Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an order of business that has been agreed to by unanimous consent?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to eliminate funding for militarily relevant defense medical research--research that offers families hope and improves and saves lives--especially now. When you look at the body of medical research across all Federal agencies, we are getting closer to finding cures for certain cancers, closer than ever to understanding how to delay the onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, closer than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine. Now is the time to be ramping up our investment in medical research, not scaling it back. Yet, there are two provisions in this Defense authorization bill that would effectively end the Department of Defense medical research program. These two provisions are dangerous. They cut medical research funding, which will cost lives--military lives and civilian lives. That is why I filed a bipartisan amendment, together with Senator Cochran, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will be considered by the Senate this afternoon. My legislation would remove Chairman McCain's provisions so that lifesaving research at the Department of Defense can continue. Senator McCain's two provisions, found in sections 756 and 898, work hand in hand to end the Department of Defense medical research program. His first provision requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that each medical research grant is ``designed to directly promote, enhance, and restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces''--not veterans, not retirees, not spouses of military members, and not children of military families. In my view, they are all part of our national defense, and they should all be covered by the DOD health care system and research. Senator McCain's second provision, section 898, would require that medical research grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing standards that the Department requires for procuring contracts. This is a dramatic change in the law. It is the imposition of miles of redtape on every medical research grant. The regulations that he has subjected them to apply to private companies that sell the Department of Defense goods and services, such as weapon systems and equipment. Among other things, it would require the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, to conduct at least one, and probably several, audits on each grant recipient. Do you know what that means? It means there will be 2,433 more audits each year by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. How are they doing with their current workload? They are behind on $43 billion worth of goods and services that is being procured by the Department of Defense, and Senator McCain would send them at least 2,433 more audits next year. Taxpayers deserve to know that their money is well spent. The existing system does just that. A grant application now is carefully scrutinized, and throughout the 24-year history of this Defense research program, there have only been a handful of instances where serious questions have risen. No grant makes it through this process without first showing clear military relevance. If an applicant fails that test, it is over. If they clear it, they will be subject to a host of criticism and scrutiny by researchers, and then representatives from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs sit down and measure each grant against existing research. These rules are in place to protect taxpayers' dollars, and they do. Senator McCain is now seeking to add miles of redtape to a program in the name of protecting it. His provisions go too far. The Coalition for National Security Research, which represents a broad coalition of research universities and institutes, wrote: ``These sections''--referring to Chairman McCain's sections--``will likely place another administrative burden on the DOD scientific research enterprise and slow the pace of medical innovation.'' When we asked the Department of Defense to give us their analysis of Chairman McCain's provisions, they concluded--after looking at all of the redtape created by Senator McCain--that these issues would lead to the failure of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. That is clear and concise, and, sadly, it is accurate. What Senator McCain has proposed as a new administrative bureaucratic burden on medical research at the Department of Defense is not fiscally responsible, it doesn't protect taxpayers, and it is not in pursuit of small government by any means. These provisions are simply roadblocks. Let's talk for a minute about the medical research funded by the Department of Defense. Since fiscal year 1992, this program has invested $11.7 billion in innovative research. The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command determines the appropriate research strategy. They looked for research gaps, and they want to fund high- risk, high-impact research that other agencies and private investors may be unwilling to fund. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, an independent organization providing objective analysis of complex health issues, looked at the DOD medical research program, and they found that this program ``has shown that it has been an efficiently managed and scientifically productive effort.'' The Institute of Medicine went on to say that this program ``concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that complement rather than duplicate the research approaches of the major funders of medical research in the United States, such as industry and the National Institutes of Health.'' This has been a dramatically successful program. I would like to point to a couple of things that need to be noted in the Record when it comes to the success of this program. This morning Senator McCain raised a question about funding programs that relate to epilepsy and seizures when it comes to the Department of Defense medical research program. In a recent video produced by the Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, they share heartbreaking stories of veterans suffering from post-traumatic epilepsy and the recovery challenges they face. They shared the story of retired LCpl Scott Kruchten. His team of five marines, during a routine patrol, drove over an IED. He was the only survivor. He suffered severe brain injury. Lance Corporal Kruchten suffered a seizure inside the helicopter while they were transporting him to Baghdad for surgery. He has been on medication ever since. In fact, seizures set back all of the other rehabilitation programs that injured veterans participate in and greatly slow their recovery. Since the year 2000, over 300,000 Active-Duty military servicemembers have experienced an incident of traumatic brain injury. Many of them are at risk of developing epilepsy. Post-traumatic epilepsy comprises about 20 percent of all symptomatic epilepsy. According to the American Epilepsy Society, over 50 percent of traumatic brain injury victims with penetrating head injury from Korea and Vietnam developed post- traumatic epilepsy. The research we are talking about is relevant to the military. It is relevant to hundreds of thousands who have faced traumatic brain injury. I don't know why Chairman McCain pointed that out this morning as an example of research that is unnecessary to the Department of Defense. It is clearly necessary for the men and women who serve our country. Let me say a word about breast cancer too. In 2009, after serving the Air Force for over 25 years, SMSgt Sheila Johnson Glover was diagnosed with advanced stage IV breast cancer which had spread to her liver and ribs. She said breast cancer cut her military career short. She was treated with Herceptin, a drug developed with early support from the Department of Defense medical research funding. According to Sheila, ``It is a full circle with me, giving 25 years of service in the DOD and the Department of Defense giving me back my life as a breast cancer patient.'' Sheila is not alone; 1 out of every 8 women is at risk of developing breast cancer in her lifetime and 175,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with the disease each year. With more than 1.4 million Active-Duty females and female spouses under the Federal military health system, breast cancer research is directly related to our military and our military community. Breast cancer research started this medical research program in the Department of Defense. It was given a mere $46 million at the start. Over the span of the life of medical research programs at the Department of Defense, a little over $11 billion has been spent. Almost one-third of it has