the civil rights community will remember the murder of Emmett Till. As my colleagues know, Emmett Till was a 14- year-old-boy from Chicago who was brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955 after whistling at a white woman. The two individuals who were charged with the murder of Emmett Till were tried. But after only a 67-minute deliberation of the jury, the two men were acquitted of capital murder. Both men later confessed to the murder to a reporter, but under our Constitution, these individuals could not be retried. Had Emmett Till not been murdered, his family would have been celebrating his 75th birthday this month instead of remembering his death next month. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said that ``the time is always right to do what is right.'' We can't bring Emmett Till back, but we can honor his legacy and do what is right by uncovering these unimaginable wrongs. Under the original Emmett Till Act, the Department of Justice and FBI have investigated 105 of 113 cold cases involving 126 victims. There has been one successful prosecution at the State level since the passage of this law, in which a former police officer plead guilty for manslaughter in the death of a civil rights activist. Yet there is growing evidence gathered by activists, lawyers, and researchers that more unsolved murders exist, and the mandate of the original law is not yet complete. For example, in 2012, the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University submitted 196 names of victims of racially suspicious cases to the DOJ that warrant review. To my knowledge, these names have not been investigated. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Right Crimes Reauthorization Act would enable the Department of Justice and FBI to carry on the critical mission of investigating unsolved murders, and when possible, securing justice through our legal system. It would enable them to investigate a broader time span of crimes than the original bill, recognizing that racially motivated violence did not end in 1969. And it would provide for increased collaboration among the federal government, State and local officials, and cold case researchers, to ensure a full array of resources are dedicated to this end. Many of these crimes may not be able to be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations, the death of witnesses, or other legal issues. But even if these investigations do not lead to prosecutions, giving these families the real truth about what happened to their loved ones is not only important to them as they cope with their grief, it is also important for understanding our history, ensuring the rule of law, and sending the message to future generations that every single American is worthy of the protections of our laws. In Letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. King wrote that ``justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' For many victims, full justice will never be realized because justice has been delayed too long. It is the purpose of this bill to ensure that justice is not delayed any longer, and it is my hope that the House of Representatives will soon pass this bill and the President will sign it into law. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, as I grew up, I remember listening daily to Paul Harvey on the radio. Paul Harvey's motto was, ``and now the rest of the story.'' That is where we are. I give Senator Wyden a tremendous amount of credit for consistency. He is consistently against providing the tools that law enforcement needs to defend the American people. That is fine, if that is your position, but let's talk about fact. This statute was changed in 1993, and in one subpart of that legislation, it was not carried over about the ISP--Internet service provider--responsibility to provide this information when requested by law enforcement. From 1993 until 2010, every technology company, when requested by the FBI, continued to provide this information. This is not a new expansion. It is clearly something that continued from 1993 until 2010, 6 years ago, when all of a sudden a tech company looked at it and said: Boy, it is in this subpart, but it doesn't state it in that subpart so we are not going to provide it for you anymore. Myth: We have never asked for this. We have never had this. No, we have had it for a long time, and until 2010, every company supplied it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All of a sudden, one company's general counsel said: We don't see it in this subpart; therefore, we are not bound to provide that for you. We are either going to fight terrorism and prosecute criminals or we are not going to do it. We can take away every tool because we use this excuse that technology now forbids us from accessing information. Let me say about this, we get no content. To get content, you have to go to a judge on a bench, and that judge has to give you permission to actually read the content. We are talking about addresses, locations, times that, in the case of reconstruction or in the case of trying to prevent an attack, could be crucial. The one fact I heard from my colleague from Oregon is that this wouldn't have stopped San Bernardino or Orlando. He is 100 percent correct. But I hope there is no legislation we are considering in the Senate that is about a single incident. This is about a framework of tools law enforcement can use