Richard Durbin

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I gathered Saturday night in Springfield, IL, with my wife and a group of close friends at the retirement party of Ann Dougherty, who served me so well here in the Senate office and in the congressional office in Springfield. It was a great night with a lot of enjoyment. That was interrupted by the sad news of the passing of Beau Biden. One of my other staffers came up and said that Beau Biden had passed away here in Washington on Saturday evening. Beau, of course, the oldest son of Vice President Joe Biden, had been suffering from a serious cancer illness--brain cancer--for some period of time. Most of us knew there was something terribly wrong when we approached the Vice President about his son's illness, and Joe--the Vice President--in very hushed terms would say, ``Pray for him.'' We knew he was in a life struggle, but the fact that he would lose his life Saturday evening at age 46 is a personal and family tragedy. It is a tragedy which is compounded by the extraordinary person Beau Biden was. This young, 46-year-old man had achieved so many things in life. First and foremost, he had married Hallie--a wonderful marriage, two beautiful children. He was part of that expanded and warm Biden family. He was known to most people around America by his introduction of his father at the Democratic National Convention. It was not a customary political introduction; it was an introduction of love by a son who truly loved his father. Beau Biden told the story of his mother's untimely death in an auto accident with his sister and how he and his brother Hunter had survived and drew closer to their father as they grew up. Jill Biden married Joe at a later date, and the family expanded. As you watched this family in the world of politics, they were just different. They were so close and loving of one another that you knew there was an extraordinary bond there. Beau Biden made his father proud and all of us proud in the contributions he made, first as attorney general in Delaware and then in his service with the Delaware National Guard, actually being posted overseas in harm's way and earning a Bronze Star for the extraordinary service he gave to our country. That is why his loss is felt on so many different levels. This life was cut short--a life which could have led to so many great things in public service beyond his service to the State of Delaware. But, in a way, it is a moment to reflect on this family, this Biden family. I have been in politics for a long time, and I have met a lot of great people in both political parties, extraordinary people. I have never met someone quite like Vice President Joe Biden. A friend of mine, a colleague from Illinois, Marty Russo, served in the U.S. House of Representatives for several decades. He was a friend of Joe Biden's. When Marty Russo's son was diagnosed with leukemia, Marty Russo called Joe Biden, who was then a Senator from Delaware. Joe Biden not only called Marty Russo's son but continued to call and visit him on a regular basis. His empathy and caring for other people is so extraordinary. I don't know that there is another person quite like him in public life. The only one I can think of who rivaled him was Ted Kennedy, who had the same empathy. And, as I reflect on it, both of them had in their lives examples of personal tragedy and family tragedy, which I am sure made them more sensitive to the losses and suffering of others. Joe Biden is the kind of person who does things in politics that really are so unusual in the level of compassion he shows. I can recall one time a year or two ago when we were setting out on a trip together that was canceled at the last minute. I called him and said: I am sorry we can't go together. I had hoped during the course of that trip to ask you to make a special phone call to the mother of one of my staffers who was celebrating her 90th birthday. She was the wife of a disabled World War II veteran who had raised a large Irish Catholic family, the Hoolihan family, and I wanted Joe Biden to wish her a happy birthday. Well, we didn't make the trip and I didn't get a chance to hand him the phone, but he took down the information, and as soon as he hung up the phone from talking to me, he called her. He was on the phone with her for 30 minutes, talking about her family, his family, and thanking her for making such a great contribution to this country. It is the kind of person Joe Biden is and Jill, his wife, the same. How many times in my life and in others has she stepped forward to show a caring heart at a moment when it really, really counted. The loss of Beau Biden is the loss of a young man who was destined for even greater things in public life, but it is another test of a great family, the Biden family, a test which I am sure they will pass and endure, not without a hole in their hearts for the loss of this great young man but with a growing strength that brings them together and inspires the rest of us to remember the real priorities in life-- love of family and love of those who need a caring heart at an important moment. Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland Mr. President, I just returned from a visit to Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland this last week. I went there to assess the ongoing Russian threat to our friends and NATO partners in Eastern Europe. What I saw was uplifting but deeply disturbing. Most urgently is the so-called Minsk II treaty agreement reached in February between Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France to bring an end to the fighting in Eastern Europe. This agreement was supposed to end the bloodshed in Ukraine, allow for the return of prisoners, ensure a pullback of heavy weapons, begin preparations for local elections, and return control of Ukraine's borders to the Ukraine. I am sorry to report that this agreement has not lived up to its promise. The blame rests squarely, and not surprisingly, with the invading forces of Russia. Not only does fighting continue in Ukraine on a regular basis but Reuters recently reported that Russia is amassing troops and hundreds of pieces of weaponry, including mobile rocket launchers, tanks and artillery at a makeshift base near the Ukrainian border. The equipment, along with Russian military personnel, had identifying marks and insignia that the Russians tried to remove to try to hide their real culpability. At this point, perhaps the only people in the world who do not believe Russia is behind the mayhem, human suffering, and displacement of innocent people in eastern Ukraine are the Russian people who have been lied to over and over again about what is actually going on with this invasion of Ukraine. President Putin has repeatedly lied to his own people about Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. He has lied to them about what started this conflict, and he has lied to them about the treatment of ethnic Russians outside of Russia's borders. Yet, as more and more Russian soldiers have been killed in fighting, Putin has struggled to explain this dangerous and cynical canard to the families of those killed in the war. Most recently, last week, he even went so far as to make it illegal in Russia to report war deaths--incredible. Yet, while I was there--as if anyone needed proof--two Russian soldiers were captured deep inside of eastern Ukraine. They had killed at least one Ukrainian soldier, and when it appeared they were about to be caught--listen to this--when it appeared they were about to be captured by the Ukrainians, they were fired upon by their own Russian forces, an effort to kill them before they could be captured. These soldiers have disclosed that they are in the Russian military and carried ample evidence on their persons to support the now obvious truth that Russia is squarely behind perpetuating this invasion and conflict. Mr. Putin, if you are going to drag your country into war to perpetuate your own political power, you ought to at least have the honesty to tell the Russian people the truth about that war, particularly those families of Russian soldiers most affected by this conflict. Going back to the old Soviet playbook of lies and disinformation is an insult to the Russian families whose young men are being sent into your war. So it is clear the Minsk agreement is in jeopardy. It is critical that the European Union now renew its sanctions in response to Russia's illegal aggression. We in the United States should continue to work with our key NATO allies to ensure that Ukraine succeeds as a free democratic state and that NATO members are protected against Russian provocations--more on that in a moment. Not everything in Ukraine is negative. The new government coalition is working tirelessly to reform the nation and provide a model of free market democracy on Russia's borders. Perhaps that