Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our Nation. Every year, around 32,000 Americans are killed by guns. According to recent Centers for Disease Control statistics, every day, on average, 297 Americans are shot, and 91 of those shootings are fatal. Communities across the Nation are affected by this violence, and no community has suffered more than the city of Chicago in my home State of Illinois. From the start of the year through May 10, at least 1,242 people were shot in Chicago. During the same period, there were at least 215 murders in Chicago, the vast majority committed with guns. The level of violence in Chicago is significantly higher than in recent years. And more people have been shot in Chicago this year than in New York City and Los Angeles combined. It is devastating. I met 2 weeks ago with the top Federal law enforcement officials in Chicago: U.S. Attorney Zach Fardon, U.S. Marshal Ed Gilmore, and leaders from the FBI, ATF, and DEA. They reaffirmed their commitment to do all they can at the Federal level to bring down this high level of gun violence in the city. They are committed to working with the Chicago Police Department and its new superintendent, Eddie Johnson, to ensure that Chicago's residents are both protected and respected by law enforcement. There is much work that needs to be done to improve community policing in Chicago to better safeguard the public's safety. I am confident that the Justice Department's ongoing review of the CPD will lead to important reforms that will build trust between officers and the communities they serve. We have seen Justice Department reviews in other cities produce dramatic improvements. When communities and cops are working together with a relationship of trust and respect, it makes it harder for criminals to operate. I also want to commend the many community leaders, faith leaders, teachers, volunteers, and family members who are working to provide Chicago's children with a better path, away from the violence. I met recently with students at John Hope College Prep in Englewood on the South Side of Chicago, along with City Year volunteers who worked with them. It was inspiring to hear how these high school freshmen and sophomores talked about their work with their City Year mentors. One student told me ``the thing I love most about City Year is that they never let you give up.'' With the help of their mentors, these students are doing well in school, steering clear of the gangs, and planning for a bright future. It is so important that we nurture these kinds of efforts throughout Chicago. We have to give the younger generation the opportunities and hope that will lead them away from the path of gangs and violence. We also have a responsibility to help these efforts by stemming the flood of illicit guns that comes into Chicago. When it is easy for gang members to get their hands on guns, it is hard for children and communities to avoid violence. We must all do our part to stop the gun trafficking that supplies Chicago's criminal gangs. I want to commend President Obama for taking an important step last week to help combat gun trafficking. This step has to do with smart gun technology. Right now we have security features on our phones and computers that can prevent thieves and unauthorized people from using them. You can secure these devices so they can only be unlocked with a password, fingerprint, or some other security feature. We can develop similar technology so that an unauthorized user cannot fire a gun. This would make it far harder for a prohibited gun buyer to get his hands on a gun he can use. Smart gun technology would also prevent thieves from stealing guns to resell them, and it would help prevent kids from playing with guns and getting hurt. For years there has been resistance to smart gun technology. Part of this resistance has come from the gun lobby, which always fights against proposals that might reduce gun sales. But resistance has also come from law enforcement, which had concerns about whether smart gun technology would work effectively. Last week, the administration announced that it would partner with law enforcement to develop voluntary standards for what law enforcement would need in order to consider using smart gun technology. Within 6 months, this effort will produce baseline specifications for the reliability, durability and accuracy of this technology. Once there is agreement on a set of standards for smart gun technology, then innovators can get to work on developing products that meet those standards and bringing those products to market. The administration will help this effort with its research dollars and purchasing power. They will help make this technology a reality. This could be a game changer when it comes to deterring illegal gun trafficking. It is exactly the kind of effort that the city of Chicago needs. I commend the administration for undertaking this effort, and I will do everything in my power to support it. As we work to prevent future gun violence, it is also important that we remember and pay tribute to those we have lost to this epidemic of violence. June 2, 2016, will mark what should be the 19th birthday of Hadiya Pendleton. Hadiya was 15 years old when she was gunned down while standing in a park on Chicago's South Side on January 29, 2013. She had just performed with her King College Prep school band at the President's inauguration ceremony one week before. I have come to know Hadiya's family--her mother Cleo and her father Nate--and I have met many people who have been deeply affected by Hadiya's senseless murder. After her death, Hadiya's friends started a campaign to urge people to wear orange on June 2, Hadiya's birthday, to honor victims of gun violence. Orange is the color that hunters wear in the woods so that nobody shoots them. This campaign became a national phenomenon. June 2 has now become Gun Violence Awareness Day. Last year I was proud to join with students, faith leaders, community leaders, media figures, lawmakers, and many more across the Nation who wore orange to honor Hadiya and the 32,000 victims lost each year to gun violence. I will be wearing orange again on June 2 this year, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We must never forget our solemn obligation to do all we can to keep the American people safe, and that includes keeping Americans safe from preventable gun violence. Thousands of Americans are shot and killed each year in shootings that could have been prevented. There are steps we can take, consistent with our Constitution and with our traditions of hunting and sport shooting, to avoid these tragic deaths. We should not be afraid to take those steps. This June 2, Hadiya Pendleton should be celebrating her 19th birthday. Instead, a nation will mourn her loss and the loss of so many others due to gun violence. We owe it to Hadiya and to the victims to do our best to spare others from this violence in the future.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I lost a dear friend and my hometown of Springfield, IL, lost one of its best. His name was Earl Wallace Henderson, but everyone knew him as Wally. He was an acclaimed architect who helped design Springfield's future while, at the same time, preserving its priceless past as the hometown of President Abraham Lincoln. In the 1960s, Ferry & Henderson, the architectural firm he co- founded, took on one of its most important projects: expanding Illinois' historic old State capitol building to include underground parking, room for the State historical library, and other modern amenities. The concept of architectural preservation was relatively at that time, and Wally became one of its pioneering leaders. Expanding the old State capitol involved taking the building apart piece by piece, cataloguing and moving more than 3,300 stones to the Illinois fairground, and then painstakingly rebuilding the structure over the new parking garage and library. Wally's decades of innovative work in architectural preservation earned him admission in 2011 to the American Institute of Architects College of Fellows, one of the highest honors in his field. Interestingly, Wally became an architect almost by accident. What he wanted to be all through high school was an astronaut. More to the point, he wanted to be the first man to walk on the moon. This was back in the late 1940s, which gives you an idea of Wally's ability to imagine a future that few others could see. Wally left Springfield in 1949 to study aeronautical engineering at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign. He was his parent's only child, and the first person in his extended family ever to go to college. When he came home for spring break during his freshman year, his parents were so proud of their son, the college student, that they invited a bunch of friends over. One of the neighbors asked Wally, ``What are you studying?'' Wally told them, ``Aeronautical engineering.'' Another neighbor asked, ``So you want to build airplanes, do you?'' Wally replied, ``No, I want to be the first man on the moon.'' Years later in an interview, he recalled what followed. ``As those folks departed my mother said, `Here, sit down, your dad and I want to talk to you for a moment.' '' Wally sat down between his dad and his mom, whom he respected greatly. His mother said, ``You know, it's alright to say that to your dad and me about `wanting to go to the moon.' But everybody else thinks you're crazy.'' That was the end of Wally's dreams of being an astronaut. He went back to the university and asked a counselor what other school on campus would accept the credits he had earned. Fortunately for Springfield, Wally's counselor suggested architectural engineering. That was the start of his long and distinguished career. Wally graduated from the University of Illinois in 1954, moved to Indianapolis, and went to work for an engineering firm. Six months later, he was drafted into the Army and sent to Korea. This was several months after the ceasefire that ended the conflict. Wally was assigned to an engineering battalion. One day, a young Korean boy about 11 years old was polishing Wally's boots to earn money for his family. The boy was telling Wally about his hometown, a little village. He said it was the best village in the world. Wally said he started bragging about his own hometown, reached into his pocket and pulled out the only coin he had, a penny with Lincoln's image on it, and said, ``I'm from his hometown.'' The little boy had probably never traveled farther than 10 miles from his own village, but when he saw that penny, his face lit up. To this young boy, Wally said, ``Abraham Lincoln was everything.'' Right there, 3,000 miles from home, Wally listened as this Korean child told him the story of the Great Emancipator. Wally was stunned. He thought, ``Here I am, from Abraham Lincoln's hometown. I lived nine or ten blocks from Lincoln's home, and this child knows as much about Abraham Lincoln as I do.'' Over the next several decades, that would change. As an architect and architectural preservationist, Wally would play a crucial role in helping to preserve what is now called the Lincoln Home National Historic Site and the Capital Complex. As I mentioned, he also helped preserve and rebuild the old State capitol in Springfield, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous ``House Divided'' speech, warning that the Nation could not endure half slave and half free. Coincidentally, it was also at the old State capitol