Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to celebrate the bipartisan passage of this year's Water Resources Development Act. This critically important legislation will help keep our drinking water safe, move goods on Illinois waterways, protect communities from flooding and preserve the precious natural resources that are our rivers, streams, and wetlands. Our Nation's water infrastructure plays a vital role in protecting our communities from flooding, safeguarding our drinking water from contamination, and advancing commerce through the safe and secure movement of goods. The safety of the American people and the stability of the American economy depend on the reliability of our water infrastructure. But our water infrastructure in the U.S. is aging and overburdened, and investment is not keeping up with the need. We have locks and dams that are crumbling, in serious need of maintenance and upgrades, and lead water pipes that are long overdue for replacement. What happened in Flint has shown just how vulnerable our water infrastructure is and why investing in it is so important. That is why I was proud to support the passage of the Water Resource and Development Act of 2016, which makes significant investments in water infrastructure around the country. I am proud to report that much of the water infrastructure funding in this bill will benefit my home State of Illinois. The bill authorizes a final feasibility report on phase II of the Des Plaines River Project, which will provide flood risk management and environmental restoration on the Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries in Illinois and Wisconsin. The bill also includes language that expedites the completion of the McCook Reservoir in the Chicago region. McCook is a 10-billion-gallon reservoir designed to redirect flood and wastewater from the Chicago region. When completed, the project will benefit Chicago and 36 surrounding suburbs, including 1.5 million structures and over 5 million people. Also included is language that will help pay for work on the Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve and the Prairie Bluff Preserve in Will County. These are important projects for Illinois that will help prevent flooding in our communities and restore our region's ecosystems. In Illinois, we treasure Lake Michigan, from the drinking water it provides to millions of people, to the commerce and tourism it brings to the Chicago area. That is why protecting and restoring our Great Lakes is so important to Illinois. This bill authorizes $300 million per year to help protect our Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or GLRI, which provides Illinois with millions in Federal funding to combat invasive species like Asian carp; reduce and remove pollution, waste runoff, and toxic chemicals; and restore wetlands and other lakefront assets. GLRI funds have been used for restoration projects like the removal of toxic chemicals from Waukegan Harbor, green infrastructure like the Millennium Reserve near the Calumet River, and the restoration of 40 acres of land at Northerly Island. Finally, this bill takes important steps to address the water contamination issues that have been plaguing communities across the country. Lead water contamination is not a new problem. In Illinois, we have been battling this issue for years. The contaminated water crisis in Flint, MI, was a wakeup call to all of us that we must have strong drinking water protections in place and invest the necessary resources to keep our water safe for our children. This bill provides $220 million in direct emergency assistance to Flint and other communities facing similar drinking water emergencies. It provides $1.4 billion over 5 years to help small and disadvantaged communities comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill modernizes our State Revolving Loan Fund program and provides $300 million in grants for communities to replace lead service lines. And because we are also seeing high levels of lead in our schools' water, the bill authorizes $100 million for additional lead testing in schools. This bill also addresses many of the issues that I raised in the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act that I introduced with Senator Menendez and the CLEAR Act that I introduced with Senator Cardin, two bills that would ensure our children are protected from the dangerous effects of lead in our water and our housing. Congress has a responsibility to protect the safety of our drinking water, defend our communities from flooding, improve our waterways, and fix the Nation's crumbling water infrastructure. I want to congratulate Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for their hard work and dedication to improving our water infrastructure and for getting this bill passed by the Senate. I am proud to support the important investments that this bipartisan bill makes to improve water infrastructure in Illinois and around the country.

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, this has been a big week in Chicago and the Midwest, in fact, across the country, as some 35,000 students who attended ITT Tech have finally come to realize that school is closing and many of them have to assess now what their lives will be from this point forward. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, there was a large sign in the local shopping mall ``ITT Tech,'' and I used to drive by and look at it, thinking: I know how this story is going to end, and it will not be good. It turns out some 750 students signed up at this for-profit college in the State of Illinois and, as I mentioned, many outside the State, and many of them were fleeced, literally. In this situation, they offered them an associate's degree at the ITT Tech campus at the White Oaks Mall in Springfield. There were several courses, one in communications, another one in computers. The tuition charged at ITT Tech for a 2-year associate's degree was $47,000. If those same students got in their cars and drove 15 minutes away, they would have been at Lincoln Land Community College. The same course is offered not for $47,000 for a 2-year career degree but less than $7,000. These students did not know better. They thought they were in good hands. They signed up for these loans, and now the school has disappeared. It disappeared after more than a dozen attorneys general around the United States started suing ITT Tech for its practices: recruiting students who were not ready for college, misleading them about the courses that were being offered, and overcharging them on their loans. It is currently being sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is not the first major for-profit college to go down. Corinthian was an early casualty. I am sorry to say that I think others will follow. It bears repeating that when we take a look at this industry, the for-profit college industry, we are looking at the most heavily subsidized private for-profit companies in the United States of America. For many of these companies, over 90 percent of their revenue sources come from the Federal Treasury in the form of Pell grants and direct government loans. They take the money from the government through the students. The students end up with the debt to pay off and many times, if they can stick with the course, a worthless diploma or certificate. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we letting American families work hard to send their kids to college, only to be exploited by schools that are thinly veiled machines for taking money away from these poor students and saddling them with debt? Why aren't we speaking out? Well, sadly, the for-profit college and university industry in America has friends in high places. When the time comes, they hire some of the most effective lobbyists in Washington on both political sides to push for their agenda and to keep them in business. It is understandable. They take millions of dollars out of these operations. They end up with salaries for CEOs that are higher for their so-called university presidents than any university president in America. We let it happen. The Congress lets it happen. The government lets it happen. It is time for a new day and some new thinking. The 2016-2017 school year has begun. Millions of students across the country are walking onto college campuses, and they are excited about their opportunities. Many of these students know they are going to have to take out loans to finance their education and will end up owing the government thousands of dollars. We know that student debt is now larger than credit card debt. It is over $1 trillion. That means that students and their families across America are deeply indebted for higher education. If you are getting a good education out of it, something that really changes your life for the better and gives you new opportunities, the argument can be made. But, sadly, in many cases students don't receive the education they were promised. And at the end of the day whether these students owe money to the government or to private lenders, makes a big difference. A lot of students--19, 20 years old--really don't understand the magnitude of the debt they are incurring. We know that two-thirds of students who take out private education loans really don't understand the terms of those loans, the interest rates of those loans, and how they compare with government loans. They don't understand that in many cases, private student loans are significantly more expensive and riskier. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates. They have a variety of consumer protections built into them: forbearance in times of economic difficulty; manageable repayment options, such as income-based repayment plans which calculate your monthly student loan payment based on your income. On the other hand, private student loans don't have these protections and offer interest rates that are some of the highest in the land, up to 18 percent. These private loans also don't include repayment options that Federal loans do. I have heard from many private education loan borrowers that their lender is unwilling to work with them when it comes to alternative repayment plans. They are harassed by collection agencies night and day when they owe these private student loans. In many cases, private lenders are more focused on their own bottom line than the students' welfare. This past summer, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against Wells Fargo Bank--one of the largest private student lenders--for illegal student loan servicing practices. Wells Fargo charged borrowers illegal fees, failed to provide borrowers with accurate loan information, and failed to correct inaccurate credit reports. Upon being caught, Wells Fargo was fined $3.6 million and is required to refund borrowers who were illegally charged. While I commend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for their work to hold private student lenders accountable, there are steps we in Congress should take to make sure students have a fighting chance. Today, Senators Franken, Reed, and I will introduce the Know Before You Owe Private Education Loan Act of 2016. This legislation requires school certification before a student can take out a private loan. There are certain steps the school has to take before certifying a loan. The prospective borrower's school has to confirm the student's enrollment status, cost of attendance, and estimated Federal financial aid assistance before certifying. The school must also notify students of the amount of unused Federal student aid for which they are still eligible. Think about that. Some of these schools are luring students into more expensive, terrible private loans when the students are still eligible for lower interest rates and better terms through the Federal Government. I have heard too many stories of for-profit colleges steering students into these private institutional loans. This bill will help stop that. The bill will also ensure that students are given information about the differences in terms and repayment options. For students who still decide to get a private student loan, the bill requires private lenders to send the student borrowers quarterly updates on their balance, accrued interest, and capitalized interest. The bill also requires private lenders to annually report the number of students taking out private loans, the amount of the loans, and the interest rates--all of these to be reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Currently, there is little information publicly available about private student loans. Increasing the amount of available information will help policymakers and enforcement agencies more effectively protect students and their families. Here are a few of the organizations supporting our bill: the Institute for College Access and Success, National Association for College Admission Counseling, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Action, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, the American Association of University Women, the American Federation of Teachers. Loan certification for private education loans could keep many students from taking on unnecessary debt or unknowingly giving up the benefits and protections of Federal student loans. It is an important part of making college more affordable. I thank Senators Franken and Jack Reed for standing with me in this effort. I sincerely hope that this Congress, which is now coming to a close before the election, will take up this question of student loans when we return after the election. I know we only have a few weeks, but if you ask working families across America what concerns them greatly, it is the amount of debt kids are incurring to go to college. In some families, mom and dad have never been to college, and sending their son or daughter off to a university is a dream come true. It can turn into a nightmare if they end up at for-profit colleges and universities. I put on the Record the last time I spoke--and I will put it on again--the basic numbers to know about the for-profit college and university industry. Ten percent of all college students attend these schools, schools such as the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and Rasmussen. You know the names. Ten percent of the students end up in these schools, but when it comes to student loan defaults, 40 percent of the student loan defaults are students from for-profit colleges and universities. Students are dramatically overcharged for tuition. They are put into courses that are worthless, and they end up with maybe a certificate or a diploma that cannot even land them a job. Another statistic that I think is shameful--and it really should be a reminder to Members of the Senate of our responsibility--the Department of Education analyzed programs at for-profit colleges and found that 72 percent of for-profit college graduates, on average, make less money than high school dropouts--72 percent. After all that time, all that debt, all those promises, they make less money than if they dropped out of high school. How can we continue to subsidize this industry after what we know about their performance? We need to hold them to higher standards. In the meantime, let's find a way to protect students and working families who are trying to realize the American dream, make this a better nation, and provide a better life for themselves and their families. 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. President, this has been a big week in Chicago and the Midwest, in fact, across the country, as some 35,000 students who attended ITT Tech have finally come to realize that school is closing and many of them have to assess now what their lives will be from this point forward. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, there was a large sign in the local shopping mall ``ITT Tech,'' and I used to drive by and look at it, thinking: I know how this story is going to end, and it will not be good. It turns out some 750 students signed up at this for-profit college in the State of Illinois and, as I mentioned, many outside the State, and many of them were fleeced, literally. In this situation, they offered them an associate's degree at the ITT Tech campus at the White Oaks Mall in Springfield. There were several courses, one in communications, another one in computers. The tuition charged at ITT Tech for a 2-year associate's degree was $47,000. If those same students got in their cars and drove 15 minutes away, they would have been at Lincoln Land Community College. The same course is offered not for $47,000 for a 2-year career degree but less than $7,000. These students did not know better. They thought they were in good hands. They signed up for these loans, and now the school has disappeared. It disappeared after more than a dozen attorneys general around the United States started suing ITT Tech for its practices: recruiting students who were not ready for college, misleading them about the courses that were being offered, and overcharging them on their loans. It is currently being sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is not the first major for-profit college to go down. Corinthian was an early casualty. I am sorry to say that I think others will follow. It bears repeating that when we take a look at this industry, the for-profit college industry, we are looking at the most heavily subsidized private for-profit companies in the United States of America. For many of these companies, over 90 percent of their revenue sources come from the Federal Treasury in the form of Pell grants and direct government loans. They take the money from the government through the students. The students end up with the debt to pay off and many times, if they can stick with the course, a worthless diploma or certificate. Why are we letting this happen? Why are we letting American families work hard to send their kids to college, only to be exploited by schools that are thinly veiled machines for taking money away from these poor students and saddling them with debt? Why aren't we speaking out? Well, sadly, the for-profit college and university industry in America has friends in high places. When the time comes, they hire some of the most effective lobbyists in Washington on both political sides to push for their agenda and to keep them in business. It is understandable. They take millions of dollars out of these operations. They end up with salaries for CEOs that are higher for their so-called university presidents than any university president in America. We let it happen. The Congress lets it happen. The government lets it happen. It is time for a new day and some new thinking. The 2016-2017 school year has begun. Millions of students across the country are walking onto college campuses, and they are excited about their opportunities. Many of these students know they are going to have to take out loans to finance their education and will end up owing the government thousands of dollars. We know that student debt is now larger than credit card debt. It is over $1 trillion. That means that students and their families across America are deeply indebted for higher education. If you are getting a good education out of it, something that really changes your life for the better and gives you new opportunities, the argument can be made. But, sadly, in many cases students don't receive the education they were promised. And at the end of the day whether these students owe money to the government or to private lenders, makes a big difference. A lot of students--19, 20 years old--really don't understand the magnitude of the debt they are incurring. We know that two-thirds of students who take out private education loans really don't understand the terms of those loans, the interest rates of those loans, and how they compare with government loans. They don't understand that in many cases, private student loans are significantly more expensive and riskier. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates. They have a variety of consumer protections built into them: forbearance in times of economic difficulty; manageable repayment options, such as income-based repayment plans which calculate your monthly student loan payment based on your income. On the other hand, private student loans don't have these protections and offer interest rates that are some of the highest in the land, up to 18 percent. These private loans also don't include repayment options that Federal loans do. I have heard from many private education loan borrowers that their lender is unwilling to work with them when it comes to alternative repayment plans. They are harassed by collection agencies night and day when they owe these private student loans. In many cases, private lenders are more focused on their own bottom line than the students' welfare. This past summer, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against Wells Fargo Bank--one of the largest private student lenders--for illegal student loan servicing practices. Wells Fargo charged borrowers illegal fees, failed to provide borrowers with accurate loan information, and failed to correct inaccurate credit reports. Upon being caught, Wells Fargo was fined $3.6 million and is required to refund borrowers who were illegally charged. While I commend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for their work to hold private student lenders accountable, there are steps we in Congress should take to make sure students have a fighting chance. Today, Senators Franken, Reed, and I will introduce the Know Before You Owe Private Education Loan Act of 2016. This legislation requires school certification before a student can take out a private loan. There are certain steps the school has to take before certifying a loan. The prospective borrower's school has to confirm the student's enrollment status, cost of attendance, and estimated Federal financial aid assistance before certifying. The school must also notify students of the amount of unused Federal student aid for which they are still eligible. Think about that. Some of these schools are luring students into more expensive, terrible private loans when the students are still eligible for lower interest rates and better terms through the Federal Government. I have heard too many stories of for-profit colleges steering students into these private institutional loans. This bill will help stop that. The bill will also ensure that students are given information about the differences in terms and repayment options. For students who still decide to get a private student loan, the bill requires private lenders to send the student borrowers quarterly updates on their balance, accrued interest, and capitalized interest. The bill also requires private lenders to annually report the number of students taking out private loans, the amount of the loans, and the interest rates--all of these to be reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Currently, there is little information publicly available about private student loans. Increasing the amount of available information will help policymakers and enforcement agencies more effectively protect students and their families. Here are a few of the organizations supporting our bill: the Institute for College Access and Success, National Association for College Admission Counseling, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Action, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, the American Association of University Women, the American Federation of Teachers. Loan certification for private education loans could keep many students from taking on unnecessary debt or unknowingly giving up the benefits and protections of Federal student loans. It is an important part of making college more affordable. I thank Senators Franken and Jack Reed for standing with me in this effort. I sincerely hope that this Congress, which is now coming to a close before the election, will take up this question of student loans when we return after the election. I know we only have a few weeks, but if you ask working families across America what concerns them greatly, it is the amount of debt kids are incurring to go to college. In some families, mom and dad have never been to college, and sending their son or daughter off to a university is a dream come true. It can turn into a nightmare if they end up at for-profit colleges and universities. I put on the Record the last time I spoke--and I will put it on again--the basic numbers to know about the for-profit college and university industry. Ten percent of all college students attend these schools, schools such as the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and Rasmussen. You know the names. Ten percent of the students end up in these schools, but when it comes to student loan defaults, 40 percent of the student loan defaults are students from for-profit colleges and universities. Students are dramatically overcharged for tuition. They are put into courses that are worthless, and they end up with maybe a certificate or a diploma that cannot even land them a job. Another statistic that I think is shameful--and it really should be a reminder to Members of the Senate of our responsibility--the Department of Education analyzed programs at for-profit colleges and found that 72 percent of for-profit college graduates, on average, make less money than high school dropouts--72 percent. After all that time, all that debt, all those promises, they make less money than if they dropped out of high school. How can we continue to subsidize this industry after what we know about their performance? We need to hold them to higher standards. In the meantime, let's find a way to protect students and working families who are trying to realize the American dream, make this a better nation, and provide a better life for themselves and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, not once in the history of America has the Senate refused to give a hearing and a vote to a Presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court--not once--until this moment, a moment in history on the death of Antonin Scalia and President Obama's meeting his constitutional responsibility to send up a nomination to fill that vacancy. A decision was made by the Republican majority, led by Senator McConnell, that he would not hold any hearing or vote. It has never happened before. Some will say: Oh, Senator Durbin, if the shoe were on the other foot--it was, not that long ago. It was the last year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency. He was, in nominal terms, a lameduck. There was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. There was a Democratic majority in the Senate. Ronald Reagan sent the name of Anthony Kennedy, his nominee to the Supreme Court, to the Democratic-controlled Senate. The Senate not only held a hearing and a vote, but they voted in favor of President Reagan's nominee and sent him to the Supreme Court. But this time, with this vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Republican majority has refused to give this man a hearing for 182 days. He just visited my office again. He was there 5 months ago. Life is more complicated now because he is the President's nominee. He is still the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court. That is one of the most important in the United States. He is recusing himself from cases on the chance that he may get a hearing and may get a vote. He is working on the administrative part of the court, but he is not dealing with decisionmaking and writing opinions. So he is trying to show an abundance of caution and not raise any ethical questions if he is eventually on the Supreme Court. He is a good man. He is highly competent. The American Bar Association has ruled him ``unanimously well qualified.'' This Senate and many of the Republican Senators have voted for him when he went to the DC Circuit Court. Some have said publicly that he is a qualified person, but they have not said it recently. One Republican Senator slipped back home at a town meeting and said: Well, I think that Merrick Garland, the President's nominee, at least deserves a hearing. That is what he said: At least he deserves a hearing. The Koch brothers came down on that Republican Senator like a ton of bricks and told him: Be prepared; we are going to run someone against you in the Republican primary. Within 24 hours, that Republican Senator reversed his position and said: No, no hearing for Merrick Garland. So I think we understand the inspiration for this position. It is certainly not the Constitution we have all sworn to defend. The Constitution is very clear. With a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President is obligated to send a nomination to fill the vacancy. Why would the Constitution require that? Because you can have some political gamesmanship. A President might decide: Well, I will just keep it vacant. Maybe it is to my political advantage. The Constitution says: No, Mr. President, send a name. The Constitution goes on to say that the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent to that nomination. That is where the process has stopped and fallen apart. So why would the Republican majority in the Senate go out on a limb and take a position that has never been taken before in the history of the United States to deny Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote? Well, because there are certain people in high places who want to see a President named Donald Trump fill this vacancy. They believe he would pick a person closer to their political liking, someone who would serve their economic interests. It is a shame. It is unfortunate. Some would argue it is unconstitutional. That is where we are, and that is what elections are about. I won't even speculate on the type of person Donald Trump would choose to fill that vacancy. I will leave that for someone else another day. It is really sad to think that a judge of Merrick Garland's quality, of his integrity is being treated so badly. There was speculation that maybe--just maybe--if Donald Trump lost and Hillary Clinton won, the Republicans would relent and in the closing weeks of this year give him his hearing and his vote. Senator McConnell, just a few days ago said: No, not at all, not on my watch-- there won't even be a consideration of this nominee. It is a sad chapter in the history of the Senate, written for political reasons, at the expense of a man who should have his day at a hearing in sworn testimony to tell us how he would like to continue to serve this Nation. For-Profit Colleges and Universities Mr. President, there is an industry in the United States of America that is the most heavily federally subsidized private industry in our country. If I asked Members of Congress what that would be, many would say: Oh, it must be a defense contractor; right? Maybe it is some major farm operation. No, it is the for-profit college and university industry--for-profit colleges and universities. Think of the University of Phoenix, Kaplan University, DeVry, Rasmussen, and those types of schools. They are in business for profit. They are the most heavily subsidized businesses in America. The students who attend these for-profit colleges and universities receive Federal money in Pell grants, which they give to these for-profit colleges, and then they borrow money from the Federal Government to pay the tuition at these for-profit colleges. These for-profit colleges--many of them--receive more than 90 percent of their revenue directly from the Federal Treasury. Well, you would think if an industry or a company were that heavily subsidized, they must be doing one great job--wrong. Here are some numbers. These are going to be on the final. So you may want to make a note. Ten percent of students enrolled in postsecondary education go to for-profit colleges and universities--10 percent. Twenty percent of all the Federal aid to education goes to these schools. That is 10 percent of the kids and 20 percent of the aid money. Why? It is because they charge so much. Their tuition is so high. There are two other numbers that really tell the story--40. Forty percent of all college student loan defaults are students from for- profit colleges and universities. Why? Because they are so burdened with debt that they drop out or they end up graduating with worthless diplomas. The last number I will give you is 72. So 72 percent of the graduates of for-profit colleges and universities--72 percent, on average--earn less than high