Roger Wicker

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. Although we both are Ole Miss graduates.

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

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

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.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank the chair and ranking member of the committee and, of course, the staff for working with us on this issue. This is an amendment that should be familiar to Members because essentially the same language was voted on in the form of a motion to instruct conferees last week. The essence of both that motion, which was adopted on a vote of 56 to 31, and this amendment today is to prevent a Federal mandate which has been contained in the committee version of this bill. That mandate would have required all 50 States to allow twin 33 tandem tractor-trailer rigs in each State. Some 12 States allow these twin 33 tandem tractor-trailer trucks and some 38 States prevent them. If the language were to remain in the appropriations bill, all 50 States, including the 38 States that have chosen not to accept these trucks, would be mandated. I think the vote of the Senate was clear last week. I will simply point out that this will remove a Federal mandate and will assist small business truckers who don't have the capital to move to these new longer double trucks. It will promote public safety and, I would submit, save lives and save $1.2 to $1.8 billion every year in maintenance and repair because of the damage caused by these twin 33 trailers. I appreciate the committee working with me to get a vote, and at this point I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 2815.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her assurance, and I withdraw my objection.

Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object, just for point of clarification, I am under the assumption that the bill will move under regular order requiring a 50-vote threshold for all amendments. I ask, through the Chair, if the Senator from Maine can tell me if I am operating under the correct assumption.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand that we are moving to consideration of the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I understand I have 2 minutes. I will speak briefly and then yield to Senator Feinstein. This is what this is about, these twin 33 double trailers, which are longer than is legal in 38 States. The question is whether we as a Senate, we as a Congress, we as a Federal Government, are going to mandate on the 38 States that don't allow these to allow them on their roads at any rate. So a ``yes'' vote would be a vote against the Federal mandate. When do you get in one fell swoop an opportunity to vote--a vote that will save lives, a vote to prevent a Federal mandate, a vote for small business, a vote to save $1.2 to $1.8 billion a year in highway maintenance, and a vote supported by the overwhelming majority of the people? Vote yes not to mandate this on the States. I yield the floor to the Senator from California.

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time while we are in quorum calls be divided equally between the parties.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to vote on a motion to instruct the conferees on the highway bill. It will be a motion to instruct them not to proceed with a Federal mandate that would force these long double trailers called twin 33s on the 38 States where currently they are illegal. This Senator would observe that it is not often we get a chance to vote on a motion that will accomplish so much. We are going to get a chance in 30 minutes or so to vote on a motion that will save lives. It is a motion that would prohibit a Federal mandate, that supports small business, and that would save $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion per year in highway maintenance. It is a vote that is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. This is a rare opportunity for us to come together on a motion that does all of those things. It is also a bipartisan motion to instruct. It will be sponsored by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and there will be bipartisan votes for the motion on both sides of the aisle. Now, why are we here? The motion is here because it stems from an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to the Transportation appropriations bill, which would require every State to allow these twin 33-foot trailers on Federal highways. Currently some 12 States do allow them. They have a right to do that, and if they made a considered decision in their State legislatures and in consultation with their departments of transportation, then more power to them. Well, 38 States say that these trucks are not safe and that these trucks are too long. They tell us they don't want them on the highways. I think we should respect that decision by these 38 States. Who supports the Wicker-Feinstein motion to instruct the conferees? I go back to the point that this is a vote to save lives. Who says this? AAA, a respected nationwide organization that knows quite a bit about highway safety, says support the Wicker amendment. Don't mandate on 38 States something they don't want to do with these extra long trucks. I would point out on this diagram the size of the average passenger car. Look how much longer this proposed twin 33 double rig with the tractor part on the front is. Frankly, the American people don't want to contend with these long double trailers on their roads. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety say this isn't safe. A ``yes'' vote on the Wicker-Feinstein motion would be a vote for safety. The National Troopers Coalition--we ought to listen to them--say these trucks are not safe, and at the very least, there should be no mandate from Washington, DC. In the time remaining, I would suggest to Members and legislative staff back in their offices to call their local troopers in their various States and see what the troopers say about this. I will tell you that troopers in State after State say don't mandate these long trucks. Sheriff's associations say don't mandate these long trucks. Chiefs of police say don't mandate these long, twin 33 double trailers. So you may ask yourself what a chief of police in a municipality has to do with this. Aren't we talking about interstate highways and big old Federal highways? Not true at all. I don't know about you, but in the place where I live, if something comes in by truck, they bring it right into town. So the chiefs of police say: We don't want these twin 33s on our two-lane streets; we don't want them on the two-lane highways. That would be the result of the mandate that is contained in the appropriations bill unless we turn that around. Who else is opposed to mandating twin 33s on the 38 States that don't want them? The State trucking associations are opposed to this mandate. One would think that the truckers would be for this. After all, if you are a big enough trucking company and you have enough money, you can buy the truck, haul more, and make more money. That is the idea, but we need to bear in mind that most of the truckers in the United States are small business owners. Frankly, some of them have told me that if this mandate on all 50 States is passed, they are going out of business. We have resolutions from the Mississippi Trucking Association, the Arizona Trucking Association, Louisiana Trucking Association, and we have an alliance of small business truckers from States that include Indiana, Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maryland, Washington, Iowa, Mississippi, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Arkansas--and I can go on. Trucking companies and small truckers in all of these States are saying: Please don't put us out of business by having us try to compete with these large twin 33s. I would submit to my colleagues that 20 minutes from now we are going to have a vote. This is the only opportunity that 100 Senators elected by the people of the 50 States will have to address this issue. This vote we are going to take in just a few moments will send a strong signal to the people in some office here on Capitol Hill, in some room on Capitol Hill, where they are devising the Omnibus appropriations bill. We need to send a strong signal to them that we don't want this mandate in the omnibus. We don't want the mandate in the highway bill. We need a strong vote. This is a chance to vote on how we stand with small business in our States, with the troopers, the sheriffs, the chiefs of police, the trucking associations, and the advocates for highway safety. I would urge my colleagues to thoroughly consider this in the next 20 or 25 minutes. When you come to vote, a ``yes'' vote will be a vote to avoid the Federal mandate. I urge my colleagues to join me on a bipartisan basis--and I believe they will join me on a bipartisan basis--in allowing the 38 States that opt out of this to continue to do so, making a stand for small business, for the States' decisionmaking, and for safety. Mr. President, I understand we are going to move to a vote at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If I could, I would also like to ask that Senator Blunt's poster be placed back on the easel, because I agree with what the Senator from Missouri had to say about the so-called waters of the United States rule. It is a massive Federal overreach, a massive Federal land grab with hardly any environmental benefit, if at all. The map behind me of my neighboring State of Missouri points this out. Everything in red would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Almost every square inch of the State of Missouri and other States would be subject to this massive overreach of a statute that was never intended to do that. So I was pleased just a few weeks ago when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pretty much agreed with us, on a temporary basis at least. They ordered a nationwide stay of the Obama administration's wholly unnecessary waters of the United States rule. I agree with the court's action. I agree with the 31 States that have filed lawsuits against this rule. I agree with the efforts in this Chamber to overturn it. I appreciate Senator Barrasso's legislation entitled the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, and I certainly appreciate the efforts of the junior Senator from Iowa, Senator Ernst, and will be supporting her efforts when we vote at the top of the hour. The waters rule is an unlawful--unlawful--attempt by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to wield enormous power over our Nation's land mass, as this chart points out very dramatically. Americans are concerned--and Americans are right to be concerned--by this Federal overreach. The rule could have far-reaching effects on our lives and on our private property. I am particularly concerned about what this rule could mean to our Nation's farmers and ranchers, especially in States such as Mississippi, where agriculture is one of the leading industries. The administration's attempt to expand the scope of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act would lead to unprecedented regulatory authority--unprecedented regulatory authority--and everything from property rights to economic development could be affected. Small ponds, even ditches would be subject to the decisions of Washington bureaucrats. This expansion of Federal regulation could also adversely affect conservation