that another lanky lawyer from Illinois, Barack Obama, announced his candidacy for President of the United States in 2007. I was honored to serve with Wally Henderson on the commission that helped create the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield. We also served together on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Committee, which helped lead the Nation in remembering Abraham Lincoln during 2009, the bicentennial of his birth. Wally was a past president and longtime board member of the Abraham Lincoln Association, a distinguished group of Lincoln scholars. In 2009, the Lincoln Association awarded him its Logan Hay Medal, for his work in preserving and making more accessible buildings and landmarks associated with President Lincoln's life. In 2013, the Springfield Journal Register named Wally Henderson Springfield's ``First Citizen.'' The ceremony took place, fittingly, at the old State capitol State historic site, which Wally's firm had helped to restore. That Wally became such an important and cherished part of Springfield is a bit of an irony. You see, when Wally Henderson left Springfield to go to college, he vowed to himself that he would never move back. After serving in Korea, Wally used the G.I. Bill to earn his master's degree in architecture at the University of Illinois. He met his first wife, Sally; they got married, and Wally landed a great job working as an architect in Denver. Then came the fateful phone call: Wally was contacted by a young architect in Springfield, the brother-in-law of Wally's best friend in high school. The brother-in-law's name was Don Ferry. He was working for a Springfield firm that was designing hospitals, and they needed another architect. Was Wally interested? Wally came home, talked with Don Ferry, and left unimpressed. He went back to Denver and finished work on a church that his firm was building in the Rocky Mountains. The completed church was spectacular. At its grand opening, Sally nudged Wally and said, ``You're leaving.'' She knew that Wally needed another professional challenge. So, at the age of 28, after 4 years as an architect in Denver, Wally packed up his wife and baby and moved home. He told Don Ferry that he would work with him, but he had conditions. He told Don, ``You quit your job, I'll quit my job and we'll open an office in Springfield because, by God, Springfield needs higher education and a whole bunch of other things.'' His other condition: Wally said, ``We're not competing with anybody. We're going to bring contemporary architecture to Springfield, Illinois'' There were about a dozen architectural firms in town at that time, but no one was doing much of anything new. Wally Henderson and Don Ferry formed their own firm, Ferry & Henderson Architects, in 1961. They started out in a one-room office that contained two stools, a drafting table, and a telephone. They worked together for decades and literally transformed Springfield. They spearheaded projects including the Springfield Municipal Plaza, the Willard Ice Building, and the building that houses the Springfield Journal-Register. One reason Wally had vowed never to return to Springfield was because the town lacked a university. Ferry & Henderson helped rectify that omission when their firm designed the Public Affairs Building, the first permanent building at Sangamon State University, now the University of Illinois at Springfield. Wally remained a strong supporter of the university until the end of his life. When Wally moved back to Springfield, the area surrounding the Lincoln Home was run-down and nondescript. Wally helped stir Springfield's civic pride and its resolve to take care of its priceless legacy as Abraham Lincoln's hometown. I have been proud to have my congressional and Senate offices in this restored area. Just as that little Korean boy had enabled Wally to see Springfield through new eyes, Wally helped others in Springfield to envision a future in which the Lincoln Home, the old State capitol, and other places that Lincoln loved would become the crown jewels of America's Lincoln historic sites. Last year, more than 233,000 people visited the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, up nearly 20 percent from the year before. Those visitors spent more than $13.8 million at local businesses. My wife, Loretta, and I were fortunate to count Wally Henderson as a dear friend and neighbor. We both extend our condolences to Wally's wife, Brynn, and to their children and grandchildren, all of whom Wally loved deeply. When Abraham Lincoln left Springfield to start his inaugural journey to Washington, friends from all over town came to see him off at the Great Western Railway station. In what is now known as his Farewell Address, the new President said: ``My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything.'' He closed by saying, ``I bid you an affectionate farewell.'' Likewise, to my old friend Wally Henderson, who did so much to preserve the legacy of President Lincoln and to enrich our hometown in so many other ways, I bid you an affectionate farewell.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer tell us what the order of business is.

Mr. DURBIN. There are no time limits agreed to?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Judicial Nominations Mr. President, the Executive Calendar is sitting here on the table for each Member of the Senate to take a look at. I have renamed it. It is no longer the Executive Calendar; it is the political obituaries. These are men and women who have been nominated to serve in positions of our government, who are excited about the opportunity to be public servants, many of whom have gone through extensive background checks, FBI checks, with staff having taken a look at their resumes, asked hard questions, demanded answers, and put these nominees through hearings. Many went through extensive periods of investigation and hearings and then were reported--20 of them, 20 judicial nominees--by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. Were they controversial? No. All 20 came to the floor by unanimous vote. Think about it. Here is a Senate divided--54 Republicans and 46 Democrats--and 20 judicial nominees made it through what I just described to the Executive Calendar of the Senate, Wednesday, May 11, 2016. And there they sit, day after weary day, month after weary month, thinking they might have a chance to serve this Nation but realizing the clock is running out. What do I mean by that? In this Congress we have approved 17 judges--2 circuit judges, those at the appellate level, and 15 at the district level. Twenty still sit on the calendar. And across the United States, we have 87 judicial vacancies, including 29 that are in districts we think are in serious trouble if they aren't filled quickly. The Republican majority in the Senate puts these men and women through this process, reports them out of committee, and then lets them languish on the floor of the Senate. They will not call them for a vote. What are they waiting for? Well, it is a political decision. Here is what it comes down to. There is an unwritten rule--you will not find it in our rule book--called the Thurmond rule. It relates to Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. He must have articulated this at some point in his career, but he said: When it comes to an election year-- like this one--we will stop approving nominations as of the beginning of the political conventions. Well, in this year, that is going to be about the middle of July. So if you do the countdown of when we are in session, we have probably 5, 6 weeks left to consider nominations before they die under the unwritten Thurmond rule. So what the Republicans are doing is running out the clock on these 20 people. We shouldn't be surprised. If they would do this on a nomination to fill a vacancy on the highest Court of the land, it shouldn't surprise us they would do the same thing when it comes to these 20 nominees. What are they waiting for? Why don't they want to approve these noncontroversial judges? They are waiting in prayerful reflection for the election of Donald Trump as President. Mr. President, you know that many people in your party have mixed feelings about the candidacy of Mr. Donald Trump. But I would say, stepping aside from the merits of his candidacy, we shouldn't have mixed feelings when it comes to the Constitution, and the Constitution is explicit when it comes to vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers, in the Constitution--quoted a few minutes ago by my colleague from California--in article II, section 2, didn't mince words or equivocate. They said the President shall appoint nominees to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. We both have a role. The President is required by the Constitution to appoint someone to fill a vacancy. And 3 months ago, the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia created that vacancy. Two months ago--56 days ago--President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court. The President met his constitutional responsibility. But the Republicans in the Senate announced, hours after Justice Scalia was found to have passed away, they would not even consider a nominee by this President to fill that vacancy--not a hearing, not a vote. You might say to yourself: Well, that is politics in Washington. Should we expect anything different? Should we expect a Republican Senate to approve a nominee from a Democrat? Come on, this is hard ball here; this isn't bean bag. Well, let me tell you a little story. In 1988, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Republican President Ronald Reagan, in his last year in office, nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill that vacancy and sent the nominee to this Chamber in the Senate when it was controlled by the Democratic side. What did the Democratic majority say to the Republican President, trying to fill a Supreme Court vacancy? We know our responsibility. And that Senate, under control of the Democrats, took up the name offered by the Republican President, approved him, and sent him to the Supreme Court in 1988. So to argue ``This is just typical politics. Don't make a lot of noise. We do this all the time''--let me make it clear: What the Republican Senate majority is doing today has never--underline that word ``never''--happened in the history of the United States of America. This is disrespect for a constitutional provision that is explicit. This is disrespect for a Court which now sits with 8 members on the Court--a Court which could find itself--and already has in several instances--tied 4 to 4. How important is that? Let me read a quote from back in 1987: ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' Who made that statement? Republican President Ronald Reagan. What he said then applies now. What the Republican majority is doing in the Senate--refusing Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote, holding up on the calendar 20 nominees who should be on the Federal bench--is obstructionism at its worst. It is what the people are sick of across this country. It is disrespectful to the Constitution, it is obstructionism, and it is pure politics. Why? Why are they so determined to keep this vacancy? Some of them, as I said, are dreaming of the possibility of a President Trump picking the next Justice on the Supreme Court. I will let your mind race away with the possibilities if ``The Donald'' is going to choose the next Justice on the Supreme