Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a photograph taken today of our President Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This photograph was taken in the Oval Office today, where President Trump met with Mr. Lavrov. The meeting was closed to the American press. The photo was released by the Kremlin in Moscow. The second photo is of Mr. Trump and the Russian Ambassador to the United States. His name is Sergey Kislyak. He was also in the Oval Office today to meet with President Trump, and this picture was also released by Moscow and the Kremlin. Ambassador Kislyak's name is familiar to many Americans now--it is familiar to me--because President Trump's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned because of communications he had with Ambassador Kislyak which he tried to keep secret and misrepresented not only to the American people but to the Vice President of the United States. The warm smiles and hearty handshakes President Trump gave to these Russian officials stand in stark contrast to the way the White House has treated three American Department of Justice officials: Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, and James Comey. After President Trump was elected President, he asked Ms. Yates to serve as Acting Attorney General, and he asked Mr. Bharara to stay on as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and indicated that Mr. Comey could stay on as Director of the FBI. But then it appears that each of these three Justice Department officials were in charge of investigations that started to become a concern in President Trump's White House. We heard on Monday from Sally Yates how she had informed the White House Counsel's office on January 26 this year that Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, had been compromised and could be blackmailed by the Russians for lies he had told publicly. President Trump kept Michael Flynn on for 18 days after that express warning by the Acting Attorney General to the White House Counsel. He only asked for his resignation hours after the Washington Post reported on General Flynn's false statements about his Russian communications. The President fired Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General, on January 30--4 days after she warned the White House about this connection between General Flynn and this Ambassador. Then there was Preet Bharara, whom the President invited to Trump Tower to tell him he wanted him to stay on as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Bharara's jurisdiction, of course, included Trump Tower. The President then, in a sudden Friday evening announcement on March 10, fired all the U.S. attorneys, including Mr. Bharara. Mr. Bharara said he was blindsided. Why was he fired? We don't know. But we do know that Mr. Bharara was well known as a dogged and independent prosecutor. News reports indicate that Mr. Bharara was investigating one of President Trump's Cabinet members, HHS Secretary Tom Price, for insider trading. Yesterday, President Trump fired FBI Director Comey while the Director was in Los Angeles giving a speech to FBI agents. The Director was not told directly of his firing. He thought initially it was a joke. At the time he was fired, Director Comey had confirmed that the FBI was conducting an investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible connections between the Russians and individuals in the Trump campaign and administration. Last night, CNN reported that Federal prosecutors have begun a new phase of this Russian investigation, issuing grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn's, seeking business records. Director Comey was supposed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this week. According to news reports, last week Director Comey went to the Justice Department and requested more money and resources to devote to the Russian investigation. Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, James Comey--three Justice Department officials who led investigations that appeared to be getting close to the President and his inner circle. All three were then fired by President Trump. President Trump's firing of Director Comey made history. Not since Watergate, on the evening of October 20, 1973--a Saturday, known affectionately as the Saturday Night Massacre--has a President dismissed the head of an investigation into his own administration. In its 190-year history, only one FBI Director had been fired. FBI Director William Sessions was dismissed for serious ethical violations, and the FBI at that time was not investigating the Clinton administration. I have had my disagreements with Director Comey, judgments he has made, statements he has made. I am not exactly his greatest fan. But I didn't question his competence when it came to investigating. I never called on him to be fired. There are so many questions that need to be answered: Why was Director Comey fired now, just as the FBI investigation of the Russian interference of the Presidential campaign seemed to be reaching a critical point? Today, the White House spokesperson said that the President has been considering firing Director Comey since the day he took office. Did the President or anyone else in the White House ask or direct the Justice Department to recommend the firing of Director Comey? Press reports quote Trump administration aides saying Attorney General Jeff Sessions was charged with coming up with the reasons why the President should fire Comey. President Trump told my colleague Senator Feinstein he had asked the Justice Department to review Comey's performance. And Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary to the President, acknowledged today that the President asked the Justice Department to put the recommendation in writing. Why was Attorney General Sessions involved in this decision at all? Remember, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump administration because of his close connections with the Trump campaign and communications he himself had with Mr. Kislyak and other Russian officials. When they made the decision to fire Director Comey, was the White House aware that Director Comey had reportedly just asked the Justice Department for more resources for an adequate investigation? Perhaps the most important question of all: When will Republicans in Congress agree to support a special prosecutor and an independent commission to get to the bottom of this Russian collusion in our last Presidential election? November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy. It was that election in which the Russians set out to change the results. It is the first time we have seen an overt effort by a foreign power to do this, and many on the other side of the aisle have taken a ho-hum attitude--it is just another example of kids being kids. I don't think so. When one of our major adversaries in the world decides to try to impact the choice of the leader of the free world, the United States should stand up take notice, and fight back. Let's not forget that a week ago there was a hacking attack on another democratic election in France and that all signs point again to Russia as perpetrator. Russia has acted with impunity since its attack on our election, in part due to the administration's refusal to acknowledge Russia's responsibility for an act of cyber war on America and to respond accordingly and the majority party's refusal to take serious actions here in Congress. In these pictures, President Trump is shaking hands with Russians, and the Kremlin is gleefully tweeting these pictures around the world. The President kept out the American press, but it turns out the Russians got the photos they needed to send around the world. The American people need some answers about what is going on here. When will the Republicans join us in a bipartisan effort to have an honest investigation, to follow the facts and follow the evidence wherever it may lead, and to hold those accountable who may have been guilty of collusion with a foreign government trying to impact the outcome of an election? If we read the memo that has been prepared by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein giving the reasons for the dismissal of James Comey, it focuses almost exclusively on Comey's treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign. I am incredulous to think that some 10 months after the fact, the Trump administration took such pity on the treatment of Hillary Clinton, they couldn't wait to fire the Director of the FBI. That is the so-called good reason they are giving us, but there is a real reason. The real reason is that it seems that James Comey was engaged in an investigation into the Russian collusion in the last election; that he was looking at members of the Trump administration--specifically, General Flynn in this circumstance--and he was also looking at whether any other individuals, involved with the Trump campaign or not, were engaged in this activity. He clearly needs more resources, and he wants to get to the bottom of it, and for that, he was fired last night. The question obviously is, What happens next? Will the American people sit still for this? Will they accept this kind of effort to close down an investigation that might reach into the President's own White House? If they are willing to step back and let that happen, then we have surrendered an important principle. In 1973, President Nixon tried to make it clear that he could not be held accountable to the rule of law when it came to the Watergate break-in and coverup. He fired Archibald Cox. Others resigned because of that firing, and the public sentiment across America was so strong against President Nixon for trying to intervene in this legal process that ultimately he paid a heavy price for his conduct. I don't know whether there is any involvement by President Trump in this collusion. I am not going to assume that. I shouldn't. In fairness, there should be an investigation--a credible investigation-- by professionals. But shutting down the investigation by the FBI at this point closes the door to gaining valuable information so that we understand who was involved in this effort to undermine the American Presidential election. I am not standing here in defense of James Comey as a person. I do stand here in defense of this Director of the FBI who believed, as our intelligence agencies believed, that this was a credible threat to the democracy of the United States and deserves a professional prosecutor's investigation. For that reason, Comey's efforts should continue. But, having dismissed him, let's at least hope that Mr. Rosenstein will stand up for the integrity of the Department of Justice and do two things: First, give a public assurance that the investigation of Russian collusion in our last Presidential election will continue, and at the time, name a Department of Justice career official who will be in charge of it until a new Director of the FBI is found. Second, Mr. Rosenstein, as well as Senator Sessions--now Attorney General Sessions--should not be party to choosing a special prosecutor. Let's have career Department professionals choose someone from outside government, without a party label, who has demonstrated the expertise necessary to prosecute such challenging situations as this. Put them in charge, let them investigate, and let the facts lead us to a conclusion. To try to stop this or short-circuit it by dismissing Mr. Comey is ineffective in terms of serving justice and, sadly, is a sad reflection on American ideals and values. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, because of the decision last night of the President of the United States to terminate the Director of the FBI and the questions that has raised, we gathered together--the Democratic Senators--on the floor and listened as our leader at least suggested a path for us to follow as an institution facing this constitutional question. We believe it is timely, and as a result of that, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this weekend we saw a peaceful democratic election in France, one of our key Western allies in the bedrock of European stability after two terrible wars in the last century. What happened just before the Sunday election in France? There was a massive cyber attack on the leading candidate, the one who prevailed, Emmanuel Macron. Whom do experts suspect was behind this cyber attack trying to manipulate another Western election, trying to foster mistrust in that nation's democratic institutions? Not surprisingly, Russia. Yet none of this should surprise anyone. Not only had Russia been subsidizing Mr. Macron's opponent, Marine Le Pen, who is seen as more sympathetic to Moscow, not to mention trying to interfere in Dutch and German elections as well, but we were warned about this by our own intelligence agencies 6 months ago. In early October last year, the U.S. intelligence community detailed Russia's attack on America's election and warned us that other attacks would follow. During a recent trip to Eastern Europe, a Polish security expert warned me that if the United States didn't respond to an attack on its own Presidential election by the Russians, Putin would feel emboldened to keep up the attacks to undermine and manipulate elections all through the free world. What has this administration and this Congress done to respond to the cyber act of war by the Russians against America's democracy? Has President Trump clearly acknowledged Russia's attack on the U.S. and forcefully condemned the actions? No. Has President Trump warned Russia to stop meddling in the United States and other democratic elections in France, Germany, and other countries? No. Has President Trump proposed a plan to help the United States thwart any future attack on the next election and to help our States protect the integrity of their voting systems? No. Has the Republican-led Congress passed sanctions on Russia in response to this attack on our democracy? Has it passed meaningful cyber security legislation? No. Quite simply, the failure of this President and Congress to address the security threat is a stunning abdication of responsibility to protect the United States and our democratic values. As if the conclusions of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies weren't enough to raise concerns, let's review what emerged just over the recent April recess. For example, Reuters reported that a Russian Government think tank, controlled by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, developed a plan to swing our 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters' faith in our electoral system. The institute, run by a retired senior Russian foreign intelligence official, appointed by Putin, released two key reports, one in June and one in October of last year. In the first, it argued that ``the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage US voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Obama.'' The second warning said: [P]residential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the US electoral system's legitimacy and damage Clinton's reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency. It was also recently disclosed that the FBI obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent. Add this to the ever-growing list of suspicious relationships between those in the Trump circle and Russia, from Michael Flynn to Paul Manafort, to Roger Stone, to Felix Sater. In fact, just last month, the Republican House Intelligence Committee chair, Jason Chaffetz, and the ranking Democratic member, Elijah Cummings, said General Flynn may have broken the law by failing to disclose on his security clearance forms payments of more than $65,000 from companies linked to Russia. Yet, incredibly, the White House continues to stonewall requests for documents related to General Flynn. White House ethics lawyer during the George Bush administration, Richard Painter, wrote of this stonewalling: ``US House must subpoena the docs. . . . Zero tolerance for WH [White House] covering up foreign payoffs.'' Is it any wonder why, in recent testimony to Congress, FBI Director Comey acknowledged an investigation of Russian interference in our election, which he said included possible links between Russia and Trump associates. Finally, over