Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for more than 30 years, we have seen political battles over the Arctic Refuge--with some wanting to open the area for oil and gas leasing and many others believing that this pristine and ecologically important area should be given the highest protections available under the law. This week the fate of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is again being taken up by the Senate, this time as part of the budget process. There is no question that this is a divisive issue, one that deserves to be debated in the Senate, not taken up as part of the budget process with little to no debate, but Republicans are insisting on ramming an attempt to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling through using a partisan process because they know they lack the bipartisan support needed to properly debate the issue. The President's budget estimated that leasing in the Arctic Refuge will generate $3.6 billion in revenues, but the President's budget estimates just don't add up. In order to meet that number, oil companies would need to bid an average of $2,400 per acre on every single acre of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain, more than 10 times the average lease sale bid on Alaska's North Slope. We know this number is significantly inflated. If we look at other lease sales between 2010 and 2015, the industry bid on less than 5 percent of the leases in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve. On top of that, oil supplies are currently at historic highs, so high that we lifted a 40-year ban on oil exports last year, and gas prices remained at long-term lows. Today the United States is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas. We are importing less oil than we have at any point in almost three decades. In addition to the high oil supplies, industry has shown little interest in drilling in the Arctic Refuge. In September 2015, after spending approximately $7 billion to drill and explore the region, Shell gave up on drilling in the Arctic region's Chukchi Sea due to the poor results and the high costs. Energy analysts predict very little interest in drilling in the Refuge for the foreseeable future. So before we move ahead with leasing this area for oil and mineral exploration, we need to take a careful look at what we would be losing. The Arctic Refuge is one of America's last pristine, untouched wilderness places, and I think we should preserve it for future generations. The Refuge is home to more than 200 wildlife species, including polar bears, musk ox, and caribou. The porcupine caribou herd travels to the coastal plain each summer to give birth to their young. The Refuge is the most important land denning site for a significant population of polar bears. Birds from all 50 States and 6 continents migrate to the Refuge for nesting and staging. Alaskan Native people still rely on the wildlife for basic sustenance and as a basis of their cultures. In 2003, I had the opportunity to travel to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and see firsthand the pristine wilderness. While I was there, I also had an opportunity to view areas that had been drilled for oil and gas. As you looked to the west, you could see a stark difference in the State lands that had been drilled for oil and gas and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that had not been drilled. It was easy to tell the two apart because the scars that were left on that State land that had been drilled were still there many years later. They didn't gingerly step in and drill and leave. They cut scars across that land that will be there forever. There is no question that the impact drilling would have on the Arctic would be devastating and irreversible, and although oil and gas resources can be develop safely, we all know that leaks and spills happen. The resulting environmental damage can change the landscape forever. The Arctic Refuge represents our Nation's finest example of intact, naturally functioning Arctic and subarctic ecosystems. Nowhere else in North America do we see such a broad spectrum of diverse habitats occurring within one area. We must protect it for future generations. We have a responsibility to protect this area for our children and grandchildren. Any attempt to move forward a budget reconciliation containing leases in the Arctic is a move in the wrong direction.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the Republican tax reform plan and what impact it will have on the fiscal health of our Nation but especially the impact it will have on working families across the United States and in my home State of Illinois. I have represented Illinois in Congress both as a House Member and as a Senator for a number of years. I am proud to say that during my career, I have not shied away from tackling big issues. Maybe one of the toughest assignments I have ever had was in 2010, when President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It was known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I was one of 18 Republicans and Democrats given the responsibility of trying to find a way to balance America's budget and reform our country's largest spending programs and our Tax Code. This was no small task, but it was an important one. We spent month after month in bipartisan meetings working at it. Nearly a year after the Commission was created, we were asked to vote on the final report. Simpson-Bowles was not a perfect plan, but I decided to vote in favor of the report, and I knew it would be controversial, but I believed then, as I do now, that there is only one honest way to reduce debt: cut spending, raise revenues, do not ignore the Tax Code. Bowles- Simpson did just that. It raised revenue by eliminating a lot of the exclusions and deductions and efforts of the Tax Code to reward certain companies and special interests, and it cut spending for both defense and nondefense. To say nothing