Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the motion offered by Senator Sullivan to instruct conferees to the Defense authorization bill includes several important proposals. First, it urges conferees to fully fund the cost of overseas military operations, including our commitment to Afghanistan. This stands in sharp contrast to the irresponsible House proposal to cut off war funding on April 30, 2017. This provision is reckless and short-sighted and is the subject of a veto threat by the administration. Second, it endorses full funding of the European Reassurance Initiative. This is the administration's most important response to Russia's aggression in the Ukraine and threatening behavior towards our European friends and allies. The President's budget request quadrupled spending on this effort, from $789 million this year to $3.4 billion next year. In light of the recent NATO conference, full support for the European Reassurance Initiative is critical to demonstrating the American commitment for the security of the people of Poland, the Baltics, and many other countries who are worried about Vladimir Putin. Third, the motion endorses statements made by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that highlight the U.S. commitment to maintaining the strongest, most capable Armed Forces in the world. The commitment calls to mind the testimony of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, earlier this year, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``I will take umbrage with the notion that our military has been gutted. So I stand here today a person that's worn this uniform for 35 years. At no time in my career have I been more confident than this in saying we have the most powerful military on the face of the planet.'' Finally, the motion endorses all the necessary military tools to meet the President's commitment to destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria. So far, our campaign against ISIL has resulted in their loss of nearly half their territory in Iraq, and nearly a quarter in Syria. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency warned that ISIL remains very dangerous and is likely plotting or inspiring more terrorist attacks. We must keep up the pressure on ISIL, using not only our military but all of our intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and financial enforcement tools that our Nation has. I have concerns that our government can do more to stop the ISIL threat that is not limited to our military campaign. For example, after the tragic shooting in Orlando, the American people heard stories of the labor-intensive effort that is required for the FBI to track the many tips relating to domestic terrorism sent in by the public. Defeating ISIL will require the use of every tool at the disposal of our government, not just our Armed Forces. We should ask ourselves: if ISIL is squeezed out of Syria and Iraq, where are they going to go? And are we doing enough intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic work to catch ISIL terrorists as they cross international borders? It is my hope that Congress will be able to negotiate an omnibus appropriations bill this fall, and we should reject one-sided solutions that only address one part of the ISIL threat. I hope we can address that issue in the same bipartisan way that I expect the Senate to support these motions made by the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this month marks the 1-year anniversary of the nuclear deal reached between a number of world powers and Iran. Let's take a moment to step back and recall where we were when President Obama took office. Our intelligence community assessed that until 2003, Iran was working toward a nuclear bomb. The reckless war in Iraq further empowered Iran. The country's hardliners moved forward at great speed building suspicious nuclear infrastructure. These efforts produced large and unsettling quantities of highly enriched uranium that could have been used for a nuclear weapon. Such a weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime would have been an unacceptable risk to the region, to Israel, and to the world. This is the mess President Obama inherited when he came to office; yet he pledged that Iran would not obtain a nuclear bomb on his watch. And that is exactly what he did. He negotiated a comprehensive deal in which Iran pledged to the world not to build a nuclear bomb and agreed to stringent inspections and terms to ensure that Iran keeps that pledge. And this historic agreement was accomplished without drawing the United States into another war in the Middle East. You see, despite all the naysayers and efforts to undermine this deal--including an unprecedented letter signed by most in the majority party to the hardline Iranian Supreme Leader that aimed to undermine our own President's efforts to negotiate a deal--the agreement is working. As the International Atomic Energy Agency has documented, Iran has shipped more than 8.5 tons, or 98 percent of its stockpile, of enriched uranium to Russia--enriched uranium that no longer poses a threat for use in a nuclear weapon; disabled more than 12,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium; poured concrete into the core of a reactor at Arak designed to produce plutonium which can also be used to produce a nuclear weapon; removed all nuclear material from its once-secret nuclear facility at Fordow; and allowed comprehensive ongoing inspection by the IAEA to make sure Iran doesn't cheat. So, instead of a runaway effort to create the fuel and infrastructure needed to build a nuclear bomb within a few months, Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon is dramatically disabled. Its breakout time is at least a year--and any effort to do so would almost certainly be caught quickly by the international community. And equally important, a breach would make any military action against Iran that much easier for those in the international community to get behind. As President Obama said earlier this year, the deal effectively ``cut off every single path Iran could have used to build a bomb.'' In fact, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon under Prime Minister Netanyahu and harsh critic of diplomacy with Iran recently said that Iran's nuclear program, ``has been frozen in light of the deal signed by the world powers and does not constitute an immediate, existential threat for Israel.'' When the nuclear deal was reached last year, I came early to the floor to announce my strong support for this agreement. I noted that strong countries negotiate with their adversaries and have done so for generations, regardless of who was in the White House at the time, and agreements reached from talking with our enemies have had tremendous benefits to our national security. The deal with Iran is no different. Now, I know opponents of the deal, who have spent much of the last year looking for ways to undermine it despite its success, will justify further such efforts by saying Iran's other behavior is problematic. Well, it is. It was before the nuclear agreement, and it continues to be, whether in Syria or Gaza or Yemen. Iran continues to repress its own citizens internally, brazenly trying to keep reformers off Iranian election ballots and locking up those who peacefully urge greater freedoms. But it