Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is one specialty that every Member of Congress has, it is air travel. We spend more time on airplanes, more time in airports, more time waiting for flights and worrying about flights than most other Americans. As Members of Congress, we are veterans of air travel. We have all seen the footage of people waiting to go through security screening at major airports, particularly in the city of Chicago at both O'Hare and Midway. The lines are so long that people have had to wait 2 to 3 hours--2 to 3 hours to go through a security checkpoint. People are angry, and I don't blame them. Thousands of people have missed their flights, and some were stuck sleeping in airports overnight. The commissioner of aviation, Ginger Evans, told me: We pulled out the cots that we save for snow emergencies so that people now, in the heat of early summer, are facing the same kinds of delays. Our highest priority is to protect those who travel on our airplanes. Poor planning and inadequate funding have led to alarming delays across airports in America, and in Chicago we have felt it more than most. More needs to be done to fix the problem. That is what I have been working to do. Earlier this week, I talked to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on the phone about the next steps. Yesterday, I followed up with a call to TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger to hear his thoughts. We all agree that the real problem is the shortage of TSA screeners. More people need to be hired and trained so security lines can stay open and people can move through the checkpoints faster. In the meantime, there are immediate steps we need to take in Chicago. First, we are going to get 58 more TSA screening officers in the next 2 weeks and 224 by August. That is about a 15-percent increase in TSA staff, and it is a good start. O'Hare will also receive 5 K-9 teams. That will double the number of K-9s we have at the airport. Two teams were brought in yesterday, and the rest will arrive within 5 days. These bomb-sniffing dogs do important work. They check carry-on baggage. If there is no problem, the passengers can move out of the standard line and into the expedited line. These dogs can help us speed up the process by allowing up to 5,000 additional passengers a day to move through the faster security lines. There will also be a shift of 100 TSA staff from part-time to full- time status so more people can be on deck to help with the lines. And officers who currently work on nondirect security functions are going to be called to pitch in and help officers at the checkpoints. We are also working to get more people enrolled in TSA PreCheck. I can't emphasize enough how important that is. For $85, a regular traveler can buy--or at least apply for and be given--a TSA PreCheck status for 5 years. PreCheck lines can scan nearly twice as fast as the ordinary lines. Customers don't have to wait as long or remove their shoes, belts, or light jackets. We need to make sure more people are hearing about this option and are signing up for it as quickly as possible. TSA is now working on a mobile app to help people get enrolled while they are waiting in lines, and they are also looking at lowering PreCheck signup costs by competing out the actual function of signing up for PreCheck. PreCheck has gotten a lot of traction, especially in Chicago, where this past month alone we have seen 5,700 new enrollments. I hope we can continue to quickly expand this program to help more people into the faster lines. The airlines have to be part of the solution as well. I am glad Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut is on the floor because both he and Senator Markey of Massachusetts spoke out early on this aspect that I am about to address. Airlines can help us by reducing high wait times, especially during the peak summer season. I have joined my colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Markey in urging the airlines to suspend the checked bag fees over the summer. A lot of people are dragging their bags on the airplanes because they don't want to pay to have them checked. On Monday, I spoke with Secretary Johnson, who told me baggage fees are contributing to long lines because more people are carrying on luggage that should be carefully screened through check-in. Over the last year, the volume of passengers and personnel passing through security checkpoints has increased 7 percent while the number of checked bags has increased only 3 percent. That tells the story: More people are carrying on their luggage and causing problems as more travelers pack their roller bags to the brim, making the bags take even longer to be scanned. Waiving the checked baggage fee during the summer travel season can reduce the incentive for passengers to carry-on luggage, and it can help speed up the process. Let me also add that it is in this baggage that people are dragging onboard that TSA screeners are finding things that aren't supposed to be on an airplane. Last year, they found 2,653 firearms, and 83 percent of them were loaded. Most of them were from one State; I will not name it. But by and large, we have to be more mindful of the fact that this stops the process or at least slows it down. I am convening a meeting with Administrator Neffenger tomorrow, along with State and local officials and airlines at Chicago O'Hare, and then we are also going to be visiting the Midway airport. We will see firsthand what airlines are experiencing and what their response is. We have to stop this meltdown when it comes to airport security. Let me close by saying this: The news today about EgyptAir was a grim reminder that we still live in a very dangerous world. The role and responsibility of the Transportation Security Agency is to make sure that when we and our families travel, we come off those planes just as safely as we went on. It is an important security responsibility. Yes, it is an irritation and a frustration, but we need to do it in this dangerous world to make sure that we stop people from using their carry-on baggage and other sources to cause harm to innocent people. I stand behind TSA and its mission, but what happened in Chicago is unacceptable. This meltdown should have been avoided. There should have been better management, more screeners, and we should have been ready for the