Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I would just say through the Chair to the Senator from Oklahoma, we have to appeal to the better angels of our colleagues' nature, and a cooperative effort would be somewhat miraculous but worth a try. I am happy to support him in that effort. Let me just close and yield the floor to whoever would like to speak. This is a chance to do what America expects us to do. Why were we sent here? Why did we get elected? I am proud to represent Illinois, but I was sent to solve problems, make life better, and create an economy that is growing. There is nothing more bipartisan and more important than the infrastructure of this country. If people wonder about that, go visit China and look at what is going on there. There are building cranes in every direction. Highway and train routes are being built in every direction because they are preparing their Chinese economy for the 21st century. Is America? I don't think so. What we are doing is passing short-term extensions of the highway trust fund. We cannot patch our way to prosperity. We cannot, on a short-term basis, have a long-term plan to build America's economy. Because of the hard work on both sides of the aisle, compromises being made, we are at a point where we can have a 3-year highway bill, and it is time for us to do it, no excuses. I support what the Senator from Oklahoma said: Let's accelerate this in the Senate, if we can, and then pray that our colleagues in the House decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill, which I believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension.

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, I would say to my colleague from Oklahoma, let's sit down and put this UC together. Then, the Senator from Oklahoma can take it, as we do by custom, to his cloakroom and I will take it to mine and let's see if we can get this moving forward. I wish to protect the rights of Members, but I think many of them would like to join us in accelerating this process so there is activity on the floor which is productive. I am happy to work with the Senator from Oklahoma. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necesarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are no ideas more central to America's democracy and identity than liberty and equality. The Declaration of Independence lists liberty among mankind's inalienable rights and states: ``All men are created equal.'' But it wasn't until 1870 that the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, extending the vote to African-American men, and women were not given the right to vote in America until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was ratified. America's democracy has indeed been imperfect, but throughout our history, we have sought to address our imperfections. After all, the story of America is not the story of a perfect nation. It is the story of a nation in pursuit of a more perfect nation. So it is sobering but not surprising that it took us nearly to the end of the 20th century to expand and acknowledge the rights of another group of Americans who suffered discrimination through history--people with disabilities. This Sunday we mark the 25th anniversary of one of the most important civil rights victories in our nation's history--the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act set forth four great goals for people with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self- sufficiency. But the fundamental goal of the ADA is simple. In the words of one activist, the ADA is about securing for people with disabilities the most fundamental of rights: ``the right to live in the world.'' It is worth remembering that this was a bipartisan victory. Senator Bob Dole, a Republican and a veteran wounded by German machine gun fire in World War II, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, teamed up to get this done. When President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law, he said: ``Today's legislation brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Tom Harkin called the day the ADA passed the proudest day of his legislative career. I remember a story he told the Senate a few years ago. When he was first elected to the Senate, his whole family came for the swearing-in ceremony. They sat up in the gallery right behind me. He even arranged a sign language interpreter for his older brother Frank, who was deaf. But he was told by the guard outside of the gallery door that the interpreter was not allowed to stand in the gallery and interpret. Tom Harkin could not believe it. He came down to the floor and told the majority leader, Bob Dole, the situation. Senator Dole said: ``I will take care of it.'' And he did. It was the first thing they did together. It sure wasn't the last. Five years later they watched President Bush sign the ADA into law. I want to give credit to some tireless advocates who helped make that a reality: Justin Dart, the ``Father of the ADA,'' who has passed on, and my great friend from Chicago, Marca Bristo, President and CEO of Access Living. In 1977, Marca had a serious accident and broke her neck, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down. She lost her job, her house, and her health insurance. A lot of people would have given up--but not Marca Bristo. She led an army of people who could not see, hear, walk, and talk to mobilize and pass the most comprehensive civil rights law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marca is a force of nature. Every day, Marca and her team are on the frontlines helping people with disabilities. They help people such as Michael Grice. He uses a power wheelchair and has been involved with disability activism for many years. He has a bright personality that draws many people to him. He speaks with passion and compassion. He calls himself a very active person. He was living on his own in an apartment in Hyde Park on the South Side of Chicago until health complications led him into a group home, where he lived for more than a year. His health continued to deteriorate, and he moved into a nursing home. Michael and the group home staff planned for him to stay at the nursing home for 6 to 8 weeks and then move back on his own. Those 6 to 8 weeks became nearly 3 years. Michael grew more frustrated. That is when Marca Bristo and Access Living came to the rescue, and they helped Michael find a new place so he could live on his own. Last year Michael was able to move from the nursing home into his own apartment. I am proud of activists such as Michael and Marca and the folks at Access Living. We owe them a debt of gratitude for helping America realize our full potential. It is hard to imagine, but before the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities were denied the opportunity to participate fully in society. Back then, very few transit systems had buses or trains equipped for wheelchairs. If you needed a haircut or to see a doctor or just wanted to meet a friend for a cup of coffee, you probably had to rely on family and friends or a social service agency. The Americans with Disabilities Act has changed that. The Americans with Disabilities Act has changed America. Every day you can see how far we have come as you walk down the street--with curb cuts, ramps, braille signs, and assisted listening devices. Because of the ADA, thousands of Americans with disabilities get to go to school, get a good education, and enter the workforce. We still have a long way to go. The unemployment rate for people with disabilities is still too high. Most people with disabilities want to work and have to work. When they do work, that can impact our communities in ways that are hard to imagine. Let me tell you about the late Bob Greenberg, a legendary sportscaster at WBEZ radio in Chicago. For his loyal Chicago radio audience, Bob described sporting events that they couldn't see. But Bob's story is unique because Bob couldn't see them either. Bob Greenberg was blind. But that didn't stop him from achieving his dreams. In the early 1980s, Hall of Fame basketball player Kareem Abdul- Jabbar was taking questions from reporters after a hard game. He turned to Bob, who was holding a white cane and a microphone and he said: How did you get here? It wasn't hard, Bob said. He then explained how he knew the exact number of steps from his home to the Lake Street ``L,'' how he felt for the right combination of coins to put in the turnstile, and then how he knew the exact number of steps to take along West Madison to Chicago Stadium. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar paused to take that in and finally said: Ask your question, sir. It was clear. Bob Greenberg worked hard to get where he was. There is no doubt that laws such as the ADA helped Bob. I just wish we had passed it sooner. Maybe Bob's road to achieving his dream could have been a little smoother. Let me close by noting this. I wonder if the Americans with Disabilities Act were called before the Senate today, if it would pass. We know how great it is. We know what it has done for America. But there were also always voices then--and there are voices now--that question whether Government ought to have that big a say, that big a role, that big a voice in our private lives and our public lives. Thank goodness Bob Dole, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, put together a coalition that realized that at some moments in history we have to move together as an American family to solve a problem. We use our Government to achieve that goal. The day the ADA passed, Senator Harkin stood at this podium in the Chamber and gave his entire speech in sign language. Afterward, he said it was the first time anyone ever gave a long-winded speech on the Senate floor and no one ever heard him. He was wrong. His brother Frank heard him. Marca Bristo heard him, Michael Grice heard him, Bob Greenberg heard him, and millions of others with disabilities heard that speech. Before leaving the Senate, Senator Harkin taught me a wonderful sign for the word ``America.'' It is this: All ten fingers joined together, rotating in a circle around your chest. That is sign language for ``America.'' That is the America that we all are striving to become, a place where no one is left out, where we are all included within the circle of equal opportunity. That is how we honor our Constitution and our great Nation--with liberty and justice for all. Syrian Safe Zone Announcement Mr. President, I recently spoke on the floor about the terrible humanitarian crisis in Syria. If you had to pick out one place in the world today where more innocent people are dying, it is hard to think of any place that matches Syria. Over 200,000 people have died during the course of the Syrian war, and up to 12 million Syrians have been displaced. I have a friend of mine in Chicago, he is a Syrian American doctor, Dr. Sahloul, who comes to see me regularly and brings photos back from Syria. They are heartbreaking photos. Dr. Sahloul and his friends literally sneak across the border into Syria to treat the casualties in this war. He shows me pictures of surgeries performed on the floors of schools and on card tables, and he shows me those who have been maimed and killed by the barrel bombs of Bashar Assad and by the ravages of war. We will be judged as a generation as to whether we have responded properly to this humanitarian challenge. In April, Senators Kaine, Graham, and McCain joined me on a letter to President Obama urging him to work with other world leaders to create no-fly zones within Syria where modern medical treatment can be provided and displaced persons can safely escape. I have raised this with many involved in this extremely difficult issue, including Gen. John Allen, Retired, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, the Turkish Ambassador, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. So, I was heartened today--in fact, exhilarated--to read in the morning paper that the United States is now working with Turkey and other countries to establish a humanitarian safe zone in the northern part of Syria to try to find one patch of real estate in that war- ravaged country where these children, their mothers, families, elderly people, and those who have been hurt can go and safely--safely--be treated and live. We have to do this. The Turks are going to lead the way. We are going to support them, but it is a challenge not just to our two countries-- to us and to Turkey--but to the world to step up and put an end to this bloody, terrible, ruthless war. There have been so many casualties. The United States--our good people who reach out to help those around the world--should stand and be counted when it comes to the establishment of this humanitarian zone to try to bring some peace to some part of the population living in war-torn Syria. This won't solve the larger crisis right away, which ultimately will require a political transition in Syria. Without a political dialogue, there is no long-term hope for Syria, only short-term relief. But this announcement does have the possibility to bring the Syrian civil war one step closer to an end. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if we ask most people in America what is the most heavily subsidized industry in America, which industry, which sector of our economy receives the highest level of Federal subsidy in America, I guess they would get it wrong, because it turns out the sector that gets the highest degree of Federal subsidy is for-profit colleges and universities--for-profit colleges and universities. I wish to say a word or two about the current status of the largest of these for-profit colleges and universities and the tactics they are using to become even fatter at the expense of the American taxpayers. I will read a quote about the for-profit college industry: They are not educators and they're looking to manipulate this model to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, but I think anyone making money in an educational activity has a higher standard of accountability. Some might think that was a quote from some speech I gave here. They would be wrong. That was a quote from John Murphy, a cofounder of the University of Phoenix, during a recent interview he gave to Deseret News National. As the article rightly observes, the University of Phoenix is the ``grand-daddy'' of the for-profit industry, but the enterprise has experienced a dramatic shift in priorities since it became a publicly traded company, according to Mr. Murphy, one of the cofounders. The reason for the change, according to Murphy, is the combination of the new corporate entity--for-profit University of Phoenix--chasing stock prices with the temptation of the open spigot of Federal funds. Mr. Murphy calls the Federal student loan money ``the juice'' of the for-profit college industry. And for its part, the University of Phoenix is swimming in the juice. They received 84 percent of their revenue from Federal title IV funding in 2012 and 2013. How much? It was $3.5 billion. According to law, for-profit colleges are prohibited--we don't want them to become too dependent on the Federal Government, so we prohibit them from receiving any more than 90 percent of their revenue from title IV Federal funding--90 percent. When I think of the outrage I hear from those in Washington who track Federal money, I can't believe they are overlooking this industry. A major loophole, however, allows the University of Phoenix to not include veterans' GI Bill benefits or Department of Defense tuition assistance programs in their Federal revenue calculation. So I joined with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and others to fix this, to close this loophole, to hold the for-profit colleges to no more than 90 percent of the revenue coming directly from the Federal Government. A recent article by Aaron Glantz published by the Center for Investigative Reporting provides a troubling look into the world of for-profit college recruitment of America's veterans and members of our military. The article details how the University of Phoenix has become a major sponsor of military events. In one instance, they paid $25,000 to sponsor a concert for military members and their families. The company gave away Galaxy computer tablets and wrapped the stage in a giant University of Phoenix banner. In other instances, the Center for Investigative Reporting found that the University of Phoenix sponsored ``resume workshops'' which essentially amounted to recruitment drives for their university. According to the article, the company sponsored hundreds of events on military bases, including rock concerts, Super Bowl parties, father-daughter dances, Easter egg hunts, chocolate festivals, fashion shows, and even brunch with Santa. University of Phoenix paid $250,000--a quarter of a million dollars-- to sponsor events over the last 3 years at Fort Campbell, KY. Private sponsorship