does those actions without a nuclear weapon. You see, just as President Kennedy negotiated with the Soviets when they were threatening possible nuclear war with missiles in Cuba or just as President Nixon began to establish ties with China while it was supplying weapons to the North Koreans who were fighting American soldiers or just as President Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union even though it was occupying Eastern Europe and fomenting violent revolutions around the world, there are times when such agreements serve our national interests and make the world a somewhat safer place. This deal with Iran was never about all its genuinely troubling behavior in the region. It was about ending Iran's ability to rapidly or easily make a nuclear bomb. And that is what it did. I fully support ongoing efforts to address Iran's ballistic missile program, to halt its support for extremist groups in the region, to forcefully push back on its threats to Israel and other allies in the region. But these efforts shouldn't be straw men to undermine the nuclear agreement. And addressing these issues will be far easier without Iran having a nuclear umbrella. There have been so many decades of mistrust between the United States and Iran. I myself cannot forget what happened in 1979 when our embassy was seized and more than 60 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. There were mock executions and other inhumane acts. Anyone who is familiar with this story knows the pain these people and their families suffered. And no one can forget the horrible threats made by some Iranian leaders against the Israeli people or denials of the Holocaust. Israel has genuine security concerns about Iran. So do I. But at the end of the day, I believe this agreement is the best way to take one of those concerns--an Iranian nuclear bomb--off the table. It won't change Iranian behavior overnight, but in the long term, it also has the potential to empower the Iranian moderates--those who want a more open and internationally respected country. So I want to thank this President and so many of my colleagues here in the Senate who defended this agreement. Quite simply, the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear threat is a remarkable historical achievement.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate held another vote on moving to the Defense appropriations bill. This bill was reported from committee by a 30 to nothing vote, and it shows what can be accomplished if we work in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, the Senate majority has taken a turn away from bipartisanship since the bill was drafted. I will speak more about my concerns with this move toward division and divisiveness in a moment. But first let me commend the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for his leadership in producing this bill. He has been open to my proposals, and has also made a courageous stand against attempting to relitigate the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Among the highlights of the bill include investments that strengthen our technology advantage, restore the readiness of the Armed Forces, and stabilize our defense industrial base. Most importantly, this bill makes a strong statement in favor of defense medical research. It adds $915 million in addition to the budget request for investigations into new drugs and therapies that could lead to breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases ranging from breast cancer, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's, prosthetics, and many other fields. This is an increase of 5 percent real growth compared to last year's bill. The funding in this bill is small compared to the investments at the National Institutes of Health, but the results of defense medical research have touched the lives of countless numbers of servicemembers, their families, and have even spread into the civilian medical community. This funding makes a big impact in people's lives, and I am proud that our commitment to this research continues to grow each year. The bill also recognizes the threat posed by ISIS. It fully funds the overseas contingency operations account to provide what our servicemembers need in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in harm's way. In this way, we disagree strongly with our House counterparts. The House bill provides only a portion of the funds necessary. We believe on a bipartisan basis that there should be no arbitrary cut-off date of funding for this Nation's fight against terrorism. The U.S. and our allies are working to defeat ISIS on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and dismantle their international terror network. There is real progress on the ground. The President has built a coalition of 66 nations to fight ISIS. The terrorist group has almost half its territory in Iraq, and 20 percent of its territory in Syria. It has lost access to key sources of funds for its activities. The U.S. and its allies have killed tens of thousands of their fighters, as well as over 100 ISIS leaders. This bill provides $43.3 billion for DOD to fight Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, including $1.78 billion to continue this progress against ISIS by building the capacity of allies in Iraq, Syria, and the broader region. We also must continue to prevent terrorism here at home through stronger homeland defenses and work with our allies to strengthen theirs--intelligence sharing and all the rest. We have to have the entire Federal Government in this fight, from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI, from the State Department to the Treasury Department. It cannot be DOD's fight alone. People may be asking, since the Defense appropriations bill was approved by a committee vote of 30 to zero in May, why isn't the bill receiving a similar bipartisan vote in July? To find the answer, one need look no further than how the Republican majority has handled funding to combat the Zika virus. On May 19, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 68-30, to pass a $1.1 billion package to respond to the threat of Zika. But in conference, a deal was cut without Democrats at the table that completely undermined the compromise proposal that was supported by the Senate. There are only two explanations for how a bipartisan deal turned out so badly: maybe the negotiators on behalf of the Senate majority did not do a good job of representing the Senate's position. Or this was a case of legislative rope-a-dope, in which there was never an intention to follow through on a bipartisan compromise. That brings us to the Defense appropriations bill. After the Senate caved once to unreasonable House proposals on the Zika bill, Democrats have sought assurances that we will have fair outcomes to negotiating other appropriations bills. That simply means that Democrats should be at the table for conference negotiations, that these budget bills will have fair spending levels, and we avoid poison pills inserted by the House, such as cutting off funding for the fight against ISIL after just 6 months. Sadly, the Republican majority has bristled at the idea of giving assurances that the fair process used in the Appropriations Committee to produce these budget bills will be allowed to continue. Last year, when Republicans produced one-sided