school dropouts in America. It is the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America and with awful, terrible results: 10 percent of the students, 40 percent of the loan defaults, 72 percent of the graduates not earning as how much as high school dropouts in America. Last week, another one of those for-profit colleges bit the dust--ITT Tech, with 35 to 40,000 students nationwide, and 750 in Illinois. I would go home to Springfield, IL, and go by the local mall, and I would look up on the side of the mall and see a sign which read ``ITT Tech.'' I said to myself: I know how this story ends. Some students are going to walk into that mall, and they are going to sign up for a course, and they are going to be disappointed. They are going to end up with a heavy student debt and a virtually worthless diploma. Someday--just someday--that school may go bankrupt or go away. That day has arrived. What happened to those students? Let me give you one illustration. If you walked into Springfield, IL, to the White Oaks Mall, to the campus of ITT Tech, this for-profit college and university, and signed up for a course in communications or an associate's degree in communication or in computer management, the tuition they charged students in Springfield, IL, for a 2-year degree was $47,000--$47,000. Get in your car at White Oaks Mall in Springfield and drive for 15 minutes to Lincoln Land Community College, where you could get the same degree not for $47,000 but for $7,000--$7,000. The hours that you accumulated would be transferrable to a 4-year school or wherever you wished to go. The hours at ITT Tech were a laughing matter when students tried to transfer. So the school went down. The Federal Government took a close look at the practices. They found more than a dozen State attorneys general investigating ITT Tech. Why? What did they do wrong? Well, it was obvious what they were doing wrong. They were deceiving these students into coming into these schools and paying the tuition. Many of them were steering them into loans--college loans--which were not the best for the students. They were paying higher interest rates than they should have paid. So when they started detecting these things in each of the States, the attorneys general decided to start investigating. More than a dozen of them were investigating this one school. Then the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, here in Washington, DC, did the same and found predatory lending. Higher interest rates were being charged by these schools than should have been for these students and the company was lying to students about their ability to repay them. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission got involved as well and found that this same school was really violating some of the basic rules in terms of disclosures under Federal law. Well, as these and other problems continued to mount, the Department of Education said to ITT Tech: Stop. We are not going to let you go forward and bring in more students and receive more money from the Federal Government unless you put up a bond--a letter of credit--to guarantee to us that the taxpayers won't be left holding the bag if you go out of business. ITT Tech said: Before we will do that, we will go out of business. They did. So these students are out there trying to figure out what is next in their lives. It is a heartbreaking situation. For many of them, they at least wasted 1 year or 2 years or more. A lot of them have piled up a lot of debt at a school that has now gone out of business. I have written every community college in my State and said: Would you reach out to the 750 ITT Tech students in Illinois, sit down with them, see if they have taken any courses or training of value that can transfer, and put them on the right track in terms of perhaps getting that associate's degree at an affordable cost? There is another thing that is offered through the Department of Education. Once one of these for-profit schools closes, the students have an option. It's called a Closed School Discharge. They can essentially keep the hours they have earned--the credits they have earned and the debt that was associated with it--or walk away from both. So students will have to decide. I can't decide for them. Once they have had some counseling at the community colleges, they can make that decision. But here is what ultimately happens. When the students walk away from the debt and the hours they earned at these schools, the losers--the ultimate losers--are the taxpayers of America. You see, when we pay taxes, it goes into the Federal Treasury. The money out of that Treasury is being loaned to these students to give to these schools. When the students default or if they are forgiven their loans, the Treasury is not paid back. Our tax dollars do not return to the Treasury to be loaned again. So the taxpayers are the ultimate losers. It raises a very basic question. When is our Federal Government going to wake up to the fact that this for-profit college and university industry is causing great harm to a lot of innocent students across the United States and their families and ultimately to the taxpayers of this country? Steve Gunderson was a Congressman from Wisconsin. I served with him in the House. He is now the spokesman for this industry. He was quoted in the papers yesterday saying that ITT Tech was being treated unfairly, that they were not given due process, and that this industry was being held to unreasonable standards. I could not disagree more. What the Obama administration is calling for now is to measure the performance of these for-profit schools and to decide whether they should stay in the business. It is called gainful employment. Here is what it boils down to. If you graduate from a school, if you receive a certificate or diploma that they promised, how much debt did you accumulate? How much is your job paying as you come out of school? Can you reconcile the two? Did you end up with a job that ended up paying enough so you could pay back your loan? Too few of these students can. Mr. Gunderson now argues that we should not hold the schools to those standards, that we should not be concerned about the amount of debt, and that we shouldn't really ask about what kind of jobs these students end up with. I think we should. I think we owe it to the students and to their families to do just that. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the New York Times that is entitled: ``Late to the Fight Against Predator Schools.''

Mr. DURBIN. This editorial says that this should be an eye opener. This should be an awakening for Congress and for our government. We saw Corinthian go down, another for-profit school. Do you know how much that cost the taxpayers? Over $1 billion. Now, don't believe for a minute that the CEO of Corinthian or even the CEO of ITT Tech is sending any money back to the Treasury. No way. They are off with their millions of dollars--which, as presidents, they took out of these bogus universities--living a pretty sweet life. They got the money, the school went down the drain, and the students are left holding the bag with the taxpayers. We could lose over $1 billion on Corinthian. Sadly, ITT Tech could turn into another billion-dollar baby. Which one of these for-profit schools is going to fail next? One they are looking at closely is called Bridgepoint. Bridgepoint is based out of California, but they did something very interesting. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had a hearing and told the story of Bridgepoint. Bridgepoint, a for-profit school, bought a Franciscan college in Iowa--a small Catholic girls' college that was going out of business--and they created something called Ashford University. They said: Our campus is in Iowa. This is where we are going to do business. It turned out it was a fraud on the public. It was the showcase for another for-profit school. Listen to this. Tom Harkin's investigation found Ashford University had 1 faculty member for every 500 students. They put almost 25 percent of all their revenues into marketing, signing up students, picking up their Pell grants, picking up their college loans, turning it into profits, and paying millions of dollars to their CEO and the officers of their company. Now they have closed down that campus in Iowa, and they are looking for a home. They need one because now one of the most lucrative businesses of for-profit colleges is the military and veterans. The military provides assistance for Active military members and their families to go to school. These for-profit schools are swarming all over our military bases trying to get these families to sign up and also those who come out of the military with GI bill rights. They have a lot of money to spend--as we want them to spend to improve their lives--and it is these for-profit schools that are crawling all over trying them, trying to get them to be part of it. Well, they need a base of operations, Bridgepoint does, to continue to receive GI Bill benefits and no State wants them. Iowa has said: No thanks. California, where they are based, has indicated they don't want them either. So will Bridgepoint be the next? I don't know, but I know there will be another one. There will be more disappointed students. There will be more disappointed taxpayers. The question that ought to be asked by those who are following this is, What are you doing in the Senate or the House to deal with this? How are you changing the rules and the law to protect students, their families, and taxpayers? The answer is, we are doing nothing--nothing. That is inexcusable, unacceptable. I don't know if we will have time this year to take up an issue of this magnitude, but we must. I wish we would, but if we can't, then next year we must. How many more students are going to face what the students at ITT Tech are facing at this moment? Do we care that the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America are doing such a miserable job for students across the United States? We should. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. This should be bipartisan. We have a lot of Senators who spend a lot of time zeroing in on whether people are getting an extra 50 bucks a month for food stamps they shouldn't receive. I am against food stamp fraud, but are they not ready to zero in as well on this horrific waste of billions of dollars each year to an industry that is not serving America well? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. First, let me thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know they are conscientious and committed to our national defense and security and to the men and women who make it possible. I have listened to their speeches on the floor, and but for some political analyses, I would agree with their motives to make sure we adequately and promptly fund the defense of our country. There is no question about it. Secondly, I might say that I know a little bit about this bill. I am the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and in the previous Congress I served as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And I am lucky because I have by my side a Republican Senator, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who currently chairs the committee. I can tell you that from start to finish, Thad Cochran, Republican, and Dick Durbin, Democrat, have agreed on this bill and what is included in this bill. We have worked it out to the satisfaction of not only our own staff and the people we worked with but with the Pentagon as well. We have put together a very good, solid, defensible bill, and the point my colleague made demonstrates that. When it was called on in the full Appropriations Committee, there was unanimous support for it. Within the four corners of the bill, there is no controversy. The only question before us now is when it will be called for passage. I take to heart the efforts by the Senator from Colorado--along with his colleagues--today to suggest that we should do this sooner rather than later. I might try to explain for a moment, if I may, why the feeling is that we can't do it at this moment in time. This is the biggest single discretionary spending bill in our Nation's budget. Sixty percent of the Federal budget flows through this bill to support the Department of Defense and intelligence activities. It is the Monster of the Midway, as we say in Chicago. It is the most important bill in size, at least, when it comes to our appropriations, but it is not the only bill. As the Senator knows, there are 11 other appropriations bills. What we are trying to do--and I believe we will achieve this--is have an agreement on the entire budget. When we reached a budget agreement with President Obama and the Republican leaders in Congress, we said that we were going to fund any increases in the Department of Defense and match them with increases in nondefense spending. That has been basically the rule of the road from the start, and so there is a reluctance to allow one bill, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, to jump out ahead of others until we have this global agreement on the budget. The Senator and his colleagues made a good point: What is more important than the defense of this Nation? What is more important than national security? The honest answer is that there is nothing more important. Doesn't the first line say ``provide for the common defense'' in terms of our responsibility? There are also important things in the nondefense budget. I am sure the Senator from Colorado would be the first to stand up and say that we need to adequately fund the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They work night and day to keep America safe. They are not included in this Defense bill. They are in another appropriations bill which is still unresolved. I think the Senator would probably agree with me that the Department of Homeland Security is a very important agency when it comes to safety in our airports, our families getting on airplanes, and people crossing our border. The appropriation for that Department is not included in this bill. The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to the security of this Nation, it is not just the Department of Defense; it is primarily and initially that Department. And what we need to do is make sure we have adequately funded the entire budget of this country. Can we do it? Yes, we can, and we must. The short-term spending bill--the continuing resolution that Democrats and Republicans have done many times before--won't disadvantage the Department of Defense. By the second week of December, I believe in good faith we can work out our differences and come up with spending bills across the board for every agency--medical research, food inspection, things that everyone counts on. But to jump ahead and say that we will just take the biggest appropriations bill and put it aside and go ahead and finish that one, as the Senator has suggested with his unanimous consent request, really doesn't take into consideration that we have an obligation across the government to do our job not just with one bill but with all of the appropriations bills. I believe in this bill. I voted for this bill. I worked on this bill. As much time as my colleague may have put into his research when preparing for his floor speech, I will match it with the time I put into this bill to make sure it was written right. I want to make sure it is passed with a budget that is fair for this country and done in a bipartisan way that we will all be proud of--not just the men and women in uniform but everyone in the United States who is served by our efforts. For that reason, at this moment I object to the request that was made.