Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the United States held a special ceremony to commemorate one of the longest wars in our Nation's history--the Vietnam war. It was a ceremony to honor the men and women who served in that long and searing conflict, especially the more than 58,000 young Americans who did not come home from the battle. The Congressional ceremony was held to commemorate what organizers, including the Department of Defense, call the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam war. The milestone is a little ambiguous. You see, it was 50 years ago, on March 9, 1965, that the first U.S. combat forces--3,500 members of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade--arrived at the port city of Da Nang, in what was then the Republic of South Vietnam. The arrival of those young Marines marked the beginning of a massive U.S. military buildup that lasted nearly a decade. But America's military presence in Vietnam actually began several years earlier, with the deployment of military advisors to assist the South Vietnamese armed forces. All told, 9.2 million Americans served in uniform during the Vietnam war; 7.2 million Vietnam-era veterans are still with us, along with 9 million families of Vietnam-era veterans. Most of the men who served in Vietnam came home to build successful careers and strong families. More than a few went on to serve in Congress and we have benefited greatly from their wisdom and continued commitment to duty. I think of my friend, Senator John McCain, who endured unspeakable cruelty for years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He could have been released from that hell years earlier but he refused to leave while other American servicemembers remained captive. Senator McCain has been a powerful voice in calling for America to honor our commitments under the Geneva Conventions to never use torture--to remain true to our word and our values even in war. I respect him deeply for his principled stand. I think of other friends and former members of this Senate who served in Vietnam. Bob Kerrey, the former Governor and U.S. Senator from Nebraska, lost a leg while serving as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Chuck Hagel, another Nebraskan, served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam alongside his brother Tom. He came home to build a successful business career, got elected twice to the U.S. Senate, and went on to serve as America's Secretary of Defense. John Kerry was a diplomat's son--truly, a ``fortunate son''--who served with distinction in Vietnam as a Navy lieutenant from 1966 to 1970. When he returned home, he became an eloquent voice among those calling for an end to the war in which he had fought. He went on to serve his State of Massachusetts as Lieutenant Governor and then represented his State for nearly 30 years in this Senate. He now represents our Nation's interest on the world stage as U.S. Secretary of State. One of the bravest men I have ever met served in Vietnam and then served in this Senate. His name is Max Cleland. Max went to Vietnam as a 6-foot, 2-inch marine. One day in Vietnam he stepped on a landmine. The explosion ripped off both of his legs and one of his arms. Max Cleland went on to serve in the Veterans Administration under President Carter and later as a member of this Senate--an amazing man. In all, more than 153,000 U.S. servicemembers were gravely wounded in Vietnam--wounded seriously enough to require hospitalization. Others sacrificed even more; 58,220 American servicemembers were killed in action during the Vietnam war. The Americans who died in Vietnam ranged in age from 6 years old to 62. Six in 10 were just 21 years old or younger. Their names are carved into that sacred slab of black marble, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, on the National Mall in Washington, DC. In the four decades since the end of the war, thousands more Vietnam veterans have died from physical and psychic injuries suffered in that war--dying from causes ranging from cancers caused by exposure to the deadly chemical defoliant Agent Orange, to the agonies of post- traumatic stress. Fifteen years ago, Congress authorized the placement of a plaque near ``The Wall'' to honor these ``men and women who served in the Vietnam War and later died as a result of their service.'' We remember and honor their service, too. Every American my age and a decade or so younger knows someone who died in Vietnam or a friend whose father, brother or husband never came home. These young men are still missed deeply by their families and friends and remembered by a grateful nation. The city I grew up in, East St. Louis, IL lost 56 young men in Vietnam. The City of Chicago lost 959 young men in the Vietnam war. Let me tell you about one of them: Marine Lance Corporal Mike Badsing. He was among those first 3,500 Marines who landed at Da Nang 50 years ago--a rifleman in the 3rd Marine Division, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, C Company. The 1st Battalion suffered the highest casualty rate of any Marine battalion in any war--a grim distinction that led North Vietnam's Communist President Ho Chi Minh to call them ``The Walking Dead.'' The nickname stuck. Mike Badsing attended St. Edward grammar school, where he played football, basketball, and Chicago 16'' softball. He was the youngest of five kids. One of his older sisters is a nun today. He left Chicago for Vietnam on Christmas Eve 1964. About 10 months later, Sept. 6, 1965, his platoon came under fire and Lance Corporal Badsing was hit in the abdomen by a sniper shot, becoming the first Chicago-area Marine killed in combat in Vietnam. He was buried in All Saints Cemetery in Des Plaines, IL. A half- century later, Marines still visit his grave, often drinking a few Old Style beers in their friend's memory. My adopted hometown of Springfield, IL--also President Lincoln's adopted hometown--lost 40 young men in combat during the Vietnam war. Among them was an Army helicopter pilot named Captain Michael Davis O'Donnell. Mike O'Donnell died on March 24, 1970, when a rescue helicopter he was piloting crashed in dense jungle in Cambodia, 14 miles over the Cambodia-Vietnam border. He had gone into Cambodia to rescue a Special Forces reconnaissance team that was about to be overrun by enemy soldiers. He and his crew had gotten all eight members of the Special Forces team safely on board and were taking off when their ``Huey'' helicopter was hit twice by enemy missiles. It was 1 week before President Nixon announced publicly that American forces were even in Cambodia. All 12 men aboard Mike O'Donnell's Huey died, but it wasn't until 2001 that their remains were identified and returned. Today, they lie buried together at Arlington Cemetery. Mike O'Donnell was 24 years old when he died. He was promoted posthumously to the rank of major. In addition to being a soldier, Mike O'Donnell was a talented musician and a poet. During his life, he shared his poems with only a few close friends. After he died, soldiers in his unit found a notebook he kept, filled with 22 of his poems, which they saved and brought home. Just as ``In Flanders Fields'' has become the unofficial homage to World War I, a poem by Michael Davis O'Donnell has become the unofficial poem of the Vietnam war. It begins with the words, ``If you are able, save them a place inside of you.'' Google that line and you will find nearly 75,000 hits. Mike O'Donnell's poem was carried in combat by untold thousands of men who served in Vietnam. It was read at the dedication of ``The