Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, eventually this evening, we will be voting on GMO labeling. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most politically contentious and divisive issue I can ever remember. I have been in Congress for a few years. Whenever this comes up in our caucus, it is going to be a heated argument. It evokes so many emotions, not just among the members of our caucus but certainly with the American people. It gets down to some basic questions. If you are dealing with a food product that has bioengineered contents or genetically modified content, there are several questions we need to ask. The first question is, Should the consumer know this? Well, 92 percent of Americans believe, yes, they have a right to know if there is GMO content in the food they eat. That is what the polls show--92 percent. That is an overwhelming number when you have lived with polls as long as most of us have. Then you ask a question, delving into it: Is that because GMO modified food is dangerous to a consumer? I think the answer is very clear that the scientific analyses of GMO food have not reached that conclusion. They believe--the National Academy of Sciences and others--that GMO food by itself is not dangerous to consumers. That is the scientific evidence. Nevertheless, there is this strong public opinion that people want to know whether GMOs are part of the food that they are consuming. I have done some research on this, and I am sure every Member has tried to look at this very carefully. The one article that has stuck with me through the entire debate was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August of 2015 last year. It was about a year ago when two doctors, Dr. Philip Landrigan and Dr. Charles Benbrook, published this article in what I think is highly regarded as a nonpolitical professional medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine. They go through an analysis of GMO in foods. They acknowledge at the outset what I have already said--that there is no scientific evidence of danger if there is GMO content in your food. Then they take it to a different level--an important level, as far as I am concerned. Is there any difference in the way GMO products or plants are grown? The answer is yes, and it was designed to be different. This was inspired initially by Monsanto, a company that has a major presence in my State. It was designed to create a seed corn that they made and sold that was resistant to an herbicide--that is a weedkiller--Roundup or glyphosate. They were selling the seed corn, which obviously is a source of profit for them and then encouraging the farmers who bought it to use this weedkiller or herbicide in their fields, saying this herbicide would not hurt the corn crop, just the weeds. These two doctors of the New England Journal of Medicine then proceeded to analyze what happened next. What happened was that over time, there were weeds that were becoming more and more resistant to Roundup--stronger, thicker, bigger weeds. To put it a different way, Mother Nature was not cooperating with Monsanto. Weeds were appearing that they didn't anticipate. So they decided to apply even more of this herbicide, this weedkiller called Roundup, to see if that controlled the problem, and it didn't. They had to add another weedkiller--another herbicide--2,4-D, which has a long history in the United States, and then they started combining the two, hoping to stop the weeds with this new combination. The net result, which these two doctors published in this article of the New England Journal of Medicine, was a dramatic increase in this glyphosate--this Roundup, that was being applied across the world. Roundup-ready crops now account for more than 90 percent of corn and soybeans planted in the United States. They go on to say: But widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on glyphosate. In the United States, glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250--from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War. The EPA anticipates that a 3-to-7-fold increase in 2,4-D use will be the result of these Roundup resistant weeds. Is that important? I think it is very important. It is important because we know that if you apply large quantities of chemicals to our agricultural fields, you may produce and harvest a big crop, but there is an environmental risk. How much of a risk depends on the chemicals being provided, being used by the farmers. If GMO foods on your table are not a concern to your family because of scientific analysis, there is another question. Is the method that is being used to grow these Roundup-resistant crops, these GMO crops, an environmental danger to anyone? These two doctors came to a conclusion that it is--a determination in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and 2,4-D is a possible human carcinogen. Because of the link between these chemicals and cancer, these two doctors have concluded that labeling is important so consumers know that they are consuming products that on the table are no danger but that may have called for the use of more chemicals leading to more environmental danger. They conclude that there should be labeling. It is a different approach, but it is one that I think is valid, and it comes from a totally nonpolitical source--the New England Journal of Medicine. The question then comes, if we are going to have labeling, what kind of labeling? I mentioned earlier today--and I want to repeat it--that my hat is off to the Campbell Soup Company. They have been around a long time. They put out information in a press release in January of this year announcing that they supported the enactment of Federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from genetically modified organisms. They went on to say that Campbell's believes it is necessary for the Federal Government to provide a national standard for labeling requirements to better inform consumers. I agree. They go on to say that the notion of every State setting a labeling standard is madness. It would be impossible for major food manufacturers to keep up with the variety of different labeling requirements, and it isn't practical in a nation like ours for us to really accommodate that kind of labeling requirement. Campbell's has stepped forward and said we don't believe that GMOs in our product are any danger to consumers, and we are prepared to declare on our product, in clear words, whether or not they contain genetically modified organisms. I think this is a responsible corporate answer to a vexing problem we faced for years. I salute Campbell's for trusting consumers and trusting their ability to convince consumers the food they are selling is wholesome. I wish the food industry had followed the Campbell's motto, but the bill we have before us does not. It provides three different opportunities to disclose on food products--mandatory--whether or not they contain genetically modified organisms. One is a simple declaration: GMO, non- GMO. The second is using something that will be developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that consumers will come to learn--a signal or some sort of a sign or symbol as to whether GMO is included. It is the third approach that troubles me the most. I have said this over and over to the people in the food industry across America who support this approach. I call this the secret decoder ring approach. What it means is, if you are a consumer walking into a store buying groceries for your family, you will be facing what is known as a QR. I am learning as it goes on what this means. It is one of those little boxes with squiggles in it, which makes no sense to you as you look at it, but it can be read by a computer. That reading would then signal whether or not you receive additional information. I think that is deceptive. I think it is unnecessary, and I think Campbell's has the right approach. The QR codes would literally have consumers who want to know--and 92 percent do want to know--about the GMOs in their food either use their cell phones on the products they are about to buy in the grocery store or turn to some reader in the grocery store that will give them a page or two of information about the contents. I really believe that is an attempt to obfuscate the situation. I think most consumers will rightly assume that if there is not a clear declaration on