Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I come to the floor today in recognition of American Heart Month. For more than 50 years, Congress has recognized February as American Heart Month. During this time, we have seen many advances in reducing congenital heart defects, heart disease, stroke, and other forms of cardiovascular disease through improvements in research, education, prevention, and treatment. Over 1 million cardiovascular disease deaths are now averted each year thanks to advances in biomedical research, prevention programs, and the development of new drugs and therapies; yet every 15 minutes, a child is born with a heart defect, and nearly 86 million adults are living with some form of cardiovascular disease. Congenital heart defects are the most common type of birth defect, and heart disease alone remains our Nation's leading cause of death. For millions of families across the country, including mine, the impact of heart defects and disease can be overwhelmingly painful. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, parents can now afford health insurance, and coverage can no longer be denied for a preexisting condition. Also, insurers cannot set arbitrary lifetime or annual limits on care. These protections can be lifesaving, literally, when dealing with congenital heart conditions. And while I am so proud of what we did in health reform to improve access to care, we must do more to improve quality of care--and that means finding ways to better treat and even prevent these diseases. Thankfully, there is hope for patients and families across the country. Breakthroughs in research are getting us closer to understanding the risk factors and causes of these diseases. We are developing new drugs and therapies to help those who are suffering, and we are improving standards of care for those living with and managing these diseases. Increases in funding for the NIH and CDC in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill will support these critical efforts in prevention, research, and treatment. We provided a historic funding increase of $2 billion for the NIH, and the CDC's budget was increased by nearly 5 percent. These increases will support leading research efforts at the NIH on the causes of cardiovascular diseases and possible treatments; community prevention programs at the CDC; as well as initiatives to gather data and track the incidence of congenital heart disease. These cannot be onetime increases. We must commit to sustained long-term investments in our Federal health agencies--that means ensuring robust funding increases above inflation year after year. That is why I will again fight for funding equal to five percent real growth in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills for NIH, CDC, and seven other research agencies that contribute to medical and scientific advancements consistent with two bills I have introduced. The American Cures Act would provide annual budget increases of five percent over inflation every year for 10 years at American's top four biomedical research agencies: the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Department of Defense health programs; and the VA's Medical and Prosthetic Research Program, its biomedical research arm. The American Innovations Act would invest an additional $110 billion over 10 years in the critically important basic science research at America's top research agencies: the National Science Foundation; the Department of Energy Office of Science; the Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research; and the NASA Science Directorate. We can't afford not to invest in the work these critical agencies are doing. And let me tell you why. A few weeks ago, I was in Peoria, IL, touring the OSF Hospital there. Researchers from the University of Illinois Medical School are teaming up with the engineering department in joint efforts to bring new technologies to medical breakthroughs. They showed me a model of an infant's heart. It was an exact 3-D printed replica of an actual infant heart with serious congenital defects that would be operated on. The model was produced through MRIs and CAT scans. This allows surgeons to look at the heart, open it, and prepare for the procedures that they are about to conduct. It meant less time on the heart-lung machine, and it improves the odds of a positive recovery. These medical breakthroughs--made possible by Federal, State, and private contributions--are giving millions of Americans hope. In early January, surgeons at Prairie Heart Institute in my hometown of Springfield, IL, operated on a local woman from Decatur. The doctors replaced two diseased heart valves with artificial valves that were threaded into position inside catheters, smaller than the width of a pencil. This procedure is known as a double trans-catheter valve replacement. This successful surgery was only the fourth of its kind in the United States, and the first in the world to use the latest generation of artificial valves. The lead surgeons were from Prairie and Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Had the valve not been replaced, the patient would have faced a substantially higher risk for death from congestive heart failure. As co-chair of the Senate NIH Caucus, and co-chair of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition, I want to thank my colleagues for their commitment to lifesaving research for all Americans. I also want to thank the researchers, advocates, public health professionals, families, and patients for their leadership and tireless support for advancements in the science and treatment of heart diseases. There is more work to be done, but I am optimistic for breakthroughs in the near future. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will thank my colleague from Iowa. I hoped to get a chance to speak to him personally about another matter, but I will call him from the floor afterward. We will get in touch. Senator Hatch is here. I don't want to delay the proceedings of the Senate, but I would like an opportunity to respond on this issue that was raised by Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley of Iowa is my friend. Politicians say that sometimes and mean it, and say it sometimes and don't mean it. I mean it. We have become friends as neighboring States and sharing a lot of plane rides together, serving on the same committee, serving in the same body for a number of years, and I respect him very much. We have different points of view on many things, but we found common agreement on many other things. So I do respect him when I say that at the outset as I respond to his remarks. What is this about? This is about the passing of Justice Scalia and whether his seat on the Supreme Court will be filled, and if it will be filled, who will do it and when. The first place for us to turn when it comes to asking questions is the one document, the only document, that matters, the U.S. Constitution. It is this document that we literally all swore to uphold and defend, every one of us, Democrat and Republican. It is this document that is explicit, not making a suggestion but really spelling out the responsibilities when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it is article II section 2. Article II, section 2 says that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' Shall. It is our responsibility under this Constitution to do this. It is amazing to me in the history of this Republic, guided by this great document, we have reached a point in the year 2016 where those simple words, directions in the Constitution, are being challenged and ignored by the Republican majority because, you see, there has never--underline the word never--been a moment in history when the Senate has refused to extend a hearing to a Supreme Court nominee until this moment. There has never been a moment in history, never--underline that word--when the Senate has refused a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. I can't say never, but it is been more than 150 years since we have allowed a vacancy on the Supreme Court to go on for more than a year, as the Republicans in the Senate are determined to do here. That 150 years goes back to the Civil War. So I would say to my colleague from Iowa, you are about to make history if you stand by this decision. If you decide the Senate Judiciary Committee will not even entertain a nomination to fill the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court, it will be the first time in the history of the U.S. Senate--the first. If the Senate Republican leadership makes the decision that even if a nominee is sent they will never allow a vote, it will be the first time in the history of the United States of America. That is why this is such a definitive issue. That is why the position taken by the Senate Republican majority is so different, so unusual, and in some cases so extreme. The argument is being made on the other side--listen to this argument. This argument is being made: Well, we are in a campaign year. This is a Presidential election year. Who knows who the next President will be. Let the American people choose that President and that President choose the nominee. It overlooks one basic fact. Three years and three months ago, the American people chose a President. By a margin of 5 million votes, Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney for President of the United States. They made their selection. Did they elect President Obama for a 3-year term? Let me check the Constitution, but I think it was a 4-year term. Oh, was it 3 years and 3 months? No. It turns out the American people spoke in our democracy by a margin of 5 million votes and said: Barack Obama, you will be President of the United States until January the 20th, 2017. Was there a rider or some exclusion that said you can't appoint a nominee, name a nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in the last year of your Presidency? I don't remember that. Perhaps that was the case in some States, but not in Illinois and, to be honest, in no