of military events is not unusual, but it has to raise some eyebrows when the company whose profits depend on recruiting servicemembers are paying for these programs. Let's face it. That is what these events are for--recruitment events for the company. In the name of corporate sponsorship, the University of Phoenix could gain direct access to military bases with a nod and a wink to servicemembers: Come to Phoenix. We care about the military. Boy, has it paid off for Phoenix and what Mr. Murphy called ``the juice'' of Federal funds. The University of Phoenix is the fourth largest recipient of Department of Defense tuition assistance funds which help servicemembers continue their education. In fiscal year 2014, the University of Phoenix received more than $20 million of these benefits. But hold on tight. Here is where the juice gets deep. When it comes to veterans' GI Bill funding, the University of Phoenix is a top recipient in America of these funds--$272 million. In return, the company offers servicemembers and veterans degrees of questionable value, below- average graduation rates, and--get this--a student loan default rate almost 40 percent higher than the national average. That is what we are offering to members of our military and veterans through the University of Phoenix and their programs. I don't think this type of behavior by the University of Phoenix is what the President had in mind when he signed Executive Order 13607, intended to prevent for-profit colleges from gaining preferential access to our military. I have written to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter about the outrage. If it is a matter of University of Phoenix not following DOD rules, I want the Department to take action. If the University of Phoenix's actions outlined in this report are within the rules, the rules need to be changed. I want to say a word about another story by the Center for Investigative Reporting last week. This is almost incredible. It is difficult for me--I can't--to recount the details of the story I am about to relate, and my colleagues will understand why in a moment. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, nearly 2,000 unaccredited institutions received more than $260 million in GI Bill benefits between 2009 and 2014. Some of them are for profit; all are totally unaccredited. When someone serves in our military, we offer them GI Bill benefits--once-in-a-lifetime benefits--for the betterment of themselves and their family. Once they have used the benefits, they are gone. One example of one of these unaccredited institutions that is receiving these benefits for our military--GI Bill benefits--is a sexual therapy school in San Francisco. The name of it is the Institute For Advanced Study of Human Sexuality--unaccredited. The activities that are described in the article about this school I cannot say on the floor of the Senate. The institute openly brags--this unaccredited institute receiving GI Bill benefits openly brags about its massive collection of pornography, and we sent this institution GI Bill funding. That is outrageous. Seven other Senators joined me in writing to Secretary McDonald of the VA last week asking him to investigate and explain. I also expect to speak with him by next week, and I hope to hear that the VA is taking action. The GI Bill is too important for our veterans to have these benefits ever questioned because of a scandal such as this. Stories such as these abuses by the for-profit college industry and these unaccredited so-called schools are appearing more frequently. In newspapers and other media outlets across America, this issue has never received so much attention. Unfortunately, here in the Halls of Congress, you can still hear the crickets when it comes to this issue. I hope this changes. If we are serious about really caring about our military and their families and our veterans, if we are serious about caring about taxpayers' dollars, if we are honest about this industry that is fleecing the American taxpayers and members of our military, this Congress should act on a bipartisan basis. But some of these schools have friends in high places. Every time I have tried to call them out, someone has stepped in to their defense, usually in a private manner so the public doesn't know. The day of reckoning is coming for these for-profit schools. The stock market is catching up with them. Stockholders are catching up with them. Students and their families are catching up with the fact that they are a waste of time and money. Now we have to make sure the taxpayers have their day and their attention directed toward this outrageous exploitation. 5th Anniversary of Dodd-Frank

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, July 21 marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Let's remember what was happening when the law was created. In 2008, we were staring in the face of the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Wall Street banks and financial companies had built a multi-trillion dollar house of cards. They built it out of subprime and predatory mortgage lending, mortgage-backed securities with inflated credit ratings, and unregulated derivatives based on these mortgages. It was enormously complex and risky, and our financial regulatory system was ill-equipped to oversee it. It all started coming apart when several mortgage lenders went under, and Bear Stearns began wobbling. Then in March 2008 Bear Stearns went down. By September 2008 one giant financial company after another started collapsing: Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia. It was a time of panic. Credit markets froze. The stock market swung wildly. Congress had to take dramatic steps to stop the economy from going into free fall. Who suffered the most from Wall Street's misbehavior? Main Street Americans. As a result of the financial crisis, unemployment went up over 10 percent. Nearly nine million Americans lost their jobs. Millions of families faced foreclosure on their homes. More than $19 trillion in household and retirement wealth was wiped away. It was clear we had to act to get out of this ``great recession,'' and we did. We saved the auto industry, passed the Recovery Act to boost the economy, and stabilized the economy. We have now had 64 consecutive months of job growth, and the unemployment rate is down to 5.3 percent. But it was clear to all of us who lived through that financial crisis that we needed to reform our financial regulatory system and curb risky and predatory financial practices. Five years ago, we did just that by enacting the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It took months of legislating--dozens of hearings, extended debate and amendments in committees and on the floor, and a robust conference committee process. The result was a landmark reform law that reined in the worst abuses of Wall Street and provided critical new protections for consumers and Main Street businesses. One of those was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB. I remember back in 2007 when a law professor named Elizabeth Warren told me about all the tricks and traps that banks and mortgage companies were using on consumers. She said we need an agency that is focused like a laser on making sure that there is transparency and fairness in consumer financial products. I agreed. So in 2008 I introduced the first bill that sought to create this consumer financial protection agency. I could not have been prouder when this agency was established by the Dodd-Frank Act. This was a landmark win not only for consumers but for our overall economy. When consumers have transparent and accurate information about financial products, they are empowered to make better choices. Senator Warren did an admirable job of getting the CFPB up and running. And now, under the leadership of Richard Cordray, the CFPB has achieved great success in protecting consumers, especially those most often targeted by wrongdoers--students; older Americans; servicemembers, veterans and their families; and the economically disadvantaged. To date, the CFPB has obtained over $10 billion in relief to consumers through its enforcement actions. The CFPB went after several of the Nation's largest credit card companies for targeting their customers with deceptive and fraudulent activities. This resulted in nearly $2 billion being paid back to more than 12 million customers nationwide. To further protect students and their families, the CFPB has brought