the product which shows that it is non-GMO, that it contains GMOs. I think the food industry is taking an approach which can't be defended with a straight face. Can you really expect a busy consumer--a mother with children in her shopping cart to pull out her cell phone and stop at every can of soup to try to get a reading and then read her cell phone to see if there is a page or two of information about that product? That isn't fair to consumers, and that is why major consumer organizations oppose this bill. It is one of the major reasons I oppose the bill as well. If there were a declaration, such as a symbol, or straight acknowledgement of wording as to whether the product contains GMOs or is non-GMO, which every seasoned consumer would come to understand, I think that is an honest approach. I don't think it is reasonable or honest to expect a consumer to have to scan a QR code and then have to read their cell phone to determine what is in the product. Let me conclude by saying I salute those who have taken up this battle. Many have taken this up for many different reasons. It has been a vexing and contentious issue for a long period of time. I do not support State labeling. We have to avoid that. I do support honest disclosures on food products so American consumers who rightly believe they have a right to know have a way of finding that information in a way that is reasonable. I also want to add that it is my understanding that there is a 2-year delay in terms of imposing this requirement. I don't know why 2 years would be necessary. It would seem to me that if Campbell's can move on this more quickly, the rest of the food industry should be able to do so as well. I thank the Senator from Oregon, who has been working hard on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if a student is failing in school, many people will rally around that student and ask: What is missing? Is the student working hard enough? Is the teacher connecting with the student? But we are concerned. Then, when we take a closer look at the situation, sometimes we find the student has a problem, a challenge, a learning disability. One of those is attention deficit disorder: The student can't focus, can't really put his mind on a specific issue and stick with it until the task is completed, the mind wanders, the student loses focus, and unfortunately the net result is the lack of a positive learning experience. There are many critics of Congress today and of the Senate for our failure to address some of the major issues that are challenging us in America. It turns out that when it comes to one issue, the problem in the Senate is attention deficit disorder. Let me be specific. A few weeks ago, we had the worst mass shooting in the modern history of the United States of America. A crazed person went into the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, killing 49 people and injuring dozens more. It was a shocking experience, and we heard about it early on Sunday morning. The entire Nation responded. The President spoke to the issue, even going down to Orlando with the Vice President to meet with some of the families and some of those who survived this terrible mass shooting. Then we came back to Washington, and the obvious question was: What will the Senate do in response? The Senate had a plan, and the plan from the Republican leadership was to have a moment of silence. Well, that is entirely appropriate. I am glad we did, and we should, but it is not sufficient. It is not enough. So a number of us came to the floor--under the leadership of Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Senator Booker of New Jersey-- and initiated a filibuster on the floor of the Senate, demanding that we at least consider legislation that would reduce the likelihood of more mass murders and reduce the likelihood of more violent crimes and gun deaths in America. The proposal we suggested was straightforward. It said we should close the loophole in the background check system. It turns out that if you go to a licensed gun dealer in America, you will go through a background check through a computer. They will see if there is any evidence that you are a convicted felon or have a history of mental instability or other prohibitor. If that is the case, you are disqualified. You can't buy a firearm. But those who are paying close attention know there are alternatives to a licensed gun dealer. If you went instead to a gun show--which happens in Illinois and many other States on a regular basis--many of them have no background check for firearm sales. That is the case in northern Indiana where the laws are very flexible and light when it comes to background checks. The bill we supported from Senator Murphy, similar to an earlier bill by Senators Manchin and Toomey, would have closed the so-called gun show loophole so you would have a background check before a firearm is sold, keeping the firearm out of the hands of a convicted felon or person who is clearly mentally unstable. The second proposal we had reflects the times we live in. We now have no-fly rules. If you are suspected of being a terrorist or having terrorist connections, our government can stop you from boarding an airplane. The theory behind it is obvious. We want to keep the passengers on the airplane safe, and we would rather run the risk of a suspected terrorist being denied a flight than run the risk of a suspected terrorist coming onto an airplane and endangering innocent lives. The proposal Senator Feinstein brought to the floor of the Senate said that if you are on the no-fly list or the selectee list, which means you go through a special search, or are reasonably suspected of terrorist involvement, you would be disqualified from buying a firearm. It seems to stand to reason, does it not, that if we are worried about a terrorist in our midst hurting innocent people, we certainly don't want that terrorist to legally buy an assault weapon in the United States of America. That seems obvious. These assault weapons, semiautomatic and automatic, are dangers to not just a few but to dozens of people. There was a Snapchat that was taken by one of the victims in Orlando during the last 9 seconds of her life. The shooter at the Orlando nightclub fired off 17 rounds in 9 seconds. You can see the devastating impact of these weapons when they get in the wrong hands. The Feinstein amendment attempted to close that loophole. Over 90 percent of the American people think the issues I just described--closing background check loopholes, closing the gun show loophole, keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists--are reasonable steps toward gun safety. We have to do more to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them and might misuse them. In light of that, you would have thought that this proposal would have passed, that there wouldn't have been much controversy, particularly after the mass murder in Orlando. At the end of filibuster, we had votes. Both measures were defeated on the floor of the Senate. Then Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, decided to try her best to come up with a bipartisan compromise. I salute her. She worked long and hard. It wasn't easy, and it certainly wasn't popular in some corners of the Senate. She brought her measure to the floor--a no-fly, no-buy measure, a variation on the Feinstein amendment--and there was an attempt to table it, to stop the amendment in its tracks, but Senator Collins managed to get eight Republicans, including herself, to vote with the Democrats, and the measure was not tabled, but the measure now sits as part of an appropriations bill and has not been addressed again. While we have gone through this in the last several weeks, the House had a different approach. There was a sit-in that lasted over 24 hours to call attention to the need for debate and votes on gun safety. We have been told the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has promised them a vote this week. It is unlikely that anything is going to pass in the House of Representatives. What is next? The American people ask us: Is that it? Are you finished with gun safety? You play to a draw on the amendments in the Senate, you take up a measure in the House, which has a dim likelihood of passing, and that is all you are going do? And then we leave. Next week will be the last week in session before September. We