surge in passengers. Beginning this week, we are going to make that right. I hope the visit by the TSA Administrator tomorrow will be the beginning of a conversation that will not only help our airports in Chicago but also help our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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. Madam President, I am pleased that today the Senate passed two annual spending bills--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs--and approved funding to combat the Zika virus. Senators Collins, Reed, Kirk, and Tester worked hard to craft good, bipartisan bills with no ideological, partisan policy riders. They have reminded us of the way we should do business here in the Senate. I was proud to support both bills when they were considered by the Appropriations Committee in recent weeks and proud to support them again today. I am pleased that the bill includes long-overdue funding to fight Zika. The bill does not provide the full amount of funding that our health and infectious disease experts say they need, but it does provide a good down payment of $1.1 billion. We must do more, and we must do it now, in order to protect pregnant women nationwide. This bill builds on the surface transportation bill, the FAST Act, that Congress passed last year that provides funding over 5 years for rail and highway infrastructure. Illinois rail lines are at the center of our national transportation network. In 2014, 5 million people boarded or exited trains in Illinois, giving residents a safe, affordable option when traveling. The bill supports rail options by providing strong funding for Amtrak, including $1.42 billion for the national network. It increases funding for TIGER and Core Capacity Capital Investment Grants, which supports transportation improvement projects across Illinois like the CTA's Red Purple Modernization project to provide more commuter passenger rail options to people in Chicago. The bill also funds important rail safety programs across the country. First-time funding for passenger rail grant programs authorized in the FAST Act will address gaps in supporting and growing our nation's passenger rail infrastructure. Rail line relocation and grade crossing enhancements will reduce accidents and improve passenger safety in Illinois and around the country. Nearly 1.1 million barrels of crude oil are hauled on our nation's railroads every day. Last year's derailment in Galena, IL, highlights the need to invest in rail safety. The bill continues funding for Positive Train Control programs and supports the Safe Transport of Energy Products Program. There is always more work to be done. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, America scores a D in investment in roads, transit, and aviation and a C-plus in rail. This bill is a good start. This bill not only invests in our transportation infrastructure, but it also invests in our housing infrastructure. I want to thank Senators Collins and Reed again for their efforts to address lead-based paint hazards in our Nation's low-income housing. Since Flint, we have learned that exposure to lead, be it through our drinking water or paint in our homes, is still a major problem in communities across Illinois and the country. We have also learned that, when government shortchanges our infrastructure because of opposition to commonsense protections and draconian spending cuts, families suffer the consequences. In the case of Flint, local and State government was the problem, and now, it, along with Federal Government, have to be part of the solution. And the provisions in this bill can help us do that. This bill requires HUD to update its standards to the CDC's blood level standard, which is currently four times the CDC level. It improves tenant awareness and education of the lead-based paint hazards. And it provides a modest increase in funding for the identification and remediation of lead-based hazards found in federally assisted housing. These are all good things, and they will go a long way in addressing the government's abysmal and embarrassing record in dealing with this problem, which has led to far too many children living in federally subsidized housing suffering from lead poisoning, including one family in Chicago. Lanice Walker's 4-year-old daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning less than 5 months after her and her family moved into a home subsidized by a Housing Choice Voucher. But Lanice Walker was not able to move without the risk of losing her voucher because her daughter's blood lead level, which was two times the CDC level, didn't meet the standards under HUD regulations. It wasn't until all nine of her children had elevated blood levels and legal advocates intervened on her behalf before she was granted permission to move. This is unacceptable, and we must do more to protect children in affordable housing before they become poisoned by lead. We must ensure that lead-based paint hazards are properly identified before a family moves into a unit. We must update all outdated lead regulations using the most recent science and enforce them. And we must adequately fund programs designed to identify and eliminate lead paint hazards. I hope that our efforts today are just the beginning of our recommitment to addressing our lead epidemic. The Senate also approved the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, which provides a $3.1 billion increase above fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This funding will support a wide variety of projects to ensure the military readiness and quality of life on military bases within the United States and around the world. It provides $70 million for Arlington National Cemetery to ensure that the final resting place for our servicemembers is well maintained. The bill ensures that we provide for our Nation's veterans and their families, those who have sacrificed so much over the years and deserve our gratitude. The Veterans Benefits Administration will receive $2.8 billion more than last year to help the VA modernize its claims processing as well as help reduce and eliminate backlogs. Forcing veterans to wait months and sometimes years to get the benefits they deserve is unacceptable. The bill increases funding for critical programs and emerging needs, including hepatitis C treatment, whistleblower protection, as well as family