Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his comments. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to speak about the loss of one of the bravest men in the Chicago Fire Department, Daniel Capuano. Daniel went to work this morning--just as he has done every day for the past 15 years--ready to fight fires and risk his life to save the lives of others. Not many people can say they wake up each day ready to make that sacrifice, but this morning, Daniel Capuano did just that. At 2:40 a.m. today, Daniel Capuano and his fellow firefighters were contacted about a warehouse fire in the 9200 block of South Baltimore Avenue on the South Side of Chicago. Daniel and the other firefighters were immediately dispatched to the scene. The warehouse was undergoing construction, and because of that, there were reports of holes in the floors. When they got there, they saw billowing smoke coming out of the vacant three-story warehouse. Firefighter Capuano and his team moved cautiously through the second floor of the warehouse in search of the cause of the fire, but the heavy, thick smoke made it nearly impossible to see, causing Capuano to fall through an elevator shaft from the second floor of the building to the basement. His fellow firefighters were able to find him quickly and get him on an ambulance and to a nearby hospital. Sadly, it was too late. By the time he arrived at the hospital, he was already in serious condition. At 4:25 a.m. this morning, Daniel Capuano was pronounced dead from trauma. It is times like these when we are reminded of just how dangerous the job these men and women face every day really is. Daniel Capuano spent his entire career putting the safety of his community before his own. For 15 years he served the Chicago Fire Department fighting and eliminating fires while pulling others to safety. Before that, he was a firefighter in Evergreen Park, a Chicago suburb. Daniel Capuano is a true hero who made the ultimate sacrifice to make the residents of his community and neighborhood safe. Daniel's death is a devastating loss and serves as a reminder of the risk our firefighters and other first responders take every day. My condolences and prayers are with his wife Julie; his three children, Nicholas, Andrew, and Amanda; and his fellow firefighters. Daniel, you are a hero to me and to the people of Chicago and Illinois. There are no words to truly describe the sorrow for your loss. I cannot, nor can anyone, thank you for the commitment you made for the safety of the people in your community.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting--the Midwest draws us together in the right way. Last night in Springfield, IL, a typical midwestern American city, there was a gathering of people from all across the city at 5:30 on a Sunday night. It was a gathering at the Islamic Society of Springfield. A request had been made for people of all religions to come together and to pray in solidarity with our Islamic neighbors. It was billed as a peace rally originally scheduled to be held outside, even in winter weather. Although it has been warm for this time of year, it was raining heavy last night as we all arrived at the building, so everyone crammed inside the building. There was standing and sitting room only. It was a huge outpouring of support for our Muslim brothers and sisters in the Springfield community. There were representatives of virtually every religion present, and many spoke--rabbis, ministers, Catholic nuns, and even a few elected officials--trying to let our friends in the Muslim community know that despite some of the things that had been said over the last few weeks by Presidential candidates, we in fact embrace them as part of the American family. There was also an event this weekend that occurred far away from Springfield, in Scottsdale, AZ, where my colleague in the Senate, Jeff Flake of Arizona, visited a mosque. It was widely reported. He made outstanding remarks about the regret he felt over some of the political statements that had been made over the last several weeks by political candidates. Jeff Flake reminded us across the Nation, as I tried to remind those in Springfield last night, that America is a nation which values the freedom of religious belief. Our Constitution speaks to only three elements when it comes to religion and our government. First, it says that each of us has the freedom and liberty to choose our own religion or to choose no religion. Second, it says our government will never establish an official state religion. Third, in article VI, it says there will be no religious test in the United States of America of candidates for public office. It is hard to believe that those three simple thoughts have carried this Nation for more than two centuries when it comes to religion, but we have been successful. Our Nation has been successful where others have failed. There have been times when we failed to live up to our own ideals and our own values, and when hateful statements are made by Presidential candidates, it calls on us to remember our history and to remember triumphant moments and sad moments as well. It was May of 1939 when the ship SS St. Louis left Germany with 900 Jewish passengers. They were trying to escape Hitler and the Nazis. They went to Havana, Cuba, and they were turned away. Then they came to Miami, FL, asking if they could be refugees, Jewish refugees, coming to the United States, and they were turned away as well. The 900 Jewish passengers went back to Germany. According to the records of the Holocaust Museum, 200 of them perished in the Holocaust. It was about that same time when Senator Robert Wagner of New York offered a measure in the Senate--in this very Chamber--that our country would accept 10,000 Jewish children from Germany who were seeking to escape the Holocaust. Sadly, that measure was defeated. We have other instances in history that go back to the beginning of our Nation where we have been challenged to live up to the ideals and principles of the Constitution. That challenge is with us again today. A candidate for President of the United States--of a major political party--has called for the exclusion of Muslims from being allowed to immigrate into the United States. That is reprehensible, it is outrageous, and it is un-American. Members of both political parties in Congress have spoken out against it, as they should. We must remember that many of our Nation's Founders fled religious persecution to come to this Nation. George Washington summed up the prevailing view when he said, ``In this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws.'' That, of course, is included in the First Amendment to our Constitution. Throughout our history, many religious minorities have faced intolerance, often prejudice. It was once Catholics from Ireland, Italy, and my mother's homeland of Lithuania who were questioned. Today American Muslims face the same threats of similar discrimination. In recent weeks a number of prominent Republican leaders have made these threats. But I add quickly that there has been a greater number, thank goodness, who have spoken out against these statements, even on the Republican side. One Presidential candidate compared Syrian refugees to ``rabid dogs'' and said that American Muslims should not be President of the United States. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination called for a ``total and complete'' ban on Muslim immigrants coming to the United States and advocated for closing down their places of worship. These comments are reprehensible and do not reflect who we are as a nation. These comments also don't reflect the vital role that millions of Muslim Americans play in my hometown of Springfield, IL, and across the United States. There are American Muslims who are teachers, professors, doctors, police officers, first responders, and members of the U.S. Armed Forces. I am concerned that the anti-Muslim rhetoric we have heard in recent weeks could alienate the Muslim community and harm the important relationship between the community and Federal law enforcement. Last night, as I was leaving the gathering in Springfield, a mother pulled me aside and said she feared for her daughter who wears a hijab--a veil--and who may be the subject of discrimination because of the things that have been said by some of these Presidential candidates. It is important for us to understand her feelings, the love of her children, just as we love our own children and grandchildren, and to also realize that the feelings of the Muslim Americans are truly part of our Nation. Last night we began the gathering in Springfield, IL, pledging allegiance to the flag--all of us--and singing ``The Star-Spangled Banner.'' Then the first person to make remarks in the Muslim community told us he had served in the U.S. Navy for 19 years. It is hard to imagine some of the hateful things that have been said in that context. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004--not long after 9/11--FBI Director Robert Mueller thanked the Muslim and Arab American communities ``for their assistance and for their ongoing commitment to preventing acts of terrorism.'' It has been important to the United States. He went on to say: ``All of us understand that the evolving threats we face today, and those we will face tomorrow, can only be defeated if we work together.'' The current FBI Director, James Comey, spoke before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week and said: We've worked so hard over the last 15 years to build relationships of trust that allow us to find out who might be trouble and to stop it. That's in everybody's interest. And anything that gets in the way, that erodes that relationship of trust, is not a good thing. The inflammatory speeches we have heard create a fertile ground for discrimination. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently denounced the ``disturbing rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric'' and stated that her ``greatest fear as a prosecutor . . . is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence.'' Sitting next to me last night in Springfield was the U.S. attorney for the Central District of Illinois, James Lewis--a friend and someone I am very honored and proud to have nominated to the President for this position. He told me he spent the last several weeks traveling across Central Illinois, visiting Muslim mosques and assuring them that they were still part of America and that they had the full protection of the law. Nevertheless, there has been a dramatic increase of anti-Muslim bigotry since 9/11. In fear and anger, some Americans have wrongly struck out at Muslims. I had my differences with former President George W. Bush, but he showed real insight, wisdom, and leadership after 9/11 when he made it clear to America that our war was with terrorists who perverted the teachings of the Islamic religion, not with Muslims who were faithful to what he called ``a faith based upon love, not hate.'' Congress at that time spoke with a clear voice too. I cosponsored a resolution with John Sununu, a Republican from New Hampshire, who was then the only Arab American in the Senate. Our resolution condemned anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry, and said that American Muslims are vibrant, peaceful, law-abiding, and greatly contribute to American society. That resolution passed both Chambers unanimously. I hope it would pass today. Earlier this decade, we saw another wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric and discrimination. In 2011 I chaired the first ever congressional hearing on the civil rights of American Muslims. That hearing documented an alarming increase of anti-Muslim bigotry. At the time, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that Muslims accounted for approximately 25 percent of religious discrimination cases, although they were less than 1 percent of the population. Mary Jo O'Neill of the EEOC said: There's a level of hatred and animosity that is shocking. I've been doing this for 31 years, and I've never seen such antipathy towards Muslim workers. Unfortunately, we are again experiencing an increase in anti-Muslim discrimination. Last week Oren Segal of the Anti-Defamation League said, ``We're definitely seeing anti-Muslim bigotry escalating around the country.'' In recent weeks vandals defaced a mosque near Austin, TX; a pig's head was thrown on the doorstep of a Philadelphia mosque; a man was arrested for breaking into a Florida mosque and damaging property; a sixth grade girl in New York City was allegedly called ``ISIS'' as a group of boys punched her and tried to remove her hijab; and on Thanksgiving day a Muslim cabdriver from Pittsburgh was shot in the back by a passenger who reportedly asked the driver about ISIS and whether he was a ``Pakistani guy.'' Just this weekend a man in California was arrested and charged for a hate crime and arson after allegedly setting a fire in a mosque. Last week Representative Andre Carson--a Democrat from Indiana and one of the two American Muslims who serve in the U.S. Congress-- received a death threat. Here is what Congressman Carson said: You have other politicians who are joining the bandwagon and who are fanning the flames of bigotry. That concerns me because we're putting people into the line of fire exposing them to death threats, discrimination at the workplace and assaults. These incidents of intimidation, hostility, and violence impact the entire Muslim American community. They also play into our enemies' warped views of the United States. Director Comey of the FBI noted last week that ``the notion that the U.S. is anti-Muslim is part of ISIL's narrative and Al Qaeda's narrative.'' It is important to note that not only Muslim Americans are being targeted. Bigots have also targeted Arab Americans, many of whom are Christian, and Hindus, and Sikhs. After 9/11, the first victim killed in the backlash was Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh American, in Mesa, AZ. I submitted a resolution, which passed the Senate unanimously, condemning bigotry against Sikh Americans. In 2012, a White supremacist murdered six Sikhs at a gurdwara in Oak Creek, WI. Following this terrorist attack, I chaired a hearing on hate crimes and the threat of domestic extremism where we learned that the FBI wasn't even tracking these crimes against Arab Americans, Hindu Americans, and Sikh Americans. I asked the FBI to change the policy, and they did. Clearly there is more work to be done. Last week, a vandal spray-painted anti-Muslim graffiti on a Sikh gurdwara in Buena Park, CA. In September, a Sikh man in my home State of Illinois suffered a fractured cheekbone after he was allegedly assaulted by a man who yelled ``terrorist'' and ``go back to your country'' at him. As we work to combat terrorism, we must also work to prevent and punish discrimination and hate-fueled violence against Muslim Americans. The rights of Muslim Americans are just as important as the rights of Christians, Jews, followers of other faiths, and nonbelievers as well. We know the First Amendment protects