Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cantwell, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following individuals with the Committee on Energy and National Resources: Frances Brie Van Cleve, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2016; Stephanie Teich-McGoldrick, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2016; and Betsy Rosenblatt, a Democratic detailee, through December 31, 2016.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday Americans once again paused to remember a great and prophetic leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Chances are, you heard a snippet yesterday of Dr. King's immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Maybe you heard a tape of Dr. King dreaming of that day when ``my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' That is the Martin Luther King, Jr., that we like to remember: the dreamer. But Dr. King did more than inspire us. He challenged us. And he challenges us still. Dr. King told us about his dream for America in 1963. He was murdered in 1968. In the 5 years between the March on Washington and his death, Dr. King's mission--and his challenges to us--grew. Like the prophet he was, in his final years, Dr. King spoke more and more frequently and forcefully about injustice. Many of the injustices that Dr. King spoke of remain with us today. Some are even greater today than when Dr. King died. Three years after Dr. King's assassination, the writer Carl Wendell Hines penned a poem which he entitled, ``A Dead Man's Dream.'' These are his words: Now that he is safely dead let us praise him Build monuments to his glory, sing hosannas to his name. Dead men make such convenient heroes. They cannot rise to challenge the images we would fashion from their lives. And besides, it is easier to build monuments than to make a better world. So now that he is safely dead We, with eased consciences, can teach our children that he was a great man, Knowing that the cause for which he lived is still a cause And the dream for which he died is still a dream A dead man's dream. So wrote the poet Carl Wendell Hines 45 years ago. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were two of the most important laws passed in the last century. Dr. King's leadership and the sacrifices of millions of other men and women of good faith who believed in his mission were indispensable to the passage of those two historic laws. But Dr. King knew that civil rights and voting rights were only partial victories without economic justice. As he, himself, said of the now iconic Greensboro lunch counter sit-ins: ``What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford to buy a hamburger?'' At the end of his life, Dr. King was planning what he called the Poor People's Campaign. He was challenging America to offer greater economic justice and opportunity to poor people of all races and backgrounds. We have much more work to do if we are going to make that part of Dr. King's dream a reality. The Great Recession ended officially in 2009. Economic growth has returned to America. But for African Americans and many other Americans, economic fairness is farther out of reach than it's been in decades. Wall Street has regained all of the value it lost in the Great Recession and then some. But middle-class and working-class Americans haven't recovered from that economic disaster. When you factor in inflation, the average American family hasn't had a raise since 1971, shortly after Dr. King's death. A recent survey shows that 62 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts--and a third of those undersavers have no savings account at all. In 1965, the average CEO was paid 20 times as much as the average worker in his or her--usually his--company. Today the average CEO earns more than 295 times as much as the average worker. The economic disparities are even greater when you factor in race. Think about this: African Americans are almost three times more likely to live in poverty today than White Americans. And the median net worth of White households is 13 times the level for Black households. We have a long way to go to achieve Dr. King's dream of economic justice and fairness in America. We should strengthen the Wall Street reforms that Congress passed to prevent a repeat of the kind of recklessness that caused the Great Recession, not gut those reforms. Dr. King was murdered in Memphis, TN, where he had gone to show support for striking sanitation workers. Two months earlier, two black sanitation workers in Memphis had been crushed to death by faulty equipment. The city's sanitation workers organized a strike for job safety, better pay, and the right to unionize; and Dr. King took on their cause. For years now, the rights of working people to band together and unionize has been under attack--an attack financed by wealthy corporate interests. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association, which asks the Court to overrule decades of precedent protecting the ability of working people to win fair wages and working conditions through effective unionizing. If we truly believe in the America Martin Luther King gave his life for, we should protect the right of workers to form and join unions, not work to diminish and destroy that right. The words that Dr. King spoke at the 1963 March on Washington have become part of our American creed. But the 1963 March was not the first time that Martin Luther King had spoken to a large crowd in Washington. In 1957, on the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic Brown v. Board of Education decision that found segregated, ``separate but equal'' schools to be inherently unequal and unconstitutional, a 29-year-old Martin Luther King spoke in Washington at a rally billed as a Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom. For 3 years, Southern States had engaged in what they called ``massive resistance'' to the Supreme Court's ruling. Martin Luther King titled his remarks at the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage Give Us the Ballot. His message was simple: If Congress and other elected officials will not enforce the law of the land, give African Americans the ballot, and ``we will elect legislatures that will.'' Eight years later, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. For years, the Voting Rights Act was hailed by both parties as a great achievement. It was repeatedly reauthorized by large, bipartisan majorities in Congress. In 2013, however, a slim conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder by striking down the provision that required certain jurisdictions to preclear any changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. If we truly believe in Dr. King's dream for America, let's work together to restore the Voting Rights Act this year. One year to the day before he died, Dr. King delivered a sermon at Riverside Church in New York City that cost him the support of many old political allies. It was a speech condemning America's actions in the war in Vietnam. If Dr. King were alive today, I think he would be heartbroken, and he would challenge us to confront the tidal wave of guns that have turned so many American neighborhoods into combat zones. Yes, the Second Amendment speaks of a right to bear arms. But children ought to have a right to play on school playgrounds without getting caught in gang crossfire. Americans ought to be able to go to a movie or to a college lecture or a church Bible study class without risking being killed by someone who is too sick or too dangerous to have a gun but has one anyway. Martin Luther King was taken from us by gun violence. If we truly believe in his dream, let's work together to find ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands. ``It is easier to build monuments than to make a better world.'' That is what the poet said. But people don't elect us to do the easy work. They expect us to do the hard work, the necessary work, of making America better, fairer, and more secure. I ask my colleagues: Let's work together to advance economic justice, protect voting rights, and end the violence that is turning too many American neighborhoods into war zones. In short, let's work together to advance Dr. King's dream.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for giving me an opportunity to say a few words before we adjourn this evening.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some months ago, in the midst of debate on the nuclear agreement with Iran, I came to the Senate floor to remind my colleagues of some recent history involving other negotiations undertaken with troubling regimes that turned out to serve our national security interests. I reminded my Republican colleagues that John Kennedy negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis, saving us from nuclear war. I reminded them that Richard Nixon negotiated with the Chinese on normalizing relations, even while that Communist regime in China was providing weapons to the North Vietnamese, who were using them against American soldiers. I, of course, reminded them that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviets while the Communist nation had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the United States, was occupying Eastern Europe, and was supporting troubling regimes around the world. Let us also recall how many on the right in the political spectrum savaged then President Reagan for negotiating with the Soviets on nuclear arms. Let me read an excerpt from the January 17, 1988, New York Times about the opposition--eerily familiar to what we have been hearing in the debate on the Iran nuclear agreement--Reagan faced in negotiating an arms agreement with the Soviets: Already, right-wing groups . . . have mounted a strong campaign against the INF treaty. They have mailed out close to 300,000 letters opposing it. They have circulated 5,000 cassette recordings of Gen. Bernard Rogers, former Supreme Commander of NATO, attacking it. And, finally, they are preparing to run newspaper ads this month savaging Reagan as a new Neville Chamberlain, signing an accord with Hitler and gullibly predicting ``peace for our time.'' Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will said in a 1987 Newsweek column of negotiating arms agreements with the Soviets, ``Reagan has dramatically advanced the moral and psychological disarmament of the West by emphatically siding with those . . . who emphasize the role of ideology, and hence the radical differentness and dangerousness of the Soviet threat.'' The conservative National Review's May 22, 1987, edition had the following cover entitled ``Reagan's Suicide Pact'' concerning Reagan's negotiation with the Soviets. While opposed by some at the time, few in this Chamber would look back today and say that these negotiations were a mistake or that the agreements that were reached between Reagan and the Soviets didn't actually serve long-term American national security interests. So we are here today with the fulfillment of the first stage of a historic agreement between world powers and Iran that has effectively eliminated that country's ability to build a nuclear weapon--a weapon that could have threatened our close allies and the world. Only a few months after this agreement was reached, Iran has met its critical commitments. It destroyed its only source of weapons-grade plutonium by literally pouring concrete into the heart of the reactor. It shipped 98 percent of its low-enriched uranium, at least 25,000 pounds--some 12 tons--of this low-enriched uranium out of the country. Recall that thanks to the interim agreement, Iran had already shipped out all of its more dangerous highly enriched uranium. It dismantled and removed two-thirds of its centrifuges--thousands of its centrifuges--and it has allowed international inspectors unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities and supply chain. A simple question to the critics of the Iran nuclear agreement: Today, is Iran closer or further away from the development of a nuclear weapon? The answer is that it is further away. There is no other reasonable conclusion. Do you remember the speeches given by Prime Minister Netanyahu and many of the critics of this agreement? They were telling us that Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. Now by consensus we believe they are at least 1 year away from developing a nuclear weapon if they completely walked away from this agreement. Without a nuclear weapon, Iran is not the same kind of threat to the Middle East, Israel, or to the world. All of what I said has been verified by international inspectors. Do you recall Ronald Reagan reminding us to trust but verify? We verified. The agreement gives inspectors continued access in perpetuity. In a few months, Iran has gone from a breakout time of a nuclear weapon from a month or 2 to at least 1 year. Quite simply, under Barack Obama's Iran nuclear weapon agreement, their program has finally been brought to a halt without firing a shot--something no previous administration had been able to accomplish. That such a difficult task was accomplished is a testament to the tireless work of our former colleague and current Secretary of State John Kerry and his team. This Senator thinks of all those who worked so hard on this for so many months to achieve it. Tough diplomacy has also brought home a number of Americans who were unjustly held in Iran. These Americans had not even left Iranian airspace before many of the Republicans running for President unleashed another wave of worn-out rhetoric criticizing the President's effort that led to the release of these Americans being held prisoner. They also failed to offer a substantive alternative approach. Let me remind the naysayers that it was Ronald Reagan who traded weapons to Iran for seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon-- not a handful of nonviolent sanctions violators but weapons to what was then our arch enemy who had only recently held more than 60 American diplomats as hostages for 444 days. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped by the Reagan administration to Iran and only 3 hostages had been released. They in turn were replaced with three more, sadly, in what then-Secretary of State George Shultz called ``a hostage bazaar.'' I have met the families of those held hostage, and I can't say what I would do in each case if I were President in those heartbreaking situations. But I do know it is far easier for these Republican Presidential candidates and critics of this administration to arm-chair the Secretary of State or President than to actually make the tough decisions that brought these men and women back home to the United States. While I applaud the nuclear deal and the release of the detained Americans, I am under no illusions about the Iranian regime. I believe there is a faction in Iran that wants Iran to integrate into the global community and reject Iranian belligerence in the region. Certainly a large number of the Iranian people feel that way. But there are deeply troubling hardliners in Iran as well. They continue to support some of the most troubling groups in the region, from Hezbollah, to Hamas, to the Assad regime. They continue to imprison their own people for wanting more freedoms. They threaten Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, and the region's broader security. I hope that recent events mark the beginning of a gradual change away from these hardline policies and that we can continue to work with wiser voices on shared challenges such as Afghanistan and Syria. Until then, the administration has wisely maintained sanctions on Iran for its support of these terrorist groups and human rights violations. I also strongly support the most recent sanctions related to Iran's ballistic missile testing announced by the Obama regime. The world will have ongoing, intensive inspection of Iran's remaining nuclear infrastructure to make sure there is no cheating on the agreement. It is always easy to threaten force or simply say that troubling regimes must bow to a rhetorical demand. It is another thing to actually use diplomacy to reach these goals. Let's not forget the price in lives, treasure, and regional upheaval that the Iraq war caused us-- prices we continue to pay to this day. To end Iran's nuclear weapons program without another devastating war is remarkable and worth the risk. We should follow the words of President Kennedy: ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would also like to speak for a moment about the flooding situation in the Midwest, and, of course, in my colleagues' neighboring State of Missouri. Last month, right in the midst of the holidays, rain storms swept through my State, covering it with 7 inches of rainfall in a very short period of time. The heavy rainfall caused water levels on the rivers to reach record highs. We were surprised. We expect this in the spring, not in December. Communities had to evacuate their homes for their own safety. Sadly, these storms were so severe they flooded roadways, claiming the lives of 10 people whose vehicles were swept away by the floods. Many of them did not realize how high the water actually was in these flash floods or how fast it was moving. They got caught in dangerous waters. Two areas that were some of the worst impacted were Alexander and Randolph Counties on the Mississippi River--Monroe County, I might add as well. Last Wednesday I went to visit two towns in these areas, Olive Branch and Evansville, to talk to the residents. In Olive Branch I met with Alexander County board vice-chair Lamar Houston and spoke with State representative Brandon Phelps. Both have been working diligently to help the community recover. I have some photographs which I think will tell the story. This a photograph from Olive Branch. You can see water completely surrounding the home and covering the nearby areas. The levee that protects the communities of Olive Branch, Hodges Park, and Unity was breached and overtopped by a record crest at the Mississippi River. These overtops caused miles of flood damage, impacting ag lands as well as homes and businesses. Before flooding occurred, local law enforcement and emergency responders tried to evacuate everybody as quickly as possible. Thankfully, a lot of people heeded the call and went to find shelter with family and friends, but many residents I spoke with in these towns were still concerned about being able to recover from the flood and the damage. One man from Olive Branch, Bruce Ford, said his auto repair shop was engulfed by water. He worries he could be out of business for months. Bruce is working night and day to clean out the debris and to move his equipment back in. He was not sure when his shop would be ready to open. Even worse, if the levee breaches again this spring, which it might, he worries that he will not have the means to fix it all over again in just a few months. In Evansville--and this photo is taken in that area; this was taken on New Year's Eve crossing the Mississippi River at St. Louis. It shows the devastation on the Illinois side. As you can see, these buildings are nearly completely submerged in water, and for many areas around St. Louis the damage you see here is typical. When I went to visit Evansville, about an hour south from here, I met with residents who worked around the clock to sandbag homes and businesses to keep the Kaskaskia River out of their town. I met with Evansville mayor Craig Valleroy, emergency management codirector Nancy Shilling, who did a great job in making a presentation to me, and State Representative Jerry Costello, Jr. I was given a tour around the waterfront and flooded areas. As is often the case with disasters like these, I was impressed with the local residents, first responders, local officials, and volunteers, who just stepped up and started filling sandbags. By building a wall of sandbags around downtown, Evansville residents were able to hold off the worst of the flooding. Last week, I spoke with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency director, James Joseph, and the FEMA Regional Administrator, Andrew Velasquez, about the rain and flooding. The Governor declared 23 counties State disaster areas. State and local emergency responders were dispatched to affected areas. The State provided almost 1 million sandbags--997,000; 4,000 tons of sand; and 117 DOT trucks for flood mitigation. As the water continues to recede in the coming days, local officials and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency are working together to assess the damages. I might say there is one issue that Senator Kirk and I have looked at over and over again. We are blessed in our State to have about 13 million people. The largest percentage of them are around the Chicagoland area, but we have a vast State beyond Chicago. That is where I hail from--downstate Illinois, with hundreds of miles of small town and rural areas. When they go through flooding like this, and they are making a calculation of how much damage there has to be in order for the Federal Government to step in and help pay for the damage, they take into account the entire State and its population. The net result is, had this flooding occurred in a sparsely populated State, they would have received Federal assistance. But we have to hit a threshold number of about $18 million in public infrastructure damage before we qualify for Federal assistance. Senator Kirk and I have both witnessed the damage of two tornadoes in Illinois, one in Washington, IL, and another one in Harrisburg, which at first glance we thought would clearly qualify for Federal assistance. In neither case did we make the threshold of $18 million in damage. So I think this formula needs to be recalculated. The fact that we happen to have a great city like Chicago and the region around it as part of our State should not really inure to the detriment of people downstate in smaller rural areas who suffer this kind of damage from flooding and tornadoes. I am proud of the volunteers who came forward. I want to thank our National Guard. They are always there when we need them. Local law enforcement never gets enough credit--our firefighters, police, first responders, hospitals, and volunteers. When I went into Olive Branch--it is a tiny town--most of the activity in the community center that I went into was happening in the kitchen. They said: Go to that lady wearing the pink hat. She is in charge. She had been there every single day since this flooding started, asking all the neighbors to bring in covered dishes and some food for the volunteers and the people who were displaced from their homes. God bless them for caring so much for their neighbors and responding in this time of need. I want to recognize the hard work of the Federal and State employees who have been engaged in this. I have no doubt that the people of my State who have been impacted by these floods are going to roll up their sleeves and clean up the mess and get ready to make life normal again. Our thoughts are with the many people today who have lost their loved ones. There were about 25 who died in these floods in the Midwest. We will again stand with them and others as we prepare for the future, to rebuild as the people of Illinois and the United States always do, stronger for the experience. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, a few months ago my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt, took the floor and spoke to two issues we have in common. I will speak to one of them in a moment--the flooding in the Midwest--but I wish to also address another one that he raised. Senator Blunt is in an extraordinary position, having been given an opportunity to handle the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Within the Health and Human Services appropriations bill is funding for most of the biomedical research by the Federal Government. I have spoken to Senator Blunt over the past year and even before about my strong feelings on this subject. I feel, as most Americans do, that our investment in biomedical research is a wise investment, potentially sparing people from disease and death that could follow an illness but also making an investment in America's innovative economy, creating opportunities for jobs and for expanded research and new products and pharmaceuticals. Senator Blunt took that challenge to heart, and when he was faced with the appropriations bill for this Department, he made a special effort when it came to medical research. I am so happy that he did. It was only a few years ago that we had automatic, across-the-board cuts called sequestration. It was devastating. As a net result of that, many of the youngest and most promising researchers gave up on the field because they didn't think there was a commitment from Congress, from the President, and from the government to continue to expand biomedical research. We saw the median age of researchers climbing because younger researchers looked for other jobs. That is a horrible waste of talent and a squandering of an opportunity, I am sure, to find ways to make life more bearable and to cure diseases across America. Several years ago, when I visited the NIH, the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, told me that if we could have 5 percent real growth in biomedical research at the NIH for 10 years, he could light up the scoreboard. We were on the cusp of so many discoveries that this was an opportunity, if the investment were made, to really have some medical breakthroughs. I took that to heart and introduced a bill called the American Cures Act, and I am sure Senator Blunt and many of my colleagues are tired of hearing about it. The notion is 10 percent by Congress; 5 percent real growth each year when it comes to the NIH. As it turns out, this year we are knocking on the door of doing just that with the investment that was made by the appropriations bill. This investment is almost $42 billion in biomedical research, $32 billion in the National Institutes of Health, a 6.6-percent increase over last year; $7 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 4.5-percent increase over fiscal year 2015. There are two other areas of research opportunities in biomedical research: the Veterans Medical and Prosthetics Research Program and the Department of Defense Health Program. That is an appropriations bill I have something to do with, working with the chairman, Senator Cochran. Both of those programs received a 7-percent increase over the previous fiscal year. These increases at NIH, CDC, Veterans, and Defense are a real turnaround. They bring to an end a decades-long downward trend when it comes to biomedical research. Senator Blunt has said--and I have, too--this shouldn't be a one-hit wonder. We have to repeat that this year when it comes to the appropriations for the next fiscal year beginning October 1. We have to make sure we make our promise and keep it when it comes to biomedical research. If we do it, I know this level of funding is going to result in dramatic, positive developments. There are so many areas we need help with. I can think of a few that are obvious, including Alzheimer's. An American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's once every 67 seconds. When my staff told me that, I didn't believe it. I said: Go back, recalculate, and tell me the real number. It turns out they were right. Once every 67 seconds, a person is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Last year we spent over $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid for Alzheimer's care. That is just