Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I can still remember the day in June a few years ago, June 27, 2013--2\1/2\ years ago. The Senate gathered and voted on comprehensive immigration reform. The vote was 68 to 22. The bill meant a lot to many of us. Eight of us--four Democrats and four Republicans--had literally worked for months trying to craft a bill to address the massive immigration system in America, a system that is terribly broken. I think it surprised a lot of people, but we did it. Democrats and Republicans agreeing on something--there is a headliner. Who sat across the table? Not an easy jury to decide any issue when it came to Senate business. On our side of the table were Chuck Schumer of New York, chair of the Senate immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee at that point; myself; Bob Menendez, Hispanic American Senator from the State of New Jersey; and Michael Bennet of Colorado--four of us. On the opposite side of the table, John McCain led the effort on the Republican side, along with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who had a background in law enforcement in the military and is currently running for President. Next to him, Marco Rubio from the State of Florida, Cuban American, came to this undertaking. He, too, is running for President of the United States; and Jeff Flake of Arizona, a conservative Republican. We worked for months. We went through every provision and came to a bipartisan agreement to move the bill forward. We passed it 68 to 22. I think it would have been a dramatic improvement over the current laws or lack of laws in America. The House of Representatives refused to call it up, wouldn't even bring the matter before its committees, and never had a debate on any immigration issue in the 2\1/2\ years since. They missed an opportunity, an opportunity to do something important and a rare opportunity where Democrats and Republicans happened to agree on a solution. That is hard to come by in this place. This bill would have strengthened border security, cracked down on illegal immigration, protected American workers, and established a tough but fair path for 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country who are currently living here, and it gave them a path to legal status. They would pay their taxes, pay their fines, go through a criminal background check, and then they would be eligible--not before then. Democrats were in the majority of the Senate at that moment. We reached across the aisle to work with Republicans, so the bill was truly bipartisan. Well, it is a shame that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would not even consider the bill. We asked them: Just call the bill. If it is going to be defeated, call it. No, we are not going to consider any immigration reform--and they have not. We are in a new Senate now, a new Senate under control of the other party, and what has been the approach to immigration? Unfortunately, little time has been spent trying to find common ground. First, some Senate Republicans threatened to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. This is the Department that not only has us take our shoes off at the airport, they are literally trying to protect us from another act of terrorism in the United States. For months, the Senate Republicans refused to pass an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security until the Democrats would accept anti- immigrant amendments. After we repeatedly rejected this approach, they finally relented and passed a clean appropriations bill for this important Department for America's security. Now here we go again. Some Senate Republicans have brought partisan legislation to the floor--and understand this--to defund, remove the funding from law enforcement efforts in this country. I don't know what is happening in many places, but I do know what is happening in the Midwest. We have seen violent crime, gun-related crime, go up dramatically, a 20-percent increase in gun-related deaths this year in Chicago over the previous year. In the city of Milwaukee, there is a 100-percent increase in gun-related crime this year. So why would we even consider a bill that is before us on the floor of the Senate, offered by the Senator from Louisiana, to reduce funding for law enforcement and police departments? Senator Vitter has offered a bill that would block important police, disaster relief, and other funding from communities that do not share immigration information with the Federal Government or don't hold a detainee at the behest of Federal immigration authorities. My Republican colleagues know this bill has no chance to become law. They have made no effort to engage the Democrats in a bipartisan conversation. It may pass the Senate--but I doubt it--and if it does, the President would veto it. This is done for reasons other than passing a bill and creating a new law. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they were responding to the tragic--and, yes, it was tragic--death of Kate Steinle, a young woman who was allegedly shot and killed by Francisco Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant with a long criminal history. Mr. Sanchez had several drug convictions. He illegally reentered the United States several times after he was deported. Earlier this year, he finished his third prison sentence for illegal reentry. The Bureau of Prisons should have turned Mr. Sanchez over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department to be deported, but instead they sent him to San Francisco to face a 20-year-old marijuana charge. Not surprisingly, local authorities decided not to prosecute this old charge, so sadly, unfortunately, tragically he was released. This never ever should have happened. Federal and local authorities must do a better job of communicating and coordinating so undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records are detained and deported, period. The bill before us doesn't solve the problem which I have just described. It wouldn't have prevented the tragic death of this young woman. In fact, this legislation would actually make us less safe by threatening communities with the loss of millions of dollars in critical Federal funding for local law enforcement, as well as discouraging immigrants from cooperating with local police. The Chicago Tribune--not known as any liberal publication--published an editorial opposing the bill that is coming before us. They said: ``Threatening to take money away from local police is a sound bite, not a solution.'' Republican Congressman Bob Dold, from my home State of Illinois, was one of five Republicans who voted against the House version of the bill. He said: ``Cutting funding for local law enforcement would not have prevented this horrible crime.'' What would the consequences be of passing the Vitter bill that is pending before the Senate? At risk are tens of millions of dollars in funding from several programs. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, also known as SCAAP, helps cover the costs for States and localities to detain undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records; the Community Oriented Policing Services Grant Program--which we all know about from serving in the Senate because our local police departments benefit from COPS funding; and the community development block grants provide critical funding for local communities for disaster relief and other priorities. I wish to give some examples from Illinois of the impact of the Vitter bill. In fiscal year 2014, Cook County--our largest county-- received $1,381,552 in SCAAP funding, and in fiscal year 2015, Chicago received $72,477,673 in CDBG funding, and $3,125,000 in funding through the COPS Hiring Program to address gun violence. The Fraternal Order of Police sent a letter opposing the Vitter bill--which is before the Senate--on behalf of its 330,000 police members who belong to that fraternity. This is what it said: ``It is wrong and a gross unfairness to punish these brave men and women, or the citizens they serve, because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our nation's immigration laws.'' This bill is supposedly an effort to punish so-called sanctuary cities--including some in my own home State--that have policies limiting dealings between Federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement, but the goal of these policies is to promote effective community policing by encouraging immigrant communities to trust local police. Many of these policies were established in response to Secure Communities, a program created by the Bush administration and a program which badly damaged the relationship between immigrant communities and local law enforcement around the country. My State police signed a memorandum of agreement with immigration authorities to participate in Secure Communities. The agreement said the goal of the program was to ``identify, detain, and remove from the United States aliens who have been convicted of serious criminal offenses.'' However, it turned out more than 30 percent of those deported from Illinois in the program had no criminal record. Less than 20 percent had been convicted of a serious crime. Illinois law enforcement officials say the program eroded trust in law enforcement in the Hispanic community. Their conclusion is backed up by polling data. A 2013 University of Illinois study found that 44 percent of Latinos report being less likely to contact the police if they are a victim of crime out of fear that police will inquire about their immigration status or people they know. The Vitter bill makes this problem even worse by forcing local law enforcement to become enforcers of immigration laws. I received a letter opposing the Vitter bill from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, a group of more than 30 law enforcement officials, including Republican Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran, a local law enforcement official from my home State whom I have worked with in the past. These officials are very concerned that this bill will make our communities less safe by discouraging immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement. This is what the local law enforcement in Illinois said: When state and local law enforcement agencies are required to enforce federal immigration laws, undocumented residents may fear that they, or people they know or depend upon, risk deportation by working with law enforcement. This fear undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve, creating too much room for dangerous criminals and violent crime. The Vitter bill also dramatically increases penalties for illegal entry, including two new mandatory minimum criminal sentences. Estimates are that these new penalties created by the Vitter bill would require approximately 18,600 new prison beds and up to 12 new Federal prisons. New Federal prisons cost several hundred million dollars to construct, tens of millions of dollars to operate. In sum, these new mandatory minimums will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. There is no suggestion in this bill of how we would pay for that. The real solution to this problem is smart and targeted immigration enforcement that encourages cooperation with local law enforcement. The Homeland Security Department only has enough funding to deport a small fraction of the undocumented immigrants in our country. President Obama has wisely said we should focus on those who could do us harm. In fact, 85 percent of those deported from the interior of our country in fiscal year 2014 had a criminal conviction--and they should have been deported--compared to only 38 percent in 2008 under the previous President. This President's policies has focused our limited resources on deporting dangerous people, deporting felons, not families; criminals, not children. As part of the effort to target immigration enforcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has established the Priority Enforcement Program, also known as PEP, to replace security communities. PEP is designed to protect our safety while improving trust between local police and communities they serve. The program enables DHS to work with State and local law enforcement to take custody of individuals who pose a danger to public safety before they are released. PEP has only been operational for a short time. We need to give it a chance to work before we rush in to pass this legislation which could only make the problem worse. The best way to fix our broken immigration system, incidentally, and make our communities safer is to pass comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. The bill the Senate passed in 2013 would have made unprecedented investments in border security, would have cracked down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants, and ramped up interior enforcement of immigration laws. The bill would have invested $46 billion in new resources in border security, including no fewer than 38,405 U.S. Border Patrol agents along the southern border, enhanced penalties for increased immigration violations with sentences of up to 20 years for those with criminal histories, and increased penalties for passport and immigration document trafficking and fraud. Most important, this bill would bring millions of people out of the shadows and require them to prove their identity, pass a criminal background check, and pay all fines and taxes. This would allow immigration enforcement to focus on the people who are truly a public safety threat. So instead of this Senate taking up a bipartisan bill for true immigration reform, we have this bill, a bill not likely to go much further than this procedural motion which we will face tomorrow. This bill on the floor would not have prevented Kate Steinle's tragic death. Here is the reality: The vast majority of immigrants are hard- working, law-abiding individuals with strong family values. I work with them, I know them, I trust them, and I believe they have an important role to play when it comes to this country's future. Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than native-born individuals. This bill unfortunately focuses on the violent acts of the few to scapegoat an entire community. This is dangerous and irresponsible. This bill continues down a dangerous path by promoting the myths that immigrants pose a threat to our Nation's safety. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during this period, any time in a quorum call be equally divided between both sides before the vote.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the record, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, is attending a funeral this morning and I am standing in his stead. First, I will address the comments from the majority leader, Senator McConnell. I have to disagree with his opening that Democrats are not interested in funding the government, that Democrats are not interested in funding the Department of Defense. I may remind my friend from Kentucky, the Senator who is the Republican leader, that it was the Republican side that initiated the government shutdown 2 years ago. For 16 days the government was shut down in a vain attempt to protest the Affordable Care Act. Now that threat is before us again. It is unfortunate we are facing this, but I don't believe it is fair to blame our side of the aisle for delay. You see, Mr. President, as early as June, we started saying we are facing an October 1 deadline, and we need to have a budget compromise, a budget negotiation. Why? Because there is a fundamental disagreement about funding our government in this fiscal year that began October 1. The Republicans have argued to use wartime funds--$38 billion worth-- to supplement the Department of Defense. The leaders at the Department of Defense say this is the wrong approach. They cannot build a strong national defense with an injection of wartime funds which may or may not exist at the end of the process--may or may not exist next year. I might add, coincidently, that the Republicans failed--failed--to put additional funds in for nondefense spending. Some of it is related to national security--the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so many agencies that keep us safe here in the United States. The failure of the Republicans to provide funds for critical agencies that provide health and education services is the reason we have reached an impasse in the budget negotiations. It is why 3 months ago we on the Democratic side said to the Republicans: You are in charge. You are in the majority. But if we are going to have a process that ultimately succeeds, you need to engage on a bipartisan basis in this negotiation. They refused. They refused and they came up with a short-term spending bill--we call it a continuing resolution or CR--which takes us to the first or second week of December. Beyond that there is no certainty about what is going to happen. The Senator from Kentucky talks about the appropriations process, where so many Senators voted for a bill and now are against it. I have been on appropriations committees in the House and the Senate for a long time. In the Senate we have an upside-down approach, where you vote on the overall bill first, then vote on amendments. In each of the cases the Senator from Kentucky refers to, many of us may have voted for the overall bill, hoping that amendments would solve the budget problems I have described. When those amendments failed to solve those budget problems, we said: This ultimate bill is not going to work, and we know it. That is the reality of the process in the Committee on Appropriations. So in June we invited the Republicans to meet with the President and Democratic leaders to work out a budget compromise. There is an indication that some conversation is underway, but not enough. Why have we reached this impasse? Frankly, it is because the Republican leadership--certainly in the House--is in disarray. Today there is going to be an election in the House of Representatives for a new Speaker. A group of ultraconservative Republican House Members were successful in ousting John Boehner from the Speakership. Now they are going to try to replace him but with conditions. One of those conditions is, as printed in the paper this morning, that the new House Speaker has to pledge to the Freedom Caucus--the tea party Republicans--that he will never, never agree to any compromise that is a bipartisan bill coming out of the Senate. Now, how is that for a standard when you are trying to govern in this country--when you have a President of one party and the Congress in control of the other party? The Freedom Caucus says: Don't negotiate; don't compromise. That is a recipe for a shutdown, a sequestration, and a continuing resolution. Let me tell you what that does. If we get into a continuing resolution for next year--this year we are in, I should say--it is going to mean dramatic cuts in many agencies. Yesterday the National Institutes of Health were called by Senator Blunt, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee for that agency. We sat before Dr. Collins and his leading researchers for the United States of America, and we asked them: What happens if our budget process breaks down, if we go into sequestration, which is an across- the-board cut, or we go into a continuing resolution, which is a continuation of this year's budget? What happens at the premier medical research facility in the world, the National Institutes of Health? Dr. Collins told us in very honest and somber tones: It would mean that we would suspend research in areas like precision medicine, destined I think to save lives across the world. We would suspend brain research in areas like Alzheimer's disease. Once every 67 seconds in America--once every 67 seconds--an American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Last year, we spent $226 billion as a Federal Government in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's care. We estimate about the same number, over $200 billion, was spent by families trying to care for those inflicted by dementia and Alzheimer's. There is a suggestion now that because our failure on budget negotiations will lead to the suspension of research, we would destroy any hope of finding a cure for this dreaded disease and scores of other diseases. That is how serious this conversation is. It is unfortunate that it has reached this point.