Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senators Carper, Warren, Murphy, Blumenthal, Schatz, and Brown for up to 1 hour.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to discuss the issue of for-profit colleges. One may wonder how a Member of the U.S. Senate takes up an issue. This came to my attention when a young woman in Chicago, IL, contacted our office and told her story. She was a conscientious young woman who wanted a college education, and, having graduated high school, she shopped around on the Internet and found the degree she wanted. It was a degree in law enforcement offered by Westwood College. Westwood is a for-profit college based in Colorado. She enrolled in Westwood, and 5 years later--5 years of classes later--she got her diploma in law enforcement from Westwood. She took it to every law enforcement agency in the Chicagoland area, and they said: Young lady, this is not a real college; this is one of those for- profit Westwood colleges. We don't recognize your degree. When she went to another place, she got the same reaction, and then she realized she had wasted 5 years of her life on a worthless diploma. But that is not the worst part. She incurred a student loan debt of $80,000 and she couldn't get a job. She moved back into her parents' basement. Her dad came out of retirement to help her pay off this loan, and she is going to take years to do it. She has postponed buying a car, getting her own apartment, or even considering marriage or a family. This was one personal tragedy that opened my mind. I used to drive out on the Kennedy Expressway and see Westwood College signs on these large, tall buildings and think, wow, this must be some college. Well, it turned out that it was part of a network of for-profit colleges and universities that I have been researching and speaking about ever since. When I started 5 years ago, it was a different industry than it is today. Too many people like this young lady ended up with empty promises, deep debt, and worthless diplomas from for-profit colleges and universities. Westwood isn't the only one. The biggest for-profit college is the University of Phoenix. DeVry University, based out of Chicago, IL, is the second largest. Kaplan--which used to own or was owned by the Washington Post, depending on your point of view--ITT Tech, and Le Cordon Bleu are names young people know right off the bat because they are inundated with advertising from for-profit schools. They and their parents think these are real schools. They think: It is worth my time. It is worth the debt to me and my family to pursue a degree. Five years ago, this industry was in its heyday. Enrollment and profits were sky high. They were a favorite of Wall Street investors. Between 1998 and 2008, enrollment at for-profit colleges exploded by 225 percent. By 2010, total enrollment in these for-profit schools reached 2.4 million. When the former chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, released a report on the industry in 2012, they had grown to take an incredible share--$32 billion in Federal taxpayer dollars, 25 percent of all the Federal aid to education. Despite the fact that they had 10 percent of the students, they were taking 25 percent of the Federal aid at that point. Why? They are so expensive. The tuition is so much higher than public colleges and universities or even many private colleges. Meanwhile, more than half the students who enrolled in for-profit colleges left without a degree within 4 months and found themselves in student loan default. Five years ago, 10 percent of the students accounted for 47 percent of the student loan defaults. How can it be that 47 percent of the students who can't pay back their student loans went to for-profit colleges? It costs so much and the degrees are worthless. John Murphy is a cofounder of the University of Phoenix. This was the mother ship of them all during the great for-profit college movement. Here is what he said in the Deseret News National: They are not educators and they're looking to manipulate this model to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money, but I think anyone making money in an educational activity has a higher standard of accountability. John Murphy, a cofounder of the University of Phoenix, is right. He explained that they started off as a serious venture to educate students, but they soon became a company listed on Wall Street chasing stock prices, tapping into the open spigot of Federal loans, which Mr. Murphy calls the juice of the for-profit college industry. He went on to say: Phoenix was the one that got it rolling, and then all the other for-profits followed them in. I will yield at this point to my colleague from Hawaii. I thank Senator Schatz for joining me in this colloquy.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Hawaii can stay for just a moment. If a student is about to graduate from high school, looking for a college, and goes online and types in the word ``college'' or ``university,'' watch what happens. The page is flooded. The University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan--all of these different schools are flooding the page saying: Come to our school. How does a student know if it is good or not? The only yardstick that can be used is, well, do they receive Federal Pell grants for their students? Do their students receive Federal loans? The answer, when it comes to for-profit schools, is yes. Senator Schatz has put his finger on the problem. They accredit themselves. They decide among themselves who will stay in business. Guess what. They all stay in business. So the unsuspecting student goes to a worthless, for-profit school, gets a worthless diploma, goes deep in debt, and thinks, I thought this was a good school. How can I get a Federal Pell grant to this school and get a worthless diploma? The Department of Education is not doing its job. Congress is not doing its job. We have to enforce these standards. Corinthian was one of the giants. Corinthian went bankrupt. They measured how many students came out of Corinthian and got a job. The numbers were pretty encouraging. The Huffington Post writer started following the students that got the jobs. Do you know what Corinthian was doing? They were giving $2,000 to employers to hire their graduates for 1 month so they could report to the Federal Government that their graduates all have jobs. When they were caught with it, they went bankrupt. Do my colleagues know what we ended up losing, what the Federal taxpayers lost? It could be billions. Who ended up on the hook? The students. The students ended up with the debt, and the taxpayers ended up as losers. Corinthian should never have been accredited.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii. Last week, the senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor and said it was Durbin's speeches that brought down Corinthian. Correction: What brought down Corinthian was its own malfeasance. They were under investigation by 20 different attorneys general for fraud and deception. They were also under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice. It was their malfeasance that brought them down, as Senator Schatz has indicated. The victims: Students and taxpayers. For purposes of this colloquy, I wish to yield to my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper.

Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank Senator Carper. Let me show the Senator briefly what has happened to the enrollment of for-profit colleges and universities as people have come to realize they are wasting their time, and many times their GI bill benefits, debt, and ending up with a diploma that doesn't take them anywhere. Look at the University of Phoenix--this is the mother ship that launched this industry--peak enrollment was nearly 500,000 in 2010. Now it is 227,000, a nearly 50-percent loss. ITT, which advertises constantly, had enrollment in 2010 of 88,000, and now they are down to 53,000. Career Education Corporation enrolled 41,000 students in 2014 compared to 118,000 in 2010--a 65-percent decrease. Education Management Corporation is down 25 percent. DeVry has declined in enrollment. What is happening here? I talked to some of the people from some of these for-profit colleges. Parents and families are finally realizing that this is a waste of time and money. It is time for taxpayers to realize the same thing. I overhear my colleagues--conservative colleagues--preaching to me about the miracle of free markets. We are talking about the most heavily subsidized industry in America, accounting for over 40 percent of the student loan defaults with 10 percent of the students enrolled. I thank the Senator from Delaware for coming, and I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senator Warren, and before we recognize the Senator from Connecticut, I would like to make a point about executive compensation, which is something we should not overlook. We take a look at the actual amount of money that is being paid to executives of these for-profit colleges and universities. It is dramatically larger than what is being paid to presidents of public universities. I will put this information in the Record at a later point. The average pay for college presidents is less than $500,000 a year. There is an executive at the University of Phoenix who was paid over $8 million in 1 year. When we wrote to the Department of Justice recently, we asked how many of these people are going to be held personally accountable. They left the students holding the bag with student loans and worthless diplomas or dropouts. They left the taxpayers holding the bag because the students can't pay back their loans, and now they are going to go away scot-free after taking billions of Federal dollars? If there is any justice, they need to be held accountable. I yield to my colleague Senator Murphy.