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, both the Republican majority leader and the Republican assistant majority leader have come to the floor to address one issue that is pretty important to them, and it clearly is the focus of their attention. The issue today is the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, which was passed by the Senate and the House 6 years ago. What I have missed in most of the debate--no, in fact, what I missed from all of the debate from the Republican side, is their proposal or their alternative. They don't have one. No, what they want to argue is: We need to go back to the good old days--the good old days of health insurance before the Affordable Care Act. You heard the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Texas talk about getting back to those good old days and getting rid of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act. What were those mandates in the Affordable Care Act? Here is one. It says if you or any member of your family had a preexisting condition, you could not be denied health insurance. Does any family across America have a family member with a preexisting condition? It turns out there are quite a few--my family and many others. There are 129 million Americans out of 350 million who have a preexisting condition in their family. What did that mean in the good old days before the Affordable Care Act, which the Republicans want to return to? It meant health insurance companies would just flat out say no, we are not going to cover you. You have a child who survived cancer, you have a wife who is a diabetic--no health insurance for you. Those are the good old days that Republicans would like to return to, but for 129 million Americans, it means no insurance or unaffordable insurance to go back to the Republican good old days under health insurance. There was also a provision--another mandate in the Affordable Care Act--which said you cannot discriminate against women when it comes to health insurance. Why would health insurance companies charge more money for women than men? Well, women are made differently, have different health needs. But why should they be discriminated against when it comes to the cost of health insurance? One of the mandates said that you treat men and women equally when it comes to the payment of premiums. In the good old days, you could discriminate against women. It meant that 157 million American women could pay a higher premium for the same health insurance as a man. So the good old days, which the Senate Republicans would like to return to in health insurance, would go back to discrimination against women. There was another mandate. The mandate said that if you were a family who had a son or a daughter and you wanted to keep them on your family health insurance until they reached the age of 26, the health insurance companies had to give you that option. It was mandated. In the good old days, which the Senate Republicans would like to return to, there was no requirement that you be allowed to continue coverage for your son or daughter to age 26. What difference does that make? I remember when my daughter was going to college and then graduated. I called her and said: Jennifer, do you have health insurance? Oh, Dad, I don't need that. I feel fine. Well, no parent wants to hear that. You never know what tomorrow's diagnosis or tomorrow's accident is going to bring. So one of the mandates, which the Republicans would like to get rid of, is the mandate that family health insurance cover your children up to age 26 while they are graduating from school, looking for a job, maybe working part time. They want to go back to the good old days when you could tell a family: No, your son or daughter cannot stay under your health insurance plan. There was another provision too. There used to be a Senator who sat right back there; I can picture him right now--Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul Wellstone was an extraordinary Senator who died in a plane crash. You probably remember. Over on that side of the aisle, right at that seat, was Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Pete Domenici was a Republican Senator from New Mexico. Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici were two polar opposites in politics, but they had one thing in common. Both of them had members of their family with mental illness. The two of them, Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici, came together and said: Every health insurance plan in America should cover mental health counseling and care--mandated mental health counseling and care. Those two Senators from the opposite poles in politics knew, together, that mental illness is, in fact, an illness that can be treated. Health insurance plans did not cover it, did not want to cover it. But the mandate that they came up with, included in the Affordable Care Act, said: Yes, you will cover mental health illness and mental health counseling. Well, you have just listened to the Senator from Texas talk about doing away with mandates, mandates that require the coverage of mental health illness. There is something else they included, too, and most of us didn't notice. It doesn't just say mental health illness; it says mental health illness and substance abuse treatment. What I am finding in Illinois, and we are finding across the country because of the opioid and heroin epidemic, is that many families get down on their knees and thank goodness that their health insurance now gives their son or daughter facing the addiction of opioids or heroin health insurance coverage for treatment. This is another mandate in the Affordable Care Act that the Senators from Texas and Kentucky believe should be gone. That is not all. There is also a mandate in the Affordable Care Act that we do something to help senior citizens pay for their prescriptions drugs. Under the plan devised by the Republicans, there was something called a doughnut hole where seniors could find themselves, after a few months each year, going into their savings accounts for thousands of dollars to pay for their pharmaceuticals and drugs. We put in a mandate in the Affordable Care Act to start closing that doughnut hole and protecting seniors. The Republicans would have us go back to the good old days when the Medicare prescription program--where seniors were depleting their savings because of the cost of lifesaving drugs. So when you go through the long list of things that are mandated in the Affordable Care Act, you have to ask my Republican critics: Which one of those mandates would you get rid of? They suggest that--at least the Senator from Texas suggested--we should get rid of all of these mandates and go back to the good old days of health insurance. It is true that the cost of health insurance is going open up. My family knows it. We are under an insurance exchange from the Affordable Care Act. We know it. Others know it as well. But to suggest this is brand new since the Affordable Care Act is to ignore reality and to ignore the obvious. If you take a look back in time--and not that far back in time--before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, you find some interesting headlines. The Senator from Texas brings headlines from Texas of the last few months. In 2005, 5 years before the Affordable Care Act was law, there was a Los Angeles Times headline that read, ``Rising Premiums Threaten Job-Based Health Coverage.'' It should not come as any surprise to those of us who have any memory of when the cost of health insurance premiums were going up every single year. In 2006, 4 years before the Affordable Care Act became law, a New York Times headline read, ``Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as Inflation.'' In 2008, 2 years before we passed the law, a Washington Post headline read, ``Rising Health Costs Cut Into Wages.'' It is naive--in fact, it is just plain wrong--to suggest that health care costs were not going up before the Affordable Care Act, and health insurance premiums were not going up. If you could buy a policy, you could expect the cost of it to go up every year. What we tried to achieve with the Affordable Care Act was to slow the rate of growth in health insurance costs. We have achieved that. More than 20 million Americans who did not have it before the Affordable Care Act now have health insurance. We are also finding that the cost of programs like Medicare have gone down over $400 million because we are finding cost savings in health care, cost savings brought about because of the Affordable Care Act. I said $400 million; sorry, I was wrong. It is $473 billion saved in Medicare since the Affordable Care Act because the rate of growth in health care costs has slowed down. For employer premiums, the past 5 years included four of the five slowest growth years on record. Health care price growth since the Affordable Care Act became law has been the slowest in 50 years. Have some premiums gone up? Yes, primarily in the individual market. Now, the Senator from Texas and I have something in common. The biggest health insurer in my State is also a major health insurer in Texas--Blue Cross. Blue Cross came to me and said: We are going to have to raise premiums. How much, I can't say ultimately. It is still going through the decision process. What was the reason? They said: Not enough people are signing up for the health insurance exchanges. What we are trying to do is to get more people to sign up for health insurance so that we literally have universal coverage across this country. We have made great progress; 20 million people more are covered. But to argue that we should go back to the good old days of health insurance, of discrimination against people with preexisting conditions, discrimination against women, making the decision that if your child has a medical condition, your family would not have health insurance--to say that we should go back to that--is that what the Republicans are proposing? I am still waiting for the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. They have had plenty of time to work on it. They call it partisan law, but let's make the record clear. In 2009, when President Obama was sworn into office and started this effort to reform health insurance in America, Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He reached out to the ranking Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, to try to devise a bipartisan bill. They took a long time deliberating and meeting. In fact, many of us were frustrated, saying: When is this going to result in an actual bill? In August of 2009, Senator Grassley announced he was no longer going to be engaged in that deliberation and negotiation. From that point forward, no Republicans participated in the drawing up of the bill or an alternative. It passed on a partisan rollcall despite the best efforts of many Democratic Senators to engage the Republicans in at least debating the issue and helping us to build the bill. They were opposed and remain opposed. They still oppose it today and still have no alternative, no substitute. It is their hope that we will somehow return to the good old days of health insurance. Well, they were not good old days for millions of Americans. It meant discrimination, exclusions, expenses, and treatment no one wants to return to. One topic is never mentioned by the Republicans when they come to the floor and talk about health insurance. I listened carefully yesterday and again today with Senator McConnell and with Senator Cornyn, and one thing they failed to mention: Did you hear them say anything about the cost of pharmaceuticals and drugs? Not a word. Yet when you ask health insurance companies why premiums are going up, some are saying: They are being driven by the cost of pharmaceuticals. One company says that 25 percent of our premium increase goes to the cost of pharmaceuticals. Well, we know what they are talking about, don't we. When people take over these pharmaceutical companies, they grab a drug that has been on the market, sometimes for decades, and decide to raise the price 100 percent, 200 percent, and 550 percent in the case of EpiPens, those pens that save kids who have anaphylactic reactions to peanuts and other things they are allergic to. So if we are going to deal with the drivers in the cost of health insurance, my friends on the Republican side have to be open to the suggestion that we need to do more to protect American consumers from being fleeced by pharmaceutical companies. Why are we paying so much more for drugs in America that are literally cheaper in Canada and cheaper in Europe? It is because our laws do not give the consumers a fighting chance. Our laws allow pharmaceutical companies to charge what they wish with little or no oversight. Do you want to bring down the cost of health care? We have hospitals already engaged in that effort, doctors engaged in that effort, medical professionals committed to that effort. But what one hospital administrator said to me is: Senator, when are we going to get the pharmaceutical companies to join us in trying to reduce the cost to consumers? Let me just close by saying that the Senator from Texas said: There were those in the Senate who wanted to have a government health insurance plan. Guilty as charged--not as the only plan, but as a competitor when it came to these health insurance plans. What if we had Medicare for all across the United States as an alternative in every insurance exchange and allowed consumers across this country to decide whether that is an option that is valuable for them? I am not closing out the possibility of private insurers. Let them compete as well. But consumers at least deserve that option, a nonprofit Medicare-for-all insurance plan. It was stopped because we did not have the support of all of the Democrats, to be honest with you, and no support from the Republican side. I still think that is a viable alternative that we should explore. So I will still wait. There will be more and more speeches about the Affordable Care Act. I will still wait, after 6 years, for the first proposal from the Republican side for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act. I have not seen it yet, but hope springs eternal. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I want to congratulate a former member of my Senate staff, Margaret Houlihan Smith. Margaret served as my Chicago director and previously as a senior member of my 1996 campaign team. Since 2004, Margaret has served as director of corporate and government affairs for United Airlines, responsible for advancing its legislative objectives and protecting its commercial interests in Illinois. Next week, Margaret is receiving the Rerum Novarum Award at St. Joseph College Seminary in Chicago. The Rerum Novarum Award, or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, is named after an encyclical written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 that addressed issues facing the working class. Specifically, Rerum Novarum's fundamental principles are respect for the dignity of every person and their labor, the right to organize and belong to a union, and the right to a living wage. Every year, on behalf of St. Joseph College Seminary, the Seminary Salutes Committee honors men and women who have supported these ideals in the Chicagoland area. Well, I want to tell you that the committee couldn't have made a better choice than Margaret Houlihan Smith. Margaret learned the importance of these values and public service from her father, Dan Houlihan. Known as Dan-the-man to his constituents--he represented the South Side of Chicago--the Beverly neighborhood--in the Illinois House of Representatives. Public service was in Margaret's blood. So it is no surprise that, after graduating from St. Mary's College in Winona, MN, Margaret started right at the top in Illinois politics and began working for Michael Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. In 1995, she helped run my first Senate campaign. And in 1996, Margaret agreed to be the director of my Chicago office. Her boundless energy, quick wit, and great judgment made her an outstanding member of my staff and set a high bar for those that followed. One day, while working in my Chicago office, Margaret lost her voice. When she tried to talk, she croaked like a frog. Her doctor urged her to stop talking for about a week. But anyone that knows Margaret knows this would be a challenge. You see, Margaret is the definition of an Irish lass: a wonderful sense of humor and, above all, a great storyteller--so great that she never stops telling stories. And let me assure you, her doctor's urgings didn't stop her. But I couldn't be more proud that Margaret is still out there sharing stories and lending her voice to the issues that matter in her community. Margaret is driven by a