a fraction of the total cost. Think about what individual families spent, what private insurance sources spent, the charitable care that was given to Alzheimer's patients. So when we talk about increasing the NIH budget by $2 billion for 1 year, it is a tiny fraction. It is 1 percent of the amount we are spending on Alzheimer's. If we could find a way to detect Alzheimer's earlier, delay its onset, reduce the period of time of suffering, or perhaps even find a cure, God willing, it would have a dramatic, positive impact on so many lives and families and on our bottom-line Federal budget. Take that argument about Alzheimer's and apply it as well to cancer. How many of our families and friends are suffering and fighting cancer right now? My wife and I were struck over the holidays by how many of our close friends are battling cancer at this moment. We know they are looking for hope. They are looking for drugs. They are looking for something that will break through and give them a chance at life. That is why I believe this biomedical research is so critical. Let me add one postscript. Stopping with these agencies is not enough. I recently visited the Department of Energy. The new Secretary there, Ernest Moniz, and I were talking about biomedical research. He said that when it comes to the technology for imaging that is making such a difference in the world, it isn't just in biomedicine; it is in engineering and science as well, in the Department of Science, within the Department of Energy. So let's not be shortsighted. Let's have an open mind about innovation and creation. Last week I was in Peoria, IL, an area I am proud to represent. I went to visit OSF Hospital there. I went to what is known as the Jump Center. We don't forget that name very easily. What they have done in the Jump Center is they have combined the University of Illinois Medical School and the University of Illinois Engineering Department in a common effort to bring new engineering and new technology to medicine and medical breakthroughs. What they are doing there is amazing--first, training doctors and medical professionals to do their job effectively without mistakes. That, of course, is the ultimate outcome we are looking for. Over their shoulders are engineers and technicians who are looking at these doctors doing their work, finding new applications for computers and engineering technology that can make their work easier and more effective. They showed me a model of the human heart. It was a heart of an infant with serious heart problems. This model they gave me was the actual human heart reproduced of an infant who was facing surgery. They took the MRIs and the CAT scans, put them into a 3D copier, and produced this little heart that you could hold in your hand. They were able to give that heart to the surgeon to look at before the surgery, and they opened it so that the surgeon could look inside that heart model--a model which tracked the reality of that infant--and know before the surgery what he would find. It meant less time on the heart-lung machine, a more likely positive recovery. It was the use of technology in engineering to move us forward and to give that little baby a fighting chance. So I thank Senator Blunt. I want to especially thank my colleague Senator Patty Murray. She has been a terrific leader in this field, both on the appropriations and authorizing committees, and also Senator Lamar Alexander. I think we have all come to conclude that regardless of how much time we have in the Senate, we should leave a mark that makes a difference. When it comes to biomedical research, this year's budget, which Senator Blunt referred to, will make a difference. Now, let's make sure it is not a one-hit wonder. Let's make sure we do it again in next year's budget as well.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue of gun violence and to commend the President for announcing last week a set of commonsense steps to make our country safer. The need for action to reduce gun violence in America is urgent. About 32,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. Every day on average 297 men, women, and children are shot, 89 of them fatally. Last year, by one count, there were at least 372 mass shooting incidents where 4 or more people were shot--more than one a day in America. In the city of Chicago alone last year, 2,939 people were injured by gunfire, and at least 88 people have been shot so far this year, 2016. The 468 homicides in Chicago last year sadly led the Nation--a number larger than the number of fatalities in the cities of New York or Los Angeles, which are much larger cities. There is an epidemic of gun violence in America. Can you imagine if 32,000 Americans were dying each year from Ebola or from tainted drugs or at the hands of terrorists? Lawmakers would pull out all the stops to bring down those deaths. Compare the death toll from gun violence to the death toll from terrorism in the United States. According to the New America Foundation, since 9/11 a total of 93 people have been killed by terrorist incidents in America--48 have been killed by rightwing extremists and 45 have been killed by Islamic terrorists. Americans are rightly concerned about the threat of ISIS terrorism, but we cannot ignore the threat posed by gun violence to the citizens of our Nation. Sadly, for years Members of Congress have just shrugged their shoulders as each day we hear another heartbreaking story of the victims of gun violence. It is baffling to me that Congress refuses to do anything about gun violence, especially since the American people overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis agree on commonsense steps that we should take. For example, about 90 percent of Americans agree that a background check should be conducted before a gun is sold. Background checks through what is known as the FBI NICS system help ensure that the buyer is not a convicted felon, a domestic abuser, or a person with a history of serious mental instability or who is otherwise prohibited from buying a gun. Background checks work. Over 2 million gun sales have been denied to prohibited purchasers over the years. You think to yourself, why would a convicted felon be so stupid as to go in and try to buy a gun when he faces a background check? He does it anyway. They do it over and over, and 2 million times we have denied them weapons because they were prohibited by law because of their records. There are still loopholes that would allow many sales to take place without this basic background check, especially at gun shows and over the Internet. Think about how people made Christmas and holiday purchases this year. Many of us went to the Internet. That is exactly where people are going to buy firearms without background checks. When you have loopholes like these, it is easy to understand how dangerous people can get their hands on guns. Look at the way these loopholes have affected the city of Chicago. There is a flood of illegal guns coming into Chicago from Indiana, especially from Lake County, IN, which is right across the border from my State. Last Friday, the Chicago Tribune newspaper quoted Sheriff John Buncich of Lake County, IN, saying: Individuals are skirting federal law, especially at these gun shows, whether they want to admit it or not. There's a lot of illegal gun sales. The Tribune article went on to say: Buncich stressed he supports Second Amendment rights and doesn't want to take guns from people. He noted, however, that hundreds of guns from Lake County show up in Chicago crimes every year. ``We need to do something to stem the violence,'' Buncich said. ``It's not going to hurt the law- abiding citizen.'' Last year I met with the head of the Chicago Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal agency charged with enforcing our gun laws. He told me that in the highest crime neighborhoods of Chicago, when they confiscated the crime guns after the act, they found that as much as 40 percent of those crime guns were coming in from Indiana. Here is an example of how it happens. In 2014 a man named David Lewisbey of South Holland, IL, was sentenced for illegally trafficking hundreds of guns from Indiana to Chicago. The U.S. attorney's office said that over a 4-year period, Lewisbey ``routinely traveled to various gun shows in Indiana and purchased duffle bags full of guns that he brought back to Chicago.'' Lewisbey used a forged signature to procure an Indiana driver's license, and that was all he needed to fill up the trunk of his car with ammunition and guns and to drive that Skyway over into the State of Illinois and to sell those guns in Chicago to kill innocent people. During just one 48-hour period in 2012, Lewisbey bought 43 guns in Indiana and delivered them to a convicted felon on Chicago's South Side. Does anyone believe he had a Second Amendment right to buy 43 guns with an illegal ID and sell them to a convicted felon in Chicago? I hope not. If everyone who sells guns for profit at Indiana gun shows had conducted background checks, it is highly unlikely that a trafficker like this would be able to get away with this for years. The system would have caught him. But because of the loopholes in the system, the weaknesses in the law, this individual was able to avoid detection and literally supply hundreds of crime guns in Chicago. Of course we know what happened to those guns--they turned into tragedy and havoc in the neighborhoods around that great city. I listened so many times when critics said: Well, look at Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the Nation, and look at all that gun violence. Here it is: in some parts of Chicago up to 40 percent of those crime guns are coming across the border with no background checks and sold in alleyways and dark corridors of our city. That isn't because of weak or ineffective Illinois and Chicago laws; it is because of our inability to make the Federal law stronger. Let's be clear. Background checks are not a heavy burden for law- abiding gun owners. At most, they would cause a short delay in buying a gun. But when we have gaping holes in the background check system, we are basically handing guns to criminals on a silver platter. Sadly, this Congress has so far failed to even address this problem. We weren't able to overcome a Republican filibuster of the Manchin- Toomey legislation in 2013. We tried again last month and fell short again. The President decided to do what he can within his lawful authority to close gaps in the system. Last week the President put forth guidance that makes clear that you can be engaged in the business of selling firearms even if you aren't a storefront operation. For too long people who sell guns for profit at gun shows or online have been able to avoid the requirement to conduct background checks. They were claiming they were just selling guns as a hobby. This man bought 43 guns at a gun show as a hobby and sold them to convicted felons in Chicago. The President's guidance makes clear that if you are repetitively buying or selling guns for profit, you need to get a gun dealer license and do background checks or you are breaking the law. Of course, the President's actions won't close the gun show and Internet loopholes altogether. That would take an act of Congress. But the President has made a move in the right direction, and it will help. The President took other important steps last week--clearly within his constitutional authority--that will help save lives. He is working to make the background check system faster by adding more FBI examiners and improving the system's technology. A faster system could have stopped the Charleston church shooter who killed nine worshippers last year in a horrific terrorist attack. This person was able to buy a gun under another loophole in the law because the background check hadn't been finished in 3 days. The default position, if you haven't cleared a background check, is that the gun is sold to you. That meant that this man picked up the gun when the background check wasn't completed and went out and caused this mayhem and took so many innocent lives. The President is also strengthening the reporting requirements so law enforcement will know when guns are lost or stolen during shipment. The administration is redoubling its efforts to improve mental health services and to make sure the background check system has complete records on those found to be mentally unstable. Finally, the President has sponsored research on gun safety technology. This is critical. Right now we have security features on our phones, computers, and cars to prevent thieves and unauthorized people from using them. Similar technology is available today so that an unauthorized user will not be able to fire a gun. That means a person can't steal a gun and resell it and a kid can't play with a gun and hurt himself or someone else. For reasons that cannot be explained, the gun lobby opposes gun safety technology, even calling for a boycott of any company that uses it. Now this administration is going to use its research dollars and purchasing power to promote safer gun technology. This could be a game changer when it comes to preventing gun accidents and deterring illegal trafficking. I commend the President for the reasonable, commonsense steps he has taken to combat the epidemic of gun violence. The steps he announced will not prevent all gun deaths--no single measure can--but they will help. I hope my colleagues in Congress will not take a step backward and try to undermine these basic, commonsense reforms with riders or appropriations restrictions. I am going to fight hard against the gun lobby if they try. I hope Congress will instead move forward, finish the job on background checks, and do all we can to reduce the high toll of gun violence in our communities. Over the weekend, I