Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the minority leader, Senator Reid, for his kind words about the DREAM Act, which I introduced 15 years ago. This was a piece of legislation that came about because a mother called my office in Chicago. Here was her family story. She brought her two kids to America from Brazil. They actually started off in Korea, but they came through Brazil and came to Chicago--mother, father, and two kids. The father had the ambition of starting a church. There are a lot of Korean churches around Chicago and around the country, and his dream was to start a Korean-American Church. His dream never came true. He continued to pray and read the Bible, but he didn't work much. It was up to mom to go to work. She went to work in a dry-cleaning establishment in Chicago. If you have been around the great city I am honored to represent and go into a dry cleaners, most of the time Korean families are running them. They are working around-the-clock, and are the hardest working people imaginable. Mom went to work in the dry cleaners and the kids struggled because there wasn't much money coming in. One of their girls, Tereza, heard about a program in Chicago called the MERIT Music Program. It is a program that is available for low-income families of kids in public schools. The lady who left the money for it said to give them instruction in musical instruments and help them buy the instruments. Tereza Lee heard about this when she was a little girl and decided to sign up for it and to practice the piano. Well, guess what. She turned out to be a prodigy. She was amazing. For her the MERIT Music Program was like an opening to another part of the world she had never seen. She participated in recitals. Sometimes they told me they had to give her a key to the Merit music offices because she wanted to stay and practice until late at night. It was tough for her getting through high school. She tells the story, when she was interviewed in the local press, that sometimes she didn't have a lunch to take to school or any money to buy food. She would wait until the other kids left, and she would go through the wastebasket and look for food they had left behind. That is how tough it was. But because of her skill at playing the piano, she was given an opportunity. She was accepted into the Juilliard School for music in New York and at the Manhattan School of Music conservatory to pursue the piano. She was that good. When she and her mom started filling out the application, they reached that point where it said this: What is your nationality? What is your citizenship? Her mom said: Tereza, I don't know. We came here on a visitor's visa way back when you were 2 years old, but I never filed any papers for you. She said: Mom, what are we going to do? Her mom said: We are going to call Durbin's office. So they called the Senate office. We looked into it. The law in the United States was very clear for 17-year-old Tereza Lee. She had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in--leave for 10 years. She came here at the age of 2. She did not do anything wrong. She did everything right. She finished high school, against the odds. She developed a talent, against the odds. She was accepted at one of the best music schools in America, and our law very clearly said: Leave; we don't want you. If you want to try to come back in 10 years, that is your business. I don't think that is right. That is why 15 years ago I introduced the DREAM Act. It said: If you are one of those kids brought here under the age of 16, have finished high school, and have no serious criminal issues, we are going to give you a chance. Go to college or join the military and we will give you a path to ultimately getting to the back of the line but becoming a citizen of the United States--the DREAM Act. When I introduced this bill to solve Tereza Lee's problem, I used to give speeches about it all around Chicago. A funny thing would happen. When I would finish the speech and go back to my car, sometimes at night, there would be somebody waiting by my car. As I got closer, it turned out to be a very young girl, usually, maybe with her friend. They would wait to make sure no one was around. The young girl would say to me: Senator, I am one of those DREAMers. I am undocumented. My mom and dad are scared to death that they are going to be deported, and then I will be deported. I hope you can pass this. Well, time passed. We called the bill on the floor and called it in the House. We have never been able to make it the law of the land. Sadly, the reality is that there are probably 2.5 million young people living in America who would qualify under the DREAM Act to be given a chance to become legal--2.5 million. What happened to Tereza Lee? I have to finish that story. She ended up going to the Manhattan School of Music. Two families stepped forward--families that had befriended the Merit music program in Chicago. I know one of them well. They said: This girl is too good. We can't waste her talent. We will pay for her education. They did so out of pocket. She did not qualify for any Federal assistance because she is undocumented. So Tereza finished school and played in Carnegie Hall. Now she is about to complete her Ph.D. in music. She is living in Brooklyn, NY. She is a mom with a little girl. She married an American musician so she is legal--finally. That is her story. Thank goodness this determined young girl stuck with it. We have to stick with it too. The people who want to turn away these 2.5 million DREAMers ought to take a minute to meet them--just to meet them and to understand what it is to be a young person in America going through all the challenges of adolescence and all of the challenges that might be brought to you in your community or by our family and knowing in the back of your mind that at any moment, someone can knock on the door and tell you that you have to leave this country and that you are not here legally. They do it, and they fight every single day for a chance and a dream so that someday they will become part of the only country they have ever known. These are kids who, just like the Senate a few minutes ago, got up every day in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that flag, the only flag they have ever known. They do not view themselves as Mexican or Korean. They view themselves as Americans. The question is this: How do we view them? Do we view them as an asset to America or do we view them as a problem--a problem that should be thrown away and deported? You are listening to the Presidential campaign. We all are. I am not going to go into detail about some of the terrible things that have been said, but I just wish some of the haters, some of the people who want to turn on these young people, would meet them. Come and meet them. Hear their stories. I think even the hardest, coldest heart would be moved by them. Across the street--you can see it through the window--is the Supreme Court building. It was about 12 years ago that we decided to do something in the Senate that I thought was a great idea. Every 2 years, when there is a new class of Senators, we have a dinner with the Justices of the Supreme Court. We do it at their place. It is right across the street. We line up in the entryway there--the beautiful marble entryway. There are tables set up, each of us sits at a table with one of the Justices. I can remember one of the early times I went over there. I shared the table with another Senator, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a legendary Member of the Senate and former President pro tempore of the Senate. He served here for decades and carried the Constitution around in his breast pocket. In his great days he could recite poetry nonstop. He was a real believer in the Senate. He wrote the history of the Senate, one that probably will never be matched. I shared a table with him in the Supreme Court for one of these dinners. I said: Isn't this a beautiful building? He said: It sure is. I said: How often do you get over here, Senator Byrd? He said: This is my first time. I said: You have been in the Senate for 40-plus years, and this is your first time? Why? He said: Well, it is a separate branch of government. We must respect them. They had never asked me to come over. Well, I see it a little differently. I go across that street because, yes, it is a separate branch of government, but it is one that we should understand and respect, as I hope they understand and respect Congress on this side of the street. So this morning I did. I went over for an argument before the Supreme Court. There was a huge mob out in front of the Supreme Court because the case that was being considered is one that affects millions of lives in America--Texas v. United States. The question is this: What are we going to do with people like Tereza Lee, whom I just described earlier. You see, what happened 6 years ago is that I joined with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and wrote a letter to President Obama saying: If the Congress is not going to change the law to make it possible for these young people to stay in this country, would you issue an Executive order that allows them, at least on a temporary basis, to stay in the United States? Within a year or two, the President agreed to do it. He created what is known as the DACA Program. It basically says that young people like Tereza Lee, whom I described earlier, can step forward, identify themselves to our government, submit themselves for criminal investigation, and pay a filing fee of around $500, I believe it is. If they do, they will be given the right to stay in the United States on a temporary renewable basis for 2 years or 3 years. That is what DACA is all about--so that young people can pursue their lives at least with the understanding that for a few years, they don't have to worry about that knock on the door. Oh, if they get a job, they have to pay their taxes. If they go to college, they are not going to get a penny from this government. We don't help them pay for their college education. The President did it. I applauded him for doing it. So far, 700,000 young people just like Tereza Lee have signed up for protection under DACA. We estimate that the total universe of young people eligible is about 2.5 million. So the President attempted to extend the DACA Program. He said: We need to address the problem with their parents. Many of these parents have children who are U.S. citizens and legally in the United States, but they are undocumented and subject to deportation. So the President said, in what is known as DAPA: The parents of these kids can come forward, submit themselves to a criminal background check with fingerprints and all, pay a filing fee of around $500, and then they will be allowed, on a temporary, renewable basis, if they keep their noses clean, to work in this country. If they are going to work in this country, they have to pay their taxes. Well, that is what the President suggested. As soon as he made these two proposals to extend DACA and to create this other program for the parents, a lawsuit was filed. It was led by the State of Texas, and 25 other States, I believe, joined. That is the case before the Supreme Court today. Before I get into the details of that case--and I want to say a word about it on the floor this afternoon--let me say one other thing. What Senator Byrd told me about not going across the street was not only respect for that institution of the Supreme Court, but as a Senator he was basically saying that we need to respect their right to be above politics. We want to make certain that that branch of government is above politics, that they apply the law and interpret the Constitution in a nonpolitical way. Sometimes I read their decisions and think they have gone political on us. But the goal is to make sure they are preserved from becoming political. This morning, when I went before the Supreme Court, I did not face nine Justices, only eight. Antonin Scalia, who passed away a few weeks ago, created a vacancy that has not been filled. Why has the Senate failed to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court? Because within hours of the untimely death of Justice Scalia, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, who was here a few moments ago, announced publicly: We will not fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. That is important to remember. It is the first time in the history of the United States of America--the first time in the history of the Senate--that the Senate is refusing a hearing for a Presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has never happened before--never. Oh, the Republicans argue: Well, if the shoe were on the other foot, I am sure you Democrats would do exactly the same thing. I call their attention to the year 1988. Republican President Ronald Reagan, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, submitted the name of Anthony Kennedy to the Senate. A Republican President was filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and he submitted the name of his nominee. The Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, gave Anthony Kennedy a hearing, a strong vote, and sent him over to the Supreme Court. So when the shoe was on the other foot, we did not play politics. But now we are. So I faced eight Justices over there as that argument was made this morning. I thought to myself: If they end up in a 4-to-4 tie--and that can happen--it will be chaos and confusion across America, with different courts and different districts having different interpretations of the same law. How did we get into this mess? Because the Republican majority in the Senate has decided: We are not going to appoint anyone to fill this vacancy. Their argument is this: Let the American people speak to filling this vacancy in the Presidential election. Let them decide whether it will be a Democrat or a Republican President