than a quarter of a billion dollars of spending. the president asked for 23 new programs that were $1.16 billion of spending that were not done in this bill. the independent payment advisory board under obamacare, where they'd be a board rather than you and your doctor that decided what your health care was going to look like, that's not funded so that won't occur. and there won't be a big transfer from other accounts with some other label to insurance companies because all of the expectations from obamacare have turned out not to produce the kind of results that its supporters thought it would. so hopefully we have made a big difference in how we prioritize the spending of the people's money, of the taxpayers' money and hopefully we've also made a

renewed commitment to do this the right way. we've done it this way since, frankly, the control of the senate change a half a dozen years ago. the new majority was totally committed to get these bills to the floor. they were all ready, all 12 bills for the first time in six years, most of them ready about the end of may, the sirs o firsf june but with only a couple of exceptions were they allowed to come to the floor and that was at the very last minute, when it was too late really for this process to work the way it should. let's hope for more transparency, more debate, more challenges. i'm -- i chair this one committee i've been talk about today but certainly there have got to be other ideas that other members who aren't on the -- on this subcommittee have, who aren't on the appropriations committee have. they do their best to get those ideas in by talking in this late

process and during the year what should happen. let's do our best to make this happen the way the constitution envisions and people have every right to expect. i hope for a better process but realize that this process does significantly change the priorities that the federal government has been stuck with for the last six years and heads in a new direction. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: senator -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senior senator from arizona came to the floor this morning and raised a question about a provision in the omnibus appropriation bill, particularly that aspect relating to the department of defense. during the course of raising the issue, the senior senator from arizona used my name on the floor repeatedly. it was refreshing and i'm relieved. the senior senator from arizona has not attacked me on the floor for three weeks, and i was fearful that he's feeling under the weather, but clearly he's in fine form and feels good, and i welcome him back to the floor for another attack on me personally. so let's talk about the issue that he raised because it's complicated but extremely important when it comes to the defense of the united states. here's what it boils down to.

in the early 2000's, there were two companies making rockets that launched satellites. the two companies were boeing and lockheed, and they competed with one another, but in the early 2000's -- and i don't understand why -- they made an argument to the department of defense that the nation would be better off if they merged the two companies into one company and then provided the rockets to launch satellites to defend the united states and collect information. they argued that if they work together, it would cost less, and they merged. with the approval of the department of defense, they continued to bid on satellite launches. and what happened was a good thing and a thing that was not so good. what was good is their product was very reliable. they launched satellites with great reliability, and that is

of course what america and its national defense requires. the bad part is the costs went through the roof. up about 65% over this period of time since they created this united launch alliance, costing federal taxpayers about $3 billion more for launches than it did in the past. so they argued that they would eliminate competition and provide reliability, they did, but the costs went up dramatically. then a new player arrived on the scene, spacex, associated with elon musk, a name that is well known in america. they decided to get in the business. they were going to build rockets and launch satellites, too. naturally, the united states of america said be my guest, but prove you can do this in a way that we can count on you because when we need a satellite launched to collect information, we want to make sure it's

successful. spacex over the years improved, evolved and developed the capacity to launch satellites, to the point where nasa, for example, the national aeronautics and space administration, used spacex rockets successfully. it reached a point where the department of defense said to spacex you are capable and will be certified to compete now for department of defense business, and that is to the credit of spacex that they reached that point. i thought this was an exciting development because once again we were going to have competition between the united launch alliance, the old boeing-lockheed merger, and spacex, the new company. the owner of spacex said to me and said publicly we can do this for a fraction of the costs to american taxpayers.

what i did was invite the recess of both -- the c.e.o.'s of both companies to come to my subcommittee when i chaired the defense subcommittee in 2014. no one had quite seen a hearing like this before. we put the c.e.o.'s of both companies at the table at the same time and we asked them questions about their operations, their reliability, the cost, their projections for the future. then at the end of this hearing, i said to the c.e.o.'s of each of these companies i want to do something that's a little unusual. i want to offer to each of you the opportunity, if you wish, to submit ten questions to the other c.e.o. that you think should be asked and perhaps we didn't, and so they did. it was a complete record and a good one. and it really for the first time showed me that we were moving to a new stage in rocket science and capacity that could serve the united states by keeping us safe and keeping the costs down,