of the months-long bipartisan process--a far cry from the current reconciliation that we have been going through this year on the healthcare issue--there simply is no comparison between the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan and what the Republicans want to bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate and House this year in the name of tax reform. Simpson-Bowles was about balancing our budget responsibly. It raised nearly $88 billion in revenue over the first decade, and unlike the Republican tax plan, it boosted the standard deduction and still retained the personal exemptions families claim on their taxes. It protected middle-income families from backdoor cuts, and--and I underline this--it ensured that the wealthy in America paid their fair share of taxes. If there is one thing I can never understand, it is why the Republicans, in the name of budget deficits or in the name of tax reform, always end up in the same place--always cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in America. Where in the world is that coming from? I have met a lot of wealthy people in the course of my life; not one of them, with a straight face, has said to me: Senator, I desperately need a tax cut. They don't. Yet that is the fallback default position on every Republican plan. Importantly, the Simpson-Bowles plan provided details of the hard choices necessary to reach our goal. There is simply no comparison between that comprehensive, bipartisan plan to balance the budget and the highly fiscally irresponsible Republican tax reform plan before us now that will literally add $2.4 trillion to the national debt. How many times have Members on the Republican side of the aisle come to the floor to pose for holy pictures and to preach to us about the deficit? Now that they are in the majority and they have a President of their party, what is the first thing they do? They propose adding $2.4 trillion to the national debt. Where are my colleagues across the aisle who have been the first to speak out and admonish the Democrats about their failure to recognize the Federal debt? Where is my colleague the majority leader of the Senate who was so quick to rail on the ``alarming level'' of our national debt during the Obama years? He is silent now. Even the most stalwart of self-proclaimed fiscal hawks on the right are falling in line behind this phony plan, which would allow for $1.5 trillion in unpaid-for tax cuts--clinging on to economic growth projections no responsible economist would dream of using. They used to call this economic theory of cutting taxes on the rich and economic growth the Laffer curve. I have never heard a better named description of an economic theory. It is a laugher. And this Laffer curve inspired the Governor of Kansas to bring that State to near fiscal ruin, trying to apply that great theory and watching his State crumble in the process. History has proven that tax cuts simply do not yield economic growth. The economic growth promises of the Bush tax cuts turned out to be completely false. Those tax cuts for the wealthy ballooned our deficits and our debt and contributed to a scandalous rise in income inequality in the United States of America. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and I know my Republican colleagues know that. When Republicans' rosy estimates of economic growth do, in fact, fail and the deficit is sky-rocketing, the Republican budget spells out exactly how they plan to pay for the tax cuts on the backs of hard- working Americans. Listen to this. To pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America, the Republican tax reform plan--now, get this--uses $1 trillion in cuts from Medicaid and more than $470 billion in cuts from Medicare. Think about it. Health insurance for the elderly in America will take a $470 billion cut under the Republican tax reform plan--for what? To give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country--go figure--and then $1 trillion in cuts in Medicaid. What is Medicaid for? Isn't it just health insurance for the poor? Well, in some respects, that is a good general description, but it is so much more. The Medicaid Program, which the Republicans return to time and time again to cut, is critically important for parts of America. Half of the children born in the State of Illinois are taken care of by Medicaid. Their mothers are taken care of before the baby is delivered and after. Plus, it is the No. 1 source of health insurance for the disabled across America. They want to cut $1 trillion out of it. I haven't even gotten close to the most expensive part of Medicaid. Two-thirds of seniors in America in nursing homes count on Medicaid to pay for their medical bills. The Republicans want to cut $1 trillion out of Medicaid to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. What is going to happen to those folks in nursing homes? What is going to happen to the disabled who count on Medicaid? What is going to happen to those mothers and their babies? That is a legitimate question to ask. Make no mistake, the real answer for who pays for these cuts doesn't involve fake economics; it involves real families across America. Let's look at the plan for what it is. While claiming to fix our broken Tax Code, this Republican tax reform plan would instead provide nothing short of a windfall for the wealthiest in our country and stick hard-working families in Illinois and across the country with the bill. Under the Republican plan, no less than 80 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans. Eighty percent of the benefits go to the wealthiest people in this country. That is more than three-quarters of all tax breaks going to people who make more than $730,000 a year. Is that why Members of the Senate were elected--to take care of people making more than $730,000 a year? Not in my State. What about the middle-income Americans this plan is supposed to help? The Republican plan would raise taxes on