gone to breast cancer research, and they have come up with dramatic, positive results, such as the development of this drug Herceptin. The point I am getting to is this. If you believe the military consists of more than just the man or woman in a uniform but consists of their families and those who have served and who are now veterans, if you believe their medical outcomes are critically important to the future of our military, then you can understand why medical research programs such as this one, which would be virtually eliminated by Chairman McCain's language, is so important for the future strength of our men and women in uniform and the people who support them. Let me tell you about a constituent who wrote me last month. This photo shows Linda and Al Hallgren. Al is a U.S. veteran, survivor of bladder cancer. Linda wrote to me and said: When my husband was originally diagnosed in 2013, our only options were bladder removal followed by chemotherapy. Prognosis based on his cancer was months to a year or so. There were so many questions that came to mind, primarily around, ``How did I get this?'' But as she pointed out to me, Al is a fighter, a survivor. Two years later, here they are, the two of them, enjoying a ride on a motorcycle. When she passed along this photo, here is what she said: ``We continue to fight the battle and take moments out to enjoy life to the fullest one day at a time.'' She noted in her letter that there are many risks with bladder cancer associated with military service. Smoking is the leading cause. The incidence of smoking among our military members is entirely too high. The Institute of Medicine also took a look at the use of Agent Blue from 1961 to 1971 in the Vietnam war and its linkage to bladder cancer. It is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer among veterans but only the 27th highest recipient of Federal research. So the story of this family and what they have been through raises an important question. Do we have an obligation to this individual who served our country, served it honorably, came home and suffered a serious medical illness? Do we have an obligation, through medical research, to try to find ways to make his life better, to make sure we spare him the pain that is associated with many of the things that are linked to his service in our military? Of course, we do. So why do we go along with this language that the chairman put in his authorization bill to eliminate these medical research programs? I mentioned earlier the advancements that were made in breast cancer research. In 1993, the Department of Defense awarded Dr. Dennis Slamon two grants totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study breast cancer. He began his work several years earlier with funding from the National Cancer Institute, but researchers still lacked the regular source of breast tissue from women. That is when the DOD funding made a difference. Dr. Slamon's DOD-funded work helped to develop Herceptin, which I mentioned earlier. At lunch just a few minutes ago, we heard from Senator Barbara Mikulski. She told about the lonely battle which she fought for years for women to get medical research. Sadly, the National Institutes of Health and other places were doing research only on men. Thank goodness Senator Mikulski and others spoke up. They spoke up and NIH started changing its protocols. Then they went to the Department of Defense and said: We want you to focus on breast cancer, if you will, for the emerging role of women in our military, and they did with dramatic results. Now comes a suggestion from Chairman McCain that we are to put an end to this research. We should burden it with more redtape. I don't think it makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense for the men and women serving in the military and the spouses of the men who serve in the military who certainly understand the importance of this research. DOD-funded research developed a neurocognitive test for diagnosing Parkinson's disease. The Department of Defense research also identified additional genetic risk factors for developing the disease, including two rare variants that we now know connect the risk for Parkinson's with traumatic injury to the head. What we find when we look at the list of research, such as Parkinson's disease, and question why that has any application to the military, it is that they knew there was an application, they knew there was a connection, and it was worth seeking. Here is the bottom line. People have lived longer and more productive lives because of DOD-funded medical research, and we have an opportunity to help even more people if my amendment passes and we defeat the language that is in this Defense authorization bill. Sixty-three Senators from 41 States, both sides of the aisle, requested increases in medical research for our next fiscal year. We can't earmark where that research is going to take place--that goes through a professional process--but you can certainly point out to the Department of Defense areas where they might have some interest, and they make the final decision. If the McCain provisions become law, they put an end to research programs requested by a supermajority of the Senate. Mr. President, how much time have I used and how much time currently remains?

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield the floor at this point to see if others are seeking recognition.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend from South Carolina. We are friends. We have worked on a lot of things together. I hope we will continue to do so in the future. We clearly see this issue differently today. Two-tenths of 1 percent of the Department of Defense appropriations will go for medical research--about $1 billion in a budget of $524 billion. It is not an outrageous amount. We are not funding medical research at the expense of being able to defend America. Hardly anyone would argue that, but a small percentage would. I can make an argument--and I have tried effectively here--that when it comes to the medical research that is being done through the Department of Defense, it is extraordinary. We have achieved so much for a minimal investment in so many different areas. I could go through the list--and I will--of those areas of research that have made such a big difference. I also want to say that there are 149 universities, veterans organizations, and medical advocacy groups that support the amendment that I offered today. The reason they support it is that what has been suggested--that this is not just another procedural requirement being placed in front of these institutions that want to do medical research--really understates the impact it will have. The Department of Defense itself, after analyzing the McCain language that comes to us on this bill, said it will create a burden, a delay, additional overhead costs. The one thing we have not heard from Chairman McCain or anyone on his side of the issue is what is the reason for this? Why are we changing a process that has been used for 24 years? Has there been evidence of scandal, of waste, of abuse? Out of the thousands and thousands of research grants that have been given, only a handful have raised questions, and very few of those go to the integrity of the process. It has been a question about the medical procedure that was used. If we are going to impose new bureaucracies, new redtape, new requirements, new audits, why are we doing it? If there is a need for it, I will stand up with everyone here and protect the taxpayers' dollars. But that is not really what is at stake here. This morning on the floor, Chairman McCain made it clear. He just does not want medical research at the Department of Defense. He wants it limited strictly to certain areas and not to be expanded to include the families of those serving in our military--our veterans--through the Department of Defense. That is his position. He can hold that position. I certainly disagree with it. If we take an honest look at this, what we have done in creating this new bureaucracy and redtape is simply slow down the process and make it more expensive. For one thing, each one of these universities and each one of these organizations has to go through an annual audit--at least one. The agency within the Department of Defense responsible for those audits is currently overwhelmed, before this new McCain requirement comes in for even more audits. So it means the process slows down. Research does not take place in a matter of months; it might be years. Do you want to wait for years in some of these instances? I don't. I want timely research to come up with answers to questions that can spare people suffering and spare expense to the families as well as to the Department of Defense. When I go