efforts that are working at the State level in States such as Mississippi. We have begun considerable work with farm drainage ditches to enhance conservation. The waters rule threatens to undermine this important work. So it actually puts us back a step in terms of conservation. Moreover, this rule makes States, cities, counties, and private citizens vulnerable to confusing and expensive legal challenges. Just get ready for the Federal Government to come in with legal challenges. Because of the regulation's lack of clarity, the Federal Government could declare jurisdiction over almost any kind of land or water, as this map of Missouri points out. Even areas that may have been streams or wetlands more than a century ago could come under the rule of this expansive regulation. The rule's exemptions do not make clear whether water in tile drains, for example, or erosion features on farmlands could fall under Federal control. At the very least, these flaws should be fixed before the rule is fully implemented, and I do appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Iowa in challenging this. Americans should worry and Americans should be concerned that the Obama administration has pushed forward with this rule despite these legitimate concerns being voiced over and over again by 31 States. State and local governments, farmers, small business owners, and landowners are worried about how this unilateral expansion could lead to substantial compliance costs, fines, legal battles, and permitting requirements--very expensive to job-creating agriculture and agribusiness. As they do with many of the administration's other onerous rules, Americans are asking: What is the benefit? What is the environmental benefit here? No one is arguing that our waters should not be protected, but water sources such as isolated ponds and ditches that do not threaten to pollute navigable waters should not become a regulatory burden for States, for municipalities, or for private citizens. I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I participated in a number of hearings on the WOTUS rule this year. It is clear the rule should be revised in a way that protects the rights of farmers, ranchers, and landowners--and the American public, for that matter. Senator Ernst is absolutely correct. Her resolution of disapproval would allow us to send this message to the EPA and the administration: Americans do not deserve this unnecessary confusion and job-killing redtape. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. And that deals with the waters of the United States rule; is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am wearing purple today in honor of World Alzheimer's Month. As a matter of fact, yesterday, September 21, was World Alzheimer's Day. So I have chosen today to introduce a bill that I hope will lead to a major breakthrough in fighting this terrible disease and treating and potentially curing Alzheimer's disease. The legislation which I introduced this morning is called the EUREKA Act, which stands for Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for Alzheimer's--EUREKA. I am taking this moment to briefly discuss the problem of Alzheimer's and to ask my colleagues to get behind this tripartisan legislation and see if we can create some momentum to cure Alzheimer's disease in a decade. First of all, a little bit about awareness. As we all know, Alzheimer's is a 100-percent fatal disease. It affects some 36 million people around the globe. More than 5 million Americans currently have Alzheimer's disease. My mother died of Alzheimer's disease. I can tell you it is an incredibly personal trial for families who deal with loved ones suffering and ultimately succumbing to this disease. So there is the human cost which so many of us have experienced and are experiencing. There is also the cost in dollars and cents. Americans will spend $226 billion from our Treasury on Alzheimer's this year alone. The disease puts an extraordinary burden on Medicare and Medicaid. As a matter of fact, one in five Medicare dollars will be spent this year on someone with Alzheimer's. Think of what we could do to alleviate the suffering our previous speaker was talking about if we didn't have to spend this $226 billion per year, if we didn't have to spend one in five of our Medicare dollars on someone with Alzheimer's. Consider the 2013 filing from the Rand Corporation. Direct costs of Alzheimer's exceed similar costs associated with cancer and heart disease combined. According to Rush University, Alzheimer's is responsible for more than 500,000 deaths each year. Without a cure or a way to halt this disease, these numbers will continue to grow. By 2050 Alzheimer's is expected to cost $1.1 trillion per year. By then, Medicare and Medicaid could see a 500-percent increase in Alzheimer's spending. So we have a problem in terms of dollars and cents, and we certainly have a problem in terms of the hardship it causes on families today. Experts say we need $2 billion a year in public research if we are going to get to this goal of conquering Alzheimer's by 2025. We do the best we can at the National Institutes of Health, but we spend only $586 million a year on Alzheimer's research. We need $2 billion a year. We spend roughly a quarter of that amount each year, with very little prospect of getting it up to four times what we are spending now. What is the solution? I believe the solution is to go to a concept that has made America great for decades and even centuries, and that is the American spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship and competition. We create, we build, and we make a difference in people's lives through competition and innovation. So today I have introduced the EUREKA bill, which would establish a