Wall,'' the national Vietnam War Memorial, in Washington, DC. and it is etched into many smaller Vietnam memorials across America. Here is the whole poem: If you are able, save them a place inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving for the places they can no longer go. Be not ashamed to say you loved them, though you may or may not have always. Take what they have left and what they have taught you with their dying and keep it with your own. And in that time when men decide and feel safe to call the war insane, take one moment to embrace those gentle heroes you left behind. Captain Michael Davis O'Donnell 1 January 1970 Dak To, Vietnam Less than 3 months after writing those words, Mike O'Donnell died. Along with the 58,220 Americans who died there, the Vietnam war claimed the lives of more than one million Vietnamese men, women and children. It is fitting, and it is overdue, for America to thank all of those who served and sacrificed so much in the Vietnam war. But we owe them more than speeches and ceremonies. As President Lincoln told us in his Second Inaugural Address, we have a solemn duty ``to care for him who has borne the battle.'' Six years ago I asked my friend, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, if I could introduce a bill she had been working on before she moved on to a bigger and better gig. She agreed, and I introduced a bill creating what is now called the Veterans Caregiver Program, to help the families of U.S. servicemembers severely injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The program provides family caregivers of post 9/11 veterans who have suffered catastrophic injuries with training and a small stipend so they can care for their loved ones at home, rather than sending them to nursing homes. The program helps these families know that they are not alone and not forgotten. Today, 20,000 veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan participate in the caregivers program. That is more than five times the number the VA originally estimated would sign up. The Veterans Caregiver Program doesn't just help those families; it helps American taxpayers. Caring for severely injured veterans in the caregivers program costs the VA $36,000 per veteran, per year. Compare that to the average $332,000 per veteran, per year it costs the VA to care for these veterans in nursing homes. When we started the caregivers program, we had to limit it to post-9/ 11 veterans and their families. But we know now that it works. It saves families and it saves taxpayers money. When he chaired the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, our colleague, Senator Bernie Sanders said repeatedly that we should expand the Veterans Caregivers Program. He was right. So last March--nearly 50 years to the day after those first, young Marines landed in Da Nang--Senator Baldwin and I introduced a bill to expand the program to U.S. veterans of all wars. Our bill is called the VA Family Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act. They were young once, but today the average Vietnam veteran is retired. Many still struggle with old wounds gained in service to our Nation. As our Nation and this Congress thank them for their service 50 years ago, I hope that we can also work together in this Senate to provide Vietnam veterans the medical care and support that they and their families need today.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As we have heard from the previous speakers, the issues that are involved in this decision really go to the heart of America and its future. Public education is the avenue to opportunity for most children in America, and if that avenue is blocked or if it is inadequate, that child will suffer, the family will suffer, and the Nation will suffer. There is hardly a bigger, more important assignment that could come our way than to consider elementary and secondary education. We are fortunate that we have two good leaders on this issue--two of the best in this Senate, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray. Senator Alexander is a Republican from Tennessee and a former Secretary of Education. He takes this job and assignment very seriously, and I have spoken to him many times about these issues. My colleague, friend, and fellow leader on the Democratic side, Senator Murray of Washington, and Senator Alexander have done an extraordinary bipartisan job of bringing this measure to the floor. That is not to say that I agree with every provision nor that any Senator does, but to have this reported unanimously from committee by both political parties with the political climate we have in Washington is nothing short of amazing. We find ourselves on the floor debating the specifics of the Every Child Achieves Act. I am glad this bill maintains Impact Aid assistance for districts such as North Chicago in my home State of Illinois, which is a neighbor to the Great Lakes naval training station. The bill also preserves the universally agreed upon triumph of No Child Left Behind--to disaggregate data among subgroups of students. I remember back in 2002, when we passed No Child Left Behind, I was relatively new to the Senate, and I sat back there. Directly behind me was a Senator from Minnesota named Paul Wellstone. To say that Senator Paul Wellstone hated No Child Left Behind is an understatement. Every time I got up and appeared to be supporting it, he would be behind me whispering: Senator Durbin, this is a mistake. Don't you vote for this. You will be sorry. Well, I voted for it. As I reflect on it, many good things happened, but a lot of things happened that we didn't expect to happen. We had testing, and I think testing is an important part of metrics and measurement to see whether the students are actually progressing. But some parts of the bill went overboard by disqualifying schools and saying they were not up to the job because their test scores didn't hit certain numbers. Teachers would complain to me that they went through all of this education and had experience in teaching, but now they were just teaching to the test. They lost the thrill of being teachers and that diminished them in their ability to help the children. We also know what happened when it came to some of the other aspects of this bill. Some of the States started dumbing down their State standards so schools would pass the test. It wasn't a pretty sight. It is time to rewrite this broken bill, and the bill that we have before us attempts to do just that. No Child Left Behind made important advances in how we ensure that all children are being served by public education. As we debate the Every Child Achieves Act this week, we must resist the urge to go too far the other way. What happened with No Child Left Behind was a political curiosity. Here was a new Republican President, George W. Bush, appealing to a Democratic Congress to give the Federal Government more control when it came to K-12 education. That was really a new approach, and it is one that, frankly, surprised many of us. As a result, No Child Left Behind went in directions and to degrees that many of us did not expect. Now we are getting a pushback from those who say it went too far. The pendulum is about to swing back in the other direction. This bill allows States to develop their own State education plan, set their own achievement goals, and hold themselves accountable. Every Child Achieves does not require States to identify low-performing schools or take meaningful actions to provide additional support when the schools are consistently not serving their students. Without