was visiting with friends and former colleague Mark Pryor of Arkansas. I went down to Stuttgart, AR. Anyone who is a duck hunter in the Midwest or in America knows the name of that town. Stuttgart, AR, is probably the capital of duck hunting in the Midwest or in the United States. The local radio station there is KWAK, giving an idea of their commitment to duck season 60 days of the year when Stuttgart comes to life with hunters from all over the United States and all over the world. Saturday afternoon I went to the largest sporting goods store, Mac's, and watched hundreds of men and some women in camouflage clothes getting ready to go out for the duck hunt. For them, it is not only a rite of passage, it is a way of life. They love it. You see the camouflage on everything in sight. Of course, when you go into Mac's, there are plenty of firearms for sale and other equipment that is needed so that you can hunt effectively and safely. You go in the store, and if you want to be a duck hunter in Arkansas, you first have to buy a license, which I did. Then you go through the ritual of making sure you have all the right equipment and getting ready to go out to hunt for ducks. There is not a single thing proposed by President Obama that will in any way slow down or stop those men and women who want to legally use their firearms for that sport--nothing. What the President is trying to do is to stop convicted felons and people who are so mentally unstable that they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm from having that opportunity. It turns out an overwhelming majority of firearm owners agree with the President. You would never know it, would you, as you hear every single Republican Presidential candidate condemn President Obama's actions. What a chasm there is in the culture between the people who are firearm owners and who enjoy that opportunity and responsibility and those who are on the political scene and ignore the fact that to preserve that right we should pass commonsense changes in the law to make them even more effective and make certain that people who misuse firearms do not have that opportunity. I hope to work with my colleagues in the Senate and both political parties to achieve the goal of protecting the rights of those who use firearms legally, safely, and responsibly within the confines of the law and to stop the illicit trafficking of guns that are taking over 30,000 lives each and every year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow evening President Obama will come before Congress to deliver his annual State of the Union Address. America has changed a great deal since President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address 7 years ago. We remember he inherited an economy in free fall. There was a real danger that the United States would face another Great Depression. Instead, we slid into a great recession. The President--President Obama--did all he could to bring our economy back to life. Recent economic indicators show that his strategy moved us in the right direction. More Americans are working. We are seeing prosperity and opportunity return. There are still challenges ahead. We still face income inequality, and there are many things we must do to make this a fairer nation when it comes to our economy, but we avoided a Great Depression because Americans are resilient and because our government, under the leadership of President Obama, had the courage to take bold action to help put Americans back to work and to invest in America's future when the private sector would not or could not. Our Union--and our future--is undoubtedly stronger today than when the President first took office, and I look forward to tomorrow evening when we hear this President's hopes and plans for his final year in service to our Nation. This afternoon I wish to take a few minutes to talk about another President and an earlier State of the Union Address. It was 75 years ago, on January 6, 1941, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt traveled from the White House to Capitol Hill to deliver his annual message to the Nation. FDR had been reelected weeks earlier to an unprecedented third term as President. Despite historic reforms in progress, America was still battling the Great Depression he had inherited. Pearl Harbor was 11 months in the future. Understandably, many Americans wanted to believe that the war that was consuming Europe and beginning in the Pacific could remain their problem over there, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt sensed that would not be the case. He could see America would inevitably be drawn into this conflict. In addressing Congress, FDR proposed to make America the ``arsenal of democracy.'' He also urged Congress to create a new ``lend lease'' program, enabling our historic ally, Great Britain, and their allies to withstand the assault of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. He did something else. FDR knew that in order for the Nation to face World War II, America needed to know not just what they would be fighting against but what they would be fighting for. So in some of the darkest days of World War II, with Adolf Hitler vowing to impose a new order on Europe at gunpoint, Franklin Roosevelt spoke of a moral order founded on four essential human freedoms that would be the right of every person everywhere. Those four freedoms he spoke of were the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. Norman Rockwell was an amazing American. He was a great illustrator. It is interesting that he did so many cover drawings for great magazines of his time, such as the Saturday Evening Post. When he heard FDR's ``Four Freedoms'' speech given to Congress, it inspired him to create images. Those images emerged after the original speech was given, and many people credit those images created by Norman Rockwell with allowing Americans to visualize what each of the four freedoms meant in very human terms. I brought copies of them to the floor because they so graphically illustrate the message which FDR delivered in his ``Four Freedoms'' speech. The freedom of speech. This Norman Rockwell illustration shows a working man standing and speaking his mind in a townhall meeting. Freedom of worship. This photo shows a group of people from different backgrounds, each praying to God--the God of his or her understanding. Freedom from want. This classic illustration shows a family gathered for a Thanksgiving feast. The last of the four freedoms is the freedom from fear. This illustration shows a mother and father looking at their sleeping children tucked safely into bed. In the coming struggle, President Roosevelt said, America would defend itself not just with arms but also with ``the stamina and courage which comes from unshakeable belief in the manner of life that we are defending.'' That is exactly what they did. During World War II, 16 million Americans--one out of every eight-- put on a uniform and fought for the promise of the four freedoms. Tens of millions more Americans back home joined the fight by planting victory gardens, recycling everything from bacon grease to tin cans, serving as ``soil soldiers'' in the Civilian Conservation Corps, and working in war munitions factories as Rosie the Riveters. After the war, the ``greatest generation,'' as Tom Brokaw characterized them, may have given up their uniforms, but they continued their fight for FDR's four freedoms. From the earliest days of the Roosevelt administration, Franklin and Eleanor had worked to rewrite the rules of America's economy to give average workers and families a fighting chance against powerful corporations and entrenched wealthy special interests. They strengthened labor unions to improve workers' pay, working conditions, safety in the workplace, health care, retirement--things we take for granted today. After the war, the same Americans who had endured the hardships of the Depression and who had saved the world from tyranny went to work and laid the foundation for the creation of the largest middle class and the strongest economy in the history of the world. They built new schools, new homes, new towns, an interstate highway system. At the same time, more Americans began to challenge longstanding injustices based on race, creed, gender, and other distinctions. As the historian and author Harvey Kaye writes, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America greatly ``expanded the `we' in `we the people.' '' Under the leadership of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Americans saved our Nation's economy from ruin, saved the world from tyranny, and they did all this while making America freer, more equal, and more democratic than it had ever been. The promise of the four freedoms would inspire not only Americans, but it inspired the world. The four freedoms became part of the preamble to the United Nations ``Universal Declaration of Human Rights.'' That declaration, drafted by a committee chaired by the great stateswoman Eleanor Roosevelt, represents the first time in history that nations around the world agreed to a list of human rights to be universally protected. My wife Loretta and I are honored to include among our friends Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR and Eleanor's granddaughter. She lives in Maine now, but she spent most of her life living in my home State of Illinois. Similar to her grandparents, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt is full of optimism, energy, and a fierce love for this Nation. She has done so much to advance her grandparents' efforts to make America freer and fairer. I want to say to my friend Anna, America remembers and honors your grandparents' legacy. We are a better Nation because of what their leadership and sacrifice meant to us. As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of FDR's ``Four Freedoms'' speech, it is clear that we still have a lot of work to do to make the promise of the four freedoms real. Income inequality in America is greater today than at any time since just before the Great Depression. There are many reasons for America's growing economic inequality, including globalization and technology, but the biggest reason is nearly 40 years of deliberate political decisions to undo the progress of FDR's New Deal and concentrate more and more income and wealth in the hands of the few. FDR was right when he said that ``economic laws are not made by nature [but] by human beings.'' I hope this year we can work together to pass laws that will increase economic opportunity for all Americans, rebuild America's middle class, and free more Americans from the fear of want. FDR said that we Americans believe in the four freedoms not just for ourselves but for our families, for those who vote as we do or look like we do, who live in our neighborhoods and attend our same houses of worship, but we believe in the four freedoms for everyone everywhere. An America that believes in freedom of worship doesn't allow one religious group to deny basic rights to others. Think about our Constitution, which each of us in the Senate is sworn to uphold and defend. There are only three references in that great document to the issue of religion. The first is in the Bill of Rights to guarantee to each of us the right to believe as we wish or not to believe; second, that our government will never establish a religion; and, third, that there will never be a test for qualification for public office involving one's religious beliefs. Making a religious test for public office or even a religious test for immigration is inconsistent with those basic values--inconsistent with those four freedoms. Yet even in this Presidential campaign today, we hear candidates making that proposal. Freedom of speech means allowing others to speak, too, not shouting down those who think differently than we do. Democracy works better with dialogue, not monologues. Years ago when Loretta and I had our first baby, we faced some terrific medical challenges. Sadly, we had no health insurance. Let me state that as a new father, I was never more frightened in my life. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, 17 million Americans and many millions of American parents are now free from that fear, and they know that if this act is eliminated, as has been proposed by some politicians, there is no alternative, there is no protection, and they will face the kind of fear no family should ever face. This year, instead of voting over and over to kill the Affordable Care Act, I am calling the other party to work to strengthen the law. This law isn't perfect, but together we can make the Affordable Care Act work better for all American families. Freedom fear also means that Americans shouldn't have to worry about getting shot when they are playing in a park, sitting in a movie theater, or attending a Bible study class. Even in an election year, we ought to be able to find commonsense ways to protect Americans from the fear and reality of gun violence. We ought to be able to find a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands without undermining basic Second Amendment rights. We owe it to America's families to try. Seventy-five years ago President Roosevelt saw that America would soon be drawn into war. While he didn't live long enough to see America's ultimate victory in World War II, his promise of the four freedoms helped achieve that victory. As we know, the war ended officially with Japan's unconditional surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. A member of Japan's delegation who attended the surrender went to the ceremony fully expecting to hear how the allies intended to take their vengeance on the defeated Japanese people. Instead, he heard General MacArthur speak about the future of freedom for Japan. Years later, he wrote that it was at that ceremony that he understood that ``we weren't beaten on the battlefield by the dint of superior arms; we were defeated in the spiritual conquest by virtue of a nobler idea.'' That idea--the inherent human dignity of every person--is the belief at the heart of the four freedoms. Those freedoms remain as powerful a weapon for peace and progress today as they were 75 years ago. I hope we will remember that this year.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, for several weeks, negotiations have been ongoing on a multitude of controversial provisions relating to the omnibus. While those debates were raging in different parts of the Capitol, work on the Defense appropriations bill continued quietly and efficiently. I believe many Americans would be surprised to know about the exemplary level of bipartisanship that went into crafting this legislation, which provides the funding to take care of the women and men serving our country in uniform. This bill provides for the pay and benefits of each member of the Armed Forces, equips them with the tools they need, and develops the next generation of technology to improve our national security. Neither the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, nor I got everything we wanted out of this bill. Tough decisions had to be made. Chairman Cochran supported a number of my suggestions for the bill, we worked together on others, and we disagreed on a few. The end result is a good bill that meets the needs of our national security. The Defense appropriations bill provides all the needed resources for ongoing military operations, including the funds requested by the President to carry out anti-ISIL operations in Syria and Iraq. It adds $1.2 billion to the request to account for maintaining a larger presence in Afghanistan through 2016. And because the situation in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq is so fluid, it includes additional OCO reprogramming authority--a total of $4.5 billion--to respond to unexpected events. We also maintain robust funding for intelligence collection on traditional and nontraditional threats to this country, so that our Nation can continue to be a step ahead of threats to Americans and our allies. The DOD has a long history of scientific innovation for the purpose of keeping our troops safe and providing an edge over our adversaries. We also know that millions of Americans who have never served in uniform often benefit from these defense breakthroughs. This bill provides a total of $1.94 billion for DOD medical research programs, which is 5 percent real growth over last year's funding level. The medical research funding in this bill is directed toward competition, whether it is the $667 million in core research funding, the $278 million in the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program, the $120 million for breast cancer research, or the variety of other research programs provided in the legislation. I have heard criticism that medical research doesn't belong in a defense bill. Defense medical research is relatively small--NIH research funding is 15 times larger--but DOD has made important breakthroughs that help servicemembers, their families, and all Americans. As one example, Army researchers have developed E75, a vaccine that cuts in half the chance that breast cancer will return. Women around the country benefited from that breakthrough, including those in uniform and those in military families seeking care at DOD hospitals. The bill also provides $2.3 billion for nonmedical basic research, a $220 million increase over the President's request. These funds help expand our knowledge of the universe in a variety of disciplines and may eventually lead to the next technology breakthrough that will enrich our lives. The bill includes $487 million for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, fully funding the request from the Government of Israel. We provide for a strong stand against Russian aggression in Europe. The European Reassurance Initiative, which increases U.S. troop presence and training in more than a dozen countries, is fully funded. An additional $250 million is provided for lethal and nonlethal aid to the Ukraine security services. The bill also includes $412 million to fully fund upgrades to the Army's Stryker fleet because of the threat from Russia. However, the agreement takes a more cautious view of DOD's program to train the Syrian opposition. It is one of many programs for which the Department can request funds by reprogramming from the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund. This process improves congressional oversight as well as places the onus on DOD to justify further expenses for the Syrian training program. The bill includes a long list of increases to defense programs that were underfunded in the President's request. These programs are essential to maintaining the military advantage against our opponents and also support a strong and stable defense industrial base. Some of the highlights include: $1 billion for an additional DDG-51 destroyer, 12 additional F-18 aircraft, 11 additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, $300 million for the Navy's UCLASS drone, sufficient funding to keep the A-10 operating for another year, and $1 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. Finally, the bill includes a provision to guarantee competition for the launch of DOD satellites. I have studied the history of DOD's space launch programs, and it is a testament to how poor oversight leads to taxpayers being stuck with an expensive bill. In the mid-2000s, United Launch Alliance gained a monopoly on satellite launches. Over a few short years, the cost of its rockets escalated by 65 percent. Just this year, SpaceX was certified to compete against ULA. These competitions have barely begun, and already we are seeing large savings in launch costs. But provisions in the Defense Authorization Act are threatening to create a new launch monopoly, this time with SpaceX in charge. The issue is that ULA uses a Russian rocket engine, and a new American-made engine will not be ready to compete until 2022. During that time, DOD wants to compete 37 launches, but under Defense authorization bills, ULA is only allowed to win four of those contracts. We all want to eliminate reliance on Russian engines. This bill adds $144 million to make a new U.S.-built rocket a reality as soon as possible. I must remind Senators that NASA and NOAA are not restricted from using Russian engines for its satellites. Why should we agree to a double standard--a looming monopoly for national security space launches but full and open competition for scientific missions? The provision in this bill simply guarantees that the Air Force for the next year will live under the same rules as NASA and NOAA, while a new American-made rocket is developed and will hopefully be ready in 2022. This large and complex bill amounts to half of the discretionary budget of the United States. It is essential to our national security, and this bill improves on DOD's budget proposals in many ways. Once again, I would like to thank my friend, Chairman Cochran, for his steady hand in moving this legislation forward in a constructive and bipartisan manner. The Defense Subcommittee has a long history of strong partnerships, and I am pleased that this tradition carries on today.

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is amazing some of the people we get to meet in our lives as Senators. There is a medical doctor in Chicago who I didn't know several years ago, but he and his wife have become dear friends in a short period of time. His name is Dr. Zaher Sahloul. He asked for an appointment in my office in Chicago a few years back, and I agreed to it. He came in to tell me a story and to show me some pictures. He is originally from Syria, and he is head of the Syrian- American Medical Society in the Chicagoland area. Because of the tragedy of the civil war in his home country of Syria, he has felt a special obligation to help. What he has done on many occasions now was to get as close to the action as he could in Syria to provide medical assistance to the victims. Many times he risked his life to do it. And other doctors-- some Syrian-American and some not--have joined him in that effort. He would bring me back photographs of what casualties of war look like in Syria. They were heartbreaking--pictures of children who had been maimed and seriously injured by the barrel bombs of President Assad in Syria and stories about parents killed in the bombings that continue day after weary day. Dr. Sahloul would ask me: What can you do, Senator? Can't you help us? Can't you stop this? Of course, that civil war in Syria, which has gone on for 4 years, is almost intractable, almost impossible to define. There are so many forces fighting one another that at any given moment, your ally today may be your enemy tomorrow. I tried, since meeting Dr. Sahloul, to do some things: to come out for a safe zone, a humanitarian zone in Syria, where medical treatment and food and a safe shelter could be found for families who are facing these attacks. We have had some limited--and I underline ``limited''--success in providing these safe zones, but it is a fact that the tragedy of Syria continues even to this minute. If anything, today it is worse because of the bombing by the Russians, which I am told has gone into areas that previously had been protected because of the citizen and civilian populations. The result is obvious. Millions--literally millions of people in Syria over the last 4 years--have fled. They are running for their lives, and they are running from war, and they are running from terrorism. Dr. Sahloul recently wrote an article about his trip to the United States. He arrived in 1989. He tells the story of coming to Chicago and feeling very much alone. He graduated from medical school in Damascus. He had a chance to practice medicine in Chicago, but he wasn't sure that he could ever really fit in. He tells the story of his first Thanksgiving in Chicago in 1989, when a fellow doctor invited him to join her and her family for Thanksgiving dinner. It was a gracious gesture--a gesture of hospitality. Dr. Sahloul has not forgotten it to this day. This article, which I will ask to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my comments, goes into some detail. Dr. Sahloul really wrote this article not to just tell his story but to tell two other stories--the story of immigration, which is literally the story of America, and the story of Syrian refugees. His most recent trip to the region was to the island of Lesbos, which is part of Greece. I went there a few weeks ago with several of my Senate colleagues. Thousands--hundreds of thousands of refugees--are flowing into Lesbos from Turkey. They have left Syria and Afghanistan, and they are working their way into Greece on their way, they hope, to refuge and shelter in Europe. It is impossible to describe, if we have not seen it ourselves, what is going on here. But imagine for a moment that you were so frightened of the prospect of your child or your wife dying in war that you said: Tomorrow, pick up whatever you can carry. We are leaving. We cannot stay here. And if you look at these refugees as they travel--mothers and fathers carrying babies, with toddlers and small children walking alongside of them--you realize how desperate they must be to leave everything behind and to head out on this journey of danger. One of the most dangerous parts of it is that trip across the Aegean Sea between Turkey and Greece. They have to pay smugglers 1,000 euros, which is over $1,000 for each adult, and 500 euros for each child. They put them in these plastic boats. Some of them are given lifejackets. The infants, too small for a lifejacket, are literally given plastic water wings that we give to our infant children to play in the wading pools near our homes. That is all they have. They cram them into these boats. They strap on a Chinese motor. They put just enough gasoline in that engine that they think will make it across--but not more--and try to find someone in the boat who will steer it. They point to their destination, and they leave. Sometimes these boats have 50 or 60 people in them when they are only supposed to have 20 to travel safely. They are warned that as they come up to the shore in Lesbos, Greece, or other islands, they should immediately run into the rocks and scuttle the boat so that it sinks. Otherwise, they are told they will be turned around and pushed back to Turkey, and they may not have enough gas to make it. And that is what happens. Dr. Sahloul tells the story of what happens when these boats are scuttled as they arrive in Greece. He tells of the drowning of little children who don't make it off the boat onto dry land but literally drown right there. We saw one of those photos just a few months ago of a tiny 3-year-old boy who drowned just as he was about to make it into Greece. Dr. Sahloul tells that story so that some of us--all of us--will understand the desperation of these refugees. It is now very popular among politicians to blame the Syrian refugees for terrorism in America. We have not accepted that many refugees in our country. The numbers are about 2,000. At this point, not a single person among those refugees has been arrested and charged with terrorism. Yet one would think that these Syrian refugees are the greatest threat there is to America. I will include the article I referred to in the Record so that those who follow this debate and follow the proceedings on the floor can read firsthand and for themselves Dr. Sahloul's story and the story of these Syrian refugees. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have several colleagues on the floor who wish to enter into a colloquy, and I yield the floor for that purpose, and then I will wait until they are finished to reclaim my time.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues in this statement on the floor relative to the situation in Puerto Rico. I commend Senator Cantwell as well as Senator Blumenthal, who is a lead cosponsor of the bill that I am cosponsoring, as well as Senator Nelson of Florida, who has a special interest with so many Puerto Ricans in his State, and, of course, Senator Menendez of New Jersey with the same interest. I share it. It is a feeling that is based on some friendships with Members of Congress of Puerto Rican descent, particularly my friend and colleague from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez, but many others, such as Nydia Velazquez and Jose Serrano of New York. I have served with all of them, and I understand the deep personal feelings they have about the situation. The financial crisis facing Puerto Rico and its 3.5 million residents who are U.S. citizens demands that we not walk away but address this in an honest way. Congress is working to complete its legislative business, and it is deeply troubling that at this point we are preparing to leave town without resolving Puerto Rico's urgent situation. The challenges facing Puerto Rico are very serious. The island has been mired in an economic recession for more than a decade. Their unemployment rate is nearly 12 percent and the poverty rate is almost 45 percent. Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are leaving the island each year and, as Senator Blumenthal said, 2.5 percent of the population left just this last year. That is the reality of this economic challenge. If we don't help Puerto Rico get back on its feet, stabilize, and grow its own economy, the alternative, sadly, will be many more people coming to the United States. If they wish to come, that is certainly their right, but we don't want to force them to come to this country because of dire economic circumstances in Puerto Rico that can be avoided. The island has over $70 billion in outstanding debt. According to Moody's, this debt load is approximately 100 percent of Puerto Rican's island's gross national product. Moody's also found that in fiscal year 2015, the debt service of the territory and its agencies amounted to almost 40 percent of the revenues available to the government--compared to an average in most States of 5 percent. I noted an article in the Wall Street Journal not that long ago that quarreled with this 40 percent figure. They said it was less than half of that amount, and, therefore, it wasn't a dire situation. Yet we had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee with experts present, and it was very clear that 40 percent is a valid figure, not arrived at by political figures but by Moody's, a firm that is supposed to be expert in reaching that conclusion. The Puerto Rican government was able to make large debt payments on December 1 only through some very contorted fiscal determinations. But another debt payment of $332 million looms on January 1, and a default is a real possibility. We had this hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was an eye opener. One of the witnesses that I remember specifically is Richard Carrion, the executive chairman of Puerto Rico's largest bank, Banco Popular. He testified that, as a banker, it was truly painful for him to ever talk about bankruptcy and not paying their debts. But Mr. Carrion went on to say that there needs to be some kind of bankruptcy or restructuring regime made available for Puerto Rico because the money just isn't there. If Puerto Rico goes into default, the ramifications are frightening. Not only would a default threaten the island's fiscal stability, but it would also cause a humanitarian crisis where we have such a high rate of poverty. It would threaten access to essential services, such as education and even basic utilities. It is true that there are a lot of factors that contributed to this financial situation, and there is no silver bullet to fix all of these problems. But one step that would certainly help is to allow Puerto Rico to use Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, and that is what Senator Blumenthal's legislation proposes. About $20 billion of Puerto Rico's $70 billion debt is debt issued by municipalities and public corporations. Chapter 9 creates a mechanism for a State to allow a municipality or public corporation to restructure its debts in bankruptcy. This authority has been used over and over again, but Congress passed an unusual law in 1984, which no one has been able to explain. It contained a provision that excluded Puerto Rico specifically from Chapter 9. No other State or territory was excluded except Puerto Rico. There is no legislative history to explain why Puerto Rico was singled out. It appears that the bar on Puerto Rico using Chapter 9 bankruptcy was either an error or it was an intentional discrimination against this territory and its 3.5 million American citizen residents. Either way, it is time we correct this inequity, if not for the simple fairness of the argument, then for the point being made by Senator Blumenthal earlier: So many of these Puerto Rican residents have literally risked and given their lives in defense of the United States. There is absolutely no excuse for discriminating against these people. I am a cosponsor of Senator Blumenthal's bill that would allow Puerto Rico to use Chapter 9. This would create a backstop to address a significant portion of Puerto Rico's debt. The availability of a bankruptcy process would also create an incentive for creditors, bondholders, and others to negotiate voluntary restructuring. The option of bankruptcy helps bring all the parties to the negotiating table because typically it is a dose of reality. I regret that not a single Republican has been willing to cosponsor this bill, and I don't get it. I just don't understand it. I regret that the Republican majority has been unwilling to bring the issue of Puerto Rico bankruptcy reform to the Senate floor. It should have been brought to the floor. It is timely, and it is important. Nobody wants to encourage bankruptcy, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of this legal option in giving individuals and institutions the ability to dig out of debt in an orderly fashion. That is why Congress's power to enact bankruptcy laws was actually written into the Constitution. Furthermore, the bankruptcy process is well-known and understood. It is not a Federal bailout because it won't cost the taxpayers a dime if Puerto Rico chooses bankruptcy. In contrast, if Puerto Rico defaults, we will face a new, uncertain future that may well require Federal corrective action and may cost money. These steps likely would be far more upsetting to creditors and taxpayers in the United States than any bankruptcy process. We know that bankruptcy reform is not the silver bullet solution. There are other steps that should be taken when it comes to tax laws, health care reform, and fiscal oversight that would help Puerto Rico. But it is clear that Congress has to act. I want to commend my colleagues again for joining me on the floor to raise this important issue. We cannot ignore this crisis. Puerto Ricans are American citizens. Puerto Rico's challenges are America's challenges. And the clock is literally ticking. I urge my Republican colleagues to support Senator Blumenthal. This modest bankruptcy reform bill will help us step forward to solve this problem. We need to work with the administration and with both political parties to chart a fair and responsible path forward for Puerto Rico. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week in Washington, President Barack Obama's favorite pickup basketball pal from Chicago is leaving town. He is heading back home to Chicago. His name is Arne Duncan. He is Secretary of Education. He was one of the first choices of this President to serve in his Cabinet. He was an obvious choice. Arne Duncan has given his life to teaching and education. It starts with his parents--his father, who was a professor at the University of Chicago, and his mother, who ran a mentoring and tutoring center in the Hyde Park area of Chicago. As a young boy in school, Arne used to come out of class and go to his mother's mentoring center to help other young kids learn to read and do their homework. It was built into him. His dedication to teaching, to schools, and to improving the lives of students across America has been well documented. As Arne grew up, he grew tall. As he grew tall, he played basketball, and he was very good at it. He ended up going to Harvard University and playing on their varsity basketball team. He then went on to play in the professional ranks in Australia. It was there that he met his wife. They have two children together. She is waiting for him in Chicago, and he is anxious, I am sure, to return and live full time in that city with his family. When he came back from his stint in basketball, he went back to mentoring kids in the Hyde Park section and other parts of Chicago. He was chosen to head up the Chicago public schools by former mayor Richard Daley. He was the right choice. Arne Duncan truly had the interest of those public school students at heart, and it showed. That is when I met him for the first time and came to know him. He was an extraordinary and dedicated person, trying to manage one of the most challenging school districts in America. Two things come to mind immediately. They used to have weekends where people would volunteer to go work at schools. My wife and I volunteered several weekends, and we would always run into Arne and his wife and family, who were giving their Saturdays building playgrounds, painting the interiors of schools, doing the basic things but doing things that many people in his lofty status of superintendent might not have considered. I used to visit--still do--a lot of Chicago's public schools, drawing my own impressions. I remember visiting a school once and coming out of it and saying to my staff: That school is out of control. It was so loud in the corridors--not between classes but during classes--I couldn't imagine students were learning. It didn't appear there was any supervision. I called Arne and I said: You know, I have never called you about a school, but please take a look at this school. Something is wrong there. It doesn't feel right. He said: I will do it. He called me back 2 weeks later, and he said: You were right. That principal was an experiment to see if he could do it. He can't. We replaced him. That is how Arne reacted. It wasn't a matter of sending it to a committee and waiting for months and evaluating at the end of the school year; he made the decision--he is decisive--because he knew it was in the best interest of the students. Arne Duncan inherited a Department of Education that was in controversy when President Obama took the office of Presidency. It was in controversy because there was a Federal law--No Child Left Behind-- promulgated by a previous Republican President, George W. Bush, and supported on a bipartisan basis by Congress, that was extremely controversial. Teachers were unhappy with it. Many administrators were unhappy with it. Governors were unhappy with it. There was too much testing, too many strict rules, and too much pronouncement of failure when it wasn't really warranted. That is what he inherited. Over the years, Arne has made a significant impact when it comes to education in America. U.S. graduation rates are at an alltime high, with the biggest improvements from minorities and the poor. Under Arne's leadership, dropout rates are at an alltime low. Test scores are slightly up, with some of the biggest gains in States that embrace the administration's approach to reform. We had a stimulus package, which the President supported when he was first elected, to try to help our country out of a recession, and Arne Duncan spoke up to the President and said that we ought to include in there some provisions to help school districts, provisions for money if they will compete for it. They instituted a program known as Race to the Top. They invited States, if they wished, to apply for these Federal funds. Over 20 States applied. They weren't required to. The $10 billion tied to reform was held out--it included $4.35 billion, I should say, for Race to the Top; $10 billion overall--it was held out to the States, and within a year 40 States not only competed but changed their laws to improve their prospects to win money from Race to the Top. Forty-five States embraced college and career-ready standards like common core. It is interesting to note that one of the States that was successful was Tennessee, which is, of course, the home State of Senator Lamar Alexander, the chairman of our committee in the Senate that is drafting education legislation. Tennessee impressed Arne Duncan and the Department of Education and became one of the recipients, and Tennessee made some honest declarations about the state of education in their State when they made this application. It was a State that took seriously making dramatic change, and a relationship was struck between Arne Duncan and Lamar Alexander and many other Members of Congress. Time has passed. During the last several years, there has been a change of thinking in Congress, in the country, and in the Department of Education about the course to follow. A week or two ago in the White House, President Obama signed the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was promulgated on a bipartisan basis and had the active support of not only Republican Senator Lamar Alexander but his Democratic counterpart, Senator Patty Murray of the State of Washington. This bipartisan legislation received I think over 80 votes on the floor of the Senate. Arne Duncan was there at the signing. He had worked with the leadership to arrive at this new stage in the evolution of the relationship of the Federal Government to the States and to the local school districts. I could go through a long list of things Arne Duncan worked on, including his concern about student debt, but I want to close by pointing to one that has a personal interest to me, and that is for- profit colleges and universities. I have given so many speeches on the floor about this industry--the most heavily subsidized private business in America today, for-profit colleges and universities. I have recounted the miserable statistics about this sector of the economy. With 10 percent of high school graduate students, they receive 20 percent of the Federal aid to education. They account for more than 40 percent of all student loan defaults. I appealed to Arne Duncan and the Department of Education to do their best to make sure the worst for-profit colleges and universities were held accountable. Arne Duncan showed real leadership. It wasn't easy. He ran into political resistance on Capitol Hill from both political parties. And while I was probably pushing harder than I should have, he stepped forward and started demanding accountability. The net result was that one of the largest for-profit colleges and universities, Corinthian Schools, went out of business. It turns out they had been defrauding the Federal Government for years when it came to the results of job-seeking by their students. Arne Duncan showed extraordinary public service and political leadership in tackling this controversial part of the educational establishment of America. It is no surprise for those of us who know Arne Duncan and what he is made of. Back in the day, when his mother was running a mentoring center in Hyde Park, the local criminal gangs told her to close it down or they were going to firebomb it. Well, Arne and his mom showed up at the center the next day. They weren't frightened and they didn't run away. He has never run away from his commitment to young people. He has never run away from his commitment to public service. I don't know what the next chapter of Arne Duncan's life will be, but this chapter--his service as Secretary of Education for the United States of America--was an extraordinary display of commitment to the students, teachers, parents, administrators, and taxpayers of America. I wish to join in, along with so many other people, by expressing my gratitude to Arne Duncan for his service to our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, the senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor this morning and raised a question about a provision in the Omnibus appropriations bill, particularly the aspect of it that related to the Department of Defense. During the course of raising the issue, the senior Senator from Arizona used my name on the floor repeatedly. It was refreshing and I am relieved. The senior Senator from Arizona has not attacked me on the floor for 3 weeks, and I was fearful he was feeling under the weather, but clearly he is in fine form and feels good, and I welcome him back to the floor for another attack on me personally. Let's talk about the issue he raised because it is complicated but extremely important when it comes to the defense of the United States. Here is what it boils down to: In the early 2000s, there were two companies making rockets that launched satellites. The two companies were Boeing and Lockheed, and they competed with one another, but in the early 2000s--and I don't understand why--they made an argument to the Department of Defense that the Nation would be better off if they merged the two companies into one company and then provided the rockets to launch satellites to defend the United States and collect information. They argued that if they worked together, it would cost less, and they merged. With the approval of the Department of Defense, they continued to bid on satellite launches. What happened was a good thing and a thing that was not so good. What was good was that their product was very reliable. They launched satellites with great reliability, and that is of course what America and its national defense requires. The bad part is that the costs went through the roof. The costs went up about 65 percent over this period of time since they created United Launch Alliance, costing the Federal taxpayers about $3 billion more for launches than it did in the past. They argued that they would eliminate competition and provide reliability, and they did, but the costs went up dramatically. A new player arrived on the scene--SpaceX. SpaceX is associated with Elon Musk, a name that is well known in America. They decided to get into the business. They were going to build rockets and launch satellites too. Naturally, the United States of America said: Be my guest but prove you can do it in a way that we can count on you, because when we need a satellite launched to collect information, we want to make sure it is successful. Over the years, SpaceX improved, evolved, and developed the capacity to launch satellites to the point where NASA, for example--the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--used SpaceX rockets successfully. It reached a point where the Department of Defense said to SpaceX: You are capable and will be certified to now compete for Department of Defense business. It is to the credit of SpaceX that they reached that point. I thought this was an exciting development because, once again, we were going to have competition between the United Launch Alliance, the old Boeing-Lockheed merger, and SpaceX, the new company. The owner of SpaceX said to me as well as publicly: We can do this for a fraction of the cost to American taxpayers. What I did was invite the CEOs of both companies to come to my subcommittee--when I then chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--in March of 2014. No one had quite seen a hearing like this before. We put the CEOs of both companies at the table at the same time, and we asked them questions about their operations, reliability, costs, and projections for the future. At the end of this hearing, I said to the CEOs of each of these companies: I want to do something that is a little unusual. I want to offer each of you the opportunity, if you wish, to submit 10 questions to the other CEO that you think should have been asked and perhaps we didn't--and so they did. It was a complete record and a good one. For the first time, it really showed me that we were moving to a new stage in rocket science and capacity that could serve the United States by keeping us safe and keeping the costs down, and that of course should be our goal. Then there was a complication. Vladimir Putin of Russia decided to take aggressive action by invading Georgia and Ukraine, and other actions by him that we considered confrontational tended to freeze up the relationship between the United States and Russia. Why is that important? It is important because the engine being used by United Launch Alliance to launch America's defense satellites was an engine built in Russia. People started saying: Why in the world are we giving Russia and Vladimir Putin the opportunity to sell rocket engines to the United States? Secondly, why would we want to be dependent on Russia for rocket engines? So the debate started moving forward. How do we exclude the Russians from building engines and still have competition between these two companies? That is what brings me here today. We were trying to find the right combination to bring competition and reliability without engaging the Russians. Everyone in Congress knows we have authorizing committees and appropriations committees. The senior Senator from Arizona is the chair of the defense authorizing committee, the Armed Services Committee, and I have been chair and am now the vice chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The senior Senator from Arizona started including provisions in the authorizing bill which said that ULA, United Launch Alliance, could not use Russian engines to launch satellites and compete for business using those engines in the United States. As a result, the Air Force came to see me. First, I might add, a letter was sent when this provision was added to the Defense authorization bill. The letter was sent in May of this year, signed by Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, and James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, suggesting that excluding Russian engines so quickly could cause a problem in terms of the availability of missiles to launch satellites as we need them. The limitation that was put in by the defense authorization committee as to the number of engines that could be used would be quickly depleted, and the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and our intelligence agency said that may leave us vulnerable, so they asked the Senator from Arizona to reconsider that provision. He did not. If anything, the language that came out of conference on this provision made it even more difficult for the United Launch Alliance to consider using a different type of engine. I might add, they don't have an alternative engine to the Russian engine. United Launch Alliance uses it now. We told them to develop an American engine, and I stand behind that. They told us it will take anywhere from 5 to 7 years for that to happen. I understand this is a complex assignment, and we want them to get it right. It seems like a long time, but it points to the dilemma we face. If United Launch Alliance cannot bid for work with the Department of Defense using a Russian engine, they don't have an alternative engine to bid with. At that point, SpaceX becomes the sole bidder and the monopoly source for engines. We tried to move from ULA as a monopoly source or sole bidder to competition, and now by injecting this prohibition against Russian engines beyond a certain number, we are again getting back to the days of a sole bidder. What we have allowed in this Omnibus appropriations bill is language which gives 1 year of flexibility to the Department of Defense when it comes to bidding for these satellite launches, and of course it means United Launch Alliance will be using Russian engines for that bidding. The Senator from Arizona came to the floor and spent most of his time talking about the aggression of Russia and Vladimir Putin and how we need to be strong with our response. Back in the day, when our relationship was more constructive, the Senator from Arizona and I actually traveled to Ukraine. I agree with him about the aggression of Russia and Mr. Putin and why the United States needs to be strong in response, but we have to be careful that we don't cut off our nose to spite our face. If we reach a point where we don't allow ULA to use a Russian engine to compete, we could endanger and jeopardize the opportunities the United States needs to keep us safe, and that is exactly what the Secretary of Defense and Mr. Clapper said in writing to Senator McCain. My message is that there is nothing, incidentally, in this omnibus bill that was not discussed in the original bill as marked up. There is no airdrop of language. It is a slightly different version of the language but says the same thing--that we think there should be some flexibility as ULA moves to develop their new engine. The Department of Defense has convinced me that it would be shortsighted of us to make it impossible for ULA to even bid on future satellite launches. God forbid something happens to SpaceX where they can't launch satellites. At that point then, we would be in a terrible situation. We wouldn't be able to keep our country safe when we should. None of us wants that to happen. The provision in the omnibus bill gives 1 year for the Department of Defense and the Air Force to continue to work with ULA to have a launch and have competitive bidding. If SpaceX performs as promised and comes in with a lower bid for those launches, they deserve to win, and they will. In the meantime, we want to make sure we have the availability of sourcing beyond just one company--beyond SpaceX. I am impressed with all of these companies. The Senator from Arizona raised the point that Boeing has its headquarters in my home State, and I am very proud of that. I have worked with them in the past. I think it is an excellent company and does great work. My initial premise in starting this conversation in the Appropriations subcommittee was that we should have competition, and Boeing should face competition. The insertion of the Russian engine issue has made this more complex, and it will take us some time to reach what should be our ultimate goal: quality and reliable engines in these rockets to launch satellites to keep America safe and the certainty that if one company fails to be able to meet our defense needs, there is an alternative supplier. That, to me, is the best outcome possible. This section 8045 of the Department of Defense appropriations is critical to our national security and launching satellites into space. We have to assure the Department of Defense and our intelligence agencies that we can put critical satellites into orbit when we need it. We have to make certain that the costs of these launches is competitive so taxpayers end up getting the best outcome for the dollars they put into our national defense. We have to generate competition to drive down costs, and we have to bring to an end our reliance on Russian-manufactured rocket engines. I wish that were not the case. I wish our relationship with Russia was positive in every aspect, but it is not, and I join with virtually all of my colleagues in believing that the sooner we move away from Russian-made engines to American-made engines in competition, the better for us and the better for our Nation. There is no doubt that our Omnibus appropriations bill recognizes the need to end our reliance on Russian engines, and we actually put our money where our mouth is. We added $143.6 million on top of the $84.4 million requested by the President to accelerate the development of a new rocket engine. This amount is $43.6 million more than the $100 million authorized by the defense authorization committee, so we are making certain we are going to end this reliance on Russian engines. The question is how we manage the space launch through the several years of launches before we have that engine. We need to do it without jeopardizing our national security. The general provision I referred to allows for space launch competition in 2016 without regard to the source of an engine. It will permit real competition on four missions in 2016, and it will avoid trading one monopoly for another. I think I have explained how we have reached this point. I think there is good faith on both sides. I don't question the motives of the senior Senator from Arizona. I hope he doesn't question mine. What we need to make certain of is that we move toward a day when America is safe and that the money spent by taxpayers is well spent. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to my friend and colleague from Vermont.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 years ago Members of the Senate did something that doesn't happen very often. We broke through the gridlock and came together to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation that was called the Marketplace Fairness Act. Senator Mike Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming, has been the leader on this issue from the start. Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, has been an invaluable ally. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a relatively new Member of the Senate but a person with extraordinary knowledge of this field, joined me and 65 others to pass legislation that would level the playing field for Main Street businesses all across America and allow States and localities to collect sales and use taxes that are already owed under the law. Since that time--that glorious time 2 years ago--what has happened? Nothing--the bill passed the Senate, went to the House, and disappeared. In the face of this obstruction, a bipartisan group of Senators have said we will oppose any long-term extension of legislation that would take away a State's right to collect taxes on accessing the Internet unless we give States the ability to collect taxes on Internet sales that are already owed. The Internet Tax Freedom Act is a law which is going to expire with the continuing resolution--which I would support--and it says that States and localities cannot impose a tax on access to the Internet. I think that is sound policy. But what we are asking in return is to allow those who use the Internet to make retail purchases to pay the sales taxes they already owe for their purchases. It is that simple. It is not fair to tie the hands of States and localities to collect the revenue they need to fund law enforcement, public schools, infrastructure, and other vital services without providing a path for States and localities to replace the revenue if they choose. The Marketplace Fairness Act levels the playing field for retailers by allowing States to treat all retailers--whether it is a brick-and- mortar store or online--the same when it comes to collecting sales and use taxes. It is not a new tax. We are talking about existing taxes and their collection. In Illinois we have a quaint way of dealing with this. I recall a few years ago, when I was doing my State income tax returns, the bookkeeper called and said: Do you want to declare your Internet purchases and pay the sales taxes you owe? I said: Of course I want to pay the taxes I owe. How do you do that? Well, you declare them on your State income tax return in Illinois. There is no proof. It is your word, and the fact that you sign is what the State goes by. I estimated my Internet purchases that had not been subject to sales tax and paid the appropriate tax in Illinois. It turns out that very few people in my State who actually do make retail purchases over the Internet pay this tax. We are trying to change that. The change is very simple: If you are an Internet retailer, such as Amazon--the largest in the United States--and I make a purchase for the holidays and I declare my ZIP Code at the end of my address, Amazon then knows by my ZIP Code how much to be collected in sales tax. They assess me that with the purchase, take that amount and send it back to the Illinois Department of Revenue for distribution. It is so simple that there is basic software available, at a very modest cost, that any retailer can use to make that same calculation. There is nothing exotic or difficult in the process, but that is what is missing. Amazon--I use them as an example--actually collects sales tax, and they support our marketplace fairness bill, as do many other Internet retailers. The difficulty we have run into, though, is there is a resistance to giving fairer treatment to stores across America that are collecting sales taxes every day against retailers on the Internet that may or may not collect those taxes themselves. What difference does it make? I have talked to some of the people who run big chain stores, and they say it has reached a point that something has to be done. Consumers come into a store, a major store, and they ask to see certain products--running shoes, bicycles, flat- screen TVs. They pick the one they like the best, write down all the information about it, and they are never seen again. Some of them do have the nerve to return at a later date when they make their purchase over the Internet to the bricks-and-mortar store when they are dissatisfied with the product. Of course the bricks and mortar store had nothing to do with the sale of the product. They are being asked to provide some consumer relations on a product they didn't even sell. What is happening? Take a look at the last Thanksgiving holiday weekend--one of the biggest retail weekends of the year. Early reports suggest that the stores on Main Street and shopping malls across America had flat sales compared to last year. How about Internet retail sales for that weekend? They were up significantly across America. What we are looking for is parity and some equality. It is not fair to say to the store down the block that is paying the rent, paying the property taxes, and collecting the sales taxes that we are going to put them at a disadvantage to their Internet competitors. Internet retailers benefit under our current system, sadly, because they don't charge for sales tax--many of them don't. They have a 5-percent or 10- percent advantage over Main Street competitors. When you ask many of these Internet retailers whether they want to continue the current system, they say: Of course, it gives us a break. It is not fair, it is not right, and it should be changed. Products sold online seem cheaper when sales and use taxes are not collected at the point of sale, but we all know that tax is still owed by the customers. Thousands of Main Street businesses have worked hard to grow their businesses. They employ local people. Now they have become nothing but show rooms because of this unfairness. Examples: Steve Sahli from Play It Again Sports in Naperville, IL, knows this issue of showrooming all too well. For more than 20 years, Play It Again Sports has been serving the Naperville, IL, community. People come into the store, they try out big-ticket items, use their phones sometimes to take a picture, walk out the door, and buy the item online. Soccer Plus in Palatine, IL, is an example of what happens when it becomes too difficult to compete with online retailers because of their price advantage. Two years ago, Soccer Plus went out of business. We lost good-paying jobs in Palatine, and Palatine lost a business that was paying its property taxes, employing all the people, and sustaining the services of that good city. There is nothing we can do for Soccer Plus now, but we can still help other retailers avoid that same fate. Even with countless stories like these, the House of Representatives has refused to address this issue. Numerous requests to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to mark up e-fairness legislation from ranking members and other members have not resulted in any action whatsoever. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is calling for regular order when it comes to e-fairness legislation but has refused to even hold a legislative hearing on the only e-fairness legislation to be introduced in the House. That was by Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah. He introduced the bipartisan Remote Transactions Parity Act. We have worked on a bipartisan basis in the Senate with Congressman Chaffetz, Congressman Womack, and others to come up with a bill that we think is fair that can pass. All we are asking for is a day in court--a legislative hearing, a markup, and bring the matter to the floor of the House. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has refused to work with us on this legislation. He has his own approach. I disagree with it, but let's have the debate. Let's have the vote. Isn't that what Congress is supposed to be all about? These calls for regular order are nothing more than veiled attempts to delay and obstruct in the House. Let's have regular order. Let's bring up the Chaffetz measure. If the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House has his own alternative, let him offer that as well. While House leadership calls for regular order on legislation to level the playing field for Main Street retailers, they bypassed regular order by airdropping a permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act into a totally unrelated bill. It was a bill in Customs relating to trade agreements. At the very last minute, they dropped in this provision for the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. The same Members of Congress calling for regular order on e-fairness legislation skipped regular order when it came to the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Last week, the Customs reauthorization conference report, which reformed some of our Customs and trade law, was released. Many were surprised to find deep in the bill on page 381 a brand new provision that had nothing to do with Customs, nothing to do with trade, has not had a recent hearing in the Senate and was dropped in at the last minute in this bill--the permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. This provision wasn't in the bill that passed either the House or the Senate. It is what happens toward the end of the legislative session when things go bump in the dark. Internet Tax Freedom Act hasn't even been considered by this body. Yet there it was in a conference report meant to resolve differences that had been debated for months. I do not support the permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in the conference report. I am going to oppose any other attempt to move anything longer than the remaining 9-month extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act until September 30, 2016. I support the merits of the legislation, but it is grossly unfair to speed this through with an airdrop in a conference report without any hearing and to do it at the disadvantage of retailers and businesses across America. A long-term extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act should be paired with the Marketplace Fairness Act. We can make them both permanent law. Let's do it and do it together. Let me explain why. We should not cut off States and localities at the knees by preventing them from collecting tax revenues, by reducing Federal funding, and without also providing State and local governments the authority to collect the taxes already owed. The Federal Government has cut funding for States and local governments over the last several years in an attempt to put the Federal Government on the right fiscal path. Tough decisions have had to be made. Many States and local governments are struggling, even in my State. In a one-two punch, some in Congress want to increase this burden by permanently preventing States and localities from imposing certain types of taxes while denying them the authority to collect sales and tax revenue that is already owed to them. In 2015 alone, my State of Illinois will lose at least $390 million under the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Chicago will lose $197 million. Springfield will lose $6 million. How do we expect States and localities to fund first responders, firefighters, emergency services, 911 dispatch, health care services, local road maintenance, and all the other services that support our community? Unlike the Federal Government, States and localities can't run deficits to continue these services. The only option they have is to raise other taxes, such as property taxes, or to cut vital services. There is a reasonable path forward. Congress should pass both a long- term extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act--which says we will not impose State and local taxes on access to the Internet--and pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, which allows States to opt in so Internet retailers selling in their State will collect the sales tax due and remit to the States and localities. I hope my colleagues in the House will work with me to do that. I welcome the opportunity to have a serious dialogue about how to move both pieces of legislation forward in an expeditious manner. 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.