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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3095 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment which I am offering with Senator Alexander would increase funding levels for the Department of Energy Office of Science to a rate of 5 percent annual real growth for 5 years. The Office of Science is an incredible organization--24 scientists, 10 national labs, research in 300 colleges and universities in all 50 States. It was their work which led to the development of the MRI, and they are currently working on imaging systems to identify Alzheimer's in its early stages. It is an incredible operation. This commitment will pay us back many times over. I yield to my friend and colleague from Tennessee.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering a bipartisan energy bill that could lead America on a pathway to rebuilding our Nation's economy in this century. It has been 9 years since we passed an energy bill and a lot of things have changed. The bill we are considering contains important provisions to build domestic clean energy sources, strengthen energy efficiency measures, and modernize our electric grid. This bill also represents a commitment to basic science research at the Department of Energy. I believe it can and should do more than what the original bill proposes. We need more robust support for basic science research--the kind of research that costs too much and takes too long for any individual company to undertake. We need to invest in medical and basic science research. The investment will pay off for generations to come. I cochair the Senate National Lab Caucus, and I know that if we invest in research in the National Labs, it will lead to breakthroughs that will help keep America competitive and create good-paying jobs. At Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Illinois, the development of superconducting wire technology enabled the large-scale manufacture of the magnetic resonance imaging--or MRI--machines doctors use today. Sometimes it is hard for the scientists and engineers and leaders at these labs to explain in simple words what they are doing and why it is important. This is an example. They were working on a wire technology that probably didn't mean much certainly to me or to many people, but when they finished, they came up with an MRI--a brandnew way of imaging our bodies to detect illnesses and plot a way to cure them. In the 1970s, the scientists building Fermilab's particle accelerator drove cutting-edge research in superconducting wire fabrication. Rather than patent these advances, Fermilab made them freely available to the public and private sector, opening the door to large-scale superconducting wire manufacturing by private industry. Since MRI machines rely on superconducting wires, this made commercialization possible. Today, MRI machines are widely used to image the human body. Using MRIs nearly eliminates the need for exploratory surgery, which, of course, means it is cheaper in the long run and safer. Last month, a new generation of MRI machines at the Illinois Neurological Institute saved the life of a 27-year-old farmer from Canton, IL, Cody Krulac. Cody had a tumor that was located in the part of his brain that would have been difficult to image using old technology and would have relied on surgery and guesswork, but using the new MRI machine, his doctors were able to pinpoint exactly where the tumor was and exactly how much to remove, meaning Cody spent less time in surgery and recovered more quickly. Another example of the Department of Energy's success can be found in Argonne's Advanced Photon Source. Its power x-ray beams enable the observation of extremely small objects in unprecedented detail. This allows scientists to see how viruses, such as HIV, replicate and how cancer grows. This understanding led to the discovery of a new drug for AIDS therapy, a drug called Kaletra, which is now the most prescribed drug in its class for this deadly disease. It also led to the development of a drug, Zelboraf, to treat melanoma. This drug has been used by 11,000 patients worldwide and is approved in 43 countries. The research at this National Lab really paved the way. Building and operating a facility like the Advanced Photon Source is too expensive and specialized for any single company to do. Only investment by America in its own Department of Energy can make something like this possible. Let me give one final example of how the Department of Energy's Office Of Science has had an impact on every American life. Researchers from Illinois University, Fermilab, and Argonne have teamed up to give a tenfold boost to normal CT scanning capabilities. The result was a next-generation CT scanner that limits the patient's exposure to radiation while giving better images that allow doctors to more accurately detect and treat cancer and save lives. This research also led to two U.S. patents and spurred an Illinois startup company called ProtonVDA through the National Institutes of Health small business innovation research grant. These are only some of the Department of Energy's and the National Lab's success stories, but they are examples that show that this investment, which cannot be effectively made by most businesses in America, can really make America safer, healthier, and pave the way for new businesses and jobs. America's place as a world leader in cutting- edge research is at risk if we fail to make the necessary investments in basic science research. I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, particularly Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri; Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee; and Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from the State of Washington. They really stepped up when it came to NIH research--the National Institutes of Health. In this year's budget, we are going to have virtually a 5-percent real increase in research--$2 billion of new money going to NIH. I am willing to stake my future in the Senate and tell you that investment at the NIH this year in research will ultimately lead to breakthroughs that will save lives. This is another area which is equally promising. I remember visiting the Department of Energy a few months back with Ernest Moniz, our Secretary, whom I respect very much. I told him the story of how I am committed to NIH's basic biomedical research. I said one example is Alzheimer's. I was surprised when my staff said one American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's every 67 seconds. I said: Go back to the drawing board. That can't be true. They went back and came back and said: No, Senator, that is exactly right. One in every 67 seconds on average, an American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I told that story to Ernest Moniz, the Secretary of Energy, and I said that is why we need this NIH research. He said: Senator, my Office of Science in the Department of Energy is developing the imaging techniques so that we can detect Alzheimer's in living human beings. Currently, the only confirmation of the diagnosis is confirmed in autopsy. If we can look at the early onset of Alzheimer's, we can better respond to it. That is why, if one is interested in curing diseases, in finding ways to avoid expensive surgery, in reducing the cost of medicine but still protecting America, this generation of lawmakers needs to make a commitment to science research. I have already thanked my colleagues by name who have done so much for the NIH, and I