through the long list of things that have been done through these defense research programs, it is amazing how many times they have stepped up and made a serious difference. Let me give you one other illustration. The incidence of blast injuries to the eye has risen dramatically among servicemembers of Iraq and Afghanistan due to explosive weapons such as IEDs. Current protective eye equipment--glasses, goggles, and face shields--are designed to protect mainly against high-velocity projectiles, not blast waves from IEDs. In Iraq and Afghanistan, upward of 13 percent of all injuries were traumatic eye injuries, totaling more than 197,000. One published study covering 2000 to 2010 estimated that deployment-related eye injuries and blindness have cost a total of $25 billion. Notably, eye-injured servicemembers have only a 20-percent return-to-duty rate compared to an 80-percent rate for other battle trauma. Since 2009, $49 million in this Department of Defense medical research program has gone to research for the prevention and treatment of eye injury and disease that result in eye degeneration and impairment or loss of vision. From the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, a published study covering 2000 to 2010 estimated that these injuries have cost a total of $25 billion. Eye-injured soldiers have only 20- percent return-to-duty rates. Research at Johns Hopkins, where they received grants to study why eye injuries make up such a high percentage of combat casualty, found that the blast wave causes eye tissue to tear, and protections like goggles can actually trap blast reverberations. University of Iowa researchers developed a handheld device to analyze the pupil's reaction to light as a quick test for eye damage. So you look at it and say: Well, why would we do vision research at the Department of Defense? Here is the answer: What our men and women in uniform are facing with these IEDs and the blast reverberations-- damage to their eyesight and even blindness--wasn't being protected with current equipment. Is this worth an investment by the U.S. Government of less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the Department of Defense budget? I think it is. I think it is critically important that we stand behind this kind of research and not second guess people who are involved. We are not wasting money in this research; we are investing money in research to protect the men and women in uniform and make sure their lives are whole and make sure they are willing and able to defend this country when called upon. This idea of Chairman McCain--of eliminating this program with new bureaucracy and redtape--is at the expense of military members, their families, and veterans. We have made a promise to these men and women who enlisted in our military that we will stand by them through the battle and when they come home. That should be a promise we keep when it comes to medical research as well. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DURBIN. And on the other side?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will conclude. I would just say to my friend from South Carolina that I have gone through a long list of research projects at the Department of Defense and their medical research program, and each and every one of them I have linked up to medical families and peculiar circumstances affecting our military. That is why I think this Department of Defense medical research is so critical. I have yet to hear the other side say that one of these is wasteful, and they can't. If our men and women in uniform are suffering from gulf war illnesses, of course we want the Department of Defense or any other medical research group to try to find out what is the cause of the problem and what we can do about it. When it comes to the incidents of cancer being higher among veterans, are you worried about that? I sure am. Why would it be? Should we ask that question? Of course we should. And we do that through legitimate medical research. Here is what the Institute of Medicine said about this medical research program: It ``has shown that it has been an efficiently managed and scientifically productive effort and that it is a valuable component of the nation's health research enterprise.'' This is not wasted money. This is medical research for the men and women in uniform, their families, and the veterans who served this country. I will stand here and fight for it every minute. To those who say we will strengthen our military if we do less medical research on behalf of the men and women in uniform and veterans, that doesn't make us a stronger military. Let us keep our word to the men and women in uniform and to the veterans. We have told them we would stand behind them when they came home, and we have to keep our word. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 147 organizations that support the Durbin amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4369.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do the math. A Federal prisoner held in a Federal prison in America today costs us about $30,000 a year. The most serious and dangerous criminal prisoners held in the Federal prison system are put in supermax facilities for $86,000 a year. That is the cost. Not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a supermax facility in the United States--ever. It costs $30,000 for routine prisoners and $86,000 for the most dangerous. What does it cost us to incarcerate one detainee each year at Guantanamo? It costs $5 million apiece--$5 million for each detainee. The budget to keep Guantanamo open is about $500 million a year, and we have fewer than 100 detainees there, and there is a request for another $200 million in construction at Guantanamo. So when Senators come to the floor and say we have got to keep Guantanamo open for fewer than 100 detainees, one obviously has to ask the question: Is there another place they can be held just as safely, just as securely, at considerably less cost? The answer is obvious. The answer is clear. The supermax Federal prisons can hold anyone convicted of terrorism, serial murder, or heinous crimes, and can hold them securely without any fear of escape. The argument was made by the Senator from Kentucky: Well, if we are going to put terrorists in prisons across America instead of Guantanamo, that is a danger to the community. Really? I represent the State of Illinois. We have the Marion Federal Prison in southern Illinois. We have a lot of good men and women who work there. What are we doing? For $30,000 a year, we are holding convicted terrorists in the Marion Federal prison. I have been a Senator for Illinois for 20 years. How many times have I received complaints that terrorists were being incarcerated at the Marion Federal penitentiary? None--not one, not one time. So for the symbol of maintaining Guantanamo, we are going to continue to spend $5 million a year per detainee. This bill before us, the Defense authorization bill, will continue that. If we are looking to save some money that taxpayers are giving to our government and perhaps should be spent in better ways, let's start with Guantanamo. The President is right that if they are a danger to America and the world, they could be safely held in other prisons across the United States at a fraction of the cost of what we are spending at Guantanamo. Those who call themselves fiscal conservatives cannot ignore that obvious argument. Let me say a word. I support Senator Shaheen's provision when it comes to the Afghans who helped us. It is a good provision. These men and women risked their lives for us and for the men and women in uniform. We need to allow them to come safely to the United States and be in a position where they can have peace of mind that they are not going to be killed because they are friends of America. I think her provision is a good one. I am anxious to support it. Let me just say on the state of play on amendments that I have an amendment that I consider to be very important. I offered it over a week ago, so Members have had more than enough time to take a look at it. I will describe it in very simple terms, instead of going into a long explanation, although I certainly have one ready. Basically, within this bill--and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act, is a big bill--there is about $524 billion in spending for our Department of Defense. I want America to always be safe, always have the best, and I want us to invest in the men and women of our military because we believe in them, their families, and our veterans. There is a provision in this bill, though, that troubles me greatly. It is an effort to eliminate a program known as the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. How big is this medical