action against for-profit colleges for their predatory lending practices. In November 2013, the CFPB announced its first enforcement action in the predatory payday lending industry. This led to $14 million in restitution from Cash America for targeting servicemembers and their families and violating the Military Lending Act in the process. Since then, the CFPB has continued to limit the ability of payday lenders to prey on vulnerable families across America. The CFPB is a tremendous success story. But the successes of Dodd- Frank don't stop there. When the Dodd-Frank bill was on the Senate floor, I offered an amendment that dealt with the issue of debit card swipe fees. This amendment was adopted by the Senate with 64 votes--47 Democrats and 17 Republicans--and it was enacted into law. My amendment marked the first time that Congress acted to rein in excessive swipe fees, which were lining the pockets of big banks and costing billions for merchants and their consumers. I am pleased to report this reform has achieved significant success. For those who don't remember, swipe fees are fees fixed by Visa and MasterCard, and are paid by merchants to card-issuing banks whenever a purchase is made with a card. Because Visa and MasterCard set the fees on behalf of all banks, there is no competition between banks on the fee rates--so the rates always went up. By 2009, the banks were collecting about $16 billion per year in debit swipe fees from merchants. And merchants had to pass that cost on to their customers in the form of higher prices. Of course, the banks didn't need all of this swipe fee money to conduct debit transactions. The actual cost to process a debit transaction is just a few cents. But the banks and card companies exploited the swipe fee system so they would receive far more than they would ever need--an average of 44 cents per transaction. It didn't have to be this way. Many other countries have thriving debit card systems with swipe fees strictly regulated or prohibited altogether. But in the U.S., swipe fees were spinning out of control. There were no market forces working to keep fees at a reasonable level. So I offered my amendment to bring some reasonable regulation to this system. My amendment said that if the Nation's biggest banks are going to let Visa and MasterCard fix swipe fee rates for them, then the rates must be reasonable and proportional to the cost of processing a transaction. And my amendment also said there needs to be a real choice of card networks available for each debit transaction. This reform cut the average debit swipe fee in half, from about 44 cents to about 24 cents. This is actually pretty modest reform. Most other countries have gone much further in regulating swipe fees. But boy, did the big banks scream about it. They said swipe fee regulation would be the end of the world. They claimed it would kill the debit card system, devastate small banks and credit unions, and cause banks to jack up other fees on consumers. Well, the law took effect in 2011, so we have had some time to see how it has worked. And as it turns out, the horror stories that the banks predicted turned out to be pure fiction. Let us look at the facts. First, swipe fee reform hasn't hurt the growth of the debit system. Debit card use continues to grow each year, according to the Federal Reserve. And it hasn't hurt small banks and credit unions, either. My amendment exempted all but the biggest one percent of card-issuing banks from fee regulation. The Fed announced in May 2013 that this small issuer exemption ``is working as intended.'' Credit unions and small banks have thrived since the amendment took effect, because the amendment has enabled them to receive higher fees than their big bank competitors. It has helped level the playing field between the big banks and the little guys. Don't take it from me. Here is what press releases from the Credit Union National Association have said since my amendment took effect in 2011: November 2012: ``Credit Unions Growing at Sustained, Increasingly Strong Pace.'' March 2013: ``The credit union movement is healthy, vibrant and on the rise.'' Last February: ``Credit unions experience fast growth on all fronts in 2014 . . . 2015 expected to surpass banner year.'' I know the small banks and credit unions will never thank me for this reform. But the reality is they have gained a competitive advantage through this reform. It has helped them. And how about consumers? Well, the banks said my amendment would cause consumer checking fees to go through the roof--and they still try to pretend that is the case. But the facts say otherwise. Last September the Wall St. Journal reported that ``After peaking in 2009, the annual account fees collected at U.S. commercial banks have declined markedly, even as the volume of bank deposits has swelled.'' Transparency and competition is helping keep fees down. The American Bankers Association reported last year that 62 percent of Americans pay nothing at all for bank services. And this year Bankrate.com found that 72 percent of credit union checking accounts came with no maintenance fees. And what about savings to consumers? Well, noted economist Robert Shapiro did a study in 2013 and estimated that swipe fees overall were reduced by about $8.5 billion in 2012. He estimated that about $6 billion of these reductions were passed along from merchants to consumers in the form of lower prices. While it may be hard to see those price reductions when you spread the savings across the entire economy, the fact is that the savings are real. Unfortunately, the savings should have been even greater. When the Federal Reserve drafted a proposed rule for my amendment, they planned for a fee cap of 7 to 12 cents--far closer to the actual cost of processing a debit transaction. But the banks lobbied the Fed hard to double the proposed cap, and the Fed gave in to the bank lobbyists. Of course, the banks and card companies promptly took advantage of the watered-down regulation and turned the fee cap into a fee floor. As a result, there are still excessive swipe fees begin charged in the debit system--not to mention credit card swipe fees, which have not been reformed at all. There is no doubt that swipe fees continue to distort the incentives in our payments system. Banks and card companies continue to shape the system to maximize fees instead of efficiency and security. Just look at the issue of card security technology. The banks ignored this for years--until my amendment made part of the debit swipe fee contingent on having effective fraud prevention technology in place. Just a few weeks after my amendment took effect in 2011, Visa finally announced a roadmap to promote adoption of smart-chip cards in the United States. MasterCard soon followed. That is good news, but unfortunately the banks and card networks are still steering away from using PINs on cards--even though the rest of the world uses a chip-and- PIN system and PINs mean lower fraud. Why avoid PINs? Because several other card companies compete with Visa and MasterCard on PIN transactions, and the competition means the fees are lower. Further reform is needed to correct these skewed incentives. We have more work to do to make sure our credit and debit card systems are competitive, transparent and fair. I hope the Federal Reserve and my colleagues in both parties will work with me in this effort. Unfortunately, when it comes to Dodd-Frank, Republicans in Congress have spent the past 5 years trying to undermine this legislation. We must not forget the lessons we learned from the financial crisis. We can't go back to the system we had before Dodd-Frank. Instead let's work together to protect what works, make constructive improvements, and expand Dodd-Frank's reforms where needed. Remember, Wall Street used to get its way all the time around here, and they led us down a path that almost took our economy off a cliff. Let's not go back there. Let's promise the American people that never again will Congress allow financial tricks and traps to bring our economy to near-ruin. I see one of my colleagues on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me add my voice to this bipartisan chorus. It is embarrassing to the United States of America that we are now in the midst of our 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund. This 60-day extension ends in 10 days. It is true and the Senator from Texas is correct that many of us have come to the floor and said this