today, tomorrow, and into the future; it is not about looking back and saying: But it didn't exist here. Let me just explain what happens if, in fact, this inadvertent change isn't made. It means the FBI goes from a 1-day process of getting this vital information to over a month. To go to the FISA Court and get approval to seek the information--over a month. If it had to do with a terrorist attack, boy, I hope the American people are comfortable with saying: As long as the FBI figures this out a month in advance, then we are OK. But when you look at the MO of attacks around the world, in most cases, we had no notice. In most cases, maybe another thread of information might have given us the preventive time we needed. In many cases, connecting the dots is also a matter of time. Director Comey came and had a session with all Members of the Senate last week. His comment about expediting this information into the public domain was because he wanted to assure the American people that they had reviewed as much as they could to certify that there was not another cell, that the American people could sleep safe that night. Well, this is part of that process--being able to access the information you need in a timely fashion. You know something he forgot to say is that this is the Obama administration's language. We can talk all we want to about Bush or Clinton or whatever; this is the Obama administration--the one that has the responsibility today to keep the American people safe. It is the administration that has come to the Senate, provided the language, and asked for this clarification to be made because it was inadvertently left out in 1993. So we are here today to fix something that is broken, not to expand in any way, shape, or form the powers or to intrude into privacy, because there is no content collected. This is simply to provide law enforcement with tools that enable them to fulfill their mission, which is to keep America safe. In addition to the ECTA fix, let me say there is a lone-wolf provision that extends the lone wolf permanently. The lone wolf provision provides the government's ability to target non-U.S. persons--foreigners only--who engage or attempt to engage in international terrorism but do not show specific links to a foreign power or terrorist organization to be under the lone-wolf provision. It is too important to let it expire. This provision is not about addressing or responding to a single specific threat--particularly one that has already manifested itself-- any more than the underlying bill is. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The American people need it, law enforcement needs it, and the Obama administration wants it. It is what we operated under from an understanding from 1993 until 2010, when a general counsel in one company decided to buck the system and say: Spell it out for me or we are not going to do it. Let's spell it out for them and give law enforcement this tool. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Jack Livingston, a key member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff for more than 12 years. Jack's lifelong commitment to our national security began when he was just a young man and heeded the call to service when he joined the Civil Air Patrol. Some years later, he joined the Navy, followed by more than 7 years of distinguished service at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His memory of being on the floor of the Strategic Information and Operations Center at the FBI in the hours after 9/11, when so many others in Washington, DC, had hurried to safety, remained with him every day and became his driver and, in turn, a motivator for younger staff. Jack subsequently joined the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where he has served for the last 13 years. As general counsel for the majority and minority, Jack not only helped shape national policy on key intelligence matters, but he served as a personal and professional mentor to dozens of committee and congressional staff, on both sides of the aisle. From the all-nighters before mark-up, reviewing amendments and writing and proofing countless sets of talking points, to somehow always assigning himself a larger ``equal'' share of the work, Jack has led by example. His meticulous nature and sound reasoning were essential as the committee produced reports or majority or minority views on significant matters of national security, from Iraq WMD to interrogation and detention. It did not matter how busy Jack was because he would always find time to talk through an intelligence issue with a colleague, proofread a floor statement, or just listen. Many staff knocked on his open door and were greeted without hesitation by a kind word or invitation to sit down and discuss a question more in-depth. Many of Jack's colleagues have had the privilege of working with him for years. Ask them what words describe Jack best, and you will likely hear ``integrity,'' ``honesty,'' ``impeccable character,'' ``devoted family man,'' and ``all-around good guy''--and unique: while an ardent Indiana University and Bobby Knight fan, his California roots easily showed themselves as he called his colleagues ``dude'' during debates. Jack was often kidded about catching a joke; the deadpan expression on his face was usually belied by a twinkle in his eye that said the joke was really on you. Jack is loyal to the core, and he understood well the importance