research program? It is $1.3 billion. It is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the total expenditure for the Department of Defense. Is it important? I think it is very important. For 25 years, the Department of Defense medical research has come through with breakthrough financing to eliminate concerns, and it gives hope to members of the military, their families, and to everybody living across America. I remember when it started. I was a Member of the House of Representatives. It was 1992. One group came forward--the Breast Cancer Coalition. They said: We need a reliable place to turn for a steady investment in breast cancer research. That is what started the program. It is true that breast cancer is not limited to the military. But it is also true that there is a higher incidence of breast cancer among women in our military than in the general population for reasons we still don't understand. So is this an important issue to the military and the rest of America? Of course, it is. Over the last 25 years, we have invested more than $3 billion in breast cancer research through this program. Has it been worth it? I can tell you it has. Through their research, they developed a drug called Herceptin. The Department of Defense medical research developed this drug Herceptin to fight breast cancer. One of my colleagues here in the Senate told me this morning that the life of his wife was saved by this drug, Herceptin. I was downstairs for a press conference just a few minutes ago. Another woman came up to me and said that her life was saved. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and Herceptin saved her life. That was a part of the investment in the Department of Defense medical research program that paid off. I can go on--and I will later--about other investments that have paid off, not just for the members of the military and their families but for all of America. What is proposed in this bill is the largest cut in medical research since sequestration in Congress. We asked the Department of Defense: If the provisions of this bill that are being asked for are put in place, what impact will it have on medical research programs in the Department of Defense? They said it would effectively eliminate them. This proposal in this bill will swamp medical research programs in the Department of Defense with more redtape than they have ever seen. An example of this is that this Department of Defense authorization bill calls for an annual audit of every entity applying for medical research grants from the Department of Defense. The audit requirements are the same as for the largest defense contractors in the United States. We have never held other entities other than the largest defense contractors to these standards. It will require an additional 2,400 audits a year by the Department of Defense. Well, does the agency that does the auditing have the extra personnel? Do they have work that needs to be done? It turns out that they have $43 billion in existing contracts that have not been audited, and this bill will pile on 2,400 more audits. It will slow down any effort to promote medical research, and it will dramatically increase the overhead costs for that medical research. Surely, there must be some scandal in this program that led to the conclusion that we need all this redtape. But the answer is no. The close scrutiny and investigation of the Institute of Medicine and other entities have found that this program over the years has been a good program. It has had some mistakes, but only a handful when you look at the thousands of medical research grants that have been given. I am going to ask for an opportunity to offer this amendment to strike the provisions which basically kill the Department of Defense medical research program that is directed by Congress. We don't earmark what entities are going to get the grants. It is a competitive, peer-reviewed process. I want to make sure this amendment gets a vote, and, after that vote, I will be more than happy to move forward on all the amendments on this bill. It is an important bill, and I hope we can pass it at the end of the day.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Senator will never apologize for medical research--never. I certainly understand the National Institutes of Health have the primary responsibility for medical research. I am pleased to report that at this moment in the subcommittee, we are marking up an increase of more than 5 percent in the funding for that important agency. I thank Senator Blunt from the other side of the aisle and Senator Murray from our side of the aisle for finding the resources for that. But to argue that because we are putting money into the National Institutes of Health we can take money away from the Department of Defense ignores the obvious. We take money away from the Department of Defense medical research program at the expense of men and women in the military, their families, and veterans. Look at the example the Senator from Arizona used. He stood and he pointed to his chart and he said: Well, there is even spending here for epilepsy and seizures. Now, why would that be? We have to spend money on our military and their issues. Well, let's take a look. Since the year 2000, over 300,000 Active- Duty servicemembers have experienced a traumatic brain injury. Currently, the prevalence of post-traumatic epilepsy among those members who have suffered a brain injury is unknown. There are few risk factors that are known to guide decisionmaking in diagnosing the treatment of the disease. According to the American Epilepsy Society, over 50 percent of TBI victims--these are military members who have been exposed to traumatic brain injury with penetrating head injury from the Korean and Vietnam wars--have developed post-traumatic epilepsy. For the Senator from Arizona to point to this as one of the wasteful areas of medical research is to ignore the obvious: that 300,000 of our men and women in uniform have suffered from traumatic brain injury. And we know from past experience that many of them end up with post-traumatic epilepsy. To argue, then, that this medical research into epilepsy and seizures has no application or value to members of the military is basically to ignore the obvious. What we have tried to do in establishing this program is, first, we cannot earmark that any grant be given to any institution. All we can do is suggest to the Department of Defense areas that we think have relevance to our military. They then have to make the decision. Each and every grant has to pass a threshold requirement that it have relevance to the military and their health. Well, it turns out there are many things that are concerning. Would you guess that prostate cancer is a major concern in the military as opposed to the rest of our population? You should because the incidence of prostate cancer among those who serve in the military is higher than it is in the general population. Why is that? Is it an exposure to something while they served? Is there something we can do to spare military families from this cancer by doing basic research? I am not going to apologize for that, nor am I going to apologize for the breast cancer commitment that has been made by this Department of Defense medical research program. The Senator from Arizona is correct. Groups are coming to us and saying: This Department of Defense medical research is absolutely essential. I just had a press conference with the Breast Cancer Coalition. There has been $3 billion invested in breast cancer research through the Department of Defense over the last 24 years. As I said earlier, it led to the development of a new drug that saved the lives of breast cancer victims--Herceptin. The drug has saved lives. To argue that this money was not well spent, should have been in another category, didn't apply here and there--let's look beyond that. Let's consider the lives saved, not just of men and women across America but of members of families of those who have served our country. The list goes on and on. I could spend the next hour or more going through every single one of them. The provision of the Senator from Arizona in his own bill is designed to eliminate the medical research programs at the Department of Defense. That is not my conclusion; that is the conclusion of the Department of Defense. He has put in so much redtape and so many obstacles and added so much overhead and so much delay that he will accomplish his goal of killing off medical research at the Department of Defense directed by Congress. That would be a terrible outcome--a terrible outcome for people who are counting on this research. No apologies. I am for increasing the money at the National Institutes of Health. I have said that already. And I am for increasing money at the Department of Defense. It has been money well spent and well invested for the men and women of our military. I might add and let me first acknowledge that my colleague from Arizona has a distinguished record serving the United States in our U.S. Navy. We all know his heroic story and what he went through. So I am not questioning his commitment to the military in any way whatsoever. But I will tell you that veterans organizations and others stand by my position on this issue. When we had the press conference earlier, it wasn't just the Breast Cancer Coalition; the Disabled American Veterans was also there asking us to defeat this provision in the bill that would put an end to the Department of Defense medical research programs. For the good of these families, all of the members of these families in the military, as well as our veterans, let's not walk away from this fundamental research.