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I was young and going to grade school, we feared the bomb. We were in a cold war. We were given duck- and-cover drills to get under our desk just in case there might be a nuclear attack on the United States of America. That is imprinted in my mind to this day--the fear which we had about this threat to our safety. I wish to read a commentary that is making the rounds with wide circulation by a mother who talks about a similar concern for her children. She writes: Two weeks ago, my second and fourth grade daughters came home from school and told me they'd a ``code red drill in case someone tries to kill us. We had to all hide in the bathroom together and be really quiet. It was really scary but the teacher said if there was a real man with a gun trying to find us, she'd cover us up and protect us from him. [Her little boy] started crying. I tried to be brave.'' This mother goes on to write: My 3-year-old nephew had the same drill at his preschool in Virginia. Three-year-old American babies and teachers--hiding in bathrooms, holding hands, preparing for death. We are saying to teachers: Arm yourselves and fight men with assault weapons because we are too cowardly to fight the gun lobby. We are saying to a terrified generation of American children--WE WILL NOT DO WHAT IT TAKES TO PROTECT YOU. WE WILL NOT EVEN TRY. So just be very quiet, hide and wait. Hold your breath. Shhh. In the year 2013, the number of American police officers shot dead in the line of duty was 27--27, in 2013. In 2013, the number of preschoolers--that is, children under the age of 4--who were shot dead was 82; 27 American police officers, 82 children under the age of 4 were shot dead. We need to do better as a nation. When I heard on the news this last Saturday that the monstrous tragedy in Oregon was the 45th--45th--school shooting this year in America, it broke my heart, and, more, it angered me. In just a short while, in a few minutes, Members of the Senate Democratic caucus will come together outside of this building to talk about the need for America to take action to deal with gun violence. There are so many aspects of it. I am honored to represent the city of Chicago, but having met with Mayor Rahm Emanuel yesterday, we have seen a 20-percent increase in gun violence and deaths this year, and in Milwaukee, a 100-percent increase over last year. In scores of other cities, there is the same phenomenon. The city of Chicago and many others will be flooded with guns. When I met with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Chicago on Monday, I asked them: Where are all these guns coming from? And they told me they have analyzed the crime guns seized in the most violent areas of Chicago, and they found that 40 percent of those guns came from gun shows in Lake County, IN, just across the border from Chicago--40 percent of guns. We also know that we have a phenomenon where girlfriends and friends and family will go buy guns, because the criminal--the felon who wants to use those guns to terrorize and rob and kill--couldn't pass the test for purchasing a gun. It is known as a straw purchase. The girlfriend buys the gun and hands it over to the boyfriend who goes out and kills somebody. Well, there are things we can do to change this. We need to close the gun show loophole. It makes no sense that we don't even check the backgrounds of people who fill their trunks and their cars with firearms and ammunition at these gun shows. And yet when it comes to Federal licensed dealers, there has to be a background check. This gap in coverage accounts for 40 percent of the crime guns in the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago. So the gun show loophole needs to be closed. We also need to make it clear that if you are going to make a straw purchase of a gun and do so for the purpose of giving it to someone who is going to use it in the commission of a crime, you will pay a heavy price for that, too. I grew up in a family with a lot of members of my family owning firearms in downstate Illinois. It was common for families to go hunting, to go out for target practice, and there was a gun cabinet in most homes. When a little boy, sometimes a young girl, reached a certain age, they were taken out in a rite of passage to go hunting for the first time. It is a part of the culture where I grew up, and it is an acceptable part of the culture when those guns are used responsibly and safely. I don't know a member of my family who would object to the following statement: No one who is a convicted felon or mentally unstable should be allowed to buy a gun in the United States. I don't know of a member of my family who would object to the notion that if you are going to buy a gun so someone you know can use it to commit a crime and kill someone, you are going to be punished. Those are the two things that we should start with when it comes to reducing gun violence. Those two provisions are not going to hurt any legitimate, responsible, legal gun owner. But they are going to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them. We have to restore some sense of order in this country, and we have to realize that when we reach the point that 3- and 4-year-olds are being killed in larger numbers each year by guns than even those brave men and women who serve in our police departments--when it has reached that point--clearly, Congress has to act. For Congress to act, we need to hear from the American people. If they share these feelings--if they share the feeling--we need to move forward as a nation and stop this senseless tragedy. I hope that after we gather today on the floor, Members of the Senate will come together and talk about this issue, and that across America people will join us in this effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, much of our international focus in recent months has understandably been on Iran and Syria. Both will require further attention as we make sure Iran complies with the nuclear agreement and try to bring an end to the catastrophic human suffering in Syria. And we must continue to insist that Russia abide by the Minsk agreement in territory it so brazenly seized in eastern Ukraine. But amid these important foreign policy challenges, I would like to make sure we do not lose sight of smaller but also important battles for human rights occurring around the world. First, let me start with a small nation straddling the lines of Europe and Asia, which many had hoped would strengthen its ties with the community of democracies--Azerbaijan. Since 2014, the government has arrested close to a hundred political prisoners representing some of the strongest voices for democracy and transparency in the country. Many of those who currently sit in prison on trumped-up charges such as tax evasion, fraud, and even treason include noted human rights defenders like Leyla and Arif Yunus, Rasul Jafarov, Intigam Aliyev, and Anar Mammadli. They worked tirelessly before their arrests on issues trying to strengthen the country's democratic institutions. Just recently, the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, announced that it is canceling its mission to monitor the upcoming parliamentary elections due to restrictions imposed by the government. Without the OSCE's mission, the likelihood for free and fair elections in November is obviously diminished. The Azeri Government has been particularly aggressive in quashing freedom of the press, notably arresting in 2014 Khadija Ismayilova, one of the country's top investigative reporters. For years she exposed secret connections between President Alivey's immediate family and business dealings, including the privatized state airline, the nation's biggest telecom provider, and massive construction projects. As a result of her work, she faced repeated threats, hidden cameras in her home, and even attempted blackmail by crudely posted videos of private moments with her boyfriend; yet as the Washington Post recently reported on its front page, she pressed forward, believing that the Azeri public had a right to know about corruption at the highest levels of their government. Two weeks later, Khadija's employer, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, was raided and shut down. Its staff has faced repeated harassment and some have even left the country out of concern for their safety. Recently she was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison on what can only be seen as a blatant attempt to halt her work. The U.S. State Department, the OSCE, and the European Union Parliament have all called on Azerbaijan to release its political prisoners. And in July, 15 of my Senate colleagues joined me in a letter to Azeri President Aliyev expressing concern that the space for civil society and the freedom of press within the country is diminishing. I call on Aliyev here today to not further jeopardize his ties to the West by continuing these authoritarian actions against his own people. Next, let me turn to Latin America where we continue to see democratic backsliding in a number of countries. First, Ecuador, where President Correa has seemingly no tolerance for criticism and a troubling habit of harassing the media and restricting freedom of association and the press. It is not clear why Correa, who has a large majority in the parliament, has to take such draconian and undemocratic measures. For example, over the years, the police have raided the homes of journalists working to expose government corruption and shut down an environmental organization critical of the regime's extractive policies. Government thugs have harassed and intimidated Twitter users who criticize the government. And Correa recently seemed set to force the closure of Fundamedios, a respected NGO that promotes freedom of the press. The NGO's crime? Tweeting links to two political editorials critical of the Ecuadoran government. Facing strong international condemnation, it now appears Correa has decided to back off this ill-suited vendetta against Fundamedios. And in Venezuela the other week, leading opposition figure Leopoldo Lopez, who had already been sitting in jail for 19 months on absurd political charges, was sentenced to almost 14 years. Equally troubling is what the Venezuelan regime has done to Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, who tried to maintain a semblance of judicial independence. She was shamelessly jailed after releasing a defendant who had been detained for 3 years without charges and swiftly charged with corruption and abuse of authority. Afiuni sat in jail for 2 years next to violent prisoners she had once sentenced. While in prison, she was brutally raped and became pregnant--her body terribly destroyed by the violence. She was granted house arrest to recover from emergency surgery. And today she must still report to the authorities every 15 days and cannot leave the country or speak to the news media. Incredibly, Venezuela's Attorney General denied in Geneva there was a complaint for sexual abuse and torture involving Afiuni. I know U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power has taken on this case. I want to join that effort and call