will be gone for 7 weeks, the longest period of recess in 50 or 60 years in the U.S. Senate, while we recess for the conventions and for the August period when we spend time with our families. My concern, of course, is one that is shared by many. It would be miraculous if we didn't have another mass shooting in that 7-week period of time. I hope we do not. I pray we do not. History tells us that it is highly likely it will happen. Then we will return and have a moment of silence, and then we will do nothing. You see, it is attention deficit disorder in the Senate when it comes to issues involving gun safety, but for many Americans all around this country, this is an issue they think about regularly. I can certainly tell you that in my home State of Illinois, the city of Chicago I am honored to represent, it is an issue that is on the front page of every newspaper every day. Over the holiday weekend, the Fourth of July holiday weekend, at least 66 people were shot in the city of Chicago. At least five of them died. The victims of the gun violence include children. A 5-year-old girl and her 8-year-old cousin were shot and wounded while playing with sparklers on the Fourth of July. An 11-year-old boy was hit in the arm. A 15-year-old boy was shot in the chest while he was coming out of a store. These shootings took place, despite a surge in police presence and thousands of additional officers over the weekend. Sadly, it is not rare to see a weekend like this in Chicago marked by dozens of shootings. The weekend before this, at least 58 people were shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally; Memorial Day weekend, 69 people were shot in Chicago, 7 of them fatally. Last week I visited the 11th District police station on the West Side of Chicago. The 11th is the Harrison District. It is one of the most violent in the city. More than 270 people have been shot in the Harrison Police District this year. I met with the commander, Chicago Police Deputy Chief James Jones, as well as other officers in the district. We had a long talk about the violence and drug sales taking place on the streets in that district. We talked about so many different challenges--the lack of economic opportunity in that area, gang activity. They showed me a map, which looked like a map of Europe with all of the different countries--in this case, all of the different gangs that controlled a few blocks here or a larger section there. We talked about the lack of trust and cooperation between citizens and law enforcement. We talked about the overwhelming number of children and young adults who have either been the victims of violent trauma or who have directly witnessed it. Solving any of these challenges is difficult, but we need to do all we can to reduce the devastating level of gun violence and to save lives. We can't wait for the next mass murder. The most immediate problem in the Harrison District in the city of Chicago is that it is far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. So many of the shootings that kill and injure people in Chicago are preventable. They never would have happened if our laws did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives division of the Federal Government told me last year that they had looked at the crime guns that were confiscated in the deadliest sections of Chicago and that up to forty percent of those guns were coming from gun shows in Northern Indiana where there are no background checks. The traffickers and gang leaders literally opened the trunks of their cars and filled them with firearms in Northern Indiana and then took a one- half hour trip back to the city and sold them at night in the neighborhood and alleys. That is the reality--no background checks. We can close that loophole. Will it end gun violence? Of course not. Will it make it more difficult for those who have no business to own guns to get them? Yes. Why shouldn't we do it? We cannot allow this to continue. We need to stand up to the gun lobby and their allies in Congress who block commonsense gun reforms that are supported by 90 percent of the American people. Let's be honest. Reforms like requiring universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists are no-brainers. The only reason these reforms get tied up and dropped in Congress is that the politicians in Washington are afraid to death of the gun lobby. The truth is, the gun lobby is not about the Second Amendment. The gun lobby is about selling guns. If you reduce their volume of sales, you reduce their profits, and they will fight you. Many of the colleagues I joined in this Chamber are scared to death of what they might do to them in the next election. The gun lobby may care about selling guns, but I care more about saving lives. I have been fighting their agenda for many years in the Senate. I am going to keep at it. I am proud to join my colleagues in the House and Senate in saying ``enough'' to this bloodshed in our streets. Several weeks ago when I joined Senators Murphy, Booker, and Blumenthal, we decided to move for votes on commonsense gun reform. Our friends in the House of Representatives had a similar effort. I was also proud to support the Democratic Members of Congress, Robin Kelly, Jan Schakowsky, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Mike Quigley, and Steny Hoyer, who joined with local leaders and community members last Thursday in Federal Plaza in Chicago to protest Congress's failure to act on gun violence. The American Medical Association a few weeks ago declared that gun violence is ``a public health crisis.'' It is. Each year more than 32,000 Americans are killed by guns, and 80,000 are injured. On average, 297 Americans are shot every day--every day--and 91 die. The daily toll of gun homicides, suicides, assaults, and accidental shootings is devastating. Our Nation suffers from mass shootings on a daily basis. Since 49 people were murdered in Orlando, FL, and 53 injured in the worst mass shooting in modern American history, there have been at least 47 more mass shootings in America. These are shooting incidents where at least four people were hit gun by gunfire. That is a staggering total. No city has suffered more from the epidemic of gun violence than my city of Chicago. So far this year, 2,026 people have been shot in that city, and 329 have been murdered. And 7 of the 47 mass shootings that have occurred since Orlando have taken place in Chicago. No city in America has experienced the number of shootings and gun deaths that we have in Chicago. These shootings are the result of a flood of illegal guns brought into the city by gun traffickers and straw purchasers. They take advantage of clear loopholes in our Federal gun laws, and they put guns into the hands of gangbangers and dangerous people. It has to stop. There are so many victims of gun violence in Chicago it is overwhelming. Let me mention a few recent ones. On Father's Day, a 3- year-old boy named Devon Quinn was sitting in a car seat next to his father in the Woodlawn neighborhood when their car was riddled with bullets by a drive-by shooter. The gunman tried to target nearby gang members. He was a terrible shot. Innocent people were hurt. The boy's father dove in front of his son to try to shield him, but a bullet struck 3-year-old Devon, who almost died. This 3-year-old is currently alive but paralyzed, unable to breathe on his own. On June 30, Chanda Foreman was killed on her 37th birthday in a mass shooting in the Washington Heights neighborhood that also injured 4 other people. She was described by her family as a great person and responsible worker. She had a 6-year-old daughter who will now grow up without a mother. She was sitting in her car when apparently two rival gangs started shooting at one another, and she was killed in the crossfire. On July 2, a father named Dionus Neely, his 10-year-old daughter, Elle, and his 3-year-old daughter Endia were shot and killed in their home in Hazel Crest. Investigators said this appeared to be a targeted attack. They described it as pure evil. Erin Neely, the wife of Dionus and mother of Elle and Endia, said: Endia was the light of this world, always smiling and hugging and laughing. And Elle was a dancer. She was the life of the party. And my husband, he was a stay-at-home dad. He was a good father. She said: They did not deserve this. I am going to keep these shooting victims and families in my thoughts and prayers, but thoughts and prayers and moments of silence are not enough. Lawmakers have a responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent Americans from being shot and killed in their homes, their cars, and in their neighborhoods. We can't allow this to continue. I am going to join my allies in Congress to try to stop it with real gun reform. I am going to focus my attention on the problem that will not go away. My colleagues who think if they just wait long enough we will forget this issue are just plain wrong. I am not going to quit. We need the American people to stand with us. If they will help us in speaking out for commonsense reform, we can finally beat the gun lobby and stop putting guns in the hands of people who have no business owning them and save lives across America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue just raised by the Senator from Massachusetts and responded to by the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Massachusetts carefully avoided mentioning the obvious. This is the same Republican majority that will not fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. For the first moment in the history of the United States--in the history of the United States--we have a Presidential nominee sent to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Scalia, and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to give him a hearing or a vote. That has never--underline the word ``never''--happened in the history of the United States of America. When we say do your job, it starts at the highest Court and goes straight down to every Federal court in America. I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and what I think is particularly galling, troubling, and worrisome is that each one of these nominees has been carefully vetted by the Department of Justice, by the FBI, by Republican staffers--everyone imaginable--culling through every aspect of their life to see if they are truly worthy of being a lifetime appointee to the Federal bench, and they all passed the test. They were all voted out of committee, and they all languish on the floor of the Senate for the very reason the Senator mentioned. The Senator from Texas and many others are lying awake at night praying for the moment when President Donald Trump can pick Federal judges in America. Unless Judge Judy is coming out of retirement, I have no idea where he is going to turn to find judicial talent, but I will tell you, we have judicial talent, approved by Democrats and Republicans, languishing on this calendar at great personal expense. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising this issue. Zika Virus Funding Mr. President, I would like to also comment on the Zika virus and the threat to the United States. You bet it is serious. We have seen the photographs that have been displayed here of the children who are born with serious birth defects because of the Zika virus. It is so serious the President of the United States notified this Senate in February--February of this year--to act immediately on providing $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--to protect as many people as possible from the spread of this virus and the terrible effects it has. The President asked for $1.9 billion not only to deal with the mosquitoes and the infection but also to develop a vaccine so we can liberate America from the concern of this virus showing up next year and the year after. So there was a $1.9 billion request in February. To date--to date-- the Republican leadership in the House and Senate have failed to produce the $1.9 billion that was suggested by the President. We had a compromise number of $1.1 billion that was approved by the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote almost a month ago. I think there were 87 Senators who voted for it because we all understand it is a public health emergency. Well, in our bicameral system, the bill then went over to the House of Representatives. What happened next tells the story of what is wrong with the Republican-controlled Senate today. They took our bipartisan bill for $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus, they put it in a conference committee, they held a meeting but didn't invite any Democrats, and they then came up with a bill that provided $1.1 billion, but listen to how they did it. They took money away from fighting the Ebola virus in Africa, which we feared several years ago would spread to the United States and still is a threat to Africa and to many other people. They took the public health money to fight the Ebola virus and said: We will transfer it over, and you can fight the Zika virus. Apparently, the Republicans believe we can only fight one public health challenge at a time. We don't have time for Ebola. We are going to move to Zika. The Centers for Disease Control--the preeminent agency in the world when it comes to fighting public health disasters--has warned us don't do this. We are still worried about the spread of Ebola and the danger of it. But they didn't stop with that. They didn't stop with taking the Ebola money and putting it into the Zika virus. They then turned around and larded the bill up with every political ornament they could think of that would captivate the hearts of the rightwing. Listen to what they included in the bill. They included a provision that cut $500 million from the Veterans' Administration to process veterans' claims. Have you heard of that issue? I sure have back in Illinois. Our veterans wait way too long to get the disability payments they deserve for having served our country. The Republicans cut $500 million from that effort, but they weren't finished. They then turned around and said: We want to make an exemption in the Clean Water Act so certain chemicals can be sprayed around water supplies. What has that got to do with this and why do we need to do it at this moment? It is one thing they have been longing for. The third thing they turned around and did, after they cut the money from the VA and after they made this provision to change what the EPA can regulate and, as I mentioned earlier, took the money out of Ebola--they then moved on to say: We know that women across America will be concerned about family planning because of the threat of the Zika virus so they put language in the bill prohibiting Planned Parenthood from providing family planning to those who are concerned about the spread of the Zika virus. They just can't stay away from Planned Parenthood, and they included it. And while you might think that was enough to make this the most controversial political bill to move from the House, they had one more trick up their sleeve--a provision to allow the display of Confederate flags in our veterans cemeteries--Confederate flags. Why? Why would you take an important bill dealing with a public health crisis and lard it up with all of these miserable provisions that just excite the hearts of some political rightwingers? They did it because they were hoping we would stop the funding for the Zika virus. It is stopped now waiting for a clean bill. They know the President will never sign this bill as written. If we would go back to the original bipartisan bill passed in the Senate, we would certainly get approval for it. That is why, I answer the Senator from Texas, we wait for the day when we can get back to bipartisanship on this important public health threat. I see there are others seeking the floor. The last point I will make is that we are going to vote in a short period of time on this GMO legislation. I have a lengthy statement that I will put in the Record about my position, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New England Journal of Medicine. This is an August 20, 2015, article from the New England Journal of Medicine entitled ``GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health.'' It makes the point very directly that there has been no credible scientific evidence that GMO foods pose any danger to consumers who consume them. But there is a credible concern about the use of chemicals in the production of these GMO products and how they are being larded on these fields, creating real concern about the ultimate impact on public health by these agricultural chemicals and the runoff.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Campbell Soup Company.

Mr. DURBIN. Campbell Soup Company has decided they are going to face this issue squarely, honestly, and waste no time. It is a company that I trust. I can't imagine how many cans of Campbell's soup we have consumed in my household throughout my life. They said: It is time to be honest with consumers. We will tell them. We will tell them pointblank on the label so they can read whether or not there are GMO products contained in the soup. Then they can make the decision as to whether they want to buy it. I wish that were the outcome of this entire debate, but it is not. The third point I want to make is it is mindless for us to allow individual States like Vermont to decide the labeling standards for national companies. It makes no sense. We cannot allow it to occur. The last point I will make is this: One of the provisions in this bill I think is embarrassing, and it is a provision which I cannot support. We give three options to food companies when it comes to labeling for GMOs. First, declare right on the label, just as Campbell Soup Company does, if GMO products are included. Second, use a symbol created by the Department of Agriculture which we can educate the public on that can really signal as to whether this product has GMO products. The third is the one that troubles me--something called a YRL or URL. I may have that designation wrong, but it is that kind of scrambled screen you see that you can't read but some computers can read. What these food companies want to do is not tell you as a consumer whether the food has GMOs or not. As you go through the grocery store, they want you to hold your cell phone up to that box of macaroni and cheese to see if it has GMO in it or not by reading all that is written on your cell phone. That is a bad joke. I just went shopping with my two 4\1/2\-year-old grandkids. I cannot imagine walking through that store, trying to keep them from raiding different displays, and using my cell phone on box after box of macaroni and cheese. That, to me, is the ``secret decoder ring'' approach to this, and I think it is an embarrassment to consumers to ask them to go through that. So I will be voting in opposition to the GMO bill when it comes before us later in the day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see my colleagues from Kansas and Michigan on the floor, and I know they are here to speak on the GMO issue. I will make a brief statement and cut short what I planned on saying so they can take the floor on this important and pending issue. The Senate Republican leader came to the floor this morning and congratulated the Senate on the fact we passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Puerto Rico legislation necessary to deal with the financial disaster they face. We did that last week, truly in a bipartisan way. The Republican leader said this morning we need to keep our focus on serious issues, but then he comes to us with four bills that he requests we take up during the abbreviated session we have this week and next week, and among those four bills are two he acknowledges are clearly only introduced for the political impact, for the message, they might deliver. One bill that is being promoted by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania is a bill relating to sanctuary cities. This measure was largely considered and voted on only 8 months ago and defeated in the Senate. Why are we bringing it back today? Well, there has been some candor on the Republican side. The Senator who is offering this measure is up for reelection. He believes this is an important ``message amendment'' that he needs to take back to his home State of Pennsylvania, and he wants to make sure the Senate takes up this measure before the Republican convention, which starts up in a couple weeks. This is a political tactic that is sadly going to eat up the time of the Senate with the same ultimate result. Senator Toomey's sanctuary bill will not pass, but it gives him something to talk about when he goes home and perhaps something to give a speech about at the Republican convention. Going back to the Senate Republican leader's suggestion that we ought to be focusing in a bipartisan way on serious issues, the first suggestion out of the box on a message amendment is clearly being done for political purposes only. The second measure is one that is brought to the floor at the request of Senator Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas. This will bring us back to some debate over immigration, again, on what is known as Kate's Law and the suggestion by Senator Cruz that we create a new mandatory minimum criminal sentence. On its face, this measure is unacceptable and unaffordable. It would criminalize, with mandatory minimum sentencing, conduct that would affect thousands of people who have crossed over the border into the United States undocumented. Of course, the Senator from Texas wants this message amendment during this abbreviated short session before the Republican convention, which I assume he will be speaking to, in order to make his political point. So here we are with the Republican leader first congratulating us on being bipartisan on serious issues and then turning around and two of the four things he suggests we do these 2 weeks have no chance to pass. One at least has been voted on within the last 8 months on the floor of the Senate, and they have acknowledged they are only offering these amendments to give the Senators who are making the requests a chance to make some political hay in the weeks and days before the Republican convention in Cleveland. Why? Because the ``presumptive,'' as they call him, Republican nominee for President wants to focus on immigration. As a consequence, those who are lining up behind him, like the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, want to have some arguing points to make to support Donald Trump's candidacy and his position on immigration. It is a sad reality that 3 years ago, on the floor of the Senate, we actually did something constructive on the issue of immigration. With the votes of 14 Republicans joining the Democrats, we passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Sadly, that measure died in the House when they wouldn't even consider that bill or any bill on the issue. We had a constructive alternative, and it passed here in a bipartisan fashion on a serious issue. Yet, since then, the Republicans have stonewalled and stopped every effort to constructively deal with immigration. The two measures before us, by Senators from Pennsylvania and Texas, should be taken for what they are. They are political posturing before the Republican National Convention. They are efforts so these two Senators will have something to talk about or brag about at the Cleveland convention, but they do not take us to the serious issues we still face; issues such as the GMO compromise, an important issue because of measures taken by some States; issues such as funding for Zika, a measure which passed the Senate 89 to 1 in a strong bipartisan vote and then went over to the House and languished in a conference committee and finally was reported out with no Democratic signatories to the conference report. That measure has been defeated once, and the Senate Republican leader said we will just go call the same measure again, with obviously the same outcome. We still have questions on funding on Zika, questions about funding on opioid abuse. These are serious measures that should be taken up rather than these so-called message amendments being offered by the other side. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Monday, the Fourth of July, was the 240th anniversary of the creation of the United States of America. It was a day on which we celebrated this great Nation. We celebrated our great leaders, but in Illinois we lost one of our best in the passing of Abner Mikva on the Fourth of July. Abner Mikva was a friend. In addition to that, he was an extraordinary individual. His record of public service is unmatched. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who did so many distinguished things in the legislative branch of our Federal Government, serving in the House of Representatives; serving on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia in the judicial branch; and serving as general counsel to President William Clinton in the White House in the executive branch. Abner Mikva combined them all. The highlights of his life are an amazing story of a young man going through law school who decided in 1948 that he wanted to get involved in politics. Judge Mikva got his start when he walked into the 8th Ward headquarters in the city of Chicago in 1948--back in the day when the Democratic organization of Chicago was a powerful operation. Here he was, a young man, a young law student who was inspired by the candidacies of Adlai Stevenson for Governor of Illinois and Paul Douglas for the U.S. Senate, and he wanted to do his part. What transpired when he made that effort has become legend in Chicago. Abner Mikva showed up. A ward committeeman saw him at the door and said: What can I do for you? He said: Well, I am looking to volunteer. The ward committeeman said to Ab Mikva: Who sent you? Abner Mikva said: Nobody sent me. The ward committeeman said: We don't want nobody nobody sent. He then said to him: Are you looking for a job? Abner Mikva said: No, I am not really looking for a job. The ward committeeman said: We don't want nobody who ain't looking for a job. The ward committeeman then said: Where are you from, kid? He said: I go to the University of Chicago. The ward committeeman made it clear: We don't want nobody from the University of Chicago. That was Abner Mikva's introduction into politics. You would think he would have been discouraged by that, but he was not. He went on to graduate from the University of Chicago Law School, to clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and then to practice law in the city. In the 1950s, he decided to run for the Illinois House of Representatives. He ran against the same political organization that turned away his efforts to be a volunteer, and he won. He came to Springfield, IL--my hometown and the capital of our State--to the Illinois House, and found some kindred spirits. One of them, Paul Simon, who eventually served here in the U.S. Senate, was Abner Mikva's closest friend in the Illinois House of Representatives. State representative Tony Scariano was another independent who had come to the Illinois House to try to make a difference. The three of them roomed together--Mikva, Jewish religion; Paul Simon, Lutheran; and Tony Scariano, Catholic. They called their gang the Kosher Nostra, and they set out to try to change the government of Illinois. But even more than their contributions legislatively, politically they created a force in Illinois--both downstate and in Chicago, which made a big difference in the history of our State. Abner Mikva went on to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served with distinction until he was appointed to the district court for the District of Columbia. He had a tough congressional district. He started off on the South Side of Chicago, around Hyde Park. Eventually, when he saw the demographics changing, he picked up and literally moved north to the Evanston area, which was the base for his political operations in the new congressional district. He moved his entire operation up north and inspired the kind of followership and devotion that politicians dream of. If you were part of the Mikva organization in his district, you took it personally. I can recall people saying with a straight face that they were part of the Mikva operation but decided to move out of his district. When they broke the news to the coordinator, of course, the coordinator insisted that before they could move, they had to find someone to replace them as precinct volunteers to help Ab Mikva get reelected to the U.S. House of Representatives, which he did sporadically. He lost a couple of times, but he won as well. The time came when he was appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest court in the land, where he wrote many important decisions relative to the basic rights of people under the Constitution. He was my friend. I was introduced to him by Paul Simon, my predecessor here in the Senate. I think of the two of them as my North Star, when it comes to issues of integrity, independence, and progressive values. I was lucky to know Ab Mikva throughout my congressional career in the House and Senate and to have Loretta join me when we had dinner with Ab and his wife Zoe in Chicago several times over the last several years after his retirement. Ab Mikva received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama, and one of the reasons was that they were close personal friends. It was Ab Mikva to whom Barack Obama went when he was interested in a career in politics, and Mikva counseled him in terms of what he needed to do. He suggested that he should listen more carefully to African-American ministers so he could put a little more life and emotion into his speaking style. Obviously, President Obama took that lesson to heart. It was Abner Mikva who stood by Obama in his early days, running for the U.S. Senate and then running for the Presidency. He was always his right-hand man, willing to offer advice and connect him with the right people on the political scene. Their friendship endured until Ab's passing just a couple of days ago. I know the President feels, as I do, that we have lost a great friend and a great supporter in what he was able to achieve. He also had a friendly and happy way about him. He enjoyed life. He used to engage in poker games that included Supreme Court Justices and Federal judges, some of whom will surprise you. William Rehnquist would play poker with Ab Mikva. Those were two men from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and they still had a chance to get together and to get to know one another. He left an enduring mark on America's legal system. There were so many people who started off as clerks for Abner Mikva and turned out to be amazing contributors to the American political scene. One of his former clerks sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elena Kagan was a clerk for Judge Mikva and then went on to the highest Court in the land. That gives you an indication of the quality of the people who worked with and for him. His law clerks went on to serve Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell. The New York Times once branded Abner Mikva as ``the Zelig of the American legal scene.'' One brilliant young lawyer actually turned down a Mikva clerkship, and that was Barack Obama, who did find another way to contribute to this Nation. In 1997, Judge Mikva and his wife Zoe founded the Mikva Challenge, a program I have become acquainted with and worked with over the years. Abner Mikva and Zoe tried to engage young people in politics, and they did it on a bipartisan basis. If a young person wanted to volunteer for the Republican Party, they would find a way for that person to become a part of the campaign and work in an office so they could see firsthand what politics and government was all about, and, of course, they would provide similar volunteers for the Democratic candidates. These young people would see their lives transformed and changed by this Mikva Challenge. I have met them, and many times I wondered what their future might hold, but knowing full well that some of them would be in public service, much as Abner Mikva was during his life. Just a couple of months ago, there was a special luncheon to celebrate Abner's contributions to public service and the Mikva Challenge. At the time they made the decision--and I hope they carried it through--to make this a permanently funded foundation-supported effort that will survive Abner and Zoe and will live on for many decades to come. Some years ago, Judge Mikva told a reporter that it was important for a society to have heroes. He said: You have to have live heroes. . . . It is not enough to be exposed to George Washington in grade school or Abraham Lincoln in high school. You have to have somebody who you can identify with in the here and now, who makes the institutions we are trying to preserve worthwhile. I am very proud to join the Alliance for Justice and many other groups that have stood up and acknowledged the amazing contributions that have been made by Abner Mikva and Zoe during the course of Abner's life. I am particularly honored to have counted him as a friend. He would call and give me words of encouragement so many times when we were going through some tough decisionmaking. I can't tell you how much it meant to hear from him personally and to know he approved of what I was doing. He was always, as I said, my North Star and hero in political life. With his old buddy, Paul Simon, his old roommate in the Illinois House, they probably inspired this Senator as much as any two people who have been living during my tenure in public service. I stand today in tribute to a great man and a great American. Abner Mikva of Illinois made this a better country and Illinois a better State. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Saturday was the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder decision. In this case, a divided Court voted 5-4 to gut the Voting Rights Act. The Court struck down the provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination to ``preclear'' any changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. In the 3 years since Shelby County, Democrats and a small handful of Republicans have sought to restore the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, the majority of Republicans in Congress have obstructed efforts to reinstate robust Federal voting protections. As a result, 2016 will mark the first Presidential election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act since this historic legislation was signed into law in 1965. The restrictions on voting that many Americans face today can be traced back to the 2010 midterm election. After that election, in which Republicans won control of several State legislative chambers and governorships, State lawmakers across the country introduced burdensome voting laws. These laws ranged from strict voter identification requirements to cuts in early voting. At the time, the Voting Rights Act served as a backstop, preventing States covered by the preclearance requirement from implementing changes that had a discriminatory purpose or effect. That is why the Shelby County decision in 2013 had an immediate impact. Released from preclearance requirements, States with discriminatory histories were free to move forward with new restrictions on voting. For example, within hours of the Shelby County decision, Texas State officials announced that they would immediately implement a photo ID requirement for in-person voting that Texas first tried to put in place in 2011. This burdensome voter ID law had previously been blocked by both the Department of Justice and a Federal appeals court, due to the law's harmful impact on poor and minority voters. As a result of this law going into effect, we heard disturbing stories of a 93-year-old veteran and nearly 70-year-old doctor who were turned away from the polls in Texas in 2014 because their IDs did not meet the onerous new requirements. During my time as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I held a series of hearings that examined restrictive State voting laws. During these hearings, we heard over and over again that these laws have a disproportionate impact on lower-income, minority, youth, elderly, and other vulnerable voting populations. I asked the State officials at each of my hearings whether there were any widespread instances of voter fraud to justify these laws, and they were unable to point to any examples. There have been only a handful of prosecutions over the last decade. This clearly is not a problem in need of a solution. This is clearly an effort to restrict the opportunity to vote for certain Americans. This year, voters in 17 States will face restrictions that they have not previously experienced in a Presidential election. Eight of these States were previously covered by the preclearance provision in the Voting Rights Act. Recent primary elections in many of these States gave voters a taste of potential problems to come in the general election. In Maricopa County, AZ, some voters were forced to endure waits of more than 5 hours in order to cast their ballots in the March primary election. The cause of the delay was a decision by a local election official to massively cut the number of polling locations. In the 2008 primary, 400 polling places were available. In 2016, that number was slashed to a mere 60 locations. Prior to Shelby County, such a change would have been evaluated and likely challenged by the Justice Department in a preclearance review. In Wisconsin, a newly implemented voter photo identification law led to challenges and confusion in the April primary. Press reports recently documented the story of one of the affected voters. Eddie Lee Holloway, Jr., moved from my home State of Illinois to Wisconsin in 2008 and was able to vote without any problems before the voter ID law went into effect. After the law was passed, Mr. Holloway went to a DMV in Milwaukee with an expired Illinois photo ID, his birth certificate, and his Social Security card to obtain a Wisconsin photo ID for voting. However, his application was rejected due to a clerical error on his birth certificate, which read ``Eddie Junior Holloway.'' Mr. Holloway spent hundreds of dollars traveling to Illinois to try to fix this problem. In addition to the Milwaukee DMV, he visited the Vital Records System in Milwaukee, the Illinois Vital Records Division in Springfield, an Illinois DMV, and his high school in Decatur, IL-- all in an attempt to obtain sufficient records for a Wisconsin voter ID. Ultimately, he was unsuccessful. Despite all of these efforts, Mr. Holloway was unable to vote in the April primary. What is particularly infuriating about Mr. Holloway's case is that Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature were hoping for exactly this type of outcome. The chief of staff to a leading Republican State senator in Wisconsin resigned last year after witnessing Republican legislators who were, ``literally giddy'' over the impact the new voter ID law would have on minority and student voters. In an interview with the New York Times, the former staffer said, ``I remember when Republicans were the ones who helped Johnson pass the civil rights bill in the '60s.'' Indeed, it was 51 years ago this year President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bipartisan Voting Rights Act into law-- guaranteeing that the right to vote would not be restricted through clever schemes, like poll taxes and literacy tests, devised to keep African Americans from voting. I wish that, 51 years after we enacted the Voting Rights Act, our society had reached a point where its protections were no longer necessary, but we clearly have not, and the Voting Rights Act is still very much needed today. That is why Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and I introduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act last year. This legislation would restore the Voting Rights Act. It would ensure that burdensome voting laws will be reviewed and, if found to be discriminatory, blocked before they go into effect. I recently joined Senator Leahy and our Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in sending a letter to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, urging them to hold a hearing on voting rights and the Voting Rights Advancement Act. Between 2007 and 2013, Senate Democrats held nine hearings to examine the issue of voting rights. In contrast, Republicans have not held a single hearing on voting rights since taking the majority in 2015. This is disappointing. Voting rights has traditionally been a bipartisan issue. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Three hundred and ninety Members of the House and 98 Senators came together on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize the bill. Twenty-one hearings with more than 90 witnesses and a 15,000-page record illustrated to us that the Voting Rights Act was still very much needed. Three years ago, the Supreme Court ignored our efforts in Shelby County, but we can, and we must, come together once again to address voting rights. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, has introduced legislation in the House to restore the Voting Rights Act. Earlier this year, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. He noted, ``Ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot without fear, deterrence and prejudice is a basic American right. I would rather lose my job than suppress votes to keep it.'' I urge my colleagues to listen to Congressman Sensenbrenner and join us in our fight to restore the Voting Rights Act. It is time to bring the bipartisan Voting Rights Advancement Act to the floor and ensure that the Federal Government is once again able to fully protect the fundamental right to vote.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to thank Thomas Vanden Berk for his extraordinary service to the city of Chicago. Tom has spent 40 years devoted to one cause: improving the lives of Chicago's most vulnerable by working with children and families who have been abused, neglected, and traumatized. Earlier this year, Tom announced he would be retiring as chief executive officer of the Uhlich Children's Advantage network, UCAN. In 1987, when Tom joined UCAN, it was a small shelter housing 50 boys and girls, operating under a $1.7 million budget and on the verge of closing. Under Tom's direction, UCAN grew into a multifaceted and financially sound shelter focusing on child welfare programs, violence prevention, and strategies for combating gun violence. Today UCAN is a leading child welfare organization in Chicago with a new $41 million campus providing a full continuum of over 30 programs, servicing more than 10,000 people every year. Tom's been the recipient of numerous awards, including the ``Friend of Child'' award from the Illinois Council on Training; Peace Leader Award from the Illinois Council for the Prevention of Violence; and the Council for Health and Human Service Ministries Executive of the Year award. Through Tom's creative leadership and hard work, UCAN has become a vital sanctuary for young people, providing security and healing for those who have suffered trauma. Over the last 29 years, Tom has built UCAN on one simple, but powerful premise: ``Kids raised in violence are traumatized and trauma can be healed.'' Tom knows trauma better than most. As a young boy, his father, a part-time janitor at their church, was killed when a boiler he was repairing exploded. And on April 25, 1992, when kids barged into a party and started shooting, Tom lost his 15-year-old son. After the shooting, one thing became clear: ``these were kids with absurdly easy access to guns.'' So Tom asked himself, ``What am I going to do with this anger?'' What he has done is become a leading voice and advocate in the campaign to reduce gun violence. Tom understands that it is not just a criminal justice issue; it is a public health crisis. After his son's death, Tom realized that many of the troubled, neglected, and abused children that he spent his career working with had been traumatized by gun violence in their homes and community. His work through UCAN began to reflect that reality. He founded HELP for Survivors, a support group for parents who have lost loved ones to gun violence. Tom also became a founding member of the Bell Campaign, known today as the Million Mom March, which formed an alliance with the Brady Campaign in 2001. In 2002, Tom was named the Join Together Hero, which recognizes true leaders of the gun violence prevention movement. And in 2007, he received the Citizens Advocacy Award from the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence. When asked to reflect on his career, Tom remains focused on the problems facing the community: not enough beds for impoverished kids who endure violence, a ridiculously high number of shootings, effective gun laws blocked by the National Rifle Association, and on and on. He says, ``I can't sit here and say, `Oh, my God, I've done wonderful things and its better.' '' We have a long way to go and progress is hard, but no one can deny the difference Tom has made. Just listen to those that know Tom and UCAN best--young people like Tatiara, who came to UCAN in 2012 through the Family Works program. Here is what she said: ``UCAN takes you under their wing. You are not just another number but you are your own person. They really care about you. It's like you're part of a family.'' Or take Alexis, a 23-year-old mother, whose daughter Aliyah was born premature with multiple complications including Down's syndrome, a tethered spinal cord, and a heart defect. Here is what she said: ``I would recommend UCAN because if you need something or need to get somewhere they will find the answer. I would be lost without them.'' Alexis and Aliyah are 1 of more than 100 families that UCAN's High-Risk Infant Program provides preventive and supportive services to every year. These are just a couple of the countless success stories. I have visited UCAN and met the children it serves. Their stories are inspiring. And I am thankful that UCAN is making a difference in the lives of so many young people in Illinois. So on behalf of all those UCAN has served during Tom Vanden Berk's tenure, I want to tell him he has done wonderful things, and because of his passion and dedication, people's lives have gotten better. Fortunately for Chicago, Tom isn't going far. Later this summer, he will transition to CEO emeritus and will continue to fundraise and advocate for UCAN and the children and families it serves. I want to congratulate Thomas Vanden Berk on his distinguished career and thank him for all he has done--and all he will continue to do. Illinois and the country are grateful for his service.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for a clarification. Is there still 5 minutes remaining for the Senator from New Jersey?

Mr. DURBIN. If I don't use my entire time, I will yield the remainder to the Senator from New Jersey for those with opposing positions. Mr. President, many times on the floor of the Senate we are faced with difficult, sometimes impossible choices. At the end of the day, you wish you could sit down and write a solution that you believe would achieve its purpose and do it in the most responsible manner. Many times we don't get that luxury, and this is an example. Puerto Rico is in a unique relationship with the United States. Some have said this agreement is in the nature of a colonial imposition on the island of Puerto Rico. As the laws currently stand, Puerto Rico cannot save itself. It is $70 billion in debt, and those who hold the debt--the bond holders--are demanding payment. The Puerto Rican economy is struggling to survive and struggling to make a $2 billion payment on that debt by July 1. Under these emergency circumstances, there is only one place to turn. It is not an imposing colonial power; it is the United States of America that has been in partnership with Puerto Rico in the past and should be for its future. We are trying to find a reasonable way through this that will appeal to both political parties. Of course, the political parties see this differently. A Democratic solution to this looks a lot different than a Republican solution. What we have before us is a compromise. It is a measure that was entered into with the cooperation, collaboration, and bargaining between the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the White House, and Republican leaders. So it is a mixed bag politically that comes to us today. I support it, although I would be the first to tell you there are parts of it I find absolutely objectionable. Bringing in the notion that they are going to put their economy on solid footing by reducing the minimum wage is laughable, as far as I am concerned. If you lower that minimum wage to an unconscionable level, more and more people will leave Puerto Rico--which they can legally do--and come to the United States, where the minimum wage is significantly larger than that proposed by the Republicans. The same thing is true when it comes to overtime pay. I struggle with the powers of this oversight board, but I understand that time and again in history, when entities like New York City and other places are facing virtual bankruptcy, an oversight board has been the vehicle to bring them to stability. I think this oversight board is loaded--even though it is 4 to 3--loaded on the other side, but I hope they will in good conscience come up with approaches that are acceptable. What is the alternative if we vote no? We will hear a lot of Members say: Let's just vote against this and put an end to it. The alternative if we vote no is to give the bondholders, those who are holding the debt of Puerto Rico, all the cards July 1--all the cards. They can then go to court and force their hand for payment on these debts. And Puerto Rico, which is struggling to provide basic services, will have even more money taken away from them. What is a disastrous situation will become disastrously worse if we vote no and do nothing. This oversight board, for all its flaws, has the power to stop that from happening-- has the power to enter into voluntary negotiations on the debt of Puerto Rico, and if they can't reach a voluntary agreement, they have the power to go to court for restructuring all of the debt that faces the island. Now that is significant. I hope it doesn't reach that point. I hope there is a voluntary negotiation. But to say we are going to protest the creation of this board by voting against the creation of the board and this outcome I have described is to throw this poor island and the people who live there into chaos. I received a telephone call from the archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich. I respect him very much. He called me on several issues, but he said: The real purpose for my call is to tell you the archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico, has reached out to me and told me of the desperate situation they are facing in Puerto Rico today. About 150 schools have closed. There is no money to buy gasoline for the buses to take the children to schools. Many of the medical services are down to zero. One doctor a day is leaving Puerto Rico, and they can't afford to lose any. Currently, at the major hospital, Centro Medico, there is a serious question as to whether children who are trying to survive cancer will have the drugs they need for a fighting chance. That is how desperate it is. He went further to say the air ambulance service on Puerto Rico, which transports the most gravely ill people to medical care, is now not flying. They can't afford to. People have to pay in cash for dialysis services. This is a disastrous situation, and the notion that we can vote no today and not accept the consequences, which will be terrible for Puerto Rico, is not a fair analysis of this problem. Yes, I would have written a different bill. Yes, I would have constructed a different oversight board, but the choice now is not between some ideal or some better approach. The choice is before us. The choice is yes or no, and a ``no'' vote is one that is going to imperil this island and make the poor people living there face even worse hardship. How can that be a good outcome? How can we bargain for the possibility that several months from now there may be a better constructive oversight board? I think the responsible thing to do is to move forward. Don't take my word for it alone. I represent the State of Illinois and am proud to do it. My connection to Puerto Rico is through 100,000 Puerto Ricans who live in my State. I have worked with them. I have met with them. This morning, I received a letter from Pedro Pierluisi, who is the Member of Congress from Puerto Rico. He goes on to write: As Puerto Rico's sole elected representative in Congress, I write to respectfully request that you vote in favor of S. 2328. . . . On June 9th, the House approved PROMESA in a strong bipartisan vote, an all-too-rare event that I hope will be replicated in the Senate this week. He goes on to talk about the imperfections in this bill, which we all know. But he then goes on to talk about the hardships that the island of Puerto Rico is facing and will face if this bill is not passed. We have received the same request from the Governor of Puerto Rico. To ignore these people and to ignore the people who live there and the perils they face, I don't believe is a responsible course of action. I think we have to move forward in a positive fashion. That is why I am going to support this measure today and urge my colleagues to do the same. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the House, as the resident Congressman has related in his letter. It is an indication that as imperfect as this agreement may be, it is the best we can come up with in this terrible and perilous situation facing the island of Puerto Rico. I urge my colleagues today to vote yes on cloture, vote yes on final passage of this bill. Give Puerto Rico a fighting chance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we have before the vote?

Mr. DURBIN. There is 18 minutes a side, I understand?

Mr. DURBIN. Is that divided on position on the bill or on a partisan basis?

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I see the Senator from Oklahoma seeking recognition.