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the total for the Department of Defense medical research programs we are discussing amounts to less than 0.2 percent of this total budget--less than two-tenths of 1 percent--and the Senator from Arizona is arguing that we are wasting money that could otherwise be spent in more valuable ways for our military. We are not wasting money; we are investing in medical research programs that serve our military, their families, and our veterans, and I will never apologize for that. Yes, these groups are upset because they have seen the progress that has been made with these investments, coordinating with the NIH and the Institute of Medicine. They have done the right thing. They have found cures, they have relieved the problems and challenges facing our military, their families, and the veterans who have served. In terms of whether the amendment the Senator has already put into the bill is going to have any negative impact on Department of Defense medical research, let me quote the Department of Defense and what they said about the language from Chairman McCain: These changes would drastically delay the awards, risking the timely obligation of funds, significantly increase the effort and cost for both the recipients and the Federal Government. With the additional audit services needed, documentation that recipients would be required to provide, changes to recipients' accounting systems, the scientific programs would be severely impacted. Massive confusion would follow. Most likely, recipients would not want to do business with the Department of Defense. These issues would lead to the failure of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. If the Senator wanted to come and just say ``Put an end to it,'' that would be bold, that would be breathtaking, but it would be direct and it would be honest. What he has done is cover it in redtape. I am in favor of research, not redtape. There is no need to kill off these critical medical research programs for our military and our veterans. I yield the floor. Mr. MANCHIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight a number of important provisions in the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. This is the measure in its entirety. It comes with this report. It is about 1,664 pages for the actual bill and another 642 pages for the report. It is no wonder, as it deals with national security issues as well as the Department of Defense and many other agencies. It is clearly the product of many hours and months of work by the members of the committee, as well as the staff. We consider it on the floor of the Senate and have a special responsibility to look at it very carefully. This bill, of course, will take some time to be digested and analyzed. We have been in that process this week. Many of us count on our professional staff whom we have work for the defense appropriations committee. They also look at this measure to see how it squares up with the actual spending bill. I don't serve on the defense authorization committee; I am on the spending part of it, the defense appropriations subcommittee. We approved our measure today and reported it from the full Appropriations Committee. It will be coming to the floor in a few weeks. What is the most pressing concern when it comes to our national defense? Most Americans would rightly say it is terrorism. Terrorism is a real threat to America and to our families. We have to do everything in our power to prevent terrorism from reaching our shores and to dismantle it and destroy it overseas. It is a large undertaking. The United States leads the world in dealing with global terrorism. This bill we are considering has elements in it that address that challenge. I take the threat seriously, and as vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Republican Senator Thad Cochran, to try to make sure our troops have the funds they need to wage the fight overseas. To defeat ISIS, we should defeat them on the ground in Iraq and Syria and dismantle their international terror network. We also must continue to prevent the spread of terrorism here at home through stronger homeland defenses and work with our allies to strengthen their intelligence-gathering. To win, we have to mobilize the full force of the U.S. Government against ISIS and ensure that every national security agency has what it needs to keep us safe--at not just the Department of Defense but at all of the intelligence agencies: the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and the Treasury Department. It is not DOD's fight alone. This Defense authorization bill contributes to that strategy to stop the spread of terrorism. It authorizes funds for the fight against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, and also includes $1.7 billion to build the capacity of our allies in Iraq, Syria, and the broader region. Finally, like this year's Defense appropriations bill, this bill also consolidates a lot of duplicative programs in order to make the fight more effective. It streamlines the authorization for funding for DOD efforts to train and equip our top partners. It will mean better oversight. It will mean more fighting time against ISIS and Al Qaeda instead of more time fighting among the bureaucracy in the Pentagon. There are several other good provisions in the committee bill which represent a bipartisan consensus between the chairman and the ranking member. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for refraining from budget gimmickry, as we have seen in the other body across the Rotunda. Our House colleagues recommend authorizing and appropriating only half of what our men and women in uniform need to keep us safe--half an appropriation--through April of 2017. Testifying in front of my Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter called this House ``gambling with warfighting money at a time of war, proposing to cut off troops' funding in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria in the middle of the year.'' I am glad we have refrained from those tactics in the Senate. The bill also authorizes a well-deserved pay increase for our uniformed and defense civilian workforce. It rejects a request by the Department of Defense to authorize a future Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, Commission. Many of us have lived through a lot of these BRAC Commissions. I am not optimistic that if we embark on another one, it will have positive results. Like many of my colleagues, I strongly oppose Russian President Vladimir Putin's reckless invasion of Ukraine, so I also appreciate this bill's authorization for additional military assistance for Ukraine. There are several issues which are not addressed in this bill which I hope we can address on a bipartisan basis. Unlike previous years, the bill contains no extension for the Afghan special immigrant visa program so that we may continue to keep faith with those foreign translators who risk their lives to help American troops. Senator Shaheen and others have championed this effort, and I hope we can deal with it appropriately. There are several provisions in this bill that are controversial. I would like to address a few. The closure of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is an issue that I think is timely and extremely important. This bill once again blocks the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Some of my colleagues are threatening amendments to tighten these restrictions further. The reality is, every day Guantanamo stays open, it weakens our alliances, inspires our enemies, and calls into question our commitment to human rights. Time and again, our most senior national security and military leaders have called for the closure of Guantanamo. The troops--the service men and women who are responsible for maintaining Guantanamo--have