these protections, students of color and low-income students could easily be left behind. There are reasonable, commonsense improvements that should be made to this bill to enhance accountability. We can have federally required accountability and intervention without federally prescribed accountability and intervention. Let me also say a word about vouchers. The Senator from Washington just spoke about vouchers. I asked her when No Child Left Behind was written and she told me 2002, and I think it was somewhere around that period when we passed the DC vouchers system. We are members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was Senator DeWine of Ohio who offered the DC voucher system as an amendment on an appropriations bill. I offered three amendments to his proposal. He proposed that Federal tax dollars be given to individual parents in DC to choose the school they wish, even if it was a private or religious school--not charter schools per se but so-called DC opportunity or voucher schools. I offered three amendments in committee to his proposal. Here is what they were: First amendment, every teacher in a DC voucher school had to have a college degree. The amendment was defeated. The Republican majority said, no, we don't want to limit the creativity here of these new teachers in voucher schools. The second amendment I offered said the students who attend the voucher schools will take the same tests as the students attending DC Public Schools so we can compare how they are doing. That amendment was also defeated by the majority in the Appropriations Committee. They didn't want to be held to the same standards of testing and achievement. The third one was the most shocking. I said any building used for a DC voucher school had to pass the fire safety code in the District of Columbia. That, too, was defeated. Years later, I sent staff out to take photos of some of the DC voucher schools. It was depressing. Many of these schools were just schools in name only. They weren't real schools. When we held a hearing before the Appropriations Committee, they couldn't even explain what standards they were teaching to. Is that the kind of system we want to set up nationally and put our tax dollars towards? Is that where families want to send their children? So I agree with Senator Murray. Before we start talking about voucher schools, let's focus on our first responsibility; that is, public education. I also want to talk about an amendment that may be offered by Senator Burr of North Carolina on Title I formulas. Title I is the single largest source of Federal funding for elementary and secondary education. It helps States and school districts address poverty and the needs of low-income students. This was the inspiration for the Federal Government to make a massive investment and commitment to education in the 1960s, and the reason behind it was because we saw the gross disparities in school districts from State to State and from district to district. We believed then, as I believe now, that kids from poor families don't have a fighting chance if they don't have the chance of a good education. Title I was designed to send those dollars to help those school districts educate those children. Now, the amendment that is proposed by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, would devastate low-income students in my home State of Illinois. It would reduce Illinois's title I share by an estimated $180 million a year. That is a 28-percent reduction in Federal assistance in my State of Illinois to help poor, low-income, and minority students--a 28-percent reduction. Chicago public schools alone would lose $68 million. I just have to say for the record, they are struggling even today to meet their budget needs and their pension requirements. This kind of cut would be devastating. I think about the violence in the great city of Chicago and many other cities as well. I think about the responsibility of the Chicago public school system which educates almost 400,000 students. A $70 million cut to Chicago would mean that these kids in low-income families would struggle and many would not succeed in achieving a good education. Is that the best we can do? I think it is a mistake. I have to serve notice on my colleagues. I don't know what procedural tools are available to us, but when it comes to an amendment that takes that kind of money away from critically important school districts in my State, I am going to use every tool in the box to stop this from coming to the floor and passing. There is just too much at stake. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to stop this as well. Finally, let me talk about an issue that is near and dear to all of us and especially to the Presiding Officer--criminal background checks. In the State of Illinois, if you want to be a teacher--before you can even be a student teacher--you have to go through a criminal background check. What does that consist of? Being fingerprinted and having your fingerprints and personal information turned over to our State police and the FBI. We take this very seriously in Illinois, and we are not the only State. There are many States that do exactly the same thing. We don't want anyone in the classroom, anyone in an unsupervised situation with small children around, who is going to be a danger to those children, period. There are two proposals before us. One is being offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, and it is a criminal background approach which I cannot support. The reason I cannot support it is because it imposes new Federal criminal background check standards in addition to what I just described in Illinois. We already have fingerprinting and a criminal background check that goes to the State registry of crime as well as the FBI, which provides the basic information you need to know as to whether this potential teacher has anything in their background that is worrisome or would disqualify that teacher. It is already being done. The amendment being offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania says now we are going to make sure they go through a second check, a federally mandated criminal background check, which sends the school districts in Illinois to the same agencies I just described; in other words, a second check which under Illinois law would be at the expense of the school district--that goes to the State police, the FBI, and others. Come on. Why would we waste our money--precious Federal money that we need for education--in duplicating background checks? It makes no sense whatsoever. So I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for being concerned about this. There isn't a parent or grandparent alive who doesn't share his concern, but let's not impose an additional Federal mandate on States that are already doing a professional job. If States say we have a background check in place that conforms to what the standards are in Washington, why should they have to do it a second time? Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island makes that proposal. He has an alternative amendment. He proposes that the State background checks meet a list of Federal compliance requirements, while explicitly ensuring that states would not need to duplicate background checks for current employees who have already met these requirements and have been cleared. I think that is better. That eliminates the duplication and eliminates the wasted dollars on a second, unnecessary duplicative background check. I might add that the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Rhode Island addressed the concern about mistakes. If there is a name sent in by mistake and a potential teacher is disqualified and it turns out the information is erroneous, there is a due process provision in Senator Toomey's bill and one that I think is more complete in the bill offered by Senator Whitehouse. It wasn't that many years ago, our colleagues may remember, that our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy ended up on a no-fly list. He kept saying: Why am I on a no-fly list? It was a mistake. It was a government mistake that identified him as a danger to the country. Mistakes can be made. There needs to be a due process requirement in here so those accused of something that they are not guilty of have a chance to have their day to tell their story as best they can. The bottom line is that this bill is one of the most important we will consider. I thank the chairman and ranking member for the time they put into this, and I thank them for their bipartisan efforts. There will be some disagreements on the amendments before us, but I think we are all in common agreement. If we don't get this right, many of the other things we do don't mean much. If we don't provide that avenue of opportunity to kids from lower- income, impoverished families, they are not likely to enjoy life as they might with a good education and realize the American dream. This is our step in the right direction. I hope we can make it even stronger as we consider amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to recognize the 2015 United States Women's National Soccer Team. Sunday night, our athletes brought home their third World Cup championship and continued the excellence that we have come to know from the team. Four of the woman's national team players--Shannon Boxx, Julie Johnston, Lori Chalupny, and Christen Press--are also on Chicago's National Women's Soccer League team, the Red Stars. More than 22 million Americans watched Team USA--including a crowd of thousands gathering in Lincoln Park in Chicago to watch the match on the big screens and cheer the U.S. women to victory. This was not an easy road for the United States team. Their mettle was tested against the best teams in the world, including No. 1 ranked Germany in the semifinal. These 23 athletes displayed the best qualities of champions: depth, confidence, selflessness, athleticism, and unconquerable spirit. With a decisive 5-2 victory over Japan, the U.S. Women's National Team showed the world that this is what legacy looks like. We will forever remember when this team of athletes brought the Nation to its feet, yelling, ``I believe, I believe that we will win.'' And they did. Mr. President, I congratulate all the players, coaches, and staff of the 2015 U.S. women's national soccer team.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Valerie Williams, a fellow in Senator Patty Murray's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning the Supreme Court of the United States came down with its decision in King v. Burwell. I think it will probably be a decision that is remembered for a long time, certainly by Members of Congress. We were watching carefully, closely, wondering what the Supreme Court was going to say about the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. We passed it 5 years ago, and it was about the issue of health insurance--how many Americans who were uninsured would be insured under the Affordable Care Act and how much it would help health insurance cost. Controversial, as the Senator from Utah just noted--it was passed on a partisan roll call. There was an effort to write a bipartisan bill, and it failed. There was no sentiment shared by both sides of the aisle to create the Affordable Care Act or anything like it. How important is this decision, King v. Burwell, a decision which basically sustained the Affordable Care Act and said that the tax credits--which are part of the act--given to families in lower income situations were legal and constitutional? I think it is one of the most important decisions because I think health insurance is one of the most important things in our lives. If you have ever been in the position as a father with a sick child, a seriously ill child without health insurance, you will never forget it. I know. I have been there. As a law student, my wife and I got married and had a little baby. She had some challenges, and we had no health insurance. Every time we took her to the hospital, every time we saw a doctor, I wondered if she was getting the best that she could get because we didn't have health insurance. It meant waiting in big waiting rooms with a lot of other people without health insurance and hoping that whoever walked through that door, that doctor would be just what my daughter needed. I will never forget it. When it comes to a time when people are debating about health insurance and how important it is, it sure is important to me. It was even when I didn't have it, as I realized how insecure and uncertain I was. About 5 years ago, I was down in southern Illinois, Marion, IL, which is a great little town. I stayed there in deep southern Illinois at a local motel, and in the morning I would go up and go in. They had a little breakfast buffet there. There was a sweet lady named Judy. She was always there; ``Senator, what can I do for you?'' and all that. She couldn't have been nicer. I got to know Judy over the times we stayed there, and we talked about her life. Judy was 60 years old. She was working part time in this motel--kind of in the world of hospitality--and she took care of guests when they went to the breakfast buffet in the morning. We talked about her life. She had grown up in southern Illinois. She had worked all the way through her life, job after job after job. I knew she was a hard- working lady and a good person. One day she said to me: Senator, I have heard about this debate in Washington about the Affordable Care Act, and I am scared. I said: Why? She said: I don't think I can afford it, and they won't let me pick my own doctor. I said: Well, Judy, I don't want to get personal, but I need to ask you a few questions. Do you have health insurance? No. No, Senator. I have never had health insurance in my life. I have never had a job that offered health insurance. She was 60 years old. I said: Now I am going to get real personal. Can you give me an idea how much money you make? If you want to, can you tell me? Sure. She told me. I said: Judy, when it is all over, you are going to be covered by Medicaid. You won't be paying for this. For the first time in your life, you are going to have health insurance. You are going to be able to go to the hospital and not be a charity case. She said: It won't cost me? No. Your income is so low that you qualify for this tax credit and this treatment under Medicaid. You don't have to pay out of pocket. The next time I went back there after the law passed and we knew she had Medicaid coverage, Judy didn't look the same. She was obviously sick. I said: What is wrong? She said: Well, I just got diagnosed with diabetes. I said: Well, at least you have Medicaid. She said: I sure do. And I have a doctor. I like him, and he is helping me. And I have a hospital that I can go to if I need to. There she was, for the first time in her life at the age of 60, with diabetes, and with health insurance. From my point of view, that is what this decision and this debate is all about. What we set out to do with the passage of the Affordable Care Act was to make sure health insurance was there for that young couple getting started