is why Putin is trying so hard to undermine Ukraine. Decades of corruption, bribery, inefficiency, and bureaucracy are being tackled by this new government. Security services are being reformed. Ukrainians are starting to free themselves from the stranglehold of dependence on Russian natural gas. Keep in mind all of this is occurring while Russia has largely destroyed a key industrial section in Ukraine. Try to imagine rebuilding a neglected and corrupted economy in the midst of fighting a war against one of the world's superpowers, Russia, and losing key engines of a nation's economy. That is what the Ukrainians are up against. They have risked so much for a better future; one that is open and connected to the rest of the free world. Why this was and is such a threat to Russia I will never fully understand. I will say one thing that Mr. Putin did not count on. His invasion of Ukraine has unified that country in a way that I could not have imagined even last year. You see, there was a question which direction Ukraine would go, West or East. The people of Ukraine stopped the former Prime Minister, Yanukovych, in his efforts to move toward Moscow believing that their future should be in the West, but there was divided opinion even within Ukraine until Vladimir Putin invaded. At that point, the people of Ukraine realized their future was in the West. They looked to the West, to the European Union, to America, not only for support in this conflict but for inspiration as to what their future may hold. I was proud to see what our Nation has been doing in Ukraine. Under President Obama, we have provided significant nonlethal supplies and assistance to Ukraine and its military. In fact, we lead the world in supporting Ukraine's efforts to revitalize their economy and to strengthen their military. We have led that fight on establishing sanctions on Russia and making sure they are not lifted until Russia stops this invasion. In the town of Lviv, in western Ukraine, we have 300 U.S. Army personnel training Ukrainian National Guardsmen. I had the privilege of meeting with our forces, our American forces, these trainers and the trainees. I must say it was amazing. Now, listen, some of these Ukrainian National Guardsmen whom we are training had just returned from battle in the eastern part of Ukraine. One had been captured by the Russians for 5 days. They had been under gunfire and fighting in combat against the Russians and their skilled military who are being sent into an area called the Donbass. After they were relieved from that responsibility in the east, they were brought back west to this training camp with America's best in terms of our Army leadership. It turns out the basic training these Ukrainians should have had before they went into battle was never given to them. So now, coming back from battle, our soldiers were trying to give them the basic training to make sure they could survive if sent to battle again and bring home their comrades in the process. They were deeply, deeply grateful for that training, and our men and women working there to train them were so proud to be part of this effort. I commend this effort. I thank the President for extending America's hand to help the Ukrainian military be trained so they can survive and repel this Russian aggression. I went on to Lithuania and Poland. It was also clear the Russian bullying and aggression is not limited to Ukraine. In both Lithuania and Poland, these frontline NATO partners face a steady stream of Russian vitriol and military threats. Russian planes recklessly buzz NATO airspace, Russian leaders make threats of capturing cities like Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and dangerous missiles were moved into the Russian region of Kaliningrad, bordering both Lithuania and Poland. All the while, a steady stream of sophisticated yet crude Russian propaganda flows from its state-run media services. I happened to be in Berlin at an Aspen conference not that long ago-- just a few months ago--when we were moving NATO equipment and forces in a parade--a scheduled parade--of our military in NATO through Poland and the Baltics. There was a cable channel called RT, which stands for Russia Today, that was broadcasting what they called protesters protesting the presence of NATO soldiers and equipment. RT reported that these protesters were holding signs--and they showed small groups of them--saying, ``NATO, stop your invasion of the Baltics.'' Well, it turns out that was a phony. When I went there, I got the real story. In every town these NATO forces went through with their equipment, they were welcomed like conquering heroes. Women were holding out flowers and candy, and children were applauding as they went by, holding flags of Poland and of the United States. But RT, the Russia Today cable channel, was trying to twist the story and make it look as if the U.S. presence there was resented, when in fact it was welcomed. The stakes here are very high. Putin is pumping Russian language incitement into areas of Europe where ethnic Russian populations live. He is promoting a message of victimhood and trying to justify further belligerence. What an insult to the talented and proud and outstanding Russian people. I was pleased to see that the U.S. and NATO forces are maintaining regular rotations in these frontline nations. We are boosting our Baltic Air Patrol to protect the airspace and working with NATO allies to boost their own defenses. One of the most amazing things in both Lithuania and Poland was the unequivocal request of the governments in those countries for the United States to have an even larger military presence in those countries. They are worried. They want to make sure NATO is there if they need it, and they think as long as the United States is there, they have more confidence about their future. I had to tell them we are having our budget issues here. We are not talking about expanding U.S. military bases anywhere in the world at this point. We are trying to maintain our own military. It was heartwarming to think that they still believe in the United States as the one 911 number in the world that you want to call if you ever have a challenge. It is a dangerous and tragic state of affairs in this part of the world. I was glad to see it firsthand and to reassure those leaders in Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine that the United States shares their values and cares for their future. What we have seen is an effort by Putin to undermine decades of security arrangements in Europe while perpetuating an insulting image of victimhood. He has challenged the entire West and its democratic systems. We cannot let him succeed, for Ukraine, for NATO, even for his own people. Despite our disagreements in Congress, I hope we can continue to provide strong funding for support to Ukraine and NATO. I met with a group of eight members of the Parliament in Ukraine. Their Parliament is called the Rada. Of these eight members, at least six of them--maybe seven--were brand new to this business. They had come out of the protests in the Maidan--which is a large square in downtown Kiev, Ukraine--where the protesters had ousted the former government, installed a new government, and risked their lives to do it. Some lost their lives in the process. There were so many of those young people sitting across the table from me who 6 or 8 months ago had nothing to do with politics. They had jobs and they were artists and they were involved in their community, but they were so inspired by what they saw in the Maidan that they decided to run for Parliament. Now these young people are tackling the toughest issues that any government can tackle: ending the corruption, reforming their government, saving their economy, fighting the Russians on the eastern border. It humbled me in a way. I have given so much of my life to Congress and the legislative process, and I thought how many times we find ourselves tied up in knots, just as we are today, with little or nothing happening on this floor of the U.S. Senate when there are so many challenges we face across this Nation. I thought about them, sitting in Kiev not knowing if tomorrow or the day after or a week after they would have to face an invasion of the Russians coming across their country trying to capture it. Yet they have the courage and determination to press on, to try to build a better country for the future, inspired by their own people who took to the streets to reclaim their nation. Well, I left with some inspiration on my own part. I hope to encourage this administration to show even more support for the Ukrainians and to make it clear to our NATO allies that we will stand with them, as we have for so many decades, in the pursuit of democratic values. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there going to be a unanimous consent request made at this point?