both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech. But all of us, especially those of us in public life, have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. We must condemn bias and bigotry aimed at Muslim Americans and make it clear that we will not tolerate religious discrimination in the United States of America. We can protect our Nation and still be true to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank Will Ris for his service to American aviation and to congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement. For nearly 20 years, Will has been senior vice president of government affairs for American Airlines--the principal government relations executive for the airline. His diverse responsibilities include directing all of American's activities with Congress, the administration, and several Federal agencies. And what could possibly be better than waking up every day and helping Congress and the Federal Government better understand the airline industry? Earlier this year, Will announced that he will retire from American Airlines at the end of this month. Will Ris's impact on American Airlines and its people cannot be overstated. Since joining American in 1996, Will has been a dedicated representative and the voice of the airline and its people; but, more importantly, he has been a trusted advocate on Capitol Hill. I have worked with Will and his American Airlines team on countless issues that affect passenger air service at Chicago O'Hare International Airport and throughout downstate Illinois. His honesty, professionalism, patience, and sense of humor have made him one of the most sought after advisors on airline industry issues. He will be missed. During Will's tenure at American, he led the effort to protect the domestic aviation industry, assure the continued viability of passenger service, and establish new security measures in the wake of the attacks in 2001. He has also led the effort to gain public and political support for the merger between American and U.S. Airways--creating a strong, competitive airline employing more than 100,000 people all over the world. American Airlines chairman and CEO Doug Parker recently honored Will with these words: ``Will understands commercial aviation and cares about the frontline professionals who are the backbone of our business. Will embodies all of the best things about American Airlines, and thanks to his extraordinary efforts, American will be great for years.'' Prior to joining American, Will represented the airline as outside counsel for 13 years as the executive vice president of the Wexler Group. He also served as a trial attorney for the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board from 1975 to 1978. In 1978, Will was appointed counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and its Aviation Subcommittee. In this post, Will played a major role in drafting the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and successfully navigating the legislative maze all the way to President Jimmy Carter's desk for his signature. This landmark law changed the face of commercial aviation in this country. Will Ris's love of aviation and passion for American Airlines is well known, but more importantly, Will is known as one of the most decent men in Washington. He spends countless hours committed to community service. He serves as chairman emeritus of the board of directors of the Green Door, Inc., the oldest and largest behavioral health providers--helping nearly 1,600 people every year battling chronic mental health and substance abuse conditions. Additionally, he serves as vice chair of the American Association of People with Disabilities-- the country's largest cross-disabilities membership organization. He is also a director of the Ford's Theater board of governors, the Business- Government Relations Council, the Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation in Hood River, OR, and a member of the board of trustees for the Woolly Mammoth Theater right here in Washington, DC. Where does he find the time? I want to congratulate Will Ris on his distinguished career and thank him for his service to American Airlines. I have had the privilege in public life to meet some outstanding people; I count Will Ris as one of those people. I wish him and his wife, Nancy, all the best in the next chapter of their lives. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers took great care when it came to the issue of religion in our Constitution. Many of the people who had come to the United States and became its earliest White settlers came for religious freedom. They had witnessed discrimination. They had witnessed government religion. They had witnessed the type of conduct which not only offended their conscience but motivated them to come to this great Nation. So when the Founding Fathers sat down to craft our Constitution, they made three hard-and-fast rules when it came to religion in this United States of America. The first was our freedom to believe as we choose or not to believe, a personal freedom when it came to religion embodied in the civil rights. The second was prohibition against any Government of the United States establishing a state or government religion. Third, the prohibition of any litmus test before anyone could run for public office when it came to religion. For over 200 years now, those fundamental principles have guided the United States and have kept us away from some of the terrible conflicts which have occurred in other nations across history when it came to the clash of religious belief. It is hard to imagine that in this 21st century, more than 200 years after the Constitution was written, that in the midst of this Presidential campaign, we would once again be reflecting on religion in America, but we are. Statements that were made over the last several months, and especially a statement made yesterday by a Republican candidate for President, have called into question again the policy and values of the United States when it comes to the practice of religion. Mr. Donald Trump, Republican candidate for President, has proposed excluding people of the Muslim religion from the United States. He said we need to do that until our government figures out what to do with terrorism. Mr. Trump's statements have been condemned, roundly condemned by most of the other Republican Presidential nominees, as well as former Vice President Richard Cheney. It is an indication that he has gone too far. I hope it is an indication that we in America will reaffirm fundamental values, when it comes to religious beliefs, that have guided this Nation for more than two centuries. I might add, this is just the latest chapter in this story. Refugees Mr. President, it was only a few weeks ago when there was a conscious effort promoted by the Republican Presidential candidates to exclude Syrian refugees from the United States. They called it a pause. They said we needed to assess whether or not we ought to change our system for refugees coming to this country, and, in so doing, they required the certification by the heads of our national security agencies of each individual refugee before they could come to the United States. Each year, the United States allows about 70,000 refugees to come to our shores from all across the world. They come from far-flung nations. The largest contributor last year was Burma--those who were escaping persecution in Burma. The second largest group was those coming from Iraq. They included, incidentally, those Iraqis who had served and helped the United States and its