is beneath the dignity of a great nation--that we cannot invest in our own economy, in our own business growth. Building the highways and bridges and the mass transit that sustains a great nation takes a determined long-term effort. Now, there are those--not on our side of the aisle, but there are those--who question whether the Federal Government should be involved in this at all. The so-called devolution movement argues, I understand, that this really should be a State and local matter: Get the Federal Government out of the business of planning the transportation grid for America. I have three words for those people who believe that: Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican President who, in the 1950s, had the vision and determination, once he had seen the autobahn in Germany, to say that the United States of America needs an interstate highway system for its national defense. That is how he sold it. He sold it to a bipartisan Congress, and we have lived with that benefit ever since. Our generation and even those before us have inherited the vision of that President and Members of Congress who said: Let us invest in the long-term development of America. Think about your own home State and what interstate highways mean to your economy. In my State, if you are a town lucky enough to live next to an interstate, you are bound to have a good economy. And if you are blessed with the intersection of two interstates, hold on tight, because the opportunities are limitless. So that generation 60 years ago had a vision. The question is, Do we have a vision? We certainly don't with 60-day extensions with the highway trust fund. That is why when Senator McConnell on the Republican side offered a long-term approach, 3 years--I wish it were 6--but 3 years actually paid for, I believe we should take it seriously. One Senator among us, Senator Boxer of California, did. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer rolled up her sleeves and started negotiating, crafting an agreement. How about this for an assignment. We said to Senator Boxer: Come up with a long-term highway trust fund bill, get it through four different committees to the satisfaction of at least the majority of the 45 other Democratic Senators, work out your differences, and report to us in 10 days. She did. I have to give credit to her, as big as this bill may be--and by Senate standards it is one of the larger ones--it was an undertaking she took seriously and we should take seriously too. Now that we have the bill, there is no excuse. There is plenty of time to read this. Don't believe that every word on every page is valuable, but let's go through it carefully and make sure we understand completely what we are doing before we vote. That was the cloture vote we had earlier today. When I went home over this weekend and called leaders in my State--I called the CEOs of two major corporations, I called the labor unions, I called the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they were over the moon and happy with the notion that we are finally going to come up with at least a 3-year highway trust fund bill. I will be reading this carefully. In the course of reading it, I hope I can come to the conclusion that this is the right answer to move us forward to build our infrastructure for the next generation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when President Obama came to office, he looked out at the threats across America, and there were four hard- target threats: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The situation in Iran was particularly worrisome because there was a recurrent belief that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I have heard critics ask: Well, what difference would it make? How foolish would it be for Iran to launch a nuclear weapon against anyone? Every nuclear weapon that is launched has a return address, and that country will pay dearly for a reckless decision such as that. But the fear the President had and we shared was that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, it would trigger an arms race, and many other countries in that volatile region of the world would then seek to develop their own nuclear weapons and the potential conflagration was incredible. There was also a concern that one of the first targets of Iran would be our close ally and friend, the nation of Israel. It is easy to reach that conclusion when you read and hear the rhetoric of the rightwing in Iran, which will not even recognize Israel's right to exist. President Obama set out to do something about it. It was clear from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that sending in American troops was something that had to be thought about long and hard. We have the best military in the world, but let's face it, what we faced in Iraq with roadside bombs maimed and killed so many American soldiers that we realized this new world of asymmetric military confrontation didn't guarantee that the best military in the world would have an easy time of it. We ended up with almost 5,000 casualties in Iraq and nearly 3,000 now in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan turned out to be the longest war in U.S. history. This President and the American people were reluctant to face another military confrontation. This President made a decision. I have talked to him about it. He decided every leader from every country who came in to see him would be asked to join in an effort to impose sanctions on Iran to bring them to the negotiating table over the issue of their nuclear capability. The President put together an incredible coalition because we learned long ago unilateral sanctions are not worth much, but if you can bring many nations around the world into a common purpose of putting the pressure on a country, it can have a positive impact. The coalition the President put together was amazing; witness the negotiations themselves where China and Russia were sitting at the same side of the table as the United States and the European Union--England and France--and many other countries joined us in imposing these economic sanctions when they had little to gain and a lot to lose when it came to the oil resources of Iran. The President's determination to put the sanctions on Iran was for the purpose of bringing them to the negotiating table. That diplomatic gathering would literally have been the first meeting in 35 years between Iran and the United States, representing that period of time when our relationship with Iran had reached its lowest possible point. At this point, the goal of the negotiation was very clear: stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. How real was the threat that they were developing such a weapon? If you go back in time and read the quotes from the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, for years--more than 10 years--he has been warning that the Iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon. It was a matter of weeks, months, a year at the most by most of his estimates. Of course, Israel, more concerned than most about the nuclear threat, warned the world of what would happen if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. Last week, after lengthy negotiations, the President announced with Iran and the others who sat at the table--P5+1, as they are known in shorthand--that they had reached an agreement with Iran. It was interesting to watch the reaction of Members of Congress. There were some Members of Congress who condemned that agreement before it was even released to the public. You see, 47 Members of the other side in the Senate had sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran during the course of negotiations, before any agreement was reached, warning him and his nation not to negotiate with this President of the United States. That was unprecedented. That had never happened before in American history--when a political party reached out to a sworn enemy of the United States and gave them advice not to speak to our leader. That letter went on to say that even though you think you reached an agreement between Iran and the United States, don't be misled; ultimately, Congress would have the last word on that agreement. It was no surprise in that environment that so many Senators and Congressmen from the other side of the aisle instantaneously condemned this agreement. Some of us decided to take a little time and perhaps reflect on it, read it, and reach out to people who were