filling this vacancy. There might be some value to that argument if President Obama, in the last election, when he was running for reelection in 2012, had been running for a term of 3 years. You can argue then that this fourth year he was not entitled to be President. But you know what. It turns out that he was running for a 4-year term. It turns out he won by 5 million votes. It turns out that when it comes to being Commander in Chief and President of the United States, he has all the powers vested in him by the Constitution, even in the fourth year. Isn't that amazing--4 years as the President? That is what the American people decided, but only to be overruled by the Republican majority in the Senate. Sorry, Mr. President, they say, you only get 3 years. Maybe we give you 3 years and 2 months, but you sure don't have the right to try and fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, even though the Constitution explicitly says in article II, section 2: The President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Their argument is that you may think you are President when it comes to the Supreme Court, but the Senate Republican majority thinks otherwise. I sat down with Merrick Garland. He is the proposed nominee to fill this vacancy. He is chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, which is a high position in the judiciary. He was born in Illinois, so I come to his nomination with some prejudice, but he is an extraordinary person. People have said: Well, why didn't the President choose a woman? Why didn't the President choose an African American? Why didn't he choose a Hispanic? Why didn't he choose someone from India? Why did he choose this man? I think he chose him for an obvious reason: He is clearly qualified. Even Republican Senators have said nice things about him publicly. Many of them have said they refuse to even meet with him, will not even sit in the same room with him. Some have agreed to, but many have said no. Senator McConnell said: I won't meet with him because he is not going to get a hearing and he is not going to get a vote. It is time for us to fill that vacancy. It is time for us to accept our constitutional responsibility and show respect for the document we all swore to uphold and defend when we took the oath of office. It is time to fill that vacancy and put nine Justices on the Supreme Court to avoid the uncertainty, confusion, and chaos which might otherwise emerge. I wish to say a word about the case before the Court this morning. This was a case--United States v. Texas--a legal challenge, as I mentioned earlier, to the President's immigration policy, filed by 26 Republican Governors. I believe this lawsuit has no legal merit. It is driven by political hostility toward President Obama and his immigration policy. I was proud to join an amicus brief signed by 39 Senators on our side of the aisle and 186 House Democrats in support of the administration's decision on immigration. The President is on very solid ground in this case. I am hoping and confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor. As an initial matter before the case proceeds, the States that filed this lawsuit have to show they will be harmed by the President's immigration policy. Otherwise, they really don't have any standing to sue. It turns out that exactly the opposite is true. The President's policy allowing people to work here on a temporary basis under his Executive orders will create a huge benefit to the American economy. Over the next 10 years, in the State of Texas alone--and they brought the lawsuit; at least started it--the President's immigration action would increase that State's gross domestic product by more than $38 billion and increase the earnings of all Texas residents by $17.5 billion. They argue that the President's immigration policy would cost the State of Texas money. It turns out that exactly the opposite is true. Even if the States have standing to sue, the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the Federal Government has broad authority to decide questions of immigration. Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed earlier, wrote the opinion for the Court striking down Arizona's controversial immigration law. Listen to what he said: A principal feature of the removal system-- Removal of people who are not eligible to be in the United States-- is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . . . Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. This administration's immigration policy is not just legal, it is smart and realistic. The President has said simply: We should prioritize. We have limited resources. We can't deport all those who are here undocumented. If we are only going to deport some, let's pick those who are a danger to the United States. The President has focused on those who have been convicted of serious crimes or pose a threat to our security. And shouldn't he? As Commander in Chief, shouldn't that be his highest priority, to make sure anyone who is a danger to the United States is gone? He knows he can't deport all even if he wished to, so he focuses on those who may be a danger to the United States--prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Homeland Security only has enough funding to deport a small fraction of undocumented, so the President wants to focus the limited resources on those who could do us harm. That is just common sense. At the same time, the President said that we should not waste our resources on deporting young immigrant students who grow up in this country, such as Tereza Lee, whom I mentioned earlier, or tear apart families by deporting the parents of U.S. citizens. The President's policy is focused on deporting felons, not families--criminals, not children. In November of 2014, President Obama established this program, DAPA, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Under DAPA, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years and have American children would be required to come forward, register with the government, pay a fee, go through a criminal background check and a national security background check, and pay their taxes. If the government determines these parents have not committed any serious crimes and don't pose any threat, this Executive order says: On a temporary, renewable basis, they will not be targeted for deportation. President Obama also expanded the DACA Program for children, as I mentioned earlier, at the same time. Why did he do that? Because for years Republicans in Congress have refused to consider legislation to fix our broken immigration system. On the floor of the Senate on June 27, 2013, I joined a group of seven other Senators--four Democrats and four Republicans in total. We had worked for months to construct a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill. We had to give a lot. There were things in that bill which I didn't like at all and things which some of the Republican Senators didn't like, but it is the nature of legislation and compromise that that happens. We brought the bill to the floor for a vote after a lengthy markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and dozens of amendments had been offered. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation on June 27, 2013, 68 to 32--more than 2 to 1. That bill would have strengthened border security, protected American workers, and established a tough but fair path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants who were then currently living in our country. What happened to the bill after it passed the Senate? I take you back to how laws are made and your civics course. It went across the Rotunda to the House of Representatives, which was under Republican control. The majority in the House of Representatives refused to call the bill, refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate, and refused to offer any substitute. They did nothing--nothing, despite our broken immigration system. In the face of this, the President was left with no choice. For the good of the American people, he used the authority given him as President to try to make some reforms to our immigration system. The Center for American Progress has studied what the President proposed, and they say that over the next 10 years, if these two programs--DACA and DAPA--were passed, the gross domestic product for my home State of Illinois would increase by $15 billion and the earnings of Illinois residents would increase by almost $8 billion. Could your State use that--more economic activity, more people paying taxes to the Federal Government and to your State? Virtually every State could use that. It is unfortunate that these bills have been blocked by the Senate, and now they are trying to block them in the Supreme Court. I see Senator Cornyn is on the floor, and I will close by telling a story about another DREAMer. I have done this quite a few times. My staff has done a lot of work on it. I thank them all for it. These stories really say a lot more than I ever could in a speech. They tell us what was at stake before the Supreme Court of the United States this morning. This attractive young woman is Vasthy Lamadrid. Her family came to the United States from Mexico. She was 5 years old. They came here with nothing. They moved into a home with four other families, so a lot of the kids slept in the same room. Despite their poverty, Vasthy felt safe and excelled in school. Math was her best subject. She had nearly perfect scores on standardized tests. English was tough, but then she discovered a series of books called ``Goosebumps.'' If you have kids or grandkids, I bet you have heard of that one. She became an avid reader and mastered the English language. By middle school, Vasthy was placed in the gifted program. That is where she discovered her love of engineering. She was a student in the Engineering Pathway at Bioscience High School, where she received the Young Entrepreneurs Award, made the principal's list every semester, and played tennis. She was an active volunteer, working with such groups as Girls For Change, CompuGirls, E-Tech, Hospice of the Valley, and St. Joseph's Hospital. Vasthy also helped younger kids in her neighborhood by tutoring them in math and tennis. Vasthy went on to attend Arizona State University. Because she is undocumented, she didn't qualify for a penny of government assistance, and she had to pay out-of-State tuition despite the fact that she had lived her entire life in the United States, in Arizona. Then something extraordinary happened. Counting on the generosity of the American people, Vasthy decided to crowdfund her college education. She shared her life story online and asked people to contribute to help her pay her tuition. Well, it worked. She is currently in her second year of college. In the first semester, she made the dean's list with a 3.79 GPA in the Ira Fulton School of Engineering. Thanks to DACA--the Presidential Executive order--she is able to support herself. She has also made time to continue to volunteer for a club called STEM Academy mentoring young children. She volunteers with the Arizona Immigration Refugee Service as an English teacher. As a result of her volunteer work, she has decided she wants to become a science teacher. Can we use more science teachers in America? You bet. This is what she said in a letter she wrote: DACA signifies to me a chance to show that I belong here-- that inside I am an American. It represents an opportunity to show that my parents' sacrifice was worth it. I love this country and want to one day become a citizen and continue to give back to the community. I don't need that journey to become a citizen to be easily given to me, but I'd hope that the journey is fair. Vasthy and other DREAMers have so much they can give to America. I don't understand the Republican Party when it comes to the issue of immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. I am a first-generation American and proud of it. It is my honor to serve and represent a great State like Illinois. I know what her journey was like. She was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. I know what her early life was like as she struggled to try to make sure there was food on the table, first for her mom, sister, and brother, and then ultimately for her own family. That is my family's story, but it is a story that is repeated over and over again. There is something in the DNA of immigrants who are willing to risk everything in this world to go to a country where they don't even speak the language because they know they will have an opportunity here, and they bring something with them. That is why they light up the scoreboard in Silicon Valley with all of these new inventions and new corporations with thousands of employees that make us an economic success in many fields. That is why we should think twice about those who condemn immigrants in this Nation of immigrants. I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the President's immigration actions. Then I hope, after they have done this, that the Republicans in Congress will finally decide to return to the table and work on a bipartisan basis for comprehensive immigration reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak about H-1B visas, often called the high-skilled immigration visa. Every year, the U.S. Government issues 85,000 new H-1B visas, including 20,000 for workers with advanced degrees. This is in addition to hundreds of thousands of foreign workers already in the United States on H-1B visas. Beginning on April 1, employers can submit petitions for new H-1B visas. Every year, within a few days, the government announces that it has received many more petitions for visas than the number of visas available. The government then conducts a random lottery to decide which employers will receive the visas. Every year this leads to a hue and cry from our business community about the need to increase the annual cap for H-1B visas. Like