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senator Murphy for his comments. I will tell you that it is interesting to me that when you take a look at what Wall Street thinks about the for-profit colleges and universities, they are certainly bearish. You would think from what Congress is doing--sending billions of dollars to this industry and propping it up--we are bullish. Take a look at the stock prices of the major for-profit colleges and universities since 2010. The University of Phoenix went from a high of $57 a share down to $7.50. This was after the Department of Defense suspended their activities under the GI bill. ITT Tech--a high of $92 a share in 2011 and they now trade at $3 a share. Career Education was $20 a share in 2011 and was $3.80 yesterday. Education Management Corporation withdrew their stock from NASDAQ so they would not have to make reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2014, they lost $684 million. This is an industry which is failing as a business, but sadly it is dragging along students and families and taxpayers with it. That is why we have to come to grips. I endorse your idea. Apply the standards across higher education, to for-profit and not-for-profit. I can tell you, these for-profits cannot live with that standard. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I thank Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut for joining me.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for joining in this colloquy this afternoon. What we have tried to do with a number of Senators is to lay out the case that when we go to higher education reauthorization, we owe the taxpayers and we owe families across America the responsibility to look at this industry. What is happening here in inexcusable and unacceptable. It is unfair. Ten percent of the high school graduates, 20 percent of the Federal aid education, 40 percent of all student loan defaults. Senator Murphy pointed to the statistics that came out today. You are in just as bad shape with a diploma from a for-profit school as if you drop out of school at a not-for-profit school. That is a damning statistic, just like the 40 percent in student loan defaults. We cannot continue to look the other way. Wall Street is not looking the other way; they are downgrading these for-profit colleges and universities because they believe this model is flawed. They don't believe it can be sustained. Why do we kid ourselves? Let's apply standards across higher education--standards that are fair to students, fair to families, and fair to the schools--and say to them: This is what we expect as a minimum if you are going to offer higher education to the students across America. I ask unanimous consent that this transcript from Sharyl Attkisson's television program ``Full Measure'' which played last Sunday be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this week the White House and congressional leadership announced a budget deal that will avert a potential shutdown of the Federal Government and prevent a default on our country's obligations. This agreement would provide relief to the arbitrary sequester caps for 2 years and maintain the full faith and credit of the United States by extending the debt limit to March 2017. For months we have been calling on both sides to abandon any reckless budget cuts and work together to give the American people much needed relief from the sequester. I applaud President Obama and the leaders from both political parties for crafting a commonsense solution that protects the American people and our economic recovery. This measure passed the House of Representatives, and now it is our turn. This agreement calls for $112 billion in sequester relief, providing necessary funding for critical programs on which many Americans depend. With this additional funding, dramatic cuts in these programs can be avoided. Yesterday I spoke about the importance of biomedical research. Funding for the National Institutes of Health can lead to medical breakthroughs that keep us healthier and save money in the long run. One illustration: One American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's every 67 seconds in America, and $1 out of every $5 spent in the Medicare system is spent for those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia. The numbers are growing, the cost is growing, and the research is imperative. If we can find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's, treat it, cure it, for goodness' sake, it not only will spare human suffering, but it will save our budget. So is money for medical research well spent? Of course. Yet in past years we have shortchanged it in the name of budget relief. Well, this is a moment where we can keep our promise to the NIH, to the CDC, and many other agencies that are responsible for medical research. Thanks to bipartisan support--and I especially note the Senator from Missouri, Roy Blunt, as well as the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray--we are going to see an increase in the Senate bill this year for NIH if the Senate number continues, and I hope that it does. But it shouldn't come at the expense of other programs, such as the Centers for Disease Control, which faces cuts in our version of the bill and receives better treatment in the House. We can't be the world leader in biomedical research by cutting funding for NIH or CDC. We should also restore funding for community health centers and substance abuse and mental health programs. As I travel around the State of Illinois, our State, like most States, is facing a heroin epidemic. We find that the overdoses and deaths associated with heroin are now striking a part of our population that they never struck before. The prevalence of death from heroin in America in the last 15 years has changed dramatically, and now most of the victims are White, between the ages of 18 and 44. And that means we have to do something about it, not only in policing--which is, of course, our responsibility--but also when it comes to treatment for those who are addicted. We can't cut back in substance abuse and mental health programs without paying a heavy price and inviting more human suffering. We need to ensure that the FDA has the funding to fully implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. The money in this budget agreement will help us reach these goals and many others. We can work together to chip away at the $850 million underinvestment in programs that help our veterans, ensuring that those who put their lives on the line for America are given the care, the respect, and the quality education they deserve. We should use some of the sequester relief in the budget deal to fund transit programs and transportation, if necessary. I am proud to represent the city of Chicago. Our mass transit is essential. We, of course, stand by our infrastructure as well when it comes to highways, bridges, and rail service, but it is important that our mass transit systems across America be maintained. The core capacity and TIGER grants--popular grant programs that have benefited the entire Nation--were facing cuts in early versions of bills. We can reverse it. Senate Republicans funded the HOME Program, which is $66 million. That was a 93-percent reduction in funding for this essential housing program. We can start to restore money in that area. Without the sequester relief provided in the budget deal, $770 million would be cut from America's schools. Who in the world thinks that cutting spending on education is the best thing for America in the 21st century? We don't want to eliminate critical title I funding for the most vulnerable kids in America. In my home State of Illinois alone, that amounts to a cut of about $40 million if we stuck with the original budget figures. Now, with this agreement, we could provide more money for education for the most vulnerable kids. This agreement also protects our seniors by preventing Medicare Part B premium increases and deep cuts to Social Security disability insurance that were scheduled to occur next year. It also extends SSDI solvency to 2022 and prevents a 20-percent across-the-board cut in disability benefits. The idea of sequester relief is not a new one. A similar agreement to the one we are voting on this morning was reached in 2013 between Senator Patty Murray and then-Congressman Paul Ryan, who yesterday was sworn in as the new Speaker of the House. That had widespread bipartisan support. This should as well. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. Government by manufactured crisis is no way to do the American people's business. After months of uncertainty, we have before us a plan to remove the seemingly constant threat of defaults and shutdowns. The new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, was very candid yesterday in acknowledging the broken system in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I think he could point to our side of the Rotunda as well, which has a desperate need for more bipartisan solutions. Our work is not done even with this agreement. I encourage my colleagues to continue in the spirit of compromise and a shared goal of growing our American economy and providing fairness to American citizens. Let's pass appropriations bills free of ideological policy riders that seek to divide us. I look forward to joining my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in passing this bill. Let's get back to work and face the critical issues which American families face every single day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, came to the floor to speak to an issue and mentioned my name several times during the course of his remarks on the floor. I come here this morning to respond to the senior Senator from Arizona. The issue is a decision by the Department of Defense on October 7 of this year to place the University of Phoenix, a for-profit university, on probation and prohibit the company from enrolling new Department of Defense tuition assistance and MyCAA beneficiaries. Under this Department of Defense order, the company--University of Phoenix--was barred from accessing military bases. This is a serious action, and there is a reason for it. The senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor to protest this decision by the Department of Defense and to also protest other actions that have been taken relative to other for-profit universities. I come this morning to respond. What is at stake is something that is very essential. When men and women volunteer for our military and hold up their hands and say ``I am willing to die for this country,'' they make a promise and we make a promise. Our promise is that if you will serve this country and risk your life for America, we will stand by you when you come home. If you are injured, we will provide medical care. If you want to pursue education and training, we will help you do it; in fact, we will help your family do it. And there are many other benefits that we rightly promise to these members of the military. Department of Defense tuition assistance and the GI bill, which has been characterized as the GI bill since World War II, is really the vehicle that gives to many of these servicemembers, while they are serving and after they have completed their service, a chance to build their lives. They are generous programs, and they should be. MyCAA is generous to their families, and it should be. But these are virtually once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. We hope these members of the military choose well in terms of the courses they need to take and the training they need to prepare for their lives after they have served our country. We have a responsibility when it comes to those who are currently in the service to monitor the activities of the schools that are offering education and training as part of these programs. We would be derelict in our responsibility if we did not. The Department of Defense wrote a memorandum of understanding to all schools saying: If you want to offer Tuition Assistance program training and education, if you want to offer training for the families of servicemembers, here are the rules to play by. And I think virtually every institution of higher learning knows going in to follow the rules, whatever the institution may be. Let me say a word about the University of Phoenix. This is not just another for-profit school; it is the largest by far. At the height of its enrollment, the University of Phoenix, a for-profit university largely offering online courses, had as many as 600,000 students. That is dramatically more than the combined enrollment of all the Big Ten colleges and universities. Over the years--in the last 5 years, the size of their student body has declined; it is now slightly over 200,000. As an individual institution, it is the largest in America, and it certainly is the largest of the for-profit colleges and universities. You can hardly escape the advertising, the naming rights to the stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play their football games in Arizona. They have advertising on television, radio, and billboards. It is a company that markets in every direction and as a consequence has built a large student enrollment. How about the University of Phoenix in terms of dollars it receives? That is interesting. Unlike universities and colleges around the United States, whether in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, or wherever, these for-profit universities get a substantial portion of their revenue directly from the Treasury through Pell grants and student loans. Dramatically higher percentages of their revenue come from Treasury than virtually any other college or university. This is unique to the for-profit college and university sector. They are the most heavily subsidized for-profit private businesses in America today. Let me give an example of what I am talking about. Eighty-two percent of the revenue going to the University of Phoenix--$2.7 billion--comes out of title IV. When it comes to Department of Defense tuition assistance, University of Phoenix is the fourth largest recipient in the United States--$20 million. Under the GI bill, it is the largest recipient from the Department of Defense and the Treasury--$346 million. Their CEO, Mr. Cappelli, is paid $8 million a year in total compensation, which is dramatically more than virtually any other university president in the ordinary course of higher education--what is a record. University of Phoenix students cumulatively owe more in student debt than any educational institution in America. University of Phoenix students owe $35 billion in student loans. Only half of the University of Phoenix borrowers are paying down their debt 5 years after graduation or after they have dropped out of school. Phoenix's overall 3-year repayment rate--that means how many borrowers are making payments on their debt after 3 years--is 41 percent. Less than half of the University of Phoenix students and graduates after 3 years are paying back. Their 5-year repayment rate is 47 percent. Nearly one out of every two students who graduated or dropped out in 2009 has defaulted within 5 years. The University of Phoenix's 5-year cohort default rate--students who graduated in 2009 and defaulted by 2014--is 45 percent. The Arizona location--which includes online students across the country--the 4-year bachelor's-seeking graduation rate is 1 percent and the 6-year bachelor's-seeking graduation rate is 10 percent. In the for-profit college and university industry, there are three numbers to remember. Ten percent of the students graduating from high school go to these for-profit schools. Twenty percent of all the Federal aid for education goes to these schools. Why? They are very expensive. The tuition they charge is dramatically more than colleges and universities across the country. But here is the number to remember: As an industry, 40 percent of all the student loan defaults are students who attend for-profit colleges and universities. Why? It is so darned expensive that students can't continue the education and drop out or they complete the education and many times find that the diploma is worthless. Let's go back to the Department of Defense. We want to protect our men and women in uniform from being exploited by any college or university, for-profit or not. The Department of Defense wrote a memorandum of understanding and said: If you want to offer courses to our men and women in uniform, here are the rules to play by. On October 7, the Department of Defense announced that they placed the University of Phoenix on probation and prohibited them from enrolling new servicemembers in the DOD Tuition Assistance and MyCAA Programs. They barred them from accessing military bases. The decision, the Department said, was based on violations of the memorandum of understanding, which I described this morning, based on their own review. Yesterday the senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor to protest the decision by the Department of Defense. There were several things he said during the course of his floor statement which I would like to address. The senior Senator from Arizona claimed that the Department of Defense's ``actions were taken without due process'' and based on ``an outside investigative report.'' The Senator went on to say that it ``wasn't a department investigation. There was no scrutiny.'' He said that on the floor to protest the Department of Defense decision. Here are the facts. The Department of Defense conducted nearly 4 months of review of the University of Phoenix's practices after the report by the Center for Investigative Reporting raised allegations relating to the company strategy using corporate sponsorship of events on military bases to skirt the Federal rules on recruitment that had been spelled out in the memorandum of understanding. The Department of Defense placed the University of Phoenix on probation when its review ``revealed several violations of the Department of Defense Memorandum of Understanding.'' DOD also gave the company 14 days to provide the Department of Defense with materials in response to the decision. To argue that there was no due process in this is betrayed by the facts. The senior Senator from Arizona went on to say: ``If the University of Phoenix is guilty of some wrongdoing, I