appropriations bills, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter called these ploys a ``road to nowhere.'' Absent a commitment by the Republican leadership to continue in a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise, it seems they have chosen once again to walk down that same road that leads to gridlock and stalemate. It is disappointing and disheartening that an appropriations process that began on such a good note has taken a turn for the worse. The Defense appropriations bill is a good bill. Democrats are simply seeking assurances from the Republican Leadership that the same spirt of compromise and bipartisanship that helped draft the bill will be restored after faith was broken with a one-sided, divisive approach to responding to the Zika virus. I regret that the Republican leadership cannot give those assurances and therefore are putting an end to appropriations work this summer. It is my sincere hope that, after the election, both Democrats and Republicans can return to working in good faith to produce a budget bill that includes this very good defense bill, as well as the 11 other appropriations bills that need to be passed before the year is done.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I want to say a few words about one of my most loyal and reliable aides, Christina Mulka. For nearly a decade, Christina worked in my office, most notably as press secretary and deputy communications director. Later this month, Christina will be moving to Detroit. To say we are going to miss her would be a gross understatement. If you ask my staff, they will tell you they don't refer to their friend and colleague by her first name. Everyone calls her ``Mulka.'' There are a lot of Christinas on Capitol Hill, but only one Mulka. Like many bright young people in Washington, DC, Christina began her career as an intern. In the spring of 2006, I got a call from former Massachusetts Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate--turned college professor--Michael Dukakis. He told me about a student named Christina Mulka at Northeastern University who needed a 6-month internship as part of her co-op program. Internships in my office are never 6 months, but he insisted I give her a chance; and he told me if I did, I wouldn't regret it. Well, 10 years later, he was right. Not long after Christina's internship ended, I had an opening in my office for a press secretary. Christina was back at Northeastern settling into life as a student. Now, just as internships in my office are never 6 months, press secretaries in my office almost always have a college degree. But just as we did before, we made an exception for Christina--and I hired her before she graduated. She moved back to Washington, DC, and completed her degree while earning a paycheck from the U.S. Senate. It was the second time I made an exception for Christina Mulka. And let me tell you, she didn't disappoint. For years, Christina served as my on-the-record spokesperson for Illinois media inquiries. Simply put, she had an extraordinary knack for dealing with Illinois reporters. Whenever I wrote an editorial, I could always count on Christina to work diligently to find a newspaper to print it. As many Senate press staffers will tell you, this is no small task. Despite working in Washington, DC, she maintained close connections with Illinois reporters. Every reporter and news outlet felt valued and in the loop because Christina valued everyone. That is who she is. She treated them all the same, big or small. Whether it was Chicago or Springfield, Quincy or Belleville, Carbondale or Mattoon, she truly cared that news outlets throughout Illinois were informed about what was happening in Washington, DC. Christina worked well with my policy staff to understand the issues. She was always well prepared to promote my priorities, agenda, and ideas to help the people of Illinois. I had such confidence in her that, over time, her portfolio expanded to include many issues that I would list as my top priorities, including tobacco, dietary supplements, for-profit colleges, and the Marketplace Fairness Act. Let me tell you a story about one of my first memories of Christina. She was staffing me during a round of Illinois TV interviews here in Washington, DC. Opening Day was right around the corner, and a lot of questions were about baseball, specifically the Chicago Cubs. When the interviews were over, she turned to me and apologized for not prepping me better on the Chicago White Sox. I didn't know it at the time, but Christina is a White Sox fanatic. And during the interviews, she wanted me to steer the conversation away from the Cubs to her team, the Chicago White Sox--what a loyal fan. Christina hails from Lisle, IL, but her family roots go back to the south side of Chicago, in a neighborhood known as the Back of the Yards--which explains her fierce loyalty to the White Sox. Sports have always played an important role in Christina's life. At Northeastern, she cocaptained the rowing squad and was chosen as the National Scholar Athlete by the Collegiate Rowing Coaches Association. A dean's list honoree and honors program participant, Christina also was a finalist for the Walter Byers Scholarship, the NCAA's highest academic award, recognizing student athletes who promise to be future leaders. Boy, did they get it right. Whatever the next chapter holds for Christina, she will be a leader. Following Christina's promotion to deputy communications director, I saw her leadership skills flourish. She became a role model and mentor to junior press staff, allowing them to develop professionally just as she had done over the years. It was a pleasure to watch her energy, motivation, and spirit of service rub off on so many others. In 2013, Christina took on another challenge, enrolling in Georgetown University's master in business administration program. For many, this would distract from their day job, but not Christina. It wasn't uncommon for her to work a full day, go to class for 2 to 3 hours, and be back in the office at 10 p.m., ensuring that nothing was missed. Despite the long hours, juggling work and school, she never missed a beat. Now, Christina is off to pursue a new adventure. She found herself a great partner in Brad Carroll. Their wedding is in a few months. They are moving back to the Midwest--Detroit will be their new home--closer to her family in the suburbs of Chicago. And I want to thank the whole Mulka family for sharing Christina with our office for the last 10 years--her parents, Diana and Tom, and her younger sister and brother, Stephanie and Nick. Christina joined this office with a high school diploma, and she is leaving after many years of serving the people of Illinois with a college degree, a graduate degree, and many friends and colleagues who will miss her. I couldn't be happier for her as she moves on to the next chapter in her life with Brad. I will close with this: While at Northeastern, Christina developed her interest in public service with the help of Michael Dukakis. Recently, at a Northeastern Capitol Hill alumni event, Christina ran into her old mentor. She told him about her engagement and upcoming move to Detroit. His face lit up, and he immediately encouraged her to run for mayor. I am not surprised. To know Christina Mulka is to expect big things from her. I am proud of the work she has done and will do, but more importantly, I am proud of the person she has become. Congratulations on a job well done, and best of luck. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an important bill. It is a bill that relates to the opioid epidemic in America--an epidemic which is linked directly to the heroin epidemic in America and the sad reality of the deaths that are occasioned by heroin overdoses. The prescription opioid and heroin epidemic claimed 28,647 American lives in 2014--1,652 in my State of Illinois. That is a 30-percent increase in just 4 years. I have seen this devastation firsthand. I have sat with parents who have lost their kids. I have met with young teenagers who were addicted. Thank goodness that some of them have been able--with treatment, counseling, and strength--to fight off that addiction. The reality is obvious. This narcotics epidemic is not an inner city problem. It is an American problem. It is a problem that not only touches the inner cities of America, but it also touches every other community. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to escape the opioid and heroin epidemic. I have been across my State, from one end to the other, at roundtables with law enforcement, with medical professionals, with those who do addiction treatment and with those who have lived through these addictions. I have seen firsthand what it has done to communities and families and lives. We need a forceful response, and we are going to vote on one in about an hour. It is called the CARA bill. It is a bill that moves us in the right direction when it comes to dealing with this addiction. The conference report has many important elements to it, and that is why I am going to support it. It includes my proposal to require reforms at the FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure better oversight of dangerous and addictive opioid drugs before they are approved for sale in our country. My provisions will ensure the FDA convenes scientific advisory committees before approving new opioid drugs and that the Pediatric Advisory Committee has a voice in the decision. We require the FDA to consider the public health impacts before allowing more addictive products to come onto the market. We direct Federal health agencies to develop plans for continuing medical education with doctors and other providers who prescribe opioids. We require the FDA to encourage drug companies to make abuse-deterrent formulations of these dangerous drugs. The CARA conference report also includes a proposal I have worked on to improve State prescription drug monitoring programs. This legislation will make it easier for States to share information about overprescribing and overusing opioids, it gives doctors more information to better perform their prescribing practices. I am pleased the CARA conference report includes new grant programs to expand access to naloxone--the lifesaving anecdote--to promote treatment alternatives instead of arrests for those suffering from addiction and to create flexibility and treatment options for those who need medication-assisted therapy or pregnant women who need specialized care. Having said all of these positive things about what we are to vote on, let me state the obvious. When only 12 percent of the people in Illinois are able to receive care for their addiction, and there is a 12-week wait at facilities for vulnerable patients to get into drug treatment, authorizing new programs, which this bill does, is good but not good enough. We need to make an investment. We need to put taxpayers' dollars behind this commitment to end this epidemic, and it is needed now. That is why Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire offered an amendment during the Senate floor consideration of this bill. Her amendment would have put $600 million into actually making the bill work, enforcing it, investing in it. It failed. During the CARA conference meetings, Senator Murray and Congressman Pallone offered amendments to ensure that Congress would put some money into the promise of this bill. They couldn't get it passed in a conference dominated by the Republican majority. Why? Why would these efforts be blocked when the Republicans are joining us and saying this is a national problem that deserves our immediate attention? Because Republicans have said they have already proposed to increase funding in appropriation bills to take care of this. Yet many Republicans are supporting a continuing resolution that freezes funding at this year's level and provides for no increase in opioid epidemic treatment. When they say they are going to put more money in and then call for a continuing resolution, they know and we know that it is a sham. The Republicans are opposing an increase in funding for this bill by saying they already proposed increased funding in another bill, but at the same time they are advocating a freeze, or flat-funding a continuing resolution. They can't have it both ways. It is confusing, but those of us who live in this world know what they are up to. They want to take the credit for passing this bill and the promise of funding it in the future into the election in November but not provide the money that is needed to make it work. That is playing games with people's lives. America deserves better. Failing to provide the dollars today is not going to help those who are currently suffering. It is not going to help that mother who was awake all last night worrying about a son or a daughter who is facing an addiction, praying they can get that child they love into treatment in time to break that addiction and save their lives. You know what else is missing from this CARA conference report? Many of these measures in the bill deal with addiction after it has taken hold. We have to do things to prevent addiction on the front end. The best way is to ensure people don't get addicted in the first place. I have introduced the Addiction Prevention and Responsible Opioid Practices Act, or the A-PROP Act. It is going to help shut off the spigot for fueling this crisis. Here is something most people don't understand or realize. The Drug Enforcement Administration sounds like the kind of law enforcement agency that polices America to reduce the likelihood that narcotics are going to be found in our homes, in our neighborhoods, in our communities, and in our States. It also has another responsibility. Each year pharma, the major pharmaceutical companies, comes to this agency and asks for the approval to make even more narcotics. These are prescription narcotics like opioids. The DEA has to sign off on this increase in production each year. If we are going to take a look at the seriousness of this opioid problem and its growth in America, take a look at the growth of production in America that has been approved by this Federal agency. Between 1993 and 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration-approved quotas for oxycodone increased almost 40 times. In 1993, they were producing about 3\1/2\ tons of these opioid pills. Now they are producing 150 tons of these opioid pills. The DEA has approved pharma to produce enough opioid narcotic pills to provide--listen closely--every adult in America a 1-month prescription each year to opioid narcotics--every adult in America. That goes way beyond any medical need. It is pharma's effort to make more money and to feed the beast of this opioid epidemic, and DEA each year gives the seal of approval. That is wrong. Once these pills are produced, it takes a doctor or a dentist or some other authorized medical professional to prescribe them. How they are making it through that process onto the streets and into the homes of America is the next question beyond this DEA approval of pharma's overproduction. We need continuing medical education to be mandated. Incidentally, DEA approves doctors to give them the authority and power to prescribe narcotics. They can monitor this, as well, and see where the abuse is taking place. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to this epidemic. Each stakeholder needs to play a role. I am going to vote for this CARA conference report. On its face, it is hard to vote against, but I want to do it with the knowledge of having said in this statement on the floor that it isn't enough. Unless we pass Senator Jeanne Shaheen's amendment, unless we follow up on Senator Patty Murray's amendment in conference and fund this effort to stop this epidemic, we are basically sending a very nice greeting to America that we recognize the problem but we are not paying to solve it. People across America understand this epidemic. It is time for us to take it seriously, not for political posturing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Booker from New Jersey is on the floor. The three of us asked to come to the floor at 3, because the rollcall was delayed. I ask unanimous consent, if it is all right with the Senator from Ohio, that Senator Booker be allowed to follow and to complete his statement on the legislation we are supporting.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because I want to defer and give my time to the Senator from New Jersey. We are going through a moment in America's history that we are going to remember for a long time. We are used to shooting deaths. Sadly, gun violence has become part of America. Unfortunately, we are also used to mass murders, where more than four people are killed in one of these shooting incidents. But it rocked America's conscience and soul when five policemen from Dallas were murdered. Those five policemen were Officer Brent Thompson, age 43; Officer Patrick Zamarripa, age 32; Officer Mike Krol, age 40; Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, age 48; and Sergeant Michael Smith, age 55. Yesterday, President Obama and former President Bush were there for the memorial service to honor these men and to honor everyone in law enforcement who gets up each morning, puts on a badge, and risks their lives for us--for me, for my family, for my neighbors, for my community, for my town, for my State, and for my Nation. America was rocked by the senseless murder that took place in Dallas, TX. But it isn't the only thing that has stunned the conscience of America. At the same time, we have seen some shocking and disturbing videos. In Baton Rouge, LA--the home State of the Presiding Officer-- Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old father, was shot and killed outside a convenience store. In Falcon Heights, MN, Philando Castile, age 32, was fatally shot in his car during a police traffic stop for a broken taillight. His fiancee and her 4-year-old daughter were in the car. Those three events came together--the killings of the police in Dallas, and these video shootings--and shocked the conscience of America in a way that I haven't seen before. It really called into question some basics about our country and where we are going and what we need to do. President Obama said we must try to find common ground when he spoke at this memorial service. He is right. I thought about that over the weekend, and I called my colleague and friend from New Jersey and talked to him about it. I said to him: When it comes to really showing America, and particularly those who feel aggrieved by the current State of justice, our bill on criminal justice reform speaks to a fundamental issue as to whether or not minority populations--people of color--are treated fairly in our system of justice. Senator Lee just spoke. For those who may not know him, Senator Lee is a conservative--a tea party conservative, I believe he would probably say--Republican from the State of Utah. Senator Lee is joining us--Durbin of Illinois, Booker of New Jersey, and Senator Grassley of Iowa--in this effort. How many times do we run into that, where four Senators with such diverse political beliefs come together on one bill--this bill? As Senator Lee explained, what we are setting out to do here is to right an injustice--an injustice that is filling the Federal prisons, sentencing individuals to lengthy sentences for nonviolent, nongun drug offenses. This is long overdue, and it is something that we need to do. If we did it, it would say yes to those across America who are asking: Is Congress listening? Is the Senate awake to what is going on in our country? It would say to them: Yes. On a bipartisan basis, these four Senators, and many more, are prepared to bring reform to our criminal justice correction and sentencing system. Will it solve all of our problems? No, not at all, but it is a significant step forward. I was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives over 25 years ago when a famous basketball star at the University of Maryland died from a drug overdose. We were shocked by this. They came in and said it is possible that he was a victim of crack cocaine. We had never heard the term before. What is crack cocaine? A new form of cocaine crystals that are cheap, highly addictive, and destructive. Len Bias was his name. We were asked to put into law a sentencing provision that would be a warning to everyone across America: Don't use crack cocaine. We did. We imposed a new sentencing guideline for crack cocaine 100 times the penalty over powder cocaine--100 times. What it meant, sadly, over a span of 25 years is that hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals were convicted of possessing and selling crack cocaine and sentenced for extraordinarily long sentences. I ran into one of them in the city of Chicago. Let me tell a story. It is brief, but it tells a story. Alton Mills, age 24 in 1994, was a runner, a seller when it came to street drugs. He was caught on his third offense of selling street drugs. His third offense. He had never served a day in jail, not one. His two previous offenses ended up in probation, and he didn't end up with any correctional time. But this third one was the third strike. It turned out that Alton Mills at age 24, for his third sale of crack cocaine, was sentenced to life in prison--life in prison. He languished there. Thank goodness, his mom and dad never gave up on him. He found a public defender, whose name, ironically, was MiAngel Cody. She went to work and fought for him and took her message to every office, including mine, and I took her message to the White House. Alton Mills' sentence was commuted. He came out of prison after 22 years behind bars. That is one example--22 years. What we are trying to do is come up with a sentencing system that is sensible, that punishes those who are guilty for sure, but does it in a smart and thoughtful way--reforming and saying to populations across America, yes, we can be a more just society. This criminal justice