willingness to offer a helping hand and is one of the most generous people I have had the pleasure to know. In her spare time, she serves on the boards of Misericordia Heart of Mercy, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Irish Fellowship of Chicago, the Civic Federation, and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce PAC Board. If that wasn't enough, Margaret is also a founding member of the Illinois Women's Institute for Leadership. She is an extraordinarily accomplished professional, but it is her caring heart that makes Margaret such a deserving recipient of this award. For more than a decade, Margaret has served on the Seminary Salutes Committee, tirelessly advocating for the St. Joseph College Seminary. Year after year, she works to raise money and vocation awareness in Chicagoland. And because of her efforts, the Seminary Salutes annual fundraising event, which benefits the scholarship program for low-income students, continues to be a success. I am honored to congratulate her on all the work she has done for St. Joseph College Seminary. Despite her many achievements, her proudest accomplishment is her family. Never forgetting where she comes from--a trait her father and his beloved wife of 50 years, Mary Alice Houlihan, instilled in her-- Margaret lives in the Beverly neighborhood of Chicago with her husband, Jim, and their two children: 8-year-old son Jack and 6-year-old daughter Maeve. Let me close with this: Margaret's father used to have a favorite saying--``He has a big hat size.'' It was Dan's way to describe someone who was full of themselves. Well, Margaret has never forgotten those words and always stayed humble. I couldn't be more proud of the work she has done and the person she has become. And although her father is no longer with us, I know he feels the same way. Congratulations, Margaret, on a well-deserved honor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Texas came to the floor to describe the budget and appropriations process which we face in this session of Congress. Our fiscal year begins October 1, and it is only a few weeks away. Under the orderly course of business, we would pass 12 different appropriations bills and fund the government for the next fiscal year. To date, we have not passed any of those bills in the Senate. I would like to say a word in defense of the Senate Appropriations Committee on which I am honored to serve. This committee has had lengthy hearings and has produced 12 appropriations bills. I would say that these bills are good, bipartisan bills and with only a few exceptions are being brought forward in good faith in an effort to meet our constitutional obligation to fund the government. One of the earliest bills that were brought forward was the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It is not considered to be a highly controversial bill, and it was understandable that it was one of the first appropriations bills brought to the floor. The Senators who prepared the bill--Republican Senator Kirk from Illinois, my home State, Democratic Senator Jon Tester--brought it to the floor. They added a provision in the bill that the President asked for to deal with the Zika crisis. Back in February, President Obama asked for $1.9 billion to deal with the public health crisis caused by this mosquito-borne disease, the Zika virus. We have reports from around the world that pregnant women who are infected with this virus by a mosquito or by other means are giving birth to children with terrible birth defects. The President called on us in February to give him the resources to help fight the spread of this mosquito in Puerto Rico, one of the territories of the United States, and in the United States of America and also asked for the resources to help develop a vaccine, which all of us would be interested in seeing as quickly as possible, to protect innocent people from this mosquito-borne disease. So we took the President's request, and after some debate, Senators Murray and Blunt, a Democrat and Republican, agreed on $1.1 billion of the $1.9 billion asked for by the President. They added it to the Military Construction spending bill. It made sense. When they called it for a vote here in the Senate, the vote was 89 Senators in favor of this Military Construction appropriation bill with the Zika money included. I felt pretty good about that. On a bipartisan basis, we had responded to the President in May of this year and passed the first appropriation bill to be sent to the House. What my friend from Texas, the Senate majority whip, failed to mention was what happened to that bill once it left the Senate. So 89 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, supported the bill and sent over what we considered to be a responsible, clean bill. What did the House do? Did it take up this measure and pass it with the emergency provisions to deal with the Zika crisis? No. Therein lies the problem with the appropriation process. The same House Republican majority that ran John Boehner of Ohio out of town as Speaker decided to flex their muscles on this bill. Do you know what they put in the bill? They took this bill that was a bipartisan clean bill and added the most objectionable political issues. Let me give an example. They added into this bill a question about whether Planned Parenthood would be funded to provide family planning, especially for women who were trying to avoid a pregnancy because of the threat of the Zika virus. They put a prohibition against the funding of Planned Parenthood. Last year, 2 million American women used Planned Parenthood. It is understandable that when they attack Planned Parenthood, it is a controversial issue. I stand in favor of what Planned Parenthood does when it comes to family planning. Others disagree. But why would you add that to a bill on a public health crisis about Zika? Why would you put it in a Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood's activities? Secondly, the House Republicans cut $500 million out of the Veterans' Administration that was being used to expedite the claims of veterans. We know the story back in Chicago and Illinois. A lot of our deserving veterans have been waiting in line for month after wary month for approval of their disability claims. We put in resources to speed that up. The House Republicans took the $500 million out of the Veterans' Administration. That is controversial, unnecessary, and unfair to veterans. Then, to add insult to injury, there was a third provision. They decided to suspend the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency when it came to the use of certain chemicals to fight the mosquitoes. Well, that carries controversy with it. Clean water is certainly something we all value, and we wouldn't want to compromise it. The House Republicans added that in. There was one more provision they added to make it clear that this was a political exercise from the House. Listen to this one. There was a ban on the display of Confederate flags at U.S. military cemeteries. The House Republicans removed that ban so that Confederate flags could be displayed at U.S. military cemeteries. So a bill we passed with 89 votes--a strong, bipartisan bill--a bill that included a bipartisan compromise to deal with the Zika virus in a timely fashion, was sent over to the House of Representatives and was freighted with the most political issues imaginable to be sent back home over here. If the Senator from Texas wonders why the appropriations process broke down, don't blame the Senate Appropriations Committee. For the most part, they have done their work. Don't even blame the Senate itself. When it came to voting on the Military Construction bill, we voted on a bipartisan basis to go forward. The process fell apart across the Rotunda with the House Republicans. So if we are going to get this done--and I hope we do--we need a short-term spending bill called a continuing resolution. It will take us through the month of October, a campaign month, through the month of November, when we return and face the Thanksgiving holidays, and into early December. That, to me, is a reasonable thing to do to give us time to finish the appropriations process, but in the meantime, we have to get back on track--and the President joins me in what I am about to say--to take out these controversial political provisions, particularly those originating in the House from the Republican leadership, and get down to the business of funding this government in a responsible fashion. I will take exception to one statement by the Senator from Texas. He said the Democrats were trying to spend more money. That didn't quite tell the whole story. We have an agreement which says that if we want to increase defense spending--I will vote for that--we have to increase nondefense spending in a similar fashion--same amount, equal amount. Why would we want to increase nondefense spending? Education, Pell grants, student loans, helping children in Head Start Programs, making sure hungry families across America have enough to eat, making certain the FBI is adequately funded--there are a lot of things when it comes to the nondefense side that are important for America's future and for our security. All we are asking for is fair treatment. Increase the Department of Defense, similar increase in nondefense spending--that is it. If we can get back on track, I think we can, incidentally, get this done. I hope the leadership on the Republican side--and they control the House and the Senate--will decide to give us this short-term CR until early December and put a clean Zika provision in, the same one that passed the Senate. That would be a way to resolve our differences and to address this public health crisis which has taken too many lives across the world and has certainly caused horrible outcomes when it comes to pregnancies of women who are infected. Affordable Care Act Mr. President, last week a number of my Republican colleagues came to the Senate floor to discuss the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. They didn't come to offer the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. They didn't come forward with proposals on how to improve the Affordable Care Act. They came here basically to say they were against it, period. That is no surprise. Considering that the Republicans have spent the last 6 years attacking the Affordable Care Act, I think it is time that America hears at least some part of the other side of the story. I would like to take a moment to talk about what has happened in this country since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the uninsured rate has declined by 43 percent in America, from 16 percent uninsured in 2010 to 9.1 percent in 2015. To put it another way, the number of uninsured people in the United States has declined from 49 million in 2010 to 29 million in 2015. Stated another way, more than 20 million people have gained health insurance because of this law. For the first time ever, more than 9 out of 10 Americans have health insurance. Have you ever been in a position in your life when you didn't have health insurance? Have you ever been a father with a brandnew baby who needed the best medical care and you didn't have health insurance? Have you ever wondered how you would take care of your child and your family when you couldn't provide them with health insurance? I have. I went through it. It scared me to death--a brandnew dad, so happy and proud, and then a medical challenge in my family occurred, and we had no health insurance. I went to a local hospital here with my wife and baby, sat in the chair in the ward, and waited for our number to be called. I was a law student and I didn't know what was going to happen next. Luckily, we had good medical care. We paid for it. The care that wasn't covered by insurance cost us quite a bit of money in those days, and it took us a long time to pay it off. But I never felt more inadequate as a father than sitting there without health insurance. Have you ever been there? If you have, you will never forget it. I have been there. For this country, 20 million people today have the peace of mind of health insurance who did not have it before ObamaCare. This represents the largest decline in the uninsured rate since we created Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, Americans no longer have to worry about a lot of discriminatory things that were being done to families before we passed the law. Health insurance companies can no longer refuse to provide you insurance because of a preexisting condition. Does anybody in your family have a preexisting condition? Certainly in our family, and most. It could be diabetes, a child who survived cancer--think of all the possibilities. In the old days before the Affordable Care Act, they could just say no in terms of covering your family or raise the rates to high heaven to make it impossible to pay for insurance. This provision alone on preexisting conditions protects 129 million Americans, 19 million children. When the Republicans come to the floor to say they want to abolish the Affordable Care Act, what do they say about the 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions? What do they say about the 19 million children with preexisting conditions? Not one word. These insurance companies can no longer charge women more than men for the same insurance policies. That is right. There was blatant discrimination--charging women more than men for the same health insurance policies. Who is protected by that? Well, 157 million women in America. Did the Republicans suggest, when they abolish ObamaCare, what they are going to do to protect these women? Not a word. Insurance companies can no longer impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Remember those days? People get gravely ill, a diagnosis they hadn't expected, an accident, and then they find out they are in for a long period of care, which is very expensive, and they check and find that their health insurance plan has a cap on how much it will pay. The rest of it was on your shoulders, and for many people that meant a trip to bankruptcy court. This provision alone protects 105 million Americans--including 39.5 million women and 28 million children--who were previously subject to these arbitrary caps. What did these Republican Senators say about protecting these families if they abolished ObamaCare? Nothing. No longer, incidentally, under ObamaCare, can insurers spend large percentages of your premium dollars on advertising and the salaries of the fat cats who run the company. This has protected 5.5 million consumers who received nearly $470 million in rebates last year. Under ObamaCare, insurers can't impose copays on important preventive health services, such as immunizations, cancer screenings, and birth control. Because of the Affordable Care Act, because of ObamaCare, Medicare is better for the 55 million seniors who depend on it. There was the dreaded doughnut hole. Do you remember that one? That was when a senior on Medicare would have pharmacy bills. The original Medicare Program for pharmacy didn't cover all expenses. It is a strange thing to explain, but it would cover expenses on the front end of the year, and then they would have to go into their savings accounts. I would say to the Senator from Florida, who knows senior issues better than most, it was called the doughnut hole, and we changed it. So we changed it. We are filling the doughnut hole. We are closing it and phasing it out. That saves 10.7 million Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries an average of almost $2,000 each. What have we heard from Republicans about replacing that provision? Nothing. The Affordable Care Act also encourages health care providers to focus on quality of care, not just quantity. As a result, American lives are being saved. Because of the provisions in ObamaCare, hospital-acquired conditions have declined 17 percent in 6 years. Infections, adverse drug events that resulted in patients staying in hospitals longer and even dying have dramatically decreased. That has prevented 87,000 deaths over the last 4 years. In Illinois, we have seen the benefits as well. Between 2013 and 2015, the rate of uninsured among 18- to 64-year-olds decreased from 17.8 percent to 10.6 percent, a 7.2-percent drop, one of the largest in the Nation. Prior to ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 1.8 million Illinoisans were uninsured. Today, the number is below 800,000. In terms of health insurance monthly premium costs, Illinois ranks 15th as one of the most affordable nationwide. Now Republican Senators single out newspaper headlines talking about premium increases. They have claimed ObamaCare is the reason. I am troubled by certain aspects of these rate increases. I think it is important to take a close look at them. In recent years, there have been a lot of stories in the press about premium increases for some plans, in some cities, for some people. The Republicans have come to the floor to tell all of these stories that they can. It is important to note that premiums for employer coverage, Medicare spending, and health care prices have all grown more slowly under the Affordable Care Act than before. For employer premiums, the past 5 years included four of the five slowest growth rate years on record. Medicare spending is $473 billion less than was projected before the Affordable Care Act. Health care price growth since the Affordable Care Act became law has been the slowest in 50 years. You don't hear that in the speeches from the other side of the aisle. Where premium increases have been most prevalent is in the individual market. Out of 350 million Americans, 11 million are in this market. I am troubled by the increases in those markets. But it is important to remember that is a small portion of the overall market. Most people who get coverage through the insurance exchanges of ObamaCare--that is more than 80 percent of them--receive a tax credit to help them pay their premiums. Let's not forget that premium increases were around long before the Affordable Care Act. In 2005, 5 years before the Affordable Care Act, a Los Angeles Times headline read, ``Rising Premiums Threaten Job-Based Health Coverage.'' In 2006, 4 years before the Affordable Care Act, a New York Times headline read, ``Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as Inflation.'' In 2008, 2 years before we passed the law, the Washington Post headline read, ``Rising Health Costs Cut Into Wages.'' Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act to combat these premium increases, which were devastating families, bankrupting individuals, and squeezing employers' budgets. Despite all the anti-ObamaCare rhetoric being peddled by my Republican colleagues, the major aspects of this law are working. More Americans are insured than ever before. We have ended the most discriminatory and dishonorable practices of the health insurance industry, and we have taken important steps to improve and strengthen Medicare. Is the law perfect? No. The only perfect law was carried down the side of a mountain on clay tablets by Senator Moses. All the rest of our efforts can use a little work. I think Senator Nelson from Florida and I would agree. We supported the bill, but we would sit down with the Republicans tomorrow to find ways to strengthen it, make it fairer, make it better. That is constructive, but that is not what we hear from the other side. The other side says: It must go away. That is no way to bargain. Instead of working, Republicans have, at every possible opportunity, tried to end the Affordable Care Act. They broke all records in the House of Representatives. We think they voted 60 times to abolish the Affordable Care Act. It almost became the regular vote before they went into recess: Oh, before we leave, let's vote to abolish it--knowing that that wasn't going to happen and shouldn't happen. What we know now is that we can make this law better. We should work to do it. We have to deal with some of the issues that are before us. If the Republicans would sit down, there are some steps we could take together. The marketplaces are working for the vast majority of Americans. Some 88 percent of enrollees live in a county with at least three choices for health care. There is still more we can do for those who have only one or two choices to face in their areas. When we debated the Affordable Care Act, many of us on the Democratic side, myself included, said: Why don't we have one Medicare-like public plan that is available across the United States? That could compete with private insurers and bring prices down. There was a lot of fearmongering. People stopped us from our efforts to include a universal Medicare plan as part of it. I would like to return to it. To help balance the risk pool and attract Americans in the marketplaces, particularly healthier younger people, we should expand financial assistance to help middle-class families better afford coverage. We must address one other issue that we all know is front and center--the price of pharmaceuticals, the price of drugs. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to this conversation. It is one which most Members of the Senate and House are running away from. When drug companies increase their prices or put new treatments on the market that are exceedingly expensive, insurance companies are forced to come up with the money to cover the cost, and often they pass the cost along in higher premiums. An Illinois insurer recently told me that drug expenses, the cost of pharmaceuticals, used to account for about 15 percent of this health insurance policy cost. The number now, a year later, is up to 25 percent, and there is no end in sight. We have asked doctors and hospitals and medical device companies and other medical professionals to bring us quality and lower costs, but we put no burden on the pharmaceutical companies. The most recent Medicare Part D data show that 46 percent of the most commonly prescribed drugs had a double-digit price increase in 2014. A recent Reuters report found that prices for 4 of our Nation's top 10 drugs have increased by more than 100 percent since 2011. Six others went up 50 percent. What did that mean for those who use the drugs? The price for the arthritis drug Humira went up 126 percent. The multiple sclerosis drug COPAXONE went up 118 percent. The asthma drug Advair went up 67 percent. Mylan Pharmaceuticals just increased the price of EpiPens. Did you read about that one? They increased the price of EpiPens from less than $100 for a pack of two in 2007 to more than $600 today. It is the same drug but a 550-percent increase in cost. This last Friday in Chicago, a young man came to see me. He has been battling diabetes for as long as he has been alive. It is a daily battle; it is an hourly battle to try to ensure that he doesn't succumb to this disease. His mom and dad were with him. He put in front of me a list of what it costs now for insulin and for the basics that diabetics need across America. The costs just keep going dramatically. It is not pinned to the original research cost of the drug at all. Many of these drugs were on the market for years at a reasonable cost, but now the pharmaceutical companies are kiting the costs. Let me be clear. We will not be able to get a handle on rising health care costs if we are unable or politically unwilling to address escalating drug prices. Something has to be done. I support a wide range of ideas, from requiring drug companies to disclose how they arrive at pricing, to allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, from shortening the monopoly period that drug companies enjoy before generic competition, to ending the pay-for-delay arrangements that necessarily keep generic drugs and lower prices away from consumers. We should also explore imposing a tax on companies that arbitrarily raise their prescription drug prices significantly over the previous year. I will close. The bottom line is, the Affordable Care Act is working. Twenty million Americans now have health insurance. Being a woman is no longer considered a preexisting condition. Kids can stay on their parent's health care plans up to age 26. Insurers can no longer kick someone off insurance if they get sick or cost too much. Just as we had to make changes and improvements in Medicare over the years, the Affordable Care Act can work better if we set aside politics and sit down together and work on it. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. So let's stop trying to repeal it and undermine it. Let's make it stronger and better for the future of America.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield through the Chair.

Mr. DURBIN. In response through the Chair, the Senator from Florida knows this issue as well as or better than most. He understands the progress that has been made. I am sure he agrees with me that we can do better; we can improve this law. We can make it work better, but only if we do it in a constructive, bipartisan way. I listen carefully when my Republican colleagues come to the floor thinking they want to abolish the Affordable Care Act and replace it with--they never finish the sentence. They don't have a replacement. So what are we going to say to the 20 million Americans who now have health insurance because of this law? You are on your own again. Sorry, your family is not covered. That is no answer. I would agree with the Senator from Florida that we have come a long way. We can improve this law and make it better and stronger. I think our goal to bring more people under the protection of health insurance and to slow the rate of growth in health care costs has been achieved. But to make it go forward in the right way we need to work together. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from Delaware for joining me yesterday on the steps of the Supreme Court. We had law clerks who had served Judge Garland over the years who spoke in glowing terms about the man's ability to serve. In fact, I have not heard any detractors or critics who have come forward to suggest that the President's nominee is not a serious candidate for this job and one who would fill it with great competence. Here is the reality of what we face. This is the Executive Calendar, which is passed out every single day in the Senate. You will see it on the desks of many of my colleagues. In this publication are nominations pending before the Senate. There are 27 Federal judicial nominees whose nominations are pending before the Senate. One nomination that might be of interest to those who are following this debate is a nomination that goes back to October of 2015 of Edward L. Stanton III, of Tennessee. Now, we know the way the process works is that Mr. Stanton's name would not be on the calendar to be considered by the Senate were it not for the support of both Senators from Tennessee--in this case, both Republican Senators of Tennessee. So we have a nomination to fill a vacancy on a Federal district court of Tennessee that has been approved by both Republican Senators and reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October of last year--almost 1 year ago. Obviously, a question must be raised. What is wrong with Mr. Stanton? What did he do? How did he get approved by both Senators and out of committee only to be sitting on the calendar for a year? What he did was he ran into a concerted, deliberate plan by Senate Republicans to stop filling judicial vacancies under President Barack Obama. There are 26 like him who have been reported from the committee and sent to the calendar. Listen, here is the interesting part. Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called a special meeting of the committee today to take place right after the first vote, right off the floor here. To do what? To add five more names to the calendar--five more nominees to the calendar. Why? Is there going to be one magic day when all 32 are going to fly out of the Senate by a handful of votes? Well, nobody said that is going to happen. Unfortunately, it means that for each of these nominees--starting with Mr. Stanton, 1 year ago--their lives are going to be on hold. They made a good-faith effort to step forward to serve the United States of America in the Federal judiciary. They submitted themselves to elaborate background checks by the FBI and other agencies, and then, when reported by the White House, they went through further background checks by the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Each of these individuals went through a hearing where, under oath, they were asked questions. Each of them, in many instances, was asked to present additional support materials for their nomination. They did it all. They did everything that was asked of them, and they sit on the calendar. What is this all about? Well, I would say Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans are not very veiled in concealing their strategy. They don't want a Democratic President to fill a vacancy on the Federal bench, despite the fact that the people of the United States chose President Barack Obama by an overwhelming margin, despite the fact that he continues to have the powers of office. They want to thwart and stop that authority of the President to fill Federal judicial vacancies. Their hope is that their favorite candidate, their beloved nominee Donald Trump, will pick the next set of Federal judges. Can you imagine? What really is behind this is not just to give Mr. Trump his moment to pick the nominees and make nominations to pick the future members of the judiciary but really to serve a specific political agenda. The Senate Republicans are afraid of what would happen to a Federal court system if independent jurists served. They want their friends instead. They want those who will lean in their direction when it comes to the important issues of corporate interests, Wall Street banks, and the Koch brothers. The courts mean an awful lot to companies and wealthy people, and they want to make sure the right people are sitting there making decisions when it comes to the future. So 27 nominees sit on the Senate calendar, and the Senate Republicans refuse to call them for a vote. Senator Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to add five more to the list today. Why? Why are we doing this to these poor people, putting them through this charade of nomination when there is no intention to fill the vacancy? Incidentally, among the vacancies currently pending on the Federal judiciary--we are now up to 90 vacancies across the United States--a third of them are in emergency situations, which means that the courts cannot properly function because of the vacancies on the Federal bench. Despite this, the Senate Republicans refuse, being in control of the Senate, to call these names for consideration. They know they will pass. They are not controversial. They went through the committee, and they languish on the calendar because of this political decision. I wish that were the worst example, but it is not. The worst example relates to the 176 days pending since the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has had his name before the Senate in nomination and has not been called for a hearing or a vote. Each of us, when we become a Senator, walks down this aisle and over to the side where the Vice President of the United States administers an oath of office. We don't take oaths lightly. For most of us, there are only a handful of moments in our lifetime where we raise our hand and swear that we are going to do certain things. In this case, we stand there in the well of the Senate and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. You might think it is a formal declaration--and it is--but it is also a meaningful declaration. This country was riven and also destroyed because of a dispute over our Constitution which led to a civil war. So we make certain, if you walk down this aisle and put up your hand over there, one hand on the Bible, one hand reaching to the heavens, taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, we are serious about it. Yet, when it comes to filling this Supreme Court vacancy, the Constitution is explicit about our responsibility in the Senate. Article II, section 2, speaks to the President's constitutional responsibility--responsibility--to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. Why did the Founding Fathers make it a responsibility and a mandate? Because they knew what would happen if vacancies on the Court could be used for political purposes, if