want to be one of the first to make sure that proper penalties are enacted.'' Here is the fact: The Department of Defense confirmed that the University of Phoenix is guilty of wrongdoing. The Department of Defense's notice to the university stated that ``it conducted a review of the agreements between the University of Phoenix and the DoD, as reflected in the DoD MOU. . . . This review revealed several violations of the DoD MOU attributed to the University of Phoenix, including, but not limited to, transgression of Defense Department policies regarding use of its official seals or other trademark insignia and failure to go through the responsible education advisor for each business related activity requiring access to the DoD installations. . . .'' They go on to say that they found that ``the frequency and scope of these previous violations of the DoD MOU is disconcerting.'' Despite this, the senior Senator from Arizona is urging the Department of Defense to ignore what they found in their investigation and to reverse their decision putting the company on probation. The senior Senator from Arizona went on to call Phoenix's violations ``minor breaches in decorum'' and ``technical in nature.'' The Department of Defense found that the University of Phoenix violated terms of its memorandum of understanding--a legal document laying out the rules and standards every institution must adhere to in order to be eligible to participate in voluntary military education programs. For instance, this document specifies that the base's education officer, not the base commander, is the sole approving authority for any and all access to the base. In their violation of this memorandum of understanding provision, the Department of Defense called the University of Phoenix's violations disconcerting in their frequency and scope. The company had a corporate strategy of spending millions of dollars to sponsor events on military bases to skirt Department of Defense rules and the 2012 Executive order that was designed to prohibit institutions from recruiting servicemembers on military bases. Mr. President, let me spell out some of the things that were being done by the University of Phoenix. Remember what we are talking about. This university is receiving $20 million a year through DOD tuition assistance and $346 million through the GI bill. Of course, it is a big profit center for them to continue this pursuit of the military, and they spent a lot of money to support it, and that is what got them in trouble. The University of Phoenix spent over $250,000 in the last 3 years just in one location--Fort Campbell, KY--sponsoring 89 events. One event featured a performer named Big Smo; that alone cost $25,000. Across the country, the University of Phoenix sponsored events on military bases, including rock concerts, Super Bowl parties, father- daughter dances, Easter egg hunts, a chocolate festival, and even brunch with Santa. The University of Phoenix paid the Department of Defense to have its staff serve as exclusive resume advisers in Hiring Our Heroes job fairs and workshops, many on military bases. A Center of Investigative Reporting hidden camera documented that all of the resume workshop materials, presentation slides, and sample ``successful'' resumes were labeled with University of Phoenix marketing, and trainers urged attendees to go to the University of Phoenix Web site for more information. The University of Phoenix used ``challenge coins''--which the Senator from Arizona raised on the floor--with DOD seals and logos to show its close relationship with the military without receiving prior approval. The Senator from Arizona noted that other schools have done the same thing, including, he mentioned, Southern Illinois University. This Senator is not going to send a letter to the DOD protesting if they hold SIU or any school accountable for the same conduct as the University of Phoenix. The senior Senator from Arizona did, and I think he ought to reflect on that for a moment. The senior Senator from Arizona says the University of Phoenix has a long history of serving nontraditional students, such as Active-Duty military and others. According to Paul Reickhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the university of Phoenix ``is constantly reported as the single worst by far'' when it comes to for- profit colleges taking advantage of its members. The Senator from Arizona says the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Education Department, and the California attorney general, Kamala Harris, drove another for-profit school, Corinthian, out of business without ever proving misconduct, and now we are attempting to do the same to the University of Phoenix. The fact is, there are ongoing investigations into the University of Phoenix by the Federal Trade Commission related to unfair and deceptive practices, including military recruitment and the handling of student personal information. There is an investigation underway of the University of Phoenix by the Department of Education's inspector general related to marketing, recruitment, enrollment, financial aid processing, fraud prevention, student retention, personnel training, attendance, academic grading, et cetera. There is an ongoing investigation into the University of Phoenix by the Security and Exchange Commission relating to insider trading, and not one but three different state attorneys general are investigating the University of Phoenix for unfair and deceptive practices. The Senator from Arizona comes and protests that we are involved in some sort of ideological grandstanding--that is what he said, ideological grandstanding--ignoring the evidence which I have presented this morning about the investigations into the University of Phoenix going on across agencies, State and Federal, and the investigation by the Department of Defense that led to this decision. He also went on to say yesterday in his remarks: Last year, the Education Department, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- And an individual named Ms. Harris-- mounted a coordinated campaign that drove for-profit Corinthian College out of business without ever proving misconduct. They were able to drive a college out of business. What a coincidence that he would make that statement on the floor of the Senate yesterday, the same day it was reported that a Federal judge in Chicago ordered Corinthian College--now bankrupt--to pay $530 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, resolving a year-long lawsuit against the for-profit chain for allegedly steering students into predatory student loans. The CFPB Director, Richard Cordray, said in a statement, ``Today's ruling marks the end of our litigation against a company that has severely harmed tens of thousands of students, turning dreams of higher education into a nightmare.'' I don't understand how the Senator from Arizona could come to the floor the same day this Federal decision was reported and raise this issue without some knowledge of what the Corinthian Colleges were doing. What they were doing was lying. They were misrepresenting to the Federal Government how many students were employed after they graduated. It turns out Corinthian was paying employers several thousand dollars to hire their students--graduates-- for a month or two so they could report to the Federal Government they had jobs. Of course, when the money ran out from Corinthian, the students lost those part-time jobs. Corinthian was caught. They were asked to provide information to refute what I have just said. Instead of doing that, they started dissembling and going out of business. They were also steering students to what they called genesis loans at Corinthian College. Students were paying outrageous tuition and fees for bachelor's degrees, $60,000 or $75,000, and then they were facing genesis loans, they called them, with interest rates as high as 15 percent. This industry does have good schools and good courses in the for- profit business sector, I am sure, but there has clearly been misconduct. We have to call them on it and hold them responsible. It is our Federal Government that virtually acknowledges the accreditation of these schools that offer Pell grants and direct student loans to their students, creating the impression among students and families that these are perfectly good colleges and universities. We have a responsibility to students and families across this Nation to police their ranks when there is misconduct. In this case, the Department of Defense looked closely and decided that the University of Phoenix was involved in misconduct. That is why they reached their decision. There was a letter that was prepared by a number of organizations--I will not read all of their names--but it was sent October 27 this week to the Honorable Ashton Carter, the Secretary of Defense, thanking the Department for their recent action when it came to the University of Phoenix. These organizations went on to catalog the things I have said this morning. They also talk about the students these organizations have worked with. This letter says servicemember complaints regarding the University of Phoenix fall into three categories: servicemembers who were signed up for loans without their knowledge or permission after being promised they would incur no loans, servicemembers who were misled about the cost of tuition increases at the University of Phoenix, servicemembers who were misled about the accreditation and transferability of University of Phoenix credits. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Arizona cited three students. I would like to read from this letter. They note three students who were members of the military commenting on the University of Phoenix. First, Cody Edie, of the U.S. Marines said: I was told these credits would transfer anywhere nationwide but as I began my transition from active duty I found out they will not transfer to the schools in my home state. I wasted my time and 15 credits for nothing. A statement from Erin Potter, U.S. Army: I was told by the University of Phoenix that I would be eligible for grants that I did not have to pay back. I came to find out they enrolled me in loans and now I cannot afford the payments. From Dennis Chamberlain, U.S. Army: I attended the University of Phoenix to obtain my bachelors degree. I racked up close to $20,000 in debt to attain my degree. I feel they targeted me for my military student aid. I struggle every month paying back the student loans I could have avoided. I was shot twice in Afghanistan by shrapnel from RPGs. The letter is signed by about 20 different organizations: the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association of the U.S. Navy, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Blue Star Families, Paralyzed Veterans of America. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to wrap up. I read carefully what the senior Senator from Arizona had to say yesterday. I hope I have addressed each of the major points he raised. There was indeed an investigation. There were standards which the University of Phoenix agreed to follow and then failed to follow. There is an effort underway to make sure we protect the men and women in the military and their families from exploitation when it comes to their GI bills. We should continue that effort. I hope my friend and colleague from Arizona who has made a record in the Senate of speaking up, standing up to avoid those misuses of Federal funds, will continue in that same vein when it comes to this issue. We want money well spent. We want our men and uniform well served. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it hasn't been a very good week or two for the University of Phoenix. The University of Phoenix is the largest for-profit university in the United States. University of Phoenix students cumulatively owe more in student debt than any other institution of higher education in America. The students enroll at this university, which is largely online but has some classroom experience, they sign up for a higher tuition than they would at community colleges or most universities, and when they can't finish and drop out, they still have debt, or when they finish, they may have a diploma that can't find a job. The University of Phoenix--this private, for-profit company--receives nearly $3 billion a year in Federal Student Aid funding, but the quality of education from this for-profit school is suspect. The for- profit college and university industry is the most heavily subsidized for-profit business in America. We have seen a lot of warning signs about the University of Phoenix. We've seen how they target the military and veterans. Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America said that the University of Phoenix ``is constantly reported as the single worst by far'' when it comes to for-profit colleges taking advantage of veterans. Well, it has caught up with them. A few weeks ago the University of Phoenix was placed on probation by the Department of Defense, restricting the company from enrolling new servicemembers who used the Department's tuition assistance or spousal MyCAA programs. The Department found violations by the company, the University of Phoenix, after completing a review prompted by an investigative report from the Center for Investigative Reporting. The article that started this investigation exposed the University of Phoenix's strategy to flout Department of Defense rules, including an Executive order meant to protect our servicemembers--men and women in uniform and their spouses--from aggressive and unfair recruiting by for-profit colleges. You see, if these for-profit colleges can sign up a member of the military or their spouse, they can bring in the money that is set aside in the Tuition Assistance program for education and training, and so they want to sign up as many members of the military and their families as they can. The University of Phoenix avoided the rules set down by the Department of Defense by sponsoring events at military bases--not just a few but a lot. In one instance they paid $25,000 to sponsor a concert for military members and their families. They spent $25,000 for a concert? The company gave away computers and wrapped the stage in a giant University of Phoenix banner. They used official Department of Defense seals and logos on challenge coins and gave them out to servicemembers in order to show that they had some kind of close relationship with the military. In other instances found by the Center for Investigative Reporting, the University of Phoenix sponsored resume workshops, which essentially amounted to recruiting members of the military and their family to sign up for this for-profit college. According to the article, the company sponsored hundreds of events, such as rock concerts, Super Bowl parties, father-daughter dances, Easter egg hunts, chocolate festivals, fashion shows, and even brunch with Santa, on military bases. The University of Phoenix spent $250,000 to sponsor events over the last 3 years at one place--Fort Campbell, KY. Let's face it, these were recruitment events for the University of Phoenix, and they were paid for, by and large, with taxpayers' dollars. In the name of corporate sponsorship, the University of Phoenix could gain direct access to military bases with a nod and a wink from servicemembers. They told them they cared about the military. They also cared about the fact that they had potential students who would sign up and spend their TA benefits at the University of Phoenix. It paid off for them. The University of Phoenix is the fourth largest recipient of Department of Defense tuition assistance funds. In fiscal year 2014 the University of Phoenix received more than $20 million from these benefits. It is not surprising then that the company would be so concerned about the decision by the Department of Defense to put them on probation. It means they will lose access to millions of dollars from these military families, and it was reflected when their stock went down in value. Since the Department of Defense took action against the company, the University of Phoenix stock value has plummeted nearly 50 percent. In its decision, the Department of Defense also cited concerns related to ongoing investigations of this same University of Phoenix by the Federal Trade Commission and the attorney general of the State of California. In fact, there are two ongoing investigations of the University of Phoenix by the Federal Trade Commission, one is related to deceptive marketing and advertising, and a second is related to safeguarding student and staff personal information. In addition to the attorney general in California, at least two other States are also investigating the company. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Education inspector general also have ongoing investigations at the University of Phoenix. The Department of Defense is not alone. Many agencies, Federal and State, are investigating this major for-profit university. They do have some friends though, and one of them is the Wall Street Journal. Last week, on the same day an editorial of a similar tone appeared in the Wall Street Journal, a few of my colleagues in the Senate sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, telling him to lay off the University of Phoenix despite the fact that the Department noted the violations were of such frequency and such scope that they were ``disconcerting.'' My colleagues in the Senate think the Department of Defense's decision to protect servicemembers and to put this university under probation was ``unfair.'' There is no question that the Department of Defense has a duty and a responsibility to protect members of the military and their families from exploitation. They have established rules under the Voluntary Military Education Program, and now my colleagues in the Senate are writing letters to the Department of Defense saying: Look the other way. The letter they sent criticized the Department for its concern over the University of Phoenix's continued participation in Voluntary Military Education Program in light of the multiple ongoing investigations. I think it would be grossly irresponsible for the Department of Defense to back off of this protection of our military because of a letter from Members of the Senate. The broad and ongoing regulatory scrutiny of the University of Phoenix gives the Department of Defense legitimate cause for concern when it comes to the company's future participation in the Voluntary Military Education Program. My colleagues in their letter said: ``The TA program is critical to our nation's servicemembers' educational and career opportunities.'' I couldn't agree more. That is exactly why the Department of Defense should ignore the demand of my Senate colleagues and exactly why they should not turn a blind eye to the University of Phoenix's violations. In order to provide quality educational options for servicemembers and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted, we must promote integrity in the program, and the highest priority should not be the profitability of a for-profit university, such as the University of Phoenix. The highest priority is quality education and training for the members of the military. I thank the Department of Defense for taking this bold action and encourage them to remain steadfast in protecting students, military members, their families, and taxpayers when it comes to future decisions related to the University of Phoenix's participation in the Voluntary Military Education Program. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is possible this week that we will pass a budget agreement for the fiscal year we are currently in. That year started October 1 and runs, of course, until the end of December in the next calendar year. If we do reach that agreement--and I hope we do--it is going to give us some opportunities. One opportunity it will give us is to spare ourselves the possibility of this Congress failing to enact a new budget ceiling to basically guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States of America. We won't face that showdown. Also, the possibility of a government shutdown will be relieved by the passage of this budget agreement. Those are good, positive things for this institution and for the economy of America, but there are specifics that also need to be noted because this budget agreement gives us a chance to invest in areas of our budget that sadly would have been overlooked if we hadn't reached this agreement. This morning we had an extraordinary presentation by the National Institutes of Health. Twenty Senators came to hear the presentation about research at the National Institutes of Health and what it means to us. Dr. Francis Collins is the Director and is an extraordinary man. He is a medical doctor who was given the task of mapping the human genome and did it. He did it in an extraordinary way, creating new information and new opportunities. A doctor from the Mayo Clinic explained what that meant. It meant that we have now reached a point where we can map the genome of individuals, their DNA, and we can then make decisions on the appropriate prescriptions for illnesses and diseases they face and in doing that, be more effective, save lives. That is what medical research can mean. Each of us will not only have a basic biography in our medical record--when we were born and some of the basic illnesses we have faced--but also our individual map of our DNA, which will instruct doctors when it comes to treatment of cancer, if it should strike us, or some other disease. It is an amazing leap forward. It is a leap forward that would not be possible without medical research. Yet, in the past 12 years, we have seen a downturn in investment in medical research of more than 20 percent--more than 20 percent. It has meant that a lot of researchers have been discouraged and walked away and said there is no future in medical research. What a loss. They don't make a lot of money--many of them don't. If they don't think we are going to support them with our investment in NIH and medical research, they look in other places. This morning we considered where we are. At this moment in time, the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Blunt of Missouri and the Appropriations subcommittee on health and human services, has provided basically a 7-percent increase in the funding for the National Institutes of Health next year. That is a good thing. I will say quickly that Senator Blunt cut a lot of other areas in his bill that I think need to have help, but I hope that he will stand tall and tough when it comes to that 7-percent increase as we approach this budget negotiation. The House, conversely, did not give such an increase to NIH, but they increased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is a companion sister agency that is important for medical research. We have a chance to come together on a bipartisan basis and come up with a number that gives 5-percent real growth in spending at both the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It will pay us back many times over. Most Americans say: What are we going to do about the cost of Medicare? Medicare is an important program to over 40 million Americans, and the costs keep going up. There are two facts that we learned about this morning and people should be aware of them: $1 out of every $5 spent under our Medicare system is spent on Alzheimer's and dementia. If we could have a means of early detection, prevention, treatment or cure for these horrible diseases, that would dramatically change the lives of millions of Americans and millions of families, and it would dramatically reduce the cost to Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare spends $1 out of $3 for the treatment of people with diabetes. If we put the research into finding a cure for diabetes and can alleviate the suffering associated with that disease, it not only will help lives across America, but it will save us money in our important health care programs. Investment in medical research by the United States of America has been the pillar for the world when it comes to looking to a better day for the people who live in each country. This brain initiative, which was described to us this morning by the National Institutes of Health, needs to be funded. It is not adequately funded now. We dedicated some $350 million to Alzheimer's and brain research. It sounds like a lot of money. It is about one-third of what the researchers need. They have that many opportunities waiting to be funded. Will they all succeed? No, but that is the nature of research, and each one of them will be a good investment which will lead us to the day of prevention, treatment, and a cure when it comes to Alzheimer's. I hope that we come together on a bipartisan basis when it comes to this budget. In this area of medical research, there is plenty of room for us to work together, and there has already been leadership shown on the other side of the aisle. We are going to help to try to move that forward, both in the Senate and in the House, on a bipartisan basis. When I meet with people across my State--and I guess many other States--and talk about political issues, there are a lot of folks with some very strongly held opinions on one side or the other, but when it comes to funding medical research, I have found that this is the kind of issue that opens the doors. People of all political stripes agree this is a good investment for the future of America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the debate which we will engage in today on the floor of the Senate is really one that parallels the historic debates that have occurred in the course of our Nation's history. When a great democracy sets out to defend its citizens and to engage in security, it really is with a challenge: Can we keep our Nation safe and still protect our rights and liberties? That question has been raised, and that challenge has been raised time and again. It was President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War who suspended the right of habeas corpus. It was challenged by some as an overextension by the executive branch, but President Lincoln thought it was necessary to resolve the Civil War in favor of the Union. In World War I, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts raised questions about the loyalty of Americans who question many of the great issues that were being raised during that war. We certainly all remember what happened during World War II when, even under President Franklin Roosevelt, thousands of Japanese Americans were interned because of our concerns about safety and security in the United States. It continued in the Cold War with the McCarthy hearings and accusations that certain members of the State Department and other officials were, in fact, Communist sympathizers. That history goes on and on. So whenever we engage in a question of the security and safety for our Nation, we are always going to be faced with that challenge. Are we going too far? Are we giving too much authority to the government? Are we sacrificing our individual rights and liberty and privacy far more than we should to keep this Nation safe? That, in fact, is the debate we have today on the most sophisticated new form of warfare--cyber war. Cyber security is an enormous concern not just for private companies but for every American. Data breaches happen almost every day. We read not that long ago that 21 million current and former Federal employees had their records breached and stolen from the Office of Personnel Management. Just this month more than 700,000 T-Mobile users in my home State may have had their information compromised by hackers. It seems there isn't a month that goes by where we don't hear of another security breach. That is why we need to take steps to improve data security and share cyber threat information. Chairman Burr and Ranking Member Feinstein worked long and hard to put together a bill to encourage private and governmental entities to share potential threat information. This bill has evolved over 5 years. No one has worked harder during that period of time than my colleague, Senator Feinstein