clockwork, this process played out last week, just as it does every year. Let's take a look at what happened. When most people think of H-1B visas, they think of big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple hiring top-notch computer engineers, paying them top dollar to come in from overseas. But here is the reality. In fact, the top recipients of H-1B visas are foreign companies that use loopholes in the law to displace qualified American workers and send American jobs offshore. In 2013, outsourcing firms received more than 50 percent of the annual H-1B visa cap. Think about that. Over half of these H-1B visas, designed to bring skilled foreign workers into the United States, are being given to foreign outsourcing companies. It sounds wrong; doesn't it? In 2014, 15 of the top 20 H-1B employers used the H-1B visa primarily to offshore American jobs; that is, to take Americans, put them out of work, and have foreign workers take their jobs. These 15 firms gobbled up over 190,000 new H-1B visas over 10 years. This is how it works. Foreign outsourcing companies import thousands of foreign guest workers using H-1B visas. These companies then cut deals with American companies to outsource American jobs and to move them offshore. The United States keeps them in the United States but with these foreign workers. The U.S. company gives their American workers notice that they will be fired. But before the American workers are laid off--listen to this--the American workers are forced to train the foreign guest workers who are going to take over their jobs. After they are trained, the outsourcing company returns the foreign workers to their home country where--guess what--they compete with the United States. Most of these foreign outsourcing companies are from India: Infosys, Tata, and Wipro. You may not recognize those names, but they are making billions of dollars using the H-1B visa to outsource American jobs and displace American workers. A high-ranking Indian Government official even called the H-1B visa ``the outsourcing visa.'' The International Herald Tribune investigated these Indian companies, and this is what they concluded: ``Rather than building a thriving community of experts and innovators in the United States, the Indian firms seek to funnel work--and expertise--away from the country.'' Congress intended the H-1B program to allow an employer to hire a skilled foreign worker in a specialized occupation when the American employer couldn't find an American worker with those skills and abilities. We didn't create this program for foreign outsourcing firms to exploit the program and to bring foreign workers to our country to be trained by talented American workers in order to see their jobs shipped away. So let's take an example. In the last year alone, media reports have documented the replacement of hundreds of American workers by these foreign outsourcing companies. Let me give an example close to home. Abbott Labs of Illinois, headquartered near Chicago, signed a contract for information technology services with Wipro, one of the largest foreign outsourcing companies based in India and one of the top users of the H-1B visa program. Here is how it worked: Approximately 150 U.S. employees at Abbott Labs in Illinois are going to lose their jobs. The workers being laid off have stellar experience--many of them have been at Abbott for years. They have the credentials, the performance reviews, and some have amazing work records spanning decades at Abbott Labs. I know from recent conversations with Abbott Labs employees that this layoff is taking its toll on the morale of their remaining workforce. When I heard about these plans, I wrote to Miles White, the CEO of Abbott Labs. I urged him to reconsider this plan and to keep his American workers who have worked so hard for Abbott Labs for years. Well, I am sorry to report he responded to my letter and confirmed his company's plans to terminate these American workers. I am very concerned about Abbott Labs because they have required the employees who are losing their jobs and being laid off to sign away their right to sue or even disparage the company if they want to receive any severance pay. As a result of this agreement, Congress and the American people are unable to hear directly from the employees who are affected by this decision at Abbott Labs--employees who are losing their jobs to Wipro, an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing American jobs. Abbot employees have told my staff they were concerned that even if they spoke with our office about what was happening at Abbott Labs, they could be placed in jeopardy. Other companies that have signed contracts with foreign outsourcing companies to replace American workers have also forced their employees to sign these nondisparagement agreements. So we are in the dark about the human impact of these outsourcing arrangements on the Americans losing their jobs. What we do know is this: 150 skilled and experienced American workers will lose their jobs and have had to sign an agreement that they will not say anything negative about their current employer. If they do not comply with that, they do not get their severance pay. I sent a followup letter to Mr. White today about the gag order he has forced on his employees. We should be able to hear firsthand from workers who are losing their jobs because of outsourcing as to just exactly what is happening to them. Senator Chuck Grassley and I first introduced bipartisan legislation to reform the H-1B visa program in 2007--almost a decade ago. Our bill would end these abuses and protect American and foreign workers from exploitation. The outsourcing companies are worried about our legislation. For a long time, Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin were on the front page of a lot of Indian newspapers. Listen to the corporate jargon Wipro uses to talk about our bill: With the growth of offshore outsourcing receiving increasing political and media attention, there have been concerted efforts to enact new legislation to restrict offshore outsourcing. This may adversely impact our ability to do business in these jurisdictions and could adversely affect our revenues and operating profitability. Let me be clear. My first obligation as a U.S. Senator is to protect American workers. If that adversely affects the profits of a foreign company that specializes in outsourcing American jobs, so be it. In 2013 I joined the Gang of 8--Democrats and Republicans--and we put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Corporate interests fought hard to protect these H-1B visas, but we successfully included several important changes to the program in the bill. Let me give an example. Under current law, employers are permitted to pay H-1B visa holders substandard wages, which creates an incentive to fire Americans and hire foreign workers. The vice president of Tata, out of India, one of the leading foreign outsourcing firms, candidly acknowledged they use H-1B visas to undercut American workers. Here is what he said: Our wage per employee is 20-25 percent lesser than U.S. wage for a similar employee. . . . The issue is that of getting workers in the U.S. on wages far lower than local wage. He was pretty candid about it. The object is to put Americans out of work and to charge less than what the Americans are being paid. So I wrote a provision in the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that discouraged employers from hiring foreign workers as a source of cheap labor by doubling the minimum wage of H-1B employees, and employers of large numbers of H-1B visa holders would be required to pay, at a minimum, the average wage paid to an American. That is why the chief executive of Tata in India said our bill would have been ``very tough'' on outsourcing companies. So be it. The Senate passed that bill on this floor 68 to 32. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives refused to even call the bill. They wouldn't debate it or call it for a vote. Now, the two leading Republican Presidential candidates, Donald Trump and the junior Senator from Texas, have jumped on the bandwagon. They want to reform the H-1B program. Unfortunately, their track records call into question their real commitment. Mr. Trump owns companies that have sought to import at least 1,000 temporary guest workers while turning away hundreds of American workers. In 2013, when the Judiciary Committee considered the comprehensive immigration reform bill, Senator Cruz of Texas offered an amendment to increase--increase--the annual cap for H-1B visas to 325,000 per year--almost four times the current number. Nonetheless, if they have changed their mind out on the campaign trail, we welcome that change of heart and welcome them to this debate. We must reform the H-1B visa program and fix other parts of our broken immigration system to protect American and immigrant workers. The solution is still comprehensive immigration reform. The time for action is now. Congress has avoided its responsibility for far too long. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if we ask most Americans: What is the difference between a for-profit college and university and a not-for- profit college and university, a private university, most of them would say: I am not sure I can tell you. Well, certainly for-profit, by definition, is a business. It is primarily a business that generates a profit for the company if it is successful. It pays for the salaries and compensation of those who work for the company, and if there are shareholders, it tries to increase the value of shares and maybe even pay a dividend. The others--the not-for-profits--by definition don't do that, and most private universities are not for profit. Examples: University of Illinois, a public university, the University of Maryland. Private universities: Georgetown University, George Washington University. For- profit universities: The University of Phoenix--people have probably heard of it--DeVry University out of Chicago, IL; ITT Tech; Kaplan, these are for-profit colleges and universities. Are they different? They are dramatically different. Let me give my colleagues three numbers that define the difference between for-profit colleges and universities and all the others. Here are the numbers: Ten percent of all of college students in America go to for-profit colleges and universities, like the University of Phoenix. These, many times online, universities including Kaplan and DeVry, 10 percent of the students go to them. Twenty percent of all of the Federal aid to education goes to for- profit colleges and universities. Why is it twice as much as the percentage of students? They are darned expensive. They have tuition that is usually much more costly than other colleges and universities. So that is 10 percent of the students, 20 percent of the Federal aid to education, and the next number is 40. Forty percent of all the student loan defaults in the United States of America are students attending for-profit colleges and universities--10 percent of the students, 40 percent of the student loan defaults. Why? The answer is obvious. They are very expensive and the education they provide often isn't worth much. Students who enroll and start courses at for-profit colleges and universities get in over their heads and drop out--the worst possible outcome. Now they are deep in debt with no degree, and they default on their loan. Some finish, and for many of them, it is even worse. After they have stacked up all of this debt, they graduate from a for-profit college and university and find out the diploma is worthless. That is the reality of higher education in America today. For quite a long time I have come to the Senate floor and talked about these for-profit colleges and universities. I got into this by meeting a young woman from a southern suburb of Cook County. She went to a place called Westwood College, a for-profit college and university based out of Colorado. She had been watching all of these CSI shows and the rest of them. She was just caught up in law enforcement. She wanted to get into law enforcement. So she enrolled at this for-profit college--Westwood--and started attending classes. Well, it turned out to be expensive, and then it turned out to be a disaster. Five years later, she graduated and received her diploma from Westwood. She took the diploma to police departments and sheriffs' offices all around the region and they looked at her and said: Sorry, but that is not a real university. You have gone to school there for 5 years, and I know you have the diploma, but we don't recognize Westwood. Westwood College is not a real university. So she found out her diploma was worthless, she couldn't get a job, but here is the worst part: At that point, she had $95,000 in student debt--$95,000 in debt--and a worthless diploma. Where do you turn? Well, let me tell you what happened to her. She moved back in with her parents, living in the basement. Her dad came out of retirement, took a job to try to help her pay off her student loans at Westwood, and she started to think about: How do I go to a real school now--a community college or something--so I can get an education. She wasted 5 years of her life, and her decisions from that point forward will reflect the fact that she had this terrible experience. There are things which these for-profit colleges and universities do which other universities wouldn't do. I want to talk about one of them today. The abuses of this industry are clear. Hundreds of thousands of students have been deceived, misled, and harassed into enrolling in these schools where they end up with a mountain of debt and a worthless diploma. Every day seems to bring news about another for-profit college scam, and I have been giving these speeches for a while, and it keeps unfolding day after day. Here is the latest: the complaint the attorney general of Massachusetts filed recently against