leaving slots vacant on the Court advantaged one political party or the other. So they came forward and said: It is all about a full set of Justices and the President's responsibility to nominate those who would fill the vacancies. The death of Antonin Scalia created a vacancy. The Court across the street now has eight Justices. They have already been hamstrung by the fact that one Justice is missing and they were unable to reach a decision in critical cases. So the President met his responsibility 176 days ago and sent the nomination of Merrick Garland to be considered by the Senate. I don't use this term loosely. I have looked it up. I have researched it. I want to say explicitly, the Senate of the United States of America has never, never in its history since the Judiciary Committee has been in business, never once refused a Presidential nominee a hearing. It has never happened. Oh, I know, some of my critics on the other side will say: Well, if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were a Democratic Congress and a Republican lameduck President, you would do the same. Wrong. In recent memory, in recent history, when President Ronald Reagan was in the last year of his term and there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, he sent the nomination of Anthony Kennedy to a Democratic-controlled Senate, and instead of refusing to do our job, the Democratic Senate approved Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan nominee, in the last year of the Reagan Presidency. But Senator Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have said no. No, we are just not going to do it. We don't care if the Constitution requires it. We don't care if we have taken an oath to live up to the Constitution. We don't care if it has never been done before in the history of the Senate. We are going to stop this President from filling this Supreme Court vacancy because our friends, our special interest groups, corporate interests, Wall Street banks, and the Koch brothers, don't want to see an Obama nominee filling this vacancy. It is a shame. Merrick Garland is an extraordinarily gifted jurist. He is a son of Illinois--maybe I come to it with some prejudice--born in Chicago, raised in Lincolnwood, valedictorian of his high school, Niles West. He recently gave a graduation speech to that school. His father ran a small business. His mother worked as the director of volunteer services at Chicago's Council for Jewish Elderly. Judge Merrick Garland is an intelligent man. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard, clerked for distinguished jurists Henry Friendly and William Brennan. He spent years in public service as a prosecutor at the Department of Justice. He led the investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He served as a judge on the DC Circuit since 1997. Incidentally, he was confirmed by the Senate with a broad bipartisan vote for that position. Throughout his career, he has won praise from across the political spectrum for his fairness, his brilliance, his work ethic, and his judgment. The American Bar Association took a look at this nominee and said: He is unanimously ``well qualified'' to serve on the Supreme Court--unanimously. This is a man who has given decades of his life to public service, and the Senate Republicans will not even give him a hearing. They will not give him a moment under oath to answer questions. The way the Senate Republican majority has handled this Supreme Court vacancy is shameful. Since Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely passing last February, the Supreme Court has had to operate with eight Justices. As President Ronald Reagan said back in 1987, ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' During the last Supreme Court term, the Court was unable to reach a final decision on the merits seven times because the Justices were deadlocked 4 to 4. Major legal questions have been left unresolved. On September 26, the Court will hold its first conference of its new term, still with only eight Justices, though the Senate has had plenty of time to fill a vacancy, but the Senate Republicans have refused to do their job. Unlike any other Senate in the history of the United States, in the history of this country, the Senate Republicans have refused a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court a fair hearing--any hearing-- and a vote. It is shameful. The Senate is now failing under the Constitution to do its job. The Senate Republicans, by design, are responsible. Judge Garland, the Supreme Court, and the American people deserve better. The Senate should give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote. Zika Virus Funding Mr. President, when they write the history of this Republican- controlled Senate, they will surely note that we are a little over 2 weeks away from a deadline, when we were supposed to have a budget and appropriations bills, and we don't have them. That has happened before. It is not the first time in recent memory. We have been tied up in knots before, but that is a reality. Despite promises to the contrary, we have not passed an appropriations bill. I might say in fairness, in defense, of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Republican chairman, Thad Cochran, as well as the ranking Democrat, Barbara Mikulski, we did our job. We held hearings on the important bills. They are ready for consideration on the floor. What has stopped their consideration is the Republican House of Representatives and Senator McConnell. The Republicans in the House just cannot reach an agreement. That is why John Boehner left. That is why Paul Ryan's hair is turning gray, trying to deal with a handful of tea party Republicans who would rather see the whole Congress grind to a halt and the government shut down. So when it comes to passing appropriations and spending bills, there is not much to brag about on the Republican side of the aisle. When it comes to the Zika virus in February, President Obama said: Be careful. We have a public health crisis looming. This mosquito we have discovered can cause extraordinary damage to pregnant women and to the babies they carry. So he asked us, in February of this year, 7 months ago, he asked us for $1.8 billion so they could stop the spread of this mosquito virus and start the research for a vaccine to protect everyone. He said it was an emergency. Obviously, the Senate Republicans did not care. In May, we finally reached an agreement to a reduced amount, $1.1 billion, passed it out of the Senate. I believe the vote was 89 to 8, a strong bipartisan rollcall. Many of us breathed a sigh of relief. It was before the mosquito season really got in full force in most of the country. It looked like we were going to respond to the President's call for emergency funding. Then what happened? It went over to the House of Representatives, and instead of taking the clean, bipartisan bill that passed the Senate, no, they decided they would embellish it with political poison pill riders. Listen to one of them. They said women who were concerned about family planning and their pregnancies because of this issue could not seek family counseling and women's health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Two million American women used those clinics last year. The Republicans are now saying: Sorry. As important and popular as they may be, we are going to prohibit any money being spent for women to turn to these clinics for family planning advice because of the Zika virus. They went further. They took $500 million out of the Veterans' Administration that was going to be used to process claims to get rid of the backlog. No, they will take $500 million away from that and put it into the Zika virus. Then, to add insult to injury, the Republicans in the House insisted on a provision that would allow them to display the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries. What we had was a simple, straightforward, clean bill to deal with the public health crisis turned into a political grab bag. They sent it over here knowing it would fall and it did, repeatedly. Now the question is, whether Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans will follow the lead of House Republican Members who are telling them: Enough. Members from Florida--Congressman Yoho, for example--a Republican Member says: Let's clean up this bill and do something about Zika. Why is he saying that? Because the Centers for Disease Control has done something extraordinary, something I don't think has ever been done before. They have warned Americans not to travel to parts of the United States, certain sections of Florida, where the Zika mosquito is showing up. Congressmen from Florida, including Republicans, have said: Enough of the political games. Pass the clean bill funding Zika. Senate Republicans refuse. They will not move forward on it. We are stuck, stuck with the situation that we can cure and should cure on a bipartisan basis. My colleagues from Louisiana come to tell us about the terrible devastation that has taken place in their State because of the flooding, national disaster, loss of life, damage to property. It is not the first time we have had a situation this serious--Katrina and others come to mind--but it is a reminder, when it comes to natural disasters or public health disasters, for goodness' sake, isn't that where politics should end and people should, on a bipartisan basis, set out to solve a problem instead of create a problem? So now it is up to Speaker Ryan and it is up to Senator McConnell to show real leadership in the Senate. I know they are not going to back off on these judges. They have dug in real hard on those, but I would hope, when it comes to passing spending bills in a sensible fashion and funding our efforts to stop the spread of this Zika virus, that we will do something meaningful. They estimate, by the end of this year, one out of four people in Puerto Rico will have been infected by this virus. By the end of next year, it will be closer to 90 percent. It is a serious public health crisis. It is one we need to do something about. Ultimately, we need a vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control announced this week that they brought to a halt their efforts. They have run out of money. Now it is up to Congress. It is up to the Senate. It is up to the Republican leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from this afternoon's vote on confirmation of the nomination of Peter Michael McKinley to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil. On vote No. 137, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the McKinley nomination. I hope the Senate will continue to confirm President Obama's highly qualified nominees in the weeks ahead.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to--I believe I have an opportunity to speak on the floor now on the pending measure as in morning business, but I am going to yield as soon as the Democratic leader comes back, which I expect to be momentarily, and I would ask unanimous consent to then reclaim the floor. He has just arrived. I am going to yield to the Democratic leader for his leadership time. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the statement made by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, about the Zika crisis we face. I would like to give the Members of the Senate and those who are following this debate an update of what occurred in the United States of America between the time we adjourned and now returned to this session of the U.S. Senate. The last time I came to the floor to speak in July to talk about Zika, there were 3,667 people in the United States and U.S. territories who had Zika infections. Included in that number, 599 pregnant women. As of late last week, that number has skyrocketed. There are now 17,000 people infected with Zika in the United States and its territories. That is a fourfold increase over the 7 weeks since we left for recess. It included 1,595 pregnant women. I say to the Republican majority: You have been warned by the President, by public health experts, and others that your failure to respond to the President's request for resources would endanger people living in the United States and its territories and especially pregnant women. Yet the Republican leadership has refused the President's efforts to provide the resources necessary to fight this deadly Zika virus. The numbers are devastating but not surprising. It was last February--7 months ago--when the President asked Congress for $1.9 billion in emergency funding so public health experts would have the resources they needed to fight Zika. Here we are almost 7 months later--200 days later--and Congress still has refused to provide the resources necessary to protect American families from this virus. This is a disgrace. It is an outrage. Our Federal health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have been doing everything they can to move money around within their agencies to try to make do in this fight against Zika. They are out of options. Last week, Dr. Frieden, Director of the CDC, said: The cupboard is bare. Basically, we are out of money, and we need Congress to act to allow us to respond effectively. Dr. Frieden came to see me before the recess. In my office, he said he was incredulous. He said: You mean you are going to leave without Congress responding to the President's call for emergency funding to fight Zika? And I said: Unfortunately, that is the case. And that is what happened. For 7 weeks, we have said to the public health leaders across America that the Republican-led Congress will not respond to the President's call for emergency funds. It didn't have to be this way. In May, the Senate approved a bipartisan compromise funding bill supported by 89 Senators, including many who have come to the floor on the Republican side. It was negotiated by Senators Blunt, Murray, and others. It provided $1.1 billion in emergency funding to fight Zika, not what the President asked, which was $1.8, but $1.1 billion. Instead of voting on this bipartisan measure after it passed the Senate with 89 votes, the House Republican leadership put forth an inadequate proposal to fight Zika in the range of $622 million, about one-third of what the President asked for. Then when that bill was a nonstarter, the House Republicans decided to double down, so they drafted the special House Republican Zika funding bill. What an outrage. This bill included a litany of poison pill riders that the House Republicans knew didn't have a chance in the U.S. Senate. They threw in a provision--listen to this--at a time when women, fearful of becoming pregnant and infected by the Zika virus, were seeking family planning advice and counseling, the House Republicans threw in a provision on the Zika funding bill to block funding for Planned Parenthood. They knew with no vaccine available to protect these women, women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood were on the frontlines of giving women who faced a pregnancy the opportunity to delay that pregnancy so they wouldn't be infected and give birth to a child with serious problems. Did they stop there? No. The House Republicans had more. They threw in provisions to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency on key provisions of the Clean Water Act. Then they added provisions to cut Affordable Care Act funds to reduce the opportunity in Puerto Rico, which is ground zero in our territories, to fight the Zika virus. Essentially, the Republicans are putting red meat for the right wing of their party ahead of protecting the people living in America and our territories--and especially pregnant women--from this public health threat. It is no surprise that this hyperpartisan bill coming out of the House went nowhere. Now, Senator McConnell comes to the floor and blames the Democrats-- blames the Democrats--after the Republicans put in the provision to block funding for family planning at Planned Parenthood. Let me be clear. Democrats were committed from the start to fund this effort that the President asked for at $1.9 billion so that we had the resources to fight this public health emergency. The Republicans decided to play politics with it. I have been in Congress for a while, in the House and in the Senate. We have had a lot of disasters--natural disasters and others. Time and again we put party aside to respond to the real needs of the American people. That has all changed. With the arrival of the tea party and this new spiteful spirit that we see in the Congress, even a public health crisis like Zika has become a political football in this Republican-controlled Congress. When it became clear the Republicans were not going to approve the funding level the President asked for, we agreed to a compromise of $1.1 billion. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and all the House had to do was to approve that bill so that we could provide funding to fight Zika. They refused. I worry that my Republican colleagues are underestimating the threat that this virus poses. Local transmission of Zika has now occurred in Florida, with more than 35 Floridians contracting the virus without having traveled overseas. And, for the first time ever--for the first time in the history of our country--the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning Americans that there are certain parts of the continental United States that are not safe to travel in. They are advising pregnant women to avoid neighborhoods in Miami, FL. That has never happened before. When the President warned us in February of the danger of this crisis, did any of the Republicans who opposed him think there would be parts of America that we would be advising Americans not to visit because of the danger of this public health crisis? Certainly, if they did, they would have paid closer attention to the President's request. During the past 6 months, we have discovered new and worse information about Zika. Here is what we know. Zika can be spread through sexual transmission. We also know women with Zika in their first trimester face a 13-percent chance that their baby will be born with microcephaly. And even if pregnant women don't show any signs of infection, the baby can be born with serious physical and neurological disorders. Researchers are also examining the links to other negative health outcomes: Eye infections that can lead to blindness, autoimmune disorders that can cause paralysis. And what about the impact of maternal stress on the baby? I can't imagine the anxiety that pregnant women must feel right now, especially in Florida, and as a result of the looming crises in Texas, Louisiana, and certainly in Puerto Rico. If you call yourself a pro-life Congressman or Senator, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to protect these babies from this elevated risk? In July I met with maternal and fetal health medicine specialists and community health leaders in Chicago who shared with me their fear about what parents were going to go through. Illinois has now had 47 cases of Zika, but with Chicago being a major transportation hub, hundreds more of pregnant women have sought care and advice from providers and have undergone tests to make sure their babies are safe. I am tired of the partisan games being played with the health of pregnant women and babies but, to date, that is exactly what has happened with this partisan response to the Zika crisis. It is time for this to stop. I am heartened that some House Republicans--only a few--have had the courage to step up and say what is obvious. Florida Republican Representative Ted Yoho recently said: ``Take everything out except Zika funding and don't put any riders in it'' when he was asked how we should respond to the Zika crisis. He basically said to Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans: You have to reverse course and take the politics out of the Zika public health crisis. Well, I hope the Republican leadership is listening. Let's not wait for another 17,000 infected by Zika. It is time for the Republicans to stop playing these political games, to come back and approve the measure that passed with 89 votes in the Senate. For-Profit Colleges and Universities Mr. President, I have come to this floor for many years now to alert the American people to a looming crisis. It is a crisis involving for- profit colleges and universities. Many people were not even aware that there was a difference between public and private universities in the for-profit sector, but there is a big difference. I have said it repeatedly and sadly it is still the case. There are three numbers that tell the story about for-profit colleges and universities. Ten. Ten percent of students enrolled in post- secondary education go to these for-profit schools--schools like the University of Phoenix and DeVry and Rasmussen and Kaplan--10 percent of the students. Twenty. Twenty percent of all of the Federal aid to education goes to these for-profit schools. Why so much? Because they charge so much in tuition. But the big number is 40. Forty percent of all student loan defaults are students who attended for-profit colleges and universities. Ten percent of the students, 40 percent of the defaults. Why? For several reasons. First, these for-profit colleges and universities are recruiting young people who are not ready for college. They don't care. Sign them up. Sign them up so that these for-profit schools can walk away with their Pell grants, can lure them into student loans that send thousands of dollars for each student back into these for-profit schools. Many of the students finally wake up to the reality that they are not ready for college or that the debt they are accumulating is too high, and they make a terrible choice but an inevitable one--they drop out. So they sit there with a debt and nothing to show for it but wasted time. Or, they stick with the program. For-profit schools take them to ``graduation'' and then they find out the reality that the diploma from for-profit colleges and universities in many cases is worthless, despite all the debt and all the time wasted. Yesterday, one of the worst actors in the for-profit sector, ITT Tech, announced it was closing after years of exploiting students and fleecing taxpayers. In the post mortem, many are focused on the Department of Education's decision a couple of weeks ago to prohibit ITT Tech from enrolling any new students using Federal student loans, in addition to other restrictions. But the root of the ITT Tech demise stretches back much further than that. This is a company that literally rotted from the inside. The story of ITT Tech, like that of Corinthian, another failed for- profit college, is really the story of the for-profit college industry--for-profit education companies consumed by greed, fed by students who are understandably trying to make a better life for themselves, and enabled for too long by poor Federal oversight and congressional inaction. Like Corinthian before it and many for-profit colleges still today, ITT Tech charges students too much in tuition, provides them too little in the form of meaningful education, and leaves them with crushing debt. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, we have a mall called White Oaks Mall. Every time I would drive out there and take a look at the huge ITT Tech sign on the side of that mall, I would think to myself, I know what is going to happen here. This school is going to lure in hundreds of unsuspecting students from this area, saddle them with debt, and give them worthless diplomas, and probably ITT Tech one day would go out of business. It happened. In my hometown, an ITT Tech student seeking an associate's degree in information technology, computer and electronics engineering technology, computer drafting and design, and parallel studies could sign up with ITT Tech and expect the 2-year program to cost them $47,000--$47,000 for 2 years at ITT Tech in Springfield, IL, for an associate's degree. If they went a few miles away to Lincoln Land Community College, they could get an associate's degree in fields like information technology, computers and electronics for $3,000, so $47,000 at ITT Tech and $3,000 at Lincoln Land Community College a few miles away. And here is something to think about: At Lincoln Land, only 1 in 50 students ends up being unable to pay back their Federal student loans--1 in 50. At ITT Tech: One in five. Students are 10 times more likely to default on their student loans if they went to ITT Tech instead of Lincoln Land Community College for the same degree. Why? The difference in tuition: $47,000 in debt at ITT, $3,000 in debt at Lincoln Land. According to one recent Brookings study, ITT Tech students cumulatively--cumulatively, these students owe more than $4.6 billion in Federal student loans, and now ITT Tech is going out of business. How much is being paid back on that accumulated debt to ITT Tech, this for-profit college? According to the same Brookings study, minus 1 percent of the balance has been repaid in 2014. How is that possible? How can it be a negative number? Because the interest on the cumulative debt is accruing faster than the payments being made by students nationwide. These students are being fleeced--fleeced by a fly-by- night, for-profit college that should have been closed long ago. Individual students often have no chance of paying back their debt. They have taken on huge debt for a worthless diploma from ITT Tech. In 2009, ITT Tech's 5-year cohort default rate on student loans was 51 percent. More than half their students defaulted. Marcus Willis from Illinois understands it. He was recruited by ITT Tech with two or three phone calls a day until he finally signed up. He relented from the pressure and signed up for classes. Marcus graduated in 2003 from ITT Tech and spent months looking for a job. Of the student debt he incurred, he says: ``It's too much to even keep track of; I will never be able to pay it back.'' He says he wouldn't wish ITT Tech on his worst enemy. ITT Tech and many of these for-profit colleges are approved by our Federal Government to issue Pell grants and student loans. Is it any wonder that students like Marcus Willis think they are legitimate schools and they turn out to be nothing but fleecing operations by these people who are raking in millions of dollars? Like Corinthian before it and many more for-profit colleges still today, ITT Tech has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices to lure students into their programs--false promises, high-pressure tactics, flashy advertisements. Yesterday, when it announced it was going to close, ITT was under investigation by--listen--18 State attorneys general. It is being sued by Massachusetts and New Mexico at this moment. The New Mexico attorney general found ITT placed students into loans without their knowledge, falsely stated the number of credits a student needed to take in order to push them even deeper into debt, failed to issue refunds in tuition and fees in compliance with Federal law, and many other deceitful practices. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is suing ITT Tech for predatory lending. This was a for-profit college with the blessing of the Department of Education. There are many more, sadly, just like it. Despite what happens to students and their families, the executives who worked at ITT Tech are not going to suffer in this closure. Kevin Modany and Daniel Fitzpatrick were two ITT execs. Modany received $515,048 and Fitzpatrick received $112,348 in big bonus checks as recently as January. In 2014, Modany was paid more than $3 million in total compensation. I think that is more than any college president in America. This man was paid that amount of money by ITT Tech because students came in and signed up for their worthless courses. These are the same two individuals the SEC say violated numerous securities laws in their fraudulent private student loan scheme at ITT Tech. Accreditation for ITT Tech? The for-profit industry takes care of that. They accredit their own schools. It is time for us and the Department of Education to stop playing ball with that. Yet for all of this, in its swan song, ITT Tech is engaging in a pity campaign for itself--blaming everyone but its own greedy executives and shady practices for its collapse. True to form, the Wall Street Journal calls the collapse of ITT Tech an ``execution'' carried out by the Obama administration. The words ``for-profit'' as used in the term ``for-profit colleges and universities'' are such a siren song for the Wall Street Journal that they don't even have the good sense to recognize crony capitalism when it comes to the for-profit colleges and universities. These colleges and universities are the most heavily federally subsidized businesses in America today. ITT Tech's irresponsible actions now leave tens of thousands of students across the country wondering what is next. Many who recently attended ITT Tech will be eligible for closed school discharges, but must weigh their options carefully. If students use ITT Tech credits to transfer to a similar program of study, they may not be eligible for a closed school discharge. Those who decide to transfer should look at community colleges or other not-for-profit options. I have asked Illinois community college presidents to assist ITT Tech students to continue their educations. I urge my colleagues to do the same in their States. The last thing we want is these students to fall into the open arms of other for-profit colleges facing State and Federal investigations or lawsuits. In addition, there are countless ITT Tech students who likely qualify for Federal student loan relief under a defense to repayment given the voluminous evidence of ITT Tech's unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. The Department of Education should work with State attorneys general and other Federal agencies who have evidence of this wrongdoing to ensure ITT Tech students who were defrauded receive the relief to which they are entitled under the law. Of course, all of this will cost taxpayers dearly. The Department estimates that the outer limit of potential closed school discharges could be around $500 million. Potential defense to repayment claims pushes the price tag higher. In addition to the $90 million the Department currently holds from ITT Tech, the Department should seek the full $247 million it required ITT Tech to post in August and explore other ways to ensure that ITT Tech and its executives pay for as much of the relief as possible. But the high cost can't mean being stingy with relief to students. As I said with Corinthian, we can't leave them holding the bag. We also can't continue to rely on a policy of oversight that only protects students on the back end, after a major collapse. We have to reform our accreditation system so that there is meaningful accountability with respect to student outcomes on the front end. I will be introducing legislation with several of my colleagues in the coming weeks to do just that. We need earlier and more aggressive enforcement from the Department of Education, including expanded use of letters of credit to ensure taxpayers are protected. I am pleased that the Department has created an enforcement unit to identify and respond to wrongdoing early and is working through the Borrower Defense Rule to establish triggers that will require a school to post a letter of credit. We also must ensure that students can hold schools directly accountable in court by banning the use of mandatory arbitration. I am hopeful that the coming Borrower Defense Rule will also include a strong ban on this practice which hides wrongdoing and leaves taxpayers as the only option for relief when students are wronged by schools. I am going to close by saying that there is more work to be done. This is not the last shoe to drop. Corinthian left so many thousands of students with worthless diplomas and, sadly, worthless student debt. They didn't earn anything for it. The same thing is happening at ITT Tech. Who are the losers? The students, their families, and the taxpayers are. When these students can't pay back their loans, the taxpayers of America lose. This ITT Tech could be a billion-dollar baby when it comes to penalties for America's taxpayers. When will this Senate and this Congress wake up to the reality of the disgrace of the for-profit college and university industry?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote nay. --

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.