will be offering an amendment with Senator Alexander of Tennessee that is going to help increase our commitment to research in the Energy bill which is before us. The 4-percent growth in the bill is good, but unfortunately it does not protect against inflation. What we are calling for is 5-percent growth over inflation in this Department. I can guarantee that the breakthroughs that will come from this research will make life better and create more opportunities for people living in this country. We need to have sustained funding to ensure that cutting-edge research can bear fruit, and we are asking that they maintain this growth period of 5-percent real growth for 5 years. Congress needs to help America's best and brightest do what they do best. This amendment represents an investment that will save lives. I will say parenthetically that this morning I made a trip to Atlanta, GA. Every 2 or 3 years, I go down to visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This agency is not well known or well understood by most Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA, is the first line in America's national defense when it comes to public health threats. We now have a mosquito called the Zika mosquito spreading a virus in Brazil to the point where women are being warned that now is not the time to be pregnant. If one of those mosquitoes should sting you and if some of the virus gets into your body, it can cause a miscarriage or some terrible birth defects in the baby. That is how dangerous it is. The frontline of defense in the United States is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. As I walked through there and met with the pathologists, the doctors, veterinarians, and others who work there, I saw this amazing array of extraordinary talent, people who were excited about their work, about making our country and the world safer. The Zika virus, of course, is our current threat, but there are many more. They faced the Ebola crisis in Africa, and luckily it did not spread beyond the few countries where it was first reported. So when we talk about investments in research by the U.S. Federal Government, it is research that is good for us and our families, and it is good for the world. I will be offering this amendment probably this week with Senator Alexander and others to increase this commitment to research. It is an investment that will lead to new breakthroughs in this bill on energy, in scientific discoveries, energy innovation, and national security. This amendment strengthens the bill before us and helps us move to our 21st-century economy in the world. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to two separate issues. First, I wish to speak to the issue of for-profit colleges and universities. Yesterday another for-profit college was accused by a Federal agency of misleading and deceiving students. The Federal Trade Commission announced it filed suit against DeVry University for advertisements that deceived consumers about the likelihood that students would find jobs and earn money after they graduated from DeVry. DeVry's commercials and advertisements date back to at least 2008-- about 9 years that they have been claiming that ``since 1975, 90% of DeVry graduates system-wide in the active job market held positions in their fields of study within 6 months of graduation.'' Starting in 2013, they also claimed that DeVry graduates ``had 15 percent higher incomes one year after graduation on average than graduates of all other colleges and universities.'' The Department of Education started investigating these claims in August of last year. After asking DeVry for proof of their statements in these ads, the Department announced yesterday that the company was ``unable to substantiate the truthfulness of those representations, as is required by federal law.'' As such, the Department of Education ordered DeVry to stop making these false claims and required DeVry's future claims related to employability and income to be verified by an independent monitor. At the same time, it appears the Department will allow DeVry to continue to participate in Federal title IV programs-- receiving taxpayer dollars and enrolling new students. How much Federal funding does DeVry receive? In 2013 and 2014, DeVry Education Group, brought in more than $1 billion in taxpayer funding through title IV. The company's president, Daniel Hamburger, received $5.7 million in total compensation in 2014--$5.7 million. If we compare the salary this president took from DeVry University--which receives the lion's share of all of its funds from the Federal Government--we will find he is compensated dramatically more than college presidents across the United States. The president of the University of Illinois--a major flagship institution and research university--makes a base salary in the neighborhood of $600,000. By comparison, DeVry's president, Daniel Hamburger, received $5.7 million in total compensation thanks to the taxpayers and students. Meanwhile, according to a recent study by Brookings, DeVry students cumulatively owe more than $8.3 billion in federal student loan debt. It is no wonder considering the average cost of an associate's degree-- a 2-year degree--at DeVry is about $40,000. In 2009, DeVry's 5-year cohort default rate on student loans was 43 percent. That means that of the students who left DeVry in the year 2009, 43 percent--almost half of them--had defaulted within 5 years of leaving DeVry. I have said it before of Corinthian--a for-profit school that went out of business-- and I will say it now of DeVry: Students shouldn't be left holding the bag for the misdeeds of these private, profit-making corporations that are skimming so much money from the taxpayers. The Department of Education has found that DeVry's claims could not be substantiated as required by Federal law. The Federal Trade Commission is also suing DeVry over claims of misleading students and consumers. Students who were harmed should be eligible for expedited Federal student loan relief through defense to repayment. But let me remind those who are following this debate: Follow the money. Taxpayers across America pay their taxes. The money goes into the Federal Treasury, and then the money goes--through the Treasury and through Pell grants and student loans--to students and their families, to these private, for-profit colleges and universities. The private, for-profit colleges and universities, such as DeVry, deceive and mislead the students about the value of their education and whether they will get a job after they graduate. The students end up wasting their time and their money because they end up with a huge student debt when it is all over. And what happens? They default on their debt, which means the taxpayers don't see the money going back to the Treasury, which we hope for, or in some cases the schools--like Corinthian--fail, and as a result the students are relieved of their debt obligations--as they should be, so the taxpayers again are the ultimate losers. The for-profit colleges and universities of the United States of America are the most heavily subsidized private sector businesses in our country--not a defense contractor or a farm operation; for-profit colleges and universities. The DeVry news follows a particularly bad year for this industry. In 2015 more misconduct and schemes were exposed when it came to for- profit colleges and universities than ever before. Enrollment across the industry is declining, as students and their parents finally realize that many of these schools are