other State. The President was elected for 4 years. He was given the consent and authority of the American people to govern this Nation for 4 years and to fill the vacancies on the Supreme Court as he is directed to do by the U.S. Constitution. Now the Senate Republicans have come up with a different spin: No; he may have been elected, but from their point of view, he wasn't given the full power of office. They say Barack Obama was given something less than any other previous President of the United States. They say he was not given the authority to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in the last year of his term. I would like to find the constitutional precedent for that. I invite my colleagues--we have two on the floor. One is the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and one is the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I invite them to show me that historical, constitutional precedent that says Barack Obama, the President of the United States, really only has the authority of the office for 3 years--3 years and 2 months. Beyond that, he is a lame duck President. Give me the authority for that. What do they hang their hat on? They hang their hat on a speech made by Vice President Biden when he served in this body 25 years ago. Joe Biden is truly my friend, as he is the friend of virtually every Senator from both sides of the aisle. I respect him so much. I wasn't surprised at all when I heard the Senator from Iowa say that he gave a 20,000-word speech. He gave a lot of 20,000-word speeches. I saw him deliver a few here, and they were a sight to behold. This one I think went on for 90 minutes as then Senator Biden shared his views on filling judicial vacancies and on recommendations. If we listen closely, we know the Senator from Iowa said that Vice President Biden ``recommended,'' ``should consider.'' Well, let me ask this question: Was there ever any time when Senator Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he denied a hearing to a Supreme Court nominee? No. Was there ever a time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when he recommended to the Senate that they deny a vote on a Presidential nomination to fill a Supreme Court vacancy? No. So whatever his theory was that he expressed on the floor of the Senate-- and we all express a lot of theories--Joe Biden was respectful of this document. He knew what the U.S. Constitution said. I find it hard to imagine that the Republican Senators now in the majority are going to walk away from this Constitution and turn their backs on it. I have a lengthy statement that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my remarks which goes into the question of why the Republican majority continues to obstruct the appointment of judges and people to serve in the executive branch of government under this President. It has been unprecedented. They decided not just on this nominee but long ago that they would not give this President the same treatment, the same respect that has been given other Presidents. Now it has been brought front and center with this vacancy, the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court. I sure disagreed with Justice Scalia on a lot of things, but I do not argue with Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit in my State when he said that Justice Scalia was a major force in terms of thinking on the Supreme Court. And what really undergirded the philosophy of Justice Scalia was what he called originalism. Some people mocked it, and some people just flat out disagreed with it. But he said time and again: Read the Constitution and read the precise wording of the Constitution. I saw different things in those words than he did, but that was his North Star when it came to Supreme Court decisions. Well, if he read article II, section 2, which says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court''--there is little doubt--no doubt--in those words. And if he relied on the precedent of the United States, the history of the United States that the U.S. Senate has never denied a hearing to a Presidential nominee until this moment in history, has never refused a vote on a nominee until this moment in history, then he would realize that what is being done here is unprecedented and uncalled for. If my Republican colleagues now in the majority--54 votes strong against 46 on the Democratic side--really disagree with the President's choice, his nominee, whoever it may be, they have an option. There is a constitutional option. The constitutional option is to hold a hearing, do the background check which is done, and then vote, and if you disapprove of that nominee, vote no. That is the regular order and the regular course of events. That is the constitutional way to approach this. But they have gone even further. Senator McConnell said two days ago he would not only give the President's nominee no hearing and no vote, he refuses to even meet with that person, whoever it may be. Those are the lengths they will go to to avoid facing the constitutional responsibility that every Senator has. Senators can quote Vice President Joe Biden's speeches of 25 years ago as long as they want. They can read his words over and over again, but the fact is he never stopped a hearing, he never stopped a vote, and he honored the Constitution. The wording of the Constitution didn't go on for 20,000 words. It is just a handful of words that we have sworn to uphold and defend before we can become U.S. Senators. History will not look kindly on this political decision by the Republican majority. History will not give them a pass. History will ask time and again: How could you ignore the Constitution? How could you ignore your responsibility under the Constitution? Why won't you do your job, a job you were elected to do to fill this vacancy? Is a temporary political victory worth this--to turn your back on the Constitution and the history of this country? I don't think it is. I hope that when the Republican Senators go home and meet with their constituents over this weekend and in the days ahead, they will have second thoughts. When the President sends a nominee, I hope they will abide by the Constitution, be respectful of this document and respectful of this President, and give his nominee the same due consideration that has been given to Supreme Court nominees throughout history. Justice Anthony Kennedy became a Justice on the Supreme Court when a Democratic-controlled Senate gave him a vote--a hearing, and then a vote in a Presidential election year much like this one. A lameduck, outgoing President appointed Justice Kennedy. A Democratic Senate did not refuse to meet with him, did not refuse to have a hearing, did not refuse a vote, but said: We will abide by the Constitution. For that outgoing President, he had the full authority of office. President Barack Obama deserves nothing less. And we as Senators have a responsibility under this Constitution, regardless of what speech was made 25 years ago, to pay close attention to these words and to do our constitutional duty. When the Senate majority leader said that he would not give any consideration to any Supreme Court nominee named by the President--no vote, no hearing, not even a courtesy meeting--it set a new low for the Senate. Throughout our Nation's history, no pending Supreme Court nominee who sought a hearing has been denied one. Some nominees were confirmed so quickly after their nomination that a hearing was not scheduled, and one nominee withdrew before her scheduled hearing could take place, but the Senate has never before refused a hearing to a pending nominee. Similarly, every pending nominee for an open Supreme Court vacancy has been voted upon by Senators. Some nominees were confirmed on the floor, some were rejected on the floor, some nominees were renominated before they got their vote, and some only received a vote on whether to be reported or discharged out of committee, but all of them got a vote. Yet the Senate majority leader has announced that President Obama's next nominee will get no hearing, no vote, not even a meeting. The President is obligated by Article II, section 2 of the Constitution to send a nominee to the Senate. That is the process the Founding Fathers established. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for this process to be abandoned in an election year. Just as the President and Senate must do their jobs in times of war and economic depression, they must do their jobs in election years. The reality is that Republicans simply want to keep the Supreme Court seat vacant in the hopes that their presidential nominee will get to fill it. It is a purely political calculation. But Presidential politics do not trump the Constitution. The Republican leader should do what past Republican leaders like Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois did when a Supreme Court vacancy arose in the election year of 1968--roll up his sleeves and get to work. Senate Republicans have come up with a number of excuses for shirking their constitutional responsibilities. But the bottom line is that there is no excuse for the Senate to fail to do its job. The President made clear yesterday that he is taking his constitutional responsibility seriously. He wrote a piece in the website SCOTUSblog explaining the careful, deliberative process he is undertaking to choose a nominee. The President said he will select a person who has outstanding qualifications, a commitment to impartial justice, a deep respect for the role of the judiciary, and a life experience that shows integrity and good judgment. The President is doing his job, as the Constitution requires. Senate Republicans must stop the pattern of obstruction that they have shown with so many of President Obama's nominees and do their job, too. Once the President selects a Supreme Court nominee, Senators should meet with the nominee, give him or her a fair hearing, schedule a vote, and fill the vacancy on our Nation's highest Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, every Member