of providing accurate information and sound advice to members of the committee, a point on which I am sure my predecessors, Senators Chambliss, Bond, and Roberts, would agree. Jack had the ability, all too rare in Congress, to put politics aside and focus on the mission and on what was best for the Nation. His colleagues knew they could engage in spirited but never personal debates. Jack always stuck to the facts and his arguments were based on logic, not emotion. As a result, members of the committee--Republican, Democrat, and Independent--sought his counsel on a wide range of issues. As the minority and majority general counsel, Jack enjoyed some major successes in national security legislation. From the Protect America Act to the FISA Amendments Act, Jack worked tirelessly to secure the best result for our terrorist surveillance capabilities. Jack was passionate about this issue and understood it better than pretty much anyone else. The committee's FISA audit was a hallmark of Jack's early tenure on the committee and provided the impetus for many improvements in the conduct of national security investigations and for later legislation in which Jack played significant roles. Jack led the committee's passage of the Cyber Information Sharing Act of 2015, the product of years of bipartisan work and compromise on an issue that has taken on new urgency with the increase in cyber threats, and of numerous intelligence authorization acts that secured critical authorities and capabilities for our intelligence professionals. It is often said that behind every great man, there is a greater woman, and in Jack's case, that is certainly true--and I have no doubt Jack would agree. Jack's tireless service was made possible, not just because of his own character, but because he was confident in the love and support of his wife, Julie, and their children, John, James, and Sarah. For their own sacrifices and for their willingness to share Jack with the committee, we are indebted to them. Jack has earned our respect and admiration, and we will miss his sound counsel and friendship, but his legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come.

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the importance of fighting the Zika virus and the urgency of being prepared for the full range of threats we may face, whether naturally occurring, such as Zika, or manmade. To some, this may look like a grasshopper, but that is actually a mosquito. The question is, Prepared for all hazards? We still do not have answers to all the questions surrounding Zika, but we do know this: Zika is a very serious public health threat, and we need to act. That is why I support the Blunt-Murray amendment to bolster our Nation's response to it. The CDC has indicated that the mosquitoes responsible for spreading the virus could be found in a significant portion of the United States, including my State of North Carolina. What makes this virus particularly troubling is that it has the potential to cause tragic birth defects in babies born to mothers infected with Zika. The virus has also been linked with serious neurologic conditions. The sad news of reported cases of microcephaly is an urgent call to us that this virus poses a very serious threat to pregnant women and their unborn children. We need to take action to help these women deliver healthy babies and stop the spread of the virus. It is concerning to know that we do not have drugs to prevent or treat Zika, and we will likely not have them until after the summer when mosquitos are present in many of the communities back home. Zika underscores the importance of supporting a flexible, all-hazards approach and response framework under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act--legislation I authored almost a decade ago--to ensure our Nation would be better prepared for the range of serious public health threats we might face, such as Zika. It also underscores that Mother Nature always has the potential to throw us a curveball, this time in the form of a virus with the potential for devastating birth defects transmitted through a simple mosquito bite. This mosquito-borne virus also highlights why we must be prepared with the appropriate tools to protect the health of America from situations in which infectious diseases are moving from animals to humans. Thankfully, because of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, we have been better prepared to respond to Zika and other recent threats. But this work is never done, and we must always remain vigilant when it comes to medical and public health preparedness and response. The next threat may be naturally occurring, or it may be the result of a deliberate attack. We need to be prepared for all of them. After 9/11, Congress established the BioShield Special Reserve Fund to encourage the development of countermeasures that meet specific requirements for use against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents that the Department of Homeland Security has determined pose a material threat against the United States population sufficient to affect our national security. These are threats like anthrax, Ebola, hemorrhagic fever, and smallpox. Like Zika, the American people expect us to be ready to respond to these threats. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Florida because it would gut BioShield. The President's fiscal year 2017 budget proposed decreasing BioShield by $160 million, and then weeks later, with Zika's emergence, the administration proposed raiding the BioShield fund. These actions do not instill confidence that the Federal Government is prepared to handle these threats and will be a committed partner in these public- private partnerships--partnerships that are crucial for defeating Zika. I want to work with the administration to improve our Nation's biodefense preparedness and response, especially with regard to emerging infectious diseases, but gutting BioShield is not the answer. I also wish to take a moment and talk about the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, as I call it. BARDA is currently helping innovators navigate the development of the ``valley of death'' by supporting advanced research and development of medical countermeasures and spurring innovation, such as platform technologies, to ensure that we are as nimble as possible when confronting serious public health threats. BARDA is on the frontline of combating Zika because it is a linchpin in advanced medical countermeasures. It is also critical that we support BARDA in fulfilling its mission. The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense recently issued a report that found there are ``serious gaps and inadequacies that continue to leave the Nation vulnerable to threats from nature and terrorists alike.'' We cannot lose our focus on preparing for the threats we have identified. By strengthening our work in this area, we will be better prepared for the next naturally occurring threat. Regardless of the threat, we know the American people expect us to protect them from it and to be prepared to combat it. Today the threat is Zika. Two years ago the threat was Ebola. And the years before that, it was a novel flu strain. We have been here before. We don't know what the next threat will be or how it will arise, but by staying focused on identified threats and being vigilant to finish what we start, we will be better prepared for the next threat, whether naturally occurring or the result of a deliberate attack. I strongly support the Blunt-Murray Zika amendment because it will help protect women, babies, and families threatened by Zika in North Carolina and across the United States. It will also ensure that we continue to make progress against a full range of threats we may face in the future. I believe we must confront the threat of Zika with the resources this tragic virus demands and the compassion that women and children deserve. The Blunt-Murray amendment does both. I look forward to supporting it and continuing to fight to ensure that Americans are protected from Zika and all other threats we might face. While the Presiding Officer and chairman are here, I might add that America is the world's response. We are the ones who funded and initiated the cure for Ebola. We are the ones who took the seasonal flu variations and modified them to reflect the greatest threat. And America will be the one--for the world--that addresses a cure, vaccine, or countermeasure for Zika. The good news is that, as a Congress, over 10 years ago we set up the architecture to be able to be ahead of things like Zika and Ebola. Quite frankly, during different administrations under different control, we failed to fund the things that we recognized we needed to do. As we have this crisis and we respond to it, let's also reassure the American people that we are going to invest in that architecture and that we will be ahead of novel diseases. I call it novel. We have known about Zika for over 40 years, and the fact is that technology now allows us to address this in a different way. Let's invest in those platform technologies. Let's make sure we have an architecture that allows advanced development for the vaccines or the countermeasures. Let's not let down the American people on the next disease or the next threat that we might face. I thank the Presiding Officer and the chairman. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome a constituent, the senior pastor of Lee Park Church in Monroe, NC, Chris Justice, to the Senate. Chris's story is an inspiring one. In 2005, Chris was a well-known broadcaster on dual television stations in Charlotte, NC. In November of that year, Chris was called by the Lee Park Church, a congregation of 50 faithful, at which time he committed to be their pastor and to split his time between the church and being a broadcaster. Chris kept that pace up for the next 3 years as he grew a church. He understood that God's calling was to the church and to service, not necessarily to broadcasting. Let me just say that Pastor Chris has grown that church to a lively congregation that is involved in their community. His senior leadership there has provided the nurturing that is needed for a community to find their calling in life as part of that church. From the beginning of his career as a news anchor, Chris always wanted to give back and to be part of the community. He is surely doing that today. Today, Pastor Chris continues to do so, and he has followed the simple strategy that remains the mission of the church--preach the word and love people. I think that sums up Pastor Chris--preach the word and love the people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today is an excellent day for students across the country who are taking out college student loans. For the upcoming school year, the Treasury auction