an almost impossible assignment. I have been down to Southern Command in Florida. I have talked to them. They are doing their level best to make sure Guantanamo Bay meets standards. I don't hold against them the reputation Guantanamo has in many places in the world, but the fact is, we should look at Guantanamo in honest terms. In addition to our national security costs, every day that Guantanamo remains open, we are wasting taxpayer dollars. Many colleagues come to the floor and make speech after speech against wasteful Federal spending. So let me give a classic example at Guantanamo Bay. According to this authorization bill, we are now spending $5.5 million a year for each of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. What if those prisoners were put in the most secure Federal prisons in America, supermax facilities where no one has ever escaped? How much would it cost us? Would it cost $5\1/2\ million like Guantanamo? No. It would cost $86,000 a year. Why, then, would we waste millions of dollars on Guantanamo when we know these detainees can be held safely, securely, and without any fear of escape for a fraction of the cost? Because this has become a political symbol, a symbol which the other party is willing to fight for even if it means wasting almost $500 million every single year to keep Guantanamo open. All of us are committed to preventing terrorist attacks. Terrorists deserve swift and sure justice and severe prison sentences. But holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay does not administer justice effectively. It does not serve our national security interests. It is inconsistent with our country's history as a champion of human rights. There are convicted terrorists being held safely in Federal prisons in more than 20 States, including my own. At the Marion Federal penitentiary in Southern Illinois, we are holding convicted terrorists. How many people from Southern Illinois have come to me and objected to the fact that terrorists are incarcerated at the Federal prison in Marion? Exactly none. Not a one. They trust the men and women in the Bureau of Prisons to hold these prisoners safely, even if they are convicted of terrorism. Why, then, do we continue the charade of maintaining Guantanamo for some bragging rights in some places in this world? I don't understand it. If you want to save $500 million for the taxpayers of America, here is a place to start. There are also some troubling provisions on guns, including on the reimportation of military firearms for sale. Now, listen to this one. One section of the bill would circumvent State Department restrictions on reimporting surplus military weaponry back into the United States for sale to the public--military weapons for sale to the public in the United States. This is an item that has long been on the gun lobby's list--a wish list that hopes that hundreds of thousands of M-1 military-grade rifles that the United States supplied to South Korea decades ago will come back into the United States, be put in the hands of gun companies, and be sold back in our country. How many people think that bringing in these items--hundreds of thousands of military- grade weapons--and selling them will make us a safer nation? I don't. Section 1056 of the bill would have the U.S. Army basically serve-- listen to this--as a free shipping service to bring these weapons back into the United States, thus bypassing State Department restrictions on the reimportation of these guns by private companies. The bill would then direct the Army to make these guns available to the companies so they could sell them to the public at large--military-grade weapons. There is also a provision giving military-grade firearms to museums. Another section of this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer up to 4,000--4,000 military-grade firearms to public or private military museums, but there is nothing in the bill requiring that the guns be rendered inoperable. There is nothing to prohibit these museums from reselling them to the public as well. We should be very careful in importing and selling military-grade firearms in the United States of America. I will defend Second Amendment rights. I will defend the right of individuals to own, use, and store guns safely for sporting purposes and for self-defense. But the notion that we need to bring hundreds and thousands of military weapons back into the United States and put them in circulation--do you really believe that will make us a safer nation? I don't. The bill also includes a provision affecting Department of Defense- operated schools and school districts that regularly receive impact aid. We need to ensure that our kids are safe as they step onto the bus, walk through school hallways, and enter the classroom each day. When we entrust teachers, administrators, bus drivers, librarians, and others to watch over and care for students, we should have confidence that they are individuals who will actually protect our kids. Indeed, the vast majority of school employees are hard-working, caring individuals dedicated to ensuring that students learn in a safe, nurturing environment. However, we unfortunately have read too many recent headlines about predators who, instead of teaching and protecting kids, ultimately harm and abuse them. I agree with my colleagues that we need to put in place a comprehensive background check system that will close loopholes and establish zero-tolerance policies for sexual misconduct by school employees. That said, I have serious concerns with section 578 in this bill. This provision fails to provide adequate due process and civil rights protections for innocent individuals. I am also concerned that this provision is overly broad and could potentially allow schools to dismiss highly qualified individuals who pose no risk to any children. We need to strike the appropriate balance to make sure there is a just process before we make the final determination. Another troubling provision is Section 829H, which states that the Executive order on fair pay and safe work places would not apply to all defense contractors; rather, just to those who have previously been debarred or suspended as a result of labor law violations. The Executive order simply requires transparency about a contractor's ability to follow long-established labor law. The American people deserve to know why DOD decides to task billions of dollars' worth of work to these people. We should ensure that the President's Executive order is implemented fairly and consistently across the Federal Government. The bill also contains three related troubling provisions relating to the issue of how to best protect Americans' national security as it relates to the launching of national security payloads into space. I will have more to say about that as this debate progresses, but I would note at the outset that the provision in the bill which I am pointing to has been addressed at the highest levels by our Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter; the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper; and the Secretary of the Air Force, Deborah James, all disagree with the chairman of this authorization committee on this issue--every one of them. They all agree that this Senator's proposal would cost taxpayers across America billions of dollars more than the current strategy. In times of tight budgets, when America, its taxpayers, and certainly the men and women in uniform need every dollar we can save them, you can't explain or defend the position taken by the committee. The disagreement is over how to best get the United States off the dependence of Russian-made rocket engines for the launching of national security payloads into space. The proposal coming out of the committee from the chairman last year and again this year continues to suggest a rash and abrupt halt to the purchase of these Russian-made engines. Let me make it clear. I want to move away from these Russian engines quickly. I want American engines, built by Americans, to propel those payloads into space. But it takes time. For 2 years we have been appropriating money to achieve this goal. It will take at least 2 or 3 years more for us to reach that goal and have an American-made engine. This chairman of this committee ignores that reality and says we will just stop when it comes to these Russian engines and take the consequences. Well, the consequences, sadly, are going to be an extraordinary expense for American taxpayers. As chairman and now vice-chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am committing to an American-made engine. We have appropriated even more funds for this effort than this authorizing committee has authorized over the last several years. The Air Force is using these