caregiver support. For years, I have championed the caregivers program in Congress, so I am pleased that this program is a priority in this bill. Hundreds of veterans and their caregivers in Illinois and more than 23,000 nationwide participate in this program, with much success. The bill increases medical and prosthetic research funding by $44 million compared to fiscal year 2016, at $675 million. These funds are critical to continuing our national commitment to medical research and will help our veterans that return home with both the physical and mental wounds of war. The number of veterans using VA services is dramatically increasing as the population ages. The VA provides more care for veterans now than ever before, and more of these veterans and their families have increasingly critical needs. I would also like to take a moment to address an amendment I offered that was included as part of a managers package. My amendment directs the Secretary of the VA to spend at least $21 million to fill critical staffing shortages in VA leadership at networks, medical centers, and health care systems across the country. At least three dozen key VA leadership positions are currently filled by acting or interim directors, sometimes for years at a time. In my home State of Illinois, for example, Hines VA Hospital has not had a permanent director since 2014. Permanently assigned leadership that is capable of overseeing and managing networks and medical centers is critical to delivering high quality care to our Nation's veterans in a timely fashion, especially at a time when the VA faces a number of challenges. This funding will help the VA prioritize filling these key positions, as well as address staffing shortages in other management and clinical positions, including in rural and underserved areas. It is my hope that this funding will allow the VA to quickly fill these important positions within the Department. I am glad to say that overall, moving this bill is good for our Nation's military and their families. I hope today's action by the Senate is another step in the direction of passing all 12 appropriations bills, all without ideological riders. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to continue to work with us in a bipartisan manner to pass additional appropriations bills without ideological riders. I would also like to urge my colleagues to quickly send these funding measures to the President. Zika funding is needed now.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, Senator Grassley came to the floor advocating for an amendment. His amendment dealt with access to guns for those who have been determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be mentally incompetent due to injury or disease. Senator Grassley's amendment was 10 lines long. It would simply cut off funds for the VA to ``treat'' any person who the VA has determined to be mentally incompetent under its current administrative process as a prohibited gun purchaser under Federal firearms laws. On behalf of myself and other Senators, I objected to this amendment. I pointed out that Senator Grassley's amendment would likely require purging the NICS background check database of thousands of records of people who have already been diagnosed with serious mental illness and referred to NICS by the VA. As Senator Grassley no doubt knows, current law requires a Federal agency that submits a record to NICS to notify the Attorney General if the basis upon which the record was submitted to NICS no longer applies. The Attorney General is then obligated to remove the record from NICS within thirty days. If the Grassley amendment were to pass and prohibit the VA from continuing to ``treat'' a mentally incompetent person as a prohibited gun purchaser, then it casts into doubt the basis upon which tens of thousands of NICS mental health records were submitted. So Senator Grassley's amendment would likely purge those records from NICS. Tens of thousands of people with serious mental illnesses would become able to buy guns. Senator Grassley came to the floor earlier this afternoon to criticize my objection. He made two main points that I want to respond to. First, he said that Democrats were being hypocritical for not allowing a vote on this issue. Senator Grassley must have only started paying attention to this issue recently. I can remember at least three votes we have had on the Senate floor on this issue. In April 2013, when the Senate was under Democratic control, an amendment offered by Senator Burr that was very similar to Senator Grassley's amendment was voted upon and failed to pass. An alternative and more sensible proposal for addressing the issue of VA referrals to the NICS database was included in the Manchin-Toomey legislation which the Senate voted upon in April 2013 and again last December. In contrast to the Burr and Grassley amendments, which specified no process for reviewing the thousands of VA mental health referrals that have already been made to NICS, the Manchin-Toomey amendment set up a notification, review, and appeal process. It wasn't perfect, but it was very credible process, and I voted for it. That is how we should be approaching this issue, with thoughtful authorizing legislation, not 10-line appropriations riders that are airdropped in on the Senate floor. Second, Senator Grassley said that the VA has been depriving veterans of their constitutional rights willy-nilly. I would urge Senator Grassley to look at the actual process the VA undertakes. In connection with an award of veterans benefits, the VA formally may determine as ``mentally incompetent'' a person who ``because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.'' The types of mental disorders that qualify as ``injury or disease `` for this purpose are set forth in 38 C.F.R. 4.130 and include diseases such as schizophrenia, dementia, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorders, among others. Such illness or disease must be responsible for a person's inability to manage his or her own affairs for a VA determination of incompetency. Like all VA benefit determinations, incompetency determinations are governed by clearly defined procedures to ensure due process. Where the VA becomes aware that a veteran may be unable to manage his or her affairs, an incompetency rating is proposed and the individual in question is provided with notice