Court, but others really bring it down to a much more basic level. There are special interest groups who want to make sure the next Justice on the Supreme Court is their friend. They do not want to run the risk that someone is going to be put on the Court who will not rule in their favor. So they are praying their political prayer: Hang on, hang on, Senate Republicans. Take the grief that two-thirds of the American people think you are wrong in what you are doing and be prepared to accept that grief if you want the support of these special interest groups. That is what this comes down to. It is the sad reality of politics in Washington today. And I will tell you, there is blame for both sides on many issues, but on this one there is crystal-clear clarity. The President has met his constitutional responsibility. The Senate Republican leaders, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, are denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. That is fundamentally wrong under the Constitution and fundamentally unfair to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was born in Illinois, so maybe I am partial to him a little bit, but he has quite a record. He has been touted as one of the best nominees in terms of qualifications. He is now the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, right below the Supreme Court. That is a big job, but he is the man for it, according to people from both political parties. Solicitors General of the United States of America just sent a letter to the Senate. Nine of them signed, Democrats and Republicans. These are men and women who have argued before the Supreme Court representing the United States of America--attorneys who are familiar with that Court, the gravity of the decisions they face, the requirements to serve on the Court--and unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, they said to the Senate: Merrick Garland is the right man to serve on the Supreme Court. We come today with sadness, and even more with a sense of injustice that the Republicans would allow this political gambit to continue. To think that they are waiting for President Donald Trump to fill this vacancy is almost impossible to say or to believe, but it is a fact. I will close by saying I have checked the Constitution, and I check it regularly. There has been no change in the provision that says, in November of 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States to serve for 4 years--4 full years--and that would include this year. The Republican argument that he is out of business now and we will wait for the next President defies the verdict of the American people in that election. By 5 million votes they said: Barack Obama, you are the President of the United States for 4 years, with the powers attendant to that office. The denial by Republicans of that constitutional reality is a reflection on their feelings about a document which they have sworn individually to uphold and defend. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, southern Illinois lost a legend and one of its brightest lights. Last week, Barbara Brown passed away at the age of 61. Barbara was blessed with every God-given gift one could ask for: intelligence, strength, compassion, kindness--just to name a few. She had it all. She was a remarkable woman who wore many hats during her political career: vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois, precinct committeewoman, chairwoman of the Randolph County Democratic Central Committee, and treasurer for the Pierre Menard Democrat Club. She also helped found and lead the Southwestern Illinois Democratic Women and the Southern Illinois Democratic Women, two grassroots organizations working toward a more equitable representation of women in all levels of government. Barbara Brown was an exceptional leader. Born in Red Bud, IL, Barbara spent her life working for the people of southern Illinois. In 1985, she earned her doctorate from Southern Illinois University, at Carbondale, and a love for teaching. Barbara taught political science at SIU for more than 30 years. And when she made a commitment to something, she saw it through. Barbara began playing the organ when she was 14 years old at St. Mary's Catholic Church of Ellis Grove. She became a lifelong parishioner and continued playing the organ for more than 40 years. The highlights of her life were her family. She and her husband, Dick, had three sons: Jay, Matt, and Nate. The tribute Nate gave to his mother at her funeral service was every mother's dream: a salute to a life of values, caring, support and love. Even outside her home, Barbara was the quintessential teacher by the book and by her example. She gave up many summers to teach classes in American Government and democracy for international students through a program funded by the U.S. State Department. Her legendary energy made her an inspirational professor and at the same time a tireless public servant. She was a trailblazer. Barbara ran for office when many women held back. She was a two-time candidate for the Illinois State Senate and a nine-time delegate to the Democratic National Convention, including playing key roles in the Presidential campaigns for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. And from 2000-2012, Barbara Brown was the clerk of courts for Randolph County, IL. Outside of politics, Barbara was a cofounder and president of the Illinois Women's Institute for Leadership and helped establish the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life in Randolph County. She was a force of nature. Through her many leadership roles, Barbara became a prominent voice for the rights of women, the underprivileged, and the most vulnerable in the community. And that is what public service meant to Barbara Brown. She was driven by a willingness to offer a helping hand and a caring heart. Barbara had an amazing career and was known for many accomplishments, but I knew her as a friend, a friend to the people of southern Illinois, and an inspiration to us all. Today there is an empty space in the world without Barbara Brown. She will be missed, but not forgotten. Through the love of her former students, colleagues, friends, family, and everyone who was fortunate enough to cross her path, Barbara's spirit will always shine on southern Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning I joined many of my colleagues in bidding a formal farewell to our colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, who died last week. It was great to see Senators from both sides of the aisle at Senator Bennett's viewing and funeral service. It was fitting. Bob Bennett was a proud conservative, he was an old- fashioned conservative, but he understood that the Senate only really works when we talk to each other and reason things out. He was old school. He understood that principled compromise is not a moral or political sin. It is an ideal we should strive for. It is how we solve big problems in America. It is the only way the Senate can work. I served with Bob Bennett for years on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He was an honorable man, a dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative. He had an 84-percent lifetime approval rating from the American Conservative Union, but he was a real-world conservative, not an ideologue. No vote demonstrated that more clearly than the vote he cast in 2008 to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. I am not going to forget the day when Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush, came to talk to us about the economy. Lehman Brothers had just declared bankruptcy. Secretary Paulson told us that the entire U.S. financial system could collapse within days, maybe hours. He warned that such a collapse of the U.S. financial system would trigger a global economic cataclysm. Bob Bennett knew that he was taking a supreme political risk, but Bob Bennett voted to create the TARP program anyway. He risked his political career rather than risk the life savings of untold millions in America and around the world. He paid a price for it. In 2010 Bob Bennett became the first incumbent Senator in Utah in 70 years to lose reelection after he was toppled in his party caucus. Senator Bennett challenged orthodoxy on a lot of other issues as well. Bob Bennett, a devout Mormon, supported embryonic stem cell research, with very careful restrictions. In 1996 he was one of only three Senators from his party to vote against amending the U.S. Constitution to criminalize flag-burning. He said that he thought flag- burning was reprehensible--as we all do--but that it occurred far too infrequently to warrant changing the Constitution. That amendment failed in the Senate by one vote. When the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, Senator Bob Bennett of Utah was one of the many Members of his party to stand up and support it. Four years later, when the Senate voted on the DREAM Act--a key part of that earlier bill and one that I introduced 15 years ago--the political winds on the right had shifted dramatically. There were only three of my colleagues from across the aisle on the Republican side who supported passing the DREAM Act in 2010. Bob Bennett was one of them. I will never forget it. I will always be grateful to him for that courageous vote. He understood that we needed a realistic, humane way to deal with immigration in this Nation of immigrants. Robert Bennett was a member of one of his State's leading families. His grandfather, Heber J. Grant, was the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His father, Wallace Bennett, served four terms in the Senate. Bob came to Washington in 1962 to work as an aide in his father's office, when such arrangements were still allowed. In 1969 he took a job as a top congressional liaison for the U.S. Transportation Department under President Nixon. His short tenure at Transportation earned him an unlikely footnote in history. For decades, some conspiracy theorists speculated that he was Deep Throat--the Nixon administration insider who helped steer the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in reporting the Watergate scandal. That theory was finally disproved with the death of former FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who was, in fact, the real Deep Throat. Bob Bennett did not need public service. He had already built a successful career in business before he decided to run in 1992 for the seat his father once held. He took a pay cut to serve his State and our Nation in the Senate. Bob Bennett and I disagreed on many issues. When we did, he was always principled and polite. I suspect that was a reflection of his upbringing, watching his father serve in the Senate, where Members of differing political parties could disagree without questioning the other Senator's motives. In his last political race in 2010, Senator Bennett was targeted by the force we now refer to as the tea party. After his loss, he spoke to a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. He said, ``The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it is very clear that some of the votes I have cast have added to that toxic environment.'' Then Bob Bennett said something that any Senator would be fortunate to be able to say at the end of his tenure. ``Looking back on them-- with one or two very minor exceptions--I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I'd known at the time it would cost me my career because I have always done the best I