of the Senate stands in the well of the Senate when they are elected, takes an oath of office. That oath of office, required by the Constitution, is our statement to not only the people we represent but to the Nation, that we will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II, section 2 of that Constitution empowers the President. Those powers include the President's power to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. It is not permissive language. The word ``shall'' can be found in this paragraph. It basically says that the President of the United States shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the United States of America, Senate Republicans are prepared to defy this clear statement of the U.S. Constitution. What an irony that filling the vacancy on the Court by the untimely death of Antonin Scalia--filling the vacancy on the Court of a man who prided himself throughout his judicial career as being what he termed an ``originalist,'' sticking to the strict letter of the law, as spelled out in the Constitution--in filling that vacancy, the Senate Republicans have basically decided to reach a new low; in fact, to make history in a very sad way. A seat on the U.S. Supreme Court lies vacant because of the death of Justice Scalia. The President has the constitutional obligation, as I have read, to name a nominee to fill that vacancy. Senate Republicans are now saying they will not even hold a hearing on that nominee. If the President sends a name--and he will--to the Senate to fill that vacancy, they have said they will not hold a hearing, they will not schedule a vote, and, listen to this, yesterday Senator McConnell said: I will not even meet with that person. This is a new low. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee started holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees a century ago, the Senate of the United States of America has never--never--denied a hearing to a pending Supreme Court nominee. It has never happened, but that is what Senate Republicans are saying they will do. This level of obstruction, of ignoring the clear language of the Constitution, is unprecedented, and it is dangerous. This goes beyond any single vote for any Supreme Court nominee. This is an abdication of the Senate's responsibility under article II, section 2 of the Constitution to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominations, which the President shall appoint and shall nominate. Senate Republicans want to keep the Supreme Court seat vacant for more than 1 year. They want this vacancy to continue for more than 1 year. That will encompass two terms of the Supreme Court. This is demeaning to the institution of the Supreme Court, and unfair to millions of Americans who rely on that Court to resolve important legal questions. In the coming days, the President will name a nominee, as the Constitution requires him to do. Senate Republicans should meet their responsibility under the Constitution, do their jobs, and give the President's nominee a fair hearing and a vote. Yesterday, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the majority leader, and here is what they said: ``This Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.'' Why did they take this unusual position in defiance of the Constitution? They said: ``The presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. . . . The American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation.'' This argument is specious. The American people have already voted; they voted to elect our President, Barack Obama, and they voted to elect 100 Senators who currently serve in this body. President Obama was elected to a 4-year term, and 11 months remain. The American people voted for each of us to do our jobs for as long as we serve in office. By a margin of 5 million votes, the American people have chosen the President. Did they elect the President for 3 years, or 3 years and 2 months? No. They elected a President for 4 years, and this President's term continues until January 20, 2017. The Republicans conveniently ignore the obvious. The will of the American people was expressed in that election, and the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States empowers him under the Constitution to fill this vacancy with an appointment. They didn't vote in that election for us to sit on our hands for over a year while the Supreme Court twists in the wind and while the Republican Senators pray every night that President Donald Trump will somehow give America a different Supreme Court nominee. Not a single American, incidentally, has yet cast a vote for President of the United States--not one--in the next election, despite the statement of the Judiciary Committee Republicans that says otherwise. It is February of this year. The nomination conventions are scheduled for late July. The modern Supreme Court confirmation process has taken an average of 67 days. There is more than adequate time to hold a hearing on this nominee and get this done properly. All we need is for the Senate Republicans to do their jobs. Yesterday on the Senate floor, I urged my Republican colleagues not to duck a vote on the President's nominee. They could vote yes, they could vote no, but they shouldn't abdicate their constitutional responsibility for political advantage. I am amazed that my Republican colleagues now say that not only do they want to duck that vote, but they also want to avoid even having a hearing on the nominee. And they are afraid to even meet with this nominee for fear that maybe they might think he or she is a good nominee. Even more shockingly, the Republican leader and several Republican members of the Judiciary Committee said yesterday they would not even meet with the President's nominee. One of our colleagues in the Senate last night on television was asked pointedly or directly: If the President nominates someone from your State to the Supreme Court vacancy, are you saying you wouldn't meet with that person? My colleague on the other side of the aisle ducked the question. This is stunning. Remember, the President is obligated by article II, section 2 of the Constitution to send a nominee to the Senate. That is the process the Founding Fathers established. That is the President's responsibility. How can Senate Republicans refuse to even meet with the person selected under this constitutional process? How is that being faithful to the terms of the Constitution? How are Senate Republicans upholding and defending this Constitution by this evasive, historically unprecedented action? Sadly, it appears that Senate Republicans have calculated it is in their best political interests to keep the nominee out of the spotlight. They were hoping that, with this letter and by saying yesterday we will have nothing to do with it, they are going to turn out the lights on this issue. That is not what is going to happen. This issue is going to be there and remembered, and it is going to be recalled on the floor of the Senate repeatedly. They thought they could close down the government when Senator Cruz of Texas sat here for, I don't know how many hours, reading Dr. Seuss while we shut down the government, and they thought people would forget Senator Cruz shutting down the government; they didn't, and he is finding on this campaign trail that a lot of people have remembered that. The American people are not going to forget what Senate Republicans are trying to do with the Supreme Court. I have served on the Judiciary Committee for the hearings and confirmation votes of four of the eight sitting Supreme Court Justices. Let me state clearly that this Senator is more than happy to meet with the President's Supreme Court nominee, as I have on all such nominees-- Republican and Democrat alike--and I will consider that nominee on his or her merits, as I have always tried to do in the past. Yesterday, Senate Republicans also tried to deflect attention from their unprecedented obstruction by pointing to quotes from some Democrats years ago. But the record is clear: Democrats have never, never blocked a Supreme Court nominee from having a hearing. Republicans are breaking new ground with this obstructionism. The American people deserve better. The bottom line is there is no excuse for the Senate to fail to do its job. Once the President has named his nominee, the Senate must give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote. If the Constitution means anything to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they understand that what they are doing is unprecedented. It has never happened once in American history. We are now finding the obstructionism of Senate Republicans reaching a new low. They are ignoring the clear wording of our Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold and defend, and they are obstructing in a way that we have never seen before in the history of the United States. That is the reality--a reality that will not be lost on the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on February 13 the Nation was shaken by the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away. Justice Scalia served on the Nation's highest Court for 29 years, and he was a major figure on the American legal landscape. Justice Scalia was described by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit as ``the most influential justice of the last quarter century.'' Over the years I came to know Justice Scalia. He was a man of great intellect, good humor, and he was a very social person. We certainly disagreed on many fundamental issues, but even those who disagreed with Justice Scalia on legal matters still admired him as a person. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--no ideological ally of Justice Scalia-- wrote after his death, ``we were best buddies.'' She described him as ``a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.'' Justice Ginsberg said she and Justice Scalia were ``different in our interpretation of written texts,'' but they were ``one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve.'' I have great respect for the decades Justice Scalia spent in public service. My thoughts and prayers clearly go with his family. As surprised as I was by the news of Justice Scalia's passing, I was amazed at how quickly the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, issued a press release saying, ``this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'' His statement came out within 90 minutes of the press report of the Justice passing. This statement clearly came at a time when most people reflected on the loss of the Supreme Court Justice, and just like that, the conversation shifted from the passing of an American legal giant to an attack on President Obama's authority to fill his vacancy on the Supreme Court. What does the Constitution tell us about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court? There are very few oaths a person takes in their life. As Members of the Senate, we swear each time we are reelected to a new term to uphold and defend that Constitution. What does the Constitution say about a vacancy on the Supreme Court? If you go to article II, section 2, it is explicit and very simple. The President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.'' The President, under the Constitution, has an express responsibility to submit to the Senate the nomination of a person who is qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court. Then, of course, the Senate has a job to do: Give that nominee a fair hearing and a timely vote. This is our constitutional responsibility as U.S. Senators. This is what we have been elected to do. Aside from voting on a declaration of war, I believe there is no greater responsibility than voting on the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and it has been my privilege and honor to consider the nominations of four of the current Supreme Court Justices. There is no question that we have the time remaining to meet our constitutional responsibility in a thoughtful and careful way. It is now February of 2016. We are almost a year away from January of 2017 when President Obama will officially leave office. The Republican leader would have us leave a seat on the Nation's highest Court vacant for at least 1 year. Not since the Civil War has the Senate taken longer than a year to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and it certainly shouldn't happen now. Usually it takes the Senate about 2 months to consider a Supreme Court nominee. Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee said that on average it takes about 67 days. So we have more than enough time to do this in a thoughtful and responsible way. Even during Presidential election years, the Senate has routinely confirmed Supreme Court Justices. It has happened over a dozen times, most recently in 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a 97-to-0 vote during President Reagan's final year in office. President Reagan--a Republican President about to leave office--submitted a name, Justice Kennedy, to the Supreme Court, and a Democratic-controlled Senate approved it with a vote of 97 to nothing. So to argue that this has never happened before is to ignore history, and even recent history. In the past, Senate Republican leaders have said that the confirmation process should move forward with as little time as a month before an election. Consider the Presidential election of 1968. On June 13 of that year, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed the President he wanted to step down. On June 26 of the election year, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice and nominated George Homer Thornberry to fill his seat. President Johnson had already announced he would not run again, but Senate Republican leaders did not call President Johnson a lame duck and question his right to put forward nominees. In fact, Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen of my State of Illinois said on July 13 of that year, ``I find that term `lame duck' as applied to the President of the United States as an entirely improper and offensive term.'' Republican Senator Dirksen was referring to the lame duck status of President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. The Senate gave the President's nominee a prompt hearing in the Judiciary Committee. As it turned out, the hearing uncovered a range of ethics concerns about Justice Fortas, and in late September and early October, Senate Republicans filibustered his nomination. Fortas subsequently withdrew. But on October 3--same election year, just a month before the election--the New York Times reported that ``Senator Dirksen said there was still time for the President to submit a new name and rush it through the Senate before the Congress adjourned.'' The Republican leader said that even with a month left, we should try to fill the vacant seat. This was a month before the Presidential election. Where are the leaders like Everett Dirksen in today's Republican Party, Senators who are willing to roll up their sleeves and get down to the work of considering the nominees on their merits so the Supreme Court can do its work? We have a constitutional responsibility, as does the President. Make no mistake--the Supreme Court needs a full complement of Justices on the bench. When the Court has an even number, as it does today, four to four, important cases are increasingly likely to end up in a tie vote. When that happens in a case, the ruling of the lower court stands and it is as if the Supreme Court never heard the case at all. Major legal and constitutional questions are constantly brought before the Court. When the Court is frozen at an even number of Justices, many of those questions go unresolved and millions of Americans who are impacted by these questions have to wait. That is not fair to the American people. That is why historically the Senate moved to fill vacancies of the Court. That is why so many Americans are troubled by Senate Republicans' call for a 1-year hiatus in filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in an interview last week that she disagreed with the idea of waiting for the next President to appoint a new Justice. Justice O'Connor said, ``We need somebody there now to do the job. Let's get on with it.'' I agree with Justice O'Connor. When President Obama submits a nominee, which he will do in coming days, the Senate needs to do its job, its constitutional responsibility, and give that nominee a fair hearing and timely vote. My Republican colleagues can choose to vote for or against the nominee. That is their prerogative. They should not simply duck the vote. We were not elected to this job to ignore important issues; we were elected to cast votes on important issues. This is too important an issue to simply ignore. When it comes to giving the President's nominee a fair hearing, I certainly hope Senate Republicans don't adopt the Donald Trump position. When asked about the President's nomination, Mr. Trump, as he is wont to do, gave us a juicy quote. Here is what he said: ``I think it's up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop it--it's called delay, delay, delay.'' I am sure the Senate Republicans were not happy with that statement by Trump, but he did speak for a number of people who believe that is the right strategy: stop the President from using his constitutional authority; stop the Senate from accepting its constitutional responsibility. I hope my Republican colleagues don't follow Mr. Trump's lead and try to stop President Obama's nominee through endless delays. No one is going to be fooled if Senate Republicans spend weeks haggling over unreasonable document requests or swamping the nominee with endless written questions. Mr. Trump has already made it clear that ``delay, delay, delay'' is simply a strategy to stop the seat from being filled. If Republicans delay in an effort to run out the clock, we will know it, and the American people will know it. The American people want us to act. They want us to accept our constitutional responsibility. It is time for us to get down to work and do our job. The Senate can't afford to sit on its hands for 1 year and leave the Supreme Court hanging in the balance. When President Obama names a nominee, I urge my Republican colleagues to give that person a fair hearing and timely vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING CHAIR. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this morning at Old St. Patrick's Church in downtown Chicago, there was a funeral service for an extraordinary public servant, the late senate president Phil Rock. On January 29, Illinois lost one of its most principled leaders and one of its finest public servants. He was a good friend of mine and a good friend of my wife's as well. Before retiring from politics in 1993, Phil Rock represented Chicago's Oak Park and parts of the West Side of the city of Chicago. He spent 14 of those years as the longest serving Illinois Senate president. During part of that time, I had the opportunity to be by his side and to work as his senate parliamentarian. People used to say Phil Rock was born a Catholic, a Democrat, and a Chicago Cubs fan, but not necessarily in that order. Phil was also a dedicated public servant. Before Phil Rock became a public servant, he almost became a priest. He was born and lived much of his life in the Midway Park section of the Austin part of Chicago. He attended Quigley Preparatory Seminary and went on to the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, IL. But instead of becoming a priest, he became a lawyer. After graduating from Loyola Law School--newly married to his wife Sheila--he took a different path than his colleagues. He decided not to join a big law firm. He chose to enter public service. He worked for Illinois State attorney general Bill Clark in 1965, and by 1967 Phil was the chief of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Division. He chose to enter public service at a difficult time--the turbulent 1960s. The country was torn over the Vietnam war and many social issues. The 1968 Democratic