just took place on 10-year notes. Some folks might ask: What is the connection with student loans and Treasury notes? Three years ago, Senator Alexander, myself, Senator Manchin, Senator King, and others said something very simple: We are going to get politicians out of the business of setting student loan rates, and we are going to let the marketplace do it. That was a wise decision, as was the law we passed--the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. Since 2013 it has saved students and their parents $36 billion in taking out student loans. We will save another $10 billion again this year. That means that 200,000 North Carolinians--students and their parents--are saving even more on student loans. Those 200,000 North Carolinians take out about $500 million in student loans to attend universities and colleges. Because of this law, they have been saving. Because of today's Treasury auction, they are going to save even more. They are going to save about $1.1 billion across my State alone because of the reduction in the Treasury note from a little over 4 percent on the 10- year to 3.76 today. Congressional Research Service tells us that about $4,500 less will be paid out for a 4-year degree. I hold this up because I think this is indicative of where we are this year--the lowest student loan rate since the year 2004. I know this is a debate not only within the body of the Senate and the House but also on the campaign trail for our Presidential candidates. Prior to 2013, interest rates had been written into law by politicians and were essentially set at 6.8 percent. Many of us looked at it and said: This is insane. For the protection of American taxpayers, it ought to be tied to some financial instrument. So we tied it to the 10-year bond. Since that point, taxpayers--specifically, students and their parents--have saved $36 billion because we decoupled it from the political process here. In fact, those interest rates have dropped significantly since last year--4.29 percent to 3.76 percent today. That means about $40 more per month in the average graduate's pocket. It means $4,500 more overall in saved costs. What would have happened if we hadn't come together to pass this law? Students would have shelled out another $46 billion in student loan interest payments. This is one thing that Congress can hold up, and we can highlight the fact that we did something responsible. For those who claim we haven't done anything about the high cost of student loans, let me suggest to you that we have done a lot. We have saved parents and students $46 billion. We probably could save them more than that if, in fact, we didn't divert some of the proceeds that the Government gets off of student loans to the Affordable Care Act by about $2 billion a year. We ran into significant pushback from several Members of this body. In fact, 18 Members of this body, mostly from the other party, opposed this law. The junior Senator from Vermont called it a disaster for young people in our country looking to go to college. This law was also vocally opposed by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. But today, it demonstrates the shortsightedness that was displayed then. Today, because of what we did in a bipartisan fashion passed by this body, parents and students have saved $46 billion, and in North Carolina this next year, it is projected that they will save another $1.1 billion in interest payments on their student loans. This is a day that Congress can be proud of because we have done something good for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

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

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BURR. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Leahy, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Blunt, will introduce the reauthorization of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. To give a little bit of history for my colleagues on this, this really stems from 1955, and it was the summer of 1955 when a young 14- year-old left Chicago, IL, and traveled to Mississippi to visit relatives. While on that trip, he made a grave mistake. He whistled at a White woman. Because of that, Emmett Till was killed. The investigation that resulted from his death culminated in a 67-minute deliberation by a jury that found both men and acquitted them. Both individuals, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam confessed to the murder in 1956. In our criminal justice system, when you are found not guilty, you can't be retried. There was an injustice that was done. In this particular case, the injustice was done to Emmett Till, a 14-year-old. Without an understanding of how many people might have been affected by the same lack of justice applied equally, there was a self-taught individual that became an activist. His name was Alvin Sykes. Alvin Sykes became a civil rights advocate. He was a cold case researcher. Through the frustration of trying to get a bill to the U.S. Senate that my good friend Tom Coburn held up, Alvin Sykes did what most people don't do in this town. Rather than hold a press conference to talk about a civil rights bill, he called Tom Coburn and said: I would like to see you. He sat down with Tom Coburn, and Tom said: What is it you are trying to do? The two bonded at that point, and they rewrote the bill to reflect what Tom felt was the right legislative approach