for her unconditional release and exoneration. Venezuelan President Maduro is presiding over the near collapse of his once proud nation, manufacturing internal and external enemies to explain his own government's economic mismanagement. Not only has his government sentenced Lopez to jail, but it has also started a border dispute with Colombia, embarrassingly trying to further deflect attention from its own disastrous policies. Furthering more division and repression will only make things worse. I know this administration and others in the region have tried to offer paths forward for Maduro, but I fear he is heading in the opposite direction with Lopez's sentencing. Now, some of you may remember the international outrage that occurred when writer and activist Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 public lashes and 10 years in prison on blasphemy and apostasy charges in Saudi Arabia. You may also recall his brother-in-law and lawyer, human rights activist Waleed Abu al-Khair, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison by Jeddah's specialized criminal court for inciting public opinion and undermining the state. These imprisonments--and both their dubious charges and inhumane punishments--were denounced around the world by reputable human rights organizations, foreign governments, and many others. Our State Department called for the release of both Raif and Waleed, and in Congress, I was joined by seven of my Senate colleagues in writing to the late King Abdullah urging their release. Sixty-seven of my colleagues in the House did the same months later when King Salman became the new leader of Saudi Arabia. And just the other day, Badawi was awarded the PEN Literary Award. We have a longstanding friendship with the Saudi regime, and friends do at times disagree. But it is because of the nature of our friendship that I believe we have an obligation to encourage Saudi Arabia to do better--to uphold basic human rights for free speech, for women, for religious minorities, for foreign workers, and countless others. I hope the new King, King Salman, will show compassion and bring an end to Saudi Arabia's troubling human rights record. And last, let me mention some hopeful steps in Belarus, where recently the last candidate who ran in 2010 for President against strongman President Lukashenko, was finally released from jail. Michael Statkevich was released after nearly 5 years and, coincidentally, just days after he had passed the deadline to be an eligible opposition candidate for the next Presidential election. You see on the eve of the 2010 election--an election that could have brought an end to the distinction of being the last dictatorship in Europe--Lukashenko had seven candidates arrested and thrown in jail-- not much of an incentive to be a candidate. Sadly, such repression and election manipulation has been the norm in Belarus which incredibly still operates its own KGB to enforce political repression. However, Belarus has another election coming up next week on October 11. I want President Lukashenko to know that the world is watching and hoping that this time it will be a free and legitimate election worthy of the Belarussian people.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last month, Illinois--and America--lost a legend. Pat Johns passed away at the age of 66. Pat Johns was from my home State of Illinois. He was born in Aurora and raised in Plano. Known as the ``Master of Disaster,'' Pat was employed with Catholic Relief Services, based in Baltimore, for 30 years. In that time he was on the ground in some of the world's most dangerous war zones and humanitarian emergency areas. Pat Johns was a soldier, but not in the traditional sense--he didn't even carry a gun. He was a soldier of peace, armed only with the virtue of his mission. And his mission took him to places like the killing fields of Cambodia, the Ethiopian famine, the Rwandan genocide, Somalia, Kosovo, and Eritrea. And when natural disasters occurred like the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, or the earthquake in Haiti, Pat Johns was there--with energy, hope, and solutions. In 1974, Pat joined Catholic Relief Services and was posted in Cambodia. Two years later, he was managing a staff of 400 people. To say that Pat faced a challenge in Cambodia would be a gross understatement. The Khmer Rouge Army was storming its way toward the capitol of Phnom Penh and the Vietnam war was raging next door. Pat's job included working shifts of 50 hours or more and getting food and supplies to nearly 2 million refugees seeking safe haven from the Khmer Rouge's advances. He endured miserable tropical weather and survived malaria, all while keeping tens of thousands of refugees alive. When asked about the experience, he said, ``The whole experience, in Cambodia really drove home my niche in life.'' Many may have quit, but not Pat Johns. Instead, he dedicated his life to serving those in desperate need in the most dangerous parts of the planet. In doing so, Pat Johns saved millions of people from war-torn countries, fed the starving, and promoted peace and justice all over the world--what an inspiration. Last spring, I gave the commencement address at my nephew's high school graduation. I asked the students to think about what they wanted people to say about their lives. I asked them, ``What will you be remembered for? What service did you render to your community? Your nation? Your world?'' The great thing about living in America is we can choose the answers to those questions. Pat Johns will be remembered for many things: living through war, famine, natural disasters, incredible human suffering; and for bringing hope to victims everywhere he went. But Sean Callahan, chief operating officer for Catholic Relief Services, put it best. He said, ``Perhaps the greatest thing about Pat was that he was a gentleman and a greatly caring person. He could work nonstop for 50 hours in terrible conditions, but still have the heart to offer comfort and friendship to those around him.'' That's a legacy to be proud of. Today, the best way we can honor Pat Johns is by continuing his life's work. We need this generation of Americans to live up to the example set by Pat Johns. We have big shoes to fill, but Pat showed us that, with the right commitment, we can get it done.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. The issue before us is a conference committee report on the House Defense authorization bill. It is not the spending bill; it is the authorizing of spending. It is a bill that largely is bipartisan. There is no argument on either side of the aisle to support our troops, no argument against providing the technology and weaponry they need to keep themselves and Americans safe. The issue before us is a larger budget issue that goes even beyond the Department of Defense but certainly includes it, and that is, how are we going to fund our government? The Republican approach is to put in $37 billion to $38 billion of made-up money. In other words, they take $37 billion or $38 billion of what is known as OCO funds, or war funds, and just assume it is there and put it in the budget for the Department of Defense only, but they don't put money in for nondefense agencies. So they adequately fund the Department of Defense--in fact, some say generously fund it--and then cut back in the rest of government. What is the difference? What difference does it make? The cutbacks include, on the nondefense side, medical research at the National Institutes of Health. The cuts include adequate resources for the Veterans' Administration to keep our promise to the men and women who have served us in the military. The cuts include keeping America safe when it comes to homeland security and the FBI. So they make cuts in all of these agencies but provide the funding for the Department of Defense. We argue: Let's have some balance. We want to give our troops the very best treatment, but we certainly don't want to shortchange the other side of government--the nondefense side--and that is what the budget negotiations are all about. So Republican after Republican comes to the floor and says the Democrats don't care about the military. That is not true; both sides care about the military. But there are other parts of our government that are important as well for the safety of the United States and the future of the United States. Whether it is education or medical research or caring for our veterans, let's have a balance in our budget that acknowledges that reality, and let's look at a couple other things that are realistic too. How many people in America think we are suffering from not enough handguns on the streets of America? There are some who do. There is a provision in this bill which is no surprise to people who follow legislation on Capitol Hill. The gun lobby is always looking for a way to expand their universe of more guns in America. So they proposed, in the House of Representatives--the Congressman from Alabama proposed-- that the military sell 100,000 .45-caliber semiautomatic handguns without any background checks on the purchasers. That was the proposal in the House--100,000 semiautomatic handguns without any background checks on the purchasers. Did they really do that? They did. It was in the bill. Jack Reed, the Senator from Rhode Island who is the ranking Democrat, changed that provision and limited it from 100,000 to 10,000--10,000 handguns--and said they have to go through dealers so there will be a background check. I raise that point because guns are in the news again. Guns are in the news every day. Each day 297 Americans are shot with firearms, and 89 lose their lives. We saw the terrible tragedy last week. I was stunned to hear on NPR over the weekend that what happened at Roseburg, OR, was the 45th school shooting in America this year--the 45th this year. We have to do something about it. It is not going to be solved with this bill alone, but it will be solved if Democrats and Republicans start looking for reasonable ways to limit the access of guns from those who have a history of committing criminal felonies or a history of mental instability. I am glad the Senate conferees cleaned up the House provision that would have dumped 100,000 handguns into the hands of purchasers without any kind of background check. I still believe this bill goes too far when it comes to that gun issue. I will close by saying this: We are all committed to the military and the defense of the United States. Many of us believe the agreement with Iran that precludes their development of a nuclear weapon will lead to a safer world. We are going to carefully monitor it, as we promised we would, for the sake not only of Israel but for all of the nations in the region, as well as the United States. We want to make this a safer world. We want to turn to diplomacy before we turn to a military response. I supported it, and I will continue to support it. I hope, in the closing minutes of debate, that Members will reflect on the fact that we can have a better deal not only to help our military but to help those others who are funded by the nondefense side of the budget, to have some balance too, to make sure it isn't lopsided with the money all going to the Department of Defense without acknowledging precious needs of America in many other nondefense subjects. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the year 1789, the U.S. Senate, in a chamber not far from here, approved the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment reads: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' The Second Amendment to the Constitution is an amendment which has been uttered, debated, and litigated over the entire history of the United States. Whatever the true intent of our Founding Fathers in writing that language, that brief sentence, I wonder if they could even imagine what we are dealing with today in the name of the right of people to keep and bear arms because every day, on average, in America, 297 people are shot--every day--and 89 of them die every day in America. Last Saturday I was with my wife in Chicago having a cup of coffee and reading over the papers, listening to National Public Radio. They reported the Roseburg, OR, shooting at the community college, and they cited a statistic that I was not aware of: That shooting at the community college that killed nine innocent people was the 45th school shooting in America this year. There have been 45 shootings in schools. There were many other mass shootings in different places, but now even schools, even students, even schoolchildren are not safe from the rampage of guns. I am honored to represent the city of Chicago. It is a great city. I do my best to help it in every way I can. But I also have to be very candid and honest with you. So far, there have been 2,300 shootings in the city of Chicago this year. Where are all these guns coming from? Yesterday morning I went to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in Chicago and sat down with the new special agent in charge and asked him the question: Where are all these guns coming from? Why do we have more guns per capita in Chicago than in New York? Why is it that so many of these teenagers, kids, moms, and dads are armed to the teeth? Where are all these guns coming from? He said: Senator, the No. 1 source of guns in the State of Illinois-- crime guns that we have taken in the commission of crime and can trace--the No. 1 source is Illinois. We have a phenomenon where people go into a federally licensed arms dealer and purchase guns and use them in crime. But the bigger problem is they send in someone without a criminal record who can pass a background check and who buys guns and turns them over to drug gang thugs and criminals on the street. They call it straw purchasing. So the No. 1 source of guns is trading guns within the State of Illinois and these traffickers, these straw purchasers who purchase a gun not for their own use but to turn it over to a criminal or sell it to a criminal. That is the No. 1 source. What is the No. 2 State that supplies guns to the State of Illinois? It is Indiana, which adjoins Illinois to the east--specifically, Lake County, IN, in the northwestern section of that State. Why do we get so many guns from Indiana into Illinois that are used in the commission of crime? Because of gun shows. Gun shows occur on the weekends, and people literally show up in Indiana, show some State identification, and without any background check walk out with a gun-- not just a gun but many times fill their trunks with guns and ammunition and drive across the border into Chicago, Cook County, and go to the west side of town or down south in Englewood. They pull up in an alley or maybe even on the curbside and have an open market, selling these guns picked up at gun shows. The people who purchase these never went through a background check. Nine times out of 10, unless they are buying from a gun show from a Federal dealer, it is just an arms-length transaction--however many guns you want to buy; no questions asked. Many of these people would be disqualified if they went to a Federal gun dealer. They have a history of committing felonies and other acts that disqualify them. The fact is that today that is the No. 2 source of crime guns-- Indiana. What is the No. 3 source of crime guns in the city of Chicago? Mississippi. Mississippi. Why? Because their gun show requirements are even more lax than in the Midwest. It is an ongoing commerce of running those guns up the interstate and selling them in the city of Chicago. So what is happening? There is a dramatic increase in homicides across America. We are awash in guns. Sadly, many of them are in the hands of people who buy them to kill innocent people. There has been a spike in homicides this year--not just in Chicago but in Milwaukee, St. Louis, Houston, Baltimore, New Orleans, and many other cities. The plain reality is that we are now awash in guns in America, and it is far too easy for convicted criminals, felons, and unstable people to get their hands on a gun and to use it. When guns are everywhere and when it is easy for dangerous people to get them, it puts everyone at risk. Can you imagine for a second that any of those students heading into that community college in Oregon that morning had even an idea they would face a gunman and some would die? The heartbreaking stories--one I remember hearing from a minister who talked about his daughter, who survived because she appeared to be a bloody corpse. The gunman stepped over her. The father could hardly contain his emotions when he talked about dropping that girl off at school and living with the possibility that she would have died there and that would have been his last memory of his daughter. Is that what America has come to? Is that what we are? Pretty much anywhere you go now, you have it in the back of your mind that someone could have a gun, someone could start shooting. Do we want to live this way in America? If you talk to the gun lobby and the special interest groups that manufacture guns and want to sell more and more, they will say the solution is to arm more good guys with guns so they can shoot the bad guys. That is a solution they like because it sells more guns, but why wouldn't we try in the first place to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys? The Supreme Court has said there is no constitutional problem in the provision that I read with keeping guns away from felons, domestic violence abusers, the mentally unstable, and other dangerous people. The Supreme Court across the street said that is completely consistent with the Second Amendment. Why don't we do it? If our country did a better job of preventing bad guys from getting guns, there are a lot of innocent people who would still be here today. I held a hearing in my Constitution subcommittee a couple years ago about gun violence. We talked about the need for better laws to stop illegal straw purchases and gun trafficking. One of our witnesses, a young woman who has become my friend, was Sandra Wortham of Chicago. Her brother Thomas was a Chicago police officer. He had served two tours of duty in Iraq. He was a great guy. He was gunned down in front of his parents' home on the South Side of Chicago. He was murdered by gang members with a straw-purchased gun. He was an extraordinary police officer. When he was shot, he had a gun on him. He shot back at the armed gunmen who were trying to rob him, and so did his father, who was standing nearby, also a retired police sergeant. But Officer Wortham was killed. He died in front of his parents' house on May 19, 2010. I attended his funeral. Thomas Wortham's sister Sandra spoke at that hearing. It was powerful. This is what she said: My brother carried a gun. My father carried a gun. But the fact that my brother and father were armed that night did not prevent my brother from being killed. We need to do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. I don't think that makes us anti-gun; I think it makes us pro-decent, law abiding people. Sandra Wortham is right. I hope my colleagues will hear her words. Some say it is impossible to stop bad guys from getting guns; they are just going to get them. It is true that there are a lot of loopholes in the law to get them today, like the gun show loophole and the Internet loopholes in the background check system. I don't question the possibility that those loopholes are there. It is also true that the gun lobby is working hard every day to further weaken the laws on the books and to strike them down in court. But we can stop the gun lobby from gutting the laws on the books, and we can close those loopholes if lawmakers just have the courage and political will. Our goal should be to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, not to take them away from people who use them in a responsible and legal way. I grew up in downstate Illinois. Owning shotguns and rifles is just part of life. Taking your son or in some cases even your daughter out hunting is normal. It is what people do. I have been out duck hunting in Stuttgart, AR, with my former colleague, Mark Pryor. We had a good time. Everybody there knew that a gun was a dangerous weapon that had to be handled carefully. We filed the necessary permits and licenses to be out there hunting on that day and followed a long list of requirements that limited our right to go shooting ducks, migrating ducks in that area. We did it because it was the law and law-abiding people pay attention to the law. But what are we going to do now to respect those law-abiding people but still get serious about stopping these guns that end up in the hands of felons and mentally unstable people? Are we going to shrug our shoulders? Are Members of Congress going to put out the standard press release after a mass shooting? Or are we going to rise to this challenge on this occasion and do something? What a breakthrough it would be if we could save these innocent lives. I cannot imagine that classroom in that community college in Oregon where that crazy