with a baby who otherwise wouldn't have had health insurance or that 60-year-old woman who was working a job that didn't provide health insurance benefits who was facing diabetes. Well, it has helped a lot of people. When we started the debate on the Affordable Care Act, there were 50 million Americans--out of over 320 million, 50 million--who had no health insurance. Because of this law, the Affordable Care Act, almost one-third of them--16 million--now have health insurance. I think that is a good thing. Most Americans would celebrate that we have reduced the rolls of the uninsured by one- third. It means they have peace of mind having coverage. Roy Romanowski, in Chicago--I sat next to Roy at a community health clinic in a neighborhood. I go to those clinics all the time because I think they are one of the best places on Earth to meet some great medical professionals who are doing a wonderful service for a lot of people who live in a neighborhood and who wouldn't have a place to go. Roy Romanowski, a big, barrel-chested Polish guy from Chicago, is a musician. He plays a guitar. He never had a solid 40-hour-a-week job in his life and never had health insurance. He has it now. The Affordable Care Act gave Roy health insurance coverage for the first time--health insurance coverage he can afford. That is what the decision in this court case was about today--whether people like Roy and Judy would have health insurance. And it does something else: It moves us along the path we want to be on--and not only that more and more people have health insurance. Here is good news for everybody: The rate of growth in health care costs is going down. Oh, it is not a dramatic plunge. We didn't expect it to be. But even as it starts to level off a little bit, it has a dramatic impact. It means even if you don't have your health insurance plan through the Affordable Care Act, if you have it through your employer, the health insurance premiums your employer faces are less than they would have been. So it is starting to flatten out this growth and the cost of health care. What about Medicare? Medicare is important for over 40 million Americans. Here is the great news on Medicare--two things. No. 1, because the overall cost of health care is coming down just a little, in 5 years, the projected solvency of Medicare has been--they have added 13 years to it, 13 more years of solvency for a program critically important to seniors and disabled people. So Medicare has benefited from it as well. There is a second part. If you are under Medicare and you have prescription Part D, which covers your prescriptions under Medicare, we closed the doughnut hole. The doughnut hole used to be that point in the cost of your prescription drugs when Medicare no longer paid for it and you had to pay for it out of pocket. That was a crazy idea in the law, and it cost seniors thousands of dollars. And then, of course, after they paid out of pocket, Medicare came in to cover the additional expenses. We got rid of that craziness. We eliminated that doughnut hole. So for seniors wanting to take the medicines the doctor has prescribed so they can feel good, be strong, be independent, stay on their own, this Affordable Care Act helped them pay. In Illinois, it was about $1,000 per Medicare recipient per year in prescription drug costs taken care of by the Affordable Care Act. Let me tell you a couple other things this law did and does. Do you have any children in your family who are going to college? Are you worried about when they graduate from college, whether they have a job and health insurance? I was. My wife and I were worried about our daughter. I remember calling her. Jennifer, you just got out of school. Do you have health insurance? Dad, I don't need it. I am healthy as can be. That is not what a father wants to hear. The Affordable Care Act says that your son or daughter can stay under your family plan until they reach the age of 26. I think that is a good thing. As a parent who had a college grad looking for a job, I had the peace of mind of knowing she was under the family health insurance plan. So the people who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act--do they really want to repeal that provision? And here is another one that is important. How many of us can say with certainty that in our homes, in our households, there isn't someone with a preexisting condition, someone who--perhaps a child--has had diabetes, a spouse who has had good luck in beating breast cancer or prostate cancer? Someone there is a history of mental illness. In the old days before the Affordable Care Act, what I just described to you were grounds for denying health insurance coverage or charging through the roof. Well, that was changed by the Affordable Care Act. Preexisting conditions no longer disqualify you from health insurance in America. The President said this morning, after the Supreme Court decision: We will have to explain to our grandkids there was a time when you couldn't get health insurance if you were sick. Thank goodness that time has passed and the Affordable Care Act protects people. Overall, this act in the last 5 years has made real progress for America. For 16 million Americans, it has given many of them health insurance for the first time in their lives, health insurance they can afford and a tax credit to help them pay for it that was protected today by this Supreme Court decision. In all of the time since the Affordable Care Act has been the law, we have heard from the other party that they want to repeal it. But in that same period of time, we have never ever heard what they would replace it with. They don't have a better idea. Here is what I hope we will do. I hope we will put behind us this whole effort of let's file another lawsuit, let's vote another time to abolish the Affordable Care Act. I hope instead that there will be a constructive dialogue between Democrats and Republicans to make the Affordable Care Act better. I voted for it and am proud of it. It is one of the most important votes I ever cast in Congress. But it is not perfect. I tell my town meetings in Illinois that the only perfect law was brought down the side of a mountain by Senator Moses on clay tablets. Ever since then, we have done our best to write laws but know that we have to be ready to improve them and to react to changing circumstances. We should do the same with the Affordable Care Act. I think there are things we can do to make it stronger, and on a bipartisan basis we should. Until this moment in time of this Supreme Court decision, it has been politically impossible to have that conversation. The Restaurant Association came to see me. They are worried. They said: Wait a minute. We have a lot of part-time employees and a lot of them don't want health insurance. Their spouses have health insurance. We are looking at the law. We want some clarity here about what our obligation will be under the Affordable Care Act. They deserve that clarity. I will tell you as I stand here today, I am willing to sit down with any Republican Senator and work out changes and provisions in the law to make sure we treat these employees fairly and we give them coverage and do it in a fashion that is fair to their employer as well as individual employees. These are things we can and should do. For the longest time, there were people who opposed Social Security-- going way back in time 70 or 80 years when it was created. They said that it will never last; it will never stay. Eventually, public sentiment changed and people realized Social Security was critically important for America. The same thing was true for Medicare. There were those who said: Socialized medicine, you have to get rid of it. Now, 60 years later, 50 years later, they understand it is part of America. For millions of Americans, it is critically important. Medicaid, the same thing. I hope today will be that turning point on the Affordable Care Act, where we decide on a bipartisan basis that this is part of our future, providing health insurance for uninsured Americans, doing it in a fair way, and particularly for those in lower income situations. This was a historic decision, King v. Burwell, at the Supreme Court-- 6 to 3. A decisive majority opinion said the Affordable Care Act is legal and constitutional and should move forward. I hope that message makes it across the street over to the Halls of Congress.