reform idea is one that is not only bipartisan, but it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October of last year--October--by a vote of 15 to 5. It was a bipartisan rollcall vote that came out of committee. Why haven't we taken up this bill? Why don't we take this up as soon as we return in September? Why don't we say to people across America that we are going to do something positive in terms of restoring justice in this country to everyone across the board in this bipartisan bill? That is why we come to the floor today, and that is what we are asking for. It will save money for taxpayers in addition to bringing justice to the system. I believe the money we save can be brought back to our law enforcement agencies for training and equipment. So let's show our faith in their efforts to keep America safe, and let's show our commitment to justice in this reform. I am fortunate because I was joined in this struggle by a brand-new Senator from New Jersey then named Cory Booker. He has been an extraordinary voice in this effort. Senator Lee and I were doing pretty well until Cory Booker came along, and he has added more firepower and more horsepower to this effort than any other Senator could, certainly any new Senator. I commend him for helping us in this effort and being committed to it in his heart. At this time I would like to yield the floor to my junior colleague from the State of New Jersey, Senator Booker.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on the issue of climate change. Before I do, I would like to read a quote. What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live . . . and we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live--our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. These are the words of President Ronald Reagan, and I agree with those words. Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet Earth. When I look at my beautiful grandkids, I feel a moral responsibility to leave this world as well as I found it or even better. We can't continue to ignore the problem of climate change. How will future generations judge us if we deny the reality of climate change and say that it is just too hard to do something that might leave them a safer, cleaner, better world? I don't think they will look on us kindly. Future generations actually count on us. Climate change is no longer debatable. The facts are in. Climate change is real, and it is not some distant threat. From Hurricane Katrina to Superstorm Sandy, from severe flooding on the Mississippi River in 2011 in Illinois to the historic low water levels just 1 year later and to the devastating drought and wildfires that are searing the West Coast, extreme weather is the new normal. So why are there still so many in the Chamber who deny the threat of climate change, not to mention failing to do anything to solve the problem? I have said on the floor before, and I will say again, that there is only one major political party in the world today that denies climate change, only one--the Republican Party of the United States of America. Well, part of the reason is because for decades the fossil fuel industry and those who cater to them have tried to blur this debate, to blur the science, to create divisions among us, instead of looking for what we have in common to try to solve this problem rationally and reasonably. Make no mistake, there is a deliberate campaign, financed by the fossil fuel industry--a campaign that uses the pseudoscience of manufactured doubt. It is coordinated. I have seen the likes of it before. In 2006, the major tobacco companies in the United States were found guilty of ``a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.'' Decades before, tobacco company research had already shown that tobacco was truly harmful and addictive. Instead of letting science and the moral imperative behind it promote public health, the companies launched an extensive campaign sowing seeds of doubt about the dangers of tobacco. I know about this firsthand. I was a Member of the House of Representatives about 27 years ago. I introduced a bill to ban smoking on airplanes. It was opposed by the tobacco lobby, and the leadership in both political parties--Democratic and Republican elected leaders in the House of Representatives--opposed me. We called it for a vote, and to the amazement of everyone, it passed. It turns out Members of Congress are the largest frequent flyer club in the world, and they knew how outrageous it was to suggest there were smoking and nonsmoking sections on an airplane. I led that initiative to ban smoking on airplanes, and I was joined by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg who took up the cause in the Senate, and 26 years ago we banned smoking. It made a difference. We had to fight the tobacco lobby all the way. They denied that nicotine was addictive. They denied there was a linkage between tobacco and cancer. They created a pseudoscience. They paid scientists to come up with theories that said tobacco really wasn't that dangerous. Well, sadly, we are seeing that same thing today when it comes to climate change. Just as the tobacco industry created a campaign of manufactured doubt to protect their financial interests and profits, a web of fossil fuel industry groups, aided and abetted by one of the very groups that resisted anti-smoking laws, are behind this web of climate denial. A 1998 American Petroleum Institute, or API, memo has become public. I just read it on my computer upstairs. At the time, the American Petroleum Institute consisted of a dozen lobbyists, think tank members, and public relations gurus. Science wasn't on their side in 1998, so the group decided that misleading the public about the reality of climate change--sowing seeds of doubt about whether there was really climate change underway--was the best way to go. The 1998 API memo claimed that ``victory,'' in their words, would be achieved when ``uncertainties'' about the science became part of the public's perception. In the year 2000, influential Republican pollster Frank Luntz prepared a playbook for those who wanted to create doubt in the public's mind about climate change. Mr. Luntz wrote: Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate. So what is taking place right now with the effort of the fossil fuel industry is a deliberate campaign to mislead the American public. Sadly, this web of denial that started in 1998 is alive and well today. Just last year, at an ExxonMobil-sponsored meeting of the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council, the president of the Heartland Institute stated: There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change. There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so. This quote is in direct opposition to Earth scientists in one of the world's most highly respected Earth science organizations--the American Geophysical Union, or AGU. This spring, a group of 254 Earth scientists cited these lies in a letter as one of the many reasons why the American Geophysical Union should decline to accept ExxonMobil's financial sponsorship of their group. The Earth scientists also made clear that ExxonMobil distributed scientifically false and misleading information, are members in or financially support other climate-denying organizations, and donated to climate-denying politicians and past