and that, of course, should be our goal. then there was a complication. vladimir putin of russia decided to take aggressive action in invading georgia and ukraine and other actions by him that we considered confrontational tended to freeze up the relationship between the united states and russia. why is that important? it's important because the engine being used by the united launch alliance to launch america's defense satellites was an engine built in russia. and so people started saying why in the world are we giving russia and vladimir putin the opportunity to sell rocket engines to the united states? and secondly, why would we want to be dependent on russia for rocket engines? so the debate started moving

forward -- how do we exclude the russians from building the engines and still have competition between these two companies? and that is what brings us here today. we were trying to find the right combination to bring competition and reliability without engaging the russians. now, everyone in congress knows we have authorizing committees and appropriations committees. the senior senator from arizona is the chair of the defense authorizing committee, the armed services committee, and i have been chair now and am the vice chair of the defense appropriations subcommittee. the senior senator from arizona started including provisions in the authorizing bill, saying that we could not -- the u.l.a., the united launch alliance, could not use russian engines to launch satellites and compete

for business using those engines in the united states. and so the air force came to see me. first, i might add, a letter was sent when this provision was added in the defense authorization bill, a letter was sent in may of this year, signed by ash carter, the secretary of defense, and james clapper, the director of national intelligence, suggesting that this exclusion of russian engines so quickly could cause a problem, in terms of the availability of missiles to launch satellites as we need them. the limitation that was put in by the defense authorization committee as to the number of engines that could be used would be quickly depleted, and the air force and the department of defense and our intelligence agencies said that may leave us vulnerable, so they asked the senator from arizona to reconsider that provision. he did not. if anything, the language that

came out of conference on this provision really made it even more difficult for the united launch alliance to consider using a different type of engine. i might adhere they don't have an alternative engine to the russian engine. united launch alliance uses it now. we've said to them develop an american engine, and i stand behind that, and they have told us it will take anywhere from five to seven years for that to happen. i understand this is a complex assignment. we want them to get it right. it seems like a long time, but it really points to the dilemma we face. if the united launch alliance cannot use -- cannot bid for work with the department of defense using a russian engine, they don't have an alternative engine to bid with. at that point then, spacex becomes the sole bidder, the monopoly source for engines. we have tried to move from u.l.a. as a monopoly source sole bidder to competition, and now

by injecting this prohibition against russian engines beyond a certain number, we're getting back to the days again of a sole bidder. so what we have allowed in this omnibus appropriation bill is language which gives one year of flexibility to the department of defense when it comes to bidding for these satellite launches, and of course it means that the united launch alliance will be using russian engines for that bidding. now, the senator from arizona came to the floor and spent most of his time talking about the aggression of russia and the aggression of vladimir putin and how we need to be strong in response. back in the day when our relationship was more constructive, the senator from arizona and i actually traveled to ukraine, i agree with him about the aggression of russia and mr. putin and why the united states needs to be strong in response, but we've got to be

careful we don't cut off our nose to spite our face. if we reach a point here where we don't allow u.l.a. to use a russian engine to compete, we could endanger and jeopardize the opportunities of united states needs to keep us safe. that's exactly what the secretary of defense and mr. clapper said in writing to senator mccain. my message is that there is nothing, incidentally, in this omnibus bill that was not discussed in the original bill as marked up. no air drop of language is a slightly different version of the language but says the same thing, that we think there should be some flexibility as u.l.a. moves to develop their new engine. the department of defense has convinced me that it would be shortsighted of us to make it impossible for u.l.a. to even bid on future satellite launches. god forbid something happens to spacex where they can't launch satellites. at that point then we're in a

terrible situation. we can't keep our country safe when we should. none of us want that to occur. so this provision that's in the omnibus bill gives one year, one year for the department of defense and the air force to continue to work with u.l.a. to have a launch, to have competitive bidding. if spacex performs as promised and comes in with a lower bid for those launches, they deserve to win and they will, but for the meantime, we want to make sure that we have the availability of sourcing beyond just one company, beyond spacex. i am impressed with all of these companies. the senator from arizona raised a point that boeing has its headquarters in my home state. i'm very proud of that. i have worked with them in the past. i think it's an excellent company and does great work. but my initial premise in starting this conversation in the appropriations subcommittee