just bad news. State and Federal regulators are shining a light on the illegal tactics of the for-profit college and university industry. Stock prices for these private, for- profit corporations are plummeting because investors realize that exploiting these students, misleading these students, and swindling taxpayers is not a sustainable business model. Years of bad behavior are catching up with for-profit colleges and universities, and it shows in how for-profit education companies are closing their schools across the country. Even in my home state of Illinois, we have seen dramatic changes over the last year. It started with the collapse of Corinthian. This company was inflating its job- placement rates to lure in new students, defrauding the students, their families, and taxpayers, and lying to the accrediting agencies and Federal Government. When Corinthian collapsed, more than 70,000 students were left in the lurch, many with more debt than they could possibly repay and a Corinthian education that turned out to be virtually worthless. In Illinois, the campuses Corinthian operated as Everest College in the villages and towns of Bedford Park, Burr Ridge, Melrose Park, Merrionette Park, and Skokie were then sold to ECMC. ECMC was a new creation. This company that created this new not-for-profit, in name at least, college, incidentally, is a major debt collector for the U.S. Department of Education and had no previous experience running an educational enterprise. What qualified them to start a college, I don't know. Unfortunately, ECMC maintained much of the old Corinthian leadership and maintained practices to keep students from suing them for misconduct. After the Illinois Board of Higher Education pushed them on some of these issues, ECMC decided to teach-out its newly acquired campuses in Illinois and leave the State, thank goodness. Then there is Westwood. Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan--whom I respect very much--sued Westwood College for engaging in deceptive practices. Attorney General Madigan's suit focused specifically on Westwood's criminal justice program. In order to lure students into the program, this private, for-profit college, Westwood, convinced the students they could get jobs with the Chicago Police Department or the Illinois State Police if they would just hang on and get a degree from Westwood. What happened when the students graduated and took their degrees and diplomas to employers and applied for a job? The employers laughed at them. They didn't recognize a Westwood degree. In November, Attorney General Madigan reached a settlement with Westwood. It agreed to forgive $15 million in private student loans for Illinois students--private loans, not federal loans. Shortly thereafter, Westwood announced it would stop enrolling students and end operations at its campuses nationwide, including the four it operates in the Chicagoland area. Thank goodness and good riddance to Westwood. Also in 2015, Career Education Corporation, which is another for- profit college, announced it would close its brands Sanford Brown, Harrington College of Design, and Le Cordon Bleu, all of which had campuses in Illinois. Thank goodness and good riddance. In Chicago, an associate's degree in culinary art at Le Cordon Bleu would have cost $42,000, and students had a one-in-five chance of defaulting on any loans they took out for that associate's degree. If the students walked a few blocks away to Chicago City Colleges' Kennedy King Campus, in comparison, they could have received the same degree not for $42,000 but for $7,000. And the likelihood of defaulting on student loans at City Colleges is not 1 in 5, as it was at Le Cordon Bleu, it is 1 in 20. Harrington--I have talked about them before. Harrington College of Design exploited Hannah Moore, a young woman from Chicago whom I have come to know. She got her degree at Harrington after transferring from a community college. She couldn't find a job in her field with her Harrington degree. It turned out to be worthless. What did it cost her to get the degree, this for-profit college degree that Harrington heavily marketed? Hannah paid $125,000. She still carries that debt to this day, and it is growing. She can't pay it off fast enough, and it has ballooned to $150,000. This poor young woman. Her life is compromised because of the exploitation of her ambition to do something important in life. She had to live in her parents' basement. Her dad came out of retirement to try to help his daughter pay off her students loans because, you see, the loans that are taken out to go to any institution of higher education are not like money borrowed for a car or a home; these student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. What does that mean? You are going to carry them to the grave. Many student loan debts that are in default are being collected in the most unusual places. Grandmothers who helped their granddaughters by cosigning their loan for college--when the granddaughter defaults, it is the grandmother and in some cases her Social Security payments that are withheld to pay off these student loans. These loans will haunt these students, many of them for a lifetime, particularly if they have gone to these for-profit schools. Finally, even though it is not in Illinois, I want to mention Ashford University. On a campus in Clinton, IA, just across the Mississippi River, Ashford has shown itself to be one of the worst actors in the for-profit college industry. A Bloomberg News story told of James Long, who suffered a brain injury when he was in service to his country in the Army, driving a humvee in Iraq that was attacked. An Ashford recruiter went after James Long and got him to sign up to use his military education benefits to enroll in classes that this individual, sadly, could not even remember because of the traumatic brain injury he had suffered. In 2014, Iowa attorney general Tom Miller announced a $7.25 million settlement with Ashford University. Miller accused the school of violating Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act after the Iowa attorney general received multiple complaints filed by current and former Ashford students. This included complaints that this for-profit school misled students to believe that an online Ashford education degree would allow students to become classroom teachers with no further certification. I remember Ashford because our former colleague, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, held a hearing and talked about how Ashford bought what was a small Catholic college, took on their accreditation, and started peddling the for-profit education that was worthless. Do you know what the faculty of Ashford University consisted of at that time? One faculty member for every 500 students. Do you know what the people who were running this scam operation were paid? Millions--millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The investigation found that Ashford recruiters, in addition, misled prospective students, used high- pressure sales tactics, and failed to disclose information about the cost and likelihood of obtaining a degree. In 2015, Ashford announced it was going to close its Clinton, IA, campus--thank goodness and good riddance. It is for the students who could have been exploited by these companies that I say this: It is time for us to stand up as a Congress and Federal Government and put an end to this insidious scam of students, their families, and the taxpayers. Thousands of students in Illinois and all across the Nation have