gunman, loaded and armed, went up to each of those students and asked if they were Christians. If they said yes, he told them: You are on your way to Heaven, and then he shot them dead. I cannot imagine that moment. I certainly cannot imagine if in that classroom was someone I loved, someone I knew, someone I cared about, and they were the victim of that kind of mental instability. So are we going to shrug our shoulders, remember the victims in our thoughts and prayers and do nothing? Is that what it has come to? We are better than that. We can easily pass laws to protect domestic violence victims by keeping the guns out of the hands of their abusers. All it takes is will. We could easily hold gun dealers accountable for guns that they purposefully misplace into the hands of criminals. All it takes is the will. We can easily adopt technology to stop criminals from stealing guns and stop kids from using them accidentally. All it takes is will. We can easily create a better background check system and pass better laws to stop straw purchasing and illegal gun trafficking. All it takes is will. We can stop the gun lobby from gutting the laws on the books, and we can close these loopholes if lawmakers just have the courage and the political will. As President Obama said, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. Stopping this violence requires courage and political will. I hope the Congress can rise to this challenge. I am not giving up. I have seen too many lives cut short, too many families and communities devastated by this violence. I am going to do all I can to bring down the number of shootings in America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are many stories written in the last months about the dysfunction of Congress, why can't they get along, why can't they produce something, why can't they address the issues and challenges of our time. It is easy to get into that mindset and believe that something has happened on Capitol Hill that cannot be repaired. For those who are about to give up hope, I hope they are reflecting on what I left just a few moments ago. It was a press conference held up in the radio and TV Senate gallery. Attending this press conference were Senator Chuck Grassley, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator John Cornyn, the Republican whip; Senator Mike Lee of Utah; and Senator Tim Scott. On the Democratic side: Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey, a relatively new Member of the Senate; Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; and Senator Chuck Schumer. We were there to announce what we think is a historic achievement, a historic agreement. We have been working now for years, literally for years, on both sides of the aisle to make significant and meaningful criminal sentencing reform and reform to the corrections system of the United States of America. On that stage, from Mike Lee to Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin, was the entire political spectrum of the Senate. Within that spectrum, there are a lot of differences of opinion. There were times a year ago that I did not think that meeting and that announcement would take place. But today we came together, on a bipartisan basis, to announce that we had reached an agreement, a historic agreement, on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. We knew we had a problem in America, a problem of incarceration. A nation with 5 percent of the world's population has 25 percent of the world's prison population. What is going on in America? Why are so many people in prison, and has it made us any safer? We asked those hard questions and came up with what we think is a good response. We took a category of crime, drug use, that does not involve violence or a gun or gang activity and said: We are going to give to the judge in that case, that category of cases, more flexibility when it comes to sentencing. The minimum mandatory requirements can be changed by the judge based on the defendant before him, the crime they committed, and what that judge believes to be the best for our society. It is such a change. For the longest time, years and decades, our goal was to incarcerate as many as possible, and we did, some of them for extraordinarily unfair and unjust periods of time. The worst vote-- the worst vote I ever cast as a Member of Congress was in the House. It goes back more than 20 years ago. A basketball player at the University of Maryland named Len Bias died from a drug overdose. We were called on to stiffen the penalties for crack cocaine in America and we did, dramatically: 100 to 1 for crack cocaine versus sentencing for powdered cocaine--100 to 1. The net result of that in several decades of sentencing was to send away primarily African Americans for incredibly long sentences. Eugenia Jennings of Alton, IL, a teenage mother and a crack addict was selling crack cocaine, a handful of it, to buy clothes and food for her children. It was her third offense. When she was convicted, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines gave Judge Patrick Murphy no choice but to hand down a sentence of 23 years in prison. Judge Murphy said at the time: This country, this government, has done nothing for you, Ms. Jennings, through your tortured life, and now at this moment in life we are going to kick you hard. The judge knew it was the wrong sentence. Fortunately, Eugenia Jennings' sentence was commuted after a dozen years. She was released from prison to be with her children, only for a short time. She passed away from cancer. But that is just one statistic, one story, and it can be repeated thousands of times. This bill tries to avoid that type of injustice. We were not going to be a safer State, a safer nation if she served 23 years instead of 12. It made no sense. So we address it with this bill. With this bill, we go after a new approach in sentencing on this narrow category of crimes, which we believe can result in many serving shorter sentences. Secondly, for those who are still in prison subject to that 100-to-1 ratio on sentencing, we give 6,500 inmates in the Federal prison system a chance to petition for reconsideration of their sentence on an individual basis, so they can be judged by judges, prosecutors, and people in the community as to whether their sentence should be changed. So this, in a way, is a sweeping bill when it comes to the population of our prisons. I believe--many agree--it would be far better to take the $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 a year it costs to house an inmate and put it instead into community policing, making our neighborhoods safer, giving our prosecutors the resources they need to not only come down with the right sentences but variations in sentencing like drug courts, veterans courts, and things that are working around America which will make us safer at a lower cost. We will have more money available to the Department of Justice and across the board to go after the seriously threatening criminals we still have in America whom we can never ever ignore. Senator Cornyn and Senator Whitehouse took a look at those in prison to determine ways they could earn an earlier release or better terms of release. They did extraordinary work. Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey stepped in on an issue that all of us who serve with him know he feels so passionately about, the African-American incarceration rate and particularly the impact it has on young people in that part of our population. He made some valuable contributions to this bill. It is our hope we can bring this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee soon. Senator Grassley gave his word that would happen, and then bring it to the floor and send it to the House. For those who say, ``What is going to happen over there, with all of the changes taking place?'' I would make one observation: Our spectrum of political support for the bill we had at the press conference represents the spectrum in the House as well. All of us came together. All of them can come together too. They may not agree with every word in this bill. Having served in the House, I am sure they won't. But if they will make the same good-faith effort at finding reasonable compromise, then we can reach a historic achievement, a historic outcome in this process. I wish to commend one member of my staff in particular who has devoted more hours than I could ever count to make this a reality. His name is Joe Zogby. He is my lead counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Time and time again, Joe Zogby has performed so professionally and with such determination, from my point of view and I am sure from other Senators' points of view. We wouldn't be here today if we didn't have staffers like Joe who have given so much of their time and their heartfelt dedication to finding a solution to an American problem. So before we walk away from the Congress and say there is no hope, take a look at this bill and this effort. This is how the Senate is supposed to work. This is how the House is supposed to work. It is how Congress is supposed to work. It is how America expects us to work. The President is anxious for us to come up with this work product. Let's not disappoint him and the millions of Americans who count on us to solve the problems facing America. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the vote we are about to cast this morning at 10 o'clock. This is a vote to basically extend the authority and budget of the Federal Government until December 11. This September 30 is the end of our fiscal year, and at least legally, the authority to continue the government depends on budget and appropriations bills being passed by the House and Senate. That has not happened. So what we are doing is a continuing resolution. It basically extends last year's budget until December 11. Now, that will keep the lights on at Federal agencies, and it will avoid the catastrophic outcome of a government shutdown, but it is not good policy. We have done it on our side--on the Democratic side--and now the Republicans, in control of the Congress, are doing it on their side. It buys time to reach some sort of agreement that is longer lasting and more thoughtful. We know the notion of a government shutdown is a disaster, but it is not a unanimous opinion in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. There are actually Members of the Senate and the House who are applauding the possibility of a government shutdown. Some of them were the same people who inspired the shutdown several years ago-- a shutdown which cost us 800,000 jobs in America because of the uncertainty created by it and which created real hardship for people around our country. A shutdown, if it happened again in this context, would be even more serious in terms of its impact on the American economy. So we have a chance. And I would just say to those who follow this debate--and there is no reason why people would follow the minutia-- that in June of this year we asked on the Democratic side for the Republican leader to sit down and avoid this actual confrontation we are having today. We asked Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner to negotiate with the President a new budget--a budget that is realistic and will not harm innocent people. I am troubled by the notion that Republicans have that we should find war funds to continue funding the Department of Defense and ignore the nondefense parts of the budget. Senator Reid made reference to one. National Institutes of Health medical research, which is critical to America and its future, is now facing the uncertainty of no budget, and that is unfair. Last night we had a meeting with some of the major medical researchers in the United States, and they said it is hard to convince the next generation of researchers that we as a nation are seriously committed, and it is because of this uncertainty in budgeting. It is a political problem, and one that should be solved by politicians, namely, Members of the House and Senate working with the President. So we will likely vote--and I certainly will vote in the next few minutes--to extend the operations of the government until December 11. But if it is only for more speechifying and breast-beating by those who want to shut down the government to prove some political point, I have to say they are seriously mistaken. It is the wrong thing for America to shut down the government. It is the wrong thing for job creation to shut down the government. It is the wrong thing for our future, when it comes to medical research, education, and critical programs, to shut down the government. Those who are preaching that gospel should be reminded that 3 out of 4 Americans think they are not very thoughtful-- I will clean up my words a little bit--not very thoughtful in using this approach. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this continuing resolution but really to light a fire under the leadership in the Democratic and Republican precincts and to come together in the House and Senate in the next few weeks of this continuing resolution. Let's make sure we have a budget and one that is befitting a great nation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, time is running out for the Senate to act to save the Federal Perkins Loan Program. If we do nothing, this critical program that makes college affordable for 30,000 students per year in Illinois will expire at the end of the day. Perkins was first authorized as part of the National Defense Education Act of 1958; and, unlike Federal student loans that we often think about, Perkins is a campus-based loan program. Participating colleges and universities make low-interest federally subsidized loans to students with exceptional financial need. The program also offers forgiveness and cancellation options to qualifying borrowers. The real key to Perkins is the flexibility it offers to schools to provide financial aid to students to make up for gaps in costs that Pell or other financial aid may not cover. If a student has an unexpected change in the financial situation of their family, say a parent loses a job, Perkins allows a college or university to step in and provide aid to that student to allow them to continue their studies. The campus-based nature of the program means that students' individual financial needs can be met more effectively, and in my home State of Illinois, more than 150 institutions of higher education provide Perkins loans. College presidents and financial aid administrators across Illinois have told me that without this key piece to the Federal financial aid puzzle, many students may be left behind, unable to afford a college education. But it does not have to come to that. The House sent us a bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support that would extend this worthy program for another year. I am disappointed that an attempt to take up and pass this House measure to continue the Perkins program was blocked today on the Senate floor. Despite today's setback, I hope the Senate will still act to extend the Federal Perkins Loan Program and help keep college in reach for more than half a million students across the country who rely on this program.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent years we have faced a lot of difficulty filling positions for service to our Federal Government, not the least of which are critical diplomatic posts around the world. We have seen delays in confirming Federal judges, one of the most important duties of the Senate. These men and woman are chosen for life appointments. The most frustrating part of this is that virtually all of these nominees should be confirmed with overwhelming support. To be nominated by the President at the White House for an ambassadorial spot or even a Federal judgeship you go through a clearance process in the beginning for the White House to choose this person, then a background check--and it is a pretty extensive background check--and then eventually, if the White House is satisfied this person is fit for the job, with no obstructions to their moving forward, they send them to Congress and it goes through this process all over again. So these nominees have been vetted once, twice, three times before they finally reach the point where there is a vote on the nominee in a committee on Capitol Hill in the Senate. If they clear that vote--and it is a partisan vote--if they clear that vote, then they make it to the Executive Calendar. It takes a long time. While this is going on, people are sitting there in suspense as to whether they are going to be selected and when they finally might get a chance to serve. For some reason, we have seen a virtual standstill since the Republicans have taken control of the Senate when it comes to filling critical positions appointed by the President. It is time for us to schedule up-or-down votes on more than 27 foreign affairs and judicial nominees who are awaiting floor action. Given the foreign policy challenges we face around the world, the delays in considering delays for our ambassadors and other critical foreign policy positions is inexcusable. Many come to the floor on the other side of the aisle every day to criticize the President and his foreign policy. Yet when he asks for men and women to serve and represent the United States in foreign countries, they languish on the calendar. Most of the people languishing on the calendar for ambassadorial spots are not political, they are professional. They are men and women who have served our government through Democratic and Republican administrations, have developed a good reputation, and are now moving up to a new responsibility. Why in the world is the Republican majority refusing to allow those men and women to serve the United States? I don't understand it. I think it is dangerous. I think some people are putting politics ahead of national security. As of today, we have at least 11 foreign affairs nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar. Typically the vast majority of those nominees move quickly in a bipartisanship manner. However, over the past few years that has all changed. Everything is political now. Last year the Senate Republicans held up more than 30 nominees at various times. At least 10 of them were held over from the last Congress. Most astonishingly, on the Senate Executive Calendar today, at a time when the international community is facing a terrible conflict in Syria, is a professional named Gayle Smith. She is a qualified nominee who wishes to serve as the head of USAID, U.S. Agency for International Development. What does that Agency do? That Agency provides food and medicine to the refugees of the Syrian war. It is a big process. It has to be moved into countries and into refugee camps in massive amounts to keep innocent people--victims of this war--alive. Gayle Smith has been waiting for weeks, if not months, for approval. So what is so controversial about her? The only controversy is she was chosen by President Obama. She is eminently qualified. No one has raised any questions about her competency to do this job. She came to see me a week or two ago. She is anxious to serve our government, and the job she has to do is critically important at this moment in history. Yet she languishes on the Senate Executive Calendar not approved. So there is no nominal leader of this massive Agency which is responsible for the well-being of so many innocent people. There are another 10 just like her. In addition to this, three dozen more await confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Many of them have had hearings; they just sit there. This includes people like Jeffrey Hawkins to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Central African Republic. Now, most of us would struggle to find that on a map, but the fact is, that country is facing its own conflict that has displaced more than one-half million people. Yet the post of U.S. Ambassador to that country goes vacant, not because of any controversy about Jeffrey Hawkins but the fact that he was chosen by this President. That is it. That is the only complaint. It also includes Roberta Jacobson, who has been named as the next Ambassador of Mexico. Roberta is a seasoned diplomat who would be a great asset to a country that is our neighbor and closest among Latin American countries. It includes Daniel Rubinstein to be the next Ambassador to Tunisia, one of the few countries to emerge from the Arab Spring as a functioning democracy. In total, some of these posts have been vacant for more than 1 year, despite the President's efforts to fill them. Other nominees are supposed to replace current Ambassadors who are looking forward to moving to their next post. They cannot do it. Why? The Senate does not want to call them for a vote. That is a decision to be made by the Republican majority. It is a shame our nominees, many of whom are noncontroversial, who have distinguished careers in the Foreign Service, languish on the Senate Executive Calendar for months at a time, in some cases a year. There