the recess--on tax day, to be precise--there were nationwide protests calling on President Trump to take the necessary step to dispel concerns by releasing his taxes once and for all. The concern over his taxes goes to the serious question as to how much Russian money is part of the Trump business empire. In 2008, Donald Trump, Jr., said Trump's businesses ``see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' This was despite his father incredibly saying this just a few months ago: ``I have nothing to do with Russia--no deals, no loans, no nothing!'' It appears that the Russians were some of the few willing to take on the financial risk required to invest in Trump's precarious business deals. Any such Russian money, combined with the President's refusal to formally separate himself from his business operations during his Presidency, demand the release of his tax returns. Trump's response to the mounting calls to release these returns--the usual--is to attack everyone asking questions and blindly dismiss the issue as being irrelevant. Of course, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee had compelling testimony yesterday from former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Miss Yates discussed the urgent warning that she delivered to the White House Counsel on January 26 that the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, General Flynn, had been compromised and was subject to blackmail by the Russians. It was a warning she repeated in two meetings and a phone call. What did the White House do in response to the Acting Attorney General warning them that the highest adviser in the White House on national security could be blackmailed by the Russians? Nothing. For 18 days, General Flynn continued to staff President Trump for a phone call with Vladimir Putin and other highly sensitive national security matters. Think of that. After being warned by the Attorney General that the man sitting in the room with you, the highest level of National Security Advisor, could be compromised by the Russians, President Trump continued to invite General Flynn for 18 days in that capacity. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said: When the President heard the information as presented by White House Counsel, he instinctively thought that General Flynn did not do anything wrong, and that the White House Counsel's review corroborated that. Let's be clear. It is bad enough to have a National Security Advisor who is subject to blackmail by the Russians. The fact that the Trump White House didn't see that as an urgent problem is deeply troubling. I am glad the Senate Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee held this hearing yesterday, but the occasional subcommittee hearing is not enough. Let's make sure we know for the record that this subcommittee-- chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, and Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island--did a yeoman's duty--not just yesterday but in a previous hearing, without being allocated any additional resources for this investigation, without being given additional staff. They have brought to the attention of the American people some important facts about what transpired in the Trump White House after it was clear that General Flynn had been compromised by the Russians. But the occasional subcommittee hearing like this is not enough. We need an independent, bipartisan commission with investigative resources and the power necessary to dig into all of the unanswered questions. Until we do, the efforts of this committee or that committee are not enough. It has to be a conscious effort on a national basis by an independent commission. For President Trump, these issues do not appear to be relevant, yet there is a simple way to resolve the many questions that are before us. First, disclose your tax returns and clear up, among other questions, what your son said in 2008 about a lot of Russian money pouring into your family business. No. 2, answer all the questions about campaign contacts with the Russians, including your former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and former policy advisor Carter Page. No. 3, quite simply, explain the reports of repeated contacts between your campaign operatives and Russian intelligence. No. 4, answer all the questions about your close friend Roger Stone's comments that suggest he had knowledge of Wikileaks' having and using, in strategically timed releases when your campaign was struggling, information that had been hacked by the Russians from your opponent's campaign. No. 5, explain your ties to Russian foreign businessman Felix Sater, who worked at the Bayrock Group investment firm, which partnered with your business and had ties to Russian money. No. 6, provide all requested documents to Congress related to Michael Flynn, who concealed his payments from the Russian interests. If there is nothing to hide, this is your chance to clear up things once and for all. To my Republican colleagues I say again that these Russian connections may constitute a national security crisis. We need to have the facts. How long will we wait for these desperately needed answers before we establish an independent commission investigation, as we have done when faced with previous attacks on America? Finally, how long will we sit by before passing additional sanctions on Russia for their cyber attack on the United States of America? That attack makes November 8, 2016, a day that will live in cyber infamy in America's history. It is time for the Republicans and the Democrats to show the appropriate concern for this breach of our national security. We have a bipartisan Russian sanctions bill ready to go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What are we waiting for? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to express concern with President Trump's nominee to serve as next Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. The FDA Commissioner is responsible for overseeing our Federal agency tasked with protecting and promoting the public health through the regulation of food, tobacco products, dietary supplements, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and veterinary products. I am not convinced that Dr. Scott Gottlieb is the right person for this job, based primarily on his less than impressive record of defending women's access to healthcare, his association with an ecigarette--or vaping-- company that has produced and marketed tobacco products to youth, his stated desire to expand ``off-label'' communications between drug companies and health providers, and his long-standing and vocal opposition to the Affordable Care Act, ACA. If confirmed, I hope he proves me wrong. Of particular concern to me is protecting our Nation's food safety. I was pleased that, in 2001, then-President Obama signed into law the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, marking the most comprehensive reform of our Nation's food safety system in decades. Every year, 48 million Americans suffer from preventable foodborne illness. More than 120,000 people are hospitalized each year because of food contamination and 3,000 die. Every 4 minutes, someone is rushed to the hospital because the food they ate made them sick, and at the end of the day, eight will die--which is why I have spent much of my career working on various bills to strengthen food safety structures at FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to create a single food safety agency, and to support increased inspection and protection of foreign food imports. Even with passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, more work remains to be done. We must further beef up both foreign and domestic facility inspections. We must ensure the FDA has sufficient staff and resources to carry out their responsibilities. We must do a better job of effectively tracking and tracing high-risk foods in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak. In addition, the FDA can and must do more to better regulate dietary supplements. I was pleased that, in 2015, the FDA announced creation of the Office of Dietary Supplement