nearly one-third of Americans who make between $50,000 and $150,000 a year. One-third of them will pay higher taxes. That is not tax relief for working families. In fact, the Republican plan would eliminate the State and local tax deduction-- a deduction used by one-third of all taxpayers to reduce their tax bill. That has been part of our Tax Code from the beginning, and here is the theory: We believe, in the current Federal Tax Code, you shouldn't pay a tax on a tax. It is basic. If you are paying $1,000 in property taxes where you live right now, should you be taxed on that $1,000? Under the current Tax Code, no. You are able to deduct State and local taxes. The Republicans eliminate that deduction. If they have their way, families with homes, families who pay sales taxes will pay a Federal tax on the State and local taxes they pay. This deduction currently allows families who pay State and local income or sales taxes to deduct those taxes from their Federal income tax. In other words, this deduction prevents families from double taxation--once by the Federal Government and again by the State. Yet the Republicans eliminate this deduction. In Illinois, we rank fifth in the Nation for people who are helped by the State and local tax deduction. The taxpayers I represent will be hit especially hard. Nearly 2 million Illinoisans--roughly a third of the taxpayers of my State--claimed more than $24 billion in State and local tax deductions in 2015. If Republicans have their way, almost 2 million people in Illinois would be double-taxed on an average $12,500 of earnings. That is just plain wrong. Republicans would have you believe that State and local tax deduction only helps the wealthy, but most people who take this deduction make less than $200,000 a year. Even families who do not claim the State and local deduction will see their taxes increase under the Republicans' so-called tax reform plan. The Republican plan eliminates the personal exemption worth $4,050 a person. A family of four making $50,000 a year in my State will pay $887 more under this part of the Republican tax reform plan. Getting hit by losing the State and local tax deduction and then turning around and losing a personal exemption, a family of four in Illinois making $50,000 will pay $887 more a year, just on that provision, in Federal taxes. What are the Republicans raising taxes on my middle class for? They are raising taxes on middle-income families to provide massive tax cuts for corporations to the tune of $2.6 trillion over the first 10 years, and--Mr. and Mrs. America, sleep well tonight--we are going to take care of that with economic growth. Here is the reality: Corporate profits are soaring in America. Today, corporate profits in the United States of America as a share of gross domestic product are at record highs; corporate taxes paid to the Federal Government as a share of GDP, record lows. What is the Republican approach to those two facts? To cut more corporate taxes. Wouldn't it be good to have someone come to the floor and say: Instead of just looking at corporate taxes, why don't we look at corporate employees? How are they doing? We know how they are doing. They are falling behind. They are more productive than ever. The corporations are more profitable than ever. Yet the disparity in income in America gets worse. We have the best workers in the world--no apologies. They do great work. They don't get paid enough. The answer on the Republican side is to give the corporations more tax breaks. I say the answer should be something else. Why don't we address the fact that CEOs in America make 271 times the average wage of their employees? Two hundred seventy-one? Come on. If they are going to head up these corporations, of course they are entitled to be paid more--their profitability, their entrepreneurial spirit, their talent, and all the rest--but 271 times? American workers are still waiting for their pay raise, and they won't get it with this Republican tax reform plan. While American workers and their families continue to wait for their turn, the Republicans seemed determined to provide tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy rather than make the Tax Code work for working families. This has to stop. It is time we look at tax reform and economic growth in terms of the family room, not the boardroom. The very successful Warren Buffett said: My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. Thank you, Warren Buffett. I agree. If Republicans want to get serious about fixing the faulty incentives in our Tax Code and provide working families some relief, it is time they stop clinging to the Laffer curve and this failed trickle-down policy that giving a tax break to the wealthiest person in America can only help the poorest person in America. I know these are difficult and complex issues. It is no secret in Washington how difficult tax reform can be. But these are issues that deserve robust, bipartisan debate. Now is not the time to abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility and rush through this deficit- exploding plan that has no prayer of paying for itself with growth. I hope my Republican colleagues will look beyond the boardroom and seize this opportunity to reward and incentivize businesses to make real investments in the United States and its workers. Look at this Tax Code. If you own a big business in my State of Illinois and want to move your business out of Illinois--to Mexico or China or you name it-- we are going to give you a helping hand. Our Tax Code says that the cost of the moving expenses are deductible. You don't have to pay taxes on those; we are going to give you a break to move your business. What are we thinking? For goodness' sake, why don't we have what Senator Sherrod Brown and I are submitting as an amendment--a patriot employers tax break, a patriot corporation tax break. You keep your business in Illinois. You keep your business in Ohio. When your workforce grows, it