funds to liberate us from Russian-made rockets as quickly as possible. But Secretary Carter, Director Clapper, and Secretary James have all testified publically that the proposal from the senior Senator of Arizona is dangerous to national security and costly. Secretary Carter, testifying in front of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on May 6, 2015, said: We want to get off of that dependency on Russia, but it takes some time to do so. And in the meantime, we don't want to have a gap. . . . We can't afford to have a gap because we need to be able to launch national security satellites. Earlier this year, Air Force Secretary James testified in front of the senior Senator's own committee--from which we are now considering the bill--making the same case, noting that the chairman's proposal ``would add anywhere from $1.5 billion to $5 billion in additional costs.'' That is a lot of money. I have heard the chairman of this committee come to this floor over and over and over again, suggesting wasteful spending. According to the Secretary of the Air Force, his proposal will end up costing us $1.5 billion more than we should have to pay for this important part of our national defense. That is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I hope my colleagues will pay attention to this issue, and I hope we have time to debate it in detail. There is simply too much at stake for our national security, for our troops, and for the taxpayers to accept the senior Senator's proposal on this matter. This is a lengthy bill, as I mentioned at the outset. I am sure there are going to be additional measures that we uncover as we go through it page by page, and we will take the time to actually do so. In the meantime, I thank the chairman and ranking member of this committee for their work to present this body with their committee's product. I look forward to a meaningful debate on the many issues this authorization bill presents. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate approved a compromise deal negotiated by Senators Blunt, Murray, and others to provide $1.1 billion in emergency supplemental Zika funding. The White House, Dr. Frieden of the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and Dr. Collins of the National Institute of Health, NIH, told us they needed $1.9 billion to fight this public health crisis, but the Republican caucus disagreed with these infectious disease experts. I am not sure why Republicans do not believe the world's best scientists and health officials when they articulate a clear, comprehensive plan to stop Zika. Perhaps they do not appreciate the severity of this public health threat? When we were faced with cases of Ebola within the United States, we reacted swiftly and decisively. We funded 87 percent, $5.4 billion, of the administration's request in a total of just 38 days. Well, now the same number of people in the U.S. and U.S. territories have died from Ebola, as have from Zika--one. Yet more than 91 days past the date of the formal Zika request, we are debating between just 33 percent, as the House approved, and 58 percent of this request? I fear my Republican colleagues are underestimating the threat from the Zika virus on our Nation's pregnant women. We know that Zika causes microcephaly, a devastating and tragic birth defect that causes babies to be born with serious neurological complications. And it seems that every day we are learning something worse. Just yesterday, a CDC and Harvard University study found that pregnant women who are infected with Zika in their first trimester face up to a 13 percent chance of their baby being born with microcephaly. We also know that the CDC is currently monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the United States who have the Zika virus. The CDC estimates that the lifetime costs for a baby born with this tragic disease is between $1 million to $10 million, not to mention the considerable emotional toll of this disease on families. Sadly, it doesn't take many cases of microcephaly to begin costing us more financially than the paltry amount House Republicans are committing to fight Zika. But Zika doesn't just cause microcephaly. It is also linked to other neurological diseases that aggressively destroy brain tissue. It is also linked to Guillain-Bare syndrome, an autoimmune disorder than can cause paralysis and death. What about the impact of maternal stress on a baby? I cannot imagine the anxiety that pregnant women, especially those in the southern part of this country and in Puerto Rico, must feel right now. Well, through genetics and neuroscience, we know for a fact that a mother's stress during pregnancy can shape her child's gene expression, leading to poor birth outcomes and psychological and physical disorders. If you call yourself pro-life, why would you not want to do everything you can to protect these babies from being subjected to elevated risk for serious birth defects? This is a train we have seen coming for miles and miles, and Republicans are refusing to step out of the way. It is bad enough that House and Senate Republicans are refusing to provide the funding our health experts say is necessary to fight this disease, but now House Republicans are insisting on cutting Ebola funding to do it. Last week, the House passed a partisan bill that would have provided a mere $622 million to fight Zika. That is a third of what the experts say they need, and they offset the costs by raiding Ebola money. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers called it ``excess funding left over from the Ebola outbreak.'' That couldn't be further from the truth. I recently spoke with the CDC Director Tom Frieden who told me some troubling news. Last month, there was another cluster of Ebola cases in West Africa, about a dozen new cases. What they have now found is that the Ebola virus can stay in a man's system for up to 1 year, allowing it to be spread to others. Ebola may not be front page news in the United States right now, but that is largely because our CDC disease detectives are on the ground in West Africa, nearly 100 of them, fighting to contain its spread. If we keep stealing the funding that enables them to do their job, Ebola could soon again be front page news. Since Republicans have been dragging their feet on Zika funding, the White House was forced, as a last ditch, stop-gap requirement, to transfer $510 million away from the Ebola response to fund the immediate response needs for Zika. As the White House's Ebola czar, Ron Klain, said last week, ``we are taking a fire hydrant out of the ground in one place and moving it someplace else to fight a different fire.'' This Ebola money that was moved was the CDC's funds for the next 2 fiscal years, funds that are to be used to build a frontline defense for our own country. It invests in the public health capacity of partner nations, so we aren't waiting for local outbreaks to hit our shores as global epidemics. These ``leftover'' funds are being used to develop and test vaccine candidates for Ebola, and late-stage clinical trials are moving forward, but they need those funds to continue validating these vaccines. Now House Republicans want to drain these Ebola funds again. We already know what happens when we have to take money from one place in the public health budget and move it elsewhere. State and local health departments lost $44 million in CDC preparedness grants earlier this year because of a reprogramming of funds that were moved to high-risk Zika States. Illinois lost $2 million in total. A recent survey of State health departments said that this $44 million cut will result in staffing reductions and could hamper Zika preparations by forcing a reduction in laboratory services and epidemiological activities. So to be clear, States at lower risk for Zika, like Illinois, lost money to States at higher risk like Mississippi, Texas, and Florida. And this cut will mean that Illinois and other States that lost money are now less prepared for Zika. Public health preparedness is not done with a wave of a magic wand. It requires steady investments in people, lab testing, and epidemiology and dedicated research and clinical trials. We did not require our Ebola, H1N1, or avian influenza supplementals to be offset, and we certainly should not begin down that dangerous path now. As with our response to Ebola here in the U.S., proven public health protocols will work against Zika, but we need to listen to the experts and fund the needed response. That means we cannot wait any longer to pass an emergency Zika funding supplemental. Some Republicans have said this money can wait until October 1 when our new fiscal year starts. Do you think mosquitos know when the new fiscal year begins and will wait to buzz and bite until then? This weekend is Memorial Day weekend. I don't know about you, but in my hometown and across Illinois that means people will be outside and having barbecues. Then comes the Fourth of July and, soon after, Labor Day weekend. We do not have time to wait around. We need to approve the Senate's Zika supplemental as a down payment, and we need to send it to the President's desk this week. Over 1,380 people across 44 States, Washington DC, and 3 U.S. territories, including over 279 pregnant women, have contracted Zika. To my Republican colleagues, I would say: stop playing games, support our States and Federal health officials, approve the money, and send it to the President's desk. We cannot wait any longer. Pregnant women cannot wait any longer.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have not been shy about coming to the Senate floor to voice my concerns about the for-profit college industry. This is an industry that enrolls 10 percent of college students, collects 20 percent of Federal student aid, and accounts for over 40 percent of student loan defaults. This industry has a terrible track record; yet it continues to collect billions each year in Federal funding. If there ever was an industry that needed to face accountability, it is the for-profit college industry. But for-profit colleges have long avoided accountability to their students and to regulators through the use of mandatory arbitration clauses. For years, mandatory arbitration clauses have been buried in the fine print of student enrollment agreements at for-profit schools. Students usually didn't even know that, by signing these agreements, they were giving up their right to a day in court if the school's misbehavior caused the students harm. Mandatory arbitration clauses mean, for example, that, if a student is misled or deceived by a school's advertising and goes into debt as a result, the student can't take the school to court. Instead, the student is forced into a secret arbitration proceeding where the playing field is tilted against the student's interests. Mandatory arbitration clauses allow schools to avoid accountability to their students--and the secrecy of arbitration proceedings means that misconduct stays hidden from the attention of regulators. Mandatory arbitration clauses are not used by legitimate nonprofit colleges, either public or private. But these clauses were widely used among for-profit colleges--including Corinthian, the now bankrupt for- profit college which for years lied to its students and to regulators about its job placement rates and other data. There is a growing recognition that mandatory arbitration has helped hide misconduct in the for-profit college industry. Also, because these clauses prevent students from seeking meaningful relief in court from the schools that wronged them, students have had to seek relief from the Federal Government for their student loan debt. This means that taxpayers are on the hook for helping these victimized students, instead of the for-profit colleges that harmed them. I have joined my colleagues in urging the Department of Education to issue strong regulations to prevent for-profit colleges that receive Federal funds from using mandatory arbitration clauses, and I have called out for-profit colleges that use these clauses. On April 13, I came to the Senate floor and mentioned three names of schools that use these clauses: DeVry, the University of Phoenix, and ITT Tech. Lo and behold, two of these three for-profit schools--DeVry and the Apollo Education Group, which owns the University of Phoenix-- have now made commitments to stop requiring their students to submit to mandatory arbitration. Apollo made their announcement last week, and DeVry officials told my staff that they discontinued the use of these clauses a few weeks ago, on May 13. This is good news. These actions reflect the growing consensus outside and inside the for-profit industry that mandatory arbitration has no place in higher education enrollment. Also, the decisions by Apollo and DeVry reaffirm that the Department of Education is on the right track in reining in mandatory arbitration. The Department should finish the job by issuing rules that end this practice among all schools that receive Federal dollars. Now, one note of caution--the devil is in the details when it comes to arbitration clauses. I have heard promises before from education companies to end mandatory arbitration, only to see those companies add new fine print that finds other ways to block students' access to court. I will be carefully checking the fine print of the new enrollment agreements to make sure these schools are not imposing new, more subtle restrictions on their students' access to court. If the fine print does reflect their commitment, I believe Apollo and DeVry deserve credit, but they still have a long way to go to improve student outcomes and prove they are going to dump the old for-profit college playbook. ITT Tech, the spotlight is now on you. ITT Tech's executives have demanded their own day in court to respond to investigations and allegations of misconduct that were brought by regulatory agencies. At the same time, ITT Tech has continued to force its own students into mandatory arbitration. ITT Tech and all for-profit colleges should put an end to this practice of mandatory arbitration. They should join the growing consensus against these clauses that is reflected in the views of the Department of Education, student groups, veterans groups, civil rights groups, consumer groups, and now even some of the largest for- profit colleges. It is time to stand up for accountability and for putting students first. It is time to end mandatory arbitration clauses in the for- profit college industry once and for all.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, retirement savings are crucial for our economic security, but too many Americans have little to no retirement savings because of low wages and the need to provide for their families. Those who have been able to save for retirement are often confused by the unknowns of retirement planning and investing and depend on financial advisers to provide advice that is in their best interest. However, loopholes in the retirement advice rules have allowed some advisers to recommend products that put profits ahead of their clients' best interest, hurting workers and their families, and jeopardizing our economic security. The Department of Labor set out to update these decades-old rules to address conflicts of interest and require that financial advisers put their clients first, which is just plain common sense. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have voted to roll back this important consumer protection and voted to block the Department's fiduciary rule, an effort I did not and would not support. While most advisers operate under a best interest standard, some advisers steered their customers into investments that award big commissions and incentives to the adviser but are not in the best interest of the customer. No one knows this better than the Toffels of Lindenhurst, IL. Merlin Toffel was a Navy veteran and an electrician, and his wife, Elaine, was an accountant. After more than 40 years of work, they had built up an impressive nest egg, but when Merlin was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and could no longer manage their finances, Elaine sought investment advice from an investment broker at their local retail bank. The broker told her to liquidate their retirement account and sold them variable annuities to the tune of $650,000. Elaine trusted his advice because she thought that it was in her best interest. She later found out that those annuities charged fees in excess of $26,000 a year, and if she needed to access the money right away for an emergency, she would be charged a surrender charge of more than $45,000. In the end, the Toffels lost more than $50,000 because of the broker's conflicted advice. Unfortunately, they are not alone. This is unconscionable and should not be allowed. The fiduciary rule will require advisers to disclose their fees and ensure access to quality financial advice, restore confidence to savers, and protect them from receiving conflicted advice, which has the potential to erode billions from retirement accounts of hard- working Americans. The bottom line is that we need to support policies that safeguard worker retirement savings and help them prepare for retirement, and the fiduciary rule does just that. It saddens me that my Republican colleagues have acted to undermine American workers and families by blocking this rule. Thankfully, their efforts here today will not prevail because the President will veto this attempt to dismantle this important rule.