Mr. DURBIN. I will reserve the right to object at that point. Mr. President, in the interest of time--I know it is early in the morning--I would like to make a statement. I am not going to object to proceeding to this measure, but I would like to make a matter of record what I am sure the Senator from South Dakota already knows: that absent our action at this moment, the Federal highway program authority will expire May 31. We have just spent the better part of the evening contemplating the expiration of important law relative to our national security, and we have not resolved it. What is happening here, of course, is a request for a 60-day extension of the Federal highway program. I might say--and I am sure the Senator from South Dakota is well aware of this--this is the 33rd short-term extension of our Federal highway program. I think all of us understand that the program that once was considered to be the centerpiece of America's infrastructure and its economy has now deteriorated to the point where we are extending it for 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months at a time. Frankly, it does not serve our country and it doesn't serve our economy. It is a reflection on the lack of leadership by those who have the authority in committees and in the House and Senate to propose a measure that becomes a long-term highway program. I just want to make it clear that instead of enacting a 6-year transportation program worthy of our great Nation, this Congress continues to limp along down a political highway of excuses. It is coming to an end. There have been lengthy discussions in our Democratic caucus that these continued short-term extensions are unacceptable in this great Nation. And I would just say that although we will agree to this 60-day extension, we are serving notice on the majority leader in the Senate as well as the Speaker to do their job and to enact a law that provides the kind of infrastructure that could build America's economy. So I will not object to this request, but notice is given that in this 60 days, it is time for this Congress to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week I was pleased to be joined by my Republican colleague from Louisiana, Senator Bill Cassidy, to introduce the Foreign Medical School Accountability Fairness Act. I appreciate Senator Cassidy's leadership on this issue and his willingness to work across the aisle. We were joined across the Capitol by Representatives Michael Burgess and Elijah Cummings, who introduced a House companion bill today. This bipartisan, common-sense bill fixes a loophole in Federal law used by for-profit medical schools in the Caribbean to gain access to Federal education dollars without meeting the same requirements as other foreign medical schools. Under current law, a small number of medical schools--about six, four of which are for-profits--are exempt from meeting the same requirements to qualify for Title IV funding that all other medical schools outside of the U.S. and Canada must meet. This loophole allows these schools to enroll large percentages of American students--which means access to more federal dollars. The biggest of these schools are for-profits--St. George's, Ross, and American University of the Caribbean whose enrollments of Americans are 91 percent, 83 percent, and 86 percent respectively. Other schools are prohibited from having U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents make up more than 40 percent of enrollment. These for-profit schools have turned the idea of being a foreign school on its head--they are located outside of the U.S., but have majority-American enrollments. They don't have to meet the same high standards U.S. medical schools must meet, but also don't have to meet the same requirements as schools located outside of the U.S. to access hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding. It's a pretty good deal for them. In fact in 2012, the three schools I mentioned earlier--St. George's and Ross and American University of the Caribbean, both owned by DeVry, took in more than $450 million from the federal government--from American taxpayers. That amounted to more than two-thirds of all Title IV funding that went to all foreign medical schools. To sum up--three schools, 2/3 of the Federal funding, exempt from the law. Not only are these three schools exempt from the enrollment requirement, but they don't have to meet a minimum standard of success--having 75 percent of their students pass the U.S. board exams--a requirement for any of its students to actually practice medicine in the United States. The University of Sydney, with its dozen or so American students, has to meet this standard in order to receive Title IV dollars. But DeVry's Ross University, with 1,000 or more American students, does not. It doesn't seem right to the Department of Education, which says there is no rationale for continuing the exemption. And it doesn't seem right to me either. Especially when you consider what students are getting for this Federal investment--more debt, higher rates of attrition, and lower residency match rates than U.S. medical schools. Translation: More debt and less chance of becoming a doctor. In September 2013, an article in Bloomberg by Janet Lorin entitled ``DeVry Lures Medical School Rejects as Taxpayers Fund Debt'' shined a bright light on the poor student outcomes of these schools. It is no secret that for-profit foreign medical schools prey on students who have been rejected by traditional U.S. medical schools. They promise to fulfill the unrequited dreams for students who want to be doctors, but for one reason or another, did not make the cut in the U.S. On average, scores on the MCAT, the test required to enter medical school, of students attending these offshore for-profit schools are lower than those of students who are admitted to medical schools in the U.S. In 2012, students at U.S. medical schools scored an average of 31 out of 45 on the MCAT while students at DeVry's Ross medical school scored an average of 24. The attrition rate at U.S. medical schools averaged 3 percent for the class beginning in 2009 while rates at for-profit foreign medical schools can be up to 26 percent or higher. More than a quarter of the students at some of these schools drop out. On average, students at for-profit medical schools operating outside of the United States and Canada amass more student debt than those at medical schools in the United States. For example, graduates of the American University of the Caribbean have a median of $309,000 in Federal student debt versus $180,000 for graduates of U.S. medical schools. To add insult to injury, these foreign-trained graduates are on average less competitive candidates for coveted U.S. residency positions. In 2015, residency match rates for foreign-trained graduates averaged 53 percent compared to 94 percent for graduates of medical schools in the United States. They are even less likely to land a residency position the second time around. According to the Bloomberg article I referenced earlier, one graduate of St. George's University, Michael Uva, amassed almost $400,000 in medical school loans, but failed to land a residency spot twice. Michael was forced to work at a blood donation clinic earning $30 an hour instead. Although he sacrificed years of his life training for it, without completing a residency, he will never get to practice medicine and this $400,000 debt will likely follow him throughout his life. Congress has failed taxpayers and students by subsidizing these Caribbean schools with billions in Federal dollars for years without adequate accountability and oversight. This bill takes a first step at addressing that failure--by ensuring these Caribbean schools must meet the same standards other schools outside of the United States and Canada must meet. This bill should send a message to those schools down in the sunny Caribbean who may have thought they could continue to exploit taxpayers and students without anybody noticing. It has broad support among the U.S. medical school community-- endorsed by medical school deans of more than 60 venerable U.S. medical schools and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. I look forward to working with Senator Cassidy as well as Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray to address this issue as the HELP Committee begins consideration of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Utah for their leadership on this important issue. Although we may disagree on some elements, they have really poured their hearts and souls into this debate, which is one of the most important ones we have faced. Thank you for your leadership on that. Issues Before the Senate I would like to at this point kind of reflect on where we are in the Senate at this moment where we have three major issues facing us and say a word about each. I will address some aspects of the trade bill and questions about our national security that have been raised by the extension of FISA. Before I get into those elements, in respect to the Presiding Officer of the Senate from the great State of West Virginia, I would like to reflect for a moment on McColloch's leap. Samuel McColloch was a major during the Revolutionary War, and he was given the assignment of keeping the western border frontier of the United States safe, which at that time focused on Fort Henry in what is now Wheeling, WV. Major McColloch had this