Convention was a painful reflection of our Nation's troubles. Instead of turning away from public service, at that time Phil Rock decided to dive in and make a difference. In 1970 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, where he ascended quickly in both the Democratic Party and the State senate as an institution. Within a year he was elected Democratic State committeeman for the Sixth District. A couple years later he became assistant senate minority leader. In 1979 Phil Rock was chosen by his colleagues to be the senate president. At the time, Illinois was facing tough times. Illinois was hard hit by the national recession and some of the highest urban unemployment rates in the country. Once again, Phil did not waver. Through his leadership, Phil helped guide the State through a storm of a recession. Phil was a loyal and passionate Democrat, but he understood that compromise was always an important part of success. ``Bipartisanship'' wasn't a dirty word for Phil Rock; he worked with everybody. He just wanted to get things done for his constituents, as well as the people of the State. His word was his bond. When his allies made unreasonable demands, Phil was firm and said no. When the day's legislative work was done, though, you could still find Phil presiding--usually over a barbecue pit near the State capitol. Legislators from both political parties came by; they wouldn't miss it. Phil would hand them a cold drink, and they would have a great evening together. Hardly any of Phil's parties ended without Phil being requested to sing ``Danny Boy,'' which he did in a spirited fashion. On St. Patrick's Day, you could always count on Phil Rock and his fellow State senator Bob Egan being close to a piano, singing great Irish tunes. The events were always bipartisan, with Democrats and Republicans coming together. This is a lesson in friendship and cooperation which all of us should remember today. Phil leaves a proud legacy. He had a wonderful sense of fairness and a strong voice for the most vulnerable in communities across the State. Phil exemplified what Hubert Humphrey called ``the moral test of government.'' He authored and passed more than 450 major pieces of legislation in his career. He earned dozens of awards from organizations across the State of Illinois, from Cairo to Zion. Among his legislative accomplishments, Phil started Illinois's I- SEARCH Program for missing children, which provides State funding to provide information almost instantly to save those kids. He also championed laws for mandatory insurance for newborns and the State's original Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act. One of his proudest achievements was sponsoring legislation for the Nation's first school for the deaf and blind in Glen Ellyn, which today has been named after him, the Philip J. Rock Center and School. Phil passed away last month at the age of 78. His legacy shines brightly from Oak Park to Springfield and across our State. My wife Loretta and I want to offer our condolences to Phil's wife of more than 50 years, Sheila; their four kids, Kathleen, Meghan, Colleen, and John; and, of course, the grandkids. Phil Rock was a tireless advocate for the little guy, he was a giant in Illinois politics, and he will be missed. Madam President, last year I joined a bipartisan majority in the Senate to pass a Customs reauthorization bill. It was strong, it was meaningful, and it really set out to modernize our Nation's customs system and strengthen the enforcement of U.S. trade laws. One of the greatest concerns Americans have about trade and trade agreements is that when they are cheated on by other countries, we don't enforce them, and the losers are American businesses and employees. So I like that Customs bill. I like that version and the strong language on currency manipulation which has cost a lot of American jobs and hurt U.S. businesses. It strengthened our commitment to combat human trafficking around the world. It would allow us to safeguard our climate policies under future trade agreements. The conference report that is back to us now and before the Senate at this moment is a much different bill. Let me say there are provisions of it that are good and important. I strongly support the ENFORCE Act. The provision would allow us to have a level playing field so that companies, such as Illinois companies, could ensure that other countries play by the same rules when it comes to trade. These strong anti-dumping rules are vital to prevent foreign companies from dumping cheap steel products and other goods that undercut domestic prices and put our companies out of business and employees out of work. I recently had representatives of the steel industry come by my office, and they explained the dramatic increase in imports of steel product, particularly rebar from Turkey. They can't understand how Turkey can sell its rebar in the United States so cheaply, putting American businesses at a disadvantage. Turkey takes scrap metal from the United States and transports it across the ocean, transforms it there into rebar and steel, and ships it back to the United States--and they are still able to charge less. The folks in the steel industry here say: We are ready for competition, but something else is going on here. There is clearly a subsidy when it comes to Turkish steel. And the net result is that companies like Granite City Steel in Granite City, IL, and companies across the United States are being threatened. Some countries are dumping their products in the United States. They are selling them for less than the cost of production to run American businesses out of business and to put our steelworkers out of work. The ENFORCE Act puts some teeth into this process, and it is one of the sections in this bill I would wholeheartedly support if it were a separate piece of legislation. But that is not how bills are presented to us in the Senate. We are given an array of issues and topics in every bill, and we have to decide whether at the end of the day the bill is worth voting for even if there are provisions in it that we like and some that we hate. The inclusion of this important legislation is not enough to overcome my concerns with the overall bill. Unlike the Senate-passed bill, there was a provision airdropped into this bill at the last minute in conference that really creates a problem. It is called the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. What it means is, with this legislation, we are by Federal law prohibiting State and local governments from imposing taxes on access to the Internet. Generically, I think that is a good thing to do, to encourage use of the Internet and not to create hardships on families, students, and individuals who use the Internet, but let's go into this conversation with our eyes wide open. If you use a telephone to make a call to someone, you are likely going to face a tax from your State or local unit of government on telephone services. If, however, you do what my wife and I try to do every weekend and Skype your grandkids, you are using your computer for that conversation, and there is no tax on your use of that computer. Some people say, ``Good. I didn't want to pay the tax.'' But remember, local and State taxes go to sustain critical services in communities. What we are doing with this bill is prohibiting States and localities from, in most cases, imposing taxes on Internet services. So we are closing the door to State and local units of government raising revenue that they might view as reasonable and fair to sustain police protection, fire protection, and all the demands they face. That is the reality of this provision. What we had hoped to do was, at the same time, say that State and local units of government could collect sales tax on Internet sales. Let me explain. More and more Americans are turning to the Internet to buy things, our family included. You go to the usual vendors on the Internet, and in some cases, if they decide to, those Internet retailers collect the local sales tax. So when I give my home address in Springfield, IL, they check the ZIP Code, and they decide that when I make the purchase, they will collect the sales tax on the Internet sale of a book, for example, and they will remit that amount to the treasury of the State of Illinois. But it is not required, and many Internet vendors do not collect the sales tax. So what happens? State and local units of government don't get the benefit of the sales tax from Internet purchases. However, if I decided, instead of buying a book on the Internet, to buy it at a local bookstore in Chicago or Springfield, I would pay a sales tax. Well, people are learning this. As they learn this, they are changing their shopping habits. A friend of mine, Chris Koos, is the mayor of Normal, IL. He is an extraordinary person beyond Normal, as far as I am concerned. He is also a businessman as well as mayor. He has a business that sells bicycles and running shoes. He tells me people will literally come into his store and say: I need size 11 New Balance shoes. What do you have? They bring out the running shoes, and people try them on, stand in front of the mirror, and say: Thanks a lot, Chris. I appreciate it. They will then write down the number for the New Balance running shoes, go home, buy them on the Internet, and not pay a sales tax. Well, Chris is the loser. Here he is with a good, solid business in Normal, IL, that not only provides good service and good products but collects--as required by law--the sales tax on transactions, the sales tax going to the State and to the community to sustain basic services. So when people use his store as a showroom and then buy on the Internet and not pay the taxes, of course the State and the community lose. What we had hoped to do was to put these two things together and say that if we are going to prohibit State and local units of government from imposing taxes on access to the Internet, at the same time, we will require Internet sellers and retailers, to collect sales taxes for purchases. That would be remitted back to the State and local government so at least there was some balance. It isn't as if we are closing the doors to State and local units of government for what they might have otherwise collected. Unfortunately, only half of what I just described is included in this bill. The prohibition against State and local governments collecting taxes on Internet service is included, but sales conducted over the Internet is not included. That is unfortunate. Initially, I opposed this bill and said that this was brought into it at the last minute, that it has nothing to do with customs whatsoever, and that it should never have been included. It is the kind of thing that I think gives us a bad name sometimes when it comes to the way we write bills. I opposed it. I then ended up deciding to talk to Republican Leader Senator McConnell. With his assurance that we will get a shot at calling the marketplace fairness or internet retail tax this year--either if it is sent from the House or if it originates in the Senate--I have dropped my opposition to the overall bill--although I will vote against it, I am not working against it--and the earlier rollcall indicated strong support. With that in mind, I yield the floor and say that I will continue to oppose the Customs bill for the reasons stated, but I am happy that Senator McConnell and I have been able to reach an agreement on the path forward toward marketplace fairness or efairness. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Friday, America celebrated the 23rd anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act--landmark legislation that transformed American workplaces for the better. I am deeply proud to have voted for this bill in 1993 when I served in the House of Representatives. This bipartisan legislation was a major victory for many working families, providing workers the ability to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family needs. This meant working parents could take care of their newborns without fear of losing their jobs and sources of income. Workers could care for an ailing family member or care for their own serious health conditions without having to worry about whether they would be able to come back to their careers. Before the Family and Medical Leave Act, being a working parent meant having to choose between your job and taking care of yourself and your family. Today, thanks to this legislation, this attitude has changed for many families. Since 1993, American workers have used the leave provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act more than 200 million times. This legislation has helped balance workplace demands with family needs for millions of hard-working men and women across the country. And there is no doubt that these are achievements we should all be proud of. But we need to do more. As families change, so should the laws designed to help them--our workforce, our economy, and our family responsibilities have changed dramatically over the past two decades. Women now make up half the workforce, and many families depend on two incomes. Family caregiving needs are on the rise, and both men and women provide critical care. But according to a recent Department of Labor survey, only 60 percent of employees have access to FMLA leave--and 8 out of 10 eligible workers cannot afford to take leave when they need it. For too many Americans, unpaid leave is not an option--it is unaffordable. Just 13 percent of the workforce has paid family leave through their employers, and less than 40 percent have personal medical leave through an employer-provided disability program. It is clear that we need to do more to ensure families can earn the support they need. I am proud that both Senator Murray and Senator Gillibrand have stepped up and introduced legislation this Congress to address these shortcomings. I hope we will continue to see support for these bills and get more of my colleagues from across the aisle to talk about these concerns. The reality is ensuring paid family and sick leave would help keep new parents and family caregivers in the workforce and boost their earnings and savings overtime. Studies have already shown that mothers who are able to take paid maternity leave are more likely to return to their jobs and stay in the workforce. That just means more money for families to spend and put back into our economy. Expanding paid family and sick leave makes moral sense, and it makes economic sense. It is about time we get it done. As we mark the anniversary of this groundbreaking legislation, I hope we take the time to recommit ourselves to the values that inspired this law. Let's continue to lead on this issue and expand paid family and health leave to cover more families. I will continue to fight and protect the benefits provided by the Federal and Medical Leave Act and help ensure fairer workplaces and healthier, more secure families.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I was necessarily absent from today's vote, vote No. 20, on the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act due to events in Illinois. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' in support of H.R. 757, to advance sanctions against North Korea, and was glad to see it adopted. Today marks the ninth anniversary of President Obama's announcement of his intention to run for President. He made the announcement from the steps of the old State capitol, the reconstructed building where Abraham Lincoln delivered his ``House Divided'' speech in my hometown of Springfield, IL. Today, the President and I returned to Illinois to commemorate his historic announcement and his service in the Illinois State Senate. I try to never miss votes, but this was a very special occasion in my home State. I have been deeply concerned about nuclear weapons programs in countries such as Iran and North Korea. Almost 10 years ago, I joined with then-Senator Gordon Smith in introducing the Iran Counter- Proliferation Act, which became the basis for eventual petroleum sanctions against Iran that helped compel a negotiated nuclear agreement. I also cosponsored and voted for the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act, which became law in 2012. And I was pleased to be one of the three cosponsors of the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2015 led by Senator Menendez, key parts of which are included in the bill being voted on today. North Korea has bedeviled administrations, both Republican and Democratic alike, and as such, this legislation is a step in the right direction. I have some concerns with the final bill in areas where I think more flexibility for the executive branch would have been appropriate, but such is the nature of compromise. North Korea's recent actions testing nuclear weapons, launching missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead, and apparently restarting its plutonium production are all deeply troubling. North Korea's leadership does this while many of its own people are starving or locked away in political prison camps. This is unconscionable. One often wonders how such an isolated and repressive regime is able to continue such dangerous antics. How does it pay for such endeavors and how does it pay off the sycophants and enablers needed to maintain such a police state? After all, a nuclear-armed, erratic North Korea is not only a threat to the United States and its allies in the region, but to China as well. Such actions clearly are not in China's security interests. Yet, frustratingly, too often, China seems unwilling to take necessary steps to isolate and pressure the North Korean regime. I understand China doesn't want a collapsed state on its border. I also understand it doesn't want a unified, Western-leaning Korea on its border. But I ask our Chinese friends, is what we have today really serving Chinese security interests? The North Korean leadership has thumbed its nose at the Chinese, ignoring entreaties and some measure of protection offered against tighter sanctions or Security Council action. I was recently in New York meeting with our talented Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, and I was dismayed at the challenge she faces in obtaining greater Chinese help on this matter. Now, I know the Chinese and some other apologists will argue that North Korea is so isolated that further sanctions would not work and may even backfire. But we know that there have been effective measures against the North, for example, going after luxury goods and overseas accounts linked to the regime and ruling elite. Yet, despite international sanctions on luxury goods to North Korea, the New York Times recently reported how China loosely defines such goods and continues to allow North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's army's to import equipment from China to build a world-class ski resort. That is right--a world-class ski resort in a country that can't feed its own people. In fact, according to the report, Chinese customs data showed that North Korea imported $2.09 billion in luxury goods between 2012 and 2014, including armored cars and luxury yachts. And, according to United Nations trade statistics, in 2014, China exported $37 million worth of computers, $30 million of tobacco, $24 million of cars, and $9 million of air-conditioning equipment to North Korea. So I hope this legislation will tighten the measures against luxury goods used to buy loyalty for the regime. And I hope the Chinese realize that ignoring this regime is far riskier than working with the United States and others to rein in North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Let us also not forget that in 2014, the U.N. General Assembly voted to refer the North Korean regime to the International Criminal Court for well-documented crimes against humanity. Earlier, a U.N. commission of inquiry report documented massive crimes against humanity in North Korea, including deliberate starvation, forced labor, executions, torture, rape, and infanticide, among other crimes--most of them committed in North Korea's political prison camp systems. The almost 400-page report concluded that the bulk of the crimes against humanity were committed ``pursuant to policies set at the highest levels of the state'' and were ``without parallel in the contemporary world.'' This criminal regime holds between 80,000-120,000 political prisoners in its system of gulags. So I am glad this sanctions legislation also includes provisions that address North Korea's terrible human rights record. Let me close by reaffirming my support for our South Korean and Asian allies that are at the most immediate threat from North Korea--not to mention the more than 25,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea. As such, without progress on ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program, I support the deployment of necessary missile defense technologies to help protect these allies.