Programs to increase focus on and regulation of the ever-growing dietary supplement industry. It is my hope that this FDA office continues to receive the funding they so desperately need to carry out their mission of regulating a $35 billion dietary supplement industry and aggressively pursue wrongdoing. Finally, ecigarette products continue to be a growing threat to our Nation's youth. Last year, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released a report, calling the skyrocketing use of ecigarettes among youth ``a major public health concern.'' Ecigarettes are now the most commonly used form of tobacco among young people in the United States. Over the past 5 years, the number of middle school and high school students who have used ecigarettes has tripled. Among young adults aged 18 to 24, the number has doubled. While some research indicates that ecigarettes contain fewer toxic substances than ecigarettes, vape from ecigarettes is not harmless, and these products are a gateway to smoking. The popularity of ecigarettes stems in part from aggressive marketing and products aimed at youth, including the marketing of bubble gum, tutti frutti, and marshmallow flavorings. The FDA must aggressively oversee these products and ensure that they are not being marketed to children or young adults. Any attempt to exempt these products from FDA regulation will be met with extreme resistance from me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the termination and removal of James Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation raises a critical question as to whether the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the last Presidential campaign will continue and whether the investigation into any collusion or involvement by the Trump campaign will be investigated by the FBI. Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues. We await clarification by the White House as soon as possible as to whether this investigation will continue and whether it will have a credible lead so that we know it will have a just outcome. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Today, Mr. President, I want to honor my friend Michael ``Mickey'' Goral. For nearly four decades, Mickey has held elected office in Rockford, the county seat of Winnebago County, IL. I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with him to serve Rockford and Winnebago County for many years. A lifelong resident of Rockford, Mickey Goral grew up on Rockford's west end graduated from Boyland High School and Northern Illinois University with a B.A. in political science. He served on the county board for 18 years before being elected Rockford township supervisor and has held that post for 20 years. At 63 years young, Mickey decided not to seek reelection, but refuses to use the word ``retirement.'' He said: I hesitate to use the `R' word because I don't play golf, I don't fish, and I have no other hobbies.'' Public service is all that is in Mickey's blood. Oftentimes, public service becomes about accolades--not for Mickey. He simply aimed to make a difference in people's lives. Overseeing a $1.6 million general assistance office, Mickey led a nine-person team responsible for providing assistance to the communities most vulnerable: those with no other source of income. His mission was always clear and simple: treat all people with respect, dignity, and compassion in providing basic human needs to families while they are on the road to self-sufficiency, and that is what he did. Mickey's years of service to the people of Rockford show that public service can make a real difference in people's lives. Following the great recession of 2008, his general assistant office dealt with more than 150 open cases every month. Today, that number in a typical month is cut in half. That is the king of progress Mickey delivered for real working folks in Rockford. Mickey Goral also had the privilege of serving as the president of the Township Officials of Illinois, bringing professionalism and training for township governments throughout my home State of Illinois, but for all his accomplishments, Mickey was most proud to the Rockford township supervisor because his government role was one that was closest to the people, which meant he had the opportunity to help his friends and neighbors. We need more people like Mickey Goral. I especially want to thank Mickey's wife, Tami, and twin daughters, Karley and Kiley, for sharing so much of their husband and father with the community. I am honored to congratulate him on a job well done and wish him and his family all the best in the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.R. 244. On vote No. 121, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.R. 244. I want to take a few minutes to acknowledge today's bipartisan passage of the Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government through the end of the 2017 fiscal year. While I am disappointed that the bill's passage comes more than halfway through the fiscal year, the bill that was sent to the President today is the product of months of bipartisan work by the appropriations committees on both sides of Capitol Hill and represents how Congress should and can work together to provide the American people with critical investments that will create jobs and grow our Nation's economy. It is my hope that the bipartisan cooperation that made this bill possible will continue as Congress begins its work on appropriations for fiscal year 2018. This bill includes critical investments in the middle class, our Nation's infrastructure, medical and scientific research, and our national security. I am proud to report that much of the funding in this bill will benefit my home State of Illinois, funding a wide variety of Illinois projects and priorities. Most importantly, it takes the threat of a government shutdown, which would have hurt our economy, off the table. This bill fully rejects President Trump's proposed assault on medical research and instead includes a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, bringing the agency's funding level to $34.1 billion. This 6 percent increase in NIH funding matches the steady, predictable growth called for in legislation I have introduced over the past several years, the American Cures Act. Thanks to the NIH, we have cut the cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Polio and smallpox are all but eradicated in this country. We are closer than ever to developing a universal influenza vaccine, to rebuilding parts of the human heart without needing to rely on transplants, and to finding new and effective therapies to delay the onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. These medical breakthroughs will not happen without sustained, robust Federal funding for medical research supported by the NIH. President Trump's disastrous budget proposals for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 would have slashed NIH's budget by nearly 20 percent, bringing NIH to its lowest funding level in 15 years. I am pleased that Congress came together on a bipartisan basis to protect the NIH, and I want to thank my colleague Senator Blunt, chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for his efforts to provide this vital funding. I will be working hard to ensure that NIH gets another significant funding increase for fiscal year 2018. While I am encouraged that this bill includes $7.3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, it is my hope that Congress will find a way to work together on a bipartisan basis to provide the CDC with even greater funding increases in the years to come. The CDC has so many important responsibilities--from combating prescription drug abuse and fighting infectious disease outbreaks globally to preventing diabetes and protecting patients from antibiotic resistant superbugs. It is imperative that we provide this agency with the funding necessary to protect the public health. Chairman Cole is a strong champion of CDC funding, and it is my hope that we can work together on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to plus-up overall CDC funding in the coming years. I am pleased that harmful tobacco riders that would have severely undermined the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA's, ability to protect our Nation's youth from harmful, addictive tobacco products were not included in this bill. By omitting these terrible policy riders, the FDA can continue to regulate cigars and ecigarettes. I have said it before and I will say it again: I remain troubled that Big Tobacco continues to market and develop products aimed at getting youth addicted to tobacco. This bill includes more than $1 billion to help combat our Nation's prescription opioid and heroin epidemic. This funding will be available to States and local communities to help with prevention, enforcement, treatment, and recovery. In 2015, more than 33,000 people in the United States died from an opioid overdose. To combat this epidemic, we must commit proper funding and resources toward solving the problem. This bill begins to do that. I am proud that this bill increases funding to support critical transportation infrastructure projects in Illinois, despite President Trump's calls to eliminate funding for some of our most important transportation programs The capital investment grant program, which President Trump has proposed to eliminate, allows communities to compete for funding to build and improve subway, commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit projects through New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity grants. This program was increased by $236 million in this bill to $2.4 billion with $100 million in Core Capacity funds specifically allocated to help fund the Chicago Transit Authority's modernization of the red and purple lines. The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, TIGER, grant program, which Illinois has relied on repeatedly to help fund transit, highway, and bridge projects throughout our State, was also protected from elimination in this bill. As a result of bipartisan support for this program, Illinois will now be able to compete for the $500 million in TIGER funds included in this bill. Funding for federal highway and transit formula grants to States was increased in this bill to the full funding levels authorized in the 2015 bipartisan FAST Act. As a result, $43.2 billion in highway funding, a $905 million increase, and $9.3 billion in transit funding, a $753 million increase, will be provided to States around the country to improve and maintain their roads and public transportation. Federal funding comprises 80 percent of the funds included in the Illinois Department of Transportation's multiyear highway improvement program. This bill also includes critical funding to improve freight and passenger rail around the country. Nowhere is this more important than in Illinois, our Nation's rail hub. And $98 million in newly authorized rail safety and state of good repair grants was included in the bill, as well as $1.495 billion in nationwide funding for Amtrak, which commuters in both Chicago and downstate Illinois rely on every day to get to their schools and jobs. By providing adequate funding to Amtrak, more than 500 communities in 46 States across the country will continue to see improved passenger rail service. The bill allocates $150 million in funding to provide rural areas with reliable air service through the Essential Air Service program. This funding supports critical air service in Quincy, Decatur, and Marion, IL. This agreement provides $1.3 billion to permanently extend the health benefits of more than 22,000 retired coal miners and widows, including nearly 2,000 in Illinois. Coal mining is difficult and dangerous work, and these men and women who spent decades working in these mines risked their lives, health, and personal safety to ensure that our country had power. I heard countless heartbreaking stories from Illinois coal miners and their families about the fear and uncertainty they were facing if they lose their health benefits. While this bill does not provide relief for the miners' failing pension fund, they can find comfort in knowing they will have health care for life. As vice chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am particularly proud of the bipartisan work that was done in the subcommittee to provide critical equipment and training for our troops, as well as funds to continue the fight against terrorist threats like ISIL. I want to thank Chairman Thad Cochran and his staff for working with my staff and me on a bipartisan basis to finalize this section of the bill. The bill provides a pay raise for military and civilian personnel, including those in Illinois. It continues the subcommittee's track record of providing 5 percent real growth in lifesaving medical research and makes critical boosts in broader science and technology research. It also provides important defense funding with particular impact in Illinois. It supports well-paying manufacturing jobs by adding $110 million to extend the Humvee production line at Rock Island Arsenal and $979 million to extend the F-18 production line in St. Louis for downstate Illinois. It also provides $140 million to stabilize rates at all three Army arsenals. Finally, it adds $9.9 million not requested in the budget to ensure National Guard cyber protection teams in Illinois and across the country are fully funded. The omnibus bill does not include any funding for a wall on our southern border. Mexico will not pay for a border wall as the President promised during last year's campaign, and it is absurd to suggest that the American people should now be stuck with the bill. Texas Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district covers 800 miles of the southwest border, has described the wall as ``the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border.'' Senate Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee estimate this wall will cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. Even the Trump administration acknowledges the wall will cost $21.6 billion, not including maintenance. While the Trump administration demanded $3 billion in additional funding for immigration enforcement, congressional Democrats succeeded in cutting this amount in half. I am pleased that the omnibus does not include any funding for President Trump's plan to triple the number of immigration agents. This unnecessary and prohibitively expensive goal would help the administration target 8 million undocumented immigrants who are now priorities for deportation under Trump administration policy. This ignores the reality that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our country are law-abiding individuals who make important economic contributions and have deep roots in our country. Democrats also successfully resisted a rider that would have deprived communities around the country--including Chicago in my home State of Illinois--of billions of dollars in critical Federal funding if they refuse to take part in the Trump administration's mass deportation scheme. The bill also includes important new oversight measures for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention operations. While some additional detention funding may have been needed to address the surge in border crossings at the end of 2016, it appears that a reduction in ICE's detention budget will be appropriate in fiscal year 2018, given the sharp decline in border crossings this year. I am disappointed that the bill includes a problematic rider that circumvents regular legislative order to permit the Trump administration to potentially double the number of foreign guest workers who could be admitted to the United States under the H-2B visa program without needed safeguards. I have long advocated for reform of the H-2B program, which in its current form harms both American and foreign workers. We should not increase the size of the H-2B program unless and until the program is reformed to protect workers from exploitation. I am particularly concerned that this rider gives the Trump administration the authority to determine how many additional H- 2B visas will be issued since President Trump owns companies that have sought to import more than 900 H-2B guest workers, including 64 in fiscal year 2017 alone, while turning away hundreds of American workers. I will be closely monitoring the administration's implementation of this provision, which only permits additional visas to be issued if the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, determines that the needs of American businesses cannot be met by qualified American workers. While not perfect, this bill exemplifies what Congress can do if it puts politics aside to work together and come to a bipartisan consensus for the good of the American people. I support the passage of this Omnibus appropriations bill. While we now face a much shortened timeline to complete the appropriations process for the next fiscal year, I am hopeful that the bipartisan cooperation exemplified by this bill will continue.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the motion to proceed and passage of a joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor known as the State Automatic IRAs Rule, H.J. Res. 66. On vote No. 119, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 66. On vote No. 120, had I been present, I would have voted nay on passage of H.J. Res. 66. A few weeks ago, after their failed attempt to dismantle our Nation's healthcare system, Republicans launched a full-scaled attack on retirement savings by rolling back an important rule that would have allowed local governments, as well as small businesses, to expand access to a retirement savings plan. Rolling back that rule will make it nearly impossible for working-class families to save for retirement. Today Republicans voted to roll back a similar rule that allows States, including Illinois, to provide access to a retirement savings account to millions of working American families. Their actions here today are misguided and will hurt, not help, many working class families. We are facing a crisis. Tens of millions of Americans have very little savings for retirement. Half of households age 55 and older have little to no retirement savings, and some 55 million working Americans, including 1.5 million in Illinois, work for an employer that does not offer a retirement plan. There was a time when Americans were able to depend on the proverbial ``three-legged stool'' to support them in their retirement: their pension, Social Security, and their personal savings. However, with the decline of pension plans and the inability of working-class Americans to personally save for retirement, that three-legged stool is now a pogo stick. Pensions once provided a promise of security in retirement, but they are becoming a thing of the past. Of those that remain, many are struggling to pay the benefits they promised, creating uncertainty and fear for those who have worked hard their entire lives. Decades of stagnant wages, increasing income inequality, and job losses from the recession have made it difficult for workers to keep up with everyday costs such as housing and food, let alone save for retirement. Social Security is the only guaranteed source of retirement income most Americans have, and, sadly, this is nowhere near enough. Since there is no simple solution to addressing this crisis, we have to consider every option that will make saving for retirement easier. In Illinois, 1.5 million workers do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer. These employees are more likely to earn less money and work for a smaller employer. To make it easier for employers to offer access to retirement savings plans and help workers save more easily, States began developing State-based individual retirement accounts or IRAs. My home State of Illinois, under the leadership of Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, led the way by being the first State in the Nation to create a State-based IRA called the Secure Choice Savings Program, making retirement a financially viable option for Illinois families. The Secure Choice program allows Illinois businesses that do not offer a retirement plan and have been in business for 2 or more years to either offer their own retirement plan or automatically enroll their employees in the Secure Choice program. Contrary to the false narrative offered by Republicans that this imposes a burden on businesses, businesses in Illinois are largely supportive and the administrative burden is small. This program gives businesses the opportunity to help their employees save for retirement without being subject to additional Federal regulations under ERISA and without being subject to the costs that are preventing them from offering a retirement plan in the first place. Under the program, all employers have to do is share information about the program that is provided by the State with their employees. Employers do not have to find plans or investment vehicles, and employers make no investment decisions. These State programs provides businesses with a no-worries, low-cost way to enable retirement savings. There are also claims that imply that States will manage these funds like their State pension assets or other State funds. This is simply not true. Funds under the Secure Choice program will not be comingled with other State funds. These funds, which are owned by the employee, will be managed by a private investment company, they will be separate from the State's budget and pension funds, and they cannot be used for any other purpose. Once an employee is enrolled, 3 percent of their paycheck is automatically deducted and placed into an IRA. The employee has complete control over how the money is invested. The employee can take the plan with them should they change jobs and they may choose to opt out at any time. The Department of Labor's rule under attack gives State and local governments' certainty to develop these programs that make it easier for employers to provide access to retirement savings plans. This rule has allowed the States to step in where the private market has failed. By voting to strike this rule, Republicans have created uncertainty for retirement savings programs that could help the 55 million Americans otherwise without access the means to secure their financial future. In Illinois, the consequences are great as this will make it unnecessarily difficult for 1.5 million working-class Illinoisans to access one of the only viable means they may have to save for retirement. With the country facing a retirement savings crisis, the last thing we need to do is stymie States' efforts to explore innovative policy solutions. These resolutions are just the latest chapter in Republicans' assault on working families. I am afraid this story will continue before there is a happy ending in sight. What we should be doing is working together to remove the fear of retirement and give workers the tools they need to retire with dignity. I am willing to do that, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the nomination of Jay Clayton to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Executive Calendar No. 36. On vote No. 118, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of the Clayton nomination, Executive Calendar No. 36.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Jay Clayton to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Executive Calendar No. 36. On vote No. 117, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 36.