famous moment when he was turned away from the gates of Fort Henry and had to ride away with the Native Americans--the Indians--in hot pursuit. He rode up the side of this hill or mountain, and as he reached the top there were more Native Americans or Indians waiting for him. He was surrounded, in a desperate situation. As the story or legend goes, at that point, Major McColloch went to the edge and, on his horse, with his rifle in hand, leapt off the side of this mountain or hill. The Native Americans rushed to look down, feeling that he must have died, and looked down, as the legend goes, to see him ride away on his white horse. They say he made this 300-foot leap on a horse. I don't know if he did or didn't, but that is how the story goes. What does that have to do with what we are facing here in the Senate? It is personal, but I used to drive Route 40 in those days between St. Louis and Washington, DC, when I went to college here at Georgetown. I had a 1962 red Volkswagen, and I used to drive it back and forth. No. 1, it was a long trip. It was a long trip because there were not many opportunities to avoid cities. You went right through the middle of Indianapolis, right through the middle of Columbus, and right through the middle of Wheeling, WV. On the famous hill or mountain of McColloch's leap, traffic would slow to a crawl--so slow that although I never stopped, I was able to read the sign above McColloch's leap because I was stuck in traffic and it was right in front of me. I always thought about that--well, someday I will go back and take a closer look at it. Well, I did get back to Wheeling and found out that the old Route 40 has changed a lot, and it doesn't go through Wheeling, WV. I don't get to see that sign on the side of the building, ``Marsh Wheeling Stogies,'' and all the places that used to be there, because of the interstates. There are amazing interstate opportunities now around Wheeling, WV; around Columbus, OH; around Indianapolis; around St. Louis; around Chicago, and it calls to mind one of the issues we are facing here at the close of this session: Why do we have such a great Interstate Highway System? Three words: Dwight David Eisenhower, the President of the United States, the successful general who led the D-day invasion and our conquest in World War II. When he was President, he envisioned the creation of an interstate highway system in America. Where did he get the idea? From Germany. He looked at their highway system and realized what an asset it was to that nation at war, that they could move people and supplies in such an efficient manner on the autobahns. He had a vision that the same thing would be available for America. He called it the Interstate Highway System. He created it in the 1950s. Virtually everyone in America today would concede it was a brilliant idea. It has created a backbone for commerce in America. In my State of Illinois, having an interstate near your town or passing through your town is really the best thing you could have for your economy except for one other thing--having the intersection of interstates nearby. Then you know what is going to happen. There is going to be a lot of retail, a lot of commerce, a lot of business opportunities. So here we have this Interstate Highway System which for almost 60 years has proven to be such a great success in America. Why do I dwell on this issue in the closing moments--we hope--of this session? There are Members of the Senate who have announced publicly that they want to put an end to this. They have said that from their political point of view, we have to put an end to this Federal, national highway transportation system. They believe it should all be done by States and the localities. They think whatever we have done is fine, but from this point forward, the Federal Government should have no role, no voice. We should not collect the Federal gas tax and put it into the construction of highways and bridges and mass transit across America. That is their position. You would dismiss it as just a marginal political position, but it turns out they have power within the Republican Party. Add to that group those who believe we should not be collecting revenue--any more revenue--for the Federal highway trust fund. It explains where we are today. Because of the opposition of these two groups within the Republican Party, those who want to do away with the Federal highway program and those who are unwilling to talk about any revenue for the program, today we are going to be asked for the 33rd short-term extension of surface transportation programs. Just to put this in perspective, we used to pass laws that reauthorized the Federal highway trust fund, Federal transportation trust fund for 5 and 6 years. That makes sense, doesn't it? If you are going to build a highway, it takes some time. It took a long time in Wheeling, WV, and Chicago and St. Louis. You need more than just a few months' commitment, you need several years of commitment to make an investment that pays off for America. So we used to pass these transportation bills when I was in the House, even in the Senate. It was the easiest political lift that we were assigned. Why was it so easy? Because Members of Congress could not wait to go home and announce that Federal highway funds were going to come back home and make a difference. I was one of them. I do not know how many shovels I have collected over the years from groundbreakings for highways or scissors for ribbon cutting. We do a lot of that as politicians. This Federal highway trust fund was a mother lode of public relations opportunities for Members of the House and Senate. Why? Because in my State 75 to 80 percent of all the money spent in Illinois on highway construction comes from Washington. So if we can pass this bill, we can point to projects that make a difference. When I was a Congressman, there was a stretch of interstate called the Central Illinois Expressway that starts on the eastern border of my State at Danville and goes all the way across Central Illinois to Quincy, which has dramatically improved the economy of that region--dramatically. I was happy to--every time we would complete a segment--be there for a photo and a press release. But then the argument started that maybe we should not do this and maybe we cannot afford to ask those who burn gasoline to pay a tax to build new highways and to repair the old ones. Now we are stuck in this situation where we cannot pass a Federal highway bill. Madam President, 32 times now--32 times--we have given short-term extensions of surface transportation programs. This one is almost laughable. Listen to this: We are going to extend the Federal highway trust fund for 60 days. What can you build in 60 days? Well, you can fill a pothole--maybe quite a few of them, as a matter of fact. But if you are going to repair a bridge, 60 days does not really give you much to work with. If you are going to build a new highway, that is out of the question. So what we are doing, limping along, extending the Federal highway trust fund for 60 days, 6 months, sadly, is ignoring the obvious. There are darn few things you can point to with certainty that the government can do to help build the American economy, but one, I am sure, is infrastructure, which used to be a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans alike agreed: build the infrastructure for business to keep businesses, to attract businesses, and to create opportunities for jobs in America--not anymore. Under the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate, they have refused to even schedule a hearing for a markup for the Federal highway trust fund. Nope, not going to do it. They want to extend this Federal highway trust fund for 60 days. They, I guess, believe that if you fill enough potholes you can build a highway. I don't think so. They think America can patch its way to prosperity. I don't think so. I think we have to look at the obvious. If we are committed to this country, to its future, to building the economy and creating jobs and keeping them, if we want our children and grandchildren to have infrastructure that builds competition into the 21st century, you cannot do it with a 60-day highway bill. It cannot be done. I had a long discussion with my Democratic caucus over the last several weeks and told them I think we are making a serious mistake. I think this ``go along, get along, 60 days, we are living for a week for Memorial Day'' attitude has to come to an end. I think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate has to stand and accept responsibility. That means passing a Federal highway bill, a Federal transportation bill. It is not just highways and bridges, as critically important as they are; it includes mass transit. In the State I represent, Illinois, downstate we love our highways. You get up to the Chicago metropolitan area, we love our highways still, but without mass transit we could not move all the people we need to move to keep the economy humming in the Chicagoland area. Twenty percent of this Federal Transportation bill goes to mass transit. Now, I am all for it. I support that; more people in trains, more people in buses, fewer people on the highways, less congestion. I think we ought to look at the big picture, too, even beyond the Federal Transportation bill. Can you imagine when that tragedy occurred on Amtrak just a little over a week ago--I believe eight people lost their