ITT Tech for abusive recruitment tactics. I know this ITT Tech because in my hometown of Springfield, IL, at White Oaks Mall, they have a big sign. They look like the real thing, but when Massachusetts took a look at their recruiting tactics, it turned out they were lying to the students. You see, they need to lure in students to sign up at ITT Tech, they make promises they can't keep, and many times they lure in students who are not ready for college. Why do they do that? Because the minute a low- income student signs up at ITT Tech, the Pell grant, which goes to low- income college students, flows through the student to ITT Tech. There is $5,800 just for being low income and signing up, not to mention what follows--the college student loans. If a student is lucky--if they are lucky--the for-profit college will lead them to the college loans originated by the government. Those are more reasonable. If they are unlucky, they get steered by these for- profit colleges to private loans with dramatically higher interest rates and terms which are not the least bit forgiving. We say to ourselves: These students ought to know better. Well, how smart were you when it came to the ways of the world when you were 19 years old? How much did you know about borrowing $10,000 when you were 19 or 20 years old, when they shoved across the desk a stack of papers and said: If you will sign these for your loan, you will be able to start classes Monday. You know what happens. The students sign up. They have been told their whole lives: This is what you need to do. When you finish high school, you go to college. Here is another part of it that is very important. Right now, the Department of Education is working on new Federal regulations so that when the students go to these for-profit schools--or any school for that matter--and the school engages in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct, there is some protection. The Department has set up a rulemaking, but because the negotiations with outside stakeholders haven't reached a consensus, they are still working on the rule. Let me talk about one issue that I think is critical that is under consideration by the Department of Education when it comes to these for-profit colleges: mandatory arbitration clauses. You are going to find at for-profit colleges--and at virtually no other college--a little paragraph stuck in that enrollment agreement, stuck in your enrollment contract, which says that if you have any grievance with that for-profit school, if you think they deceived you, defrauded you, lied to you, if you think that you got in debt for a promised degree that was going to lead to a job, you can't plead your case in court after you sign this agreement. You have to go to mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration, for those not familiar with it, is a closed-door process. The company or school, in this case, sets standards about who will decide your fate and about what of anything that happened to you ever becomes public. Why do the for-profit schools do this? They don't want to be taken to court--no company does. They certainly don't want to face a class action lawsuit by students who have been defrauded by these for-profit schools, and they certainly don't want the Department of Education to know that a certain number of students of for-profit schools have a grievance about the way they were treated. So they have come up with a mandatory arbitration clause in documents a student has to sign to go to class. Students by and large don't even see them. They are buried in the document. If they did see them, they would find it hard to even explain. These clauses require students to give up their right to a day in court. It means, for example, that if a student is misled or deceived by the school's advertising or Web site and the student goes into debt and then can't find a job or can't qualify for a job that they promised you could, the student doesn't get a day in court. Instead, the student is forced into the secret arbitration proceeding where the deck is stacked against them. It allows schools to avoid accountability for misconduct. It prevents prospective students from knowing that there were an awful lot of other students at the same school that had the same bad experience. It is fine for schools to give students the choice of arbitration, but to say it is mandatory and that you have no other choice is wrong. Mandatory arbitration clauses are not used by legitimate not-for-profit colleges and universities. Not-for-profit colleges, public and private, are comfortable with being held accountable to the students. They don't require mandatory arbitration in order for the students to sign up for classes. The Association of Public Land Grant Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Association of Community College Trustees, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers all confirmed what I just said. Unfortunately, mandatory arbitration clauses are a hallmark of the for-profit industry, used by nearly all major companies--DeVry, the University of Phoenix, and ITT Tech, just to name a few. These same clauses were used by a for-profit school called Corinthian, which went bankrupt. What happens when a for-profit college goes bankrupt? They have received the money through the student from the Federal Government. They have received all those Pell grants. They have received the money for government loans, and now they are officially out of business. Where does that leave the student if the school closes? Well, we give them a pretty tough choice. The first choice is to keep the credit hours they earned at the for-profit school and transfer to another school--too often another for-profit. Is that worth the effort? Well, the student has to decide or drop those credit hours of the for-profit school and get what is called a closed school discharge. You don't have to pay it back. Who loses in that deal? The taxpayers. The taxpayers who have sent thousands of dollars to these worthless for-profit schools. I am hoping the Department of Education will promulgate a rule that protects students and their families when it comes to these for-profit schools. There is one last thing I want to say about college loans, and it probably is the most important. If someone borrows money for a car or a home or a piece of property somewhere or to buy some goods and then they fall on hard times--somebody in the family gets sick, there are big medical bills, someone loses a job, or there is a divorce--and they are forced into bankruptcy court to clear their debts, they are going to find out if they have a student loan, they can't discharge a student loan in bankruptcy. It means, frankly, that it is with them for a lifetime. When grandma decides to cosign her granddaughter's college loan and her granddaughter defaults on the loan, the collection agency calls her grandmother. We have cases that have been reported where grandmothers have their Social Security checks basically garnished to pay off the granddaughter's student loan. It is a debt, frankly, that will be with them for a lifetime. That is why this conversation is so important. A few years ago, the for-profit colleges and universities ended up with the same treatment as every other college and university, and they, too, when it comes to student debt, have their investment protected because the student cannot discharge it in bankruptcy. This Senator thinks the Department of Education has the authority to clean this up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a legal analysis put together by Public Citizen outlining the authority the Department of Education has to ban mandatory arbitration.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, countless veterans groups, consumer advocates, legal aid lawyers, and student organizations support a full ban on mandatory arbitration clauses in higher education. I hope the Department of Education responds to this. I hope they have the resolve and the political will to get this done. It is sad when students end up with a good diploma and a ton of debt. It is unforgiveable for us to be complicit when the students end up with a ton of debt and a worthless diploma from a for-profit college or university. Mr. President, the Federal Aviation Administration is now operating under its second extension. Like too many important issues, we just keep patching up the system. Last year, the Senate worked together to pass a 5-year transportation bill. Finally, after 30 patches of a national transportation program, both parties came together to pass the first long-term bill in over 10 years. This was an important step for the Nation and for my State of Illinois. Fixing and maintaining our infrastructure involves planning, and planning includes certainty. If we don't know we are going to be funded 6 months from now, it is very tough to plan a highway, a bridge, or how we are going to administer an airport. We have an opportunity to do the same for the Federal Aviation Administration. Senators Thune and Nelson--Republican and Democrat--put together the bipartisan bill that we are currently debating. I hope we can give this bill careful consideration. One of the items we should carefully consider is security at airports. Since 9/11 we have focused more and more on the security of airports, and when we hear of these terrible terrorist incidents overseas, we understand that we can't drop our guard. There were 32 people who died in Belgium, and many were injured. The terrorists targeted people who were just going about their daily routine, catching an airplane. The terrorists took advantage of a vulnerable system. At the airport, two bombs were set off before any security screening took place. That should be a wake-up call for all of us. Last week Senator Heinrich offered an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor for commonsense measures to strengthen security at U.S. airports in places such as transit stops. I am pleased it passed with strong bipartisan support. It adds extra security in these areas where people take planes and trains where we were vulnerable before the checkpoints. It adds law enforcement officials, inspectors, specialists in explosives, dogs, and experts who can help with the screening process. It gives more flexibility to our States in cities like Chicago, which I am honored to represent, to grant security funding for better protecting these vulnerable areas, and it gives more flexibility in spending the money. O'Hare is one of the busiest airports in the world, with 77 billion passengers last year. Chicago is also host to many major national and global events with millions of travelers. We have one of the busiest networks of commuters and travelers by transit, with 1.6 million people riding Chicago's CTA every day, getting to work by bus or train. Nearly 300,000 passengers take Chicago's Metra commuter rail every day. We must ensure we are doing everything we can to keep them safe. Communities such as Aurora, IL, that have experienced their own threat not long ago will remember September of 2014. I am filing an amendment which I hope will be considered on this bill to improve security in our air traffic control facilities after the experience we had back in 2014. There was a fire at the air traffic facility in Aurora. That center directs about 9,000 flights a day over 6 States, including, of course, the Chicago region. The fire grounded thousands of flights. Its impact was felt for 2 weeks. It caused $5.3 million in damages to the traffic control facility, and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic impact. The air traffic controllers, local police, and fire department did all they could do, but there turned out to be bigger issues at play. This was a case of arson by an employee at the air traffic control facility. I went in and actually saw the damage that he did. Following the incident, I worked with the FAA and called on the Department of Transportation to investigate what happened and to come up with recommendations on how to improve security. After the Department of Transportation investigation, FAA and DOT found there was not enough focus on insider threats, and, clearly, better equipment is needed to help communication from going down. Once again, we are dealing with an area that is not as secure as it should be. The amendment I have offered to this bill builds on some of the recommendations. It requires the FAA to make plans for law enforcement and other authorities in the event of an incident. It requires the FAA to develop guidelines for training and response to security threats and active shooter incidents and to ensure that, as the FAA makes investments in infrastructure and basic equipment such as electrical systems and telecommunications, they think about resiliency and survivability. We learned those lessons the hard way in Chicago. I hope the Senate will take up my amendment so other airports as well as Chicago will be ready in the future. These events are reminders of the damage that can be done. With a similar spirit of bipartisanship, we need to have a commitment to our security at our airports and around the United States. Tribute to Ray LaHood Mr. President, while I am on the subject of airports, I want to recognize my friend and former colleague in the House, Congressman Ray LaHood. He was named Secretary of Transportation by President Obama. On Tuesday, the Peoria International Airport honored him by naming their new international terminal after him. Ray served the Peoria region proudly for 14 years as Congressman and for 4 years as President Obama's Secretary of Transportation. Secretary Foxx went out to Peoria to show support for his predecessor. Ray LaHood has been and continues to be a strong advocate for Illinois and for our Nation's infrastructure. This honor is certainly a fitting tribute, and I congratulate my former colleague, Congressman Ray LaHood. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for her leadership on this issue, and I will be yielding the floor to the lead sponsor of today's effort. Our Nation is built on the belief that anyone who works hard should have the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Yet there are women across this country who are doing the same job as their male colleagues and being paid less. That is why today, on National Equal Pay Day, I stand with my fellow Senators to renew our efforts to ensure equal pay for equal work. Fifty years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 79 cents on every dollar paid to a man. This wage gap is even worse for women of color. African-American women who work full time make only 60 cents for every dollar paid to white males. Hispanic women earn only 55 cents. Women are paid less even when factors such as age, education, occupation, and work hours are taken into consideration. In nearly every occupation in our country, women's median earnings are less than their male competitors. It is no different for women in my State of Illinois. The median earning for Illinois women is $10,000 less than the median earning for men. While African-American women in Illinois make slightly more than the national average, Hispanic women are paid even less--48 cents on the dollar. Think about that. Hispanic women are making less than half the earnings of their male coworkers who have similar levels of education and do the same job. This isn't right, and it isn't fair. The gender wage gap translates into nearly $11,000 less in median earnings for women each year and over $430,000 in lost wages over a lifetime. Now that women are the sole or primary breadwinners in 4 out of 10 families, this means less money for food, housing, and education. It is no wonder the poverty rate for female heads of households continues to be disproportionately high. This disparity follows women into their retirement since retirement savings and Social Security are based on income earned. In Illinois, the average weekly Social Security benefit for female retirees is 77.3 percent of the average for Illinois males per week. While female retirees receive less, on average, compared to men under Social Security, women tend to live longer and spend more on medical care, forcing them to do more with less. What would happen if we closed this wage gap? Amazing things. Sixty percent of women would earn more if they were paid the same wages as their male counterparts, nearly two-thirds of single working mothers would receive a pay increase, and the poverty rate for women would be cut in half. It would mean fewer families in poverty and fewer families would need safety net programs. Equal pay for equal work would also mean women and their families would have more to spend on basic goods and services, and that is good for our economy. So what do we have to do to close this wage gap? We can pass the Paycheck Fairness Act introduced by my colleague Senator Mikulski and my friend and colleague Senator Murray. Employers still maintain policies that punish employees who voluntarily share salary information with coworkers. This makes it nearly impossible for employees to find out whether they are being paid fairly. This bill would provide women the same remedies for pay discrimination as people who are subjected to discrimination based on race and national origin. It would also close loopholes in current law that still permit retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. The Paycheck Fairness Act would build on the success of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which clarified the 180-day statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit on pay discrimination that resets with each affected paycheck. This was the first bill signed into law by President Obama in 2009. The Senator from Maryland remembers that day because President Obama signed the bill, took the first pen that he used to sign it, and handed it to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. DURBIN. I remember that because I stood there and thought: That is entirely appropriate that a Senator who has dedicated her life to this kind of fairness and equality for women at work would receive the first pen from the first bill signed into law by this new President. My Republican colleagues: Why aren't you with us on this issue? Don't you agree that your daughter should be paid the same as your son for doing the same work? It is a basic issue of fairness. It shouldn't have anything to do with party labels, so we invite you to join us. This should not be a partisan issue at all. Certainly for women at work, it is not partisan. It is just a matter of fairness. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was absent from today's votes on three amendments to the pending business, H.R. 636, the vehicle for a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, due to events I attended with President Obama in Illinois. Had I been present, my votes would have been as follows. On rollcall vote No. 41, Thune amendment No. 3512, as modified, I would have voted against adoption. I am concerned about the impact that a provision in this amendment will have on formerly incarcerated individuals who have successfully reintegrated into society after completing sentences for low-level crimes unrelated to transportation security. The provision, which will make it more difficult for these individuals to obtain certain aviation jobs years after a criminal conviction, undermines efforts to reduce barriers to reentry, lower recidivism rates, and reform our criminal justice system. On rollcall vote No. 42, Heinrich amendment No. 3482, as modified, I would have voted in favor of adoption. This amendment will further strengthen the homeland by increasing security in soft targets at airports, in areas like check-ins and baggage claims, where terrorists recently carried out deadly attacks in Brussels. The amendment will expand and enhance visible deterrents, create a new eligible use under Homeland Security grants for training exercises to enhance preparedness for active shooter incidents, and authorize and make explicit that Homeland Security grants can be used for airport and surface transportation in these nonsecure soft target areas. I am proud to have cosponsored this amendment. On rollcall vote No. 43, Schumer amendment No. 3483, I would have voted in favor of adoption. This amendment would establish consumer safeguards like minimum standards for space for passengers on aircrafts, including the size and pitch of seats, the amount of leg room, and the width of aisles. As these votes demonstrate, after a series of temporary extensions, the Senate is finally considering a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. In light of recent threats both here and abroad, it is important that we get this right. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis on these important security reforms, consumer protections, and other pressing aviation-related issues in the coming days and weeks.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is an old verse that reads, if I remember correctly, as follows: While I was going up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man would go away. That man in the U.S. Senate is Merrick Garland, a person whom I am sure the Republican leadership wishes would just go away. But he is not going to go away. Merrick Garland is the nominee whom President Obama has sent forward to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court occasioned by the untimely death of Antonin Scalia. In sending that name forward, President Obama was meeting his constitutional responsibility. Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states clearly that the President shall--shall-- nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. It goes on to say that the responsibility of the Senate is to provide advice and consent to Supreme Court nominations. It is very clear. The men who wrote the Constitution understood the importance of filling a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and they understood it to be so important that they mandated that the President send the nominee forward to fill that vacancy. You can read that Constitution from start to finish and never find the rationale being used by Senator McConnell, the majority leader of the Senate, to stop that nomination from being considered in the Senate. There is no argument made in the Constitution--nor has there ever been an argument made--that because the President is in the last year of his 4-year term, he no longer has a constitutional responsibility to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. In fact, never-- underline never--has the Senate refused a hearing to a nominee who has been sent forward by a President of the United States to fill this important vacancy. It speaks volumes that Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has decided--has taken it on himself--to stop the Senate from considering the President's nominee. It is an embarrassing position to take for many of his colleagues. Look at what they are going through. Republican Senators who went home over this Easter break--many of them--went to town meetings where people asked this very basic question: Senator, why is it that you won't do your job? Why won't you even give a hearing to this man who was sent by the President for consideration by the Senate to fill this important vacancy? It is a hard question to answer if you take the position of Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, because the answer is that, basically, he is arguing that this President has no authority--no authority to fill this vacancy. Senator McConnell argues that we should hold this vacancy open for the rest of this calendar year into next year so that a new President--whoever that might be--would have the power to fill this vacancy. He argues that the American people will speak through this next election as to a new President and that person should have the authority. Well, what we discovered over the course of the last several weeks is this isn't about giving the American people a voice in choosing to fill that vacancy; it is about giving two individuals, the Koch brothers, the decision to fill that vacancy. These brothers have decided it is in their best interests--their political interests, their economic interests, whatever it may be--to keep this spot vacant on the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes that a Republican Presidential candidate will win the election and fill the Court vacancy with the blessing of the Koch brothers. So Republican Senators are going back to their home districts and States, basically facing the electorate in their home States, and finding it impossible to justify avoiding any consideration of this nominee. It got more difficult this morning. I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record in its entirety. The Washington Post has reported that U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland is getting a boost for his Supreme Court nomination from some of the lawyers who know him best--his former law clerks. It goes on to say that 68 former law clerks for this judge have written to Members of Congress recommending him based on their personal experience of working professionally with him. Let me read this passage from their letter: There are not many bosses who so uniformly inspire the loyalty that we all feel toward Chief Judge Garland. Our enthusiasm is both a testament to his character and a reflection of his commitment to mentoring and encouraging us long after we left his chambers. He has stood by our side during the happiest moments of our lives--quite literally, having officiated the weddings of seven of his former clerks. He has welcomed us and our growing families into his home. He is a constant source of career advice and guidance. And he has offered love and support in the dark times, too, when we have suffered setbacks, losses, and uncertainty. This article one might expect from his clerks saying what a good person he is, but they have gone out of their way to suggest to the Senate that a person of this quality and this integrity should be treated fairly--fairly. I listened to some of the comments that are being made on the Republican side about this man, and it is a long way from fairness. What they are saying to him is we don't care about where you came from. We don't care about your education. We don't care about your professional qualifications. We don't care about your career on the bench. We care that you have been nominated by President Barack Obama, and as far as Senator McConnell is concerned, enough said. If Barack Obama nominates this man, Senator McConnell has made it clear he will deny to him something that has never ever been denied to a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States of America: a fair hearing. That is why it is painful for a lot of Republican Senators to go back and face audiences. The partisans in the audience come in, in a predictable state, with Republicans saying: Hold the line. Don't let Obama act like a President of the United States. We want him to go away. Democrats come in and ask: Can't you at least give this man a hearing? I would say to my Republican colleagues: Listen to the people who view themselves as Independents in this country, folks who don't carry a party label. They are saying overwhelmingly that Merrick Garland is entitled to a hearing before the U.S. Senate. He is an extraordinarily well-qualified man. There is no credible justification to refuse to give him a hearing. Merrick Garland was born in Chicago. His father ran a small business. His mother volunteered in the Rogers Park neighborhood. He was the grandson of immigrants who fled anti-Semitism in the Pale of Settlement in Russia. They came to America in the early 1900s. Judge Garland grew up in Lincolnwood, IL. He graduated at the top of his class at Niles West High School in Skokie. He