involved in it. I took last week to read the 100-plus pages of this agreement and to talk further to our Nation's top experts, including the Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others, about this agreement, hoping I could come to understand exactly what was being offered by way of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. I am under no illusions about the Iranian regime. Its support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is well documented, its abysmal human rights record is well known, and its brutal suppression of its own people during the 2009 election in Iran is well documented. Iran also continues to hold a number of Americans on outrageous charges, including Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and the Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. I joined a few years ago, in 2007, with Republican Senator Gordon Smith in introducing the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act--key components of which became the basis for a strict petroleum sanctions regime that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. I voted for all the key sanctions bills against Iran, and I have tried to be a consistent voice for increasing military assistance to Israel. When I chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I was proud to double the Iron Dome funding request of Israel for their own defense of their nation. The agreement before us is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear weapons issue with Iran. Without a nuclear weapon to embolden Iran, the agreement allows the United States and its allies to better deter Iran's destabilizing actions. Let's take a reflective moment and look at the history--recent history--in the United States. Strong leaders and nations such as the United States meet and talk to their enemies and negotiate when it is in their national interest. It was John Kennedy who said: ``We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.'' These kinds of negotiations aren't an example of weakness but in most cases are an example of strength, and sometimes the benefits aren't obvious immediately; they are realized over time. It is simply common sense. It has been the practice of this Nation, America, for generations, regardless of who is President, to meet and try to negotiate for a more peaceful world. Throughout our history, American leaders have successfully and aggressively used diplomacy, Presidents of both political parties. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis. We faced the prospect of a nuclear war, a standoff with the nation, where we knew and they knew they had the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States. Few realize how close we came to a nuclear confrontation. There were many hawks in Washington during President John Kennedy's administration who said let's take them on. Some even suggested a full invasion of Cuba, but John Kennedy wisely pursued a careful balance of strength and diplomacy, using a blockade and negotiations to bring us back from the brink. Few people knew the Kennedy administration was secretly negotiating with the Soviets while the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding, and ultimately President Kennedy agreed to remove American nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy as part of an agreement that Soviet Premier Khrushchev remove Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba. Are we going to say now in reflection that John Kennedy should never have negotiated during this crisis because the Soviets were out to destabilize the world and to spread communism? Let's not forget when John Kennedy entered into this negotiation, the Soviet Union had not only placed nuclear missiles in Cuba--they were in the process of placing them--but it was occupying Eastern Europe and trying to spread communism around the world. The bloody Korean war, where my two brothers served in the U.S. Navy, was a war in which the Soviets helped the North Koreans against the United States. Yet we sat down and negotiated with the Soviet Union. Fast forward a few years. In 1972, then-President Nixon traveled to Communist Red China to begin establishing normalized relations. China wasn't a friend of the United States. It was a key supporter of the North Vietnamese, who were ruthlessly fighting and killing U.S. forces in Vietnam at that same time. In fact, during Nixon's visit with then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, China was sending more weapons to the North Vietnamese. This was happening even while Nixon was asking China to end its support for the North Vietnamese. China's regime was also fomenting Communist revolutionary movements in Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand--all against the U.S. interests. Domestically, in China, Chinese leader Mao Zedong had persecuted millions of his own people as part of the brutal Cultural Revolution. I recognize, as President Nixon did then, that it is hard to enter into negotiations with a regime as nefarious as China, and just as with Iran today, many conservatives denounced Republican President Nixon for doing so. However, as China's sphere of influence grew and relations between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorated, many in both parties--including President Nixon--recognized it was time to change. Nelson Rockefeller, President Nixon's rival for the Republican nomination in 1968, called for more contact and communication. It was former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat, who proposed the building of bridges to the people of mainland China. Then-Senator Ted Kennedy recognized President Nixon's diplomatic efforts toward China as a ``magnificent gesture.'' Other Members of the Democratic-controlled Congress agreed. There was a time when foreign policy was bipartisan. There was a time when Democrats would speak up defending a Republican President, even when the most conservative Members of his own party were condemning him. Over time, President Nixon's decision paid dividends in America's interest. China moderated its foreign policy and established better relations with our country. These relations aren't perfect, but we know we made progress and we are in negotiations. China sat with us on the same side of the table trying to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. More recently in the late 1980s, President Ronald Reagan began discussions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on the possibility of nuclear arms reductions. It was inconceivable when those talks started in October of 1986 that they could really negotiate. Who would imagine that these two countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at one another, could actually sit down and reach an agreement limiting the use of nuclear weapons? The Cold War was far from over at that time. In 1979 Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan and continued to attempt to spread communism. That led President Carter to halt efforts to negotiate the SALT II Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty. The list of Soviet aggression at that moment in time was lengthy. Yet it was President Ronald Reagan who said he would sit down and negotiate with the Soviet Union. I have an excerpt here from the January 17, 1988, New York Times about the opposition Ronald Reagan faced in negotiating an arms agreement with the Soviet Union. It may sound familiar to what we are hearing today about President Obama's efforts in Iran. 