to create in this country--and fund, I might add--an effort to look back at all potential civil rights cases that were pre-1969. Since the bill's passage, I think in 2008, the Department of Justice, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with local law enforcement, has gone through 113 cases. I might add that 15 are still open, and in one they found a reason to convict an individual in the year 2010 from a case pre-1969. So let me say for my colleagues, we will introduce a bill to reauthorize this act. Why? Very simply, because just last year, the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University identified 196 potential cases that weren't caught when the Justice Department and the FBI looked at their cold case files. Now, when Senator Coburn and Alvin Sykes put this legislation together, they funded the effort with a mere $13 million. With that $13 million, it created an effort within the Justice Department in the Civil Rights Division and in the FBI. What we found is that it is never too late to go back and fix mistakes that you make. So I will ask my colleagues at some point in the not too distant future, probably by unanimous consent, to pass the Emmett Till Civil Rights Crime Reauthorization Act of 2016. What this does differently than what the original piece of legislation did that Tom Coburn and Alvin Sykes hammered out is that it reauthorizes within the existing offices of the FBI and the Department of Justice and it more clearly delineates the responsibility of the deputy crime chief of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and provides for a joint task force for enhanced collaboration. It eliminates the pre-1970 date, and says that if the law was applied unequally, it doesn't matter when it was, and we should look at it. It eliminates the sunset provision on the Emmett Till law. This is a permanent piece of legislation, where the DOJ and FBI will consult with civil rights organizations, universities, and other entities to reach out and pull in potentially any other cases that should be reviewed. Of course, it allows for the Department of Justice to reopen certain cold cases that merit a second review as necessary, and it maintains the current funding levels. It is a very worthy bill to support. As much as I would really like to make my comments about Emmett Till, I can fill in a number of potentially different names. But the name I want to come to the floor to talk about is Alvin Sykes. Alvin Sykes is a self-taught civil rights advocate, a person who taught himself how to do these investigations into civil rights cases, a guy who is passionate about trying to bring justice to individuals who are no longer here. We are lobbied on Capitol Hill all the time by people who have an interest--it could be personal or it could be professional--in a particular issue. Alvin Sykes had nobody lobbying. They were dead. Alvin Sykes saw a potential injustice in our judicial system and spent a lifetime passionately pursuing how he as one individual could make this right. This is a tremendous success story about something that Congress has done that is good. What we need to do is extend the good work of Tom Coburn and, more importantly, the passion of Alvin Sykes to say that not only was this needed then but it is needed now and into the future. So I come to you today to give you a preview before this bill is presented and to thank my cosponsors, Senator Leahy, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Blunt, but more importantly, to thank Alvin Sykes. Without Alvin Sykes' passion and commitment, this injustice wouldn't have been brought to the attention of Tom Coburn, and Tom Coburn wouldn't have used his incredible passion to pass this bill originally. It is my hope that we can make not only Alvin Sykes proud of the work of the Senate but that, in a small way, it might send a message to those who are related to Emmett Till and to the hundreds of others who might have been served an injustice and so that their relatives can understand that they did have value and that value is for others--that they may not be exposed to an injustice in the future.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Leahy, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Blunt, will introduce the reauthorization of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. To give a little bit of history for my colleagues on this, this really stems from 1955, and it was the summer of 1955 when a young 14- year-old left Chicago, IL, and traveled to Mississippi to visit relatives. While on that trip, he made a grave mistake. He whistled at a White woman. Because of that, Emmett Till was killed. The investigation that resulted from his death culminated in a 67-minute deliberation by a jury that found both men and acquitted them. Both individuals, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam confessed to the murder in 1956. In our criminal justice system, when you are found not guilty, you can't be retried. There was an injustice that was done. In this particular case, the injustice was done to Emmett Till, a 14-year-old. Without an understanding of how many people might have been affected by the same lack of justice applied equally, there was a self-taught individual that became an activist. His name was Alvin Sykes. Alvin Sykes became a civil rights advocate. He was a cold case researcher. Through the frustration of trying to get a bill