and the opportunity to submit evidence and appear before a VA hearing officer. Determinations are based on all evidence of record. Unless the medical evidence is clear, convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person's incompetency, no determination is made. Reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of competency. All VA determinations of incompetency may be appealed within the VA's administrative appeals process, which includes the opportunity to seek review by the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Final BVA decisions may be appealed to the independent United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the bottom line: All of us respect our veterans, but we know that gun access by those with serious mental illness increases the risk of suicide and violence, and the VA has identified tens of thousands of people with serious mental illness. We can work on a reasonable process, like the Manchin-Toomey legislation proposed, to make sure that the VA is not submitting mental health records inappropriately, but simply invalidating all the records that the VA has supplied to the background check database is irresponsible and dangerous.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the explanation of my friend and colleague from Iowa. I hope there are several things we can agree on at the outset. The first is that we don't want someone who is a convicted felon or is so mentally unstable that they cannot be trusted to own or purchase a firearm. I hope we can agree on that.

Mr. DURBIN. Good. I hope the next thing we can agree on is that we want to make certain that our veterans are treated fairly, that they are given every consideration for having served our country, but we do not want to put them in harm's way either by way of suicide or by committing a crime with a gun, and we want to have a process that respects that goal. I hope my colleague and friend from Iowa would agree with that. The problem we have is the Senator from Iowa is amending an appropriations bill. The difficulty you face when you amend appropriations bills, in most instances, if you are not authorizing and strictly sticking within the four corners of an appropriations bill, you can cut off funds--no funds shall be spent for--and that is what the amendment of the Senator from Iowa does. No funds shall be spent at the Veterans' Administration for--and he just described the process. Here is the difficulty. This amendment as written doesn't solve the problem; it creates a bigger problem. I will concede at the outset to the Senator from Iowa that we should be sitting down and resolving a very serious issue between the definition of ``mental defect'' and ``mental competency'' between the NICS law and the VA. There is plenty of room for us to sit down and come up with a reasonable way to deal with the situation. But the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa just basically says, unfortunately, that we are going to weaken the law that prohibits people with serious mental illnesses from buying guns. Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs informs the FBI NICS gun background check database when a veteran has been found in a VA proceeding to be mentally incompetent because of injury or disease. I want to make sure that is clear in the Record. This is what it says. In connection with an award of veterans' benefits, the VA formally may determine as ``mentally incompetent'' a person who ``because of injury or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation.'' This is an adjudication, a hearing on mental competency which goes to the question of whether the veteran is mentally incompetent because of injury or disease. Under the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, VA mental health determinations would no longer count as prohibiting gun possession. Tens of thousands of names currently in the NICS system would likely need to be purged, meaning these people could go out and buy guns. Last year the VA told my staff they had supplied 174,000 names to the NICS database because of diagnosed mental conditions. I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested--that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do. Last year the VA told us that this list of 174,000 names includes 10,168 individuals diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, 3,981 individuals with major depressive disorder, 2,835 individuals with bipolar disorder, and many others who have been found to have very serious mental illnesses. Allowing people with these serious mental illnesses to buy guns raises the very serious risk of suicide and violence. Already we are seeing an average of 22 suicides by veterans every single day. That is double that of the civilian population. To hand guns over to people such as the 14 or 15,000 whom I have just described who have serious mental illness is dangerous--dangerous to them, members of their family, and to the public. The VA's referral process is not haphazard. There are due process safeguards to make sure the VA is not referring names inappropriately. The VA has set up a relief program for a veteran to contest a finding of mental competency. If we need to revisit that process--and as I said at the outset, I am not arguing that we shouldn't--we need to do it in the context of substantive legislation so that we treat the veterans fairly, treat their families fairly, and treat the public fairly in dealing with this constitutional protection. But simply invalidating the mental health records of 170,000 people the VA has supplied to the FBI, as this amendment would do, is dangerous--dangerous to the veterans, dangerous to their families, and dangerous to the public. Let's do this in a thoughtful, orderly way, not by an appropriations bill. I do object.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before my friend and colleague leaves, we have worked together for years, and I respect very much his legislative capability. He and I are working together on some very important legislation. I am not a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I don't know if the Senator from Iowa is a member--he is not. This is a subject matter that is in the jurisdiction of that committee. Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names to the FBI goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far. We need to find a reasonable way to identify those suffering from serious mental illness who would endanger themselves, their families, or others and to sort out those who don't fit in that category. We can do that and we should do that in a reasonable way, so we are respectful of veterans and also respectful of the general public's right to be safe from the misuse of firearms.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 62 years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down laws permitting racially segregated schools in 17 States and the District of Columbia. The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 decision that found racially segregated schools could be, ``separate but equal.'' The Court unanimously held that laws requiring racial segregation in schools violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and recognized that equal access to education is a fundamental civil right. In the Brown v. Board opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' As I have said before, this historic decision was the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century--and perhaps of all time. Shortly after the decision, the New York Times published an editorial that stated: ``The Supreme Court's historic decision in the school desegregation cases brings the United States back into the mainstream of its own best traditions. Segregation is a hangover of slavery, and its ugliest manifestation has been in the schools.'' While the Brown decision was a historic victory for equality, this anniversary is bittersweet. We have made great progress in the last 62 years, but there is much work that remains to be done to create ``the more perfect union'' that our Constitution promises. Significant racial disparities persist in our schools, as well as our economy and our criminal justice system. Just last week, following a five-decade legal battle, a Federal district court judge ordered a school district in Mississippi to desegregate. In her opinion, Judge Debra Brown wrote that: ``[the school district's] delay in desegregation has deprived generations of students of the constitutionally-guaranteed right of an integrated education. Although no court order can right these wrongs, it is the duty of the District to ensure that not one more student suffers under this burden.'' It is shocking to consider that, six decades after the Brown decision, there is still resistance to the Court's mandate to desegregate our schools. We also continue to see efforts to make it more difficult for African Americans and other minorities to exercise the most fundamental constitutional right, the right to vote. Three years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke at the Lincoln Memorial during a prayer pilgrimage to Washington. In a speech entitled ``Give Us the Ballot,'' Dr. King described the, ``noble and sublime decision'' in Brown, as well as the massive resistance to enforcing the decision. Dr. King noted that: ``many states have risen up in open defiance. The legislative halls of the South ring loud with such words as `interposition' and `nullification.' But even more, all types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent [African-Americans] from becoming registered voters. The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition.'' Dr. King knew that there was a vital connection between desegregation and the right to vote. Without Federal voting protections, African Americans would not have a voice in government to ensure that the Supreme Court's decision in Brown was fully implemented. He went on to say, ``our most urgent request to the President of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote. . . . Give us the ballot.'' Eight years later, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law. For years, this landmark legislation was recognized as a great achievement. It was repeatedly reauthorized by large, bipartisan majorities in Congress. However, 3 years ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. In a divided 5-4 vote, the Court struck down the provision that required certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to preclear changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. Since the decision, States like Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi have put in place restrictive state voting laws, which all too often have a disproportionate impact on lower-income and minority voters. Sixty-two years after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it is clear there is much more work to do. We should remember Dr. King's words in 1957. We should restore the law he implored Congress to enact. 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. The Supreme Court of the United States stands just across the street from here. On the front of the Court four words are engraved: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Those words are a promise and a challenge to all of us. On this day, the anniversary of one of the Court's greatest triumphs, let us rededicate ourselves to ensuring that those four words--``Equal Justice Under Law''--ring true for this generation and future generations of Americans.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 3 months ago President Barack Obama asked this Congress for funding to address a public health emergency: combating the Zika Virus. I am pleased that this week, 14 weeks after his request, we are going to respond. We are not responding in full. The President asked for $1.9 billion to address this serious public health challenge. We are not responding without some theatrics and posturing first, but we are going to vote on some amendments this week, and it is about time. It has been 14 weeks since representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health testified at the Senate Appropriations Committee on the dire need for immediate action to combat the Zika virus. I visited the Centers for Disease Control about 14 weeks ago. By then, they had been able to verify that the tissue samples from miscarriages and other serious health problems coming in from Brazil were linked to the Zika Virus. So there was no question that these mosquitoes carrying this virus had serious public health consequences-- so serious that the Centers for Disease Control dedicated 1,000 staffers to deal with this issue. That was about 12 or 14 weeks ago. The President