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning, the Supreme Court also announced its decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. In a major victory for the millions of Americans who rely on the protections of the Fair Housing Act to challenge unfair, discriminatory housing practices, the Court held that disparate impact claims are permissible under the law. The Fair Housing Act was a landmark civil rights bill passed in 1968 to combat widespread housing discrimination. Under the disparate impact doctrine, the law allows plaintiffs to challenge housing policies that have a ``disproportionally adverse effect on minorities,'' without proving discriminatory intent. Housing discrimination is rarely as overt today as it was in the 1960s, and disparate impact claims thus play an important role in preventing housing segregation. Federal appeals courts across the country have long held that these types of claims are permissible and constitutional. Today, the Supreme Court rightfully affirmed this principle. As Justice Kennedy acknowledged in the opinion, the Fair Housing Act plays a ``continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.'' This past week has reminded us that we have much to accomplish in creating a more just and equal society. On issues ranging from voting rights to mass incarceration, there are fundamental disparities that we must address. Thankfully, the Court's ruling today ensures that the full protections of the Fair Housing Act remain intact. We must continue to work to prevent discrimination in housing and give all American families access to safe, affordable homes in inclusive, prosperous communities. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, across the street from the Senate Chamber is the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court this week has several important cases pending. We are waiting anxiously for decisions, but probably the one that affects as many Americans as any other is a case called King v. Burwell. King is a case that was brought by someone who was objecting to the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare. They are arguing that the bill we passed in the Senate and the House did not include a subsidy, a tax credit, for those who are under Federal marketplace plans. My State of Illinois is one of those States. In Illinois, there are about 232,000 individuals who receive a tax credit that allows them to pay for their health insurance. Their income levels are such that they need a helping hand, otherwise the health insurance premium would be too expensive. In my State, the average tax credit that goes to these 232,000 is $1,800 a year--not insubstantial--$150 a month. Now, those who brought the lawsuit say that the law does not provide this tax credit. I believe it clearly does. No one during the course of debating this bill ever suggested otherwise. In fact, there were many times when we calculated the impact of this law. We always assumed the tax credit would be there for families, whether their State had its own State insurance exchange or used the Federal exchange, as we do in the State of Illinois. But the big problem we have is that if the Court rules the other way, if those who are critical of the Affordable Care Act--and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been on the floor this morning talking about getting rid of the Affordable Care Act--if the Court rules in that direction, we are going to have a problem on our hands because at least in my State, 232,000 people will see their health insurance premiums go up 35 percent, on average, based on that Court ruling. There are not many working families who can face that kind of increase and say, well, it really does not make any difference. It makes a big difference--on average $150 a month. For families living paycheck to paycheck and struggling who qualify for this tax credit, it is a big problem. Many of them will not be able to afford health insurance. So what happens next? We go back to where we were before: More uninsured Americans. I don't know how many people in the Senate Chamber who serve here have ever been in a position in their lives where they did not have health insurance and needed it. I have. Newly married, my wife and I had a baby with a serious health issue. We had no health insurance. It is a humbling experience, as a father, as a husband, to be in that position. It means hoping you get the best medical care and hoping you can pay for it. For many families across America, that was the standard before the Affordable Care Act. But because of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, we now have fewer people uninsured in America. That is a good thing, not just because it gives you peace of mind and access to quality health care but because uninsured people still get sick. When they get sick and go to the hospital, their expenses that they can't cover because they don't have health insurance are passed along to everyone else. How can that possibly be a good outcome? So the Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people across America who have health insurance by about 11 million people--not insubstantial. It has reduced the uninsured rate, as I mentioned, 3\1/ 2\ percent in just a 1- or 2-year period of time. Six million receive these tax credits. So there are 6 million families who may not know it, but what happens across the street at the Supreme Court this week or next week could have a big impact on the family budget. I struggle to try to understand those who hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates Holy water. They cannot stand this notion that 11 million people have health insurance. They want to get rid of it. There are proposals from the other side of the aisle to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They want to eliminate the individual mandate. What does that mean? That is the part of the law that says: You have a personal responsibility to have health insurance. Now, do we run into any other aspect of life where we are required to have insurance? Drive a car in my State, you better have automobile insurance. Buy a home in my State, virtually every bank requires fire insurance. It is a matter of responsibility. So the individual mandate not only says to everyone: You need to buy health insurance, it helps those who are in low-income categories, and it is a critical part of the big picture. Here is the big picture: If we are going to say, as we do in this law, that no health insurance company can discriminate against you because of a preexisting condition that you have or that someone in your family has--if we are going to say that, the only way it works in the insurance business is if you have a lot of people who are in that insurance pool. That