misinformation campaigns. ExxonMobil is not alone in spending money to influence elections and affect environmental policy. The oil and gas industry pours millions of dollars into election campaigns every year. In the 2012 election cycle, energy and natural resource corporations, their employees, and industry super PACs spent more than $147 million to make sure the right people were elected in congressional seats, in Senate seats, and in the Presidential campaign. During the current election cycle, they have already spent more than $101 million, and they will likely contribute millions more in the 4 months remaining. Experts estimate that, in total, candidates, political parties, and interest groups, including those funded by companies such as ExxonMobil, may spend up to $10 billion on Federal campaigns in 2016--$10 billion. A poll conducted by the New York Times last year found that 84 percent of Americans believe money has too much influence in American political campaigns. They are right. Our campaign finance system is a mess. America needs a system to elect its candidates that rewards those with good ideas and principles, not just the person who is the most talented in raising money. I reintroduced a bill last year called the Fair Elections Now Act. This legislation would establish a voluntary, small-donor public financing system for Senate campaigns. We would finally break the back of Big Money's control over the American political system. The Fair Elections Now Act can't solve all the problems facing us, but the bill would allow us to fight back against deep-pocketed special interests by dramatically changing the way campaigns are funded, encouraging small donors and matches for those small donations. As we grapple with important issues like climate change, we have to recognize the influence of money in our political system and why one major political party in the world today still denies climate change. Until we embrace campaign finance reform and ensure that politicians do not feel beholden to special interests like the oil and gas industry, climate-denying politicians will continue to prevent us from taking action. It is unconscionable that some very powerful people put their profits ahead of the future of the planet we live on, but we know it is true. If we don't act on climate change, there is no backup plan. Let me end on a hopeful note. When Pope Francis came to Washington, DC, last September, he called for action on addressing climate change and global warming. The Pope said: All is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start. Pope Francis is right. Let's not run away from our responsibility in the Senate or in life to our children and our grandchildren. Let's work toward solving the real challenges of climate change with both political parties. It is not too late to make a new start, to do the right thing, and to protect this planet that we call home. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 5 months--5 months--that is how long it has been since the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention formally asked the U.S. Congress to respond to a public health emergency to combat the Zika virus--5 months. In that time, we have seen the number of Americans infected with Zika soar to 3,667. Of those, 599 are pregnant women. In Illinois, there are 26 confirmed cases of Zika--5 months. To date, seven infants have been born with Zika-related birth defects in the United States. Five pregnancies have ended because of Zika-related birth defects--5 months. Last week, Utah health officials announced the first U.S. death related to the Zika virus--5 months. In Puerto Rico, where this situation gets worse by the day, officials reported a 1-week jump of 40 percent in the number of pregnant women on the island diagnosed with Zika--5 months. Three thousand, six hundred sixty-seven Americans to date are infected with Zika that we know of, 599 pregnant women, 7 babies born with severe birth defects, 5 ended because of the virus, and the first Zika- related death--5 months since the President of the United States said this was a public health crisis. The Republican-controlled Congress has waited 5 months to respond to this crisis, and now we are on the verge of leaving town for 7 more weeks--until September, after the conventions--and we will leave without providing our Federal health agencies the money they urgently need to fight Zika. By the time Congress returns, it will be 7 months since the President asked Congress on an emergency basis to deal with this public health crisis of Zika. Every single American should be disgusted by this, and every single Member of Congress should be embarrassed. What is perhaps most infuriating about this situation is that we have a bipartisan Zika funding bill ready to go, and the President would sign it tomorrow if he could. In May, the Senate passed a bill. I will concede, it was 3 months after the President asked for it, but we did pass a bill. We had 89 votes supporting a bill to provide $1.1 billion to fight this public health disaster. It was less than the President asked, but was a good-faith, bipartisan effort supporting mosquito control programs, lab capacity, surveillance efforts, and maternal health services. It wasn't the bill that Democrats would have written or the President asked for. It wasn't really the bill that the Republicans wanted to start with. It was a bipartisan, good-faith compromise. But what happened to that bill after it left the Senate? Instead of that bipartisan bill moving through the House and quickly to the President, it went into a conference committee, and that is when things went terribly bad. Right before adjourning for the Fourth of July recess, the House Republicans decided to take our bipartisan bill with 89 votes and load it up like a right-wing Christmas tree. They decided to attack environmental protection by overturning the clean water regulations. They decided to block money to women's health providers. Most people remember when the Republicans were prepared to shut down the government of the United States over the funding of Planned Parenthood. Now, in this bill that they have sent back to us from conference, they are prepared to shut down our response to this public health crisis of the Zika virus in order to defund Planned Parenthood. It also undermines the Affordable Care Act, which has been a traditional whipping boy of the rightwing, and it raids Ebola funds. They knew the Democrats wouldn't accept these riders. They made it as disgusting and repugnant politically as it could be. They said: Remember, we don't need Ebola funds. It turns out we do. To this day, the CDC still has 80 disease specialists stationed in West Africa. A few months ago, there was an Ebola cluster in Guinea. In order to respond to that unexpected outbreak, the CDC had to vaccinate 1,700 people, track 20,000 people through surveillance, and open five emergency operation centers in two different countries. The Republicans say: Well, we will just take the money away from Ebola, maybe things will work out fine in Africa. The Republican bill proposes decimating our Ebola prevention funding and diverting the resources. The majority leader and majority whip claim the House Zika bill is a compromise and bipartisan. Let me be clear. It is neither. It is not a compromise, and it is not bipartisan. Not