national prize for achieving benchmarks in fighting this disease. I want to make it clear that the EUREKA Act would proceed on a parallel track with what is being done at NIH and the Federal Government in terms of research. It wouldn't take a penny away from the research dollars currently spent on Alzheimer's and the funds used to attack Alzheimer's in so many ways. It would be another route for a breakthrough by establishing a competition to run parallel to the research being done. We will need to research some milestones before we arrive at an Alzheimer's cure. This bill would create a system within the government, with cooperation from NIH, to encourage public and private collaboration to help us establish prizes for milestones reached to conquer Alzheimer's. Of course, we need to remember that prizes are paid only for success. If we don't meet the milestones, we won't have to expend the money. My excellent staff and I have been working for months with some of the leading experts in the United States on this concept, not the least of which is the XPRIZE Foundation, which has done such a good job in establishing breakthroughs in other areas. So we have the support and cooperation of the XPRIZE Foundation. In addition, we have worked with the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration to get as much information as possible, and we think we have come up with a way to have government-funded prizes to conquer this disease. This is nothing new. The XPRIZE Foundation came along relatively recently, but it was inspired by previous examples of success. In 1927 Charles Lindbergh won $25,000 for his Spirit of St. Louis aircraft in a competition to achieve the first nonstop flight between New York City and Paris. He received a prize for this accomplishment. Today aviation is a $300 billion industry. So prizes are not a new strategy. The government already invests in countless areas, including health. As a matter of fact, the America COMPETES Act gives Federal agencies the authority to conduct prize-based challenges. NIH has already completed dozens of them. This builds on that success. I envision that a panel would be established under this legislation to set benchmarks that would get us well along the road to conquering Alzheimer's. Successful, prize-worthy events would be measures such as identifying an Alzheimer's biomarker, developing early-detection techniques, or repurposing existing drugs for treatment. Milestones such as these would be established by a panel of experts. Think of what could be achieved if people with expertise combine their skills inside and outside the government to end Alzheimer's. Think of the progress that could be made toward ending human suffering. My bill is S. 2067, the EUREKA Act, and it has received support from researchers, including the MIND Center at the University of Mississippi in my home State, where we are doing innovative, groundbreaking achievements every day on Alzheimer's. Other organizations supporting the EUREKA Act include the Alzheimer's Association, Us Against Alzheimer's, the XPRIZE Foundation, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, BrightFocus Foundation, Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease, otherwise known as LEAD, and Eli Lilly. All of these organizations and companies are supporting EUREKA. We already have not bipartisan cosponsorship but tripartisan cosponsorship of this legislation because we have Republicans, Democrats, and Independents already cosponsoring this EUREKA Act. So I come to the floor today and ask my colleagues to talk to their health staff members. Look at this concept. Talk to us about the efforts we are engaged in, about the research we have done, about the learned people who know what they are talking about and who have worked with us to bring this bill where it is. I hope we can create some momentum for this act soon. I hope we can attach it to legislation before the end of the year. I hope we can put this on the President's desk sometime early in the year 2016. EUREKA can be a game changer in fighting one of the most terrible and horrible and expensive diseases we have. So I would urge my colleagues to look at this, to get back to me. I am going to aggressively be talking to each of my colleagues and asking them to cosponsor this legislation. I think we are onto something. I think we are getting very, very near to achieving this goal of conquering Alzheimer's within a decade.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am wearing purple today in honor of World Alzheimer's Month. As a matter of fact, yesterday, September 21, was World Alzheimer's Day. So I have chosen today to introduce a bill that I hope will lead to a major breakthrough in fighting this terrible disease and treating and potentially curing Alzheimer's disease. The legislation which I introduced this morning is called the EUREKA Act, which stands for Ensuring Useful Research Expenditures is Key for Alzheimer's--EUREKA. I am taking this moment to briefly discuss the problem of Alzheimer's and to ask my colleagues to get behind this tripartisan legislation and see if we can create some momentum to cure Alzheimer's disease in a decade. First of all, a little bit about awareness. As we all know, Alzheimer's is a 100-percent fatal disease. It affects some 36 million people around the globe. More than 5 million Americans currently have Alzheimer's disease. My mother died of Alzheimer's disease. I can tell you it is an incredibly personal trial for families who deal with loved ones suffering and ultimately succumbing to this disease. So there is the human cost which so many of us have experienced and are experiencing. There is also the cost in dollars and cents. Americans will spend $226 billion from our Treasury on Alzheimer's