used to be a spirit of bipartisanship when it came to national security, one that had a long and proud tradition. I hope the majority now will return to that proud tradition. We have a similar delay when it comes to judges. So far this year-- this year, and here we are in the month of September, near the end, coming into October--so far this year, the Republican-controlled Senate has held confirmation votes on six judges--six--all year. Well, you say, the President only has 2 years left. Maybe it is normal that you would not approve a judge for a lifetime appointment if he only has a little over a year left now. During President George W. Bush's final 2 years in office, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees--6 so far this year by the Republicans. At this point in 2007, the Democratic Senate had confirmed 29 of President Bush's judicial nominees. That is nearly five times the number that has been cleared by the Republican Senate, despite the fact that there is no controversy involving any of those nominees. There are 16 noncontroversial judicial nominees currently pending on the Senate Calendar whom we could confirm right away. Seven of these nominees would fill judicial emergencies. That means they are being sent to courthouses where the cases are stacking up and people are asking: When am I going to get my day in court? Well, you will not get your day in court until the new judge gets his day in the Senate. We don't know when that might happen. There is no reason to delay these confirmation votes. These nominees would be confirmed with overwhelming support. We need to put them into the vacancies on the Federal bench. Overall, there are 67 vacant Federal judgeships now, 31 of which have been designated as judicial emergencies. Most of those vacancies are from States where there is at least one Republican Senator. What that means is that nominee would not even be on the calendar were it not for the approval of that Republican Senator. So they have bipartisan support. I urge my Republican colleagues to work in good faith to fill these vacancies on the Federal bench. This is an important responsibility of the Senate. We should not neglect it. The vast majority of nominees could be confirmed today. If debate is needed on a few of them, so be it. If a rollcall is needed, let's have it. We cannot leave vacant important positions in our government and in our judicial system: 16 judicial nominees, 11 nominees for foreign affairs. We could vote on them this afternoon. Are we holding off the vote because we are too busy on the Senate floor? If you are following the Senate, you know that is not the case. It is time for us to do our jobs so these nominees can do theirs. For the sake of national security and our system of justice, let's move forward in a bipartisan fashion and vote on these nominees. For-Profit Colleges Mr. President, another school year has begun. In August, I marked the occasion by holding a press conference outside of Argosy University. Don't be surprised if you have not heard the name Argosy University. It is a for-profit college in downtown Chicago. This for-profit college is part of an industry that enrolls 10 percent of all college students-- the for-profit colleges and universities--10 percent of the students. They take in 20 percent of all the Department of Education financial aid. Here is the kicker. For-profit colleges and universities account for 44 percent of all the student loan defaults: 10 percent of the students, 44 percent of the student loan defaults. Why does that happen? Because of several things. First, they are very expensive. They accept anyone--virtually anyone. Many of the students start going to these for-profit schools and realize they are getting too deep in debt and they drop out. Then they have the worst world: a student debt and no degree. Some of them finish the school, finish the course, and are given a diploma. They find out that they cannot get a job with it. When you look at the Brookings Institution's recent study of for- profit schools, they ranked last when it comes to good-paying jobs after college. Then what happens? The students cannot make enough money to pay off their student loans and they default. That, sadly, is the cycle that has faced thousands of students across America. This industry is in trouble. It is in such trouble that many of the large for-profit schools are threatened and some have collapsed. The largest, Corinthian College, this for-profit university sent shock waves through the industry. They raked in profits, leaving students with mountains of debt, and then when they were asked to prove to the Federal Government that the students actually got a job after they graduated, they falsified the returns to the Federal Government. When they were challenged, they went under. They sunk. When they sunk, look what happened. The students who had gone to school there were told: Corinthian just disappeared. You no longer have a university. Then they learned that the courses they took could not be transferred to any other school except maybe another for-profit school somewhere. The net result of it is, the students had an option: give up whatever credits they had at Corinthian and walk away from their student loans or keep their Corinthian credits and pay their student loans. The students who walked away from their student loans, of course, created an obligation to Federal taxpayers who had to make up the difference. Argosy University is another one of these for-profit colleges. It is owned by Education Management Corporation. It is one of the companies that are also being looked at very carefully. Students who walk through Argosy's doors in Chicago or surf their ads online considering enrollment should know the company that runs this school, Argosy University, is under investigation by at least 14 different State attorneys general for unfair and deceptive practices. In 2013, the Colorado attorney general sued EDMC, which owns Argosy, for deceiving, misleading, and financially injuring students. The Colorado attorney general's investigation centered on Argosy and found a long, elaborate pattern of deceptive behavior by the school. That is not all. EDMC is also being sued by the Department of Justice under the Federal False Claims Act for falsely certifying compliance with provisions of Federal law. It turns out that they are incentivizing people to sign up students at their schools, these for-profit schools. They give them a signing bonus if they can lure some young student into signing up. That violates the law. In addition, the San Francisco city attorney found that EDMC, the company that runs Argosy, engaged in marketing tactics that underestimated program costs for students and inflated job placement figures. They were just flatout lying to these kids. According to the Department of Education, EDMC is considered ``not financially responsible.'' It has been placed on the Department's special heightened cash monitoring status. The company withdrew its stock from trading on NASDAQ because it no longer wanted to make public filings with the SEC. You see, if you make a public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and lie, you can go to jail, so they just withdrew their stock rather than be caught lying. In addition, in Chicago, an Argosy student seeking an associate's degree in business, information technology, or psychology will pay about $34,000 in tuition to this for-profit school. Two blocks away, the students at City Colleges of Chicago Harold Washington Campus are also getting the same degree, and the cost there is $7,000. It is $34,000 at Argosy and $7,000 at the City Colleges of Chicago. Incidentally, the hours at the City Colleges of Chicago are transferable to other universities and schools--not if it is Argosy. One in fifty students at the Harold Washington Campus is likely to default ultimately when it comes to paying their student loans; at Argosy, one out of seven. It is just too darn expensive, and these kids cannot pay back the loans. A recent Brookings report found that Argosy University Chicago--the one I visited in August--is No. 9 in the country on the list of schools whose students owe the most in Federal student loans. They owe a total of $6.2 billion--billion. In fact, of the top 25 schools on the list, 13 are for-profit colleges and account for 10 percent of all the outstanding student loan debt in America. I want to close, as I see my colleague is on the floor seeking recognition. I close by using one more example: ITT Tech. It sounds great, doesn't it. It is No. 16 on Brookings' list. Students owe $4.6 billion in loans. It is not surprising. An associate's degree, a 2-year degree at ITT Tech, costs $47,000, and the students have a one-in-five chance of defaulting on the loans they make at that school. Meanwhile, ITT Tech, which does business in Chicago--Arlington Heights, Orland Park, and Oak Brook--has been under investigation by at least 18 State attorneys general for unfair and deceptive practices, has been sued by the New Mexico attorney general for misrepresentation to students about their accreditation status and sued by the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for predatory lending. The list just goes on. The point I am getting to is we are subsidizing these schools. This is the most heavily subsidized for-profit business in America; 80 percent to 95 percent of their revenue comes straight from the Federal Treasury. If all of the money going to for-profit colleges and universities--think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan--if all of that money were combined, this would be the ninth largest Federal agency in Washington. But, instead, the CEOs who run these for- profit companies are making a ton of money. The top man at the University of Phoenix--the biggest one--makes $9 million a year. How is that for being a college president? And some of these other ones, small change--$3 million a year. They get to run these for-profit schools while these kids stack up in debt, end up defaulting, and end with their lives ruined. Incidentally, defaulting on a debt means you still owe it to the grave. Student loan debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I could go through a long list, but I hope Congress comes to its senses when the higher education bill comes to the floor. This rip-off, this scam on students and families across America, has to come to an end. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I wish to have 1 minute in order to debate the matter that is before us.