earned an undergraduate and law degree from Harvard. He was a law clerk to Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. He had a distinguished career at the Justice Department. They sent Merrick Garland down after the Oklahoma City tragedy, when there was a terrible incident--a domestic terrorist bombing--that killed and maimed so many people. The prosecution of that accused terrorist was the highest priority for the Department of Justice. They had to get it right, not just for the cause of justice but for the victims and their families. They had to get it right on this prosecution. So they sent their very best prosecutor, Merrick Garland. He was given that responsibility and took it very seriously. He used to carry around with him the names of those who died in that Oklahoma City terrorist incident as a reminder of the solemn responsibility which he carried in this undertaking. That is the kind of person he is. He successfully prosecuted those who were engaged in the terrorism that caused that terrible event. The Department of Justice thought that highly of him, and his performance in Oklahoma City was so stellar that he achieved his goal--a fair and effective prosecution. The Senate considered Merrick Garland for the second highest court of the land, the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. He received a majority vote on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. The total final vote was 76 to 23. Thirty-two Senate Republicans voted to confirm Judge Garland. He has been on that court--the D.C. Circuit--for 19 years and he has been the chief judge for the last 3 years. Throughout his lengthy judicial career, Chief Judge Garland has been praised for his intelligence, knowledge of the law, adherence to precedent, and his ability to forge a consensus. Listen to what Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court said during his own confirmation hearing: ``Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area.'' I have my differences with Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, but I will be the first to say his presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee was one I will never forget. He sat there for 2 days, without a note in front of him, and answered every question effectively and eloquently. I left there with the distinct impression he was one of the brightest individuals who had ever been nominated to the Supreme Court. So this man, Chief Justice Roberts, whether we agree with his politics or his decisions, should be listened to when he says of Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee, that if you disagreed with Judge Garland, you know you are in a difficult area. That is high praise from Chief Justice John Roberts. It is high praise for a man who has been denied a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time in the history of the Senate. I commend Judge Garland for his many decades of public service and congratulate him and his wife Lynn and their daughters for the great honor they have been given to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I offer as well a word of apology to them for the way they are being treated by the U.S. Senate. This is not right. I hope that in the quiet and the solitude of their own Republican caucus lunch, they will close the door and turn to one another and say: This is not fair. It is not right. We owe this man a hearing. I am not saying he should be rubberstamped. I am not saying the Senate Republican majority should approve this man, although I think it is difficult not to. I am saying he should be given a hearing. He deserves that respect from the U.S. Senate. It would be terrible and beneath the dignity of the Senate Republicans to close the doors of the Senate to such an accomplished American and deny him a fair hearing and a vote. The President has met his responsibility. The Senate should do no less. I know Merrick Garland is in for a rough ride. The senior Senator from Texas said as much a few weeks ago. He said President Obama's Supreme Court nominee would ``bear some resemblance to a pinata.'' Do we know what that means? Remember, if you will, that Mexican custom of filling a paper mache animal with candy, then blindfolding a child and giving him a stick or a bat to try to swing wildly and beat on that pinata until it is broken open and the candy hits the floor. That was the analogy used by the senior Senator from Texas as to how Merrick Garland should expect to be treated if his nomination comes before the Senate. It is a sad commentary, but it may reflect the reality of the bitter political environment we live in. It is troubling to hear our nomination process in the Senate characterized this way. There is a way to avoid pinata politics. Let's give Merrick Garland a fair hearing. Right now, conservative groups and some Senate Republicans are taking their swings blindly at Merrick Garland. They are flailing around, hoping to find some argument to justify the mistreatment which they are offering. For example, there is a rightwing advocacy group calling itself the Judicial Crisis Network, whatever that is, that recently announced a multi-State ad campaign against Judge Garland. How about that. They will not give him a hearing. They will not even let him sit down in a chair under oath and face questions and give answers, but they have started a multi-State ad campaign against him. The campaign said that with Garland on the bench, the Second Amendment would be ``gutted'' because ``in two separate cases, Garland has demonstrated his strong hostility to gun owner rights.'' Several Senate Republicans have echoed this attack. They have heard this so-called Judicial Crisis Network ad and they have decided to amplify it. However, there is no argument that can be made seriously or fairly for the proposition that Judge Garland opposes the Second Amendment in his rulings. There are two cases mentioned by this rightwing organization on the subject. They date back many years to 2000 and 2007. The first was a case involving the auditing of background check records. When that case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department of President George W. Bush, led by conservative Attorney General John Ashcroft, agreed with Judge Garland's position. There was no controversy as far as they were concerned. So a Republican President and a Republican Attorney General agreed with the ruling of Judge Garland. In the other case in which Judge Garland is accused of having overstepped the bounds on the Second Amendment, he never even addressed any substantive Second Amendment issue. If the Judicial Crisis Network was so outraged by these decisions in the year 2000 and the year 2007, why didn't they bring it up in 2010 when Merrick Garland was in the running to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court? In that year, Carrie Severino, the head of that organization--the Judicial Crisis Network--told the Washington Post: Of those the President could nominate, we can do a lot worse than Merrick Garland. He's the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer. I just quoted the person who was in charge of the Judicial Crisis Network when Merrick Garland was under consideration for the Supreme Court six years ago. Now that same network has decided to spend millions of dollars to stop this nominee. If Judge Garland's views on the Second Amendment were so objectionable, why has he been praised by Charles Cooper, the gun lobby's top outside attorney? On March 28 of this year, Cooper told the Washington Post about his ``high opinion'' of Garland as a judge. So here is the reality. Rightwing advocacy groups like the Judicial Crisis Network are swinging wildly at Judge Garland. They mischaracterize his record and they attack his judgment in an effort to discredit him. If the Senate holds a public hearing for Garland, he would at least have his day to state his position clearly on the Second Amendment, but they are so afraid of what he is going to say, the Republican leadership in the Senate has denied Merrick Garland an opportunity for a hearing at this point in time. At a hearing, the American people could judge for themselves. How about that for a novel idea; that we would put Merrick Garland under oath, sit him at a table, ask whatever questions we consider to be important for his nomination, and then let the American people decide. The Republicans will have nothing to do with that. Senator McConnell has said from the start he is never going to allow that to occur. The Senate is doing Judge Garland and our Nation a grave disservice if we don't move forward with a public hearing on this nomination, as we have with every other Supreme Court nominee that has been sent by a President. Just for the record, go back to 1987, when a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court, and in 1988, the last year of Ronald Reagan's Republican Presidency, he sent a nominee to the U.S. Senate to be considered. Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan nominee, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate not only gave Anthony Kennedy a hearing, they gave him a unanimous vote, sending him to the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that Ronald Reagan was a ``lameduck''--the last year of his Presidency--the Senate at that time respected the Office of the Presidency and respected the Constitution enough to give Anthony Kennedy his day before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his day before the U.S. Senate. If it was fair enough for a Republican President in a Democratic Senate, why isn't the same standard to be used when it comes to President Obama's nominee being sent to the Senate on this day? It cannot be explained away. What does this vacancy on the Supreme Court mean? There are only eight members of a nine-member Court. Already the Supreme Court has deadlocked twice on 4-to-4 tie votes since Justice Scalia's passing. Almost 50 cases still need to be decided in this term. Major legal questions may go unresolved because the Senate is not doing its job and not filling this vacancy. Judge Garland does not deserve to be used as a pinata--a word used by a Senate Republican describing what he would face in the Senate. Let's give him an opportunity to rebut any attacks made against him. Let him explain himself on the record in full view of the American public. Let the American people decide if the ads and attacks against him are valid or baseless. I urge my Republican colleagues: Do not follow the lead of rightwing advocacy groups and attack Judge Garland's character or record when you refuse to give the man a chance to respond at a public hearing. That is fundamentally unfair. This is a real moment of truth for the Senate. No Supreme Court nominee has ever been denied a hearing before, and Merrick Garland should not be the first. The message of the American people to the Senate Republican majority is very simple, three words: Do your job. Do your job under the Constitution. Have a hearing. Be fair to this man. Don't dream up excuses. Don't argue with this President who won by 5 million votes over Mitt Romney. Don't disrespect the Office of the Presidency or the Constitution, which in its clarity establishes our responsibility to give a hearing to this nominee. My Republican colleagues need to do their job and to schedule a hearing for Merrick Garland without delay. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate voted today on the Defend Trade Secrets Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which would create a Federal civil cause of action to help deter and remedy trade secret theft that is costing American businesses hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Trade secrets, such as manufacturing processes, industrial techniques, and customer lists, are critical assets for U.S. companies. However, American companies are increasingly being targeted by efforts to steal this proprietary information, often by overseas interests. Currently, there is no Federal civil remedy available to companies to fight this theft, and the Justice Department does not have the resources to investigate and prosecute criminally all of the thefts that are taking place. While most States have passed civil trade secret laws, these laws are not well suited for remedying interstate or foreign trade secret theft. The lack of a Federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation is a glaring gap in current law, especially since Federal civil remedies are available to protect other forms of intellectual property such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The Defend Trade Secrets Act would close this gap by creating a civil right of action in Federal court for misappropriation of a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce. Available remedies would include injunctions, damages, and in certain cases enhanced damages. This broadly bipartisan bill has been carefully crafted to empower companies to protect their trade secrets through a process that will be both swift and fair. By helping American companies safeguard their essential trade secrets from theft, the bill will help keep innovation and jobs in America. The Defend Trade Secrets Act has been cosponsored by 65 Senators and is supported by groups and companies representing a broad swath of the American economy, including numerous employers based in my home State of Illinois, such as Caterpillar and Illinois Tool Works. I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward with passage of this legislation, and I hope the bill will soon pass the House of Representatives and be signed into law. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 29 years ago, March was designated National Women's History Month. It is hard to imagine, but as recently as the 1970s, history books largely left out the contributions of women in America. This began to change in 1978, when a small group set out to revise the school curriculum in their community--Sonoma County, CA. The idea was to create a Women's History Week, and its goal was to write women back into history books. It was an idea that was long overdue. And Women's History Week took off around the county . . . around the State . . . and across the Nation. It didn't take long before organizers lobbied Congress and even the White House. And on February 28, 1980, it paid off. President Jimmy Carter announced for the first time that March 2-8, 1980, would be designated as National Women's History Week. He urged libraries, schools, and community organizations to focus on leaders who struggled for equality: Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cody Stanton, Harriet Tubman, and Alice Paul. In 1981, the cause gained further momentum when an unlikely partnership between then-Representative Barbara Mikulski and Senator Orrin Hatch cosponsored a congressional resolution for National Women's History Week. And 6 short years later, National Women's History Week became National Women's History Month. And last November, Senator Mikulski was awarded the Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in part for her work on equal pay for women--what an honor. Throughout history, women have achieved significant progress in the face of discrimination and, time and time again, blazed new trails. So it is appropriate that Senator Barbara Mikulski would play such an integral role in creating National Women's History Month. After all, she understands the role of a trailblazer better than many. And during her last year in the U.S. Senate, it is fitting we honor some of her accomplishments. Senator Mikulski was the first woman elevated to a leadership post in the U.S. Senate and the only current Member of Congress in the National Women's Hall of Fame. She is also the first woman elected to Congress in her own right, not because of a husband or a father or someone who served before her in higher office. Senator Mikulski embodies what National Women's History Month is all about, particularly this year, when its theme is ``Working to Form a More Perfect Union: Honoring Women in Public Service and Government.'' So with that in mind, I would like to tell you a story about Senator Mikulski, also known in this chamber as the Dean of Women. Following the election of a number of esteemed women into the Senate, a lot of reporters deemed 1992, the Year of the Woman, but Senator Mikulski didn't like the sound of that. She said: ``Calling 1992 the Year of the Woman makes it sound like the Year of the Caribou or the Year of the Asparagus. We're not a fad, fancy or a year.'' That is classic for Senator Mikulski. Today there are a record 20 female Members in the Senate, but Barbara would be the first to point out that is still a minority, and we can do better. Well, after 40 years in Congress, Senator Mikulski will be sorely missed. Without the leadership and determination of Senator Mikulski, the fight gets a little harder, and there is plenty of work to do. Women still receive an average of 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, and it is even greater for women of color. African-American women make 64 cents for every dollar earned by men, and Hispanic women only make 56 cents. It is not right, and it is long past time that Congress pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to provide women with the necessary tools to fight wage discrimination. It is also time to guarantee paid family and medical leave for all. Making this a reality will mean that when major life events happen, birth of a new child or caring for an aging parent, hard-working Americans will not have to choose between their family and debt, bankruptcy, or losing their job. But America can overcome these challenges. We have done it before. Just look how far we have come. Here are just a few of the problems women faced and overcame since the 1970s: women could be fired from the workplace for being pregnant; sexual harassment wasn't recognized in the workplace; women couldn't get a credit card; and marital rape wasn't considered a crime in most States. But we solved these discriminatory and heinous practices. You see, America's democracy has indeed been imperfect, but throughout our history, we have sought to address our Nation's imperfections. Because the story of the United States is not a story of a perfect union, It is a story about the pursuit to create ``a more perfect union.'' Let me close with this. Years ago, in my home State of Illinois, then First Lady Hilary Clinton said: ``If you go to the poorest places on Earth struggling from social problems of poverty, disease, and hunger and all that comes with it, and you can only ask one question to determine if they have a chance, the question you should ask is this: How do you treat your women?'' If you give women an equal playing field, status, education, and opportunity, you are giving them and your country a chance to thrive. This March, as we pay tribute to all the brave women who have moved this country forward and in doing so inspired each and every one of us, let's challenge ourselves to build on their legacies and make our country a more equal society for our mothers, sisters, and daughters.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, early this morning I got a telephone call from a White House staffer who told me that the President was going to announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court occasioned by the passing of Antonin Scalia. This morning I was invited to the Rose Garden to witness that ceremony, and I thought it was one of the President's best deliveries of a message to the American people about a critically important issue. I applaud President Obama for his nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. No one questions that Judge Garland is an outstanding attorney and has been an exceptional judge during his 19 years on the DC Circuit Court. No one questions his qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the Supreme Court. I congratulate him, his wife Lynn, whom I just met, and his daughters, Becky and Jessie, on this nomination. Judge Garland is a proud son of Illinois. He is the grandson of immigrants who fled anti-Semitic persecution. He was born in Chicago to parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. He graduated at the top of his class from Niles West High School, received his undergraduate law degree from Harvard, and clerked for the legendary Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit and Justice William Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an incredible legal resume. He served in the Justice Department and worked in private practice before he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court. Today President Obama told the story of how Merrick Garland in the U.S. Department of Justice was sent down after the Oklahoma City bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carefully, deftly, and professionally handled that prosecution in a way that it would stick and it wouldn't be overturned because of legal mistakes. He personally felt an attachment and obligation to the victims and their families, and he carried with him the memorial service bulletin that was given out with the names of each one of the victims. He brought it with him to the courtroom each day. He is that kind of person--a prosecutor but with empathy to the victims and a determination to make sure he followed the law. He did. President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility, and now the Senate must do the same. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides the requirement that the President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President did that today. That same section of the Constitution goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the Senate--this Senate--to advise and consent to that nominee. There is no requirement that we approve the President's nominee. He wants us to. I hope we do. But what it says is we have a responsibility under the Constitution--the same Constitution we swore to uphold and defend. So the President is using his authority and constitutional responsibility by naming Merrick Garland. Now what will happen? The Republican leadership in the Senate has said: End of story; we are not going to do anything. Some Senators have gone so far as to say they will not even meet with this man, will not even meet with the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. In the history of the United States of America, there has never--underline ``never''--been a situation where the President sent a nominee to the Supreme Court to the Senate and there was not a hearing. Never. And now the Republican majority here has said: Ignore history. Ignore the Constitution. We are not going to let this President fill this vacancy. Their argument is this: Let the American people decide. There is an election coming. It will be in November. Let them pick a President, who will then choose that Supreme Court nominee. Well, that is an interesting approach. It might make some sense had President Barack Obama been reelected in 2012 to a term of 3 years and 2 months. He was reelected to a 4-year term by a 5 million-vote plurality. He is the President. And to argue that in his last year in office, he should have no authority or power in the Constitution to exercise what is required of him is to ignore the obvious. By what right do we, in the closing year of a Senator's term, vote on the floor of the Senate if we are disqualified from making important decisions in our last year in office in each term? It is a ludicrous position, a ridiculous position. It is a position which I find offensive. This system of government gives to the American people the last word about who the President will be. There have been times when I have applauded that decision and times when I didn't. But if you are respectful of this Constitution and this government, then you follow the will of the people of this great Nation, and they made a decision by a plurality of 5 million votes that Barack Obama would have this power for 4 years, until January of 2017. So the President has sent this name, and now it is up to the Senate. The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in this decision, and I am honored to serve on it. In 2001, then-chairman of the committee Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, joined with Ranking Republican Member Orrin Hatch of Utah and they sent a letter to the Senate about this issue of filling Supreme Court vacancies--a bipartisan letter, Leahy and Hatch. Here is what it said: We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees. We should hold a hearing without delay. If this letter was the case 15 years ago and Senator Hatch, who was then the ranking Republican, joined with Senator Leahy, the Democratic chairman, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is we have a President named Barack Obama. You see, in 1987 there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan was President. In 1988 he sent the name Anthony Kennedy to this Chamber to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate at that time was under the control of the Democrats. Ronald Reagan, a Republican President, sent his nominee to the Democratic Senate, and what happened? Did they announce: We are not going to fill this; we will wait until after the election. No, no. The Democratic-controlled Senate held a hearing for Anthony Kennedy, brought him up for a vote, and passed him unanimously to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now look at what we are facing--Republican colleagues who refuse to do their job under the Constitution. For what reason? Obviously for political reasons. My Republican colleagues say they are standing behind a principle that the President should not get to name the Supreme Court Justice in his final year. That principle has no history, no precedent, and is virtually impossible to defend. I would suggest a different principle to my Republican colleagues. Since Judge Merrick Garland is unquestionably qualified and you clearly would vote to confirm him under the next President, why wait? Why not vote to confirm him under this President? Failing to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court means there will be over 1 year from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia until a successor is chosen. The only time in history when the Senate left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for that period of time--1 year or more--was during the Civil War when we were literally at war with one another in the United States. If that is the only time that ever happened, there is no excuse for us to let it happen again at this moment in our history. To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, do your job. Fill this vacancy. Meet your constitutional responsibility. For-Profit Colleges and Universities Mr. President, on Friday the Department of Education released its latest proposals for new regulations on borrower relief when a school engages in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct. The proposals will be debated this week at the third negotiated rulemaking session as part of the formal rulemaking process. I want to speak about one of the issues addressed in the latest proposal from the Department of Education--the use of mandatory arbitration in enrollment contracts by institutions of higher education. These clauses, which for-profit colleges and universities often bury in fine print, prevent students from bringing suit against a school in court as an individual and often as part of a class action. It means, for example, that if a student applying to a school is deceived and misled by that school as to the degree they will receive or the job they will qualify for, they can't bring a legal action in court against the school. Instead, the student is forced into a secret proceeding where the deck is stacked