includes people with preexisting conditions. So when the Republicans argue: We are going to get rid of the individual mandate, you can sign up if you want to, the people who run insurance companies say: It doesn't work. You have to have a pool with a lot of people in it: healthy and those not so healthy. Otherwise, you cannot write insurance that is going to work. What else has happened because of the Affordable Care Act? The rate of growth in health care costs has started--just started--to come down. It does not have to come down much to have a dramatic impact on our economy. This Affordable Care Act, incidentally, which many on the other side are cheering to have it abolished--this Affordable Care Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is going to cut $353 billion in deficit. How could that be? Because one of the largest drivers of cost to the Federal Government is the cost of health care. If the rate of growth in the cost of health care just takes a little dip down and you project it out, it is big dollars. We even used what many Republicans believe is holy writ called dynamic scoring. We even said: Take a look. Use dynamic scoring, and tell us what impact it has on the deficit. It turns out that even with dynamic scoring, our Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $137 billion. It works. More people are being insured. Folks cannot be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. The overall cost of health care is starting to dip down. It brings down the deficit. What part of that isn't good news? I think it is all good news. For a lot of individuals who live in my home State of Illinois, it is pretty personal. I have met with them. Last week, in my newsletter I asked people to share with me their experiences with the Affordable Care Act. The response was overwhelming, and the majority was positive. Danny Blight lives in Germantown Hills, IL. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2005. At the time, he was lucky enough to have a job with health insurance, but then he was fired and let go. He lost his health insurance, and he couldn't afford coverage because of his preexisting condition, his history of cancer, and he required surgery to treat his cancer. According to Danny, he relied on the local sisters of St. Francis to provide basic care for him and his family when he couldn't afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became the law. Now Danny Blight and his family have health insurance. Is this an important law for them? It may be the most important thing we have done in Congress when it comes to this family. I got in a debate back in my own hometown once with a group who opposes this law. They were of the opposite political faith, and I knew it. They had some pretty strong feelings about the role and the size of government, and they said as much. I would answer them by saying: Well, let me tell you about a family I met. Let me tell you about this family. Finally, one man stood, raised his hand, and said: Stop telling stories. We don't want to hear these stories. I know why they didn't want to hear it--because these stories are reality. These stories don't reflect political philosophy so much as the reality of life for a lot of people across America. We know that discriminating against families because of preexisting conditions is a real problem. We know there are many families, for example, with a history of some illness, even mental illness, who in days gone by had no chance to have health insurance. There were two other things we did in this law, and I don't understand why the other party wants to get rid of these provisions. The Affordable Care Act says that if you have a child graduating from college, your family health insurance plan can cover them until they reach the age of 26. Why is that important? Because many times young people coming fresh out of college have a lot of student debt and no job--no full-time job--and very few of them have health insurance immediately, and they think they are invincible. I remember reaching out to my daughter when she graduated from college. I said: Jen, what about health insurance? Dad, don't worry about it. I feel fine. Well, I did worry about it, and a lot of parents do. So our law says you can keep your recent college graduate under your family plan until they reach the age of 26. Why would you want to get rid of that? Why would someone want to eliminate that provision in the law? The other thing it says is that if you are a senior and you are on Medicare--the Part D, which provides your prescription drugs, used to have what is called a doughnut hole in it. What that meant was Medicare would cover your prescription drugs to a certain point and then stop, and you had to go to your savings account, pull out about $1,200, pay for your prescription drugs, and then coverage would start again. The doughnut hole is what we called it. We filled it. We filled it so seniors don't have to worry about going to their savings to make sure they can keep taking prescriptions that keep them independent, strong, and healthy. What is wrong with that idea? Why do they want to get rid of that? That is part of the Affordable Care Act as well. I just wonder sometimes if those who get all tied up over the philosophy of this legislation deal with the reality of family life in America. Jean Terrien and her husband Michael live in Evanston, IL. They are both cancer survivors. Jean had breast cancer at age 45, and Michael had prostate cancer at the same age. Neither could purchase insurance before the Affordable Care Act because of preexisting medical conditions in their family. Because of this law, they have an affordable policy, and Jean is able to do freelance work without having to worry about health insurance. She told me she worries about losing her coverage if the Supreme Court goes the wrong way or if the majority party here gets their wish and abolishes the Affordable Care Act. I think we owe it to them to strengthen the law and not to repeal it. The Affordable Care Act, incidentally, has been very good when it comes to Medicare. Because of the Affordable Care Act and the slowdown in the rate of growth in health care costs, Medicare will have an additional 13 years of solvency. How about that. I worried about it for many years. I still do. But it is good news to us, to know that we have, in the Medicare Part A trust fund, 13 years more solvency since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The trustees of the Medicare Program in 2010 said that the Affordable Care Act ``substantially improved'' the financial status of Medicare. Is that a good thing for America? Forty million Americans think it is. Those are the people who depend on Medicare. The law is helping seniors with their prescription drugs, as I mentioned earlier, and it is a savings of about $925 a year for each senior in America. So for those who are cheering and hoping the Supreme Court will somehow derail the Affordable Care Act, my questions are very direct: What do you have to replace it? What will you do to deal with preexisting conditions and denying health insurance? What will you do to make sure parents can keep their kids under their health insurance plans until the kids reach age 26? What will you do to fill the doughnut hole? What will you do to replace the deficit reduction the Affordable Care Act has achieved? What will you do in terms of the long-term solvency of Medicare to make up for the 13 years the Affordable Care Act has purchased? And the answer is, they don't have an idea. They just don't like it. They don't like