is American workers who get the jobs, and the wages you pay for 90 percent of them have to be at least $15 an hour. You have to provide health insurance and a basic retirement plan that is fair. Give a veterans preference, please, to the men and women who served our country. And then we will give you a tax break. We won't give it to the company that is ready to move overseas; we will give it to the company that is ready to invest in the United States and U.S. workers. I think that is a tax policy most Americans would say makes sense. Why aren't we talking about that kind of approach instead of finding a way to give a tax break to the wealthiest? American workers and families are watching this debate, and they are still waiting for a better deal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over 2 weeks ago, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were devastated by Hurricane Maria. This was less than a month after the islands felt the impacts of another powerful storm, Hurricane Irma. Hurricane Maria has left a wake of destruction across the islands. In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, too many Americans remain without power, clean drinking water, or a method of communicating with their relatives and first responders. Last week, I met with leaders in the Puerto Rican community in Chicago to discuss local efforts to provide aid. This week, I met with a delegation from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to discuss relief efforts and what we can do at the Federal level to help them rebuild. The stories they shared about friends and family in Puerto Rico were heartbreaking. These people, our fellow American citizens, are facing a life and death situation. Sadly, the lives of at least 16 people have been claimed. The situation in Puerto Rico is dire, and aid cannot wait. The 3.5 million people who live on the island of Puerto Rico are our fellow U.S. citizens, and it is our duty to provide aid to them in their time of need. Yesterday, Congress received a supplemental aid request from the administration to provide much needed disaster relief to our fellow Americans. Now, Congress must come together to help these Americans rebuild homes and businesses, restore critical infrastructure, and access life-sustaining supplies. Providing emergency disaster assistance to people in need is not a local issue. It is an American issue. Just as I expect my colleagues to come to the aid of the State of Illinois when we are faced with a natural disaster and just as Congress came to the aid of Hurricane Harvey victims a few short weeks ago, the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands expect us to rally behind them as they work to respond to Hurricane Maria. I urge my colleagues to quickly pass a clean aid package that will help all Americans whose lives have been impacted by these natural disasters. Any supplemental appropriations bill that includes aid for States impacted by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma must also include aid for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and western States that have been devastated by wildfires. I was heartened to hear that the Illinois National Guard has deployed teams to provide telecommunication assistance, food, water, tents, and cots to Puerto Rico. I was also glad to see that individual assistance is now available for all 78 of the municipalities on the island, ensuring all individuals in Puerto Rico can receive assistance from the Federal Government. The Federal response to this disaster has taken far too long, and we must do more to help our fellow American citizens during this humanitarian crisis. In Congress, our top priority should be making sure the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have the funding they need to rebuild and recover. We cannot delay providing this much needed funding any longer. It has been tragic to see thousands of shipping containers held at ports, which have been full of critical, life-sustaining supplies that are not reaching those most in need. There continue to be reports of families in Puerto Rico who are stranded and isolated. We must prioritize quickly distributing supplies to reach every individual in the days, weeks, and months to come. The U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are at risk of running out of food, water, and fuel. It would be unconscionable for us to abandon them in their time of need. Our thoughts are with the many people who have lost their loved ones, their homes, and other property. I want to recognize the hard work of the volunteers, local officials, and Federal employees that have come forward in this time of need and pitched in at every level. We can and should do more to help the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands rebuild and recover. I have no doubt that the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will be able to clean up and rebuild, and they will be stronger for it. The entire Nation must come together as an American family to give them the aid and support they need at every step along the way.