was that we should have competition and boeing should face competition. the insertion of the russian engine issue has made this more complex, and it will take us some time to reach what should be our ultimate goal -- quality, reliable engines in these rockets to launch satellites to keep america safe and the certainty that if one company fails to be able to meet our defense needs, there's an alternative supplier. that, to me, is the best outcome possible. mr. president, this section 8045 of the department of defense appropriations act is really critical to our national security in launching satellites into space. we've got to assure the department of defense and our defense agencies can put critical satellites in orbit when needed. we've got to make certain that the cost of these launches is competitive so that taxpayers end up getting the best outcome for the dollars they put into

our national defense. we've got to generate competition to drive down costs, and we've got to bring to an end our reliance on russian manufactured rocket engines. i wish that were not the case. i irish that our relationship with russia was positive in every aspect, but it's not, and i join with virtually all of my colleagues in believing that the sooner we move away from russian-made engines to american-made engines in competition, the better for us and the better for our nation. there's no doubt that our omnibus appropriation bill recognizes the need to end our reliance on russian engines, and we actually put our money where our mouth is. we added $143.6 million on top of the $84.4 million requested by the president to accelerate the development of a new rocket engine. this amount is $43.6 million more than the $100 billion authorized by the defense authorization committee.

so we are making certain that we are going to end this reliance on russian engines. the question is how we manage the space launch through several years of launches before we have that engine. we need to do it without jeopardizing our national security. the general provision which i referred to allows for space launch competition in 2016 without regard to the source of an engine. it will permit real competition on four missions in 2016, and it will avoid trading one monopoly for another. i think i've explained how we've reached this point. i think there is good faith on both sides. i don't question the motives of the senior senator from arizona. i hope he doesn't question mine. what we need to make certain of is that we move toward a day when america is safer and that the money spent by taxpayers is well spent. and, mr. president, at this point, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that joshua manning, a pas nasa fellow, a detailee, and brandon fischer, a coast guard fellow at the commerce committee be allowed floor privileges for the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, we are going back into space with americans on american rockets and we are going to mars.

we are on the cusp of the next big breakthrough in space exploration. it's interesting that this is at the very time that in our culture here on earth, the movie that's hearkening back, "star wars," is coming out again and it's to be such a blockbuster at the box office. well, what is fictional in "tar trek" and "star wars" is now becoming factual. and in large part is what has been done in the nation's space program since the shutdown of the space shuttle back in 2011 and in the preparation, the new vehicles, the new rockets, the

new spacecraft, the new satellites, the new exploratory missions that have gone on. who among us merely three decades ago would think that the hubble space telescope would look back into the far reaches of the universe close to the beginning, at the beginning of that universe, and start to unlock secrets through this telescope orbiting the earth that was put up by humans in the u.s. space shuttle. who among us would believe that we now are going to launch a telescope in 2018 that will look

back in time to the universe at the big bang and understand this universe all the more and how it evolved in this magnificent creation that we earthlin earths observe of the heavens. and who, among us, were not impatient over four decades ago when we landed on the moon that were impatient to go on and escape the bounds of earth's gravity once again to get out and explore the heavens. well, that is now becoming a reality. and it's becoming a reality in

large part because of the budget that will be presented to congress which we will pass in appropriation that just in this present fiscal year that we find ourselves right now will increase nasa's budget $1.3 billion over what nasa was appropriated last year. for the first part of getting americans on american rockets back into space since we haven't had americans on american rockets since we shut down the space shuttle. that had to be done. that was an specially extraordinary creative flying machine. but its design had inherent flaws that were risky for human beings and, indeed, over 135

flights of the space shuttle, we lost two crews, 14 souls because of its design when there was a malfunction that there was no escape for the crew. and now we have new rockets that will have the crew in a capsule on the top of the rocket so that if there is an explosion on the pad, an explosion in assent all the way to orbit, you can still save the crew because you can separate them by the escape rockets from the main vehicle and save the crew, ultimately having them land by parachute, powered landing or a parachute landing, and save the crew.

and these rockets are almost ready to fly. indeed, some of them have been flying for quite awhile. two companies -- space-ex and boeing -- will have the spacecraft. space-ex, its spacecraft, its capsule called dragon, sitting on top of a rocket that has flown many times called the falcon 9. boeing, in a spacecraft called the starliner that will sit upon the very proven atlas 5 rocket. which one will fly first we do not know but the fact is that's only two years away, 2017.