can to cast the vote that I think is best for the state and best for the country.'' I extend my condolences to Senator Bennett's family--a wonderful, large family--that includes his brother and sister, his widow Joyce, their six children--Julie, Robert, James, Wendy, Heather, and Heidi-- and 20 grandchildren. There are so many of Bob Bennett's former staffers and friends who join me in paying this great tribute. Amendment No. 3878 Mr. President, Congress is supposed to be working on an appropriations bill, and we were moving in that direction until the Senator from Arkansas sought to add an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. This amendment was designed to undermine the historic agreement that the Obama administration reached with Iran for the sole purpose of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Senator who offered this amendment had led an unprecedented letter to Iranian hardliners in the middle of President Obama's negotiations. He said to the hardliners in Iran--with a letter signed, I believe, by 46 other Republican letters--that they were wasting their time negotiating with this President, that whatever he agreed to would be undermined by Congress and particularly by the next President. In all of the time I have followed the history of the Senate, I cannot remember a letter of that nature being sent by Senators of either political party to undermine a delicate negotiation involving peace in an important part of the world. Now we are stuck until we deal with his amendment. Regardless of whether you agree with the Iran agreement, adding this amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill would destroy all of the hard work that Senators Alexander and Feinstein have put into drafting this bipartisan bill. I wish to tell you why this amendment from the Senator from Arkansas is a poison pill. This amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from spending any fiscal year 2017 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran. The JCPOA agreement closed four pathways through which Iran could get to breakout time for a nuclear weapon in less than a year. It bought valuable time for Israel, for other nations in the Middle East, and for the United States before Iran could violate the agreement and build a nuclear weapon. As part of this agreement, Iran agreed to limit the amount of heavy water it would accumulate. Any heavy water in excess of 130 metric tons had to be disposed of, moved out of Iran. The Department of Energy has announced that its Isotope Program will purchase 32 metric tons of heavy water from Iran to fulfill a significant amount of the domestic heavy water needed in America for research and industrial applications. There is no American domestic source for this heavy water. This transaction provides U.S. industry with a critical product, and it enables Iran to rid itself of excess heavy water, ensuring this product will never be used for developing a nuclear weapon. Heavy water is used in the development, production, and sale of compounds used in biomedical and diagnostic research such as MRIs and pharmaceutical development, as well as chemistry, physics, and environmental analysis. A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron Source, or SNS, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The heavy water will increase the intensity of the beam, which will-- according to Laboratory Director Thom Mason--benefit hundreds of research teams. While the administration does not anticipate undertaking another purchase of heavy water from Iran, we should not give up--with this amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas--the ability to ensure that this material, which potentially could be used in Iran's nuclear industry, is instead put to use in the United States by our industry for peaceful research and product development. The amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas really focuses on one thing--to undermine this agreement with Iran. After we have seen tons of fissile material removed from Iran, 16,000 centrifuges destroyed, and a major potentially dangerous reactor decommissioned, this Senator from Arkansas believes it was a bad agreement and we ought to let the Iranians go about their business. I couldn't disagree more. Taking this heavy water out of Iran makes that region of the world safer for Israel and for the other countries in the region. For Iran to keep this heavy water is a temptation that we should eliminate by defeating this amendment by the Senator from Arkansas. His amendment will jeopardize an historic agreement that limits Iran's ability to produce nuclear arms. That is an important protection for the entire world. It would deny researchers and industries in our country a resource they need to make new scientific discoveries, medical diagnoses, and probably save lives. That is more than enough reason to reject the amendment being offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I urge my colleagues to do so. Zika Virus Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President asked Congress for funding to help prepare for and combat the Zika virus. That very week I sat in an Appropriations Committee hearing with the representatives for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, who talked about how time sensitive that request was. In the 13 weeks since that hearing, Republicans have put up roadblocks, set preconditions, and really mocked the administration for arguing that there was urgency to fight the Zika virus--a virus which is dangerous for pregnant women, children, and many others. What has happened in the 13 weeks while the President's request for $1.9 billion has languished before the Republican-controlled Congress? Over 1,100 Americans in 43 States, Washington, DC, and U.S. territories--including over 100 pregnant women--have contracted the Zika virus. Six more have contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder that can cause paralysis and death. Recently, the first Zika-caused death was reported in Puerto Rico. In Illinois, 13 people have tested positive for Zika, with at least 3 pregnant women. Over the last 13 weeks, while the Republican leadership in Congress has ignored the President's request for emergency funding, we have learned even more about Zika and its danger. We now know it is linked to serious neurological damage and birth defects. We now know it can be sexually transmitted. Warmer weather is coming, and we know the spread of Zika will grow even worse. It seems as if everyone across the world recognizes the urgency of this public health threat to the United States except for the Republicans in Congress. Last week, Major League Baseball announced it was canceling two scheduled ball games to be played in Puerto Rico because the players were concerned about contracting the Zika virus. I spoke with CDC Director Tom Frieden 2 weeks ago. He told me this is no way to seriously fight a public health danger. We need a multiyear commitment so CDC, NIH, and public health departments can begin studies to understand the risks to others, improve our surveillance system, study how long these mosquitoes actually carry the virus, and develop a vaccine as quickly as possible. The CDC takes this seriously. The Centers for Disease Control is the frontline of defense of the United States of America when it comes to public health danger. How seriously do they take the Zika virus? They have dedicated 1,000 staff members to fighting it. They understand this is a public health emergency, and we have a limited opportunity to catch up and try to stop its spread. Last week I held a roundtable event in Chicago with local health department officials, medical professionals, and vector control experts. They are doing everything they can to prepare for Zika in high-risk areas--laying traps to collect mosquitoes for testing and ramping up health communications to providers and the public. We are lucky because in our part of the United States there is no evidence of the mosquito that is the carrier. However, travelers who have contracted the virus in other places can bring it back to our region, and they can be the carriers for it to be spread to other people. As a major transportation hub in Chicago and Illinois, we must be prepared to deal with these travelers carrying the Zika virus. I have the highest confidence in our State and in local health officials, but they need a helping hand. Because congressional Republicans have refused to pass the emergency supplemental Zika funding, the administration has been forced to divert resources from Illinois to States such as Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to fight Zika. We are taking public health resources out of other States to send them to the frontline States on the Zika virus. I understand it, but it is totally unnecessary. If the Republican leadership in Congress accepted their responsibility, took this seriously, and realized lives were at stake, we would have approved the President's emergency request long ago. My State of Illinois and the city of Chicago just lost a total of $2 million in CDC public health emergency preparedness grants--money diverted from our State to deal with local public health challenges with the Zika virus in frontline States. The Illinois Public Health Director told me: ``We don't get to be eight percent less prepared, even with eight percent less money'' from the CDC. Health departments across Illinois use these grants to prepare and respond to outbreaks of all kinds, such as Ebola, Zika, and a new bacterial outbreak--Elizabethkingia. Already that has taken six people's lives in my State. So we are removing the money to protect the people in Illinois to go to the frontline of the Zika virus attack because the Republican majority in Congress will not approve the President's emergency supplemental request. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is shortsighted. We need to ensure we aren't diverting necessary Ebola money to use for the Zika virus. I don't understand it. In the last election, many Republicans were making a big issue about Ebola and its threat to the United States, and now they are so sanguine and so calm as to take the money away from protecting us from the spread of Ebola and spend it on Zika on a temporary basis because they won't address the serious threat of both problems. The CDC, incidentally, is reporting new flare-ups of Ebola in Guinea after learning that the virus can stay in a man's system for over a year. Just because it may not be front-page news anymore, the Ebola crisis, incidentally, is not over. Funding is still needed. We have seen Zika coming for many months. We were warned, and we have had the administration's detailed comprehensive plan sitting on the desk of the Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Right before Congress adjourned 2 weeks ago, Senate Democrats sent a letter to Republican leader Senator Mitch McConnell urging immediate action on the Zika supplemental, and we introduced a bill to provide the necessary funding. We tried to bring it up. We were blocked by the Republican leadership. So what do Republicans think we should do--send a memo to mosquitoes telling them not to buzz and bite until they get around to funding the President's emergency request? I have news for them. The summer mosquito season is about to hit and hit hard in some parts of our country. Where this mosquito that carries the Zika can be found, people will be in danger. Researchers at NASA have forecasted that by midsummer, cities nationwide, such as St. Louis, Kansas City, New York City--not just southern cities like Miami and Houston--could possibly be a venue for these Zika-carrying mosquitoes. They found that not just geography but rainfall, transportation hubs, and challenging socioeconomic conditions translate to less air conditioning and worse housing infrastructure. They can all contribute to the presence of these mosquitoes. We are learning more and more about Zika and the cases are growing. As we near the summer travel season and we start hearing more about the Rio Olympic Games, inaction and further delay will put many women-- particularly childbearing women--and their kids in danger. I urge my Republican colleagues in both chambers: Work with us to approve this money this week before it is too late. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on one additional issue.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are publications given to us on the floor of the Senate. One of them is the Executive Calendar. This Executive Calendar and parts of it may be characterized as a political obituary column because, you see, these are the nominees of the Obama administration for important posts across America--the names on here--and many of them have been sitting for months and some for over a year, and they are waiting for Senate action. So far this Congress we have approved 17 Federal judges--2 circuit court judges, and 15 district court judges. There are 20 judicial nominees still sitting on this calendar. You think to yourself: Well, they must be pretty controversial if they are still sitting on the calendar. Every single one of them was reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. There were no dissenting votes, no objections. Still they just sit and sit and sit on the calendar. Why? Well, we know we have a serious problem with not just these 20, but there is the fact that we have 87 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, many of them in an emergency situation. Why? Why in the world would some of these nominees, some of whom have been supported by Republican Senators--why aren't they being called for a vote, a routine vote on the floor of the Senate? It is part of the obstruction that the Republican Party has decided to make part of their leadership in the Senate. And, of course, exhibit A in that obstruction is the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, occasioned by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. It has been nearly 2 months since President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has been 3 months since Justice Scalia passed away--3 months--and still the Republican-led Senate has refused to consider President Obama's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. We ought to be doing that right now. Today we received all of the investigative materials and binders and questionnaire answers from Judge Garland--boxes and boxes, thousands of pages--available to be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and every Member of the Senate. It is the Senate's constitutional obligation under article II, section 2, to provide advice and consent when the President submits such a nomination. Mr. President, it is rare for a political figure or a publicly elected official to stand up and use the word ``never,'' but I am about to use it. We have never--never in the history of the U.S. Senate-- denied a Supreme Court nominee from a President a hearing or a vote-- never. For 100 years, these nominees have been sent through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a public hearing. And every pending nominee for an open Supreme Court vacancy has been voted upon at some point by Senators. We had a press conference today, and we talked about the precedent. Senator Franken of Minnesota noted the time when John Adams had lost the Presidential election but filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court by nominating John Marshall to be a member of that Court. So here was John Adams, a defeated President, making a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the Senate, in those days, there were still Founding Fathers, men who had actually written the Constitution. Five of them were Members of the Senate when John Marshall's nomination came before them. If there was ever a lameduck, it was John Adams, who had been defeated for reelection and had a few months more to serve but who made a nomination for the Supreme Court and, by voice vote, the U.S. Senate approved him, including the five Founding Fathers who joined in that effort. The argument being made on the Republican side is: Well, we can't fill this vacancy until after the election. We have to wait to see if President Trump will be chosen by the American people, and then he will get to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. Interesting. I missed it. I read the Constitution and thought for sure that President Obama was elected for 4 years in 2012. By the Republicans' math, it was 3 years and 2 months. He's a lameduck and has no power left. Well, they are wrong. By a margin of 5 million votes, Barack Obama was reelected President over Mitt Romney. Now this decision by the Republicans to stop this President from exercising his constitutional authority is just wrong. What about Judge Garland? Judge Garland is one of the most extraordinary nominees ever presented to this Senate. He is now the chief judge of the DC Circuit Court. That is the second highest court in the land. He is well respected. He has received the endorsement of many different groups, and people who are conservative and liberal alike respect his judgment, as they should. He has done his job and done it well, but the Republicans in the Senate refuse to do their job. They say it is because they want the next President to fill that seat. I cannot even imagine the nominee that a President Donald Trump would send to the Senate. Last week, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, a man named Reince Priebus, announced that Mr. Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. It is astonishing to me that Senate Republicans would seriously want to put Donald Trump in charge of filling Supreme Court vacancies. How would they explain that to their constituents? Most of them are saying they are not even going to attend the Republican convention for fear of what it will do to their political reputations, and yet they are trusting the judgment of Donald Trump to shape the highest Court of the United States of America? Make no mistake. By failing to move on Merrick Garland's nomination now in a timely and fair way, Republicans have cast their lot with Mr. Trump. That is a risky bet for the American people. The American people also understand Merrick Garland is well qualified and rock solid. Every week we see more praise for him. Last week, nine former Solicitors General, Republicans and Democrats alike, sent a public letter praising Judge Garland. The list of people who signed this letter includes prominent Republicans and Democrats: Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, Ted Olson, and Paul Clement. We know the Solicitor General serves as the Federal Government's chief advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. They know the Supreme Court as well as anyone, and they know a good judge when they see one. Here is what they said about Judge Garland: As a group, we have argued hundreds of cases before the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals. Each of us has served as the United States Government's top representative before the Supreme Court. And while we have served in different administrations, we are unified in our belief that Judge Garland is superbly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court if he were confirmed. We are confident that Judge Garland would bring his brilliance, work ethic, and broad experience to the cases that come before him. That is very high praise, isn't it? Clearly, President Obama selected a nominee highly regarded by advocates who know the Supreme Court better than most. Yet my Republican colleagues will not even give this superbly qualified nominee the dignity of a public hearing. They would rather keep a Supreme Court seat vacant for more than a year and allow the Court to deadlock for a year with 4-to-4 votes on key cases and wait in hopes they can roll the dice with President Donald Trump and his Supreme Court nominee. It is hard to fathom how this strategy is respectful of the constitution or in the best interest of our Nation. Not only are Senate Republicans failing to do their job in considering Judge Garland's nomination, they are obstructing 20 other well-qualified judicial nominees who are currently pending on the Senate floor. The Senate Republicans, as I have said, have held votes on only 17 judicial nominees this Congress. That is the lowest total in decades, far fewer than the 68 judges the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed in the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration. Republicans are apparently content to leave vacancies on courts across the United States and even on the Supreme Court of the United States. Is that why they were elected, to leave vacancies on these courts? They cannot hide from the fact that there is a need in this country for competent jurists to guide us in these Federal courts. I hope a few more of my Republican colleagues will come to their senses. Rather than saving judicial seats for Donald Trump to fill, they should do their job and give President Obama's well-qualified nominees a hearing and a vote, and they should start with Merrick Garland. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from these Solicitors General.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from this evening's vote on cloture on the substitute amendment No. 3801 to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, H.R. 2028, which was not agreed to. On rollcall vote No. 66, had I been present, I would have voted to oppose cloture. The junior Senator from Arkansas has proposed an amendment which would grind the Senate's appropriations process to a halt while undermining U.S. national security. This amendment is simply another attempt to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, that has verifiably eliminated the threat of Iran's nuclear program to the United States, Israel, and the international community. In fact, the junior Senator from Arkansas attempted to undermine this national security agreement before it was even negotiated by leading a partisan letter to Iran's Supreme Leader, implying that Congress would not honor any potential diplomatic resolution to the conflict. The unprecedented attempt failed. Now that this agreement has been implemented, he is trying to undermine it again by attempting to prohibit the Department of Energy from taking actions which support the deal and remove nuclear-related materials from Iran--actions which, if needed, are important to U.S. national security. As such, I strongly oppose this effort and continue to support the forceful implementation of the JCPOA in order to continue to prevent Iran from ever possessing a nuclear weapon.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are a lot of divisions on Capitol Hill, and the press spends a lot of time reporting differences between Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. I think that is one of the reasons the press conference I just left is noteworthy, because at this press conference, we had equal numbers of Democratic Senators and Republican Senators talking about a bill that we hope to move forward on the floor of the Senate. The bill relates to criminal justice reform. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are proud to have the support as well of Senator Leahy and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who was one of the original authors of this bill 3 years ago when we both introduced it. We also have the support of the Republican whip, John Cornyn of Texas; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island; and many others who have joined this effort. What is it about this bill that could bring people together who are so different--liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans? It is a common belief that we bring to this that at this moment in history, we need to take an honest look at the incarceration policy in America. The United States of America has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Over the last 35 years, we have increased the number of Federal prisoners by anywhere from 800 percent to 900 percent. We are building Federal prisons as fast as you can imagine, and they are dramatically overcrowded. It raises the obvious question: Are we safer? If we spend $30,000 a year to incarcerate a person, take them off the streets and away from their family, are we safer because of it? In some cases, we clearly are. Our first obligation is public safety. If someone is a threatening, deadly, violent criminal, they ought to be taken off the streets as long as they are a menace or a danger to society. But the largest increase in the Federal prison population during the period I just described is for nonviolent offenders, people who have sold drugs in America. The problem is made worse because we decided 25 or 30 years ago to create mandatory minimum sentences. What it meant was that when the judge sentenced someone, there was an absolute floor they couldn't go below regardless of the circumstances. Needless to say, that resulted in the miscarriage of justice in many cases. Sadly, it isn't just a matter of longer sentences. We have seen some disparities and injustice that we have to be very honest about, as painful as it is to describe them. For instance, the majority of illegal drug users and drug dealers in America are White. Three- quarters of all the people incarcerated for drug offenses are African American and Latino, and the large majority of those who are being sentenced under mandatory minimum sentences are African American and Latino. Let's be very honest about this. In my State of Illinois, I have to be because in the city of Chicago and other communities, we are going through a very candid and painful discussion about the issues of race and justice. We have to be honest. We are incarcerating minorities in this country at dramatically higher percentages than we should. The reason I say that goes back to the original point: The majority of illegal drug users and sellers in America are White; three-quarters of those in prison are not. As a result of mandatory minimums, the families of nonviolent offenders are separated for years on end, and a disproportionate number of them are people of color. This is destroying communities, damaging and destroying families, and, sadly, eroding faith in our criminal justice system. In 2010 I worked with Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He is a very conservative Republican but one of my colleagues and friends on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We passed the Fair Sentencing Act. You see, we had a disparity in sentencing so that those who were found guilty of selling and using crack cocaine were sentenced at 100 times the standard of powder cocaine. There was a reason for it, but it turned out not to be valid. Yet for years this was the standard. We were filling our prisons primarily with African Americans on crack offenses, and if they were repeat offenders--three times and you are out, three strikes and you are out--they could be sentenced for long periods of time. Senator Sessions and I decided to change it. We reduced the disparity between crack and powder, and we have seen a dramatic downturn not only in those serving times for crack cocaine offenses and selling them but also the arrests that are being made today. This bill we just announced in a press conference--the latest version and I think a good version--is another step forward. It will give judges more discretion in sentencing below the mandatory minimum on an individual case-by-case basis. A young man whom I have come to know is Alton Mills. Alton is from Chicago, IL. In the year 1994 at the age of 24, Alton Mills was given a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for a low-level, nonviolent drug offense. This man had never served 1 day in prison in his life, and at age 24 he received a life acceptance. I appealed to President Obama to use his Executive authority to give Alton Mills another chance. Just before Christmas last year, the President commuted his sentence, and Alton Mills was released after 22 years in Federal prison. He was there today in a meeting we had with his mom. She never gave up on him. She was the one who appealed to me initially to take a look at her son's case. His attorney, a dynamic African-American woman named MiAngel Cody, really closed the deal as she described this case in detail and how unfortunate it was that a 24-year-old man would receive a life sentence for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses. He is not alone. There are hundreds more just like him serving mandatory life sentences for third-strike sentences. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which Senator Grassley and I have introduced, would eliminate this mandatory life sentence. This change alone would change the sentencing for many who are currently serving in Federal prisons. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in its original form by a vote of 15 to 5--a good, strong vote. We have picked up an additional number of Republican sponsors since we have made some other changes in the bill. I thank Senator Lee for joining me in initially introducing this bill. There are so many people who are counting on this legislation, not just those families who have someone serving time in prison but many people across the board--Black, White, and Brown--who want to see us restore faith in the system of criminal justice. We had an amazing endorsement of our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of endorsement.

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent. THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. DURBIN. The National District Attorneys Association, which is the largest group of criminal prosecutors in America, has endorsed our criminal justice reform bill. We have brought together an incredible coalition. I am proud to have not only the civil rights community, but we also have others from the conservative side, such as Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General. Everyone knows him to be a tough prosecutor. He endorses our bill. Others have come forward. They understand that it is time to step back and take an honest look at where we are today. This criminal justice reform bill will bring some sanity to our corrections system, and it will save us money. Roughly one-fourth of the Department of Justice appropriations now goes into prisons. By the year 2030, it will be 30 percent. As Senator Lee said, we are spending more money on prisons than we are spending in the Department of Justice on the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration combined. What if we could reduce that prison population in a responsible, sensible way that doesn't endanger public safety but gives us resources that could be used by the Department of Justice for law enforcement, for dealing with the heroin epidemic across America and making our neighborhoods truly safe? What if we could take part of that and invest it in the lives of young people before they turn to gangs, before they turn to drugs, and before they turn to guns? That could literally change the face of a great city such as Chicago and the great Nation we live in. This is a historic bill--not just because Democrats and Republicans have come to support it; it is historic because we are tackling one of the toughest issues of our time. We are doing it in a thoughtful, careful, bipartisan, and respectful manner. I happen to believe that is what the Senate should be all about. I look forward to encouraging my colleagues who have not signed on as cosponsors to do so as quickly as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to address two different issues this morning, but I think both are timely and important. The first issue I will address has to do with a telephone conversation I had a few minutes ago with Dr. Thomas Frieden. Dr. Frieden heads up the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. Most Americans don't know much about the agency, but the title speaks for itself. The CDC, as we call it, is America's first line of defense in a public health crisis. When we think that Americans--individuals and families--are in danger or vulnerable, we call the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and ask them to analyze the challenge and then give us the right public health response to that challenge. A few months ago, I went to their campus in Atlanta, GA. It is very impressive, not just for the buildings but also for the people who are there. We have some of the best health researchers in the world working for our Federal Government at CDC--most of them at financial sacrifice. They want to be part of solving problems and protecting America. Just as the folks in the Pentagon across the river believe in the protection of America, so do the people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC is our first line of defense against public health attacks. This morning I called Dr. Frieden to talk about the Zika virus. I have come to know him and have worked with him over the years. Most people have learned about it by now. We are learning more about it every single day. We have kind of traced its origin to South America, and now it is moving north. It is moving north into Puerto Rico in a big way, and Florida is likely to be the next State to witness the Zika virus being transmitted by mosquitoes. Then, frankly, the whole United States is vulnerable. Not only can this virus be transmitted to an individual if they are bit by a mosquito, but it can also be transmitted by the sexual contact of a person already infected by the virus. If you have the virus and a mosquito bites you and then bites your wife, you may have just transmitted the virus to her through that mosquito. We are learning. The reason why this is more than just a mosquito bite and an irritation is that this virus can cause serious public health problems. We know that pregnant women with this virus run the risk of giving birth to babies with difficulties and serious problems, and so we are monitoring it very closely. How many employees at CDC are working on the Zika virus threat to America? There are 1,000. When you think of all of the things that we need to worry about, they believe--and, I think, rightly so--that this is the imminent public health threat to our country. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the Zika virus, such as these: How long does it stay in an individual? How long can an individual who is infected with the virus transmit it to another person? For those who are carrying the virus, what impact does it have on their health? What impact does it have on a pregnant woman carrying this virus? It turns out there are literally hundreds now in the United States who have been infected with the Zika virus. We expect some lull in the number of cases, and then they are going to pick up in intensity and number this summer. We also know--and the announcement will be made soon--that there are pregnant women in the United States who have been infected by the Zika virus. The obvious question is this: Are we doing everything we should be doing to protect America? Sadly, the answer is no, we are not. Two months ago, President Obama said to the Congress: I need a supplemental emergency appropriation to deal with this threat. He asked for $1.9 billion. They want to monitor the Zika virus and how it is traveling across the United States. They want to monitor those who have already been infected. They want to develop a vaccine that we can take that will protect us in the future. From where I am standing, I can't think of a single public health challenge in America as great as this Zika virus at this moment. One would think that the Congress, now that they know the facts, would have moved instantly to provide the money to the President--this emergency supplemental appropriation of $1.9 billion. But the answer is they have done nothing. The leaders in the House and in the Senate have done nothing to provide emergency funds to this administration to deal with this public health emergency. It is so bad that this week a Republican leader in the House announced publicly that he didn't see any emergency. He thinks we may get around to an appropriation for this in October. Well, I don't know what his lifestyle is like, but in the Midwest we have a tendency to get out on the patio and have barbecues and invite our friends and neighbors over. We worry about mosquitoes. It doesn't start in October. It starts now. I don't know if this Republican Congressman plans on sending a memo to the mosquitoes across America saying: no buzzing and biting until October when we get around to this. It won't work. This has been declared an emergency by not only the President but by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why aren't we acting? Why aren't we doing something? We should be doing something. We are going to leave today. This afternoon we will vote and go home. We will be back in probably 10 or 11 days. Maybe then the Republican leadership in the House and Senate will decide this is an emergency that needs a response. The numbers will start coming in--the number of people across America who are facing this virus--and the concern among American families is going to grow. This is not just an irritation. This is a danger to many people and certainly to women who could be pregnant. This is something we ought to be taking extremely seriously. We have been waiting for 2 months for this Congress to respond with an emergency appropriation to do something. I have called on the leadership in the Senate this week, and I will continue to do so today and when we return. There is no excuse. God forbid this gets worse and we look back and say: We waited too long; we didn't respond. Let me add one other thing. The only suggestion we have heard from the Republican side is this: Let's take some of the money we set aside to fight Ebola in Africa and use it for this purpose. I talked to Dr. Friedman about that. He said: It is true; there has been a real drop in the number of Ebola cases. Ebola is a deadly disease in West Africa and other places, and we worried about it coming to the United States. He said that we are still learning about how this disease travels. There was a man who was cured after being diagnosed with Ebola in Africa, and they just learned that a year after he was cured, he transmitted the disease by sexual contact to another person. Even when we think we have cured and solved it, there is still a danger. Let's make sure that we treat all of these public health hazards for what they are--dangerous to the United States and dangerous to our families. God forbid that something terrible happen. I hope it doesn't. Let's do our job here on Capitol Hill. When the President says we need resources to fight this, we do. I hope we move on it very quickly when we return.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, immigration is an issue which divides America. You only have to tune into the Presidential debate to hear it. Most everyone would agree that the immigration system in America is broken. I believe it is. I was part of an effort with some colleagues to try to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate 3 years ago by a vote of 68 to 32. We worked long and hard on that bill. We brought this bipartisan bill to the Senate, and it passed with an overwhelming majority. The House refused to consider the measure. Speaker Boehner never called it to the floor. The bill we passed never ever got a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, and so here we sit today with the same broken immigration system. Let me tell you that one part of that is very important to me and to many of my colleagues. Fifteen years ago I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. The genesis of that bill--as I have said on the floor many times and will quickly repeat--began after we got a call in my Chicago office from a Korean American woman who had a daughter who was a musical prodigy. She was an amazing pianist and had been accepted at two of the best music schools in America. She was filling out her application and asked her mom: What do I put down for my nationality or citizenship. Her mom said: I don't know. When we brought you here, Tereza, you were 2 years old and came here on a visitor's visa. I never filed any more papers. So I don't know. The daughter said: What are we going to do? The mom said: We are going to call Durbin's office. So they called our office and we said: Let us check the law. The law was very clear. This 18-year-old girl, brought here at the age of 2, under American law had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in. Does that sound right? When she was 2 years old, she had no voice in the decision to come to America, no voice in the decision of filing papers. Yet our law basically told her to leave. That is when I introduced the DREAM Act. It says that if you are brought here under the age of 16, complete high school, no serious criminal issues in your background, we will give you a chance. We will give you a path to become legal and ultimately become a citizen. That is what the DREAM Act is. We haven't passed that bill. We have passed it maybe once in the Senate, once in the House but never brought it together to be sent to the President. This President, Barack Obama, was my fellow Senator from Illinois for 2 years and he cosponsored the DREAM Act. So a few years ago, I joined in a letter to the President, with Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and said to him: Help us protect these young people from being deported until we can finally pass comprehensive immigration reform or the DREAM Act. The President listened and did it. He created what is known as DACA. What DACA says is, if you are such a young person, you may step forward, register with the government, submit yourself to a criminal background check, pay a several-hundred-dollar filing fee, and then we will give you temporary protection from deportation. Then, 2 years later, 3 years later, you have to reapply--go through the same process--pay a fee and do it again. As it turned out, 700,000 young people, who were in the same situation as the Korean girl I mentioned from Chicago, have applied for this DACA protection so they can stay here on a temporary basis and go to school, work, and be a part of the United States. There is no guarantee they will ever become permanently legal or citizens--I hope they will--but at least they are protected on a temporary basis. Two years later, the President said: If you are in a family where one of the kids in the house is an American citizen or here legally in the United States as a permanent resident, we are going to give parents the same opportunity to register with the government, to go through a criminal background check, to pay their fee to the government, then to be given a temporary work permit to work in the United States. That is known as DAPA. So we have DACA and DAPA. It is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. I went over for the argument before the Supreme Court last week. The State of Texas and 25 other States have challenged this saying it will create benefits for these individuals under DACA and DAPA that will cost the States money. It turns out, the whole story is that once these people are working in the United States and paying taxes, the State of Texas and all the other States are going to make quite a bit more money off these workers when they actually are required to pay taxes, as they should. So this economic argument doesn't go too far. The point I have tried to make to my colleagues in the Senate, as long as I have been here and as long as I have had this opportunity to talk about the DREAM Act, is that they ought to take a moment, stop listening to the Presidential debates, and just pay attention to the lives which are at stake in this conversation. I have come to the floor quite a few times to talk about young people who would be helped if the DREAM Act became the law of the land. This morning I am going to introduce Cynthia Sanchez to those who are watching. Cynthia Sanchez is another young person who is living in the United States and is undocumented. She was brought here at the age of 7 from Mexico. She grew up in Denver, CO. She was an excellent student. In high school, Cynthia was a member of the National Honor Society and made the President's honor roll every semester with a 4.0 grade point average. I wish I could say the same about my high school experience. Cynthia was vice president and co-president of the Student Council. She volunteered as a peer mediator and volunteered at the local library. She went on to attend the University of Denver where she received lots of awards and scholarships and was an active volunteer. For the record, undocumented young people like Cynthia receive no Federal assistance to go to college--no Pell grants, no government loans. They have to find a way to pay for it. They can't use any government benefits to move forward with their education. She was a member of a student organization called the Pioneer Leadership Program. She helped to develop Denver University Senior Connect, an organization to help raise awareness about the needs of senior citizens. As a member of the Volunteers in Partnership Program, Cynthia organized workshops at high schools and middle schools with low-income and minority student populations. She helped the students fill out their college applications and write scholarship essays, and she brought the students to visit her campus at the University of Denver. She graduated in 2010 with a degree in cognitive neuroscience, which is a double major in psychology and biology, and she even minored in chemistry on top of that. Because of her immigration status--and despite the fact that she had this amazing college experience and was academically successful and had this important degree--she couldn't find a job. She wasn't even able to volunteer at a local hospital because she lacked a Social Security number, being undocumented. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. Cynthia's dream to become a doctor was on hold because of her immigration status. Only nine schools told her she might be able to apply and be considered as an undocumented student. Two years after graduating, Cynthia was working as a nanny and questioning whether all the hard work and time in school was wasted. Cynthia cried as President Obama made the announcement about creating DACA. She realized she was going to be given a chance. She applied for DACA immediately. She was approved in the summer of 2013. By September, Cynthia was working at Northwestern University in Chicago doing clinical research in the Department of Medicine's Division of Cardiology. Her research focuses on improving treatment options for patients facing heart failure. She sent me a letter, and this is what she said: DACA has meant a new realm of opportunities for me, it has opened new doors for me, and it has allowed me to once again see my dream as a reality. I truly believe that if those opposed to DACA or the DREAM Act had the chance to sit down and meet undocumented students, their opinions might change. They would see capable, smart, hard-working individuals who are Americans in every sense of the word, love this country and want to contribute to its prosperity. After all, this is our home. Cynthia and the other DREAMers have a lot to give to America. Like many Americans who have come to this country, they are willing to sacrifice. They are willing to go to the back of the line. All they are asking for is a chance. I urge my colleagues--particularly my Republican colleagues--to join us in doing the right thing for these DREAMers, doing the right thing for Cynthia, and thousands of others who are just asking for a chance to make America a better nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I share the news that Judge Laura Cha-Yu Liu passed away last week. A longtime resident of Chicago, Judge Liu was only 49 years old. Although her time with us was far too short, her accomplishments were many. Judge Liu broke barriers. She was the first Chinese American woman to become judge in Illinois, the first Chinese American elected to public office in Cook County. And in 2014, Judge Liu became the first Asian American to serve on the Illinois appellate court. Her story is the story of the American dream. Born in Carbondale, IL, her parents were immigrants fleeing a dire political situation and the terrors of war. They came to this country as foreign exchange students in the hopes of providing a better life for their children. Liu's first language was Mandarin, and she started school speaking very little English. She overcame the language barrier and graduated as her high school's valedictorian. In 1987, she received a bachelor's degree from Youngstown State University and a law degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1991. As the daughter of immigrants, Judge Liu took extraordinary pride in her work on the Illinois Supreme Court's Access to Justice program, aimed at making the system more accessible to immigrants and non- English speakers. She helped draft requirements that courts provide qualified interpreters for parties and witnesses. Throughout her career, Judge Liu was a staunch defender of individuals' rights, especially the most vulnerable in our community. It wasn't uncommon for Judge Liu to delay court proceedings when people struggled to understand, saying: ``We're going to wait for an interpreter.'' And no one did more to ensure that language barriers would not stand in the way of justice for all at Daley Center. Five years ago, Judge Liu was diagnosed with breast cancer, but that didn't slow her down. She continued working, running for election in 2012 and, 2 years later, winning her appointment to the appellate court. She never complained; she just kept going. During chemotherapy, she said, ``I put on my wig, put on my eyebrows, lots of blush, happy face, get out of bed and went to work.'' That is courage. Judge Liu was the recipient of numerous honors and awards. Here are just a few: the Asian Pacific American Community Service Award; the Chinese American Bar Association of Greater Chicago's Sandra Otaka Distinguished Judicial Service Award; Illinois' Judges Foundation's ``the Leader Who Shares Experience Leaves a Legacy of Success'' Award; Asian American Bar Association's 2014 Vanguard Award for her work to make ``the law and legal profession more accessible to and reflective of the community at large''; Illinois Secretary of State's Distinguished Leadership Award--and the honors go on and on. Judge Liu was also a member of the Illinois Judges Association, Chicago Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago, and Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago. She was an extraordinarily accomplished professional, but Judge Liu's proudest accomplishment was being a mother to her 7-year-old daughter, Sophie, and a wife to the love of her life, Michael Kasper. Despite her busy schedule, she always put family first. She made time to teach Sophie Mandarin and the piano. She even took Sophie to Paris, in the midst of dealing with an aggressive chemotherapy regimen. But she simply said, ``I'll sleep it off on the plane.'' And she did. She also could frequently be found on the sidelines of Sophie's soccer matches cheering her on. Judge Liu was a force of nature. She authored nearly 150 judicial opinions in her 2 years on the Illinois appellate court. In her final days, while working from home, Judge Liu filed her final opinion before she passed. What commitment and what an inspiration. To the very end, Judge Liu understood that these issues and her opinions affected people's lives, and cancer wasn't going to keep her from doing her job. She once said, ``I wanted to fit in more than I wanted to be a trailblazer. I didn't want to be an Asian-American on the rise.'' Well, she didn't get that wish. In fact, she accomplished just the opposite. Her career was groundbreaking and she became a role model for countless Chinese American kids--and an inspiration to the rest of us--especially her friends and family. Judge Liu will be sorely missed.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to say a word in response from the Democratic side. First, I cannot think of two colleagues I admire more than Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein. They are honorable people. It has been a pleasure to work with them and even to consider issues where we opposed one another because I knew it would be done in a professional and courteous way. They have spent more hours than I can calculate constructing one of the most important appropriations bills--the Energy and Water appropriations bill. This bill was brought to the floor first by Senator McConnell for good reason. We wanted to set a template, a model, for finishing the appropriations process, and I respect that. I have been honored to serve on the House Committee on Appropriations and now on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I think it is a very important assignment. It has been many years since we have done our work in the way it was supposed to be done. Without a budget resolution, we took the budget agreement, moved forward with the bills. There were countless opportunities for the minority, the Democrats, to slow down this process, to make it more difficult, to make it more complicated, and to demand votes and delays of 30 hours after 30 hours. We did not do that because we were trying to be positive and constructive. I will not reflect on our experience in the majority, but I would say in response to the Republican leader, they broke the record in terms of filibusters on the floor of the Senate when the Republicans were in the minority. We don't want to go back to that era and we don't want to ``get even.'' That isn't what this is about. There were basically two or three things guiding us in the process that I thought everyone signed up for, and I believe they did. One of them was balance between defense and nondefense spending overall; second, that each one of the bills hits a number that can be explained and rationalized based on the budget agreement; and third, the contentious issue of poison pills. These are subjects that are so controversial that if they are included in a bill, it becomes impossible to either pass it on the floor or expect the President to sign it. So we thought, if we are going to exercise our opportunity with an appropriations process that works, those three things have to apply. I give credit to both Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein for producing a bill in subcommittee that met those tests and didn't include any great controversial items, going through full committee with exactly the same outcome, and bringing it to the floor. We were this close to the finish line--this close to the finish line--when yesterday the Senator from Arkansas, as is his right to do, offered an amendment. That amendment was offered around noon yesterday and the whole conversation changed. It was an amendment related to the Department of Energy, yes, but it was an amendment of great controversy because it was an amendment related to the President's agreement with Iran to stop them from the development of nuclear weapons. Everyone knows what that was about. Every Republican opposed the President's agreement and four of ours on the Democratic side. It was a highly controversial and volatile subject for many months and continues to be on the Presidential trail. To bring this amendment into the bill at the last moment, as it was, is to invite a debate and a controversy which was not in the bill up to that point. Now, was it the right of the Senator from Arkansas to do it? Yes. But I would just say that my experience in appropriations is, you would say to your colleague who had the right to offer an amendment: Let me just say in advance, this is going to slow down--it may even stop this bill. After all the work we have put into it, please don't offer that amendment, and if you do, I will have to oppose it. Those are the basics for kind of going forward on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to a conclusion. We just had a procedural vote, and a few Republicans joined us, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats said we can't move forward on the bill until we resolve this basic question: If Senators will be allowed to offer amendments on the floor that are relevant to the bill and are controversial, we invite poison pills up to the very last moment when a bill can be considered. There has to be a better way. We have to prove to America that we can get things done in its best interests. That means some Senators cannot offer every amendment they would like to offer. That is just part of the restraint which we ask of Members who are consciously trying to help us be constructive in the Senate. I hope we can get back on track. The conversations are civil, as they should be between honorable people who are trying to work this out, and they need to continue. The underlying bill is very important. It is important to my State and to many other States. But let's finish this bill in the right way, in a bipartisan fashion, in a calm fashion, not in a confrontational fashion. We can do that. I am sorry we can't do it this morning. I hope we will all work together to achieve that goal as quickly as possible. Madam President, I yield the floor.