military during our period of occupation. Many of them risked their lives for our soldiers, and now they are worried about retribution and have asked for asylum refuge in the United States. The proposal was made by the Republican side that we should limit--in fact, should delay and then limit--Syrian and Iraqi refugees. One has to wonder whether or not it has anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of people living in those two countries are of the Muslim faith. I have met some of these refugees in the city of Chicago. Some of them waited up to 2 years after they were being investigated and interviewed and fingerprinted--up to 2 years--before they could come to the United States. Their stories of what they and their families have been through are tragic. They come here simply to start a new life in a safe place and to raise their children. It truly is what has motivated people across the span of history to come to this great Nation, and these refugees are no different. The fact that the Republicans would start by excluding refugees--and now, Mr. Trump takes it to the extreme of excluding people of a religious faith, the Muslim religion--is an indication of a conversation in American politics that needs to stop. We need to reflect once again on the fundamental principles of this country and the fundamental values of this country as well. I hope this is the beginning of a reevaluation. It wasn't but 2 weeks ago that the House of Representatives passed the measure, the so-called pause in accepting refugees. It is interesting what has happened since. More than half of Democrats who voted for this--47 of them--have said they don't want to include this measure in any final appropriations bill considered by Congress. They are obviously having second thoughts about their votes. At least one Republican Congressman from the State of Oklahoma said he made a mistake; he never should have voted for this policy when it came to Syrian refugees. So perhaps, as tempers cool and as we reflect on who we are as a Nation and what we want to be, we will have second thoughts about this question of refugees. Gun Violence Mr. President, there was another vote last week which I noted on the floor yesterday and which I still find hard to believe. A measure was offered by Senator Feinstein of California. What it basically said is: If you are on a no-fly list--if you have been identified by our government as a suspected terrorist--you cannot purchase firearms. That, to me, is not a radical suggestion. It is a commonsense suggestion. The two killers in San Bernardino had AR-15s, weapons that can be used to fire many rounds in a hurry. The net result: 14 people died and another 18 or so were seriously injured. So when someone is put on the no-fly list, the suspected terrorist list, I don't think it is unreasonable to say: You can't purchase a firearm as long as you are on that list. Senator Feinstein addressed the question raised by the Republican Senator from Texas: What if the government is wrong? What if your name should not be on the list? She included in her bill a process to challenge any name on the list and to do it in an orderly way with due process. Apparently, Republicans felt that wasn't enough. Overwhelmingly, Republicans voted against the Feinstein amendment. Overwhelmingly, they voted against a proposal to ban suspected terrorists from buying firearms in America. Now, I know there are many people who are skeptical--maybe even cynical--when it comes to the role of our government. But if we are not going to take the government's information and advice when it comes to suspected terrorists, where will we be? Our government--through our military, our intelligence agency, the FBI, and law enforcement--gathers information about individuals and warns us if those individuals could be a danger to our families and to our communities. The vote by the Republicans rejected that warning and said: We will err on the side of giving people firearms even if they are suspected terrorists. That makes no sense whatsoever. It shows you the extremes you can reach when you listen closely to the gun lobby and not to the vast majority of Americans who simply want to live in a safe country. It shows what happens when your opposition to this President and this government has reached the point where you question even the basic conclusion that someone has been engaged in suspicious, if not outright, terrorist activity. That vote was defeated. The amendment by Senator Feinstein was defeated. She also offered an amendment originally penned by Senator Lautenberg--the late Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey--related to terrorists, but the Senate also considered an amendment that related to background checks for those who want to purchase firearms. That amendment came to the floor under the sponsorship of Senator Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Senator Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania. What it said is very basic: If we are going to sell firearms in America, we are going to make every reasonable effort not to sell them to convicted felons or people who are mentally unstable. That makes sense. In fact, it should be a standard we all accept. The vast majority of gun owners accept that standard. They don't want guns in the hands of people who would use them in crime or people who are mentally unstable and can't manage a firearm. That amendment came to the floor; again, it was defeated by the Republicans in the Senate. That is unfortunate. In the State of Illinois, too many crime guns cross the border from northwest Indiana into the city of Chicago, coming into that city where they are traced to gun shows in Indiana where there are no background checks, where people can fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms and ammunition, cross the border into Illinois and into Chicago, and engage in deadly, violent contact. We should have that come to an end. The people who own and use guns responsibly and legally have no fear. But those who would buy them for criminal purposes or those who would buy them when they don't have the faculties to truly maintain a firearm or use it should be stopped. The Republicans disagree. They are listening to the gun lobby when they should be listening to the people of this country. For-Profit Colleges Mr. President, last month, the Department of Justice, along with the Department of Education and a group of State attorneys general, announced an agreement to settle litigation against Education Management Corporation, the second largest for-profit college chain in America. EDMC was found to have been engaged in fraud and deception when it told the Federal Government it was complying with Federal laws that prohibited incentive compensation to be paid to recruiters. For EDMC recruiters, students essentially had a bounty on their heads. The more students they signed up for their for-profit colleges, the more bonuses and perks the recruiters could receive, such as trips to places like Cancun and Las Vegas, Starbucks gift cards, expensive candies, and tickets to sporting events. To tell the whole story, the same EDMC recruiters--as they were recruiting young people to attend these for-profit colleges--needed only to find students with a ``pulse and a Pell'' to sign up. What they are referring to, of course, is low-income students eligible for over $5,000 in Pell grants--$5,000 that would flow to this for-profit college, regardless of whether the students were getting a good education. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch referred to this school as a ``recruitment mill.'' What was the result of this recruitment mill? While these illegal practices were taking place, EDMC reportedly took in--listen to this--$11 billion in Federal funds, $11 billion in taxpayer funds. Under the settlement, the company was fined $90 million--$11 billion; $90 million. Well, how about the executives who masterminded the scheme to sign up young people so that their Pell grants and government loans would flow to the for-profit college, regardless of whether they ever finished school or ended up with a diploma that was worth anything? What happened to these people who engineered this scheme that cost Federal taxpayers $11 billion--students almost $11 billion in debt--and a fine by the government of $90 million? So far, they are getting off scot- free. Todd Nelson, CEO of EDMC until 2012, personally received over $25 million in total compensation during his 5 years. The settlement didn't include any accountability for him. Now Mr. Nelson is the CEO of the Career Education Corporation, another for-profit education company that is under massive State and Federal scrutiny. What about the students who were lured by EDMC's illegal recruitment mill, pressured by the company's high-pressure, boiler-room tactics into mountains of student debt? They can't find jobs many times, and they certainly can't repay their loans. Attorney General Lynch called EDMC's tactics a violation of the trust placed in them by the students. More than 40 State attorneys general accused the company of deception and misleading recruitment. So let's be clear. This was not just a case of EDMC lying to the Federal Government. Students were the victims. I encourage the Department of Education to use the evidence the Department of Justice and States attorneys general have in this case to provide Federal student loan relief to students who were harmed by Education Management Corporation. But make no mistake. If the students are spared the student debt from these fly-by-night for-profit colleges, ultimately the taxpayers will be the losers as well. We provided the money to the students that flowed to the schools, and now everyone is a loser, including the taxpayers--oh, not the officers of the company. They walked away with millions of dollars in compensation. There is one thing I always say at this point to make my case, and I have never, ever heard a rebuttal from the for-profit colleges. For- profit colleges educate about 10 percent of all the high school graduates in America. Who are the major for-profit colleges? The biggest one is the University of Phoenix, Kaplan is another large one, and DeVry University is out of the city of Chicago. These are for- profit schools. About 10 percent of high school grants go to these for-profit colleges. The for-profit colleges as an industry receive 20 percent of all the Federal aid to education--10 percent of the students, 20 percent of the Federal aid. Their tuition is so high that students have to go deeper into debt than if they had chosen a community college or a public university. But here is the No. 1 number: 10 percent of the students--44 percent of student loan defaults occur with students who attend for-profit colleges and universities. Almost half of the students who end up going to these for-profit schools default on their student loans. Don't forget that student loans, student debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. A 19- or 20-year-old student and their parents who sign up for these student loans have signed up for debt for life. It cannot be discharged. They will take it to the grave. When the student defaults, we actually have seen efforts to secure Social Security payments from the parents who cosigned for these loans. For 10 percent of the students in for-profit schools, there are 44 percent of the student loan defaults. Well, the EDMC news came on the heels of a major announcement by Westwood College, one of the worst actors in the for-profit college industry. Westwood announced it would stop enrolling students in campuses nationwide, including the four that operate in the Chicago area. Praise the Lord. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued Westwood for engaging in deceptive practices. Madigan's suit focused specifically on Westwood's criminal justice program, one of the first that I have heard about that raised my interest in this for-profit college industry. In order to lure students into their criminal justice program, Westwood College convinced students they could get jobs with the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police. What happened when the students actually graduated from Westwood College, this for-profit school, and took their degrees to the employers? The employers laughed at them. They didn't recognize the Westwood degree. In fact, it reached a point where they told the students they would be better off if they didn't include Westwood College on their resumes. Just say you didn't go to school, and you will have a better chance. The Attorney General recently reached a settlement with Westwood under which it would forgive $15 million in private student loans for Illinois students. Now it appears the company as a whole may be on its way out. That is the trend in this industry. As students and parents across America are starting to realize these for-profit schools are bad news and State and Federal regulators are shining a light on their illegal tactics, enrollment is declining. At one point, I believe the University of Phoenix had over 500,000 students. Now they are down to less than half of that amount. Along with the decline in enrollment, stock prices on these private corporations are plummeting. Years of bad behavior is starting to catch up with these companies, but the damage is done for these students. Many of their lives have been harmed, if not ruined, by this debt. And, of course, there has been damage to the Federal Treasury, which shells out billions--that is with a ``b''--of dollars to the for-profit colleges that the taxpayers will never get back. Yet the other party continues to come to the aid of the for-profit college industry, attempting to block any steps to ensure that for-profit colleges are following the law and held accountable. We saw it earlier this year. The junior Senator from Florida came to the aid of the disreputable Corinthian Colleges. While Corinthian was lying to students about its job-placement rates, suckering them into enrolling, and saddling them with debt, the junior Senator from Florida was writing to the Department of Education asking them to demonstrate leniency to Corinthian--leniency to a company that made misrepresentations to the students, lied to the government, and swindled taxpayers out of billions of dollars. That is the answer from the junior Senator from Florida. If Republicans are willing to defend Corinthian, it shouldn't be a surprise that they want to shield for-profit colleges from what is known as the gainful employment rule. The Department of Education has developed responsible criteria for determining whether career education programs really do prepare students for gainful employment. That is required by law. The gainful employment rule ensures that students who graduate from a covered program of study are able to get a job that allows them to manage the student debt they take on in the process. The point is to protect students from worthless postsecondary programs that leave them saddled with debt and unable to get a good job. The point is to also protect Federal taxpayers by cutting off Federal funding to programs of study that don't really prepare students for a job. But the for-profit college industry and their friends in Congress--they hate this rule. Why? As an industry, for-profit colleges, as I mentioned earlier, enroll 10 percent of the students and account for more than 40 percent of the student loan defaults. They take in $25 billion in title IV dollars annually. If they were a Federal agency, the for-profit colleges and universities would be the ninth largest Federal agency in America. Is this the private sector, is this the free market, or is this crony capitalism that survives on massive Federal subsidies? The for-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private industry in America. Their business model depends on easy access to Federal funds and the ability to spend as little as possible on quality education. They spend more money on advertising than they do on teaching. Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dealt a devastating blow to this industry's attempt to block the gainful employment rule. The court upheld the rule in its entirety. This was the second U.S. district court to do so. Having been embarrassed in Federal court, the for-profit college industry has turned to my friends on the other side of the aisle to protect them. They attached a rider to the appropriations bills that fund education programs and are pushing to include it in the final spending bill this year to stop the Department of Education from enforcing the existing law on gainful employment. How can we as Members of Congress block implementation of this commonsense rule in light of what just happened with Corinthian? This company was inflating its job-placement rates to lure students, defrauding the students and taxpayers, and lying to creditors and the Federal Government. When it collapsed, when Corinthian went down, more than 70,000 students were left in peril. Many were left with more debt than they could ever possibly repay and a Corinthian education that is worthless. Now is not the time for Congress to meddle in the Department of Education's efforts to protect taxpayers, students, and their families, and to prevent another Corinthian collapse. The Department estimates that of the nearly 1,400 programs of study, 99 percent of them at for- profit colleges will fail under this basic rule. That is why the industry is in a mad dash to find political sponsors to save them from accountability. Programs have to fail the rule 2 out of 3 consecutive years to be cut out of Federal funding, so the institutions do have an opportunity to improve. If they don't, we shouldn't just continue to blindly send billions of Federal taxpayer dollars to these companies. With all we know about the for-profit college industry and their fraudulent and deceptive practices, I can't believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are prepared to fight a rule that is nothing more than a way to protect students and taxpayers. But here we are facing the prospect of a policy rider, substantive legislation in a spending bill to shield for-profit colleges from being held accountable and delivering on their promises to students. Well, I am going to resist that, and I hope my colleagues will join me. It isn't just a matter of making certain that these schools follow the law; it is a matter of protecting students and families from being exploited--going in for an education and ending up with nothing other than debt--and protecting taxpayers who are sending $25 billion a year to this industry. We have had some heated debates on the floor about people receiving food stamps--perhaps $180 a month in food stamps--and whether they are deserving or whether it is a rip-off for taxpayers, but when it comes to $25 billion for an industry that has shown over and over again that it is the source of 44 percent of student loan defaults, to the misery of the students and families who are victims of it, some of these same people who are critical of food stamp fraud turn a blind eye. They say: Oh, this is just business. Don't be afraid of making a profit. I salute businesses that make a profit if they do it honestly, honorably, and do it with competition. This industry is taking advantage of Federal tax dollars in a way that no other industry is. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask to be recognized in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak about the devastating impact gun violence has on our families and our communities across America. Every day in America, we have a staggering amount of gun violence. On average, 297 people are shot in America each day, and 89 of them die. On a typical day, there are 31 murders and 55 suicides by gun, as well as several accidental shootings. And every day, on average, 151 Americans are shot and wounded in an assault and 45 are accidently shot but survive. We have had over 350 mass shootings in America just this year, meaning incidents where at least four people are shot, and we have had over 50 incidents this year where guns have been fired at a school--50 at a school. These statistics are sobering and a call to action. Most shootings in America have become so routine, they don't even make the news. Sadly, many Americans believe this staggering level of violence is just a normal day in America. But in recent weeks, horrific mass shootings at a Planned Parenthood office in Colorado Springs, CO, and a holiday party in San Bernardino have brought the issue of gun violence back into the forefront. After high-profile mass shootings, we often hear the gun lobby and their political allies say: Any effort to pass a new gun law is just politicizing a tragedy. They say: We don't need any new gun laws; what we really should do is enforce the laws on the books. We saw this dynamic play out just last week. The day after the San Bernardino shooting, the vast majority of Senate Democrats voted for an amendment by Senator Feinstein to close the loophole that lets suspected terrorists buy firearms in America. The vast majority of Senate Republicans voted no. Senate Democrats also voted overwhelmingly for a bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey. This amendment would close the loopholes that allow guns to be sold without background checks either on the Internet or at gun shows. Again, the Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against a background check to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons and mentally unstable people. Make no mistake--the whole world saw what happened last week in San Bernardino, and the whole world now knows that people who want to commit acts of mass violence or terror in the United States sadly have easy access to an arsenal of guns. There are major loopholes in the laws on the books. This is a serious vulnerability, and Americans know we need to address it. The risk of terrorist-inspired mass shootings like Paris has never been higher. What are most effective ways to guard against this vulnerability? Well, I thought those two amendments we considered last week were a good start. Won't we agree--even those who own guns, value them, use them for sport, hunting, or self-defense--won't we agree that keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and mentally unstable people is the starting point? I think we should. The ATF did a review of the crime guns that were seized in the highest crime areas in the city of Chicago. They found out that 40 percent of the guns used in the commission of crime in some of the deadliest precincts of Chicago came from northwest Indiana gun shows. Why? Well, because you don't go through a background check if you buy from certain people at a gun show. So the thugs, the drug gangs, the drive-by shooters--all they have to do is take the Skyway over the border into Indiana, go to one of those gun shows, fill their trunks with guns, firearms, and ammunition, and drive back for a killing spree in Chicago. There are no background checks. Does that make sense? When they say, ``Well, you know, it is a shame they have so much gun violence in Chicago because you know they have some of the strictest laws on the books,'' well, those strict laws don't apply when you cross the State line into Indiana. Sadly, those laws don't apply as they should across the United States. So we called the amendment on the floor, a bipartisan amendment. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia-- neither one of them liberal by self-definition--have come forward and said--Joe Manchin said: I learned a long time ago that if you want to own a gun in West Virginia, in my family, you didn't sell it to a stranger, you didn't sell it to a criminal, and you certainly didn't sell it to someone who was mentally unstable. He said that is just common sense. Well, it is common sense that escaped the support and attention of the Senate Republicans. They voted against that provision overwhelmingly, against background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons and those who are mentally unstable. How would you explain that? Well, it might be easier to explain that than to explain the other amendment they voted against. Listen to this one. If our government, in their investigation, comes up with the name of a person they believe is involved in terrorism and they put them on a no-fly list so they can't get on an airplane, guess what--they can still go to a licensed gun dealer in America and buy a firearm. These mad people in San Bernardino had AR-15s, semiautomatic and automatic weapons. They weren't on a terrorist watch list that I know of or a no-fly list, but if their names had been on a list, it wouldn't have slowed them down one bit in making a purchase. So Senator Feinstein of California offered this amendment, an amendment which had previously been offered by the late Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey repeatedly. Senator Feinstein took up his cause and brought this amendment to the floor for a vote last week in Washington. I went back and looked at the Congressional Record to see what the objections were of the people who said they had to vote against the amendment which would say if you are on a terrorist fly list, you cannot purchase firearms or explosives in the United States. I read some of the statements that were made by the senior Senator from Texas. In his argument against this, he said: If you believe the Federal Government should be able to deprive an American citizen of one of their core constitutional rights without notice and an opportunity to be heard, then you should vote for the Senator's amendment. The Senator from Texas continued: This is not the way we are supposed to do things in this country. If you think that the Federal Government never makes a mistake and that presumptively the decisions the Federal Government makes about putting you on a list because of some suspicions, then you should vote for this amendment. So as far as he is concerned--and I suppose those who joined him in voting against this amendment--if your name is on a terrorist watch list in America as somebody we suspect is involved in terrorism, you start off by presuming the government must be wrong and the government has to prove it. You start off, in their position, by saying that the first thing we should do is let that presumed terrorist buy a gun and then let's have a due process hearing. What? What is he thinking? If you thought there was a dangerous person in your city or your community who might engage in terrorism, would you want them to buy an assault weapon? Would you want them to buy explosives? I wouldn't. Let's err on the side of safety and security and say: No, if you are on that list, you cannot purchase a weapon or an explosive. If you protest being on the list and don't think you belong there, so be it. That is your right. You are entitled to a process to get your name off the list, and the Feinstein amendment provides such a process. And if you prove that our government is wrong, then proceed with buying the gun or the explosives. But the presumption on the other side is that you are always entitled to buy a gun, you are always entitled to buy explosives, and if the government says otherwise, they have to prove it. It doesn't sound like a recipe for safety in America, but that is what happened on the floor of the Senate. So we called this measure, and there were 45 who voted yes and 54 voted no--45 to 54 on whether someone on the terrorist watch list should be able to be prohibited from buying firearms and explosives. There has been a lot of tough talk lately about terrorism, this dozen--13, 14; I forget the number--running for President on the Republican side. They are trying to out trump one another and get tougher with terrorists. Yet when the moment came on the floor of the Senate and the Republicans in the Senate--including three or four running for President--had a chance to vote to keep firearms and explosives out of the hands of suspected terrorists, they voted no. How does that make us any safer? Oh, they are tough as can be in their speeches, but when it comes down to their votes, they are nowhere to be found.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is also a question about what we can do to keep our country safe in terms of people coming into our country. Each year we admit about 70,000 refugees from all over the world. The No. 1 country providing refugees to the United States--Burma. Most people wouldn't have guessed that. About one-fourth of our refugees come from Burma. How do they get into the United States as refugees? They are first identified by the United Nations Council on Refugees, and then they start a process, a background check and process. This goes on for 18 months to 24 months. It involves repetitive fingerprinting and checking, interviews, examinations, questions. Then, finally, after 24 months, they may be allowed to come to the United States as a refugee. About 70,000 a year come into our country. I have met a lot of them. They are from all over the world--Africa, Asia, all over the world. And now we have a focus on them, a laserlike focus on them. Some are arguing that the way to keep America safe is to stop refugees from coming in from Syria. Well, we know Syria has been engaged in a civil war for more than 4 years. We know some 4 million people have been displaced. I was in Greece a few weeks back and saw numbers coming across the Aegean Sea from Turkey into Greece. These Syrian and some Iraqi refugees are desperate people. You literally see a family walking--mother, father, carrying babies, walking toddlers-- with all that they own on their backs. That is it. We stopped to talk to some of them, and they told the story of what it was like to live in Syria amidst a civil war, what it was like to have barrel bombs going off in your town--the damage that it did, the killing that it did. Many of them had lost members of their families. They were running away from that violence--not only from Assad, the head of Syria, but from ISIL as well. Some of them decide to ask to become refugees in the United States. They know that if they ask, they are in for a long, long haul--18 