they will fly with the first crews to and from the space station so tha that we no longer have to rely upon a very reliable partner that, indeed, helped us build the international space station to which we go and return not only with crew but cargo as well. we won't have to rely on the soyuz anymore. we'll be flying on american rockets. and that's going to happen in a short two years. and the assurance of that is this. it's the omnibus appropriations that's coming forth that has appropriated the amount needed that nasa needs to go on and keep this competition between

spacex and boeing going, for developing two spacecraft that will be launching americans on american rockets to and from our international space station o. the space station, we have six human beings up there. it's an international crew. they're doing all kinds of experiments. and at another time and another date, i can tell you about some of those exciting things. we are going to mars. we're going to mars because we're developing a spacecraft called orion that we have already test flown out to 3,600 miles to check its structural integrity on a ballistic reent reentry. that was done a year ago. and now we're building the largest, most powerful rockets everockets -- largest, most powerful rocket ever on earth

called the space launch system, the l s.l.s. orion and s.l.s. have also been given a boost in this appropriation sayappropriations. and so we are well on our way for the first test of this full-up rocket with capsule in september of 2018. that's less than three years away. with the first crewed vehicle after the first test in 2021. that is the forerunner to building the spacecraft and the technologies that can take human beings and keep them alive all the way from earth to mars, land on mars, stay on mars for awhile and return safely to the earth.

"star wars," "star trek," that's fiction. it's exciting. it's fiction. this is space fact. it's happening in front of our eyes. now, there are other things that are happening with this appropriations bill. we think in this solar system if there is a chance for life besides mars or life that was there and we want to know what happened, there's a moon around jupiter called europa. europa is so cold that it has an exterior that is ice. but the gravitational pull of jupiter as europa goes around

and around jupiter is such that it causes the friction from an inner core that already has heat and heaps up from the inside. so under this crust on europa of ice is water. in our experience as earthlings, wherever we have found water, we have found life. and so is not europa one of the best chances of there being life as we understand it in those oceans, a smaller body than earth, europa, and yet oceans that are twice the volume of oceans on planet earth.that's a

real possibility. and so in this appropriations bill there is $1.6 billion to proceed on a plan for taking us to europa to see if there is other life in our solar system. and, mr. president, there's also something that's very important to us earthlings and that is that we need to know what's happening to the planet and we need to be able to predict and we need to be able to foretell. because if a big storm's coming here, we want precise measurements to let us bound on the face of tiara firma to know what is that storm that's coming and what are the weather

conditions. that accuracy is so important for us in our daily lives here on earth, not even to speak of our national security. you could go through the rest of the nasa budget and you could see that it, indeed, sets us on a course for extraordinary exploration as well as taking care of the aeronautical research which is the other "a" in nasa -- aeronautics -- and that has a plus-up from the president's request. aeronautics giving all of the research on the technologies to make sure that our aviation industry is at the absolute cutting edge. mr. president, we are going to

mars, and we are beginning this journey as we did with the test of the spacecraft a year ago, but that journey is going to accelerate. and in the lifetimes of many of those within the sound of my voice, they will witness a human crew, americans possibly an international crew that will go all the way to the planet mars and return. indeed, what was science fiction based on science fact, the matt damon movie "the martian" really is right within our grasp. it's an exciting time as we bring our space exploration back

to life so that the american people can see that there is a vibrant space program and that we have a goal and that goal is the planet mars. mr. president, i want to take advantage of this opportunity to also share with the senate. we have a very important coast guard bill that we are going to try to get unanimous consent so that we can send it on to the house. it really -- there are parts that have been controversial, and those parts generally have been worked out. there are one or two others, but i want to say that i think the american people, unless they get in trouble out on the high seas, they don't really have an

understanding of what a professional military organization, the united states coast guard, is. we have the coast guard participating with our defense department over in the war zones, the area of responsibility over in central command. we have the coast guard basically doing the job for the united states navy and the -- in the waters off of alaska. we have a coast guard that is patrolling the waters off of the continental u.s. as well as the island state of hawaii. always there when americans get in trouble, and indeed when mariners get in trouble, that may not be americans. the coast guard is this incredible professional organization that is doing the

job. down in the waters off of my state of florida, the coast guard does this incredible job working with the united states navy on the interdiction of drugs. when the drug smugglers have to be interdicted, the navy, if they are tracking them, hands that to the coast guard because the coast guard in fact is the law enforcement capability to go in and take down the smugglers. mr. president, the coast guard can shoot the motors out of the go-fast boats and all the other ways that smugglers are even submerged vehicles to stop them. the coast guard does that from not only their boats but also from the air.

