Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I would like to add a comment from the current TransCom commander, GEN Darren McDew. In January, General McDew said, ``As a military professional and senior leader, I think about and plan for what the future may hold, and I would tell you we must prepare for the real possibility we will not enjoy the uncontested seas and broad international support experienced in 1991. If either of those possibilities becomes reality, and if we remain committed to responding to security incidents around the globe, the only way of guaranteeing we decisively meet our national objectives is with U.S. ships operated by U.S. mariners.'' I thank Senator Hirono for joining me in this effort to ensure that full funding is secured for the Maritime Security Program in fiscal year 2017.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join today with my good friend, Senator Hirono, to address the requirement for full authorized funding of the Maritime Security Program. Senator Hirono and I serve together on the Seapower Subcommittee and firmly believe that this program is important to our national security. The United States needs a U.S.-flag merchant marine that is strong, active, competitive, and useful to the military. Our merchant marine has a long history of providing sealift support to our Armed Forces for global military operations. The Maritime Security Program is a unique public-private partnership that helps the merchant marine, enhancing America's commercial sealift capability while saving the American taxpayer billions of dollars.

Mr. WICKER. The Senate version of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2017 includes $275 million for the Maritime Security Program. This is an increase of $65 million above the enacted level for fiscal year 2016. Although we are pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended this increase in funding, we hasten to point out that Congress acted last December to increase the authorization level for the Maritime Security Program to $299,997,000 for fiscal year 2017. The House Appropriations Committee has recommended funding for the next fiscal year that would meet this authorization. As this appropriations bill works its way through Congress, we urge the chairs and ranking members of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittees and the full Appropriations Committee to work in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to provide funding for the Maritime Security Program at its fully authorized level of $299,997,000 for fiscal year 2017.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the fight against muscular dystrophy is a cause I have championed since my days in the House of Representatives. My fight against Duchenne muscular dystrophy began when a parent told me about his son's diagnosis with the disease. This parent refused to accept that there was no hope. The House and Senate agreed with the MD-CARE Act and, since that time, the life expectancy of the average Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient has increased by a full decade. This is progress we have made on behalf of sick people whose lives were threatened, and this is an example of government at its best. On Monday of this week, I saw the same devotion in the hundreds of Duchenne families who attended a meeting of the advisers of the Food and Drug Administration. The meeting's attendance broke records. I thank the FDA for making the appropriate accommodations to handle a crowd of this size. Some 11,000 people also tuned in remotely, watching the meeting via live stream. Monday's gathering was about what could be the first disease- modifying therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. For more than 3 hours, the advisory committee heard from parents, doctors, and patients about the drug's impact on their lives. The stories were heartfelt and hopeful, reinforcing the importance of patient engagement in the drug approval process. The dedication of the Duchenne community continues to set an example for advocates of other rare diseases. Patient voices should be part of the drug review process, and I am glad to see the FDA is implementing greater stakeholder involvement in this process. This was one of the goals of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, which Congress passed in 2012. It continues to be a goal of my Patient-Focused Impact Assessment Act, introduced last year, which would require FDA to share how they use feedback from patients and advocates in the drug approval process. Unfortunately, the advisory committee decided this week not to recommend the approval of the first Duchenne drug. This is disappointing news for me and for thousands of Duchenne families, even those who might not benefit directly from this drug but from other advancements that could stem from it. Before a final decision is made next month, I hope the FDA will take into consideration the perspectives of Duchenne patients and parents. The individuals fighting the good fight every day are ``the real experts,'' to quote Austin Leclaire, who suffers from Duchenne and has experienced increased mobility because of the drug. People like Austin have a life-threatening disease now. They don't have much time. No matter the outcome of the FDA's decision next month, I will continue to fight the good fight on behalf of those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In the 15 years since I introduced the MD-CARE, I have learned that small wins can lead to big victories. MD-CARE was the first Federal law to focus on muscular dystrophy. It helped set in motion the research and trials that have produced groundbreaking therapies. The life of muscular dystrophy patients now is an average of 12 years longer--I think I earlier said a decade; it is actually 12 years longer than it was in 2001--a wonderful achievement. There are more trial participants needed today than there are Duchenne patients. Young adults with Duchenne were a population that did not exist when we first funded research for the disease. They never got to adulthood. Today they are getting to adulthood because Congress acted. Because of the MD-CARE amendments that became law last Congress, research at the National Institutes of Health has been updated in ways that could help patients lead even longer, healthier lives. We want this research to continue. We want companies to continue to invest in drugs and therapies that could change the lives of those with rare diseases. Duchenne is still a fatal disease, affecting 1 out of every 3,500 boys--mostly boys. Most young men with Duchenne live only to their mid to late twenties. We should take every opportunity to find a breakthrough. We should take every opportunity to improve quality of life. This is about the futures of young people who face this disease every day and the families who refuse to give up hope. I look forward to the FDA's full and final decision on this matter next month, and I certainly am hoping for a positive answer from the FDA. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment for 3 minutes, if I might.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I appreciate that. First of all, I don't think the Senate is going to adopt the Ernst amendment because we authorized--reauthorized this important ARC program just last year on a bipartisan basis in both the House and the Senate. I want to make this point: This is discretionary spending that is largely under control. This is discretionary spending. It is 2008 projected out to 2026. As you can see, it hardly keeps up with inflation. We have a spending problem in this country, but it is mandatory programs--the red line--not this discretionary line from which comes the Appalachian Regional Commission. I want to make that point. This amendment is targeted at the wrong type of spending. What do we get out of ARC? My friend from Maryland is exactly right. We leverage private dollars for investments to create jobs. We build infrastructure that creates jobs and supports jobs. We have revolving loan programs that have created 50,000 jobs since 1977 and retained 51,000 jobs. Let's attack spending. Let's get together and talk about Bowles- Simpson and do what we need to do about the problem that has given us this $19 trillion debt. But for heaven's sake, we have a program that was reauthorized almost unanimously last year that helps people get a job and persuades private industry to contribute to that effort at a 6- or 7-to-1 ratio. We want to keep that type of investment to create jobs for our families. I will be voting against the Ernst amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. I yield back.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President and my fellow colleagues, I once again come to the floor to talk about Alzheimer's and the efforts being made in this country and in this Senate and in this city to find a cure and find better treatments for the scourge of Alzheimer's. Many of you know this is the most expensive disease our country has ever seen; one-half trillion dollars a year in costs to programs that we need to protect like Medicare, Medicaid. This will rise to $1 trillion per year in the lifetime of many people within the sound of my voice unless something is done. I am so appreciative of the some 1,200 people who descended on Washington this week advocating on behalf of the millions of Americans living with Alzheimer's and their family members. I was honored to be invited to their conference and to speak to over 1,000 people in the hotel where they were meeting earlier this week. They then came to Capitol Hill to visit in the offices of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, and I had a great meeting on Wednesday in my office. We want to reaffirm our dedication to putting an end to this terrible disease. My mom died with dementia. Most of us have family members who have had Alzheimer's or who have been impacted by Alzheimer's. I appreciate the support of my colleagues in this Congress for NIH funding. It is very important to continue funding, to continue increasing the funding for the excellent work done by the National Institutes of Health to fight Alzheimer's disease and fund Alzheimer's research. I appreciate my colleagues voting for a $350 million increase in research for Alzheimer's disease, but of course this falls far short. This is funding that experts say is needed to reach our goal of curing Alzheimer's within the next decade. Along those lines, I have introduced legislation that I think gives us a different way to approach the disease of Alzheimer's. My bill is called the EUREKA Act that involves a prize competition, in addition to everything we are doing in research, everything NIH is doing, and all the research being done around the country. It is a prize competition inviting innovators, inviting people to think outside the box, come forward, and give us their ideas. EUREKA stands for ``Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for Alzheimer's.'' Of course, the Greek translation for Eureka is ``I found it.'' That is what we are trying to do--trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's, trying to find milestones that will lead to a cure, and trying to find treatments to help those suffering from the disease. The goal of my EUREKA Act is to find the best and brightest minds in the country, the best and brightest minds in the world, to come forward and use their ingenuity to solve this complex problem. As I have reiterated in visits with Member after Member, and I have reiterated on the floor, with a prize competition, we pay only for success. Regardless of the amount of money we put on the prize, you don't pay the money until we have success, which is one of the reasons this EUREKA provision wouldn't come out of NIH funding. It would add to it, and we would only pay the money if we got the result, which of course would be far more valuable than the prize. The numbers associated with Alzheimer's are daunting--even worse, chilling. The disease affects 5 million Americans. The number of people with Alzheimer's is on the rise, as we all know. It is the sixth leading cause of death in America and, again, it is the most expensive disease in America: $236 billion this year and $1 trillion per year by the year 2050. Of course, there is a huge burden for the caregivers also. There is good news, to be sure. It was announced last week that there's been an analysis by UsAgainstAlzheimer's, and it showed some 17 drugs for Alzheimer's could be launched in the next 5 years. In Mississippi, the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson has developed a service called TeleMIND as part of its MIND Center. Telehealth technology is being used to attack Alzheimer's, to treat Alzheimer's patients, and make life better for them and their family. Let us try the concept of EUREKA also. Let us try the concept of offering a prize to young minds. Perhaps people from around the world might come to the United States. This might be someone in a basement or in his mom's garage or might be some major international corporation. We don't care. We want to offer an incentive for somebody to come around, think outside the box, and get us to a cure quicker. Prizes have a history of success. In 1927, Charles Lindbergh achieved a nonstop flight between New York and Paris. He won a prize of $25,000 in so doing. In 2004, the XPRIZE--sponsored by the XPRIZE Foundation-- offered $10 million for the first reusable manned spacecraft. You know what happened. It