used his authority to come to Congress and say: We have a public health emergency; treat it like it is an emergency. Here we are 14 weeks later getting around to discussing it. When I think back in times of American history when Congress has been called on to respond to an emergency, there have been amazing examples where partisanship was set aside and people said: In the interest of America, we need to act and act now. Whether we are talking about mobilizing for a war, whether we are talking about responding to terrorism, we have done it. We can do it. This time we have failed. We have failed for 14 weeks. In that period of time, 1,200 Americans in 44 States, Washington, DC, and 3 U.S. territories, including over 110 pregnant women, have contracted Zika. Six more have contracted Guillain-Barre, an autoimmune disorder that can cause paralysis and death. Recently, the first Zika-caused death and the first Zika-related microcephaly cases were reported in Puerto Rico. In my State of Illinois, 16 people have tested positive for Zika, including at least 3 pregnant women. Over the past few months, we have learned more about Zika and how dangerous it can be. We now know it is carried by two types of mosquitoes. We now know it is linked to serious neurological damage and birth defects in children. We now know it can be sexually transmitted. We also know that the mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus thrive in the warm summer months, which is why this action should have been taken long ago and must be taken this week. The best way to fight a public health threat such as Zika is to have a strong, stable public health infrastructure in place. That is what the President asked for. That means reliable and stable funding year after year. Our public health agencies have to be viewed as the first line of defense, just as we view the Pentagon as the first line of defense when it comes to military and terrorist threats. Our public health agencies are the first line of defense when we are speaking of Ebola, the Zika virus, and a variety of other challenges that could literally threaten the health and lives of innocent Americans. We must ensure robust and stable funding for agencies like the Centers for Disease Control. These invasive problems can pop up at any time. We can't rally to each and every occurrence after it happens; we have to be prepared. The Centers for Disease Control is not only the best, it is the best in the world, but it cannot operate without adequate funding. The National Institutes of Health is working on a vaccine right now to protect all of us from the Zika virus. That is the answer, but it takes time--a year. We should have been moving on it sooner. We must provide critical resources to the Food and Drug Administration. Their reviewers are responsible for ensuring that any Zika treatments or vaccines are safe and effective, and in order to ensure the safety of those vaccines and treatments, they have to be clinically tested. For years we have heard congressional Republicans rail against Federal spending and even embrace the notion of a sequester--a blind across-the-board cut. Case in point: Over the past few months, we have heard Republicans protest, stall, and push back on providing funding to help combat the Zika virus. There have been a variety of excuses for their delay, but the outcome has always been the same: We have lost time in responding to this public health emergency. For years, those of us on this side of the aisle have been arguing that this approach--one of starving funding and endless delays--is shortsighted and irresponsible. Yes, we must be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, but I would argue that there is no better use of the taxpayers' dollars than investments in public health--investments in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Food and Drug Administration. These are investments that prepare our Nation for the unforeseen, such as Zika or Ebola, but they are also investments that help us prepare for the foreseen situations that Americans face every day, such as Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, and diabetes. That is why I introduced the American Cures Act--legislation that would provide our Federal health research agencies reliable and robust funding increases every year into the future. We are not going to win a war against Zika, Ebola, Alzheimer's, or cancer if our response is tepid, delayed, watered down, or subject to the whims of political fate. Big budget cuts make a good talking point in a speech somewhere, but the results can be devastating. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to find a path forward to address the funding of these critical Federal health agencies. There is more to do, and we must do it together. If we don't do it together, we will pay a heavy price. This week we will take up the issue. We will be voting on three Zika- related amendments this week. The first, offered by Senator Nelson of Florida, is one that I fully support. It would fulfill the President's request by providing the $1.9 billion in needed funding to ensure an immediate and comprehensive response to Zika. We need to treat this public health emergency like a public health emergency. Senator Nelson's amendment would ensure that the CDC has the money they need to support States in conducting surveillance, vector control, emergency communications, and research. It would ensure that the National Institutes of Health has the money to develop this vaccine, and it would ensure that USAID has the money they need to build up a global health response to Zika. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Nelson amendment. It would provide the United States, as well as pregnant women in many affected countries, with the very best chance of minimizing the damage done by the Zika virus. Let's not be penny wise and pound foolish. Cutting back on this money for pregnant women and running the risk that a baby is born with a lifetime of medical challenges and expenses is not a way to save money; it is a disaster for the family and a disaster for our budget. Then comes the second amendment, offered by Senator Cornyn of Texas. This is a misguided amendment. I urge my colleagues to defeat it. Senator Cornyn's amendment would provide a portion of the funding needed to adequately respond to the Zika virus. He picked the number $1.1 billion and said: Let's take the money out of the Prevention and Public Health Fund for America--money that is currently being invested to deal with other health challenges around our country. In order to deal with the Zika virus, Senator Cornyn would take money away from other efforts to keep Americans healthy. The prevention fund accounts for 12 percent--nearly $900 million--of the Centers for Disease Control's core public health efforts, such as lead poisoning prevention, breast and cervical cancer screening, and tobacco prevention and control. Think about that for a second. Senator Cornyn of Texas wants to take the money out of those areas--legitimate public health concerns--and put it in Zika. He is going to move some of the pieces around on the chessboard in the hope of moving the right one. Sadly, it will endanger innocent people. There is something else to be considered. His amount is $1.1 billion, and the President asked for $1.9 billion. For some reason, Senator Cornyn believes that we can reduce the threat of the Zika virus by 40 percent on the floor of the Senate. I don't buy it. This is a public health emergency. Reducing the funding for it from what the President requested by 40 percent is playing Russian roulette with innocent lives across America and around the world. Senator Cornyn's amendment cuts base funding that would ordinarily be provided to the Centers for Disease Control. We are also dealing with lead poisoning issues across America, which was yesterday's front-page story in the Chicago Tribune. All of the lead testing around my State of Illinois finds that areas you wouldn't dream of--the suburbs of Chicago, including some of the wealthier suburbs of Chicago--sadly have too much lead in the water. We know that after what happened in Flint, we have to take it seriously. The impact on innocent children is obvious. Cutting back on funding for that to pay for the Zika virus is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Lastly, we have an amendment that will be offered by Senator Blunt. It is like Senator Cornyn's approach in that it would only provide $1.1 billion, and I take exception to that number. As I said, it is 40 percent less than what the President believes is needed for this emergency, but it would not cut the money out of the prevention fund, so that is a positive thing to say about the Blunt amendment over the Cornyn amendment. This amendment is an improvement, but still, it is important for us to adequately fund public health defense for innocent Americans. When Dr. Frieden of the CDC tells us how much the CDC needs to fight Zika, I trust the doctor. I do not believe we should second-guess his approach, and I don't believe we should provide the Centers for Disease Control with less money than what Dr. Frieden says is needed. That said, I appreciate that Senator Blunt is trying. I hope the initial amendment by Senator Nelson passes. That is the responsible amendment to deal with the public health emergency. We have seen Zika coming for months. We had the administration's detailed, comprehensive plan of action sitting up here for over 3 months. The time to act is way overdue. It is my hope that the Senate will finally approve Zika funding this week and that House Republicans will stop their stalling as well and get to work and do the same. We have lost enough time already. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am honored to represent the State of Illinois. It is a big State. From Chicago to Carroll at the southern tip of our State is 400 miles, and, of course, there is more State north of Chicago. I traveled the State over the last several months, and last week I went to the southern tip of the State, worked my way through, came back through central Illinois, and was in the city of Chicago. There is one recurring challenge I find all across the State: No matter what community I visit, I have learned that there is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy, no city that has escaped the opioid and heroin epidemic we are now facing. America is losing more people to heroin overdose than we are to traffic accidents. It has become that common. I try to have roundtables around the State--rural areas, suburban towns--and really try to get the picture of what is happening. I think I have come to understand it a little better because of this effort, and I would like to discuss it today. The opioid/heroin crisis demands our immediate attention. It demands a comprehensive response involving local, State, and Federal Government, law enforcement agencies, and the private sector. For too long we have focused our efforts almost exclusively on responding to and treating addiction. That is a critical element, and I am not going to diminish it, but we need to look beyond that. Yes, we need to make sure substance abuse treatment is available. Right now there are some archaic laws in the Medicaid Program that restrict the number of beds one can have in a treatment facility. I see Senator Alexander from Tennessee has come to the floor, and he is chair of the committee that may consider this issue. He may be aware of the fact that many years ago we restricted the number of treatment beds in substance abuse treatment facilities to 16 beds. If we can imagine, for facilities treating the city of Chicago, 16 beds doesn't even touch the problem we are facing with addictions today, so I hope we can increase that number. I talked to Senator Collins of Maine, and she has run into the same thing in her home State, and I bet others have as well. When it comes to treatment, there are things we must do, and this is one when it comes to Medicaid. But we have to do more than that. Simply dealing with substance abuse treatment, as important and critical as it is, is not enough. We need to look at the root causes of the issue. Each year in America, the pharmaceutical industry produces 14 billion opioid pills--14 billion. That is enough to provide every adult in America a 1-month prescription of opioid painkillers. There is a definite need for these painkillers and pain management. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 14 to 16 percent of Americans face chronic and acute pain. I want to be sensitive to their needs and make certain they have the kind of pain relief and pain management they desperately need every single day, but what we have now is a market in America flooded with these opioid pills. The number of opioid prescriptions has risen dramatically, from 76 million prescriptions in 1991 to 245 million in 2014--more than triple the amount. The United States is the largest consumer of opioid pain pills, accounting for almost 100 percent of the world's total consumption of hydrocodone and 81 percent of OxyContin. There are a number of reasons we have seen the sharp rise in the number of opioids being prescribed over the last two decades: There is increased attention on identifying and treating pain; there is perceived financial incentive in some cases to overtreat pain; and there is a lack of insurance coverage for alternative pain treatment modalities. However, the single largest reason behind the dramatic increase is the production on the pharmaceutical side. The dramatic increase in prescriptions for these addictive pain killers can be directly linked to Purdue Pharma introducing OxyContin in the late 1990s. Between 1996 and 2002, Purdue Pharma funded more than 20,000 pain-related educational programs for doctors through direct sponsorship or financial grant and launched a multifaceted campaign to encourage long-term use of OxyContin for chronic, noncancer pain. They, of course, promoted their pills to doctors and patients on the false promise that these powerful painkillers could relieve pain for up to 12 hours in many patients. When clinical trials and physicians' and patients' feedback showed that OxyContin didn't last for that full period, Perdue Pharma refused to explore other dosing intervals. Instead, they urged doctors to increase the dosage, leading to highs and lows of crippling addiction and overdose. The recent guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended against using opioids for chronic, noncancer pain management, but by this point Perdue Pharma had opened the door for others to follow. From 1972 to 2015, the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 400 different opioid products-- 100 brand-name drugs and more than 300 generic versions. The pharmaceutical industry is flooding our communities with greater and greater quantities of these drugs. Between 1993 and 2015, the production of hydrocodone increased twelvefold, the production of hydromorphone increased twenty-three-fold, and the production of fentanyl increased twenty-five-fold. As I mentioned earlier, there are approximately 14 billion prescription opioid pills on the market in America every year. What has been the result of this overproduction and overprescribing? Nearly 2 million people in the United States are currently addicted to opioids. We have seen alarming increases in opioid-related emergency room visits and treatment admissions for abuse. In 2014 opioids were involved in 28,647 deaths in America. In 2014 Illinois had 1,652 opioid-related drug overdose deaths--a nearly 30 percent increase over 2010. Each week in Illinois, we average eight deaths due to prescription drug overdose. And it doesn't stop there. In so many cases, prescription opioid abuse leads to heroin addiction. Four out of five current heroin users say their addiction began with prescription opioids. It is heartbreaking to have these roundtables in communities and to sit across the table from recent graduates from high school who tell the story of having been addicted in high school for years, and then when they couldn't afford the expensive pills, they switched to heroin, which was cheaper and in many cases for their friends, deadly. The United States currently has 467,000 heroin addicts. Between 2002 and 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths nearly quadrupled, with more than 8,200 people dying from heroin in 2013. It is time to change. We need a comprehensive solution. We need it now. We have to prevent these drug companies from flooding the market with excessive amounts of addictive pills. We can't sit idly by while they tell us these powerful painkillers are safe. We know better. We must encourage the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FDA to use their authority to keep unnecessary, unsafe drugs off the market, and we must crack down on doctors and providers who are overprescribing. Let me repeat. People suffering chronic and acute pain need help. They need pain relief, and they need pain management. I will never stand in their way. But we know from the volume of painkillers that are being prescribed that there are many people who are abusing. I shared with four major medical societies a recent letter asking them to help us help our Nation combat this epidemic. I want them to endorse mandatory continuing medical education programs for those who prescribe opioids--doctors and dentists. They should support proposals to require that physicians and dentists check prescription drug monitoring databases before they prescribe opioids to patients, ensuring that these patients aren't just doctor shopping, and they should increase awareness and transparency in physician- prescribing practices, as well as proper accountability and intervention. Every stakeholder in this complex opioid epidemic has played a role in reaching this dreadful point, and now every stakeholder has a responsibility to help us address this crisis. The Senate passed a bill earlier this year that has some good provisions and authorizes new programs, but it did not go far enough. It didn't provide additional funding for the crisis. Simply passing an authorizing bill and giving stirring speeches on the floor of the Senate is not going to solve the problem. It didn't address the overprescription of opioids, and it is time for us to be honest about this. I recently heard one of our leaders on this subject tell us: Well, we are going to start teaching the new doctors in medical school not to make the same mistakes. I am sorry, but that is not good enough. Those who currently have the legal authority to prescribe have to change their ways to stop this epidemic. And the bills we considered didn't address the overproduction of these addictive drugs. We can't solve this massive American problem with half measures. We need to come together--Congress, local government, law enforcement, health care providers, drug companies, doctors--to help solve this problem, and we need to do it as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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