lives and hundreds were injured--that the very next day, the next day, the House of Representatives held a hearing and decided to cut the appropriations for Amtrak. It is a classic case of ``what are they thinking?'' We want Amtrak to be safe, reliable, efficient. The people of America have told us they want it to grow. If you want to ride an Amtrak train in my State, coming into Chicago or going out of Chicago, you better get a reservation because those cars on Amtrak trains are packed. Sadly, most Amtrak rolling stock is about 30 years old, and we are not investing in Amtrak for our future. Where I live, Amtrak makes a big difference. Without Amtrak service out of Chicago, headed downstate in Illinois, I can tell you a lot of university presidents will tell you they will not have enough students. The students come from Chicago down to Champaign-Urbana to the University of Illinois; to Charleston, at Eastern Illinois University; Carbondale for Southern Illinois. They take that west side of our State run on Amtrak down to Quincy University in Western Illinois, Knox College. Over and over again, Amtrak service is a critical part of our State and its economy. Yet those in leadership on the Republican side don't believe in it. They want to see it go away, just like they want to see the Interstate Highway System come to an end. I think they are wrong. I think they are shortsighted. I think the public of this country has to speak up. So I guess I am serving notice here. This 60-day extension will go through. I understand that. But from this point forward, it is not going to be automatic anymore. It is not going to be: Well, we will do another 60 days and then we will do maybe 180 days. No. I think we need to have a moment in the Senate and in the House where this convenient extension, at the expense of America's future, comes to an end. It is time for the Republican Speaker and the Republican majority leader to lead, to call together their committees and to pass Federal highway trust fund. They have 60 days--60 days from the end of this month to get it done. That is enough. I hope they do it. Because if they don't, many of us are not going to stand by again and say: Let's just let this new approach of patchwork America become the symbol of our future. The second issue which we still have not resolved, is what to do about the PATRIOT Act. It was 9/11/2001. I was in a meeting just off the Senate floor. We had just seen, on a small television in our room, the second plane crash into the New York Trade Towers. It was pretty clear at that moment this was not just an accident. This was done by design. It was not 15 minutes later that somebody broke into the room and said: Leave immediately. Get out. There is another plane on the way. We evacuated the United States Capitol Building. I have never seen anything like it in my life. Tourists everywhere ran out those doors and stood out on the grass and looked at one another and said: Where are we supposed to go? What are we supposed to do? It had never happened before. Because of that experience and the tragedy of losing 3,000 American lives, we came together as a nation and said: We are going to stop this from happening again. We passed something called the PATRIOT Act, which empowered our government to go further than it had ever gone to keep us safe. We put a sunset on it. That was a wise idea. We said: It is not permanent law. It is going to be reviewed in a matter of 2 or 3 years because we are acting now with this emotional feeling about what has happened to America. We think we are doing the right thing, but we want to reflect on it and revisit it on a regular basis. Why? Because we are dedicated to the safety of this country, No. 1-- security and safety--but we are also dedicated to the rights of American citizens, our rights to privacy. So we wanted to strike the right balance. We thought we did, but we would return to it. Now, we are returning again. Here is the basic question we face; that is, what will be the reach of our Federal Government in gathering information to keep us safe? Specifically, in this case, we are talking about telephone records, not the substance of your phone conversations but your records. Whom did you call? How long did the call last? Whom did that person call? How long did the call last? Maybe two or three generations of telephone information. ``Bulk collection'' is the term that is used. It means, basically, that if you suspect someone in my home downstate area code of 217 in Illinois, if you suspected someone in that area code of being involved in terrorism or connected with a terrorist, the Federal Government would have the power to reach in and gather all of that phone information from area code 217. You might say to yourself: Well, why would they want to take all of it? They certainly have a name or telephone number of the suspect. No, bulk collection suggests gathering all of that information. Many of us have questioned over the years whether that is needed or if it was too far. I have offered amendments in the past which were unsuccessful because we did not know details about what the government was doing, and I could not disclose it. It was classified at that time, how much we were gathering, how often we were gathering. So over the years, my amendments would not succeed, but the cause continued to grow, to the point where we now have a USA FREEDOM Act, which says, basically, the Federal Government can reach into area code 217 to go after a suspect, that suspect's phone records, and the people that suspect may be in touch with. So we are more or less localizing it, particularizing it, going to an individual rather than collecting all of this information, bulk collection. This is what USA FREEDOM Act does. It limits government reach. Now, we do not want to limit it to the point where it endangers us. So we went and asked the professional, the intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice: Is this new version of the law enough to keep America safe? They came back to us and they said yes. As a result, we have a bipartisan bill, which has passed the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, supported by Speaker Boehner, the Republican leader, passed overwhelmingly the USA FREEDOM Act, and it has now come over the Senate. Why do we have to take this up now? Because at the end of May, the authority of the Federal Government to collect information on telephone records expires. The sunset I talked about recurs. So we have an obligation to do something before the end of May. I believe we should call up the USA FREEDOM Act that passed in the House of Representatives and pass it here. We are told by the President, the Attorney General, the head of our intelligence agencies that this is enough authority to keep us safe and not go too far. I failed to add, a recent court case in the State of New York found that this bulk collection of telephone records was illegal. So we clearly have to act and do something. We can, but it is tied up in knots. This morning, the majority leader came to the floor and took exception to some Members of his own party as well as my party and our position supporting the USA FREEDOM Act. I hope that he will give us a chance to pass that, and I hope there is a bipartisan majority to pass it. The last issue which I wish to address is the trade bill that is pending. It is a controversial measure. I will not go into any depth. I can't add a great deal to what has been said by so many people on the floor about this legislation. But the currency question raises an interesting question for us. There are ways to have unfair trade practices that are not very obvious, and there are some that are. One of the obvious ways to deal unfairly in trade is to dump a product in another country. What does that mean? It means if you are going to create and fabricate a ton of steel in Brazil and then sell it in the United States for less than your cost of production, you are dumping it. That is exactly what happened to us about 12 years ago. Brazil, Japan, and Russia decided to dump steel in the United States. Why would any country want to sell steel at lower than the cost of production. They are going to lose money on it, right? They saw that in the short term, but in the long term they knew what would happen. U.S. steel producers couldn't compete. They couldn't sell at that price. So they kept dumping steel in the United States until more and more steel companies in America went out of business. Oh, they filed their grievances for unfair trade practices, and therein lies the problem. Those grievances--those complaints--went to the International Trade Commission, which sat down to study the issue and make a decision on the issue. By the time they made a decision and found out that yes, there was dumping on, and yes, it was unfair to the United States, all of the U.S. steel companies that were affected had lost and gone out of business. So when you have a trade agreement, it isn't just a matter of having provisions. They need to be enforceable in a timely fashion or we will lose business and we will lose jobs in America. We have two other issues before us now. One of them relates to currency. You can price a product by the value of your currency against another country's currency. China and Japan have developed quite a reputation in the world for their currency manipulation to make sure they always had an advantage over the United States, no matter how