to 24 months. Some have made it, fewer than 2,000, during the last 4 years. Some have made it. Not a single Syrian refugee coming into the United States since this war began has ever been charged with terrorism. It just hasn't happened. What happens with other visitors to the United States? Well, we welcome visitors. Certainly we do. Many of us look forward to visiting their countries too. About 55 million foreign travelers come to the United States each year; about 20 million are from visa waiver countries--38 countries where we have a special relationship and say: You don't need a specific visa to come to our country because we have this agreement between us; you may freely travel to the United States on what we call a visa waiver. That is about 20 million of the 55 million. We can do better when it comes to these visitors on both sides-- Americans traveling overseas and foreigners coming into this country. We need to make sure that before a person gets on a plane, we check their fingerprints, for example. That is a pretty easy thing to do these days. Just put your hands down; it reads them and cross-checks against the data bank of suspected people, suspected criminals, and suspected terrorists. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of people will have no problem whatsoever, but it is a way, just like taking off your shoes, to make sure that we are safer. It is a little inconvenient but worth it. What we have said on the Democratic side is that if you want to make America safe--and we all do--it is far better to focus on foreign travelers and visa waivers, and make sure we are doing the proper checks before the person gets on the airplane. I believe we should do that. When I travel to their countries, I am prepared to face the same fingerprint check. It is not too much to ask in the 21st century, with the terrorism and violence that we face. All these things will make us safer, but focusing on 70,000 refugees, among which a few hundred are Syrian, instead of looking at the larger group of 55 million foreign travelers--did you know that most of the terrorists in Paris, France, were carrying European passports which would have allowed them to come to the United States without a visa? So if we want to make our country safer--and I do--let's do things that are practical and thoughtful. Incidentally, those who come to the United States on visa waivers from 38 countries around the world can currently legally buy firearms. What is that all about? Our law prevents foreign visitors who come in on a visa from buying firearms, but a loophole allows those who qualify under the Visa Waiver Program to come as visitors to buy a firearm. I think we can do better there as well. Let's tighten up the Visa Waiver Program, and make sure we do the proper checks so dangerous people don't ever get on the plane to come to the United States. Let's make sure as well that if you have a visa waiver and you come to the United States as a visitor, you are not going to be purchasing firearms. Finally, if you are on a suspected terrorist no-fly list, you should be disqualified from buying a gun or an explosive, period. Those are three practical steps. I think we ought to move forward and do that on a bipartisan basis. It will be something to keep in mind and make America much safer. In closing, some of the suggestions being made as these Republican Presidential candidates try to out-trump one another are very sad. They reflect the ignorance of history and a willingness to ignore the values of this country. When I hear some of the awful things being said about people of the Islamic faith--I think about a dinner I went to Saturday night. It was in Chicago; it was by the Children's Heart Research Foundation. They were saluting a number of doctors in the Chicago area who were extraordinary in saving the lives of children. One of them is a current surgeon. He started with Children's Memorial Hospital; he is now with the Advocate hospital system. He is considered to be the best in Chicago. If your baby--and 1 out of 100 are--is born with a congenital heart defect, this is the doctor you want to see the child; this is the surgeon you want to save your child's life. This doctor is a Muslim. He is an American. He is an important part of America. Those who are making negative statements about all people in the Islamic faith, calling for registration or exclusion or whatever it may be-- their statements and views are not consistent with who we are as Americans. The President said as much last night, and I agree. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to acknowledge Ted A. Beattie, president and chief executive officer of the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, IL. Earlier this year, Ted announced that he would be retiring from the world's largest indoor aquarium in late 2016. The Shedd Aquarium is home to 32,500 fish habitats and attracts more than 2 million people every year. It is an educational and cultural treasure in Chicago--and the most popular family and tourist attraction in the city. Under Ted Beattie's leadership, the Shedd Aquarium was Chicago's top attended paid cultural attraction for 17 of the last 21 years, welcoming more than 33 million guests. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. After a 35-year affiliation with Shedd, Ted is leaving this beloved institution in good shape. Since joining Shedd in 1994 as the third president and CEO in the aquarium's history, here are just some of his many accomplishments: Ted developed and opened six permanent exhibits, only the second expansion since the aquarium opened its doors in 1930. He created eight special exhibits, the latest being ``Amphibians,'' opening next May, and established the Daniel P. Haerther Center for Conservation and Research, which has grown to include 18 global field research programs. Ted also oversaw the addition of Shedd's onsite animal hospital and lab facilities housed in the A. Watson Armour III Center for Aquatic Animal Health and Welfare. Throughout his time at Shedd, Ted Beattie demonstrated an exceptional ability to engage and inspire the next generation. As president, Ted opened a teen learning lab, a free, collaborative space for teens-- developed by teens--to enhance critical thinking skills while exploring environmental interests and science. Prior to joining Shedd, Ted Beattie served as director for both the Knoxville Zoo and Fort Worth Zoo and held positions at the Chicago Zoological Society's Brookfield Zoo and Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden. During his tenure as president of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, AZA, he spent 15 years teaching management courses as part of AZA's professional management schools and received AZA's highest award for professional excellence--the R. Marlin Perkins Award for Professional Excellence. Time and time again, Ted found creative ways to get around obstacles and make good things happen for Shedd and other zoos and aquariums across the country. I know this is not the final chapter for Ted Beattie. He will continue to be a passionate advocate for conversation and educational initiatives through the Penny Beattie Leadership Fund, a professional development scholarship program established in honor of Ted's late wife. I congratulate Ted Beattie on his distinguished career and thank him for dedicating a large part of his career to the Shedd Aquarium and the people of Chicago. It has been a pleasure to support his work, and I wish him all the best in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.