Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support Mike Pompeo as the next Director of the CIA. And I thank my good friend, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner, for his comments.

I will vary slightly from Senator Warner in that I think the committee process provided every member of the committee a sufficient amount of time and opportunity to ask and to have answered every question that one can query a four-term Member of the U.S. Congress, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Pompeo made himself available to every member on the committee for a private meeting in their office, to the best of my knowledge, with no time limit.

Representative Pompeo came to an open hearing--which is unusual for our committee, but we do that with nominees--with no time limit. He made himself available to a closed committee hearing with no time limits. He answered over 150 questions for the record. Every member of the committee was given a tremendous opportunity to ask everything and to have it sufficiently answered by the nominee.

Maybe we won't explain what went through the mind of my colleague from Oregon to claim that he hadn't had sufficient time, that there were more questions that needed to be asked, and he made the statement in the light of day. Trust me, most all of the hearings we had and the meetings the members had were in the light of day--it was before 5 p.m. and after 8 a.m. in the morning.

In fact, there is a little game going on with Representative Pompeo, and I think it is similar to what we are going to see with other nominees. But let me tell you why this ought to be different. This ought to be different because of what is at stake. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency should be somebody who is above reproach, somebody who understands that integrity is everything--not just with the Congress of the United States but with the employees of the CIA.

This is an agency that operates in the shadows. The President gave a speech there on Saturday, and behind him as a backdrop were the stars of individuals who have no names, who have sacrificed their lives without recognition on behalf of the future of this

country and the security of the United States. So it is absolutely crucial that we put somebody there who understands the value of the individuals but more importantly, the value of what they do for the security of America.

Representative Pompeo has been asked to lead what I believe is our Nation's most treasured asset. It is an agency that works in the shadows and requires a leader to be unwavering in integrity, who will ensure that the organization operates lawfully, ethically, and morally.

Just look at Mike Pompeo's background. He went to West Point. He graduated No. 1 in his class. He left West Point and went to Harvard, where he became a lawyer, God bless him. He headed the Law Review at Harvard. But he didn't pursue a legal career; he started an aerospace business and became the CEO of an aerospace business. He has had multiple successes in life, yet he ended up in public service. He ended up in the House of Representatives.

When asked by the President on behalf of the security of the American people to serve at the Central Intelligence Agency, Mike Pompeo said: Yes, sir, I will do it--only to come up here with a biography like I have read, with the trust and the integrity needed to fill the slot.

For Members of Congress to question whether this is the right fit, not because of the content of what he has accomplished but because they wanted to claim they hadn't had enough time--if we don't change this-- and I say this in a bipartisan way--if we don't change this, good people will not respond ``yes'' when asked. If we continue to berate people who come here, because of things in their background that have no real, rational reason for exploration as to whether they can sufficiently do the job, then America stands a chance to lose the best and the brightest, regardless of where they grew up, regardless of the color of their skin, and regardless of their or their family's success. I say that to my colleagues in the hope that we will back off before we have done everlasting damage to our possibilities to get the right people here.

Representative Pompeo has honorably and energetically represented the people of the Fourth District in Kansas for three terms. He is on the House Intelligence Committee. House or Senate, I can't think of a Member of Congress who has traveled more around the world and spent more time at the CIA understanding the ins and outs of what they do, how they do it, and why it is important to the American people and to the security of this country, than Mike Pompeo. He is well versed on intelligence community operations, capabilities, and their authorities. He understands the nature of the threat we face here at home and abroad.

Some are going to question whether, in fact, his personal views that maybe there are events that will happen that will challenge Congress to change the laws are important. That is fine for him or me or for the President to question. The important thing is, How would he answer it if you applied it today? And his answer: I would follow the law. I wouldn't circumvent the law, I would follow the law, and the law says this today. Short of Congress changing the law, I will follow the law as it is today.

I am not sure you can have more clarity in an answer than that.

Mike Pompeo's intellectual rigor, honorable service, and outstanding judgment make him a natural fit for the CIA. As I said earlier, he is one of the most active, most engaged, and most charismatic individuals I have seen nominated in quite a while.

I ask my colleagues to support the nomination of Mike Pompeo as next Director of the CIA. Do it expeditiously. Treat him fairly. Don't paint him as for something he is not. He is a colleague of ours who worked hard to be here. He has a background of proof as to why the Fourth District of Kansas made an incredibly wise decision, but more importantly, Mike Pompeo is somebody who can contribute in a significant way to the security of the American people, the security of this country, and can, in fact, manage and lead at the CIA without concerns as to whether there is the integrity of the institution, without concerns as to whether he might step across the legal line of what is appropriate, that every day he is there following the rule of law in this country, someone whose primary focus is to make sure that we as policymakers and the President as Commander in Chief have the best intelligence possible to make decisions about America's future and about America's security.

I hope it won't take 6 hours today, but we are in the first hour of debate. I urge my colleagues to be brief but be thorough, but at the end of the day, make sure that tomorrow morning the CIA has permanent leadership and not acting leadership.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am not sure if we need to yield back the time or not.

Let me state that the committee had an open hearing that was unlimited. We didn't cut off questions. We had a closed session that was unlimited. We didn't cut off questions. The nominee asked to see every Member and didn't cut off the length of time he was willing to answer any questions. He handled more than 150 questions for the record and answered them honestly. At the end of the day, when it came to those questions that were of most interest to most Members, he said: I am going to follow the law. That is exactly how we would expect or hope a nominee would, in fact, respond.

But I ask you to look at Mike Pompeo, Representative Pompeo, Congressman Pompeo's record: West Point grad, first in his class, served his country with distinction, went to Harvard, opened up an aerospace business, became the CEO, ran a successful business, decided that his life needed to have community service in it, ran for Congress, served four terms representing Kansas's Fourth District.

This is an individual who, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, committed to do the things that--as the Presiding Officer knows because he is on the Senate select committee--are tough to do. He traveled around the world to see firsthand the men and women who operate in the shadows; the ones who we, on behalf of our other Members of the Senate, certify are living within the letter of the law, that they do things that only they can do because of the positions they hold, but they do it with the laws of the United States in place. And the 15 of--those of us who serve on the committee certified that for our colleagues because in many cases they can't see behind the curtain with the clarity we can.

Mike Pompeo did that. He traveled around the world. He saw firsthand what these men and women do. They are invaluable to the security of this country, and, I might add, they are invaluable to the policies we as legislators put in place because they provide us with the intelligence we need to make the right decisions. That is Mike Pompeo. That is the person whom the President has nominated to be CIA Director. I am not sure you can find a glove that fits any better for the Agency, for the Congress of the United States, and for the administration, but more importantly, for the American people. This glove fits perfectly to make sure they are performing to keep America safe.

I hope all of my colleagues will vote for Mike Pompeo's confirmation.

I yield the floor.

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

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.

I will be happy to yield.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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.

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.