a single Democrat signed the conference report that came out of the House. Despite the fact that 89 Senators of both parties had voted for bipartisan funding in the Senate, when they took it into conference, it turned into a political football. This is a cynical attempt by the Republicans in the House to hijack a public health crisis and push a grab bag of their favorite unrelated poison pill riders. That is why their bill, as shown by the vote here last month, is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it is a nonstarter with the American people. What is being lost during this entire posturing and politicizing is the very real toll Zika is taking. During the past 5 months, we have discovered new and alarming things about Zika. We know the Zika virus can be transmitted through sexual contact. Women infected with Zika in their first trimester can face a 13-percent likelihood of a baby born with a serious problem. Even if a pregnant woman doesn't show any signs of infection, her baby can be born with serious, physical, and neurological disorders. It has been 5 months since the President asked for funding. This Republican-led Congress just can't get it right. Eighty-nine Senators, Democrats and Republicans, came up with a bipartisan answer, they couldn't get it through the House of Representatives, and we sit here today languishing in this political mess. Researchers are examining the links to other negative health consequences: eye infections that lead to blindness, autoimmune disorders that cause paralysis related to Zika virus. What about the impact of maternal stress on the baby? I spent the last several weeks meeting with maternal and fetal health care providers and community health leaders in Chicago. Yesterday I was in the Belleville area. They shared with me the fear and stress their patients are experiencing. Hundreds of pregnant women in Illinois are seeking care and advice from doctors. They have undergone tests to make sure their babies are safe. Sadly, three of those Illinois women have learned they are already infected with Zika. I am sick and tired of this political game being played by the House and Senate Republicans when it comes to a public health crisis. The President got it right 5 months ago. Why can't this Congress get it right now before we leave for this 7-week vacation? Enough is enough. It is time for the Republican majority in the House and the Senate to do their job: respond to this public health crisis in a sensible, bipartisan way, just as our bill that passed the Senate with 89 votes addressed, instead of making this a political test for the most outrageous claims. Did I mention the fact that in conference, the House and Senate Republicans decided to add another provision when it came to this public health crisis? That provision would allow the display of Confederate flags in veterans cemeteries. Give me a break. What does that have to do with this public health crisis or honoring our men and women in the military or our veterans who have served our country well? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield through the Chair for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would ask the Senator from Florida whether it is true that it has been 5 months since President Obama declared this public health emergency and asked the Congress to respond to that emergency in a timely way. He asked for emergency funding of $1.9 billion for mosquito abatement, for medical research, for expanding lab facilities, and for investing in developing a vaccine to protect Americans, if not this year, next year.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator through the Chair, in dealing with a public health emergency, a public health crisis, the potential of an epidemic that we now think could infect 25 percent of the population of Puerto Rico, is a timely response an important part of the congressional response?

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator--and I see my colleague, Senator Murray of Washington, on the floor, who is in a very important position, and she is going to address this issue in a few moments. But is it not true that we worked out a bipartisan compromise in the Senate--not to give $1.9 billion, which, on the Democratic side, is our aspiration, but at least to agree with the Republicans in the Senate to $1.1 billion to respond to the President's request for an emergency response; and that we passed the bill in the Senate with 89 votes--an overwhelming bipartisan vote--with an agreement and a compromise in May, and this was sent over to the House of Representatives in May of this year?

Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator through the Chair--so we have the President identifying a public health emergency and the President telling us--and the CDC as well--that delaying this makes a possibility or probability of an epidemic even worse. We have a response by the Senate, on a bipartisan basis with 89 votes, to provide over $1 billion for the President to get to work to protect America and to develop a vaccine. And is it not true that the House was given this measure with 89 votes and failed to send it back to us on a timely basis?

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, is it also true that the bill sent to us by the House, after we passed a bipartisan bill with 89 votes, had no Democratic signatories--no House Members of the Democratic Party signing onto this conference report that was sent over to us--so it was a totally Republican conference report?

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, is it also not true, based on the statements made by the Republican majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, that he is going to give us one last chance in the next 48 hours to either take this partisan version of the bill, addressing this public health crisis, or do nothing for the next 7 weeks?

Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator from Florida my last question. I know my other colleagues are waiting to ask questions. Your State, the State of Florida, appears to be vulnerable--more vulnerable than most States--because of your proximity to Puerto Rico and other places and the number of travelers coming into the State of Florida from areas where we know for certain that the Zika virus is starting to be manifest. I ask the Senator from Florida: What are you hearing back in your State about the need for a timely, bipartisan effort in Congress to deal with the public health crisis of the Zika virus?

Mr. DURBIN. Well, I said it was the last question. I will ask one more, if I may, through the Chair. I would ask the Senator from Florida this: So you have Senator Rubio, a well-known Republican from Florida, and Senator Bill Nelson, maybe the best known Democrat from Florida, agreeing that this is an emergency that needs to be dealt with on a timely basis, that the President's request for $1.9 billion is a reasonable request, that we pass a bipartisan measure--Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans--and that we are moving toward solving this problem and responding to it. Is it not true that this measure fell apart or broke down when it ended up in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where they did not take a bipartisan approach to the issue?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator