Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to propose a question to the Senator from Connecticut, but before I do, first I would like to thank the Senator who is presiding at this early morning hour. I thank him and his fellow Senators who made this possible. A special thanks to staff. They have been thanked before, but they should be thanked again for their diligence and patience during this conversation and debate on the floor of the Senate. And a special thanks to the pages who stayed late, late tonight and will have stories to tell about that night when the Senate went into the morning and we were there. So you will be able to tell those stories when you get back home to your families and friends, but it is a historic debate and it is an important debate and it is one that will affect your lives and the lives of the many people you treasure on this Earth. We come to this floor at this early morning hour--a quarter to 1 here in Washington, DC, as the Senator from Connecticut noted, more than 13 hours after he first took the floor--to discuss the critically important issue about the safety and security of America. When I think about what we are facing here, as has been said by the Senator from Maine, we are dealing with a new strategy by terrorists. I can remember the day of 9/11, 2001, in the room just a few feet away, when a little after 9 in the morning we quickly turned on the television to see that planes were crashing into the World Trade Center in New York. By the time the second plane went in, we knew it wasn't an accident. Then there was a crash at the Pentagon, black smoke billowing over the mall, and we were quickly advised to evacuate the Capitol of the United States. We did. We raced for the exits and went outside, we stood on the lawn and didn't know which way to turn, feeling that the next plane was headed for the Capitol dome. That was the threat we faced and the reality of that threat right here in this building, that some terrorists--unimaginable--would use an airplane to attack us. That was the weapon. Well, it was a bitter lesson, and 3,000 innocent Americans died. We changed America. Osama bin Laden changed America. The way we went to the airport, when we arrived, how we arrived, what we carry, what we wore became part of our defense of America, and for 15 years it has become a routine. Our children and grandchildren have grown up with it. They couldn't imagine a day when you didn't go through intense security at an airport. But before 9/11, it virtually never happened, and when it did it wasn't very reliable. What we are talking about is a new strategy, a new tactic by terrorists. That is why this debate is about more than just this horrible tragedy at Orlando. It is about a pattern that is emerging of those who are radicalized and marginalized and turn to guns that they can buy legally in the United States to threaten us. How serious are these guns? In an earlier meeting, I made a mistake of calling it an automatic weapon. The weapon that was found to have been taken in by this man in Orlando is a semiautomatic weapon. The difference, of course, is with an automatic weapon, you hold the trigger and it bursts all the cartridges in the magazine, as many as you have. With a semiautomatic, you literally have to pull the trigger each time. But let me give an idea of what that meant. In the early morning hours at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a brief video was uploaded to Snapchat by one of the victims, Amanda Alvear. It was the last video she ever shot because she died. What the early moments of the massacre sounded like came through on the Snapchat video: a frantic drumbeat of shots, 17 or more shots in 9 seconds, one shot per trigger pull in a continual barrage. Today the FBI told us there were hundreds--hundreds of shots fired. So when we talk about a potential terrorist with a gun, it is a terrorist with the capacity to kill hundreds of people. That is the new tactic. And that is why this conversation is not just about the Second Amendment in theory; it is about keeping America safe in fact from the new wave of terrorism. When the Senator from Connecticut took the floor, it was for two reasons. We said them and we should say them again--to make sure that if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, they cannot legally purchase a weapon in America, and particularly not this kind of weapon that could create such carnage and kill so many innocent people. Secondly, that this terrorist, once realizing he is stopped by the legal process, can't go through the extraordinary process of going to a gun show. I have been by these gun shows in the armories and gymnasiums across Illinois. They all come piling in to show their weapons and sell their weapons, and people buy them in bulk. And rarely--in some States, in Indiana for example, for many sellers there is no background check. Do you want to buy more than one, a Glock pistol? How much money do you have? Do you want to fill up the trunk of your car and take them in to the city of Chicago? Be my guest. This is exactly what happens. Of course, now the Internet is another source. Are we so certain of the security of America that we are not going to protect our families and our friends and the people we love from the next attack, from the next would-be terrorist? I don't know if this man in Orlando was truly associated with a terrorist organization. The investigation is underway. Some of the things he said were nonsensical when it came to identifying himself with these terrorist groups. I don't want to dismiss that possibility. Let the FBI investigate that in its full range to find out whether he was associated. But then who is the next one? And will the next one have access to some weapon that can kill so many innocent people at once? That is what this conversation is all about. It isn't about some age-old debate on the floor of the Senate. It is about the new world we live in. The Senator from Maine made it clear. The Senator from Connecticut read directly from terrorists who were instructing those who would kill Americans how to get it done most efficiently. That is what we are trying to stop. That is what this is all about. It will be great if at the end of this we not only get these amendments called, but maybe even a bipartisan agreement on stopping terrorists from buying guns in America to threaten innocent people in Orlando, in Connecticut, in Illinois, in Maine, in New Jersey. I would close by first thanking Senator Murphy and Senator Booker, who has been a stalwart supporter and friend throughout this debate. I believe he has tried to stand by Senator Murphy literally throughout. I say to Senator Booker, thank you for bringing to our attention at our caucus lunch yesterday the fact that this is about more than mass murder. It is about the murders of Americans that go on every day, every hour. In the cities that we love, innocent people die because of it. It is all part of the same conversation and the same debate. I thank the Senator for bringing that message home. It touched me because of what we are enduring in my State of Illinois and the city of Chicago. I say to Senator Murphy, it has been a long day. Here we are, a new day. I hope it is a new day for our country--a new day when we start looking seriously at putting an end to this gun violence and this carnage and doing a smart, sensible, commonsense thing to make sure that those who would be terrorists don't have access to the most lethal killer weapons available in gun stores and gun shows across America. My close is a simple question. At the end of this battle there are more to be fought, not just on this issue but on the issue of military- style weapons being sold to civilian populations. But let's save that for another day. I would just ask the Senator in closing what he is feeling as he watched his colleagues give up their time during the course of yesterday and the early hours of this morning in terms of the intensity of feeling and the stories that he heard that I hope have inspired him as they have me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am very concerned about section 563 in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act related to access by institutions of higher education, IHE, to military installations purportedly for advising and support services. The provision opens the floodgates to military bases and servicemembers for for-profit college recruiters. It guts the President's Principles of Excellence Executive order meant to protect servicemembers from aggressive or abusive recruiting practices on military installations by requiring that an IHE be granted access to a military installation if it has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Defense, DOD, and has been approved to provide services by the installation's educational service officer. Regardless of other factors which may be of concern to DOD-- investigations and lawsuits, infractions of the MOU, etc.--if an IHE convinces a base's educational service officer to grant them access, there is nothing DOD can do to stop it. In addition, the provision provides preferential treatment to IHE's that enroll large proportions of servicemembers. Providing access to installations based on how many servicemembers an IHE enrolls instead of the actual needs of the servicemembers at those installations does nothing to help improve services for enrolled servicemembers. Instead, it further entrenches the big for-profit players whose business models rely heavily on servicemembers. Those institutions will be able to tout their statutorily guaranteed increased access to military installations when recruiting. Finally, as passed in the Senate, section 563 does not limit advising and support services to an IHE's currently enrolled students. There have been well-documented cases of IHE's using access to military bases gained under the guise of offering advising and other services for recruitment. The Senate-passed language does not limit an IHE's contact with servicemembers, once on base, to students it currently enrolls. This creates the opportunity for IHE's to clandestinely or openly use their access to recruit other servicemembers to their programs. Because of the potential harm this provision in the Senate-passed bill will cause to servicemembers--giving near unrestricted access to for-profit college recruiters at a time when most major companies are under State or Federal investigations or lawsuits--I joined Senator Brown, along with Senators Warren, Blumenthal, Murray, Franken, Carper, Markey, Murphy, Reed, Boxer, Heinrich, and Sanders, to introduce an amendment to remove section 563 from the bill. Military and veterans groups including the Air Force Sergeants Association, Association of the United States Navy, Blue Star Families, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, Student Veterans of America, Veterans Education Success, and Vietnam Veterans of America submitted a letter in opposition to the provision. The attorneys general of California, Maine, Connecticut, Maryland, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Iowa, and Pennsylvania also wrote of their opposition. Not only is the provision harmful, but it is unnecessary. IHE's already have the ability to gain access to military installations for certain legitimate educational activities. I will work with others who are opposed to this provision to get it removed in conference.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask for the floor for 2 minutes, I thank the Senator from Florida for his leadership on this issue. It has been a contentious, hotly debated, and in some ways divisive issue between appropriations and authorization committees in the Senate. When Senator Nelson told me he was willing to step up and try to be that bridge over troubled waters, I welcomed his entry into that conversation. I thank him, Senator Gardner, Senator Bennet, Senator Cochran, Senator Shelby, Senator McCain, and all who have engaged in this. We have come to the right place, where we are going to be promoting competition, which is good for taxpayers, and we are also going to do it in a way that protects our national security interests. I thank the Senator from Florida for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 and a half years ago, I chaired a hearing of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in which the chief executives of the two top rocket makers, the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX, testified on the need for competition in launching government satellites. Not long after that hearing, Russia began its aggression against Ukraine. These two issues--the threat against Ukraine and the launch of U.S. satellites--intersected because one company is reliant on rocket engines made in Russia. Defense appropriations bills since then have included nearly half a billion dollars to build a new, American-made engine to end this reliance on Russian engines as quickly as a replacement can be built and tested. Defense authorization bills have taken a different approach, by putting strict limits on the number of Russian engines that can be purchased before the new, American-made rocket will be ready. Our top national security leaders, including the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Air Force, have warned that laws that halt access to Russian engines will endanger our ability to launch important defense and intelligence satellites. To cut-off access to Russian engines would force the Defense Department to buy rockets that are not cost-competitive with SpaceX because SpaceX's rockets cannot launch our largest satellites. The cost to the American taxpayer would be more than $1.5 billion, and it would be a risk to our national security. As vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe these costs and risks are too high. Many of my colleagues agree with this view. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, has a different view. He argued forcefully that we should pass strong laws restricting the use of these engines. We crossed swords many times on the floor of the Senate on this issue. Even though we still do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, the product of this debate is better because of it. The Nelson-Gardner amendment provides the Department of Defense with sufficient time to develop and test a replacement for the Russian rocket engine. The amendment limits the use of Russian engines for competitive launches to a maximum of 18, allows for a responsible transition to an American-made engine, and, consistent with existing law, does not impact the use of Russian engines purchased to support the EELV block buy. These provisions increase the pressure on DOD and the United Launch Alliance to keep its new rocket R&D program on-track and push them to use only those Russian engines that are needed to support our national security. This amendment protects the American taxpayer by avoiding billions in additional spending on sole-source contracts for more expensive rockets. It protects our national security by guaranteeing that there will not be a gap in our ability to launch satellites. And it protects our national interests by increasing the pressure to have an American- made replacement engine ready as soon as possible. I would like to thank the Senators who worked tirelessly to see that this amendment was adopted with a strong vote in the U.S. Senate: Senators Nelson, Gardner, Bennet, Shelby, Cochran, Donnelly, Sessions, and Inhofe deserve great credit for their efforts. I am proud to have worked with them on this issue, and I am pleased that we were able to find a responsible solution that protects our national security and the American taxpayer.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, early in the morning this past Sunday, the worst mass shooting in America's history took place. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 more wounded at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL. We don't know all the details, but we know that this was an act of terror and that it was an act of hate directed at the LGBT community. I want to begin by expressing my condolences to the victims, to their families and loved ones, and to the city of Orlando. I thank the first responders who ran toward the sound of gunfire, who literally risked their lives to save the lives of others. I express my support and solidarity with the LGBT community in Orlando and throughout the Nation. Many of the patrons at the Pulse nightclub were members of that community. They were simply enjoying a fun night out at an establishment that welcomed them. June is Pride Month. It is a month where we should take pride in the advances we have made toward equality since Stonewall in 1969. The LGBT movement has come a long way in protecting Americans' right to love the person they love. Yet this weekend's shooting is a sobering reminder that this community still remains a target of vicious hatred. As we mourn those we lost in Orlando, we must not lose our pride in what the LGBT movement has accomplished. We must stand in solidarity with our fellow LGBT Americans who will not let the hate of a few overcome the love of an entire community. The shooter who perpetrated this horrific attack has been identified as a 29-year-old U.S. citizen who was living in St. Lucie County, FL. The shooter reportedly entered the nightclub at about 2 a.m. on Sunday morning, armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and a handgun. He opened fire on the patrons and engaged in a shoot-out with an off-duty Orlando police officer who was working security at the nightclub. The shooter apparently held a number of hostages in the nightclub for several hours, until a SWAT team swarmed the building, killing the gunman at about 5 a.m. Reportedly, the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS, even while the attack was under way. We do not yet know when and how this gunman may have been radicalized. Reportedly, he had been the subject of at least two FBI investigations in recent years regarding possible ties to terrorist groups. The shooter reportedly bought the two guns he used on Sunday within the last several days. He was able to buy these guns legally, despite the past investigations into his potential terrorist ties. Let's be clear. In America, our laws currently allow dangerous people to buy guns. That has to change. I respect the Second Amendment to our Constitution. That amendment protects the responsible use of guns for lawful purposes. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is constitutional to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Our lawmakers are simply not doing enough to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Right now, the FBI cannot stop a known or suspected terrorist from walking into a gunshop and walking out with an AR-15, an assault weapon. The GAO found that between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists bought guns lawfully at least 2,043 times from American gun dealers. What are we thinking? Last December, when the Senate took up this measure, we failed on the floor of the Senate to pass legislation to close this terror gap loophole. The gap remains open, and we have failed to close the gaping loopholes in our own background check system that allow terrorists, criminals, and others to get guns without a background check from gun shows or over the Internet. Why do we make it so easy for people that we suspect of being involved in terrorism to buy guns--assault weapons, military-style guns? Last December, this Senate failed again to pass Manchin-Toomey, a bill that would close many of these loopholes. This was a bipartisan bill, yet we couldn't pass it on the floor of the Senate. We know our weak gun laws make us vulnerable, but we have not acted to strengthen them. In fact, almost every week we see efforts in Congress to further weaken gun laws in America. Hundreds of men, women, and children are shot every day in America, and on average 91 of those victims die. It is an epidemic of gun violence that has devastated families and communities in every State. No community has been hit harder than the city of Chicago--the city I am honored to represent and the city I love and a city where this past weekend, 44 people were shot, 7 of them fatally. More than 1,650 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago, with at least 282 victims dying from their wounds. The tragedy of Orlando is that it all happened in a few hours. The tragedy of gun violence in Chicago is that it happens almost every day. Across the Nation, we have seen Americans gunned down in nightclubs, elementary schools, churches, temples, movie theaters, health care clinics, malls, colleges, and our homes and our neighborhoods. We need to wake up and act to reduce this violence. Thoughts and prayers are important but not sufficient. We need votes and laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Can't we agree on that? The responsibility lies right here. We have that responsibility and that opportunity. This weekend's act of hate and terror in Orlando has been condemned by Americans of all backgrounds and all faiths, and Orlando has received an extraordinary outpouring of support and solidarity from all across the United States and around the world. We do stand united against ISIS and its efforts to promote mass shootings and acts of terror. We stand in support of the LGBT community--the latest target of this terrorist attack. This solidarity is important. Our efforts to defeat ISIS and keep America safe from hate and terror are strengthened when our Nation and the world stand united. We must not let the actions of a hateful few divide us and prevent us from working together to combat this evil. We also must not let this act of hate and terror lead to hostility against the Muslim community in America. The American Muslim community has stood with all Americans in condemning Sunday's mass shooting. American Muslim leaders immediately spoke out and condemned the attack. Muslim Floridians donated blood and money to help the victims and survivors. In the coming days, there will be those who say we should respond to this attack by discriminating against innocent American Muslims and immigrants. But the solution to hate is not more hate; it is unity. In Orlando, they understand this. In a news conference after the shooting, a representative of Equality Florida recognized the unity between the LGBT and Muslim communities, stating that his organization ``stands in solidarity with the Muslim and Islamic community in opposition to the intolerance, discrimination, and hate crimes that both of our communities experience.'' That was a statement by the representative of Equality Florida about Muslims in Florida itself. It is unfortunate that the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, does not understand this. In response to the Orlando attack, Mr. Trump wasted no time calling again for a ban on all Muslims immigrating to the United States. General Michael Hayden is no softy, no liberal. He was Director of the CIA, and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush. Here is what General Hayden said of Mr. Trump's response to the attack: ``Prejudiced, simplistic, and frankly inaccurate.'' General Hayden has pointed out that banning all Muslim immigration would not make us safer and actually helps ISIS recruit those who hate the United States. As we mourn those we have lost, we must also roll up our sleeves and get to work. We must pursue smart, commonsense reforms to keep dangerous, hateful people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons. America just suffered its deadliest mass shooting event in history--worse than San Bernardino, worse than Newtown, worse than Virginia Tech. If there was ever a time for Congress to do its job and keep guns out of dangerous hands, this is it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, almost a year ago exactly I met with a remarkable woman. She was wise, gracious, and funny, but I think what struck me the most about her was her idealism. Cassandra Quin Butts believed in the revolutionary promise on which our Nation was founded; that all men and women are created equal. She spent her entire working life trying to expand that premise. On the day we met, her nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Bahamas had been blocked for more than a year for reasons entirely unrelated to her qualifications. That did not make her cynical. It did not diminish her desire to serve. She just wanted to know if there was anything she could do to help. It was typical. Cassandra Butts asked the question, How can I help? Sadly, Ms. Butts will never receive the vote she deserved on her nomination to be Ambassador. She died over a week ago at the far-too- young age of 50. She felt ill for a few days, had seen a doctor, and died peacefully in her sleep before learning of her diagnosis, acute leukemia. Cassandra Butts was a longtime friend of President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. Ms. Butts and the future President met during their first days of Harvard Law School in the financial aid office. Neither one of them came from families that could simply write checks for tuition. In a statement mourning her passing, the President and First Lady remembered Ms. Butts and said as ``a citizen, always pushing, always doing her part to advance the causes of opportunity, civil rights, development, and democracy.'' ``Cassandra,'' the Obama's wrote, ``was someone who put her hands squarely on that arc of the moral universe, and never stopped doing whatever she could to bend it toward justice.'' They continued. ``To know Cassandra Butts was to know someone who made you want to be better.'' Ms. Butts began her distinguished career in public service about a year after graduating law school. She worked as legal counsel to U.S. Senator Harris Wofford. After the Senate, she went to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, following in the footsteps of one of her heroes, former U.S. Justice Thurgood Marshall. She returned to Capitol Hill in 1996 as a senior adviser to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and the House Democratic policy committee. From 2004 to 2008, she served as Senior Vice President for Domestic Policy at the Center for American Progress--with a few breaks in service to help her old friend. When Barack Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, Cassandra Butts was there, helping him to get his office up and running. Later, she helped her old friend the President launch his historic Presidential campaign. When he won, Cassandra Butts was there again to offer advice on transition. She stayed on to serve the President as Deputy White House Counsel. Among the lasting marks she leaves on our democracy, Cassandra Butts helped shepherd through this Senate the nomination of the first Latina ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Butts was a remarkably humble person, especially for one who worked so close to power. She left the White House in November 2009 to serve as Senior Advisor at the Millennium Challenge Corporation. During her time there, she kept an exhausting schedule, traveling to some of the poorest places on Earth, searching for innovative ways to use America's leadership and ingenuity to help lift desperately poor people, especially women and children, out of crushing poverty. It saddens me that Ms. Butts never had the opportunity to serve as Ambassador because she could have had so many ideas that she would have brought to represent America's values and help the people of the Bahamas. She had hoped that being an African-American woman, it would help to underscore America's commitment to equality. While he waited for a vote on her nomination, Cassandra Butts represented our Nation well on the world stage in a different capacity. She served with distinction as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Accounts of her life will always lead off with the fact that she was a close friend of the President and First Lady, but that was only part of the story. Cassandra Butts was a friend to countless people around the world, from the famous to the voiceless. She was a seeker of truth and justice. She was also warm and funny, smart and passionate, deeply decent. She loved jazz, the UNC Tar Heels, fast cars, especially her BMW. She left this world too soon and she will be missed. Loretta and I wish to extend our condolences to her many friends and family, especially her mother Mae Karim, her father Charles Norman Butts, her sister and brother-in-law, Deidra and Frank Abbott, her two nephews whom she adored, Austin and Ethan Abbott. It is a sad reality that as I stand here today and pick up this publication on the desk of every Senator, the Executive Calendar for the Senate of the United States, and turn to look at it closely, I find in this calendar, on page 5, the name of Cassandra Butts, waiting for the Senate to approve her position as the Ambassador to the Bahamas. She waited and waited and waited. Eventually she passed away, waiting on the Senate Calendar to serve this country. When the Senators who had a hold on her for all this period of time were asked: Why? Why did you hold up this woman, one of them was very candid and said: We knew she was close to the President, and if we stopped her, we knew the President would feel the pain. I hope today we all feel the pain that this lady can no longer have the distinction of ending her fabulous public career as our Ambassador representing the United States to the Bahamas. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the senior Senator from Arizona. What it comes down to is that Republicans and Democrats have fundamentally different approaches to providing for our troops, our national security agencies, and our government. Democrats are committed providing the funds necessary to protect our Nation, grow our economy, invest in research, and shelter the most vulnerable. Republicans have a different approach. They accept massive cuts to almost every agency and only provide defense funding through an accounting trick which the Defense Department's own leadership has rejected as inadequate. This is a debate about how best to protect our national security. And my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of it. Senate Democrats are committed to defeating ISIS on the ground in Iraq and Syria, dismantling its terror network, and protecting our homeland. The only way we can do that is by supporting budget relief for all of our national security agencies, including Homeland Security, the FBI, and many others. Republicans haven't been willing to do that so we must figure out how to allocate funding with the existing budget agreement. The amendment offered by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is a return to gridlock. Last year's attempt to provide only the Defense Department with additional OCO funds resulted in a stalemate and a 3-month long continuing resolution. Do we have to repeat this failed strategy again? The answer is no. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I took a different approach in drafting the Defense appropriations bill: no poison pill riders, stick to the budget deal, eliminate wasteful spending proposals, and reinvest in our priorities. If you compare the results in the Defense appropriations bill to the amendment proposed by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, here is what you will find: His proposal violates last year's budget deal with $18 billion more in spending. Our bipartisan Defense appropriations bill invests $15 billion in important programs while adhering to the deal. The pending amendment relies on an OCO gimmick to authorize increases for Israeli missile defense programs. However, every cent requested by the Israeli Government, all $600.9 million, is funded in the Defense appropriations bill without using OCO funds. This amendment authorizes OCO funding for a littoral combat ship and a DDG-51 destroyer. This would be the first time that OCO funds would be used to buy ships for the Navy. The appropriations bill goes even further in supporting shipbuilding by providing $1 billion for a new icebreaker to support our Arctic strategy, an item not included in the pending amendment. The amendment also adds various aircraft--more F-18s, F-35s, C-130s, helicopters, and so on--that are also funded in the Defense appropriations bill without running up the Nation's OCO charge card. The bottom line is that, in the Defense appropriations bill, we were able to fund most of the items in Senator McCain's OCO gimmick amendment, but we were able to it within the budget caps. It wasn't easy, but we made it work. I would prefer that we find a way to increase both defense and nondefense funding so we can invest more in all of the agencies that work together to keep America safe. The Reed amendment does exactly that. It amends last year's budget deal to include $18 billion more for defense and $18 billion more for important nondefense programs. The Reed amendment includes $2 billion more to address cyber security vulnerabilities to stop the type of attacks that resulted in the theft of millions of personnel records from the Office of Personnel Management. It includes $1.4 billion for more law enforcement efforts, including more security screeners at airports, more FBI agents and police officers on the street, and more grants to State and local first responders. The Reed amendment addresses public health emergencies, including $1.9 billion for the response to Zika. It also provides $1.9 billion to fix our broken water infrastructure, which would help ensure we don't face another lead contaminated water crisis like what happened Flint, MI. Finally, the Reed amendment includes $3.2 billion in funding to address infrastructure problems at VA hospitals, fix our roads and bridges, and invest in our rail and transit systems. Last year, Congress voted to provide fair and balanced relief to our Defense and our nondefense agencies. The Reed amendment is consistent with that agreement, and it deserves our support. In conclusion, we should be supporting all of our national security agencies as they work to protect this Nation, including cyber security, homeland security, and local law enforcement, the FBI, and TSA. We also should support critical issues like the opioid epidemic, water infrastructure, the Zika outbreak, and research across the Federal Government among other items. I urge my colleagues to support Ranking Member Reed's amendment.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we all know the Senate of the United States is composed of two Senators from each State. Today I have news. My home State of Illinois just picked up a third senator. Last month, the Irish Prime Minister--Taoiseach--Enda Kenny, announced eight appointees to the Irish Senate. One of the appointees is my dear friend in Chicago, Billy Lawless. Billy is the first Irish citizen living in the United States to be appointed to the Irish Senate. This is truly historic. Today Billy takes a seat in the Irish Senate. Ireland will get a senator who will fight for the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, and those yearning to work hard for a better life. No one has been a stronger voice and advocate for the Irish diaspora and immigration reform than Billy Lawless of Chicago, IL. Prime Minister Kenny couldn't have made a better choice. For generations, sons and daughters of the Emerald Isle have landed on our shores in search of the American dream. Billy Lawless is no different. As a young boy, he grew up on a dairy farm in Galway, a city in western Ireland, delivering unpasteurized milk to local restaurants and hotels. As an adult, he made a name for himself as a prominent businessman in Galway. He ran several pubs, restaurants, and hotels. Life was good, but for years he had always had a dream of opening a restaurant in the United States. When his youngest daughter earned a full college scholarship in the United States, Billy took that as a sign from Heaven. He moved his family to America. After 48 years in Galway, he wanted to see if he could succeed in the United States and he personally could live the American dream. He first went to Boston and Philadelphia, but on December 31, 1997, New Year's Eve, a historic day, Billy Lawless arrived in Chicago and knew he had found a home. From Galway, that most Irish of Irish cities, to Chicago, the most Irish of American cities, it was a perfect transition. Within 6 months, Billy opened an establishment known as Irish Oak, just a couple blocks south of Wrigley Field. Today he owns four restaurants and a fifth one is about to open. All the Lawless restaurants are known for three things--great food, great fun, and great people. Simply put, the Lawless family is restaurant royalty in Chicago. The family business started with 10 employees. Now they have 300. Since arriving in Chicago nearly 20 years ago, Billy has brought new energy to the city--Irish energy--hard work, and a stubborn drive to succeed. With the great help of his great wife Anne and his four children-- Billy, Jr., Amy, John Paul, and Clodagh--Billy achieved the American dream. Billy could have said: I have achieved my American dream. Good luck with yours. That is not who he is. After all, Billy is Irish. He looks out for his friends and neighbors. The first bar Billy opened, the Irish Oak, became a favorite for Irish construction workers. Many of them were undocumented and asked for Billy's help in getting their papers in order. Billy never hesitated. He became their champion and a strong defender of Irish immigrants everywhere. When asked why he took such an interest in the issue, he said: ``That's what we Irish do for each other.'' But he didn't stop there. When he learned that those same problems were shared by others, Billy became an eloquent and forceful advocate for all immigrants. Billy Lawless gets it. He understands that protecting immigrants' rights is part of the strength of our immigrant Nation. I know he will continue to be an energetic and compassionate guardian of the Irish diaspora and all immigrants' rights from his seat in the Irish Senate. The United States and Ireland have long and proud histories, forged in the fires of a proud and rebellious spirit and united in friendship. Having Billy Lawless's unique and authentic voice in the Irish Senate will only strengthen our countries here and abroad. He represents the very best of the both the Irish and American spirit. It was only 2 years ago that I came to the Senate floor to congratulate Billy and his wife Anne on becoming citizens of the United States. They had waited a long time, and they had worked hard for it. I was proud to call them not just my friends but my fellow Americans. Today I am proud to call Billy Lawless my fellow Senator. Congratulations on a well-deserved honor. Independence of our Federal Judiciary Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of serious constitutional gravity. I rise to address the latest in a long line of appalling and insulting remarks made by the Republican Party's presumptive Presidential nominee. Last week Donald Trump attacked the ethnicity of U.S. district court judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump's so-called university. Mr. Trump referred to Judge Curiel's heritage in a lengthy tirade about the judge's ruling in the case. He also called Judge Curiel a ``hater'' and ``a total disgrace,'' suggesting that the judge should recuse himself due to his ``negative'' rulings. When pressed on the issue, Mr. Trump doubled down. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last Thursday, Mr. Trump stated that Judge Curiel had ``an absolute conflict'' in presiding over the lawsuit because the judge is of ``Mexican heritage.'' Mr. Trump went on to explain that the judge's ethnicity presents an ``inherent conflict of interest'' because of Mr. Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Let me be clear. Mr. Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel have been characterized--even by Republican Senators and Congressmen--as racist, inappropriate, and completely unfounded. Judge Curiel is an American. He was born in East Chicago, IN, just steps away from the border with my State. His parents had emigrated from Mexico to the United States. He has a distinguished record. After attending law school at Indiana University, Judge Curiel practiced law in Indiana and California. In 1989, he joined the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of California. As a Federal prosecutor, Judge Curiel served in the Narcotics Enforcement Division and worked to bring down drug cartels. After prosecuting a major cartel, he received a death threat and was forced to live under guard for months. In 2007, he was appointed by a Republican Governor in California to serve as a State judge. President Obama later nominated Judge Curiel to the Federal bench. The Senate confirmed his nomination by a unanimous vote on September 22, 2012. Judge Curiel is well respected in the legal community. A former colleague recently said: ``His integrity is beyond reproach.'' And a California attorney who led the screening committee that reviewed Judge Curiel in 2011 said: He was very highly recommended. No one could say a bad thing about him. Despite these accomplishments, Donald Trump views Judge Curiel as incapable of serving as an impartial jurist in this case involving Trump University due to the judge's ethnicity. Mr. Trump believes the lawsuit that Judge Curiel is presiding over should have been dismissed long ago. Maybe Mr. Trump should take a closer look at reality. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Mr. Trump's so-called university, and in one of the two lawsuits that Judge Curiel is presiding over, former students allege that Mr. Trump and Trump University defrauded them by making misrepresentations about the education they would receive. The plaintiffs provided evidence to support their claims and, as a result, Judge Curiel denied a motion from Mr. Trump to grant summary judgment in his favor, which would have avoided a trial. Nothing in this ruling suggests a lack of impartiality. Instead, Judge Curiel's rulings indicate that a factual dispute exists in the case and the plaintiffs deserve their day in court. Unfortunately, reality and the facts don't seem to matter to Mr. Trump. Instead of acknowledging the inappropriateness of his attacks on Judge Curiel's character and heritage, he has doubled down on them. Mr. Trump apparently believes that after he bullies and demeans a group of people, he should never have to face a member of that community in a courtroom. One of Mr. Trump's most reprehensible statements--and there are many--calls for a total and complete ban on Muslim immigrants coming to the United States of America. In an interview that aired on ``Face the Nation'' on Sunday, Mr. Trump was asked: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours? He responded: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely. Where does Mr. Trump's twisted logic end? Does his crude attack on a disabled reporter present a conflict of interest for a judge with a disability who presides over a case against him? Do his disparaging remarks about women disqualify female judges from ruling on lawsuits filed against his failed business ventures? Mr. Trump's assertions are not only bigoted, they also endanger the independence of the Federal judiciary as he aspires to the highest office in the land. Despite those concerns, Senate Republicans are keeping 89 Federal judicial seats vacant, including an empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, in the hopes that Donald Trump will be able to fill those vacancies. After Mr. Trump's racist diatribes, I would like to ask my colleagues how they can possibly trust Mr. Trump to appoint judges to the Federal bench. Are they comfortable with a potential President who apparently believes that the only qualified candidates for Federal judgeships are those who possess racial, religious, or other characteristics that he has not yet disparaged? Trusting Donald Trump to fill judgeships in our Nation's Federal courtrooms is a risky and constitutionally dangerous bet. Placing that trust in Trump would threaten grave harm to our system of justice and to our rule of law. I thought--or had hoped--that we had moved past the dark time in our Nation's history when defendants believed it was appropriate to try to remove judges from a lawsuit on the basis of race. It was just over 40 years ago that an African-American Federal judge named A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. presided over a class action lawsuit involving civil rights claims. The defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to disqualify Judge Higginbotham from the case based on his race. In his opinion denying their motions, Judge Higginbotham wrote the following: It would be a tragic day for the nation and the judiciary if a myopic vision of the judge's role should prevail, a vision that required judges to refrain from participating in their churches, in their non-political community affairs, in their universities. So long as Jewish judges preside over matters where Jewish and Gentile litigants disagree; so long as Protestant judges preside over matters where Protestant and Catholic litigants disagree; so long as White judges preside over matters where White and Black litigants disagree, I will preside over matters where Black and White litigants disagree. In light of Mr. Trump's reprehensible remarks, Judge Higginbotham's words have taken on a renewed resonance. If Mr. Trump's myopic vision for the Federal judiciary prevails, it will indeed be a tragic day for the Nation. I yield the floor. Mr. ISAKSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from South Carolina. I keep giving examples of medical research in this program that relate directly to members of the military and their families and to veterans. All I hear back in return is: Well, we ought to be doing this research someplace else. Why? Don't we want the research to be done by the Department that has a special responsibility to the men and women in uniform and their families as well as veterans? Let me give you another example that I think really helps to tell this story of research that is jeopardized by the McCain language in this authorization bill. Joan Gray graduated from West Point in the first class that included women. She was commissioned in the U.S. Army as a platoon leader, commander, staff officer. After 5 years of service, she sustained a spinal cord injury in a midair collision during a nighttime tactical parachute jump. Joan Gray's wounds required 12 vertebral fusions. She is now an ambulatory paraplegic and a member of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Spinal injuries sustained from trauma impact servicemembers deployed overseas and in training. Over 5 percent of combat evacuations in Iraq and Afghanistan were for spinal trauma. Spinal cord injuries require specialized care and support for acute injury, disability adjustment, pain management, quality of life. Since 2009, Congress has appropriated in this account--which is going to be eliminated by this amendment--over $157 million to research the entire continuum of prehospital care, treatment, and rehab needs for spinal cord injury. The amount and extent of bleeding within the spinal cord can predict how well an individual will recover from a spinal cord injury. Researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Maryland at Baltimore examined why some injuries cause more or less bleeding. They studied early markers of injury and found an FDA-approved diabetes drug that proved to reduce lesion size and injury duration in spinal cord injuries. At the University of Pennsylvania, researchers have studied how to facilitate surviving nerve axons to grow across an injury site after spinal cord trauma to improve nerve generation and functionality. Is this research important? I would say it is. It is certainly important to those who serve us. It is important to their families as well. It should be important to all of us. Why are we cutting corners when it comes to medical research for our military and our veterans? Why is this account, which is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of this total budget, the target they want to cut? Medical research for the military and the veterans--every single grant that is approved has to go through the test of military relevance. It isn't a question of dreaming up some disease that might have an application someplace in the world. A panel looks at the research that is requested and asks: Does this have relevance today to our military and their families and veterans as well? If it doesn't pass this test, it is finished. That is why I am fighting to protect this money. So much has come out of this that it is of value to the men and women in uniform and veterans. Putting this new procedure in here making them go through the procurement requirements that we have for the largest defense contractors in America is unnecessary, burdensome, and will delay this process and make it more expensive. I would like to hear from the other side one example of abuse in these research grants that would justify changing the rules that have been in place for 24 years. Come up with that example. You are going to be hard-pressed to find it. After more than 2,000 of these grants a year for years--it has gone on for 24 years--I am waiting for the first example. What I think is really at stake here is an effort to make it more difficult, more cumbersome, and less appealing to the universities to do this kind of research, and we will be the lesser for it.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reed for his comments in support of my amendment. This is about medical research, and if I have a passion for the subject, I do. Certainly, I believe most of us do. There comes a point in your life where you get a diagnosis or news about someone you love, and you pray to goodness that there has been some research to develop a drug or a procedure or a device which gives them a chance for life. Do I want to invest more money in medical research so that there are more chances for life? You bet I do. And I believe our highest priority should be the men and women in uniform and their families and our veterans. That is why I will stand here today and defend this Department of Defense medical research program for as long as I have breath in my lungs. I believe it is essential that once we have made the promise to men and women in uniform, we stand by them and we keep our word, and our word means standing by medical research. Some have made light of issues being investigated under medical research--not anyone on the floor today, but others. Prostate cancer. What are they doing investigating prostate cancer at the Department of Defense? Servicemembers are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as those who don't serve in the military. Why? I don't know the answer. Is it worth the research to answer that question? Of course it is. Alzheimer's and Department of Defense medical research. For the men and women who served our country and have experienced a traumatic brain injury, their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is much higher. For those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the risk is also higher. So, as to Alzheimer's research at the Department of Defense, here is the reason. Lou Gehrig's disease, or ALS. We sure know that one; don't we? According to the ALS Association, military veterans are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ALS relative to the general population. Why? Should we ask the question? Do we owe it to the men and women in uniform to ask this question about ALS? We certainly do. Lung cancer. Of course there is too much smoking in the military and that is part of the reason, but the incidence is higher. Gulf war illness. It wasn't until the Department of Defense initiated its research that we finally linked up why so many gulf war veterans were coming home sick. Now we are treating them, as we should. There is traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, epilepsy, and seizure. The list goes on. To walk away from this research is to walk away from our promise to the men and women in uniform, their families, and our veterans. I am not going to stand for that. I hope the majority of the Senate will support my effort to eliminate this language that has been put into the Department of Defense authorization bill, and say to the chairman, once and for all: Stop this battle against medical research. There are many ways to save money in the Department of Defense. Let's not do it at the expense of medical research and at the expense of the well-being of the men and women who serve our country. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.