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are a lot of issues roiling our Nation these days. I want to talk about an issue that may not get all the headlines, but that has seen dramatic and troubling changes this year: our Nation's higher education policy. Over the last several weeks, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has continued her assault on students and their families. Previously we had seen her rescind reforms that would improve customer service for students and hold student loan servicers accountable for their treatment of borrowers; rescind a policy prohibiting debt collectors from charging borrowers 16 percent fees to bring their loans out of default; halt the processing of borrower defense loan discharge applications from students defrauded by for- profit colleges and throwing out rules intended to help students get the discharges to which they are entitled to under law; rewrite the gainful employment rule, which is meant to protect students from programs for-profit colleges that saddle students with too much debt compared to their income; propose eliminating public service loan forgiveness, which helps students afford to serve their communities, States, and country while repaying their student loans; propose dumping $38 billion in additional student loan interest on needy students by eliminating subsidized undergraduate loans; and propose freezing the maximum Pell grant award so that their award covers even less of what it costs a student to attend college. That is just the beginning. Several weeks ago, I joined Senators Brown, Murray, and Warren in calling on Secretary DeVos to appoint a credible, well-qualified, independent chief enforcement officer to lead the Department of Education's enforcement unit. The unit was created after the collapse of Corinthian to improve oversight of higher education institutions and enforcement of Federal laws. Robert Kaye, a respected investigator and consumer expert from the Federal Trade Commission, was selected to be the first chief. Kaye left the post in March. Secretary DeVos allowed this critical position to remain vacant for more than 4 months until earlier last month, when she finally announced the appointment of Dr. Julian Schmoke, Jr. At first glance, Dr. Schmoke meets none of the requirements for the job that my colleagues and I set out in our letter. As chief enforcement officer, Dr. Schmoke will be charged with ensuring that institutions of higher education are following Federal laws and regulations. This will mean paying special attention to an area that poses the most risk to students and has demonstrated systemic abuse: for-profit colleges. These are the colleges that enroll 9 percent of all postsecondary students in America, but take in 17 percent of all Federal student aid and account for 33 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. Beyond the infamous Corinthian and ITT Tech examples, there are countless examples of for-profit colleges defrauding students, whether it be Ashford, Westwood, or DeVry. Last year, DeVry agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission $100 million for defrauding students and agreed to a separate settlement with the Department of Education. Guess who Dr. Schmoke previously worked for? You guessed it, DeVry University. In fact, there are reports that DeVry is still under investigation by the very unit Dr. Schmoke has been appointed to lead. How is that for the fox guarding the henhouse? If that wasn't enough, there is no discernable evidence on Dr. Schmoke's resume of any experience conducting or overseeing investigations. Shortly after his appointment, I joined Senators Brown, Warren, Blumenthal, and Whitehouse in writing to Dr. Schmoke raising these concerns and asking him to meet with us. We are still waiting. As Betsy DeVos orchestrates a corporate takeover of the Department of Education by for-profit interests, State attorneys general and other Federal agencies are even more important in providing aggressive oversight to protect students and taxpayers. Betsy DeVos is doing what she can to disrupt that, too. On September 1, the Department of Education provided notice to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that it was terminating its existing data-sharing agreement with the CFPB. The Department took exception ``to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight role . . .'' into areas that the Department viewed as within its jurisdiction. The CFPB has been a leader in protecting student borrowers harmed by Federal loan servicers like Navient and predatory lending practices by institutions like Corinthian and ITT Tech. This political stunt makes clear that Secretary DeVos would rather initiate a turf war than work with other Federal agencies to fulfill the Federal Government's collective oversight responsibilities. In announcing Dr. Schmoke as the new chief enforcement officer, Secretary DeVos said, ``Protecting students has always been my top priority.'' Well, Madam Secretary, your actions just don't back up that statement. Nearly every time you have had the opportunity to stand up for students, their families, and taxpayers, you have turned your back on them. Commonsense protections for students and taxpayers shouldn't be a partisan issue. Secretary DeVos, I urge you to abandon this assault on students and instead work with us to strengthen America's system of higher education, to deal honestly with wrongdoing by for-profit colleges, and to increase opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I reintroduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would enable faculty working less than full-time to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers, and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as the 63 percent of graduate degree recipients who borrow have an average of almost $59,000 in student loans, they are among the 44 million Americans with student debt. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible Federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members, those who work part-time, are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working on a contingent basis--many of whom may only teach one or two classes while holding down other part-time jobs to make ends meet--this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week. The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some schools give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard to provide quality instruction for their students, often without the option of moving into a tenured, full-time position, their public service is not recognized by the current Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2017 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the public service loan forgiveness program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time. I