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue of vital importance to America's national security. It is the issue of reliable rocket launches--launches which the Department of Defense and the national intelligence agencies count on on a regular basis to launch satellites to keep America safe. There is a separate area of launches with NASA involving the civilian side, but this morning I want to focus primarily on the Department of Defense rocket launches. We made a decision about 10 years ago that was wrong. Two companies that were competing at that time, Boeing and Lockheed, came forward to the Federal Government and said: We have a plan. Instead of our companies competing, we will join together. We will become one company--Boeing and Lockheed--for this purpose, under the term United Launch Alliance. They argued, convincingly at the time, that this was the best way to come up with affordable, reliable launches. Well, that was true for half of the projection. They were reliable. In the last 10 years, the United Launch Alliance has been a reliable partner with the Department of Defense in launching satellites and other things into space which are critical for our national security. But, unfortunately, because they became a monopoly, with no competition, they became increasingly more expensive and we had no place to turn. Recently, there have been new entries in this market in terms of launching satellites. One of the most promising is SpaceX. SpaceX, from its infancy, has matured into a company that could play an important role in the future of satellite launches in the United States. I noted this fact, and as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I did something that doesn't happen around here very often. I had a hearing scheduled and brought together the CEOs of United Launch Alliance, the traditional partner of the Department of Defense in launching satellites, and this new company, SpaceX. I invited the CEOs from both companies to sit at the same table and to answer questions from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Then, at the end of the hearing, I did something that I thought might be positive and constructive. I said to each CEO: I would like each of you to write 10 questions that should be in the record answered by your partner at the table there. If we haven't covered everything to give a fair exposition of where this issue stands today, now is your chance. That was in January 2014. It was the first time anybody had brought together two potentially competing companies and let them plead their case before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. But I felt this was the best way to give SpaceX a chance to tell its story as a new entrant into this competition and for ULA to defend its position. We then decided there was another element that was important. United Launch Alliance has several engines that can take a satellite into space. The most economical one is built by the Russians, the RD-180. I happen to believe that it is not in our best security interest to be dependent on the Russians to supply us with a rocket engine for vital satellites to be launched into space. So I started pushing in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to put money into a competition for an American-made, American-built rocket engine to replace the Russian RD-180. For 2 successive years we have appropriated more money for this competition than the defense authorizing committee. It turns out that we are on the right track, but the timing is challenging. What we have been told is that replacing the Russian engine with an American-made engine will take up to 5 years. Who is the source of that statement? The Secretary of the Air Force. So the obvious question is, If we can't cut off the Russian engine today without jeopardizing our national security, what should we do? We decided in the current appropriations bill to extend the authority to the Department of Defense to take bids on rockets launched by the Russian engine from ULA through this fiscal year. I thought this was a prudent thing to do--to wean ourselves from dependence on Russian-made engines--but to do it in a thoughtful, sensible way that gave the Department of Defense some options. This request, incidentally, for options and flexibility came not just from the Secretary of the Air Force, but it came from the Director of National Intelligence as well as the Secretary of Defense. They said they needed these options to keep America safe. That was the state of play until the senior Senator from Arizona decided he was going to come to the floor repeatedly and challenge this conclusion by the Appropriations subcommittee, then leading to an op-ed which he published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. I come to the floor this morning to address that op-ed by the senior Senator from Arizona. It is titled: ``Congress's Cynical Crony-Capital Gift to Putin.'' The senior Senator from Arizona referenced me by name in this article, as he has repeatedly on the floor of the Senate, though many would argue that violates the Senate rules. Notwithstanding that personal aspect of this, I want to address the issue that is before us. Why does the senior Senator from Arizona continue to single me out personally? It is because I happen to agree with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Air Force about a vital, important national security issue. The senior Senator from Arizona disagrees with them. The issue is deadly serious, despite the name-calling by my colleague. It is about competition for launching defense satellites into space. Here are the facts. One company, United Launch Alliance, or ULA, held a monopoly for nearly 10 years. The cost of launches rose out of control. Today, there is finally an opportunity for competition. A new company I mentioned earlier, SpaceX, has entered space launch. They are challenging ULA. As I said earlier, in January 2014, I recognized this option--this possibility, this opportunity--and held a hearing with the CEOs of both companies testifying under oath. The result of this competition is that costs are dropping, exactly what we wanted to achieve, and the taxpayer is beginning to see savings. However, as I mentioned earlier, the ULA rocket most often uses a Russian-built rocket engine, the RD-180. After the Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the Department of Defense and Congress agreed it was time for us to phase out any dependence on this Russian-made engine and to make an American product as soon as possible. I couldn't agree with that more. Developing and testing a new, American-made rocket takes time--more time than I imagined. The Secretary of the Air Force, testifying before the committee of the senior Senator from Arizona, estimated that it would take to at least 2021 or 2022 until there was an American-made rocket engine that can replace the Russian engine that is being used today. However, the senior Senator from Arizona doesn't want to wait that long to replace the Russian engine. In his Wall Street Journal diatribe, he writes that ``we don't need to buy any more.'' And he is apparently considering a total ban on the Department of Defense using these Russian engines, despite the fact that we have received, in writing, from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence a warning that doing this would in fact create a gap which could endanger our national security. In May 2015, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence wrote to the chairman of the defense authorization committee, and they shared his goal of replacing this Russian engine. But they warned the senior Senator from Arizona that if he followed his own plan, it could harm U.S. national security. They were alarmed, in this letter, of the proposed cutoff of access to Russian engines before an American replacement was ready. Secretary Carter and Director Clapper do not want to trade one launch monopoly, ULA, for another launch monopoly, SpaceX. They are encouraging and standing for competition. They want to keep them competing so they can have lower costs and options if one of the companies, for whatever reason, is unable to meet its obligations. Also, our defense and intelligence satellites must not be dependent on one type of rocket. A SpaceX launch failed last summer, and it took 6 months before they could return to launches. With only one supplier of rockets, a crash could stop vital satellite launches for months, endangering America's national security. The senior Senator from Arizona ignored the arguments being made by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence. After all, it is hard for a Senator to argue with the senior national security leader, Secretary Carter, whose doctorate is in theoretical physics, and it would be unconscionable to call our Nation's highest intelligence official--a former Air Force pilot and career civil servant--a ``Putin crony.'' But I take warnings from our top national security experts seriously. My Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has been working to address these issues the right way, the safe way. Rather than attack fellow Senators in the press, the senior