to the U.S. Senate that my good friend Tom Coburn held up, Alvin Sykes did what most people don't do in this town. Rather than hold a press conference to talk about a civil rights bill, he called Tom Coburn and said: I would like to see you. He sat down with Tom Coburn, and Tom said: What is it you are trying to do? The two bonded at that point, and they rewrote the bill to reflect what Tom felt was the right legislative approach to create in this country--and fund, I might add--an effort to look back at all potential civil rights cases that were pre-1969. Since the bill's passage, I think in 2008, the Department of Justice, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with local law enforcement, has gone through 113 cases. I might add that 15 are still open, and in one they found a reason to convict an individual in the year 2010 from a case pre-1969. So let me say for my colleagues, we will introduce a bill to reauthorize this act. Why? Very simply, because just last year, the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University identified 196 potential cases that weren't caught when the Justice Department and the FBI looked at their cold case files. Now, when Senator Coburn and Alvin Sykes put this legislation together, they funded the effort with a mere $13 million. With that $13 million, it created an effort within the Justice Department in the Civil Rights Division and in the FBI. What we found is that it is never too late to go back and fix mistakes that you make. So I will ask my colleagues at some point in the not too distant future, probably by unanimous consent, to pass the Emmett Till Civil Rights Crime Reauthorization Act of 2016. What this does differently than what the original piece of legislation did that Tom Coburn and Alvin Sykes hammered out is that it reauthorizes within the existing offices of the FBI and the Department of Justice and it more clearly delineates the responsibility of the deputy crime chief of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and provides for a joint task force for enhanced collaboration. It eliminates the pre-1970 date, and says that if the law was applied unequally, it doesn't matter when it was, and we should look at it. It eliminates the sunset provision on the Emmett Till law. This is a permanent piece of legislation, where the DOJ and FBI will consult with civil rights organizations, universities, and other entities to reach out and pull in potentially any other cases that should be reviewed. Of course, it allows for the Department of Justice to reopen certain cold cases that merit a second review as necessary, and it maintains the current funding levels. It is a very worthy bill to support. As much as I would really like to make my comments about Emmett Till, I can fill in a number of potentially different names. But the name I want to come to the floor to talk about is Alvin Sykes. Alvin Sykes is a self-taught civil rights advocate, a person who taught himself how to do these investigations into civil rights cases, a guy who is passionate about trying to bring justice to individuals who are no longer here. We are lobbied on Capitol Hill all the time by people who have an interest--it could be personal or it could be professional--in a particular issue. Alvin Sykes had nobody lobbying. They were dead. Alvin Sykes saw a potential injustice in our judicial system and spent a lifetime passionately pursuing how he as one individual could make this right. This is a tremendous success story about something that Congress has done that is good. What we need to do is extend the good work of Tom Coburn and, more importantly, the passion of Alvin Sykes to say that not only was this needed then but it is needed now and into the future. So I come to you today to give you a preview before this bill is presented and to thank my cosponsors, Senator Leahy, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Blunt, but more importantly, to thank Alvin Sykes. Without Alvin Sykes' passion and commitment, this injustice wouldn't have been brought to the attention of Tom Coburn, and Tom Coburn wouldn't have used his incredible passion to pass this bill originally. It is my hope that we can make not only Alvin Sykes proud of the work of the Senate but that, in a small way, it might send a message to those who are related to Emmett Till and to the hundreds of others who might have been served an injustice and so that their relatives can understand that they did have value and that value is for others--that they may not be exposed to an injustice in the future.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make some remarks on the Burr-Tillis amendment No. 3175 to the Energy bill.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President and colleagues, I am embarrassed that I am having to come to the floor to talk about an amendment that makes so much sense, that embraces everything that I think the legislative branch and, more importantly, the American people support: the protection of a species. I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act. The amendment mirrors legislation Senator Tillis and I introduced, S. 1204. This bill passed the House twice, in 2012 and 2013. Let me be specific. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horses Fund to provide for the management of free-roaming wild horses in and around Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. As I have learned, North Carolina is mostly inhabited by people from Virginia and Maryland--up and down the east coast--in the summer. As a matter of fact, as to the homes in the northern portion of the Outer Banks where the wild horses are found, where there isn't a road, 60 percent of the homes are owned by Virginians, not North Carolinians. These horses have existed there for hundreds of years. As a matter of fact, these horses have been such an important part of North Carolina's history that in 2010 it was made North Carolina's State horse. People have seen these horses on the beach and between cottages. They have co-existed with the habitat for over 200 years. The turtles, ducks, and wildlife have thrived. The species of that habitat have survived because there is no better protector of the species than these animals. They eat what they need without removing the roots, which is what helps them to repopulate and stay alive. Here is the problem: This herd has been mandated to be held at 60 horses, and every scientific study on genetics shows you have to have more than 100 or 120 to have genetic sustainability. What are we proposing? This act proposes that we bring 20 horses from the Shackleford reserve and integrate them with the horses on the Outer Banks, which is a mere 2 hours away. This herd is similar from the standpoint of its creation. By doing this, we will begin to inject genetics into this so we don't have the genetic deformities that are beginning to be experienced with the Corolla horses. If we don't act now, we could lose these horses, and it is all due to genetic inbreeding. The reason I am embarrassed to be here is that this is something that ought to be done by unanimous consent. Every person in this body should embrace this legislation. Yet the Fish and Wildlife Service is opposed to this. And there is nothing that says that Fish and Wildlife can't build a fence around the wildlife reserve. It existed for hundreds of years in the wildlife reserve before and after it was designated as a wildlife reserve. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the land on which these horses roam is private. The land for the wildlife refuge is only 30 percent, but 70 percent of the land is privately owned, and the private landowners are all for making this herd genetically sustainable. If we don't do this legislatively, let me assure you that the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to hold the number at 60. If they hold the herd at 60, the herd will genetically burn out. I don't know what Fish and Wildlife is going to do. The herd is at 80 today. The herd needs new genetics entered into it to change the trend, but Fish and Wildlife could go out tomorrow and shoot 20 horses. I am sure they would probably tell us that they would take 20 horses and put them somewhere else. Where are they going to put them? Inject them into another genetic herd and increase their sustainability? Maybe so. But if you do it somewhere else, why wouldn't you do the same thing here? No landowners are clamoring to let this herd die out. As a matter of fact, there are a million and a half people in this country who have expressed support for the sustainability of this herd. But this is where science dictates. Science says that it is not sustainable if you leave this herd without a genetic injection from somewhere else. This is not a new proposal. It passed in the House twice. It is not a new proposal. Fish and Wildlife has done this in other places. For some reason, they don't want to do it in North Carolina. The last test for any Member of Congress and anybody in this country should be: What will it cost us to do this? What am I asking you to pay to do this? The answer is zero. There is no Federal cost to this legislation. We can sustain the herd for the future, and it will not cost taxpayers anything. We have a private entity that will take responsibility for the management of the fund. We don't in any way, shape, or form limit Fish and Wildlife from the standpoint of their ability to fence off whatever they believe is environmentally sensitive. And we have horses that have lived with ducks, geese, and sea turtles for over 200 years and have never seen a problem with it. The Presiding Officer has been patient. I say to my colleagues: Don't make a mistake. Support this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It doesn't cost the taxpayers money, and it embraces everything that I think America stands for, and that is the preservation of the history of this country. Believe it or not, these horses represent over 200 years of history in North Carolina, and that is why we made it our State horse. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield back my time.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise to speak on my amendment very briefly. Many of my colleagues may have seen these wild horses on a vacation to the Outer Banks or maybe you viewed the movie ``Nights in Rodanthe.'' These horses have been there for over 200 years. What we are doing is we are injecting some new genetics so this herd is sustainable for another 200 years. Let me tell my colleagues that they have never been managed by the Fish & Wildlife Service. The Fish & Wildlife Service doesn't want to manage them. They are managed by a private nonprofit that goes to great lengths and expense to make sure that this herd survives. With that, I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.