Renewed commitment to do this the right way. Weve 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. Lets hope for more transparency, more debate, more challenges. Im i chair this one committee ive been talk about today but certainly there have got to be other ideas that other members who arent on the on this subcommittee have, who arent 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. Lets 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 id 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 im relieved. The senior senator from arizona has not attacked me on the floor for three weeks, and i was fearful that hes feeling under the weather, but clearly hes in fine form and feels good, and i welcome him back to the floor for another attack on me personally. So lets talk about the issue that he raised because its complicated but extremely important when it comes to the defense of the United States. Heres what it boils down to. In the early 2000s, 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 2000s and i dont 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 its 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 boeinglockheed 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 thats 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 didnt, 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 . Its important because the engine being used by the United Launch Alliance to launch americas 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 dont have an alternative engine to the russian engine. United launch alliance uses it now. Weve 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 dont 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, were 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 weve got to be careful we dont cut off our nose to spite our face. If we reach a point here where we dont 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. Thats 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 cant launch satellites. At that point then were in a terrible situation. We cant keep our country safe when we should. None of us want that to occur. So this provision thats 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. Im very proud of that. I have worked with them in the past. I think its 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, theres 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. Weve got to assure the department of defense and our defense agencies can put critical satellites in orbit when needed. Weve 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. Weve got to generate competition to drive down costs, and weve 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 its not, and i join with virtually all of my colleagues in believing that the sooner we move away from russianmade engines to americanmade engines in competition, the better for us and the better for our nation. Theres 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 ive explained how weve reached this point. I think there is good faith on both sides. I dont question the motives of the senior senator from arizona. I hope he doesnt 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. Its interesting that this is at the very time that in our culture here on earth, the movie thats hearkening back, star wars, is coming out again and its 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 nations 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 earths gravity once again to get out and explore the heavens. Well, that is now becoming a reality. And its 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 nasas 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 havent 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 a