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, House Republicans have revived their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As a reminder, the original effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act--characterized by some as the TrumpCare bill--was so unpopular that it had to be withdrawn from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. That is because, after the Congressional Budget Office took a look, it would have taken away health insurance from 24 million Americans. Think about that for a moment. The Republican answer to ObamaCare-- the Affordable Care Act--was to remove health insurance protection and coverage from 24 million Americans. It would have devastated the Medicaid Program. The Medicaid Program, of course, is one that is easily characterized as a health insurance program for those who are in low-income categories, but that statement doesn't tell the real story. For example, in my State, half of the children who are born in Illinois are covered by Medicaid. Their mothers and the kids are covered by Medicaid. So when it comes to new babies, particularly in low-income families, Medicaid provides the prenatal care, delivery, and care after the child is born, but the most expensive part of the Medicaid Program is the help it gives to senior citizens--mothers and grandmothers who are in nursing homes who have only a little bit of savings, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cover their medical expenses. The Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have decimated the Medicaid Program across the United States. It would have increased costs for the average person for health insurance by $3,000, and particularly for people in upper ages--I guess I fit in that category--these folks would have seen a change in the calculation of premiums. The Affordable Care Act protects premiums so they cannot be more than three times the lowest premium for any individual. The Republican approach said: Let's make that five times. If it goes up to five times, it can mean almost doubling the premiums paid by many senior citizens-- those approaching, I should say, being senior citizens, from 50 to age 65. It also would have cut off funding for women's health centers, all while providing a massive tax cut for upper income, wealthy people and big businesses, including tax cuts for drug companies. What a deal--to eliminate health insurance for 24 million Americans, to devastate the Medicaid Program, to increase the cost of health insurance for the average individual, to cut off funding for women's health centers in order to give a tax cut to wealthy people and drug companies. The new bill does all those things as well--and then something I didn't think was possible. The new version of the Affordable Care Act repeal Republicans are now considering in the House allows insurance companies to impose--get this--an age tax and charge seniors significantly higher premiums than younger people. It says that insurance plans do not have to cover hospital visits, prescription drugs, maternity care, substance abuse treatment, or mental health services. The Affordable Care Act defined these as essential services so, if you are buying health insurance, you know you are buying that kind of protection. Well, Republicans have said: That is too much insurance for people. We ought to let them buy stripped-down versions of health insurance that may be cheaper. The obvious question, What happens to those people when they need coverage for substance abuse treatment? What if that son or daughter in high school begins an addiction to opioids, leading to heroin, and now your health insurance plan saved you money by not covering it or didn't cover mental health counseling? It guts protections for people with preexisting conditions. Is there a person alive who doesn't know someone or have someone in their family with a preexisting condition? That used to be grounds for denying insurance coverage or charging outrageous premiums. We did away with it with the Affordable Care Act. It is back, my friends, with the new Republican approach to the repeal of affordable care. It allows insurance companies to once again charge unaffordable premiums if someone in your family has a history of asthma, cancer, high blood pressure, or diabetes. Republicans made these changes to win the votes of the most extreme conservative Members of the U.S. House, the so-called Freedom Caucus. What they are fighting for is for freedom from individuals getting protection when it comes to healthcare. These changes may appeal to a handful of extreme people who conveniently see their health insurance policies--their personal policies--protected under their bill, but these sorts of approaches don't appeal to anyone in the medical community. Who opposes the new Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act? The American Medical Association--that would be the doctors--the American Heart Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Retired Persons, as well as every major medical and patient group out there. Every one of them opposes the changes proposed by the Republicans in the House to our healthcare system. Of course, we have a bottom line that we measure proposals against. We go to the Congressional Budget Office, and we say to them: What impact will this have? No one has sent this bill to the Congressional Budget Office, and no report has been given. So we don't know the impact on premiums of this new version. What is going to happen to seniors, to middle-income families? Ramming through a bad bill that will harm Americans just because the President wants to have something to say on the 100th day of his Presidency is a bad idea. It is time to stop this madness. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to sit down and talk seriously about improving our current system. The Presiding Officer is from the State of Louisiana and is a medical doctor. He has joined on the Republican side with Senator Collins of Maine to open this conversation. Thank you. We should have this bipartisan conversation--not about repeal but repair, what we can do to make this better and fairer and more affordable while preserving quality healthcare for Americans. Thank you for your leadership in this. We have talked about it, and I want to continue the conversation. This notion coming over from the House is unacceptable. I hope that many people will tell the President and tell those who support it that this is no way to celebrate 100 days--by taking health insurance away from 24 million people.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we know what open season means when it comes to these students. Gilbert Caro of Chicago can tell us. He was profiled in the Chicago Tribune article that I mentioned. Gilbert received his master of business administration degree from DeVry University. It is possibly the second largest for-profit college in the United States. He took on nearly $100,000 in debt for his master of business administration degree. He believed that debt was worth it because it was going to unlock the door to a high-paying job and financial security. Do you have any idea what Gilbert Caro is doing now with his DeVry master of business administration degree? He is a prison guard in Joliet, IL. While Gilbert has a good job, he certainly didn't need $100,000 in debt to be a prison guard. It is far from what he was promised by DeVry when he signed up. Gilbert, like so many other students who go to for- profit colleges, was lured in by an amazing marketing campaign, flashy advertisements and empty promises. In 2016, DeVry University, a for-profit school, agreed to a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading ``prospective students with ads that touted high employment success rates and income levels upon graduation.'' DeVry is not alone. For-profit college giants like Corinthian and ITT Tech collapsed after they were caught engaging in similar deceptive, disgusting practices. The predatory practices of these and other for- profit colleges have left tens of thousands of students across the country, just like Gilbert Caro, with worthless degrees and a mountain of debt. In fact, during the early part of this century, when for-profit colleges acted with near impunity, just the students from the for- profit colleges and universities accounted for 47 percent of all student loan defaults. Ten percent of the students coming out of high school went to for-profit colleges, and 47 percent of the student loan defaults were those same students--10 and 47. Why? Because they were overcharged for worthless degrees. That is why. The University of Phoenix students held almost $35 billion in cumulative debt. When I look at their flashy advertising and the commercials about how life is going to be perfect if you sign up at the University of Phoenix, it is hard for me to imagine how many of those students are burdened with debt they will never be able to repay. We