this year alone. The disease puts an extraordinary burden on Medicare and Medicaid. As a matter of fact, one in five Medicare dollars will be spent this year on someone with Alzheimer's. Think of what we could do to alleviate the suffering our previous speaker was talking about if we didn't have to spend this $226 billion per year, if we didn't have to spend one in five of our Medicare dollars on someone with Alzheimer's. Consider the 2013 filing from the Rand Corporation. Direct costs of Alzheimer's exceed similar costs associated with cancer and heart disease combined. According to Rush University, Alzheimer's is responsible for more than 500,000 deaths each year. Without a cure or a way to halt this disease, these numbers will continue to grow. By 2050 Alzheimer's is expected to cost $1.1 trillion per year. By then, Medicare and Medicaid could see a 500-percent increase in Alzheimer's spending. So we have a problem in terms of dollars and cents, and we certainly have a problem in terms of the hardship it causes on families today. Experts say we need $2 billion a year in public research if we are going to get to this goal of conquering Alzheimer's by 2025. We do the best we can at the National Institutes of Health, but we spend only $586 million a year on Alzheimer's research. We need $2 billion a year. We spend roughly a quarter of that amount each year, with very little prospect of getting it up to four times what we are spending now. What is the solution? I believe the solution is to go to a concept that has made America great for decades and even centuries, and that is the American spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship and competition. We create, we build, and we make a difference in people's lives through competition and innovation. So today I have introduced the EUREKA bill, which would establish a national prize for achieving benchmarks in fighting this disease. I want to make it clear that the EUREKA Act would proceed on a parallel track with what is being done at NIH and the Federal Government in terms of research. It wouldn't take a penny away from the research dollars currently spent on Alzheimer's and the funds used to attack Alzheimer's in so many ways. It would be another route for a breakthrough by establishing a competition to run parallel to the research being done. We will need to research some milestones before we arrive at an Alzheimer's cure. This bill would create a system within the government, with cooperation from NIH, to encourage public and private collaboration to help us establish prizes for milestones reached to conquer Alzheimer's. Of course, we need to remember that prizes are paid only for success. If we don't meet the milestones, we won't have to expend the money. My excellent staff and I have been working for months with some of the leading experts in the United States on this concept, not the least of which is the XPRIZE Foundation, which has done such a good job in establishing breakthroughs in other areas. So we have the support and cooperation of the XPRIZE Foundation. In addition, we have worked with the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration to get as much information as possible, and we think we have come up with a way to have government-funded prizes to conquer this disease. This is nothing new. The XPRIZE Foundation came along relatively recently, but it was inspired by previous examples of success. In 1927 Charles Lindbergh won $25,000 for his Spirit of St. Louis aircraft in a competition to achieve the first nonstop flight between New York City and Paris. He received a prize for this accomplishment. Today aviation is a $300 billion industry. So prizes are not a new strategy. The government already invests in countless areas, including health. As a matter of fact, the America COMPETES Act gives Federal agencies the authority to conduct prize-based challenges. NIH has already completed dozens of them. This builds on that success. I envision that a panel would be established under this legislation to set benchmarks that would get us well along the road to conquering Alzheimer's. Successful, prize-worthy events would be measures such as identifying an Alzheimer's biomarker, developing early-detection techniques, or repurposing existing drugs for treatment. Milestones such as these would be established by a panel of experts. Think of what could be achieved if people with expertise combine their skills inside and outside the government to end Alzheimer's. Think of the progress that could be made toward ending human suffering. My bill is S. 2067, the EUREKA Act, and it has received support from researchers, including the MIND Center at the University of Mississippi in my home State, where we are doing innovative, groundbreaking achievements every day on Alzheimer's. Other organizations supporting the EUREKA Act include the Alzheimer's Association, Us Against Alzheimer's, the XPRIZE Foundation, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, BrightFocus Foundation, Leaders Engaged on Alzheimer's Disease, otherwise known as LEAD, and Eli Lilly. All of these organizations and companies are supporting EUREKA. We already have not bipartisan cosponsorship but tripartisan cosponsorship of this legislation because we have Republicans, Democrats, and Independents already cosponsoring this EUREKA Act. So I come to the floor today and ask my colleagues to talk to their health staff members. Look at this concept. Talk to us about the efforts we are engaged in, about the research we have done, about the learned people who know what they are talking about and who have worked with us to bring this bill where it is. I hope we can create some momentum for this act soon. I hope we can attach it to legislation before the end of the year. I hope we can put this on the President's desk sometime early in the year 2016. EUREKA can be a game changer in fighting one of the most terrible and horrible and expensive diseases we have. So I would urge my colleagues to look at this, to get back to me. I am going to aggressively be talking to each of my colleagues and asking them to cosponsor this legislation. I think we are onto something. I think we are getting very, very near to achieving this goal of conquering Alzheimer's within a decade.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Missouri in every respect, and I hope we get our wish to have that meaningful vote later on today. I thought I would take a few moments to explore a history lesson. Edmond Burke once famously said: ``Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.'' I think most people agree with that statement, which is why we find so many variations of that quote. One of my favorite variations is by Mark Twain: ``History doesn't always repeat itself, but it does rhyme.'' I think the history of events leading up to World War II is an appropriate period for examination during today's Iran debate, and I believe it is important to explore the question of whether the disastrous history of the Munich Agreement can be instructive to Americans and even to our allies during the current debate. Munich has been cited numerous times in opinion pieces about the Iran agreement, and it has been mentioned on both sides of the debate in this Chamber. Furthermore, we have been cautioned, even scolded by various opinion-makers around the country that we dare not make comparisons between Munich and the current situation. In this view, even uttering the words ``Neville Chamberlain'' or ``Munich'' brings to mind such painful memories from the dark past that we simply should not go there. I do not agree. If history does rhyme, perhaps it is helpful to examine history and look for parallels today. For those who may not have recently studied the years leading up to World War II, let's review the Munich Agreement. In September of 1938, Hitler's aggression was fully underway. In his sights at the moment was Czechoslovakia. Leaders met in Munich, Germany, in an ostensible effort to avoid war. Those leaders were Adolf Hitler himself, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, and Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The agreement they announced with much fanfare at the end of September 1938 was that Nazi Germany would be given control of the German-speaking portion of Czechoslovakia, known by some as the Sudetenland. In return, Hitler agreed to stop his advance and to not make war. Against the backdrop of all of Germany's aggression to date, of its violations of the Versailles treaty, the Fuhrer gave his solemn assurance in writing that there would be no more expansionist activity. We all know that upon his return to London, Chamberlain announced triumphantly that there would be ``peace for our time.'' The bold headline across the top of the Daily Express displayed the word ``peace'' with an exclamation point. Of course, a number of wise people immediately saw the false dream for what it was. Soon after, Winston Churchill rose in passionate opposition on the floor of Commons. He first made it clear that he held the opponents of the agreement in high personal regard, as many of my colleagues have also done already during this debate. Then he launched into a scathing denunciation of the bad deal, characterizing it as a total and unmitigated defeat for Britain and France, not to mention a betrayal of defenseless Czechoslovakia. He went on to predict correctly that rather than preventing war, the Munich accord would assure war. Sadly, for millions and millions around the globe, Winston Churchill was correct and Neville Chamberlain was tragically mistaken. Within months, Hitler was at it again, annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia and setting his sights on Poland and beyond. I think it is appropriate to ask ourselves: What would Churchill have said about today's debate? And what would Chamberlain be saying if he could speak to us today? Let's look at the parallels. At Munich, Britain and France abandoned a steadfast ally. Similarly, today's agreement has been reached over the strenuous objections of Israel, our most reliable partner in the Middle East. I must emphasize that this opposition comes not only from the current Prime Minister and his Likud governing majority, but also from his opponents in previous elections--from virtually every point on Israel's political spectrum, from labor and from center-left voices. Here is the near unanimous outcry from our Israeli friends: Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and this bad deal makes matters worse. It makes us less safe. It makes our friends, our neighbors less safe. As the whole world watched, the Munich agreement sent a chilling message to the rest of Europe and to the rest of the world about what could now be expected from France and England. Today, our Sunni Arab friends in the Middle East are mystified and dismayed by this Iran deal. Understandably, their public reaction has been guarded and even muted. Most are hedging their bets, but make no mistake, this is not the strong anti-proliferation nuclear agreement they had hoped for. This current deal and the Munich deal are also similar when we consider the history and behavior of the parties to the agreements. Like Hitler, the current Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated that they have evil motivations and that they cannot be trusted. Consider the most recent activities and pronouncements of the Iranian Supreme Leader and his team. This deal has been made with a regime that still leads cheers saying ``Death to America'' and believes in the destruction of the Jewish State. The mullahs, the ayatollahs, and the people in charge of Iran have shown no indication that they are trustworthy. Ayatollah Khamenei last month published a new book that once again makes it explicit that it is Iran's foreign policy to obliterate the State of Israel. Just last week, he called America the Great Satan and said Israel would not exist in 25 years. Israel would not exist in 25 years, according to the other party to this agreement. Under this agreement, embargoes on arms and ballistic missiles will be lifted in 5 and 8 years respectively, allowing the biggest exporter of terrorism to build up conventional weapons. And have we forgotten the fact that Iran has been cooperating with North Korea on ballistic missiles for years? Of course, the scene in 1938 is not entirely similar with that of today, as has been pointed out. Seventy-seven years ago, Nazi Germany at least gave lip service to leaving the rest of the world alone. Wise people knew this to be a lie, but at least the Nazi dictator signed such a promise. Today, the Iranian dictatorship makes no pretense of abandoning its goal: the complete elimination of Israel from the map. And this bad deal gives them the wherewithal to do just that: a $100- billion stimulus. The lifting of sanctions, which the United States and our eager European allies have agreed to, will expand Iran's gross domestic product by roughly one-fifth, not to mention relief from sanctions on deadly conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. In 1938, Chamberlain said, ``Peace for our time.'' We may wish he had been correct, but such an outcome was so unlikely, the deal so risky and ill-advised, that it was merely a wish, albeit a dangerous and deadly wish. In 2015, Secretary John Kerry has called the current deal ``a plan to ensure that Iran does not ever possess or acquire a nuclear weapon.'' Did my colleagues hear that: Not just for our time or for a decade, but never, according to the distinguished Secretary of State. President Obama says this agreement marks ``one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer, more helpful, and more hopeful world.'' Such statements have a familiar and troubling ring. Such words could have been uttered in 1938. And I wonder if Mr. Chamberlain's followers ever said, in defense of the Prime Minister's action: This isn't a very good deal, but what other agreement is out there? What other choice do we have? I am willing to bet some people actually said that. The other choice might have been to stand up against a murderous bully, to stand by a friend. This resolution of disapproval is not just an opportunity to sound off. It has not been about sending a message. This procedure was designed, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri said before me, as the only way to prevent a bad Iran deal from actually going into effect. We always realized it would take a bipartisan majority to succeed. There are currently 58 Democrats and Republicans who are willing to say officially to the President: Start over and get our Nation a better deal. We, frankly, need nine more courageous Senators to step forward and say no to this deal. We are told the die is now cast, that the votes simply are not there. But I will say to my colleagues today, there is still time to do better for the American people. The doubts have repeatedly been expressed by Senators who have said they will nevertheless vote with the President. Senator Booker, in announcing that he will support the President, said: We are legitimizing Iran's nuclear program and rewarding years of bad behavior. Yet, he will vote to support the President. Senator Coons: I am troubled and deeply concerned. Senator Bennet: None of us knows . . . and I have deep concerns. Senator Wyden: It is a big problem, having to deal with Iranian leadership that wants a nuclear enrichment program. Senator Peters: Enrichment of uranium is a stark departure from America's nonproliferation policies. Indeed it is. Senator Peters goes on to say: The agreement could set a dangerous precedent. We need these Senators to change their vote and to vote for the resolution of disapproval. Senator Blumenthal said: Not the agreement I have sought. Senator Merkley said: Significant shortcomings. According to Senator Gillibrand: Legitimate and serious concerns are there. Senator Franken acknowledges it isn't a perfect agreement. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor emeritus and expert on the Middle East--and hardly a neo-con--summed up the President's deal with Iran in his book, ``The Case Against the Iran Deal.'' He said this: Hope is different from `faith,' though neither is an appropriate basis on which to `roll the dice' on a nuclear deal that might well threaten the security of the world. ``That may well threaten the security of the world,'' according to Professor Dershowitz. He goes on to say: The deal as currently written will not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In all probability, it will merely postpone the catastrophe for about a decade, while legitimizing its occurrence. This is not an outcome we can live with. I appreciate people such as Alan Dershowitz having the courage to write a book and explain chapter and verse, page by page, the legitimate reasons why this threatens the security of the world and why America should not be willing to live with this deal. I say we should heed the warnings of people such as Alan Dershowitz. We should heed the warnings of history. There is still time to reject this ill-advised agreement. There is still time to get a better result for our people, to get a better result for our future. Thank you, Mr. President. Seeing no other speakers, I suggest the absence of a quorum.