good we were. So currency is an important issue that has been brought up in an amendment today, and it is an indication to everyone who follows this debate of the complexity of the debate on trade. There is a second issue that was brought up by Senator Wyden of Oregon, who is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and that is the whole issue of what to do when you have a dispute with another country about a provision of law. Here is an illustration. Australia passed a law, which required warnings on their tobacco packaging so that people in Australia understood the health risk of using tobacco. That is not uncommon. We do it in the United States. But Philip Morris, an international company that had offices in Hong Kong, protested to Australia that these labels, which discouraged people from buying their tobacco products, would cost them business. And they used this investor trade dispute mechanism, which meant they didn't have to go through the courts of Australia. They went through this basic mechanism, this tribunal created by the trade agreement. The net result of it was that Australia faced this prospect: Either to remove the law requiring labeling or to pay Philip Morris for the effectiveness of that labeling on their profits. The argument for this separate tribunal is that you cannot always trust the courts of the country. I heard that from my friend from Oregon. But also, when you take this out of the court system and let it be decided by corporate leaders, it really puts you at risk. What is going to happen when some company protests in America about our environmental laws, about our banning toxic chemicals, about our tobacco warnings? That means in addition to going through the courts of the United States, it may also go through a tribunal. I worry about that. Again, that is an aspect of trade which most people don't think about, but it could affect each and every one of us very personally. We are likely to finish this session this weekend, I hope, and we have three important issues. We are probably going to extend the highway trust fund for 60 days--and I hope that comes very soon. I see my friend from Tennessee on the floor. I want to say a word congratulating him for his leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and bringing about an extraordinary bill which passed on the floor of the Senate related to the negotiations with Iran. It is one of the highlights, I might say to my friend from Tennessee, of what we have achieved this year. I thank him for that. I don't know if he serves on any appropriate committee, but if he could take his skill and wisdom to create a bipartisan highway trust fund bill, we need it, and I hope we can do it. Secondly, I hope we can pass the USA FREEDOM Act. It is the right thing to do, striking a balance between security in America and privacy. Finally, we are likely to complete this part of the trade debate. I hope we have a fulsome debate on the amendments, which raise some important issues, two of which I have spoken to this morning. It is important that we do this business and we do it right. A lot of people are counting on us. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Memorial Day weekend, as our country remembers and honors those who have served America, a national cemetery in Elwood, IL, will make a distinguished mark on our Nation's history. Lincoln National Cemetery will become home to the Nation's first monument honoring fallen Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, LGBT, veterans. A recognition of our fallen LGBT service members is long overdue. This monument serves as a testament to those members of our military who have shown devotion to their country in the eyes of discrimination. It is in their memory that we move toward a more just and equal future. The monument comes nearly 4 years after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. With repeal, our country took a step to move past the prejudices of the past and toward a day when all Americans can serve the country with honesty and pride. This monument recognizes that service with a fitting dedication that reads: Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have served honorably and admirably in America's Armed Forces. In their memory and appreciation of their selfless service and sacrifice this monument was dedicated. This monument serves as a reminder to all of us that it is our job to envision and create a more just and equal nation where there are no prerequisites to serve your country. All of our servicemembers join the military to serve America and make the world a better place. We must honor that service by making sure we continue to uphold those values of equality and justice at home that they have fought for abroad.

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, 14 years ago, I introduced a bill known as the DREAM Act. My friend and colleague Senator Leahy was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for the last 14 years we have tried to pass this basic law, and here is what it says: If you were brought to the United States as a child, and you were undocumented in America, but you have lived here without committing any serious crime and finished high school, we will give you a chance. If you will agree to at least complete 2 years of college or enlist in America's military, we will give you a path to citizenship. I offered this legislation because so many young people--about 2\1/2\ million--living in this country were brought here when they were infants, small children. They didn't have any voice in the matter, their parents decided. They came to the United States. They have lived here as Americans. They stood in their classroom every single day and put their hand on their heart and pledged allegiance to that flag. That was their flag. What they didn't know or didn't understand was that they were undocumented. They don't have a country. The laws of the United States are very clear. If you are one of those people, you have to leave. You have to leave for at least 10 years and then apply to come back in. I didn't think that was fair. I introduced the DREAM Act. In fact, I had the support of the senior Senator from Utah as my cosponsor when I first introduced it. We could not pass it and make it the law of the land. So the day came when I appealed to the President of the United States, my former colleague from the Senate and the State of Illinois. He was a sponsor of the DREAM Act. I appealed to the President to give these young people a chance. He took his power as President and issued an Executive order, and that Executive order said that if these young people would come forward, pay a substantial fee for processing, show that they have no serious criminal record and can show they had come to the United States years before, they would be given a chance to stay without fear of deportation. It is called DACA. Well, the President waited and challenged Congress to do something about it--pass the DREAM Act, pass comprehensive immigration reform. Even though it passed in the Senate, with 68 votes on a bipartisan rollcall vote, the Republican House of Representatives refused to even call the measure for a vote. One year passed, 2 years have passed, and here we are--no action by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives or, for that matter, in the Senate to move comprehensive immigration reform. The President said: I am going to step up with my power as President and do what I can to deal with this issue. He said: Let's have some standards. I will not allow anyone to step forward and ask for temporary status in this country unless they have been here at least 5 years. If they step forward, they have to pay a filing fee for us to process their application, and they have to submit themselves to a criminal and national security background check. We don't want anybody in this country who is a danger to America. If they flunk that part of the test, they are finished and deported. And then they have to put their names on the books to pay their taxes in the United States of America while they are working. Under those circumstances, we will give them the temporary renewable right to stay and work without fear of deportation, and then several years later repeat it, submit an application again. The President believes, and I share the belief, we will be a safer nation if we do that. There could be as many as 11 million undocumented people in this country who would qualify for what we call DAPA. They would have to pay a fee, pay their taxes, go through this background check, and be subject to renewal on a regular basis. Well, today, May 19, 2015, was supposed to be the first day people would be allowed to apply for this new program--this DAPA Program, but unfortunately it has been stopped cold. It has been stopped by the Republican Party in the House and Senate and stopped by their efforts in court to stop this President. Oh, they have an alternative. They stated their alternative. Their alternative is for these people to leave the United States. Their candidate for President, Governor Romney, said as much when he ran last time. They have no alternative plan. They want these people--millions of them--to leave the United States through voluntary deportation, as they call it. Well, the sad reality is that is not going to happen, and obviously the Republicans are not going to do anything to deal with our broken immigration system. There are casualties with