of California. Senator Burr is now joining her in this effort. Many are skeptical about the bill before us. Some have raised those concerns on the floor. But we look at the major companies that are opposing this bill as currently written--Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Amazon--just a few of the major companies that have said they can't support the bill that is on the floor today. They note that the bill does not require companies or the Federal Government to protect private information, including personal emails, email addresses, and more. In fact, this bill preempts all laws that would prevent a company or agency from sharing personal information. I am encouraged that the managers of this bill have moved in the direction of addressing this concern. They have limited the authorization to share cyber threat information to ``cyber security purposes''--a valuable step toward making sure the bill is not used as surveillance. They have included a provision requiring government procedures to notify Americans if their information is shared mistakenly by the government. They have clarified that the authorization to employ defensive measures--or defensive ``hacking''-- does not allow an entity to gain unauthorized access to another's computer network. There will be some amendments before us today that I will support which I think strengthen the privacy protections that should be included in this bill. I am a cosponsor of the Franken amendment to improve the definitions of ``cyber security threat'' and other cyber threat indicators. Narrowing this definition from information that ``may'' be a threat to information that is ``reasonably likely'' to pose a threat would reduce the amount of potentially personal information shared under the bill. I also urge my colleagues to support the Wyden amendment to strengthen the requirement that private companies remove sensitive personal information before sharing cyber threat indicators. Again, this amendment would limit the amount of potentially personal information shared under the bill. I support the Coons amendment to give the Department of Homeland Security time to remove or scrub personal information from the information it shares with other Federal agencies. There is simply no need for personal information unrelated to a threat to be shared with law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and NSA. These amendments would strengthen privacy protections in the bill much more than the original managers' package. I look forward to working with Senators Burr and Feinstein and others to ensure that the final bill addresses our cyber security concerns while still protecting privacy--something I know we all want to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to add my voice to the well- deserved chorus of congratulations for our colleague and friend from Vermont. Of the 1,963 men and women who have ever served in the U.S. Senate, only six have the distinction of casting 15,000 votes. And of those august six, only Patrick Leahy continues to serve in this body today. The only other members of the 15,000-vote league are Senators Robert C. Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Daniel Inouye, Ted Kennedy, and Ted Stevens. More important than the number of votes Senator Leahy has cast, however, is the wisdom and courage reflected in his votes. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974--part of an historic group of new Senators known as the ``Watergate Babies.'' He has voted time and again to uphold the values of our Constitution--even when it contained some political risk. His very first vote in this Senate was to authorize the Church Committee--the precursor to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Church Committee was created to investigate possible illegalities by the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency--and it resulted in major reforms. As you may know, Senator Leahy is a major Batman fan. In fact, he has made several cameo appearances in Batman movies. His affinity for the Caped Crusader makes sense. You see, Batman is one of the few superheroes with no superhuman powers. He is simply a man with unusual courage and determination to fight wrongdoing. That is Patrick Leahy, too. I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 18 years. During that time, Senator Leahy has been either our committee chairman or its ranking member. I have the greatest respect for his fidelity to the rule of law and his determined efforts to safeguard the independence and integrity of America's Federal courts. He is a champion of human rights at home and abroad. According to the nonpartisan website GovTrack, Senator Leahy has sponsored more bipartisan bills than any other current member of this Senate. Sixty-one percent of his bills have had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. In this time of increasingly sharp partisanship, that is a record that we would all do well to emulate. I am particularly grateful to Senator Leahy for his strong support of a bipartisan bill that I am cosponsoring, along with a broad array of Senators, from Chairman Chuck Grassley to Senator Cory Booker. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would make Federal sentencing laws smarter, fairer, more effective, and more fiscally responsible. It passed the Judiciary Committee last week by a vote of 15-5. Senator Leahy's leadership has been critical in building this broad support, and I look forward to the day--in the near future, I hope--when we can celebrate passage of this important measure. I learned recently that Senator Leahy dedicates all of his fees and royalties from his acting roles to charities. A favorite charity is the Kellogg-Hubbard library in Montpelier, VT, where he read comic books as a child. I hope that there are young boys and girls discovering in that library the same uncommon courage and love of justice that Patrick Leahy found there. America needs more heroes like Pat Leahy. Amendment No. 2587, as Modified

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to call attention to a group of our Nation's veterans who participated in a reconciliation program with the Japanese Government. From October 11 to October 19, nine veterans of the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Air Corps, and the U.S. Marines who fought bravely in the Pacific theater of World War II and were taken prisoner by Japanese forces traveled to Japan. They were guests of the Japanese Government on a trip of reconciliation and remembrance. Established in 2010, this was the sixth Japanese POW Friendship Program delegation. This program is sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs for World War II POWs from the United States, with Japan running similar friendship programs with Australia and Britain. More than 30,000 Allied troops were taken prisoner in Japan, many of them Americans who faced horrific ordeals. Today, 70 years following the end of World War II, this program reflects the journey of forgiveness and resolution between the United States and Japan, as our relationship has developed into one of the most critical in the region. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the veterans who were members of this year's delegation: Joseph DeMott, a U.S. Army Air Corps veteran from Litiz, PA; Arthur Gruenberg, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Camano Island, WA; George Hirschkamp, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Sandpoint, ID; George Rodgers, a U.S. Army veteran from Lynchburg, VA; Jack Warner, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Elk City, OK; and Clifford Warren, a U.S. Army veteran from Shepherd, TX. I would also like to recognize three members of the delegation who are my constituents: Leland Chandler, a U.S. Army veteran from Galesburg, IL; William Chittenden, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran from Wheaton, IL; and Carl Dyer, a U.S. Army veteran from Oglesby, IL. I am so grateful to all of these participants for their years of service to our Nation. The delegation was accompanied by Jan Thompson, another Illinois constituent and a documentary filmmaker and daughter of a World War II veteran who was himself a POW in Japan. Thompson also heads the nonprofit veterans organization American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Memorial Society. The Japanese POW Friendship Program and the American veterans who participate in it represent the transformation and strength of the U.S.-Japan relationship. I hope this program continues to bring together our two nations in remembrance and reconciliation.