Senator from Arizona should face the facts. When the Defense appropriations bill was marked up in June of 2015, the bill included a bipartisan provision to allow the Department of Defense to conduct full and open competitions for rocket launches for 1 year. An amendment was offered by the Republican senior Senator from the State of South Carolina to strike that provision. But after a full debate, he withdrew his amendment when it was clear there was bipartisan support for the bill. The provision was modified in conference, but the effect of the provision remains the same--to make sure that the Department of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence have some answer to their concerns about a launch monopoly. The senior Senator from Arizona has proposed another solution--that ULA offer another rocket called the Delta IV, which, of course, is not a Russian engine. According to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer and ULA, each of those rockets endorsed by the senior Senator from Arizona costs about 30 percent more than the Atlas rockets with Russian engines. So if that figure is correct, the plan of the senior Senator from Arizona requires American taxpayers to pay approximately $1 billion more in launch costs over the next 6 years. This Senator, who comes to the floor frequently telling us that he is such a budget hawk, is proposing a plan that will cost us at least $1 billion more over the next 6 years. That figure could be higher. His plan could triple the cost of launches for some satellites that are too heavy to be launched on a single rocket. Under the plan of the senior Senator from Arizona, the taxpayers would foot the bill for a new government-created monopoly. It is in fact a $1 billion windfall and gift to one defense contractor in California if we follow the plan of the senior Senator from Arizona, and it would also put our national security at risk if there is a technical failure. If spending $1 billion of taxpayers' money to increase the risk that the United States won't be able to launch a satellite to keep track of Russia sounds like a counterproductive and questionable idea, you would be right. Last year, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said many times that the Defense authorization bill isn't a budget bill. Now, as vice chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense-- the subcommittee that has to make the math work--I can say that spending an extra $1 billion at this moment in the history of the Department of Defense doesn't make sense. There is another aspect to this. I don't know if the senior Senator from Arizona is going to look into it or attack it as well. When it comes to supplying the space station, we are reliant on Russian-made engines. If the senior Senator from Arizona wants to cut off access of NASA to these Russian-made engines, it will be a dangerous proposal. There are a variety of NASA missions ahead that rely on this Atlas rocket. These include multiple resupply missions to the International Space Station, a mission to take samples from a nearby asteroid, a new Mars lander, a probe to study the sun, and several weather satellites. If there is the will to ignore the national security concerns of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence about access to space for national security, we had best take care. The senior Senator from Arizona will now say that supplying the space station is somehow a sellout to Vladimir Putin. We have appropriated $448 million to develop all-American engines, which is more than the Armed Services Committee has authorized. In a few years, we will have real competition for space launches that will help lower costs for a long time to come--but only if we listen to our top defense and intelligence leaders, who favor a responsible transition to the next rocket in the interest of national security and oppose the plans put forward by the senior Senator from Arizona. One aspect of this article in the Wall Street Journal that troubles me the most is the suggestion that I take lightly the adventurism of Vladimir Putin and his bloody invasion of Ukraine. I am proud to be the cochair of the Ukrainian Caucus with Senator Portman of Ohio. We have a large Ukrainian population in my State. I have spoken to them many times, and I have visited Ukraine many times to make it clear that I detest what Putin has done in invading their country and threatening their sovereignty. The irony is the senior Senator from Arizona personally invited me to accompany him to Ukraine, where we both protested Putin's actions. To suggest my position on these rocket engines is somehow a give-in to Putin is shameless and wrong. I think my statements--public and otherwise--have made it clear. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what happened in Flint, MI, is incredible. In the 21st century, in the most developed country on Earth, to think that 100,000 people were exposed to contaminated water, to think that 9,000 or 10,000 children were exposed to lead poisoning--it was not a natural disaster but the results are disastrous. It was a disaster created by those who were in charge of managing the city of Flint. The governmental agencies and those who worked for them made what they considered to be the right budgetary decisions, but they certainly made the wrong decisions when it came to the health and the well-being of the poor people who were victimized by their wrongdoing. Every time I hear the story, the same question comes to my mind: Who is going to jail for poisoning 9,000 children? Think about the circumstances here. A knowing decision by a city manager to switch to a water supply which was contaminated endangered the health of thousands of children, tens of thousands of citizens. If that is not the grounds for at least investigation, I don't what is. So the Senators from Michigan, Senator Peters, Senator Stabenow, have come to the floor of the Senate and said to America: Will you help Flint, MI? It is right that they do so. I have been fortunate to serve in the House and Senate for many years. I cannot tell you how many times Senators from States all across the Nation have asked that same question: Will you help us in Louisiana? Will you help us in Alabama? Will you help us in Texas? There is hardly a State that has not come to the floor of the Senate asking for help. Yet, for reasons I cannot explain, the Republican majority in the Senate is resisting this idea. Almost 100,000 people were forced to live without access to clean water in their homes. They could not turn on their faucets in the morning to make breakfast or to take a shower, as all of us do. They started their day by waiting in long lines for bottled water to feed and bathe their kids, to take showers, and to stay healthy. They started rationing the water. The elderly and disabled who could not make it to a pickup location for bottled water, they were left with the option of continuing to use water they know was poisoning their bodies. This is a disaster by any definition. I cannot understand why there is not more understanding and empathy from my colleagues when it comes to Flint, MI. It could happen anywhere. If it happened, would you hesitate for a moment as a Member of the Senate to ask for help? Nine thousand children exposed to lead poisoning has been called an earmark by the critics of our Senators from Michigan. They said it is just special interest legislation to try to help these victims. That is hard to imagine, that it could reach that level in criticizing this effort. Just like those who suffered from tornadoes and hurricanes, these families did nothing to deserve it. Just as the Federal Government always helps when Americans are hit by disasters, we should do it in Flint. There were no complaints last May when the Federal Government declared an emergency and reached out to the residents of Texas to help them rebuild their lives after a tornado hit. So I am wondering if the Republican Presidential candidate from Texas is willing to step up, the junior Senator from Texas, and ask for the same level of Federal assistance for Flint, MI, that he asked for his own State. This crisis is not the fault of the kids, the pregnant women who still call Flint home. Their only crime was living in a city that was so poorly mismanaged by the Michigan State government. Their only crime, if there was one, was being the victims of cheap, dirty water. These kids and pregnant women are the most vulnerable when it comes to lead contamination. We are not going to know for years the extent of the damage, but we know there will be damage. Many of them live in homes that have been found to have 10 times the EPA limits for lead in drinking water. The Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, yesterday told us that some of the lead samples reached the level of toxic dumps, so far beyond the level that is acceptable for human consumption. This means a generation of Flint kids are in danger of suffering brain damage, developmental delays, and behavior issues for the rest of their lives. To add insult to injuries, when mothers came to the State nurse to fight for their children, they were met with apathy. Listen to what they were told: It's just a few IQ points. . . . It's not the end of the world. This is supposedly a quote from a State nurse. The Flint water crisis truly is a tragedy. We need to step forward. It does not just mean funding. It reminds us of the importance of clean drinking water that we all take for granted. When I think of all of the efforts on the floor of the Senate to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and to remove their authority to deal with issues involving clean water, it is hard to imagine that they could envision what happened in Flint, because having access to clean water should not be determined by your ZIP Code or your government. I hope my Republican colleagues will work with us on a bipartisan basis, the way we always do it when it comes to disasters that hurt innocent people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.