been lured into attending these for-profit schools with lies or deception. Don't take this Senator's word for it. Take a look at the litany of schools that are under investigation by State and local authorities for fraud. Many students, such as Hannah, have so much debt that their lives and futures are compromised. Over the last year, I have joined several of my Senate colleagues to push the Department of Education to provide Federal student loan debt relief to students who have been taken advantage of by the for-profit colleges. We have an obligation here. To think that we are shoveling $25 billion into these for-profit schools every single year without asking the hard questions about whether taxpayers' dollars and student debt is justified by the results. Shame on us--we can do so much better. The numbers tell the story. Ten percent, or 1 out of 10, of college students in this country attend for-profit colleges and universities, and 20 percent of all the Federal aid to education, or $25 billion, goes to these for-profit colleges and universities. In spite of it only accounting for 10 percent of college students, these for-profit colleges and universities account for over 40 percent of student loan defaults. They charge too much, their diplomas are worth too little, and these students suffer as a result. What is our obligation here? Is this a ``buyer beware'' situation when it comes to the students and their families or is it a situation where ``Congress beware'' if we aren't more sensitive to the fact that we are propping up an industry that is exploiting these students and taxpayers. With the closure of these campuses in Illinois and several of these companies moving out of the State all together, the educational landscape is a little safer for the thousands of Illinoisans trying to do the right thing--to get an education for themselves and their families. There is a sensible alternative in virtually every city and town in America--community colleges, city colleges. They are affordable, and in most cases the credits are transferrable to major universities and students don't incur the kind of debt that can compromise their lives for years and years to come. I have spoken on the floor many times about these for-profit colleges and universities. In one respect it is a fairly easy issue and easy topic. They need to be held accountable, as DeVry is being held accountable by the Department of Education and the Federal Trade Commission for their misconduct. Now the question is this: Will the Congress step up to its responsibility to clean up this situation? Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering a bipartisan energy bill that will help put our country on a pathway to build a 21st century economy. It contains several important provisions to develop domestic clean energy resources, and I look forward to working with my colleagues through the amendment process to strengthen it. I wish to congratulate Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, and Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from the State of Washington--the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--and applaud them for their effort and thank them for bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor. The Energy Policy Modernization Act is a result of the committee's multiple hearings on over 100 individual bills. If passed, it will be the first major energy bill approved by Congress in 9 years. A lot has changed in 9 years. The United States has dramatically increased natural gas and oil production. Renewable energy production has skyrocketed and the cost of this has decreased. More Americans are using it. We are also finding new and better ways to address our most pressing energy and climate change challenges. The bill before us takes those new developments into account and updates our policies. The act strengthens energy efficiency measures for Federal buildings and multifamily homes and reauthorizes important programs such as weatherization and energy. In Illinois, that means tens of thousands low-income and elderly households will be able to receive critical upgrades that will make their homes more efficient, allowing them to spend less money to keep their homes cool and warm. It will also help maintain Illinois' leadership as the top State for LEED- certified buildings as ranked by the U.S. Green Building Council. The bill encourages the development of new energy resources such as geothermal and hydropower and better ways to store carbon dioxide, which will help us address the challenge of climate change. Most importantly, the bill makes a substantial commitment to supporting basic science research and innovation at universities and the Department of Energy's laboratories. The Energy Policy Modernization Act authorizes 4-percent annual budget increases for the DOE Office of Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency. As cochair of the Senate National Laboratory Caucus, I strongly support these increases at DOE's Office of Science because I know it will lead to new breakthrough scientific discoveries that will keep America competitive. Since their creation in the 1940s, the national labs have really done some amazing things on energy innovation, scientific discovery, and national security. In Illinois, both Argonne and Fermi serve as a meeting place for the world's best researchers. The work conducted at their labs leads to advances in alternative-fuel vehicles and improvements in energy efficiency. Universities from across the country use the labs to conduct research and train others. That is why earlier this year I introduced a bill, the American Innovation Act, to provide 5-percent real growth to DOE's Office of Science. I hope to offer an amendment on the floor. A 4-percent annual increase when it comes to the Office of Science in the Department of Energy, for example, is good, but that is not 4 percent over inflation. If inflation is running at 2 percent, it is merely a 2-percent real increase in research. I think we ought to err on the side of investing more into research. I think we should have 5-percent real growth in investment in the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense medical research, and the Veterans Administration medical research. Then when it comes to this side of the ledger, such as innovations, let's include the Office of Science and many other key agencies. I visited the Department of Energy a few months ago, and I had breakfast with Ernest Moniz, who is the Secretary. I talked to him about biomedical research, and he said: There is something I need to share with you. The Office of Science in the Department of Energy is developing the technology for imaging the brain so we can detect early indications of Alzheimer's. Currently, unfortunately, the only way to really say that a person is suffering from Alzheimer's with any objective assurance is through an autopsy. If we can--through imaging devices, while a person is still alive and before they have really started to decline--detect and work on stopping the progress of Alzheimer's, it would be an amazing achievement. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I challenged my staff when they told me that, and they were right. Almost every single minute a person is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Last year, in Federal funds, we spent in Medicare and Medicaid $200 billion on Alzheimer's patients. Imagine what was spent in the private sector, and imagine the kind of sacrifices and the spending that were made by families trying to maintain the care of a family member stricken with Alzheimer's. So putting a little extra money into biomedical research, or in this case research at the Office of Science, is money well invested. If we can slow down the progress of Alzheimer's and find a way to delay it-- even months--it will pay back this investment over and over. God willing, if we find a cure, it will justify every penny we put into this research. I will offer an amendment, and what I am asking is basic. I am asking for authorization for 5-percent real growth that is over inflation. I think that is the least we can do, but I think it will be a significant commitment and substantially more than is currently in the bill. The work at these labs has led to amazing advances, and I think there is more ahead of us. In addition to supporting basic science research, the act before us directs the Department of Education to build a research program to develop the next generation of computers--1,000 times faster than our current supercomputers. Is it possible? I believe it is. I am not an expert in this field, but you have to step back and say that it is amazing when they tell us that the cellphones we carry around have more computing power than the early computers that Steve Jobs and others brought to market. Currently, companies around the world use supercomputers to solve problems and answer important questions. Boeing and Cummins have both used DOE supercomputers to design better airplanes and trucks and use less energy so that they burn fuel more efficiently. This has led China, South Korea, and Europe to get into the competition. They are in the race, too, for the next generation of supercomputers. I want America to win that race. The bill before us, with its investment and research, can make a difference. The government should invest in these labs and in research to create jobs and competitive businesses. This bipartisan energy bill can achieve that and lead this country to a brighter future with greater energy resources that have a lighter impact on the environment and build a stronger economy. Because the energy choices we make now will determine the future of our children and grandchildren, we ought to be serious about it. We ought to make the investments for a sustainable planet and a promising, bright future. I hope my colleagues will work together to improve this bill and help us create a 21st century energy economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe it was in April of 2009 that I picked up a New Yorker magazine and read an article that had a real impact on me. It was an article written by Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, an amazing man. In addition to his medical responsibilities, he is a person with a very inquisitive mind and a real knack when it comes to investigating challenging issues. The article that I read in the New Yorker by Dr. Gawande examined the human impact of long-term solitary confinement and asked, ``If prolonged isolation is--as research and experience have confirmed for decades--so objectively horrifying, so intrinsically cruel, how did we end up with a prison system that may subject more of our own citizens to it than any other country in history has?'' Dr. Gawande's article inspired me--motivated me--to begin to look into the issue of solitary confinement in prisons. I was amazed to learn that the United States holds more prisoners in solitary confinement--about 100,000--than any other democratic nation in the world. So in 2012, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, I held the first-ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement. At the hearing, we took a look at the serious fiscal impact of solitary. We learned that it costs almost three times more to keep a Federal prisoner in segregation than in the general population. We also discussed the significant public safety consequences of widespread solitary confinement, given that the vast majority of inmates held in segregation will ultimately be released to the community someday. And we heard testimony about the human impact of holding tens of thousands of women, men, and children in small, windowless cells 23 hours a day-- for days, months, even years--with very little, if any, human contact with the outside world. Clearly, such extreme isolation can have a serious, damaging psychological impact. I will never ever forget the compelling testimony of Anthony Graves. In the year 2010, after 18 years in prison--and 16 of those years in solitary confinement--Anthony Graves became the 12th death row inmate to be exonerated in the State of Texas. At the hearing, Mr. Graves testified about his experience. The room was silent. He stated: Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will to live. . . . I have been free for almost two years and I still cry at night, because no one out here can relate to what I have gone through. I battle with feelings of loneliness. I've tried therapy but it didn't work. In 2014, I held a follow-up hearing on the issue. I called for an end to solitary confinement for juveniles, pregnant women, and inmates with serious mental illness. At the hearing, we heard from Damon Thibodeaux. He had spent 15 years in solitary confinement at the Louisiana State Penitentiary before being found not guilty and released. Mr. Thibodeaux testified: I do not condone what those who have killed and committed other serious offenses have done. But I also don't condone what we do to them, when we put them in solitary for years on end and treat them as sub-human. We are better than that. As a civilized society, we should be better than that. In recent years a number of experts and State and Federal officials across the country have questioned our Nation's overuse of solitary confinement. In 2014, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testified to Congress: ``Solitary confinement literally drives men mad.'' Last year, Justice Kennedy again brought up the issue in a powerful concurring opinion. He wrote: ``Research still confirms what this Court suggested over a century ago: Years on end of near-total isolation exacts a terrible price.'' He went on to say: The judiciary may be required . . . to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them. Pope Francis, who spoke to a joint session of Congress a few months ago, has also criticized solitary confinement. In a 2014 speech at the Vatican, he referred to the practice of extreme isolation as ``torture'' and ``a genuine surplus of pain added to the actual suffering of imprisonment.'' The Pope went on to say: The lack of sensory stimuli, the total impossibility of communication and the lack of contact with other human beings induce mental and physical suffering such as paranoia, anxiety, depression, weight loss, and significantly increase the suicidal tendency. In light of the mounting evidence of the dangerous and harmful impacts of solitary confinement, several States have led the way in reassessing the practice. Colorado has implemented a number of reforms, including no longer releasing offenders directly from solitary to the community, and ensuring that inmates with serious mental illness are not placed in solitary confinement. As a result of the reforms, inmate- on-staff assaults are at the lowest levels in Colorado in 10 years, incidents of self-harm have decreased among the inmates, and most inmates released from solitary do not return. In the State of Washington, a focus on rehabilitation and programming for inmates in solitary confinement has led to a reduction of more than 50 percent in the segregated population. The Association of State Correctional Administrators--a group representing the heads of all 50 State prison systems--recently called for limits on the use of long-term solitary confinement. In a statement, they said: Prolonged isolation of individuals in jails and prisons is a grave problem in the United States. . . . Correctional leaders across the country are committed to reducing the number of people in restrictive housing. . . . Progress has been made at the Federal level since our first hearing. A substantial percentage of those in solitary confinement are no longer serving in that situation. After my first hearing on the issue, I asked the Bureau of Prisons to submit to the first-ever independent assessment of its solitary confinement policies and practices. The assessment, released last year, noted that some improvements have been made since the 2012 hearing, the initial hearing we had on the subject. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has reduced its segregated population by more than 25 percent and continues to look for more reductions. Despite this, there is a lot of work to be done. That is why I was pleased to see President Obama's announcement this week that he has accepted a number of recommendations from the Department of Justice to reform and reduce the practice of solitary confinement in the federal prison system. In an op-ed published yesterday in the Washington Post, the President explained how the Department of Justice's review of solitary confinement policy led to the conclusion that the practice should be used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. The President's recommendations included: banning solitary confinement for juveniles, diverting inmates with serious mental illness to alternative forms of housing, diverting inmates in need of protection from solitary confinement to less restrictive conditions, reducing the use of disciplinary segregation, and improving the conditions of solitary confinement by increasing inmates' out-of-cell time and access to services. I welcome these changes. I commend the President for his actions. I look forward to working with the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice on this issue. In the course of studying this issue, I decided I had to see it firsthand. I went to Tamms prison in Southern Illinois. It was the maximum security State prison in the State. I went in, met with the warden, and I took my tour. Then I said to her: I want to see the most restrictive solitary confinement. She took me into an area where five men were in solitary confinement. I had a chance to speak to each of them. One of the men I will never forget. I asked him: How many years are you in for? He said: Originally 20, but they added 50 to that. I said: Fifty additional years? He said: Yes. He said in a very calm voice: I told them that if they put another prisoner in my cell I would kill him, and I did. I thought to myself, be aware, Senator, there are ruthless and vicious people and violent people who really need to be carefully scrutinized and carefully imprisoned in a situation where they can't harm other inmates or the personnel, but still, even in that circumstance, we have to look to the most humane way to treat them in the course of their imprisonment. The President's decision to address the use of solitary represents a major step forward in protecting human rights, increasing public safety, and improving fiscal responsibility in our federal prisons. Still, we have the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world--the United States, the highest rate of incarceration in the world. President Obama noted yesterday that changing our approach to solitary confinement is just one part of a larger set of reforms we must pursue. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and I worked with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to introduce the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 15-to-5 bipartisan vote several months ago. In order to comprehensively address the problems facing our Federal prisons, we should bring this bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation to the Senate floor and work with our colleagues in the House to send a bill to the President this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today marks the 6-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this far-reaching opinion, on a divided 5-4 vote, the Court struck down years of precedent and held that the First Amendment permitted corporations to spend freely from their treasuries to influence elections. As a result of Citizens United and the series of decisions that followed in its wake, special interests and wealthy, well-connected campaign donors have so far poured more than $2 billion into recent Federal elections, including 2016 races. About half of the total outside spending since Citizens United went toward the 2012 Presidential election. More than 93 percent of all Super PAC donations in 2012 came in contributions of at least $10,000 from only 3,318 donors, who make up 0.0011 percent of the U.S. population. Of that group, an elite class of 159 people each contributed at least $1 million--which was nearly 60 percent of all Super PAC donations that year. In the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential primaries, we are once again witnessing an immense amount of spending. A New York Times investigation in October found that of approximately 120 million households in the United States, a mere 158 families, along with businesses they own or control, had already contributed $176 million-- nearly half of all funds raised to support the 2016 Presidential campaigns before a single primary vote has been cast. Congressional races have been similarly flooded with outside spending. For example, in the 2014 midterm elections, outside groups spent more than $560 million to influence congressional races--eight times the approximately $70 million spent in 2006, the last midterm election cycle before Citizens United. And more than 30 percent of that spending came from tax-exempt, ``dark money'' groups that conceal their donors from the public. The impact of this incredible spending stretches from races for the White House and Congress to Governors' mansions, State capitols, and city halls throughout the country. As in Federal campaigns, Citizens United has led to an explosion of outside spending at the State and local levels, with corporations and wealthy single spenders looking to play kingmaker, pouring cash into races for positions ranging from district attorney to school board members. One of the most startling examples occurred in 2014 in Richmond, CA, a city with a population of 107,000. Chevron--an energy company with more than $200 billion in annual revenue--spent approximately $3 million through campaign committees aimed at influencing the mayoral and city council races. That means Chevron spent at least $33 per voting-age resident in Richmond. The long-term damage to our political process from Citizens United is just beginning to reveal itself. Some scandals have already surfaced, and there will undoubtedly be more stories of corruption and corrosive influence ahead, further eroding public confidence in our government. I have worked with my colleagues on a number of solutions to stem this tidal wave of secret unlimited spending, including improving disclosure and creating a more transparent campaign finance system. I will continue my efforts to establish a public financing system for congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act, which I reintroduced last year. We also must continue to push for a constitutional amendment that would protect and restore the First Amendment by overturning Citizens United and empowering Congress and State legislatures to set reasonable, content neutral limitations on campaign spending. In 2614, Justice John Paul Stevens discussed his support for an amendment to overturn Citizens United in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee. Here is what he said: ``Unlimited campaign expenditures impair the process of democratic self-government. They create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of non-voters who provided them with money than to the interests of the voters who elected them. That risk is unacceptable.'' As we approach the sixth anniversary of the Citizens United decision, we should heed Justice Stevens's words. It is unacceptable for politicians to feel more beholden to wealthy donors than their constituents. We must work to fix America's campaign finance system and overturn Citizens United so that elected officials listen to the everyday Americans who voted them into office--not just those who bankrolled their success. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the year was 1939, the Nazis were in control of Germany, and Kristallnacht had occurred. It was the night of broken glass. It was the night when the Nazi storm troopers literally invaded the shops and homes of the Jewish citizens who were living in Germany. They harassed, beat, and killed them. It was pretty clear where this was headed. The Nazis had targeted Jewish people and those Jewish people-- innocent people--were going to be their victims. Some of them decided the only place to go was to leave Germany and to come to the United States of America. They boarded a ship called the SS St. Louis and set sail for the United States. First, they arrived in Havana, Cuba, seeking refuge to escape the Nazis. The Cubans turned them away. They next came to Miami, FL, and asked the United States of America if these 900 innocent Jewish citizens of Germany could seek refuge and become refugees in the United States. They were turned away. With no other alternative, they went back to Germany. The Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, kept track of what happened to those passengers on the SS St. Louis--those people seeking refuge in the United States. At least one-third of them died in the Holocaust, killed by the Nazis. At that time, Senator Robert Wagner of New York came to the floor and asked: Couldn't we--at least as a nation--agree to allow 10,000 Jewish children to come to safety in the United States to escape the Nazis in Germany? His efforts were stopped and defeated. Even these children who would be Jewish victims of Nazi oppression were rejected by the U.S. Senate. It was a sad moment in the history of this Chamber and a sad moment in the history of the United States. After the war, we reflected on what had happened. We realized that this great, strong, and caring Nation had made a serious mistake. Innocent people had died because we rejected these Jewish refugees from Germany. Therefore, after World War II, the United States decided to take a different approach and show leadership to the world when it came to accepting refugees, and since then we have. There have been exceptions, but we have said that our country is open--as most civilized countries on Earth are open--to those who face oppression, suffering, death, and are in need of safety. We have established a process for this, and it isn't easy. Each year it becomes more and more difficult and more and more challenging. If you are a refugee wanting to come to the United States, be prepared. It will take at least 1 year of investigation--and sometimes up to 4 years of an investigation--before you might be allowed to come to this country. We go through background checks, fingerprints, biometric measurements, and photographs. It is a lengthy, frustrating, and difficult process. For people who come to our shores from foreign countries, there is no higher standard than the standard we apply to those who seek refugee status. Each year about 70,000 refugees are accepted in the United States. There are many more who want that opportunity, but only 70,000 can clear this process. We come to this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate aware of what has happened in Syria. Over the course of the last few years, the war that has raged in Syria has claimed over 200,000 lives. Half of Syria's 23 million people have been forced out of their homes--half of them. I have a friend in Chicago. He is an extraordinary man. His name is Dr. Mohammed Sahloul. He is a well-respected practicing doctor. He came to the United States as an immigrant and now has an established medical practice. His family is from Syria--the Bahamut section of Syria. Because he feels so strongly about the war that is killing these innocent people in Syria, Dr. Mohammed Sahloul literally risks his life every few months to go to Syria and treat the victims of that war and violence. His wife Suzanne Sahloul works with the Syrian refugees who come to Chicago. The two of them have made a personal commitment to Syria, which was the birthplace of their parents. Dr. Sahloul returns from his visits to Syria and asks to meet me regularly, and I always say yes. As painful as it is, I sit there, as I did yesterday in a restaurant in downtown Chicago, as Dr. Sahloul shows me the photos on his iPad, one after the other, of the children he treated in Syria. These children are the victims of barrel bombs by President Assad and now of Russian bombing. He goes to communities where people are literally starving to death-- starving to death in the year 2016--in Syria. He shows me their emaciated bodies until I turn away and can't look at it anymore. I say to my colleagues in the Senate who follow this debate and know what we are voting on--the Syrian crisis we face today, I would argue, is the most serious humanitarian crisis of our time. What is happening to these people is unimaginable. A few months ago I joined several of my colleagues and we went to an island in Greece called Lesbos. This is the stopping point for the refugees. Once the Syrian refugees have gone through Turkey, they cross a span of 8 to 10 miles of the Aegean Sea in plastic rafts. They put more passengers in those rafts than should be in there because the smugglers are getting paid 1,000 to 2,000 euros, or about $2,000-plus, for each of the refugees they can cram into these boats. They push them off from the shore in Turkey and point them toward the island of Lesbos. There are babies in those boats. The passengers wear lifejackets, which everyone is familiar with, but what do the babies wear? You can't put a baby in a lifejacket. Well, I saw what they wore. Many of them were wearing plastic water wings, the kind we put on our little kids when we put them in wading pools, and off they go into the Aegean Sea. Some of them don't make it. Some of them drown and die. What would cause a family to pick up and risk their lives and spend $2,000 per person to take this deadly journey? It is because they are desperate and need a place to be safe. It is that basic. So the President has said the United States will accept some of these refugees. Ten thousand is the number he said. Of course, each one of them has to go through a lengthy background check and will be asked all these important questions before they are allowed to come into our country--10,000. We know