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 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 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.'' These were conservative Republican critics of President Ronald Reagan, who was negotiating with the Soviet Union to try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and was being likened to Neville Chamberlain. Does that sound familiar? In May of 1987, the conservative National Review magazine had a cover with the title ``Reagan's Suicide Pact.'' President Reagan eventually agreed with then-Secretary of State Schultz that arms control could and would improve U.S. national security. In December of 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, committing the two superpowers to eliminate all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. This treaty, the Reagan-Gorbachev Soviet Union arms control treaty, was one of the first to rely on extensive onsite negotiations for verification. Do you remember who coined the phrase ``trust but verify''? It was Ronald Reagan in his negotiations with the Soviet Union. It took 5 months after Ronald Reagan reached this agreement for this Chamber to vote 93 to 5 in favor of that treaty at a time when the Democrats had a majority. I could go through the long list of Democratic Senators who supported President Ronald Reagan in his efforts to try to create a more peaceful world. Ultimately, because of that agreement, more than 2,000 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles were destroyed. Our relationship with the Soviet Union didn't improve overnight, and we certainly still have our problems with them today. But going back to what I said earlier, the Russians sat on the same side of the table as the United States in this negotiation for this agreement to end the threat, or at least delay the threat, of nuclear power and nuclear weapons in Iran. Imagine if 47 Senators, during the course of Ronald Reagan's negotiation with Gorbachev, had written in the middle of those negotiations to Mr. Gorbachev and said: Ignore President Ronald Reagan; don't negotiate with him because we are not going to accept it here in Congress. If that had happened, there would have been cries of treason for sending that kind of letter. It didn't happen. Those were the days when there was a bipartisan approach to foreign policy in the United States. Today we have a chance and an opportunity with Iran that hasn't presented itself for more than 30 years--the opportunity to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is not going to solve all the problems with Iran overnight, but it does solve, I believe, one critical problem. The agreement retains U.S. freedom of action to counter Iran in any part of the world. After all, if Ronald Reagan didn't stop trying to counter Soviet actions after negotiating an arms treaty with Gorbachev, President Obama will not and should not stop working to diminish Iran's influence after this agreement. I am under no illusions that for some period Iran did pursue a nuclear bomb. If that had happened, it would have been disastrous. And I am under no illusions that Iran lied in the past about these efforts. I know they did. But the agreement reached last week provides unprecedented safeguards and inspections to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons now or in the future. The United States and its allies are strong enough to enter into this agreement, not because Iran is suddenly trustworthy or an open democracy but because it serves our national security interests to do it. Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman negotiated this agreement with a single focus: Prevent Iran from getting any closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. They achieved that goal, and that is why I am supporting this effort by the President to bring a more stable and peaceful situation to the Middle East. To appreciate the magnitude of their challenge, let's step back and take stock of Iran's nuclear weapons program as it is today before this agreement goes in place. Iran currently has enough nuclear material to make 10 nuclear weapons. It has more than 19,000 centrifuges, many of which are more advanced and powerful. Immediately prior to the interim agreement with the P5+1, Iran was enriching its uranium to 20 percent. The breakout time--the time it would take for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon--was estimated to be 3 months. It was an incredibly large and dangerous nuclear capability, growing at a significant rate, and virtually unconstrained. That is what this President inherited from the previous administration. But thanks to this effort, this agreement cuts off every single one of Iran's potential pathways to a bomb. It shrinks major portions of their nuclear infrastructure. It eliminates many parts of it. It extends the breakout time to at least 1 year. Should Iran renege on this and decide they are going forward with a nuclear weapon, we believe that under this agreement it will take them at least a year to achieve it--a year in which we can put pressure and more, if necessary. The agreement reduces Iran's uranium stockpile by 98 percent, cuts its number of centrifuges by more than two-thirds, and for the next 15 years, caps its enrichment at 3.67 percent. It prevents Iran's underground facility at Fordow from being used for uranium enrichment. Iran is required to change its heavy water reactor at Arak so that it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. How will we know? Because we are helping to design and to monitor the fuel in and out of this facility and verifying it every step of the way. All of us have deep suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and we should. What if they try to build a secret facility? Well, our negotiating team, led by an extraordinary man, Secretary of Energy Moniz, designed a verification plan with no exits. Our team thought long and hard over the last 2 years about how we might be able to stop cheating. For every potential technique, they embedded a countermeasure in the text of the agreement. This weekend Secretary Moniz explained that it would be ``virtually impossible'' to hide nuclear activities under this agreement. It is the strongest nuclear verification system ever imposed on a peaceful nation. Its end result is that Iran will not be able to do anything of significance without being caught. And going back to Ronald Reagan, our inspectors will be on the ground.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. This agreement requires the IAEA to have 24/7 access to all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities. This means in-person inspectors, remote cameras, tamperproof seals--all of the world's most sophisticated detection technologies. As one nuclear expert commented last week, ``If a rat enters a nuclear facility [in Iran], we will know it.'' Critically, this intrusive monitoring goes all the way into the nuclear supply chain, from uranium mines to centrifuge production. We cover it all in this agreement. It will allow IAEA inspectors to follow every ounce of uranium from the ground to its final destination, and every piece of nuclear infrastructure from its creation to its use. If Iran tries to divert anything to a covert facility, we will know. This agreement also sets up a dedicated procurement channel. Any dual-use item Iran wants to purchase from the international community must go through this channel. The U.S. and its allies have a veto over such purchases. It makes it almost impossible for Iran to import anything of benefit to a nuclear weapons program. Lastly, Iran must also abide by the Additional Protocol forever. This allows the IAEA to have access to non-nuclear sites in a timely fashion, in as little as 2 hours. The agreement also requires any disputes over access to these non-nuclear sites to be resolved in short order. If not, Iran would be in violation of its commitments and sanctions could quickly snap back. Critics have complained about the time period our nuclear experts negotiated. But as Secretary Moniz and many others with Ph.D.'s have pointed out, uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It doesn't disappear like invisible ink. It cannot be cleaned up in a matter of weeks. If Iran cheats, we will know. President Reagan was correct to negotiate with the Soviets when there were strategic openings and President Obama is doing the same thing with the Iranians. The potential benefits of this deal are too significant, and the costs of not doing so too high, to just walk away. If we walked away, the international sanctions regime would crumble and Iran would have few if any restrictions on its program. Imposing more sanctions or simply bombing Iran today would create an even greater security risk to the region. In fact, if we bombed Iran today, it would almost certainly withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out inspectors. As soon as that happens, Iran's nationalistic backlash would almost assure that the regime would build a nuclear bomb. Over the longer term, if Iran were to fail or cheat despite its international commitment, we retain the right to use military force and we would be in a much better position internationally to do so. And accepting this deal does nothing to stop the U.S. and allied efforts from countering Iran's behavior elsewhere in the world. Key sanctions on Iran's support for terrorist groups will remain in place. Our support for regional allies will remain strong, if not stronger. And, critically, an Iran determined to destabilize parts of the Middle East with a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, will no longer be an option. No doubt this is why some 60 of the most respected names in foreign policy, Democrats and Republicans alike, recently wrote in support of this agreement. Those signing included Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Secretary of Defense William Perry; Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill; National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft; Under Secretaries of State Nicholas Burns and Thomas Pickering; U.S. Ambassadors Ryan Crocker and Stuart Eizenstat; U.S. Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, George Mitchell, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, and many others. We should do the same and support this agreement in the Senate. I see the Senator from South Dakota is here, and I will wrap up. Let me conclude. When I sat down to read this agreement--and I don't know how many of my colleagues have--I was struck on the third page with this statement in the agreement with Iran: Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapon. That is quite a statement. It was our goal at this negotiation. Do I believe it? Some, but I have my doubts. That is why we had to have an inspections regime from the Iranian mines right through the production facilities. That is why we had to dramatically cut back on their capacity to build weapons-grade fuel, and that is why this agreement is now--most of the countries believe--moving us in the right direction in Iran. There are critics. We heard a lot of them here in the Senate. There isn't a single critic who has stepped up with a better idea. They said: Well, let's go back to the sanctions regime. The countries that joined us in that sanctions regime did it to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and it worked. They now have an agreement they believe in and we should believe in too. To think that we are going to renew sanctions or place unilateral sanctions--that to me is not likely to occur if Iran lives up to the terms of this agreement. I will add the other alternative. We know the cost of war. We know it in human lives, we know it in the casualties that return, and we know it in the cost to the American people. Given a choice between the invasion of Iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a negotiation so we can lessen this threat in the world, I think President Obama made the right choice. I support this administration's decision to go forward with this agreement. I will be adding my vote to the many in the Senate in the hopes that we can see a new day dawning and in the hopes too that like President Nixon and President Reagan and even like other Presidents before us who have sat down to negotiate with our enemies, at the end of the day we will be a safer and stronger nation because of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the third time this year, Illinois communities are assessing damage and cleaning up after tornadoes. One twister struck the town of Cameron, in Warren County, on Thursday evening. Moments later, another struck the town of Delevan, in Tazewell County. The tornadoes were accompanied by storms with heavy rain and flooding. The National Weather Service says both tornadoes were category EF-2. That means that the winds blew up to 130 miles per hour. Homes in both small towns suffered severe damage. Several homes had roofs torn off, while others were completely flattened. The tornado that hit Delevan touched down without warning because tornado sirens lost power a few seconds after they began to sound. Debris from homes and farms was scattered across the community. Many roads in the community were impassible due to down trees and power lines. Emergency responders wasted no time going house to house in both communities. I spoke with Warren County sheriff Martin Edwards on Friday afternoon. Thankfully, there were no fatalities or serious injuries reported. The communities are busy cleaning up today and utility companies are working to get gas and electricity back on. Over the weekend, Sparky's Smokeshack set up a smoker on the edge of Cameron. The popular rib joint served up free meals to anyone who needed them. American Red Cross volunteers also are providing food and water. As is so often the case when a disaster like this strikes, first responders and friends and family members are helping people whose homes and businesses were damaged. I thank the first responders and all of the members of these communities for their work. The Illinois delegation and I stand ready to help in any way we can, particularly if the Governor requests Federal assistance. I have no doubt that the people in Cameron and Delevan will rebuild. Our thoughts are with the many people today who lost homes and other property.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have represented Quincy, IL, and Adams County since coming to Congress in 1983 as a Member of the House of Representatives. I have found that there is something special about the Gem City--its people, its strong sense of community, and the fighting spirit to tackle any crisis from floods to storms. That spirit was tested this week. I am relieved and thankful that there were no serious injuries or fatalities after a major storm tore through Quincy on Monday night. Torrential rain and winds up to 74 miles per hour felled trees, broke dozens of utility poles, and tore roofs off several homes and businesses during the event. The Quincy mayor declared a citywide state of emergency Monday evening and Adams County followed with a state of disaster declaration. Several people say the battered city looked like a warzone. More than 21,000 people were without power on Monday night and Tuesday. Crews have worked around the clock to restore electricity to most. Due to the loss of power, many stoplights were out throughout the city. Between the outages, flooded streets, and streets made impassable by fallen trees, navigating Quincy has been a challenge. The Quincy Park District estimates that the ``jaw dropping'' damage to the city's 29 parks--especially Madison and South Parks--far exceeds the devastation from severe storms in 2011 that costs the District more than $400,000. Caretakers at Woodland Cemetery discovered after the worst of the storm had passed that a 20-foot piece of a Civil War monument was toppled by the high winds and at least 35 trees were uprooted in the cemetery, many of which were more than a century old. Dozens of Quincy residents checked into motels to escape the heat as they started the cleanup of their homes and properties without power. John Wood Community College and the Quincy Senior and Family Resources Center set up cooling centers to give people a place to take a break. The Red Cross, Salvation Army, and other local agencies have been on site to lend a helping hand. I am grateful that Quincy fire chief Joe Henning, Adams County emergency management agency director John Simon, Quincy police chief Rob Copley, and many other elected officials and community leaders are leading cleanup and recovery efforts. Getting the city back on its feet and helping the people whose homes and businesses were damaged is a big job. In today's Quincy Herald-Whig columnist Steve Eighinger said it best, ``It's going to be quite a while before things are back to what we consider normal, but we'll get there. We're Quincy. We pay it forward.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the column be printed in the Record. In closing, I would like to commend the Quincy and Adams County community for pulling together to get through this storm and the aftermath. The cleanup is daunting, but the spirit endures. From the people of Hannibal and Macomb who have sent crews, trucks, and supplies to area residents who opened their homes and businesses to the displaced to the local businesses--grocery stores and gas stations-- that have supplied free ice, water, and recharging stations, and done their best to restock basic supplies so residents can feed and care for their families to the Kroc Center and its supporters who have fed Quincyans. This has been a team effort. I stand ready to support the local clean up and recovery efforts in Quincy and Adams County and will continue to keep community residents in my thoughts as they get the Gem City back up and running.