drew down $100 million in investments, this $10 million prize. In 2011, $1 million was awarded for a breakthrough in oilspill cleanup. So prizes work. It can work, in addition to the research NIH is doing around the country. Let me say, in addition to myself as principal sponsor of this act, we now have 39 cosponsors among this 100-person Senate. We are day-by- day, step-by-step getting toward a majority. It is my hope the leadership of the HELP Committee that is now working on the 21st Century Cures Act that came over from the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote--I hope we can, in a bipartisan fashion, with the leadership of Senator Alexander, with the leadership of Senator Murray--his lead Democrat on the committee--I hope we can make a decision to add the EUREKA bill to the 21st Century Cures Act, to have this extra opportunity, in addition to everything we are doing, to cure Alzheimer's. I would urge my colleagues, I would urge the staff members who might be listening to this, to check and see if their Members have cosponsored this and to help us with an additional tool to attack the problem of Alzheimer's. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Michigan for deferring for a moment or two while I make these remarks. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't know what other Members of the Senate will be doing at 8 p.m. eastern time, but I can tell you I will be in front of my television set watching ``American Idol.'' We all take pride in people from our own States, but I want to boldly predict that the winner of ``American Idol'' tonight will be a contestant from my State of Mississippi. The reason I am so certain of this is that two talented Mississippians are the two finalists remaining in the ``American Idol'' competition tonight. They say this will be the final season of ``American Idol.'' Perhaps we are only going to have a timeout for a few years, and we will see it back. This is the 15th season of ``American Idol.'' I am so proud to announce to my colleagues in the Senate and to the Presiding Officer that the two finalists are none other than Trent Harmon of Amory, MS, and La'Porsha Renae of McComb, MS. Now, in Mississippi we proudly call ourselves the Birthplace of America's Music, and I think we do that with some justification. From blues to country to rock and roll, our State has produced more Grammy award winners per capita than any other State in the Nation. Elvis Presley comes from Mississippi, as well as Robert Johnson, B.B. King, Jimmie Rodgers, Charley Pride, Faith Hill, and the list goes on and on and on. Last month, I was honored to participate in the opening of the Grammy Museum in Cleveland, MS. There are now two Grammy museums in the country. One is in Los Angeles and the other is in the Mississippi Delta in Cleveland. The Mississippi Delta is a testament to the many musical inspirations that have emerged there. In 1986, Paul Simon sang: ``The Mississippi Delta is shining like a National guitar.'' He sang that line 20 years before the first Mississippi Blues Trail marker was placed, but he was correct. We now have some 200 Blues Trail markers across our State, and I invite each and every Member and all the rest of you to come and visit those locations in Mississippi. But tonight, the entire State of Mississippi will be shining like a national guitar with talents like La'Porsha Renae and Trent Harmon. They are keeping our legacy alive. They represent the wide range of Mississippi's musical influences. It was wonderfully touching to watch the video of their hometown visits, where the people came out to support them, showing off their Mississippi talent and the dedication of their fans. Trent Harmon is from Amory, MS. He grew up on his family's farm, working in his parents' restaurant, the Longhorn Fish and Steakhouse. Growing up in Amory is truly a small town beginning. The town has a population of around 7,500 people. Trent's interest in music was apparent from early on, as he spent his time in high school and college performing in musicals. My wife and I have numerous times been to Amory High School to see Trent Harmon perform in programs such as ``Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,'' ``Forever Plaid,'' and other performances. He was a star then, and he is going to be a star in the future. Trent's powerful voice and versatility seem effortless. He can do it all, from southern soul to R & B. La'Porsha Renae comes from McComb, MS, down in the southwestern part of our State. She worked for a call center before auditioning for ``American Idol.'' She has shared with America the details about her story of survival from an abusive relationship in which she had to seek refuge in a women's shelter. Her soulful voice has been compared to Aretha Franklin, and the emotion she pours into every performance is truly show-stopping. She credits her former high school algebra teacher, Angelia Johnson, as one of her biggest mentors who encouraged her to embrace her own signature style. La'Porsha dedicated last night's moving performance of ``Diamonds'' to her young daughter who was in the audience. So when it comes to talent, I believe ``American Idol'' may have saved the best for last, and I very much anticipate a great performance tonight. Millions of Americans will choose one of these outstanding young Mississippians as the latest, but perhaps not the last, ``American Idol.'' Trent and La'Porsha have made Mississippi proud. They have made me proud, and I wish them all the best tonight and in their future musical careers. I am quite certain that both of them will be incredibly successful. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing the deepest respect and admiration for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Our country has lost a brilliant, principled, and determined jurist. For three decades, Justice Scalia invigorated the Supreme Court, becoming an icon for constitutional originalism. He had a remarkable ability to espouse legal theory with memorable turns of phrase, and he could expose gaps in opposing opinions with laserlike precision. He did not fear differences of opinion but embraced the intellectual challenge that conflicting viewpoints could offer. The enduring friendships he made with those across the ideological spectrum are a true testament to his indomitable scholarship. Antonin Scalia had a distinguished career in law, academia, and public service before being confirmed to the DC Circuit and later the Supreme Court. The many accolades and achievements of his biography are well known. But Antonin, fondly known as ``Nino,'' was much more than an extraordinary legal mind. He was man of faith and family, raising nine children with his wife, Maureen. His son, Christopher, wrote this in the Washington Post following his father's death: ``As proud as we are of his legacy as a jurist, of course it's his presence in our personal lives that we'll miss the most.'' To his children, he was a loving father who took them to Sunday mass, listened to Bach in his study, and never shied away from playfulness at the dinner table. We will remember Justice Scalia in my home State of Mississippi, where we were honored to host him over the years. We shared with him our variety of southern hospitality during his regular visits to the Magnolia State in pursuit of duck, deer, and turkey. When he wasn't outdoors, he spent time educating the public, especially college students, delivering thought-provoking lectures at the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, the University of Southern Mississippi, William Carey University, and MUW. Justice Scalia's unanimous confirmation as the first Italian-American Justice was a historic moment for the Supreme Court and the beginning of a legendary tenure that will have a profound effect for generations to come. He leaves a vibrant legacy--perhaps most notably characterized by his steadfast protection of the Constitution as the Framers intended it. As I said shortly after learning the news of his death, ``I like to think Antonin Scalia and James Madison are having the damnedest visit right now.''

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I understand we are on the bill, but there are no speakers presently here, so I would like to address the Chair and my colleagues for a few moments about the matter my colleague from Wyoming was discussing just now, and that is the very serious matter of how we will fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia. I want to read to my colleagues a message I got from one of my constituents in Columbus, MS. As you can imagine, we have all received quite a bit of opinion from the people who put us in office, but I think this constituent really hits it on the head when she says: ``The next appointment is probably the most crucial in our history and will have ramifications on future generations.'' I really agree with that, and I think it is such a profound decision that we ought to feel comfortable, as the Senator from Wyoming just said, in letting the people decide. We are in the midst of a great debate about the direction our country will take, the executive branch will take, over the next 4 and possibly 8 years. The Court has been relatively balanced, with a slight 5-4 tilt toward the conservative side. Clearly there is an effort in this city and on the part of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to shift that balance. I think it is reasonable to conclude, with so much involved and with the ramifications on future generations, as my constituent has said, that it is very appropriate that this be a matter of debate in this Presidential election and, frankly, in the Senate elections also. And I realize there is a lot of heat and light on this issue, but I would simply suggest that we are on the right track in letting the American people speak to this. There is another matter in this regard that I have been reluctant to bring to the attention of my colleagues until today, but I think it has gotten to the point where we need to be reminded that there are rules of decorum that apply to this debate and to all debates we have on the Senate floor. I would direct the Chair's attention and the attention of my colleagues to rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Paragraph 2 of that rule states: ``No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.'' I read that paragraph in its entirety because it is quite obvious to me, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I think to objective observers, that what has ensued over the last week or two has been a concerted effort to impugn the reputation and honor of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. I would just suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and particularly to my friend the distinguished minority leader that in reviewing some of the statements that have been made on this floor--and I have them in my hand, although I will not read them again to the Chair because they are in the Record--particularly those statements coming from the very top leadership of the other side of the aisle, there has been statement after statement that crosses the line, that is prohibited under the rules. It is a breach of our rules to suggest about any other Senator motives unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator. I hope we can continue this debate, and certainly we will, but I hope we will confine it to the merits of the issue, and there are merits on both sides. This is not the place to conduct an election or reelection campaign--the floor of the Senate is not that place--and it seems to me that in recent days that line has been crossed and crossed repeatedly. I will get back to my original point. We are prepared to let the American people speak on this issue, and it is of vital importance not just for the next 4 years but perhaps for the next decade, two decades, or three decades. And I would ask us to dial the rhetoric back, dial the heat back, and stay on the issues. We are comfortable making the case that this is a decision that should be left to the American people. I thank the Chair for giving me the time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. We will let the time run on that issue. Alzheimer's Disease Madam President, at this point I wish to talk about Alzheimer's and an opportunity that we have to cure this most serious disease. We could find a cure for Alzheimer's, Madam President and my colleagues, and we could do it through American ingenuity. No obstacle has ever been too great for American ingenuity. We have defied seemingly impossible odds in the past. We have eradicated polio from the entire North American Continent and from most of the globe. We have mapped the human genome. We have been to the Moon. We are going to send somebody to Mars. We can conquer Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's was first discovered more than a century ago. When you think about it, we only began human flight about 100 years ago. Think of what we have done in human flight. It just boggles the imagination. We need to cure Alzheimer's here at the beginning of the second century of this disease. We have made progress in understanding the disease. Yet we still do not know how to stop it. We don't know how to slow it, and we certainly don't know how to prevent it from happening. Alzheimer's continues to cause profound human suffering. It affects 5 million Americans who have the disease, but not only them. It takes a toll on family and friends forced to watch their loved ones slip away. I could tell you from personal experience I know what I am talking about. Last month Time magazine featured Alzheimer's on the cover: ``A radical new drug could change old age,'' ``The Longevity Issue.'' There is an article in here entitled ``Alzheimer's from a New Angle.'' I think we need a new angle to address Alzheimer's in using innovative drug trials, as the magazine indicates, but also in a new angle concerning the use of prize competitions. I propose that Congress should look at Alzheimer's from the angle of using the XPRIZE Foundation and using a suggestion that has been endorsed by a number of organizations that have thought long and hard about this. I introduced the EUREKA Act last fall as a way to reinvigorate the fight against Alzheimer's and related dementias. EUREKA stands for Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for Alzheimer's--EUREKA. We have found it, and we can find a cure for Alzheimer's. This bill could be the beginning of finding a cure. Finding a cure is our ultimate goal, but it will take steps to get there. My bill would create prize competitions to reward breakthroughs in Alzheimer's research. I want to assure my colleagues who are very interested in NIH funding that EUREKA would not be a substitute for any dollars that are going to current research funding for Alzheimer's. That would continue, it ought to continue, and we ought to do whatever we can to expand that. EUREKA would be in addition to what we are doing at the National Institutes of Health. Prizes would be awarded for a number of advancements, perhaps drug treatments to early detection methods. The best part is there would be nothing for us to lose because with a prize competition you pay only for success. Without success, the American taxpayer pays nothing when it comes to the EUREKA bill. I am grateful for the bipartisan support that my bill has already received in the Senate. Thirty-five of our colleagues have sponsored the bill. I believe by the end of the day I will be able to announce 36. I hope even more will lend their support. Alzheimer's is certainly not a partisan issue. It is a national issue and one of the great challenges of our time, not only from a human standpoint but from a budget standpoint. Alzheimer's is a major spending issue. It is responsible for $226 billion a year. The estimates are that by the year 2050, those costs will be $1 trillion per year. We have a $19 trillion debt right now. Think of the additional debt that will be piled up unless we tackle this issue and get to a cure. Think of the savings. Think of the other areas we would be able to address if we didn't spend so much of our Medicaid budget on Alzheimer's patients, so much of our Medicare budget on Alzheimer's patients. Experts say $2 billion in research funding is needed to prevent and treat Alzheimer's by the year 2025. This remains the goal of the Alzheimer's plan, and it remains my goal, but that is a much higher number than we can afford at the NIH level right now. However, by fostering public-private partnerships, as the EUREKA bill would do, we could build on current resources in new and exciting ways. These partnerships would help unleash the power of American innovation and the power of American competition to encourage people from different backgrounds and sectors to work together in pursuit of a life-changing discovery. This could work. Prize competitions have worked in the past. When Charles Lindbergh achieved a nonstop flight between New York and Paris, he won a $25,000 prize and helped inspire the aviation industry that we know today. Another example of success in this concept is the XPRIZE. The competition is currently sponsored by the XPRIZE Foundation. The XPRIZE Foundation has been promoting technological breakthroughs for more than two decades. In 2004 it offered $10 million for the first reusable manned spacecraft. This XPRIZE competition generated $100 million in investments by competitors. A $10 million prize generated $100 million in investments by competitors. In 2011, a skimmer that accelerates the cleanup of oilspills was awarded a $1 million XPRIZE. So this can work and it will work if we give it a chance. The bottom line is that we need America's best and brightest minds working on Alzheimer's right away. We need a way to reward success. Deaths from Alzheimer's are on the rise. Its costs already exceed those for cancer and heart disease. Think about that. The costs for Alzheimer's per year exceeds the cost for heart disease and cancer put together. So we need to put our emphasis where the need is. I thank all of the organizations that have come together and endorsed this concept. I thank my friends at the XPRIZE Foundation. They stood with me last fall and endorsed this concept. This legislation was designed with the help of the XPRIZE Foundation, in consultation with the XPRIZE Foundation, and they know what they are talking about. I thank the foundation for doing that. I also thank the following organizations that have endorsed this concept and specifically endorsed the EUREKA bill: a group called UsAgainstAlzheimer's, the Alzheimer's Association, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, the BrightFocus Foundation, the MIND Center at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in my capital city of Jackson, and also a group called Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease. They all agree that by unleashing this--the concept of a prize competition--we can cure Alzheimer's disease and I hope we will try. This bill is generating support and dialogue for finally putting an end to this devastating disease. Let's pass this bipartisan legislation. Thank you. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wish to speak for 5 to 10 minutes about an important matter, and so I appreciate being recognized. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it probably doesn't come as a surprise for people to hear a Senator from the northeast be such a strong advocate of passenger rail and Amtrak. But I can tell you as this representative of Mississippi and a Senator from the southeastern part of the United States, we believe in passenger rail, too. It is important to the entire national economy, and so it is important to our economy. It is also important to the economy in my region of the country. I am pleased and excited about the possibility of restoring passenger rail to the gulf coast for the first time since Hurricane Katrina. We made it work between New Orleans and the Mississippi gulf coast and Mobile and Orlando before the storm, and we think we can make it work now. One provision in the bill establishes a new gulf coast working group, which will receive a $500,000 grant specifically for the purpose of returning rail to the area. Another provision creates a grant program that can assist applicants like the Southern Rail Commission and has worked to restore passenger rail to the gulf coast. In addition, I am an advocate of competition, so I am pleased to see that this new legislation opens up the possibility of having private rail carriers competing for up to three of Amtrak's long-distance routes. I think in this way we can achieve cost savings, better performance, and good worker protections. In closing, let me say that we are glad the law has been passed and signed. It seems from this angle that it was so inevitable, but I can tell you and I think Members of the floor on the Senate who are listening to this colloquy would have to admit that this didn't have to happen. As a matter of fact, it could easily have fallen off the rails or fallen off the tracks. On a bipartisan basis, people on this side of the aisle and on Senator Booker's side of the aisle did not allow the distractions and the naysayers to prevail. We insisted that if we kept working, we could get this entire package done on a bipartisan basis. I wish to salute Republican Members in the majority who put this forward from a committee standpoint, but I also want to salute my Democratic brothers and sisters who said: Yes, we can do this, and we ought to do it not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans for the American economy. My hat is off to my partner in this effort and to everyone on both sides of the aisle for making this a reality.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise first to commend the three Senators who have just completed their colloquy. They have been discussing an accomplishment this year that results from bipartisan efforts. I too would like to speak about a bipartisan effort that I have been engaged in with the Senator from New Jersey, who joins me on the floor today, which would be the passenger rail portion of the Transportation bill which the President has already signed. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy concerning this legislation.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am so pleased to have worked with Senator Booker on the rail portion and on the entire Transportation bill. I am pleased it has passed the House and Senate and been signed into law by the President--a major accomplishment. I would note that predecessors of ours from our States were part of the last major effort for a comprehensive rail bill. My predecessor, Trent Lott, along with the late Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, were the authors of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act, which was introduced in 2007, and much work on it was done before Senator Lott resigned at the end of 2007. It was actually passed in 2008. So I think it is quite appropriate that Senator Booker and I would be allowed to follow in their footsteps and participate in this legislation, which deals with making our rail system safer in the United States and more efficient and puts greater attention on planning and efficiency. I know that Senator Booker shares my enthusiasm for the accomplishment that this Congress has made in that regard.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, policymakers from all over the world will be meeting in Paris this week and next to address the issue of climate change. With much fanfare, they will purport to reach an agreement that will prevent the Earth's ``average global air temperature'' from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. This 2-degree limit will supposedly mean success for the conference in Paris and success in the battle against global warming, thus preventing catastrophic events from occurring. So I come to the floor to call attention to several news articles pointing out problems with this approach, with this 2-degree Celsius approach. The first is a front-page story from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I hold it in my hand. It is titled ``Climate Experts Question Temperature Benchmark.'' This is not an opinion piece, it is a news article. The article points out that the 2-degree target is both arbitrary and based on questionable research. The article quotes Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at the University College London, saying: It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis. It's not a sensible, rational target. The article goes on to say that despite assumptions by policymakers, the 2-degree target does not express ``a solid scientific view.'' Indeed, no report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even mentions the 2-degree limit. Economics Professor William Nordhaus appears to have been the first to use the 2-degree figure. The article notes that his work ``argued that a rise of two or more degrees would put the earth's climate outside the observable range of temperature over the last several hundred thousand years.'' I ask my colleagues how did they measure air temperature 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, as Professor Nordhaus appears to have been concerned about. I would also point out to my colleagues that being outside the observable range is far different than being catastrophic. It is not the same thing, but from that has evolved the 2-degree model. This is not the first time the model has been criticized. In October of last year, David Victor and Charles Kennel wrote about it in the journal Nature. Victor is a professor of international relations at the University of California San Diego and Kennel is a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. Yesterday I got this article from the journal Nature and read it myself. In their piece, Professors Victor and Kennel wrote: Politically and scientifically, the 2 degree Celsius goal is wrong-headed. . . . It has allowed some governments to pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost nothing. This is one of the things I worry about. This is one of the things I fear from the Paris conference. The United States will agree to do a lot, costing job growth here, and other countries will do almost nothing, as the professors say. Victor and Kennel say that the 2009 and 2010 U.S. conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun officially adopted this approach. They then conclude: ``There was little scientific basis for the 2 degrees Celsius figure that was adopted.'' Additionally, in an op-ed last month for the Wall Street Journal, environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg cites his own peer-reviewed study to show how the most high-flown promises in Paris will fail to make any substantial impact on climate change. Even if every country fulfills every promise made in Paris over the next decade and a half, according to Dr. Lomborg, the growth of global temperatures would be reduced by less than .05 degrees Celsius, or five-hundredths of a degree Celsius--by the end of the century, the year 2100. So is it 2 degrees or is it less than five-hundredths of a degree? And is 2 degrees sensible and rational? Not according to Professors Maslin, Victor, Kennel, and certainly not according to Dr. Lomborg. One more quote from Professors Victor and Kennel. They point out one of the major problems in the 2-degree Celsius approach: ``Failure to set scientifically meaningful goals makes it hard for scientists and politicians to explain how big investments in climate production will deliver tangible results.'' Yes, what are the tangible results? What can we expect in tangible results from the agreements that will certainly come out of Paris? We will be $3 billion poorer, that is for certain, because the President has pledged $3 billion from taxpayers for the Green Climate Fund. I would point out that $3 billion could be used for Alzheimer's research or malaria or malnutrition or any number of the other problems the people of the world see as more important than climate change. Tangible results coming out of Paris: Electricity bills will be higher. Lower income Americans will be colder in their own homes, our economy will have suffered, and job growth will have been slowed, perhaps by as much as $154 billion a year. That figure comes from Stanford University analysts who say that if we adopt the Obama administration's proposal of cutting domestic carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 28 percent, GDP will be reduced by $154 billion per year. If we spend all of this money, trim our GDP by $154 billion a year, and actually achieve this impractical 2 degrees Celsius, where will humankind be then? How much will the sea level not rise? No one can say. How much thicker will the icecap be in the Arctic or Antarctic? No one knows. How many coral reefs will be preserved? No one will even venture a guess. All of this to be done, all of this money to be spent, and experts cannot say how much it will help, if at all. Dr. Lomborg writes that the Paris agreements are ``likely to see countries that have flourished with capitalism willingly compromising their future prosperity in the name of climate change.'' Negotiators in Paris should weigh the real-world costs against the negligible environmental impact when discussing emissions reductions. Finally, the Obama administration's international promises should come back to the Senate for advice and consent of Congress. Under the Constitution, the approval by two-thirds in the Senate is needed to enter into a legally binding treaty. I join many of my colleagues in urging the President to submit to Congress any agreement in Paris with regard to U.S. emissions targets and timetables or pledges that appropriate taxpayer dollars. Americans should have a say in the approval process. A recent FOX News poll showed that only 3 percent of Americans believe that climate change is the most important issue facing our country. In conclusion, the President's promises in Paris are not based on scientific analysis, according to these professors, but would certainly slow the economy, cost jobs, cost billions of dollars, divert money from real and pressing needs, and be of limited value. With so much at stake, these policies should come back to Congress for debate, consultation, and approval or disapproval. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I certainly agree with my colleague from New Hampshire, and I commend her for her leadership in getting this legislation drafted. It is an opportunity to provide a very meaningful chance for Bosnians and Herzegovinians to live the good life and remain in the area, but it is also in the absolute national security interests of the United States of America. We can't tend to everything, but we saw 20 years ago--25 years ago and forward--with the war in the Balkans what could happen and what almost happened to security in all of Europe. We know this has been a flash point down through the decades and even the centuries. To the extent that we can address some things that we didn't get done at Dayton, this will help people in the region and the former Yugoslavia and also help the United States of America. The Dayton Agreement was a crowning achievement, but it didn't provide Bosnia with a constitutional framework and political structures that could effectively govern on into the 21st century. And the Senator from New Hampshire and I certainly saw that. We were meeting with the tripartite head of the government after the ceremony we attended. Dan Serwer of Johns Hopkins University recently observed: We imposed the Dayton Accords, but we imposed what the ethic nationalist warring parties told us they could live with. It is therefore unsurprising that one way or another, ethnic nationalists have dominated Bosnia almost continuously, making it ungovernable, since 1995. So we are hoping the Bosnians and Herzegovinians can address this issue, and while they are doing that, our legislation would establish an enterprise fund directed by a board of American investment professionals capable of leveraging both public and private funding to provide entrepreneurs access to the same kinds of loans and investment opportunities afforded to small- and medium-sized businesses here in the United States. By strengthening the private sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this legislation would help create space to continue moving forward on the political reforms I just alluded to. As the Senator said, it would establish an enterprise fund modeled after U.S. programs that supported central and eastern European economies after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with approximately $10 billion of public and private funding. I would also point out that this legislation doesn't score as an expense. I think we are being very frugal with the authorization we are providing to the Congress to build on this, if our legislation passes. Per capita income in Bosnia and Herzegovina averages less than $5,000 annually. And that is a shame 20 years after the Dayton Accords. Compare this $5,000-a-year per capita to $13,000 a year right across the border in neighboring Croatia. The unemployment rate stands at 40 percent. Things are at a critical juncture in this country, and that is why I think our trip over there with former President Clinton and with former Secretary Albright and Members from the House of Representatives came at such an important time and prompted us to work together on legislation to help make the situation better for individuals over there but also help make our national security stronger and more reliable here in America.

Mr. WICKER. And I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. WICKER. Although we both are Ole Miss graduates.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, on November 21, the world will mark the 20th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement, which ended the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina that began in April 1992. Last July, the Senator from New Hampshire and I had the privilege and distinct honor of being part of a delegation of House and Senate Members to visit Srebrenica as part of the official U.S. delegation to remember the genocide in Srebrenica on its 20th anniversary. So a few months later in November, we commemorate a happy occasion, a positive development in the history of Europe and in international relations, the Dayton Accords. I commend a bipartisan duo for securing approval within the United States. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, were both instrumental--along with a host of others--in persuading on a nonpartisan basis Americans and American Congressmen to support this agreement, which involved a bit of risk for the United States. It involved troops of the United States going into this area and risking their safety in order to make this accord work. So I appreciate this, and on the 20th anniversary of that agreement and their leadership, I commend them. The Dayton Agreement was part of a response to a conflict that helped the international community transition from a world divided between East and West in order to meet post-Cold War challenges. I wish to mention three accomplishments of the Dayton Accords and then Senator Shaheen will speak for a few monuments about that aspect. Then we will talk about some legislation that she and I have had the honor and privilege of working on together as a result of this trip that she and I took, along with others, to commemorate this tragedy in Srebrenica. Back to the Dayton Accords, among the accomplishments is a successful and robust peacekeeping force under NATO, which actually replaced the U.N. peacekeeping group with a NATO command group. It was deployed for the first time, and NATO also intervened out of area for the first time to make peace. Secondly, persons were held accountable for war crimes on an international basis--crimes against humanity and genocide. This is the first time this had happened since World War II. Third, international cooperation on demining and a concerted search for missing persons became essential parts of post-conflict recovery. Dayton also put the OSCE on center stage--the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of which I am a committee chair representing the United States of America. The Accord mandated that the OSCE oversee arms control efforts and develop confidence-building measures within Bosnia and regionally and make it possible for a country divided and almost destroyed by war to hold elections in a reasonably Democratic manner. So let's celebrate that accomplishment, and I am sure the Senator from New Hampshire will have some more important insights to offer at this point.

Mr. WICKER. The Senator from New Hampshire makes two very salient points I do want to underscore. And it pains me that we have to be on the floor of the Senate this afternoon talking about an aggressive Russia. Russia was trying to help 20 years ago in the Dayton Accords. They were trying to be part of getting things done. This is no longer the case. Russia and some of the few countries aligned with their interests now seem to be trying more to block effective responses to the international problems. In addition, some of the aggression of Russia in Ukraine, for example, is eerily, troublingly reminiscent of some language in previous decades--talk of violating a neighbor's sovereignty, territory, and claiming they are doing nothing more than defending a threatened local ethnic population. That is troubling and familiar rhetoric from a very dangerous past time. So I would underscore the Senator's point there about Russia. Before I toss this back to her to close, I would simply say this about her comments about American leadership. No one could have made this work except the United States of America in the early 1990s and in the mid-1990s. There was one people on the face of the Earth, and that was the Americans. The world turned to us, and we stopped a conflagration in Europe that was about to get out of hand. With regard to Syria, I am so glad my friend mentioned this. The United States is being looked to internationally for leadership. No one else can provide that leadership. Again, it is incumbent on us to help people who are suffering in other locations, and we want to do that if we can, to the extent we can afford it. But we need to act with leadership on behalf of the United States of America, on behalf of our own citizens, on behalf of our own national defense interests and the interest of every American to live in the absence of fear from terrorism and the attacks and ill wishes of those who would cause us injury, if they possibly could. I very much appreciate her point about American leadership, and I know this will not be done unless we do it across the aisle. It is why it means so much to me to take the floor this afternoon in this colloquy, with a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire and I, a Republican Senator from Mississippi, pushing in the same direction and asking for American leadership.

Mr. WICKER. Although we both are Ole Miss graduates.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire and I be able to utilize up to 20 minutes for speaking in a colloquy.