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had the privilege of joining Senators Shaheen, Klobuchar, and Warren during the recess that just concluded to travel to Europe to assess the refugee flow that is spilling into Greece and ongoing Russian aggression during our visit to Ukraine. I will start with the visit to one of our most important NATO European allies, Greece. Greece is struggling, as we all know, with its own economic challenges, but now it is facing an overwhelming flow of refugees across its border. Almost half a million refugees have flown into Greece just this year. The bulk of the refugees come from across the Aegean Sea from Turkey. They are fleeing war and economic instability in the region. Most are from Syria, but there are many others from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in peril. Many are middle-class families who are simply exhausted from years of horrific war in Syria. I met many of them and had a chance to speak to them. Their stories are heartbreaking. They are fleeing with their children and whatever they can carry. Their destination is uncertain, but they know they can't stay in the camps or in Syria. They are the victims of smugglers and exploitation. Some of these desperate people are charged 1,000 Euros just to cross a 2-mile stretch of ocean between Turkey and Greece. We were on the island of Lesbos, and those who were able to watch ``60 Minutes'' this week saw a presentation of what is happening on that small island of about 80,000 people where more than 400,000 refugees have come through in the last several weeks. Many of these refugees are unaccompanied children. At one of the camps, I met a young man who said he was 17--probably 15--who had come across that stretch of water with his 8-year-old sister. Think for a moment what that family must have gone through in deciding that it was safer for this 15-year-old to take his 8-year-old sister and try to find their way to a safe place in Europe rather than stay in war-torn Syria. That is the reality of many of these refugees and the plight that they face. On this island of Lesbos, 2,000 refugees are arriving every single day. The Greek Coast Guard showed us stacks of discarded rubber rafts. These rubber rafts are made to hold about 20 people as they cross this 3-mile stretch of ocean. They packed them with over 50 people. They charge 1,000 Euros for each adult and 500 Euros for each child. We saw these rafts stacked up and piles of life preservers. Some of them are the types of life preservers and jackets that you might expect, but others are ridiculous. Some of them are literally pool toys, and they say so. They have written right on them that they are not to be used as life preservers. These pool toys are strapped to those little kids who are put in these rafts that come across that stretch of ocean. There were rows upon rows of cheap outboard motors that were used to propel these rafts across the straits. Incidentally, the smugglers picked someone in the raft and told them that they were in charge. They would ask if they knew how to operate the motor. If they didn't know how to operate it, they would show them how to use it and point them in the right direction. The refugees would then head out in the hope that they would make it across safely, and many times they didn't. Despite Greece's economic hardship, I was impressed with how the Greek people were handling this refugee crisis. Processing registration centers had been established, and many refugees were quickly on their way to resettlement in Europe. I mentioned the 15-year-old with his 8-year-old sister. I ran into four others who spoke English, and all of them were college graduates in their 20s. One of them was a premed student who said: We just couldn't live any longer with war in Syria. We were ready to risk our lives to find a safer place. The mayor of Lesbos has been generous and thoughtful in addressing the suffering. He told me he often thought he was handling a ticking time bomb with this refugee crisis. Instead, this island has become an example of what the rest of the world can do. In Athens, we visited with an impressive NGO known as Praksis that is giving unaccompanied minors a safe, nurturing place to stay while they attempt to place them with families. The United States leads the world in financial assistance for this Syrian refugee effort, but we have a moral obligation to do that and more. I have called on the administration to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees. I am a cosponsor of the emergency supplemental bill addressing refugee assistance, recently introduced by Senators Graham and Leahy. Allow me to put the 100,000 number in perspective. Germany has agreed to accept 800,000 of these Syrian refugees. It is estimated that there are 4 million total. The United States accepted 750,000 Vietnamese refugees and over 500,000 Cuban refugees after the Castro regime took over. Those Cuban refugees included the fathers of two sitting U.S. Senators, one of whom is running for President of the United States. We accepted over 200,000 Soviet Jews who were being persecuted in that country. We have accepted refugees from Somalia and from different places around the world, such as Bosnia. We have assimilated them into America, and we can do it again. When we go through this process of accepting refugees, we carefully check their backgrounds to make sure that they are not a threat to the United States or anybody who lives here. I think we should continue to do that, but the fact that only 1,700 have made it to our Nation in the last 4 years tells us that we need to do more. I will continue to be a strong advocate for humanitarian safe zones in Syria so the people there can have a safe place to be treated for their illnesses and to at least live until this war comes to an end. Let me say something else. It is embarrassing for me to stand before the Senate and note that on our Executive Calendar, which is on the desks of Senators, there includes one nominee, Gayle Smith, who has been nominated to be administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. She has been sitting on this calendar since July 29 of this year. The USAID, which she seeks to head, is the premier frontline agency for helping refugees. Yet this good woman with a lifetime of experience is being held up in the Senate for entirely political reasons. There are no objections to her personally, and there are no objections to her background. One Senator is holding up her nomination because the Senator stated publicly that he objects to the President's Iran nuclear agreement. Gayle Smith had nothing to do with that. The USAID had nothing to do with that. Shouldn't we appoint this good person to manage this agency to deal with this international refugee crisis? While we are at it, they are asking that Thomas Melia of Maryland be the assistant administrator. Wouldn't we want competent management when we are talking about billions of American tax dollars being spent wisely in this humanitarian effort? Yet they languish on this calendar. If there are objections to these nominees, state them. If not, approve them. After Greece, we had a visit to Ukraine. I believe what is happening there is deeply important to us in the United States, and I am committed to seeing that Ukraine succeed as a Democratic sovereign nation. It is hard to describe what has happened there in a year and a half. A shamefully corrupt regime which is deeply influenced by Russia was rejected by the Ukrainian people. As the country tried to get back on its feet and build a more transparent and Democratic future, Russia and Vladimir Putin staged an invasion first by taking over Crimea and then by invading eastern Ukraine. The Russians have turned eastern Ukraine into a dysfunctional, grim, and abandoned wasteland, somehow under the illusion that it would be the new Russia. More than a million people have been displaced in eastern Ukraine and thousands have been killed. The captured land was even used as a base to shoot down a civilian airliner, killing hundreds. A recent Dutch investigation showed that this was done with Russian weaponry. If only President Putin would try to help with the investigation of the Malaysian plane that was shot down instead of nakedly blocking the effort of the U.N. Security Council, we would have even more information about this horrible tragedy. Despite agreeing in Minsk to a pullback of heavy weapons, exchange of prisoners, and return of border control in the east, Russia has dragged its feet on every term of the agreement, incorrectly hoping that the world will not notice. We notice. Yet amid all this transparent and barbaric effort to undermine Ukraine, the country has found a new unity and determination. It has taken on significant reforms. During my visit with my fellow Senators, I was struck by how many dedicated Ukrainians are working for a better future. They are now members of Parliament and local officials coming right out of the Maidan demonstration. They are giving everything they can for the future of their country. I have been a strong supporter of President Obama's efforts to support Ukraine to train and equip its military and provide significant assistance for their courageous effort. As the world's attention is distracted to many other challenges, let's not lose sight of the ongoing struggle in Ukraine. The United States and Europe must remain united on sanctions against Russia as long as it continues to invade and occupy a sovereign nation like Ukraine. I will conclude by recognizing the many dedicated Foreign Service officers working in our embassies that we meet with on our trips. They are on the frontlines of American leadership and generosity. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in Ukraine and Ambassador David Pearce in Greece are two we worked with during our recent visit. As the Republicans threaten government shutdown after government shutdown, let us not forget that these men and women and many like them literally risk their lives every single day standing up and representing the United States around the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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