there are millions displaced and we know that that number continues to grow. Isn't it ironic that 10,000--the same number Senator Wagner of New York asked for when it came to Jewish children in Germany--is the same number the President has asked for when it comes to Syrian refugees. Sadly for these refugees, and many others, they couldn't have picked a worse time to come to the United States of America because, frankly, we are engaged in a Presidential campaign where many strong statements have been made about these Syrian refugees. It is hard for me to think about what I saw on the island of Lesbos--these families with children--and to square that with the descriptions I have heard from those who have called them terrorists in training. It couldn't be further from the truth. So this afternoon, at 2:30 p.m. on the Senate floor, we will be asked to vote on a measure relative to the Syrian refugees. Let's call it for what it is. This is an effort to stop any Syrian refugee from coming to the United States regardless of whether it is a mother and a child because what it says is that before they can come to the United States, you have to have the personal signature and personal certification of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Bureau of National Intelligence. It is physically impossible to ask the director of the FBI, who has the responsibility of monitoring FBI activities all across the Nation and around the world, to literally sit down and sign 100 personal certifications a day which would bring us to this goal. This legislation is not designed to make us safer. It is designed to stop Syrian refugees from coming to the United States. I know we are living in a dangerous time in this world. I want us to do everything thoughtfully and sensibly and everything possible to protect the American people from any possibility of terrorism. I still remember well when I was a Member of this body on September 11, 2001, and what America endured. I have not forgotten. I read, as all of us do, about terrorism in the United States and what it does to innocent people in San Bernardino and in many other places. But to exclude Syrian and Iraqi refugees and to say that we are not going to allow any of them to come in or put them through a standard of proof that we know makes it next to impossible is unfair and inconsistent with the values of the United States. I made a point of meeting these Syrian refugees and their families who have made it here. I have invited my Governor in my State of Illinois and my colleagues to do the same: Get beyond the screaming rhetoric of the Presidential campaign and sit down and listen to their stories. They will realize that these are people who are desperate, who are looking for just an opportunity to be safe. Yesterday, a number of them came to my office. Othman Al Ani, originally from Baghdad in Iraq, arrived in the United States in the year 2013. How long did it take him to clear the background check as a refugee? Four years--it took 4 years. He now works as a caseworker for the Iraqi Mutual Aid Society. I met Wadad Elaly and her mother, Mrs. Elaly. In 2012, Wadad's father was killed by a sniper as he came home from work in Syria. The family moved out of the city for fear they would be the next victims. They went to Damascus, and then they waited, literally for over a year and a half, to go through the clearance. Wadad is now a freshman in high school in the city of Chicago. She is a sweet, young girl who has seen more tragedy in her life than any of us would ever want to see. She and her mom want to make a life here, and she knows it is up to her to get a good education to make sure she can make that happen. Mariela Shaker--an incredible story of a young girl who was growing up in the Homs section of Syria, whose parents were afraid that she was going to die from a bombing that was taking place. She applied and was accepted to go to a downstate college in Illinois, Monmouth College. She is a master violinist, a prodigy. She completed her degree there and now is at DePaul University working on a master's degree in music-- an amazing young woman. A terrorist? No, just a young women looking for safety and a future. The stories go on and on. When I hear the statements made on the floor about potential terrorists, I think to myself: They haven't met these families, they haven't heard their stories, and if they did, they might reconsider. I am opposed to this bill that came over from the House. I think this personal certification by the head of the FBI, certifying every single person, and a certification by the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security are just being put in the path of these people to slow them down and stop them again and again and again. What we have said, not out of compassion but out of commonsense, is let's address the things that will make America safer. Instead of zeroing in on a handful of Syrian refugees who are no threat to the United States, let's look to those things that actually are a threat. Let me give an example. Do my colleagues believe that a person whose name is on the no-fly list, the terrorist suspect list, should be allowed to buy a firearm?

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Do my colleagues believe that a person who is on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to buy firearms in the United States? Do my colleagues believe that a person on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to buy explosives in the United States? How about dirty bomb components? I don't think there is any question about it. The answer the vast majority of Americans would give is no. That is one of our amendments. Do my colleagues think we should put more resources into protecting the United States through the Department of Homeland Security and through law enforcement, even local law enforcement, and the FBI? I think so. That is another one of our amendments. A third amendment is going to change the effort and zero in on what we consider to be gaps in the law that allow the possibility of foreign travelers to come to the United States and engage in violence and terrorism. The fourth one is pretty controversial, but I think we need a vote in the Senate. There has been a proposal by one Republican Presidential candidate, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, to exclude any immigrant of a specific religion, and that religion, of course, is for those who are in adherence to the Muslim religion. We should have a vote on that. I think it is important for us to be on the record. Those are the amendments we would like to offer. We said to Senator McConnell: Bring up your Syrian refugee bill, if you wish, and give us these four votes. If you will give us these four votes--of course, you will want to offer some of your own amendments. Be our guest. But let's have a real debate about making America safe. Let's not just zero in on Syrian refugees. Let's zero in on ISIS, on terrorism, and on the real threat to the United States. That is what we will decide between now and 2:30. Will Senator McConnell, who has said over and over that he wants to open the Senate floor to an amendment process, allow our votes on these measures? If he will, we can engage in this debate. If he won't, then, frankly, there is going to be resistance to moving to this measure. I hope Senator McConnell will join us and open this debate to a real sincere effort to stop the threat of terrorism in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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