also know what open season means for the for-profit college industry and its executives and investors. Between 1998 and 2008, enrollment at for-profit colleges exploded by 225 percent--a lot of advertising, a lot of marketing, a lot of recruiting. With it came exploding profits for these schools. By 2009, the seven largest publicly traded for-profit college companies were worth a combined $51 billion--2009, $51 billion. In 2010, the University of Phoenix alone enrolled nearly half a million students, more than the combined enrollment of all the Big Ten universities. When former Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin released his seminal report on the industry in 2012, for-profit colleges had grown to take in an incredible $32 billion a year in Federal taxpayer dollars, 25 percent of all Federal aid in education, despite enrolling only 10 percent of the students that went to college after high school. For-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America that exist. No one rivals them. No other industry is even close, and 80, 85, 90, 95 percent of the revenue of these so-called private, for-profit universities ends up coming out of the Federal Treasury. John Murphy, the cofounder of the University of Phoenix, talks about those days by saying that what started off as a serious venture to educate students soon became too focused on ``chasing stock prices.'' To pump up those stock prices, companies needed students and they needed Federal student aid dollars. They proved that they would do and promise nearly anything to get ``the juice,'' as Mr. Murphy, the cofounder of the University of Phoenix, called it. Boy, is this industry itching for the Trump administration to return to those bad old days. The Chicago Tribune reports that since the November 8 election, the stock prices of DeVry University, a for-profit college, have increased 52 percent. In a recent New York Times article by Patricia Cohen entitled ``For- Profit Schools, an Obama Target, See New Day Under Trump,'' the paid spokesman for the for-profit college industry, former Congressman Steve Gunderson, said he ``has repeatedly spoken with members of Trump's transition team . . . White House domestic policy advisers . . . and congressional Republicans.'' He is truly an insider. Mr. Gunderson promised: ``We're going to get some regulatory relief.'' Sadly, it looks like he is right. Take for example the delay of the gainful employment regulation. The Obama administration spent years writing and rewriting regulations to ensure that career training programs meet the statutory requirement to prepare students for ``gainful employment.'' Is that a radical idea--that if the Federal Government is going to provide grants and loans for a student to go to a school, the school should provide education and training that would lead to ``gainful employment''? My colleague from Oklahoma was on the floor a little while ago talking about overregulation, too many rules, and the impacts on small business. I would say that I am prepared to stand up and defend what the Obama administration did in saying that if you were going to lure a young man like Gilbert Caro into a school and put him $100,000 in debt for a master's of business administration, he ought to at least end up with a job that is consistent with his education. Today, Mr. Caro is a prison guard with $100,000 of debt and a business administration degree of no value to him. The gainful employment rule cuts off title IV funding for programs where graduates' ratio of student debt to earnings is too high. Literally, the students are too deeply in debt. Prior to leaving office, the Obama Department of Education released the first set of gainful employment data. It showed that the graduates of public undergraduate certificate programs, like community colleges, earn $9,000 more than their for-profit counterparts on average. Think about that. You go to the virtually free community college, get a certificate, and you are going to earn $9,000 more than if you get deeply in debt at one of the for-profit schools seeking the same degree. Of the programs that saddle students with too much debt compared to the income its students receive after their program, 98 percent of the violators were for-profit colleges. This is not just a chance occurrence. It is a pattern. The rule is meant to protect students from taking on debt to attend programs that don't lead to a good-paying job. The rule is also meant to prevent billions in taxpayers' dollars on worthless programs. Many for-profit colleges receive more than 90 percent of the revenue straight from Federal taxpayers. My Republican colleagues are committed to the free market system. So am I. I am committed to capitalism. I believe in it. Though, I think there is need for us to have regulation when it gets out of hand. That is why we have an antitrust division, for example. In this circumstance, to argue that these are just private companies that are doing what ordinary people do when they start a business is to ignore the obvious. These for-profit colleges could not exist if they weren't receiving 80, 85, 90, and 95 percent of their revenue directly from the Federal Treasury. In recent testimony before a House subcommittee, the Department of Education inspector general agreed that the gainful employment regulation ``is a good rule in terms of protecting [students] and protecting taxpayers.'' I sent a letter--along with Senators Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren, and nine other colleagues--expressing our concerns to Secretary DeVos about her delaying this rule. In our letter, we made clear that these delays undermine the rule and are going to be a danger to students and taxpayers. It is also a betrayal of students not to ensure that they are treated fairly after they have been taken advantage of by for-profit schools. Today, POLITICO reported that the Trump administration has dramatically slowed, if not stopped, processing applications from tens of thousands of students seeking to have their Federal student loans discharged after they have been defrauded by for-profit colleges. Think about that. A student is about to sign up for a for-profit school. Maybe he doesn't know much about higher education. His parents say: Listen, if you can get a Pell grant and a Federal student loan, this must be a really good school. He is defrauded into signing up for a school that is too expensive and offers a worthless degree, and then they turn around and that school goes bankrupt. Now the student has the debt, no degree, and we are left holding the bag. What has happened in previous cases is the Federal Government stepped in and discharged the students from the debt if they were defrauded into signing up for the college. Secretary Betsy DeVos has decided to slow that down--to slow down the discharge of these students' debt. Students who were misled or defrauded by their schools are eligible for discharge of their Federal student loans under the Higher Education Act--the law as it now exists. Yet during her confirmation process, Secretary DeVos would not commit to providing this relief to students--relief already specified in law-- and has now effectively stopped processing the claims. On the day before President Trump took office, more than 3,200 Illinois students applied to the Department of Education for relief. While the Department fails to process these claims, these students are left in the lurch. It adds insult to injury that students taken advantage of by for-profit colleges, nominally supervised and regulated by the Federal Government, are now being ignored by the Federal Government's Department of Education. That is unacceptable. It is unfair, and the Trump administration should change it. We've started to see the true colors of the administration and Secretary DeVos when it comes to these students who have been victimized. As feared, the Department has thus far put for-profit and other commercial interests ahead of students and taxpayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. 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 that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.