and the coast guard stands tall. we in the congress now need to stand tall for the coast guard. earlier this month, the majority leader offered a unanimous consent request to discharge from the senate commerce committee and pass the coast guard authorization act. well, giving the coast guard the resources it needs to carry out its missions, you can't overstate it's a small, it's a very agile service of 42,000 active duty members. it plays a vital role in protecting the nation from narcoterrorism, human smuggling, environmental disasters and for the loss of life and property at

sea. so what's in this bill? it's the result of several months of negotiations between the house and the senate. the chairman of our senate commerce committee, john thune, and i as the ranking member of the commerce committee have worked with our colleagues to craft a bill that will authorize a total of $9.1 billion in each of the fiscal years 2016 and 2017. it's a $380 million per year increase over the amount authorized last year. and it enhances the coast guard and its capability to do a number of the things that i have listed, which includes cracking down on the drug trade, the

destruction of evidence, including the destruction of illegal drugs. it enhances the coast guard capabilities to stop the smuggling of drug money across our maritime borders, and the coast guard's western hemisphere strategy, which is to combat the criminal networks, secure the borders and safeguard american commerce, so to meet all of that, this legislation's increased funding is going to support the coast guard's ongoing fleet recapitalization program, including the design and construction of a new offshore patrol cutter and the continued production of a fast response cutter.

mr. president, i have ridden in these fast response cutters. i have ridden in the go-fast boats. the go-fast boats i have ridden as they simulate a drug that was trying to avoid us, the hairpin turns, and suddenly a 180-degree turn at top speed this boat can do that, and that's how these guys can't get away. and if for some reason they were not able to interdict them at sea, we have got them from the air. i have watched the coast guard sharpshooters blow out the motors on a go-fast drug-smuggling boat, but we have got to recappize -- recapitalize a lot of these old boats.

the average age of a coast guard high-endurance cutter is 45 years old. the average age of the coast guard's 210-foot medium endurance cutter is 48 years old. these are two of the primary ships that are used for interdiction and rescue worldwide. so new offshore patrol cutters, fast response cutters, it will give our coast guard an effective coastal and offshore interdiction capability in order to meet its objectives. you think of the coast guard off the coast. mr. president, they're in washington. i'm not talking about the ones on shore. they are out there protecting national security assets in and around the potomac and the

anacostia river. now, in addition to this recapitalization, the bill allows the coast guard to begin updating its fleet of polar icebreakers. allowing the service to pay an estimated $1 billion needed for the acquisition of a new state-of-the-art heavy polar icebreaker. why do we need that? mr. president, have you noticed recently what the chinese have been doing in the arctic especially? have you noticed what the russians are doing in the arctic? have you noticed that the russians have 19 icebreakers? and we have just a few.

have you noticed that china is funding and building icebreakers for the arctic? part of our icebreakers, the polar star and the healy, were built in the 1970's and 1990's, and the polar star is now well beyond its intended 30-year service life. so it's vital that we enable the coast guard to begin bringing these new vessels online to support the coast guard's arctic strategy and cooperative maritime strategy and to meet the president's stated intent for increased american presence and capabilities in the arctic. mr. president, i went with the coast guard to alaska. as i said a moment ago, the navy

has really ceded the alaskan waters to the coast guard to protect the maritime shipping, huge fishing fleet up there, but also on the north slope of alaska, which is the beginning of those arctic waters. there's a lot of activity up there, not only fishing but exploring for oil, and at times of the year that it's totally incapable of a seaworthy vessel to crack the ice, you've got to have an icebreaker to do it. the russians have 19. they are getting very aggressive in the arctic. just ask the prime minister of norway with all of his teams how concerned they are with what the former soviets are doing up in the arctic. and thus, this bill enhances and

speeds up our capability of getting another icebreaker, a modernized icebreaker. and so this legislation is also going to provide the coast guard parity with our department of defense sister services with respect to personnel policies such as parental leave, such as eligibility for combat-related special compensation. if they are out there on the front lines, they should have parity with our sister men and women in uniform. this legislation will ensure that the coast guard is properly equipped to protect our national and homeland security interests in our ports, on our coastal and

inland waters like washington and on the high seas around the world. now, i believe that we will be able to do this by unanimous consent if we work through a few more things, and so i want to urge our colleagues in the senate let's get this up, let's get it passed before christmas recess so the house will have it at the first part of next year so we can get on about the process of getting this bill authorized, completed and sent down to the president for signature into law. mr. president, i yield the floor.