ObamaCare, and they don't want to hear these stories, just like the folks whom I debated with in my hometown, because these stories reflect the reality of life. North Central Illinois Tornadoes Mr. President, it was 2 months ago when I came to the floor and talked about tornadoes in my State of Illinois, the north central part of the State. We had it again on Monday night. Nine twisters tore through the small towns in five Illinois counties Monday evening, accompanied by baseball-sized hail, flooding rains, and wind damage. Grundy, Lee, Kankakee, Will, and Whiteside Counties all experienced severe damage. One of the towns that was hardest hit was Coal City in Grundy County, IL. Here is a photo of Grundy County and some of the damage. You can see the destruction. The National Weather Service said the tornado that struck this town was an EF-3, winds of 160 miles an hour. Some of the homes had the roofs ripped off and others were just flattened. Debris was scattered across the town. Many roads were impassible. There were downed power lines and trees, and there was flooding. This is the second tornado to hit Coal City in 2 years. As soon as the twister passed Monday night, the first responders--God bless them--went door to door to try to make sure the 5,000 people there were accounted for. Thank goodness there were no fatalities or life-threatening injuries. This tight-knit community is pulling together to help the victims. One man who lives in Coal City, Rick Druse, said he was lucky that one of his neighbors came to find him and his family--they were trapped in a crawl space. The homeowner across from Rick also was trapped in his home, which had been flattened by the storm. Power was knocked out for roughly 61,000 customers, and some are still waiting for it to be restored. Yesterday, we reached out to Terri Halliday, the mayor of Coal City. We have spoken with Grundy County Board chair David Welter and Lee County Board chair Rick Ketchum. My staff connected with Sterling mayor Skip Lee and Whiteside County Board chair Jim Duffy about the tornado that struck Sterling. That is another town which is also dealing with flooding. I reached out to each of them last night and, not surprisingly, had to leave voice mails. I know they were out and about. But we are there to help them if we can. As is so often the case with disasters such as this, first responders, friends, and family waste no time helping their neighbors. It isn't just a Midwestern thing, but we are pretty proud of it in the Midwest. I have no doubt that the people in Coal City, Sublette, Sterling, and all of the others are going to stand up and help one another clean up, rebuild, and get on with their lives. My thoughts are with the many people today who have lost their homes and other property. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to congratulate a native son of Chicago who has earned worldwide acclaim as a jazz pianist and who will soon achieve a lifelong dream of conducting and soloing with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Ramsey Lewis is a true American original--a virtuoso pianist and musical innovator who helped pioneer the sound many refer to as ``smooth jazz.'' Fifty-one years ago he and his band, the Ramsey Lewis Trio, recorded a song that became an instant sensation and which remains a definitive classic of the cool jazz genre. It's called ``The In Crowd.'' You know the refrain: ``I'm in with the in crowd. I go where the in crowd goes.'' That song was recorded live at Bohemian Caverns in Washington, DC, with almost no rehearsal. It sounds like a fable but it is true. That afternoon Ramsey and his bandmates--drummer Isaac ``Redd'' Holt and bassist Eldee Young--were sitting in a Washington, DC, coffee shop, debating what they could add to their set that night to make the recording stand out. Their waitress, a woman by the name of Nettie Gray, asked what was wrong. They explained their predicament. Miss Nettie Gray walked over to the jukebox, dropped a coin in the slot and said: ``Listen to this.'' It was ``The In Crowd,'' sung by Dobie Gray--a popular hit at the time. The trio quickly worked out a jazz arrangement and used the song to end their set that evening. The crowd loved it. Audiences everywhere loved it. ``The In Crowd'' became the first of seven gold records by the Ramsey Lewis Trio. What makes that story even more amazing is that ``The In Crowd'' was just one of four albums the Ramsey Lewis Trio recorded that year, 1964. Talk about prolific. All told, this jazz legend has recorded 80 albums in an illustrious career that has spanned more than half a century. He has earned 3 Grammy Awards, 7 gold records, and hosted a nationally syndicated radio show and a 13-episode ``Legends of Jazz'' TV series on PBS. In addition, he has served as artistic director of Jazz at Ravinia since 1992. He also helped organize Ravinia's Jazz Mentor Program. He serves on the board of trustees for the Merit School of Music in Chicago and The Chicago High School for the Arts. And a decade ago he created the Ramsey Lewis Foundation to help connect at-risk children to the world of music. Many artists might decide that such a resume was long and impressive enough--but not Ramsey Lewis. At the age of 80, Ramsey Lewis is preparing to fulfill the dream of a lifetime. On August 8, he will serve as conductor and soloist with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at the Ravinia Festival in Highland Park, IL, just outside of Chicago. Ravinia is the oldest music festival in North America. Over the years it has hosted such musical giants as Louis Armstrong, Pablo Casals, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, George Gershwin, Luciano Pavarotti, and Yoyo Ma. It is also the summer home of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Ramsey Lewis' debut as conductor and soloist with the CSO is a testament to his musical genius and dexterity. It is also a testament to his ability to see beyond narrow expectations about what is possible for musicians of color. Ramsey Lewis has been playing the piano since he was 4 years old. He knew at a young age that he wanted to play classical piano. But a music teacher told him when he was still a boy to give up that dream because the world of classical music was not open to musicians with skin the color of Ramsey's. Fortunately for all of us, Ramsey Lewis had the good sense to know that was nonsense. He has played and recorded countless forms of music--and helped to invent new forms. In doing so, he has helped to create a world where every child is freer to pursue his or her own dreams. Mr. Lewis' August 8 performance with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at Ravinia is a continuation of what the Chicago Tribune has called a ``Ramsey Renaissance'' as a composer. His collaborator in this new chapter of his career is Ravinia president and CEO Welz Kauffman, who commissioned Mr. Lewis to write a piano concerto for his CSO debut. In recent years, Mr. Kauffman has commissioned Mr. Lewis to write other pieces, including a jazz ballet for the Joffrey Ballet Company, and ``Proclamation of Hope,'' a celebration of Abraham Lincoln on the bicentennial of his birth. Both works made their world premieres at Ravinia. In 2002 Ramsey Lewis was chosen to carry the Olympic torch as it passed through Chicago on its run to Salt Lake City. With his debut with the CSO at Ravinia, Ramsey Lewis will light up the night sky again with his own special brilliance. What a joyous celebration it will be.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), is necessarily absent.