believe it corrects a major flaw in the current system and rewards individuals for their contribution to public service rather than penalize them for the number of hours they work. This bill would benefit someone like Brittany, an adjunct professor in southern Illinois. Brittany finished her graduate degree in 2013 and still has over $70,000 in student loan debt today. This debt has prevented her from attending law school, her longtime dream, and makes it challenging to put money aside for her retirement. This debt is also putting her children's future at risk--Brittany will still be paying off her own loans when it is time for her now four-month old child to attend college. This bill would ensure that Brittany, and thousands like her, could secure their family's financial future by earning credit towards the Public Service Loan Forgiveness for loan payments made while teaching, regardless of the fact that she isn't full-time faculty. Unfortunately, for all their contributions to their colleges and the students they work with, adjunct faculty like Brittany often don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching. Nationally, over half of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly relied on adjuncts. From 1991 to 2015, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 743,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure and tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 29 percent in 2015. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up less than half of all professors on U.S. campuses. Today, a majority of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the United States work on a part-time, contingent basis. Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2015, 52 percent of all faculty at all Title IV degree-granting institutions in the state-- more than 31,700 faculty employees--worked on a part-time basis. This is a 32.4 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 7 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002. This bill does not fix the growing reliance by our higher education system on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer unfairly excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, for joining me in this effort. I hope my other colleagues will join us to ensure this program benefits faculty members who provide our students with a quality education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I reintroduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would enable faculty working less than full-time to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers, and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as the 63 percent of graduate degree recipients who borrow have an average of almost $59,000 in student loans, they are among the 44 million Americans with student debt. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible Federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members, those who work part-time, are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working on a contingent basis--many of whom may only teach one or two classes while holding down other part-time jobs to make ends meet--this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week. The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some schools give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard to provide quality instruction for their students, often without the option of moving into a tenured, full-time position, their public service is not recognized by the current Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2017 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the public service loan forgiveness program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time. I believe it corrects a major flaw in the current system and rewards individuals for their contribution to public service rather than penalize them for the number of hours they work. This bill would benefit someone like Brittany, an adjunct professor in southern Illinois. Brittany finished her graduate degree in 2013 and still has over $70,000 in student loan debt today. This debt has prevented her from attending law school, her longtime dream, and makes it challenging to put money aside for her retirement. This debt is also putting her children's future at risk--Brittany will still be paying off her own loans when it is time for her now four-month old child to attend college. This bill would ensure that Brittany, and thousands like her, could secure their family's financial future by earning credit towards the Public Service Loan Forgiveness for loan payments made while teaching, regardless of the fact that she isn't full-time faculty. Unfortunately, for all their contributions to their colleges and the students they work with, adjunct faculty like Brittany often don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching. Nationally, over half of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly relied on adjuncts. From 1991 to 2015, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 743,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure and tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 29 percent in 2015. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up less than half of all professors on U.S. campuses. Today, a majority of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the United States work on a part-time, contingent basis. Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2015, 52 percent of all faculty at all Title IV degree-granting institutions in the state-- more than 31,700 faculty employees--worked on a part-time basis. This is a 32.4 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 7 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002. This bill does not fix the growing reliance by our higher education system on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer unfairly excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, for joining me in this effort. I hope my other colleagues will join us to ensure this program benefits faculty members who provide our students with a quality education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are many lobbyists around Capitol Hill. They perform the important task of informing Members and their staff about issues that are going to come before us. Some of them are volunteers, and some of them are paid very handsomely. There is a special group of lobbyists who are roaming the corridors of Capitol Hill in the House and Senate today and tomorrow. They are young people from across the United States. Many of them are college students, and all of them have one thing in common: They are Dreamers. They are young people who came to the United States under the age of 18, many of them 2 years old, 4 years old, brought here by their parents. They grew up in this country. They went to our schools. Some of them were excellent students. Many of them have gone on to college-- at their own expense many times. Some have even enlisted in our military. They have a nagging problem. The problem is that they are not legally citizens of the United States. They don't have legal status in the United States, and so the uncertainty about that status has led many of them to wonder what their future will be. About 5 years ago, President Obama, at my urging, issued an Executive order that changed their lives. It was called DACA. It gave them a chance to come forward and register with the government, submit themselves to a criminal background check, get fingerprinted, pay a $500 fee, have their background looked at in detail, and gave them a chance to stay in the United States for 2 years at a time, and in that 2-year period not be subjected to deportation and be able to work. Four weeks ago, President Trump announced that the DACA Program was going to be rescinded. Many of these young people don't know what their future will be from this point forward. A number of them came out to the steps of the Capitol this afternoon to talk about their lives. Two in particular I wanted to mention. Nathali Bertran from Columbus, OH, is a student who graduated from college after great sacrifice and has gone on to become an engineer. She is currently working in the Columbus area for a global automotive company. She has a bright future if she is allowed to stay in the United States. She doesn't know the answer to that because we haven't come up with a replacement for DACA, which was rescinded by President Trump. Jesus Perez is from Tulsa, OK. He had given up on a college education and a future, and then DACA came along, and he decided he wanted to be a doctor. He is on his way. He has finished community college. He is now about to complete his studies at Oklahoma State, and he wants to go to medical school. He works as a transporter and a surgical orderly in a hospital to make enough money to stay in school. His future is completely in doubt because of the uncertainty around what is going to happen to those who were protected by DACA. I have said many times that these young people were brought here by their parents. They didn't make the decision. I don't want to look negatively on their parents. If I were given a choice of skirting the law or even breaking the law to save my child's life or to give them security and safety, I know what I would do. I also know what these parents did. But the kids themselves were not in on that decision process. Now, all they are asking for is a chance to be a part of the only country they have ever known. They got up in the classroom every day at school and pledged allegiance to the only flag they ever knew, and most of them can sing only one national anthem, the anthem of the country they believe is their own, the United States. That is an important part of this conversation. If we believe in fairness and justice in America--and I think we do-- we want to be fair and just to these young people. If they have not done something in their lives that is dangerous, such as commit a crime, for example, that is serious, they ought to be given a chance. If they are willing to go to school or to work or to enlist in our military, why wouldn't we welcome them in so that they can be a part of our future, as they should be. The alternative, in many cases, is to ship them back to a country they cannot remember or never really knew, to a language they don't speak. That is not the right outcome. I want to thank Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He is my Republican cosponsor of the Dream Act. Senator Graham has been a stalwart. He and I may disagree on an issue every other day, but on this issue, we agree. We agree that America should step forward and do the right thing for these young people. I hope these lobbyists--I will use that term--who are Dreamers, who are roaming the Halls of Congress, will make the same impression on my colleagues that they made on me--that their special lives and their special future will make this Nation a better Nation in the years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, sometimes, when I am asked to describe my politics, I say, ``I believe in the Gospel of Saints Paul''--Paul the Apostle, Paul Douglas, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone. Paul the Apostle was, of course, one of the most important figures in the history of the early Christian Church. Paul Douglas, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone were Members of this Senate and champions of human rights and human dignity. This Friday, another champion of human rights and human dignity--Dr. Timuel Black--will honored by Citizen Action Illinois with its ninth annual Pauls Award, named for Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone. I am lucky enough to have been friends with both Pauls--Simon and Wellstone. I am sure that they would have approved heartily of the decision to honor Dr. Black with an award bearing their names. Dr. Timuel Black is a decorated