against him. It allows schools to avoid accountability for their misconduct and prevents misconduct from coming to the attention of Federal regulators. While nearly unheard of in not-for-profit institutions--think about public universities and private, not-for-profit colleges--mandatory arbitration has now become virtually standard in for-profit colleges and is used by all of the majors, such as the University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and DeVry University, just to name a few. It was also used by Corinthian. Corinthian, another for-profit college, made sure that if their students signed up for a contract with the school, they signed this arbitration clause which eliminated the student's day in court. I was pleased when the Department, in its latest proposal for current rulemaking, included an option for banning the use of mandatory arbitration by all institutions receiving Federal title IV dollars. I thank the Department for including it in its proposal. I also want to take a moment to discuss ITT Tech. ITT Tech is another for-profit college that is under scrutiny by Federal and State regulators. Last year the Department of Education found that the company, ITT, failed to meet its fiduciary duty to the Department and failed to meet the standards of administrative capability required of institutions under title IV, and they placed restrictions on ITT. The Department then required ITT Tech to pay nearly $80 million to be kept in escrow to guard against the potential collapse of this for-profit school. The company is under investigation by 18 State attorneys general related to deceptive marketing. This is deceptive marketing of college students who are being misled into signing expensive tuition contracts with this school. The New Mexico attorney general found that ITT Tech placed students into loans without the knowledge of the students, falsely stated the number of credits a student had to take in order to push them into more debt, failed to issue refunds of tuition and fees in compliance with Federal law, and a variety of other deceptive practices. If that wasn't enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also suing the company for predatory lending. This is the exploitation of college students. This is piling up debt. We have to frequently remind ourselves of the basics. Ten percent of the students in college are in for-profit colleges and universities. Among those are the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and ITT Tech. Out of that 10 percent, 40 percent of all student loan defaults are from students in the for-profit colleges and universities. How is it that 10 percent of the students in for-profit schools account for 40 percent of all student loan defaults? First, the students go too deep in debt. These for-profit schools are way too expensive. Second, when the students can't keep up with the debt they are accumulating, they drop out, and when they drop out, it is the worst of both worlds. They don't even have a diploma from the for-profit school, and they still have a debt. Third, if they hang around long enough and finish and get a diploma from these for-profit schools, they find out many times they are worthless. Forty percent of the loan defaults are from students who attended for-profit colleges and universities. These schools are coercing students into high-cost loans with interest rates as high as 16 percent and more, and they misrepresent future job prospects to them. Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suing the company, ITT, and two of its executives, Kevin Modany, its CEO, and Daniel Fitzpatrick, its CFO, personally for concealing the poor performance of private institutional student loans from investors. Behind all of this scrutiny by Federal and State regulators are students who have been harmed irreparably. According to a recent Brookings study, ITT Tech students cumulatively owe more than $4.6 billion in Federal student loans. How much is being paid back on this cumulative debt? According to the study, negative 1 percent of the balance has been repaid in 2014. What does it mean? How can it be a negative number? Simple--the interest on this accumulative debt is occurring faster than it can be paid off by the students. Individual students often have no chance of paying back this personal debt when they have taken out a loan and end up with a worthless degree from ITT Tech. What responsibility do we have as a government when it comes to these schools that are deceiving students, dragging them into debt, and then watching as they default? We have a major responsibility. For-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America today. We have all heard the term ``crony capitalism.'' It couldn't apply more aptly to for-profit colleges and universities. Most of their revenues don't come from students and families--only indirectly. Most of their revenue comes through the Federal Treasury in the form of government loans that end up in the pockets of the owners of these for-profit colleges and universities. More than half the students who left ITT in 2009 are in default on their student loans 5 years later--half. One former student of ITT Tech is Marcus Willis from Illinois. He was aggressively recruited by ITT Tech with multiple phone calls each day. He finally signed up for classes. He graduated in 2003 from ITT Tech and spent months unable to find a job. When talking about his debt, Marcus said: It's too much to even keep track of. I will never, ever be able to pay it back. He said that he ``wouldn't wish ITT Tech on his worst enemy.'' Despite all the lawsuits, the scandal, and students like Marcus, January was a big month for ITT Tech executives Kevin Modany and Daniel Fitzpatrick. They both got big bonus checks. Modany received $515,000 and Fitzpatrick received $112,000. They can expect more. In 2014, Mr. Modany was paid more than $3 million. These are the same two who the SEC says violated numerous Federal securities laws in a fraudulent scheme to hide information from investors. But ITT Tech's board looks the other way. Instead of penalizing or dismissing them, they give them a bonus. ITT Tech investors have a right to be outraged. Current and former ITT Tech students are also outraged. The Federal taxpayers should be outraged too. You see, ITT Tech receives 80 percent of its revenue from Federal student aid funds. Nearly $1 billion a year comes from the Federal Treasury, and even more than that when you count the money they take in from VA, GI bills, and the Department of Defense tuition assistance funding. Recently, I sent a letter to ITT Tech's accreditor, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, asking them what steps they were going to take to respond to this company's misconduct and shaky financial situation. They responded last week that they have required ITT Tech to submit teach-out plans to ensure that students can continue their education at other institutions should the company fail. Incidentally, the other institutions are probably going to be more for- profit schools. So they transfer the kids from one failing for-profit to another questionable for-profit college. They also told me that they will assess ITT Tech's financial stability, education quality, and program integrity when they get together in April. I encourage the council which accredited Corinthian, which is now out of business, to make sure they take a hard look at ITT Tech. The writing is on the wall. There are reports that the University of Akron may be interested in buying this questionable college. I will be watching this development carefully to ensure that any potential transaction is in the best interest of students, their families, and taxpayers. Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act Mr. President, mental health conditions affect one out of five American adults. Yet this disease continues to be stigmatized, undertreated, and reduced to second-class status when it comes to certain health care benefits. Just like any other physical health disease, mental health conditions require a dedicated treatment plan and support for full recovery. I still remember years ago, when Paul Wellstone, who used to sit right back there, and Pete Domenici, who sat over there, were in the Senate. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was a Democrat, and Pete Domenici of New Mexico was a Republican--what an unlikely pair. They came together because each of them had family experiences with mental health. What they tried to do--and successfully did--was to include in all of our health insurance plans coverage for mental health counseling as well as substance abuse treatment. It became standard. When we passed ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, it was built into health insurance policies. I have heard Members stand here and say: I am getting rid of ObamaCare. We are going to vote against it and make that go away. When they say that, we need to ask them: Will the coverage for mental health conditions go away too? How about the coverage for substance abuse treatment, will that coverage go away too? This change made a big difference. It was a huge step in the right direction to expand access to mental counseling. We have to further eliminate barriers to treatment. Last week, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, authorizing several important programs to help people deal with mental health and substance abuse issues. I supported it because it was a step in the right direction. We know that approximately 44 million Americans experience some sort of brain health or mental illness issue during the year, and millions don't receive treatment or support. This need for mental health services is especially dire with one group of Americans. How often in your life experience have you noticed a young man or woman go off to college and for the first time ever manifest some serious mental health issues? I have seen it with frequency, and I know that many schools struggle with it. Studies have shown that one-half of all chronic mental illness begins by age 14 and three-fourths by age 24. College students can face stress in new academic surroundings and new social environments. Many of them are away from home for the first time, and mental health concerns start to manifest. Despite this, colleges and universities have limited resources to deal with it. The ratio of counselors to students far exceeds recommended levels, preventing colleges and universities from identifying the most at-risk students. Right now, we are seeing a huge disparity between reported mental health needs and services being provided. In one nationwide study, 57 percent of students reported having felt overwhelming anxiety, 35 percent felt so depressed it was difficult to function, and 48 percent felt hopeless. Now, I remember some bad nights and bad mornings when facing a tough test, but we are talking about young people who have gone beyond that. They are facing some serious personal challenges. Only 10 percent of enrolled students seek any kind of counseling. This means that too many are slipping through the cracks and too many are not receiving treatment for mental illness. This can have tragic results. While millions of Americans suffer from serious mental illness, a very small statistical group engages in violence against themselves or others. We have examples of what happens when someone dealing with mental illness becomes violent. There was a horrific tragedy in 2008 on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Six people died in a school shooting as a result of someone suffering from mental illness. Their families were changed forever, and so was the campus. Not all mental health emergencies grab national headlines. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 34. We can't ignore the silent suffering of millions of Americans, including many young people. That is why I have joined with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, and Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat of Colorado, to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve mental health services on college campuses, expanding outreach and counseling and tackling the mental health illness stigma. I am happy to partner with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois in introducing this legislation. Our bill, the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, will support colleges and universities by giving them resources to better support the mental health needs of their students. It establishes a grant program to provide direct mental health services and outreach. Our bill will also increase awareness and treatment by promoting peer support training and engagement with campus groups. It launches a national education campaign to reduce the stigma, encourage identification of risk, and enhance the conversation about mental health and seeking help. This bill is sponsored by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Psychology Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Chicago, and the American College Health Association, among others. This morning this legislation was adopted by a voice vote as an amendment to the Cassidy-Murphy Mental Health Reform Act in the HELP Committee. I thank Senators Collins and Bennet for their efforts to advance the bill. I also thank Senators Cassidy, Murphy, Murray, and Alexander for working with us to ensure this important provision was included in the larger bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan measure. I also know there is a lot of interest in addressing barriers to treatment in Medicaid, known as the IMD exclusion, which is under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I will continue to push a bill that I cosponsored with Senator King of Maine, the Medicaid Care Act, which expands access to treatment and coverage. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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