this decision. One of them is Naomi Florentino. This attractive young woman was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 10 years old. She grew up in Smyrna, TN. She was an amazing student and active in her community. In high school, she was a member of the National Honor Society, and she received the Student of the Year Awards for algebra and art. She served on the student council and played on the varsity soccer and track and field teams, where she was a shot-putter and discus thrower. Naomi's dream is to become a robotics engineer. In high school, she was a member of the robotics team, participated in NASA's Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Aerospace Academy, and she performed so well she won the Next Generation Pioneer Award. Naomi graduated from high school with an honor's diploma, but Naomi's immigration status limited her options. The college counselor refused to help. The college counselor at her high school told her that since she was undocumented, she was on her own. She didn't quit. She took mechanical engineering courses at Lipscomb University in Nashville. She then went on to community college. These undocumented kids cannot get help while they are going to school. They do not qualify for the Pell grant or government loans. She was determined. She was not going to quit. At the community college, where she will be graduating this spring, she has an associate's degree in mechatronics technology, a field that combines mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, telecommunications engineering, control engineering, and computer engineering. This fall Naomi will begin to work on her bachelor's degree in engineering at Middle Tennessee State University. Remember what I said. She is on her own. She gets no help from the government to do this because she is undocumented. In her spare time--if you can imagine she has any--she continues to be very involved in her community. For 6 years, she was judge and mentor in engineering and robotics competitions. Since 2008, she has volunteered as a college mentor with the YMCA Latino Achievers Program in Tennessee. Despite everything this young woman has achieved in her life, her future is totally uncertain. In 2012, President Obama said that under the DACA Program we are going to protect Naomi, and people just like her, from deportation. We will not give her government assistance to go to school, but at least she knows she will not be deported as long as she passes the test I mentioned earlier. She is now part of the work-study program at Nissan North America's Smyrna, TN, plant. They want her. Wouldn't you? This is the largest automotive manufacturing plant in the United States. As a maintenance intern, she assists with troubleshooting on their most sophisticated equipment--this young lady with 2 years of community college. She wrote me a letter, and here is what she said about the DACA Program: DACA has meant the opportunity of a lifetime for my academic and professional career. As a student at Smyrna High School, driving past the Nissan plant motivated me to be a better student--with hopes of, one day, being part of a company that is highly-regarded in my community. However, without proper work authorization, that goal seemed far- fetched. Today, it is a reality for me. I have learned that, given the opportunity, hard work, patience and perseverance can pay off. Naomi and 600,000 DREAMers like her have stepped forward under President Obama's program. They are not going to be given any kind of award. They will just be given a chance. I don't understand the Republican point of view. The Republicans would have us deport this young woman. Their attitude is: Send her back to Mexico. We don't need her. She, unfortunately, came here because her parents decided to bring her here, and now she has to pay the price for her parents' decision. Is that what America is all about? Is that what our system of justice is all about? Naomi will be an important part of our future, and thousands like her deserve that chance. That is why today is a sad day. The President's efforts to extend this program and help others--parents of young DREAMers like this have been stopped cold by the courts and stopped cold by the Republican leadership. President Abraham Lincoln once said, ``We cannot escape history,'' and history is very clear, we are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country, and I stand here today as a Senator from the great State of Illinois. I am very proud of what she and her family did when she came to this country. Let us reward those who are willing to come to America to work and make it better. Let us give these young people a chance. Let us, once and for all, say this Nation of immigrants is proud of our heritage and prouder still of what immigrants can mean to our future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask the Chair what business is pending before the Senate. Amendment No. 1327

Mr. DURBIN. Relating to the trade promotion authority bill?

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to speak on that issue. Madam President, we cannot ignore that more than 95 percent of the potential customers for goods and services and agricultural produce live outside the United States of America. This means that to grow our economy and to maintain our influence in the world, we clearly have to embrace trade; however, this doesn't mean we would embrace every proposed trade agreement. I have voted for about half of the trade agreements that have come before me in the House and Senate during my congressional service. I think some of those were good, on reflection, and some of them were not. There have been proposals made for free trade which I thought speak to the basic issue: Is America competitive in the 21st century? Can we outproduce other countries in the world? I never had any doubt about that, except for some given circumstances where another country has a specialty or some particular skill. I trust the United States. I trust our economy, our workers, and our business leaders. When it comes to a trade agreement, I think we have to answer some hard questions about the specific trade agreement, not the principle of trade. Here is something most people do not know. They have proposed this trade promotion authority so we can vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a document that has been negotiated over many months and is available for Members of Congress to see in a secluded setting. We cannot bring in as many staff as we would like, we cannot take the document out of the room, but it is accessible to us. Here is the point that is not often made: We have been told by the administration that this is not the final draft of the trade agreement. We have been told that after we pass the trade promotion authority bill, if we do, then there will be some more amendments and changes. So what we would view today is not necessarily what will be voted on at some later date. It is incomplete. It is a work in progress. There are some things we should know and should reflect on. First, I will look at it from a very personal perspective. I am honored to represent the State of Illinois. It is one of the largest exporting States in the Midwest, and it is the fifth largest exporting State in our Nation. Illinois exports totaled over $65 billion in 2013 and about 10 percent of my State's gross State product. Since 2009, Illinois exports increased by 58 percent, more than the national average of 50 percent. Fifty-six percent of exported Illinois goods in 2014--about $38 billion worth of exports--went to countries currently negotiating this Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with the United States. Is this important to my State? Is this part of the world important to my State? Of course it is. However, Illinois' success in exporting its products depends on good trade agreements that level the playing field, not just for Illinois companies but for American companies. This means we need to have strong antidumping rules that prevent companies overseas from dumping cheap, for example, steel products and other goods to undercut domestic prices and put our companies out of business. Did that happen? It sure did. A little over 10 years ago, three countries that we trade with-- Brazil, Japan, and Russia--had an idea. They figured out a way to drive American steel companies out of business. How did they do it? Were they better or more competitive? No. They dumped their steel. What does it mean to dump a product? It means to sell it in another country at lower than the cost of production in your own country. They took a loss on every ton of steel until they ran that American steel company out of business. We saw it coming. We saw this dumping taking place. We had trade agreements, and we took them to the enforcement authorities. We said: They are killing us. They are killing these steel companies in America and the people who work there and that is not fair and it violates the trade agreement. The organizations responsible for policing these trade agreements said: We are going to put that on the docket and we will get to that in just a few months. Well, a few months turned into a few years. We won the case. They had dumped steel in the United States, but the net result of it was not what we were looking for. The American steel companies went out of business. They could not compete against this dumped steel coming in from foreign countries. When it comes to these agreements, we need to ask some basic questions. Is it enforceable on a timely basis? Can we stop unfair trade practices before they kill American jobs? That is pretty basic. This steel issue continues to haunt us. Steel dumping is one of the reasons that the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, IL, an area I grew up in, will stop production at the end of the month and put 2,080 Illinois jobs in jeopardy. Fair trade agreements should include enforcement and they should also include enforceable currency manipulation provisions. When a country devalues its currency, the U.S.-made products, in comparison, become more expensive, and that adds to our trade deficit. It makes it difficult for U.S. companies to compete. There are a lot of ways to work on these trade agreements to the advantage of the exporting country if you break the rules. Trade agreements should allow the United States to enact and implement consumer protection laws meant to protect the public. We don't want to go to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the basics, such as protecting consumers, protecting the environment, and protecting the workers. So whether it is food safety, environmental, public health, consumer financial protection, an investor's future products should not take priority over a country's right to protect its own people. There is something known as the investor-state dispute settlement. It is a procedure which I want to describe to you because I think it gets to the heart of this trade agreement we are being asked to vote on. Investor-state dispute settlement procedures--often included in trade agreements and is included in several trade agreements that the United States is party to--prioritize corporate investors above almost everything. What is it? This is how it works: It allows a corporation to challenge a law in an international court if the law, in the eyes of that corporation, violates a trade agreement and infringes on the investment made by a business. That sounds kind of theoretical. I will be specific. We want U.S. businesses to have protections when they operate in other countries, so it appears to make sense, but corporations have gone too far. Corporations are using this dispute settlement to challenge legitimate laws in countries that protect the public, such as public health laws, environmental rules, land use, and food safety policies. More than 500 of these cases have been brought by corporations challenging the laws in various countries, including U.S. laws. A U.S. chemical company launched a case against Canada, as a nation, when Canada banned a toxic gasoline additive used to improve engine performance--an additive already banned in the United States. An oil company sued Ecuador after a domestic court there ruled that the company owed $9.5 billion to clean up and provide health care to the workers in Ecuador after the oil company had dumped billions of gallons of toxic water in open-air oil sludge pits in Ecuador's Amazon. Do you get the picture? Your country passes a law to protect the people living in your country, and then a corporation that has trade business with your company sues the country where the law was passed and says that new law is going to cost them money. Those are two examples. A toxic additive to gasoline--a corporation sues Canada and says you cannot ban that; that will cost us profits. Efforts by Ecuador to avoid toxic dumping in their own country are being sued by an oil company that says, if you do that, it will cost us money. They did not go through the court system. They went through this investor settlement dispute. There are so many examples of corporations using investor settlement dispute to undermine, rollback or delay laws meant to protect the public. One of the most egregious examples is Philip Morris. I kind of take this personally. As long as I have been around Congress, in the House and Senate, I have had a battle with tobacco companies. It happens to be the only product which when used according to manufacturers' directions will kill you and can still be sold legally. So I don't happen to think tobacco companies are in the best interest of public health for America or any other country. About 26 years ago, I passed a law banning smoking on airplanes. It was the first time tobacco companies ever lost. I passed it in the House, and my good friend the late Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey passed it over here. It is the law of the land. For over 25 years, nobody smokes on an airplane. Tobacco companies fought us every single step of the way. Philip Morris, one of the largest tobacco producers in the world, is aggressively challenging domestic tobacco laws around the world using the same investor-state dispute settlement that is going to be included in this agreement. In Australia, as an example, after the highest court ruled against Philip Morris and upheld an Australian law requiring warning labels to cover a large majority of cigarette packaging, Philip Morris did not give up. Instead, Philip Morris sued Australia in an international tribunal under investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty. If Philip Morris wins, Australia could be forced to pay Philip Morris for expected future losses because of a warning label on tobacco products. It could be billions of dollars. Proponents of this settlement dispute that is baked into this agreement we are going to be asked to vote on rightly claim these procedures can't require countries to change their laws. In other words, Philip Morris can sue Australia and say: Your new law is going to cost us money. Keep it if you wish, but we lost profits because of this new law, and you have to pay us for our lost profits. They can force countries like Australia to choose between changing the law or using their own taxpayer dollars to pay billions of dollars to a company like Philip Morris for their expected future losses. Think about that for a second. Philip Morris is selling a product that kills if it is used as intended. Some 6.3 million people each year across the world die because of tobacco-related disease. Australia's health care system loses millions of dollars in tobacco-related illnesses for people in their own country, as well as lost productivity at their workplaces. Yet, when Australia enacts a public health law requiring labels on tobacco products, Philip Morris can sue Australia? Yes, that is right. Tobacco products produced by Philip Morris are literally killing Australian citizens, and Philip Morris is suing Australia because the warning labels may cost them future profits. The same thing is happening in Uruguay. Philip Morris again lost its case against Uruguay challenging its tobacco control laws which helped reduce tobacco use in that country by 4.3 percent. Now Philip Morris says: If we can't win in the courts, we are going to win through the trade agreement. We are going to win through the trade treaty, the dispute settlement in the trade treaty. Sometimes even just the threat of a trade dispute challenging a law is enough to block, delay, or prevent enactment of a public health law because a country doesn't have the resources to engage in an expensive and lengthy lawsuit. This was the case in New Zealand and Nambia. Corporations are using investor-state dispute settlements to undermine legitimate public laws, from financial protection, to public health, to environment and food safety. What are we thinking? If we would allow corporations under a new trade agreement to come in and attack public health laws in America, to come in and attack environmental protection in America--because they can argue: If I can't pollute in that river, it is going to cost my company a lot of money; therefore, you have to pay us if you want to keep that pollution law on the books. That is why I am supporting Senator Elizabeth Warren's amendment that removes fast-track authority for any trade agreement that includes these investor-state dispute settlements. State-to-state dispute settlements would still be available if the corporation's rights have been violated or if a country passes a law that violates a trade agreement. But there is no need to go the extra step and give priority to the rights of corporations over the rights of people when it comes to laws that protect health, food, clean water, and clean air. As the Senate continues to debate on giving fast-track authority to these trade agreements currently being negotiated, we still don't know what is in the agreements--not entirely. Providing fast-track authority for these agreements would prevent this Senate from offering amendments that would provide only one up-or-down vote after the agreement is finalized. I support fair trade. I support trade. I hope the final agreements will meet the standards we have spoken of. But I cannot support granting fast-track authority to agreements where we don't know their contents and we could give away the most basic responsibility we have as Senators in the United States--to protect the people of America. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I was unavoidably delayed on United flight No. 616 and not present for the vote on Senator Brown's amendment No. 1242 to increase funding levels for the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Had I been here, I would have voted yea. Vote on Amendment No. 1237, as Modified

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.