World War II veteran, an educator, author, labor leader, civil rights activist, and historian--and a bender of the moral arc of the universe. He is a visionary and--for me and so many others--a personal hero. Timuel Black was born in 1918, in Birmingham, AL--the son of a sharecropper and the grandson of slaves. He was 8 months old when his family moved to Chicago--the first wave of the great migration of African Americans from the Deep South to the North. They settled in a part of town called the Black Belt, now known as Bronzeville. He attended DuSable High School, a legendary all-Black public high school, where his classmates included Nat King Cole and John Johnson, who would go on to found Jet and Ebony magazines. On his 23rd birthday, Japan bombed U.S. Navy ships at Pearl Harbor. He served 2 years in a segregated U.S. Army. He participated in the Battle of the Bulge, the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Paris, and he earned four battle stars. He thought he had seen the worst of World War II--then he witnessed what had happened at Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp. The horrors that he witnessed at that death camp changed his life. For a time, he was filled with despair. Then he resolved to spend the rest of his life doing whatever he could to advance the causes of human rights and human dignity. He returned to Chicago and earned an undergraduate degree from Roosevelt University and a master's degree from the University of Chicago. He helped establish the Congress of Racial Equality. He also helped found a labor union that helped me work my way through college: the United Packinghouse Workers of America. He began his professional career as a social worker, but he quickly discovered that his real love was ``teaching young men and women about the world they live in and how to be responsible citizens of that world.'' He spent more than 40 years as a teacher, including positions at DuSable and other Chicago public schools, as well as Roosevelt University, Columbia College Chicago and schools in the City Colleges of Chicago system. Timuel Black was watching television in December 1955 when he saw ``this good-looking man in Montgomery, Alabama.'' He was so moved that he boarded a plane to meet him. A year later, Tim Black convinced that young man to come to Chicago-- the first time Dr. Martin Luther King would speak in the city. In 1963, Dr. Black helped organize the Freedom Trains that carried thousands of Chicagoans to hear Dr. King and others speak at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. He was there when Dr. King delivered his immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech. He was with Dr. King in 1966 when an angry mob jeered him in Chicago's Marquette Park neighborhood. In 1983, Tim Black provided influential support to help elect another of his DuSable High School classmates, Harold Washington, the first African-American mayor of Chicago. Some years later, a young community organizer who had just returned to Chicago with a Harvard law degree asked Professor Black to teach him about organizing people so they could create a better life for themselves and their children. Over the years, Professor Black and that young organizer became good friends. On January 20, 2009, it was my privilege to invite Professor Black and his incredible wife, Zenobia Johnson-Black, to be my guests as that community organizer swore an oath to become President of the United States of America--Barack Obama. My friend, Paul Wellstone, had a beautiful definition of politics. He used to say: In the last analysis, politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is what we do. Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine. Dr. Timuel Black has witnessed injustice and inhumanity, but he has never stopped working to believe in a better world, and he has never stopped working to make that world a reality. He is a true inspiration, a Chicago treasure, and an American hero.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my concern regarding the nomination of Ajit Pai to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Many of my colleagues are planning to speak about the threat Mr. Pai poses to a free and open Internet, but what brings me to the floor is a different looming threat to the public interest: the proposed Sinclair Broadcast Group merger with Tribune Media Company. If approved, the Sinclair-Tribune merger would create the Nation's largest television broadcast company in history, reaching over 70 percent of households nationwide. There is reason for concern. Mr. Pai's track record at the FCC has shown that he will not hesitate to put the needs of industry ahead of the best interests of consumers. Under his leadership as Chairman, the FCC acted to reinstate an outdated loophole known as the UHF discount that would make it easier for companies to get around rules limiting national media ownership. These rules are essential in maintaining the trust Americans have placed in their local broadcasters and ensuring consumers benefit from programming representing diverse viewpoints. What was Mr. Pai's motivation for putting this loophole back in place? I will just say this: The loophole was reinstated in April, and Sinclair announced its acquisition of Tribune in May. My concerns about the merger are not solely grounded in Sinclair's practice of mandating its stations distribute its self-produced conservative content, as troubling as that is. Rather it is that no single company should be able to decide what 72 percent of the country's news looks like. The Sinclair-Tribune merger undermines competition and threatens local broadcasting as a trusted and diverse voice for its viewers in Illinois and across the country. Because of Mr. Pai's deregulatory campaign and repeated failure to put the best needs of the consumer first, I will oppose his nomination to serve a second term as a Commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission.