Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are many brokenhearted people today in the small town of Fox Lake, IL. They are mourning the loss of Lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz. His friends and family called him Joe. At work they called him GI Joe. That all-American nickname was an admiring tribute to Lieutenant Gliniewicz's nearly 30 years of service to the U.S. Army, the Army Reserves, and to his appearance and demeanor. At age 52, Lieutenant Gliniewicz was fit and strong. He stood ramrod straight. He wore his hair high and tight like a drill sergeant. But the physical characteristic people mention most about Lieutenant Gliniewicz was his smile. Everyone knew GI Joe in Fox Lake, IL. He served on the town's police force for 32 years. He was supposed to retire at the end of last month, but he stayed on just 1 more month to ensure the smooth transition of a volunteer youth program to which he devoted thousands of hours over nearly 30 years. A week ago today, September 1--the day that would have been Lieutenant Gliniewicz's first day of retirement--he was shot and killed in the line of duty. It was 8 o'clock in the morning. Lieutenant Gliniewicz was driving down a road lined with open fields and abandoned-looking businesses when he spotted three men who raised suspicion. He radioed the police dispatcher that he was going to pursue them on foot. The dispatcher asked if he needed help. Lieutenant Gliniewicz said: Sure, send them. When backup officers arrived 3 minutes later, they couldn't find him. A few minutes later, they found Lieutenant Gliniewicz 50 yards from his patrol car. He had been fatally shot. Law enforcement agencies are still searching for the three men responsible. They have only a very sketchy description: three men, two White, one Black. In the days that followed the murder, hundreds of law enforcement officers poured into Fox Lake in Lake County. They were joined by members of just about every major law enforcement agency, all people can think of, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, and even the Secret Service. Dozens of officers suffered heat exhaustion as they searched the woods and swamps. They are still searching today for his killers. We all want to see them brought to justice swiftly. Lieutenant Gliniewicz was married for 26\1/2\ years to his wife Melodie. They call her Mel for short. They were parents of four sons ranging in age from early twenties to their teens. One of his sons serves in the U.S. Army. The day after Lieutenant Gliniewicz's murder, hundreds of local folks turned out for a rally in Fox Lake to show their love for him and his family. It would just break your heart to see pictures of Melodie Gliniewicz and her four now fatherless sons smiling through their anguish, trying to support each other and their grieving neighbors. Folks in Fox Lake said that Joe Gliniewicz loved his town and he was always the first to volunteer at whatever local administration needed help with an event. One resident told the local newspaper: Everyone in town knew who he was. Whether you were on a first-name basis or knew his rank, you knew he was a great guy. This resident added: Just being involved in his community, he took pride in it. This is where he lived, and it's what he fought to protect. He took great pride in making the town of Fox Lake the place it is. Lieutenant Gliniewicz was a volunteer with the Special Olympics and a lot of other groups. The organization he was closest to was the Fox Lake Police Department Explorers, a group who mentors young people who want to aspire to law enforcement. Joe Gliniewicz established Fox Lake's Explorer Post No. 300 nearly 30 years ago. Over the years, he has seen hundreds of explorers in training get into law enforcement and the military. His death is felt so deeply by these young people, by Lieutenant Gliniewicz's family, friends, and neighbors, and by his brothers and sisters in blue not only in Fox Lake but throughout Illinois and across America. Lieutenant Gliniewicz was the first on-duty officer fatally shot in Lake County, IL, since 1980 and the third law enforcement fatality in Illinois this year, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. According to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, firearms-related deaths of law enforcement officers in the United States are down 24 percent this year compared to the same period last year, January 1 to September 8. There were 34 last year and 26 this year. While that downward trend is good news, even one police officer killed in the line of duty is way too many. In Fox Lake and in towns across America, countless families have replaced the lightbulbs on their front porches with blue lightbulbs to show their support for their local police. Yesterday, on Labor Day, there was a memorial service at the high school for Lieutenant Gliniewicz. They packed it with law enforcement officials from all over--not just Lake County, IL, but the Midwest and across the Nation. It was an 18-mile funeral parade or funeral caravan that went off to the cemetery afterward--18 miles long--and it was filled with admirers and friends and people standing on the roads with homemade signs. Lieutenant Gliniewicz really made a difference in people's lives. It is sad to lose him. When we reflect on the great contribution he made to his community, to his county, to my State of Illinois, and to our Nation, it is with heartfelt gratitude that we say to his family: We are by your side. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this has been one of the most extraordinary measures that has come before the Senate in the time that I have served here. It is rare to have an issue of this historic moment, of this importance, one that literally raises a question about war and peace in the Middle East, and one that has been considered so carefully by both sides of the aisle for such a long period of time. When I left for the August recess, here in the Senate most of the Members on my side of the aisle--the Democratic side--were still processing and reviewing the proposed agreement. And, over the course of August, these Members announced their public positions on the matter. As of today, there are 41 of the 46 Democratic Senators who have announced they will support the Iran agreement. There are another four who are opposed to it, and one who is yet to announce her position. We expect that to happen shortly. This is a unique matter. I asked my staff and others to research one particular aspect of this debate. The aspect I asked them to research was a letter sent on March 9 of this year by 47 Republican Senators. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent a letter to the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah. To take you back in history, at that point in time when 47 Republican Senators sent that letter, the United States of America was in negotiation with Iran to see whether or not we could come to any kind of an agreement or understanding when it came to limit Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, something that I am sure all of us-- both political parties--want to stop from happening. But in the midst of this delicate negotiation that was going on in Switzerland, 47 Republican Senators, including every Member of the Senate Republican leadership, sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran. It said: It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution--the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. Forty-seven Republican Senators wrote to the Ayatollah in the midst of these delicate negotiations. It went on to say: First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Forty-seven Republican Senators are advising the Ayatollah in Iran, in March, that he should know more about our constitutional form of government and understand that it will take Senate approval, which they say effectively means a three-fifths vote. They continue: Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. Second, [the 47 Republican Senators advised the Ayatollah] the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January, 2017, while most of us will remain in office far beyond then--perhaps decades. Then the 47 Republicans Senators, in their March letter to the Ayatollah of Iran, say: What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. Forty-seven Republican Senators in March of this year, writing to the Ayatollah and basically telling him: Don't get your hopes up if you are negotiating with the United States, reminding him they will have the last word as Members of Congress, and also stipulating that a three- fifths vote will be required in the U.S. Senate. Then they go on to say: Keep in mind we are going to be here a lot longer than any President; we may be the last person or the last group to make a decision on the future of these agreements. Then they are basically reminding them that Presidents come and go, and don't assume the next President will even honor an agreement reached by this President. Think back 12 years ago. What if 47 Democratic Senators--in the midst of our negotiation as to whether or not we should invade Iraq--had sent a letter to Saddam Hussein saying: Don't negotiate with President Bush. Don't pay any attention to his negotiations. We are the Congress. We will have the last word. I cannot imagine what the public response would have been, but that is exactly what happened here--47 Republican Senators intervening in a negotiation process with Iran, basically telling those sitting at the table: Don't worry about reaching an agreement with the United States of America and this President. I know what would have happened if that would have come up when Dick Cheney was Vice President of the United States. We would have had 47 Democrats up on charges of treason. Well, in this circumstance, this was not good judgment. I would like to stipulate that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee did not sign this letter. I want to make sure that is clear on the floor. But the 47 who did have to answer a question: Why? When we are in delicate negotiations as the United States of America, and we don't have a final agreement, why would 47 Republican Senators want to intervene in those negotiations? Why would they want to say to the Ayatollah: Don't waste your time negotiating with this President. It is troublesome. Many of them had reached a conclusion even before the agreement was written that they were going to oppose it. Witness this letter. But others took time to consider it, to measure it, and to announce their position when it came to this matter. I respect them for doing that, even if they came to a different conclusion than I did. I know what happened on our Democratic side because I was in contact with virtually with every Member of our Senate Democratic Caucus during the month of August, talking to them about this. There is real soul-searching here, real serious consideration. Some of them, of course, went to the source, met with our intelligence agencies, the State Department, Department of Defense, and came back to Washington when we were in recess. One Senator I know sat down for 5 hours in closed meetings with our intelligence agencies to ask questions that were on his mind about this agreement. Others, of course, met with their constituents, talked about it, found differences of opinion within their own States. They thought about it long and hard, prayed over it. I talked to them, always wanting to hear where they were, but never pushing them because I knew this was serious, and they took it seriously. That is where we find ourselves today. I salute the Senator from Tennessee. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he and I may disagree on substance, but I respect him very much. He is a man of honor and a man of integrity, and he brings to this process the kind of attitude toward the Senate as an institution which I respect and I will continue to respect. I also believe my colleague from Maryland, a close personal friend, Senator Cardin--though we see this issue differently--has really thought long and hard about it. We have been on the phone together many, many times during the course of August. I ruined a lot of his vacation trying to figure out where he was and what his process was. He took it very seriously. I respect him, although we came out to different positions on this matter. That is the way it should be, and what the American people expect of us now is a debate befitting this great institution of the Senate. They expect us to come and conscientiously consider this matter on its merits and express our points of view, and virtually every Senator has already done that publicly, save one. In the course of this debate, the American people can follow it because it is a critical debate. What is at issue here is whether Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. We believe that they have the capacity now to create as many as 10 nuclear weapons. We don't want that to happen. It would be disastrous for the world--certainly disastrous for the Middle East and Israel--and that is why leaders from around the world, 100 different nations, support what President Obama is striving to do. What the President is trying to do is something I believe should be the starting point in every critical foreign-policy decision: Use diplomacy, use negotiation, and try to solve our problems in a thoughtful, diplomatic way. And if that fails, never rule out other possibilities, but start with diplomacy. That is what the President has done. During the course of this Presidency, he organized nations around the world to join us in this effort. If this were just the United States versus Iran, we wouldn't be where we are today, but the President engaged countries which historically and recently have not been our allies. Before we left for the August recess, we sat down with the five Ambassadors from nations that joined us in the negotiation. I looked across the table there to see the Ambassadors from China, from Russia, from the United Kingdom, and representatives of the embassies of Germany and France. I thought to myself, if you are a student of history, this is an amazing coalition: China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States all working together. And we brought into the sanctions regime other countries that didn't have the same direct involvement in negotiations but were with us. South Korea is a good example. Japan, another good example, joined us in this effort to put pressure on Iran. President Obama led this effort, and he was successful in this effort. The Iranians came to the negotiating table because we put the pressure on them--economic pressure that brought them to that moment. Now we have before us this agreement. Some have said: You can never trust Iran no matter what they say. I would just harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, who said of our enemies around the world when it came to agreements: ``Trust, but verify.'' Just recently we had an announcement made by Colin Powell, a man I respect very much, in support of this agreement. It was an announcement which surprised me in a way. I didn't know if he was going to take a position on this matter, but this article states: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed support for the [Obama] nuclear agreement with Iran on Sunday, calling the various planks Iranian leaders accepted ``remarkable'' and dismissing critics' concerns over its implementation. ``It's a pretty good deal,'' he said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' Critics concerned that the deal will expedite Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Powell added, are ``forgetting the reality that [Iranian leaders] have been on a superhighway, for the last 10 years, to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program with no speed limit.'' He said the reduction in centrifuges, Iran's uranium stockpile and their agreement to shut down their plutonium reactor were all ``remarkable.'' ``These are remarkable changes, and so we have stopped this highway race that they were going down--and I think that's very, very important,'' Powell said. He also pushed back on skeptics who have expressed worries about the ability of independent inspectors to verify that Iran is following the agreement. Powell said that, ``with respect to the Iranians--don't trust, never trust, and always verify.'' ``And I think a very vigorous verification regime has been put into place,'' he said. ``I say, we have a deal, let's see how they implement the deal. If they don't implement it, bail out. None of our options are gone,'' Powell added. I think he hit the nail on the head. General Colin Powell, who served our country in the military and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then as Secretary of State, brings a perspective to this which very few can. He is a man who risked his life on the battlefield, a man who knows the true cost of war, but a man who was empowered by another Republican President to lead us in diplomatic negotiations. This is the kind of clear-eyed approach that we need and want when it comes to an issue of this gravity. I will have other things to say on this matter, as others will. I yield the floor to my colleagues.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have had the honor of serving in the Senate now for three terms, and I'm in my fourth term. I have been on the Senate floor a major part of my public life and witnessed a lot of things that have occurred here. I remember quite a few of them, but the one that sticks in my memory goes back to 2002. It was the end of September or the beginning of October--I will get the exact date--and there was a critical debate taking place on the floor of the Senate that went late into the night. The final vote happened around midnight. The question was whether the United States should be authorized to invade Iraq. I remember that debate because we were still reeling from the tragedy of 9/11. We were still determined to keep America safe. We worried about our vulnerabilities and our strengths. The George W. Bush administration, after several months of preparing for this debate, led most Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein, the leader in Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction. Some of the testimony even suggested those weapons could threaten our allies, our friends, and even the United States of America. It was in that context that a decision was made to invade Iraq, but first the decision had to come through Congress. The American people had their chance through their elected representatives in the Senate and the House to make that decision. The public sentiment behind the war in Iraq was overwhelmingly positive as we voted. The belief was that we had to stop Saddam Hussein before there was another attack on the United States like 9/11. Sentiments ran very high. The rhetoric was heated. I remember that night. I remember there were two of my colleagues on the floor after everyone had gone home. One was Kent Conrad, the Senator from North Dakota, and the other was Paul Wellstone, the Senator from Minnesota. Now, 23 of us had voted no on authorizing the war in Iraq. It included the three of us who remained. I was up for reelection, as was Senator Wellstone. I went to Paul Wellstone in the well of the Senate and I said: Paul, I hope that vote doesn't cost you the election in a few weeks. Paul Wellstone said to me: It is all right if it does. This is who I am and this is what I believe, and the people of Minnesota expect nothing less. The story unfolds. In the ensuing weeks Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash before the election took place, but I still remember that moment, and I remember what I considered to be an act of conscience by my friend and colleague from Minnesota. I thought about the thousands of votes that I have cast in the House and the Senate, and only a handful are still right there in front of me. They include the votes that you cast that relate to war. You know if you vote to go to war even under the right circumstances, innocent people will die. Americans will die. There is no more serious or grave responsibility than to take those questions of foreign policy as seriously as or more seriously than virtually any other issue. Fast forward to where we are today. We will leave this week and be gone for 4 or 5 weeks and return in September. The first item of business will be the Iran agreement. I view this vote on the Iran agreement in the same class as the vote on the war in Iraq. It is a question, a serious foreign policy question, about whether Iran will be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon. We have added into this conversation the decision of Congress as to whether they approve the President's treaty. That doesn't often happen, but it will in this case. We have to look at the possibility that Congress will reject the Iran treaty. Even if the President vetoes it, there is still a question as to whether Congress would override that veto. We have to ask ourselves: What happens if this Iran agreement comes to an end? Military action--some form of military action. One of the Senators on the other side of the aisle assured us 4 days--we will take care of the Iranian nuclear problem in 4 days. He wasn't here when we were told the war in Iraq would last 2 weeks. So 4,844 American lives later, with tens of thousands injured, and trillions of dollars spent, that war ended with a result that none of us really view as a success for American foreign policy. Now we face that same question. Those who would reject the Iranian agreement have a responsibility to come to this floor and explain what happens next. Yesterday we called a meeting. I asked the Ambassadors from the five nations that joined us in the negotiations with Iran to come meet with Members of the Senate on the Democratic side. We had the Ambassador from Russia, the Ambassador from China, the Ambassador from the United Kingdom, and the Deputies Chief of Mission from Germany and France. About 30 Democratic Senators gathered to ask questions in a completely off-the-record, informal atmosphere. The first question asked was, what happens if Congress rejects this Iranian agreement? What happens the next day? What is the next step? They said the notion that we will sit back down at the table with the Iranians, in the words of one of these Ambassadors, is far-fetched. We have spent 35 years bringing Iran to this table. These nations joined us in an effort to try to stop Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. These nations are satisfied that what we have put together is an agreement that is verifiable with inspections. When I think back to Ronald Reagan, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but I sure agreed with what he said when it came to these agreements, ``trust, but verify.'' There is verification in this agreement. The IAEA, which is the United Nations group that inspects atomic facilities around the world, is tasked with inspecting and reporting and continuing to investigate Iran throughout the life of this agreement. Can we trust them? Well, just as a historic reminder, it was the IAEA that said to the United States: There are no weapons of mass destruction that we can find in Iraq. We ignored them. We invaded. We paid a heavy price for it. It turns out they were right. Some of our leaders were just plain wrong. The agency has credibility, it has a track record, and it is authorized under this agreement to move forward. What struck me, as I looked at those Ambassadors sitting across the table from 30 Members of the Senate yesterday, was how historic this moment is. China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States were all together negotiating, trying to bring at least some modicum of peace to the Middle East. Some of the statements that were made were compelling. A gentleman from the German side said: I won't go into the history of Germany--you know it well--but I will tell you we are more committed to the survival of Israel than any nation in Europe. Any student of history knows exactly what he was speaking of. Now we have an opportunity to turn to diplomacy to avoid the military and avoid war. And what do we find? In April of this year, 47 Senators on the other side of the aisle sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and said: Do not negotiate with President Obama and the United States. Whatever you think you have agreed to is subject to congressional approval, and don't expect the next President of the United States to abide by any agreement. Forty-seven Senators from the other side of the aisle signed that letter. What would have happened if 47 Democratic Senators had sent a letter to Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Iraq and said the same thing: Don't negotiate with President Bush. Don't even think that you can avoid a war. I think they would have had us up on charges. At least Vice President Cheney would have. But in April, before the agreement was even announced on the other side of the aisle, 47 Senators said: Don't waste your time negotiating. I think they are wrong. I think we ought to go back to the words of John Kennedy. John Kennedy said: We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Leaders in our country--Republican Presidents--have stepped up to that negotiating table with a flurry of criticism that they would even sit down with these enemies of the United States and try to find a more peaceful world. Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev looking for containment of nuclear weapons. It was Richard Nixon, another Republican President, who sat down with the Chinese to open relations with them while the Chinese were supplying and fortifying the North Vietnamese fighting American forces. Despite that criticism, they had the courage to sit down and look for a diplomatic way to find a more peaceful world, and that is what we face today. This Iran agreement is our opportunity to test diplomacy, and I invite Israel, our friends and allies in Israel, to join us in holding Iran to the letter of the law in this agreement. Join us in reviewing these inspections. Join us in calling for the availability of these facilities so we know exactly what is going on with Iran from this point forward. Let's join together in a force to make this a more peaceful world. I think this is our chance. I know this is a vote of conscience for me, and I am sure it is for all of my colleagues. I hope there will be the courage to try diplomacy before we turn to war. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, once again, Illinois communities are assessing damage from severe storms. A confirmed tornado along with heavy winds, hail, and lightning moved through the Chicago area on Sunday leaving a path of damage in several communities. The city of Wood Dale was hit Sunday afternoon during the last day of its Prairie Fest, an annual 4-day festival with rides, food, and music. Due to the storm, rides were stopped and organizers tried to evacuate. But the storm approached too quickly, and its winds knocked down the festival's main tent where many people had gathered to take shelter. Twenty people were hurt and, tragically, Steven Nincic was killed. He was at the festival with his wife and two young daughters. Our thoughts and prayers are with Steven Nincic's family, as they are with those who were injured by the storm. I spoke this morning with Wood Dale's Mayor Nunzio Pulice, and I know he is leading the community through this loss. Severe weather continued throughout the day in the Chicago area. Chicago's Lollapalooza music festival evacuated its festival grounds at Grant Park before its scheduled closing. Mayor Emanuel and I also spoke this morning. He is working to assess the damage and help residents clean up and recover from the damage. My office is also in touch with Mayor Rhett Taylor of the Village of Grayslake, Mayor Kristina Kovarik with Village of Gurnee, and Illinois Representative Sam Yingling. These communities are hurting in the aftermath of Sunday's terrible storms that brought winds at 60 miles an hour and golf ball-sized hail. A tornado touched down in Grayslake, ripping the roof off the high school and damaging several other buildings and homes. These storms also toppled power lines and trees, making several roads in the area impassable. Crews are working to clean up debris and restore electricity. Over 16,000 people were left without power this morning. Thankfully, no injuries were reported as a result of the Grayslake storms. Along with other members of the Illinois congressional delegation, I stand ready to help in any way I can as the people in Dale Wood and Grayslake begin the clean-up and recovery from this weekend's deadly storms. The State of Illinois has sustained extensive damage and managed cleanup costs following a number of severe storms already this year. I stand ready to support any request for Federal disaster aid, including the Governor's request today for FEMA's assistance with damage assessments in downstate communities still recovering from earlier storms.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we all know the Department of Defense's record with bungled acquisitions that led to $500 hammers and $7,000 coffee makers. The Pentagon has a tough time keeping up with unscrupulous contractors who have figured out how to get rich on the taxpayer's dime, and unfortunately I have learned of yet another example of this. Several dozen pharmacies around the country specialize in compound pharmaceuticals. These are drugs that are combinations of two or more prescription medications. Many of these pharmacies are on the up-and- up, helping people, and our servicemembers, recover from illnesses or wounds. But a good number of these compounding pharmacies have linked up with high-pressure salesmen and disreputable physicians to scam the Department of Defense out of as much as $1.2 billion in taxpayer money in this year alone. The sales pitch went like this. A U.S. servicemember, a military retiree, or their spouse might get a phone call at home asking whether a TRICARE beneficiary is suffering from pain. The telemarketer might ask a few simple questions, get a little bit of personal information, and suddenly, weeks later, prescription creams would start showing up in the mail. In other cases, a food truck may pull up in front of a military base. If a servicemember wanted a hot dog, he or she could listen to a pitch about compounded pharmaceuticals and sign a piece of paper. In many cases, that servicemember had no idea they were signing up for an expensive prescription that might have no medical value. These sneaky marketers would pass personal information on to doctors, often hundreds or thousands of miles away, who would then write prescription after prescription, never having seen the patient. These ointments and creams were then custom made by a compounding pharmacy, and the bill was sent to the Department of Defense. According to health officials in the Department of Defense, one of these pain creams had a value of about $150 each. But the Defense Health Program was billed more than $9,000 each. This scam has added up to big dollars. In 2004, the Department of Defense spent just $5 million on compound pharmaceuticals. By 2014, as these efforts began to ramp up, the total rose to $514 million. In April of 2015, just 1 month alone, the bill to the Pentagon was nearly $500 million. DOD says the total cost of compound pharmaceuticals for this fiscal year could be as much as $1.2 billion. What is tragic about this waste of money is that it could have been prevented. In 2013, the Pentagon considered policy changes it could make to the approval process for compound pharmaceuticals. DOD officials came under heavy pressure, both from Members of Congress and from some of these companies, not to move forward. This pressure continued right up through March of this year. Finally, in May, the Department of Defense was able to institute a screening procedure to get at this problem. And the costs charged to TRICARE have dropped dramatically--down to $10 million per month. Let me repeat that. The Department paid $500 million for compound drugs in April. The Department changed its approval process, and it now pays $10 million a month for compound drugs. I met with Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs Dr. Jonathan Woodson about this. He is confident that this safeguard--and others--will protect the taxpayer in the future. Regrettably, in this case, the horse ran out of the barn and cost the American taxpayer $1.2 billion before anyone could stop these scams. But no one can escape the long arm of the law forever. The Department of Justice has opened more than 100 criminal investigations, and $60 million has been recovered so far. The DOD has suspended 26 providers for wrongdoing, and identified 71 individuals or entities who are believed to be associated with these scheme. As vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, working with Chairman Cochran, we have the responsibility to look after how the Pentagon is spending its funds. I bring this episode to light because there are many lessons to be learned about the need to demand a bureaucracy agile enough to catch profiteers and about the ways that congressional oversight can hamper enforcement rather than encourage it. I hope my colleagues takes those lesson to heart. I will also say that Thad Cochran and I will continue to root out these incidents wherever they occur and work in partnership with the department to provide for our servicemembers in ways faithful to the taxpayer.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Sunday, the legendary chef Yoshi Katsumura passed away after a battle with cancer. You would never guess that a 15-minute walk from Wrigley Field, where hot dogs and beer reign supreme, would take you to a place bringing together the foods of Tokyo, Paris, Lyon, and Chicago. But that is what Yoshi built at the quiet, unassuming place known simply as Yoshi's Cafe. Honored by his peers for the past 30 years of exquisite food preparation, Yoshi was a master of his art. Yoshi was born in Japan's Ibaraki Prefecture--a region on the main island of Japan--in 1950. At the age of 20, he apprenticed under another legendary chef, Hiroyuki Sakai in Tokyo. Through Sakai, Yoshi began learning the complexities of French cooking. In 1973, Yoshi ventured to Chicago, where he quickly advanced in fine French culinary arts. He studied under Chicago's first celebrity chef, Jean Banchet, at Le Francais. Yoshi would go on to refine his skills in Paris and Lyon, and he returned to Chicago as a chef and partner at the city's premier French fusion restaurant, Jimmy's Place. In 1982, Yoshi opened his own restaurant with his wife Nobuko, Yoshi's Place. For more than three decades, Yoshi's Cafe has won the hearts and stomachs of Chicago and the country. Yoshi's has been featured on the Food Network and listed among ``America's Top Tables'' by Conde Nast's Gourmet magazine. His fusion of cultures brought diners to North Halsted Street for dishes like Hamachi tartare and the Wagyu burger. If you look closely for a sign next to Yoshi's Cafe, you will find that Aldine Avenue east of Halsted is designated ``Yoshi Katsumura Way.'' His way was creating wonderful food for his community and making it a better place. He served on the Northalsted Business Alliance board and organized charitable events, including Hurricane Sandy relief and aid for victims of the 2011 Japanese tsunami. And he always took the time to talk to his customers. Loretta and I love Yoshi's. I once showed up at the restaurant on a Monday evening, forgetting it was closed. Stranded on the corner, trying to decide where to go, I heard someone call my name. It was Yoshi, who lived above the restaurant, calling down to me and offering to fix a meal for me on his day off. That was the moment when service became friendship and I came to know the goodness of this man. Yoshi was indeed a special kind of man. His last message was to keep Yoshi's Cafe going. He will be missed. Loretta and I send our prayers and thoughts to his wife, Nobuko; his daughter, Mari; his son, Ken; his brother Kazuhiro Katsumura; and grandson Hiro.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge Wendy Wertheimer, an outstanding Federal employee who has spent decades working to advance the domestic and international HIV/AIDS research effort. Wendy is about to complete nearly 30 years of Federal service that began in the Senate and is now coming to an end at the National Institutes of Health. Like many bright young people in Washington, Wendy began her career right here in the U.S. Senate, working for Senator Jacob Javits. Later she joined the legislative staff of what was then called the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, led by Chairman Edward Kennedy and Ranking Member Jacob Javits. Wendy's first assignment was the Venereal Diseases Control Act, which many on staff saw as a form of hazing for a new, young staff member. But Wendy was personally connected to the issue. Her grandfather had been the chair of Dermatology and Syphilology at a hospital in Pittsburgh and had conducted early clinical studies of syphilis. She embraced the assignment, and the bill passed with bipartisan support. It was the first bill Wendy had ever worked on--she was off to a good start. In 1979, the American Social Health Association established the first advocacy group for venereal disease control and research, and Wendy was offered a job as its director of government affairs. After hearing the news, Wendy's mother was horrified and told her she will never get another date because everyone will assume that she has a venereal disease. Wendy accepted the job anyway and became the first venereal disease, or VD, advocate in Washington. She was a pioneer in the field and began working on a number of new education and research training programs, including the National VD Hotline. On June 5, 1981, the first cases of what we now know as AIDS were reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By the end of 1981, five to six new cases of the disease were being reported each week and an epidemic of fear was breaking out. The American Social Health Association became one of the first organizations to advocate bringing attention to this disease, and Wendy found herself on the frontlines combatting the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In 1991, she was recruited by the NIH to help establish the Office of Research on Women's Health. And since 1992, Wendy has been the senior advisor, responsible for planning, policy, legislation and communications at the Office of AIDS Research at the NIH. It is hard to imagine, but when Wendy Wertheimer began at the NIH, an AIDS diagnosis meant a sure and agonizing death. We have come a long way since the disease was first reported, and in many ways progress on HIV/AIDS is one of the most remarkable success stories in the history of biomedical research. Wendy Wertheimer shares in this success and the research accomplishments that led to lifesaving treatments and a hopeful future about what more can be achieved. For more than two decades, Wendy has worked with Dr. Jack Whitescarver--the longest serving director at the Office of AIDS Research at NIH--who is also retiring this year. And here is what he said: We have made critical and even breathtaking progress in AIDS research against many odds. We have been challenged to confront and address stigma, homophobia, racial disparities, and criticisms of the AIDS research investment. We have come a long way, but the AIDS pandemic is far from over and remains a threat to global populations. Any declaration that the end is near is premature, inaccurate, and perilous to progress against the pandemic. He is right. Being HIV-positive is not the death sentence it once was, but the battle is far from over. And although Dr. Whitescarver and Wendy Wertheimer are retiring, the fight goes on, and the work continues. I want to thank them for all they have done and all they will do to combat this terrible disease. They have set a high bar for the dedicated public servants who follow them. I will close with this. I strongly believe in the role of public service to create change and make a difference. Wendy Wertheimer's years of service reflect these values. I am honored to congratulate her on a job well done, and I am lucky to count her as a friend.

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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times to talk about for-profit colleges and universities. This is a problem and a challenge we face. What you need to know are three numbers to understand the for-profit college and university industry in America. By way of preface, this is the most heavily subsidized private business in the United States of America. What are we talking about? The largest, the University of Phoenix; Kaplan University; DeVry University; Rasmussen; Corinthian--you have heard all the names because they advertise constantly, and the money they use to advertise comes from Federal taxpayers. There are three numbers--and if I were a college professor or law school professor, I would say this is going to be on the final--on for- profit colleges and universities. Ten percent of high school graduates attend for-profit colleges and universities--10 percent. Twenty percent of all the Federal aid to education goes to for-profit colleges and universities. Why so much? They charge so much. Their tuition is so high. Ten percent of the students; 20 percent of the Federal aid to education; 44 percent of all the student loan defaults in America are at for-profit colleges and universities. Ten percent of the students, 44 percent of the defaults. Why? They charge so much that the students can't finish their education or they end up with a worthless diploma. That is the reality. There is a second reality. This industry is in serious economic trouble. Last week we had news of another Federal investigation of a for-profit college. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the University of Phoenix--the largest for-profit college and university--revealed it is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission for unfair and deceptive practices. This news comes just weeks after the Center for Investigative Reporting published a story about the University of Phoenix's thinly veiled, dubious marketing and recruiting efforts on military bases-- exploitation of our men and women in uniform. Over the past several years, the University of Phoenix has spent millions of dollars to sponsor events, including dances, parties, and concerts, on military bases. Is it because they love our men and women in uniform? No. It is because they want to sign them up. To the University of Phoenix, these sponsorships were simply advertising and marketing events to enroll more men and women in uniform. When you serve our country, we show our appreciation by saying there is a GI bill waiting for you at the end of your service--in fact, in some cases, while you are still serving--and for your family, too, so that you will be prepared after you have served our country to have a good life with good education and training and job opportunities. These for-profit colleges and universities can smell an opportunity to make even more money. The University of Phoenix is after these men and women in uniform. They are after tuition assistance dollars. TA is a program that provides up to $4,500 a year, so servicemembers can use it toward a postsecondary education. And guess what. The money isn't counted in the Federal 90/10 calculation that caps the amount of money these for-profit schools can receive from the Federal Government. Did you hear that? Ninety percent of their revenue comes from the Federal Government. That is why for-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private for-profit businesses in America. To for-profit colleges, the money from servicemembers and veterans is unlimited money. All they have to do is sign them up. And that is what they are doing with these sponsorships. After the article was published, I wrote to Secretary Ash Carter-- Department of Defense--to ask him to take action. The University of Phoenix reportedly is in clear violation of Executive orders limiting the access of these schools to our men and women in uniform. The Department of Defense has confirmed to me they have opened an inquiry into the matter. During the Senate's reconsideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, I filed an amendment to require the Department to post information on Federal and State investigations and lawsuits against schools on its online education resources for servicemembers. As part of the Tuition Assistance Program, the Department of Defense has created what it calls TA DECIDE. This allows servicemembers to find information about specific schools when deciding where to use their tuition assistance benefits. It includes information such as the graduation and default rates. Do you know why? Because once that servicemember has used up that GI bill, it is gone. If they waste it on one of these for-profit colleges and universities that give them little or nothing for their GI bill, they do not get a second chance. Of course, servicemembers need accesses to this information. Publicly traded companies such as the University of Phoenix have to disclose the information to the SEC when they are under investigation. Members of the military should know that, as well as the general public. It only makes sense. My amendment wasn't taken up during the Senate's debate, but last week 12 Senators joined me in writing Secretary Carter. This commonsense step to ensure better information for servicemembers about their education options is one the Department of Defense needs to make. I also want to say a word about another for-profit college that is notorious for its exploitation of students--Ashford University. Ashford University first came to my attention when former Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had an investigation. He took a look at this so-called university in his home State of Iowa. Do you know what he found? He found they had purchased a small Catholic girls college, purchased their accreditation, and then reopened it under the name ``Ashford University.'' Do you know how many faculty members there were at Ashford? One faculty member for every 500 students. It wasn't a real university; it was an online scam. They announced last week they are closing down their campus in Iowa. What a heartbreak that must be for the people of Iowa--to lose such a stalwart higher education citizen. That is the reality. I have run into students in Illinois who said they had just graduated from college. I said: Where did you go? They said: Ashford. And I thought, oh my goodness. What a disappointment. You have wasted your time and your money, you are deep in debt, and that diploma, sadly, is worth very little. The tide is turning against the for-profit colleges and universities. The question is whether this Senate, this Congress, this government will step up once and for all and defend those young men and women who are wasting their time and money and taxpayer dollars--and in many cases GI bill benefits--on these worthless for-profit schools. It is time for us to wake up to this reality. I am glad to see this industry is finally facing its day of reckoning. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1965, millions of Americans and nearly half the country's seniors couldn't afford basic health care. But that began to change 50 years ago today. President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Medicare program for the elderly and the Medicaid program for low-income adults, children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Although it was signed by President Johnson, it ``started with the man from Independence,'' . . . Harry S. Truman. In 1949, Truman became the first President to publically support a national health insurance program and sent a bill to Congress that would give health insurance to everyone age 65 and older. Critics called the idea ``socialized medicine,'' and the effort failed. Sixteen years later, President Johnson believed ``the times had caught up with the idea.'' And he was right. Today, 46 million older adults and 9 million people with disabilities depend on Medicare for health care and economic security. In Illinois, 1.9 million people are enrolled in Medicare. And because of the Affordable Care Act, the program has grown stronger. The Medicare Part A trust fund is now expected to be solvent for an additional 13 years because of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is also helping seniors with the cost of their prescription drugs. Since the passage of the ACA, people with Medicare in Illinois have saved over $554 million on prescription drugs, because we closed the donut hole. That is an average savings of $925 for each Illinois senior. The Affordable Care Act also expanded Medicare coverage of certain preventive services, such as mammograms or colonoscopies, without any cost sharing. Let's not forget this is also the 50th Anniversary of Medicaid. Medicaid has been a lifeline for millions of people, especially children. My friends on the other side of the aisle find it easy to discredit a government program, but this isn't about a program. It is about the people who benefit from them. Over 54 million people benefit from Medicaid. Before the Affordable Care Act, two out of three people on Medicaid were pregnant women and children. That is 36 million of our most vulnerable citizens. Medicaid also serves people with disabilities, including many low-income Americans with disabilities who would have nowhere else to turn. Before the Affordable Care Act, almost 3 million people were covered by Medicaid in Illinois and more than half of all births were covered by Medicaid. Now, anyone living below 133 percent of poverty can join Medicaid. That's a single person earning less than $15,654 a year, or a family of three bringing in $26,720. And for this population, the Federal Government picks up 100% of the cost. Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 570,000 people in Illinois are now covered by Medicaid. I call that a success. Just ask Christopher Greenwood if this law is making a difference. Christopher Greenwood is a community health and prevention coordinator for the City of Rockford working to help people sign up for health insurance. He helped a 50-year-old woman enroll in Medicaid, and she was excited to have coverage for preventive services like a mammogram. According to Christopher: People aren't realizing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. It's all about prevention services. When we tell people they need to sign up, they think they don't need it. But when we start telling them the benefits, to see the looks on their faces, it's all really cool. You know who else benefits from Medicaid? Providers, hospitals and doctors. Ask a provider back home: What would you prefer? Reimbursement by Medicaid or not be paid at all? The answer is obvious. Medicare and Medicaid save lives. The programs provide high quality health care to millions of people. Yes, we owe something to Truman for this idea. We owe something to Johnson for signing it into law. And today, we should focus on further strengthening these programs so they can serve future generations.

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. Madam President, the business before the Senate is the construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass transit and buses across America. How important is that to our economy? I know in my home State it is critically important, but I think it is important across the Nation. Our infrastructure, our roads, and bridges are critical for business to operate profitably and for people to have good-paying jobs. We all know the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or are closed, and we know that thousands across this country need repair. When it comes to mass transit, come on down to the Loop in Chicago in the morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of the train stations and off the CTA and off the buses, headed to work every day. It is essential to the economy of Chicago and Illinois, the State I represent. The fact is that on Friday the authorization to build these highways and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. It is the 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund--the 33rd. There was a time when we would pass with regularity and predictability a 5- or 6- year highway bill on a bipartisan basis, and we are anxious to do it. There was a time when Members of the House and Senate knew the needs back home and knew that the Federal Government played a critical role in filling those needs, and so they voted for the highway trust fund reauthorization. In my State of Illinois, 80 percent of the highway construction is paid for by the Federal Government. When the Federal Government stops paying, folks stop working. You have seen it; haven't you--the potholes, the highways that aren't finished? You wonder why in the heck did they put all those blockades up and slow down the traffic and nobody is working. The problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our highway program. We are doing it in bits and pieces. My colleague and friend from California, Senator Boxer, draws a pretty interesting analogy. She said that if you were setting out to buy a home and went to the bank, and the bank said that, of course, we will offer you a mortgage, and here is a 60-day mortgage to buy your home, you would say: Wait a minute; I am not going to make an investment such as buying a home if I can only get a loan for 60 days. That is what has happened to the highway trust fund. The expiration of this temporary authorization on Friday is the end of a 60-day mortgage which we have offered to America to build highways. Well, several Members of the Senate decided to do something unique-- not totally unique but unusual, let's say--to try to find a bipartisan compromise that can move this country forward, try to break through some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find something that works. I wish to especially salute Senator Barbara Boxer of California for leading this effort on the Democratic side and joining with Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, who is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is indeed an odd couple, Barbara Boxer and Mitch McConnell, but they have come up with a plan--a compromise--to solve a problem. When I go home to Illinois, what I hear over and over from the people I represent is, Senator, when are you folks in Washington going to stop squabbling? When are you going to stop fighting? Can you basically sit down and reach an agreement to solve a problem we face? That is what Senator Boxer and Senator McConnell have done, and I have joined in the effort. Here is what they are proposing: Instead of a 60-day extension of the trust fund, it would be a 3-year extension. Six years of authorization but 3 years where the money is on the table. I wish it was longer, but at this point I will jump at that. It has been more than 10 years since we have had a highway bill that long. So it is for 3 years. There is a modest growth each year in spending. I wish it was more. It ultimately is going to give the resources back to the States and localities so they can start building the infrastructure America needs to be successful and to compete. We have worked long and hard on it. It is controversial. It has divided caucuses. There are 46 Democrats in the Senate and 21 of us voted last night to move forward on this bill. So even within our ranks, there is a difference of opinion. I am glad the Senator from California is here to keep me on my toes. She said 22 Democrats last night voted to move forward. I wish all of them were on board, but some of them have their own legitimate concerns for not being there. The point I am getting to is that when it came to the necessary vote, we needed 60; we had 62. I have to check with Senator Boxer to make sure I am correct. There were 62 votes to move forward and 22 were Democrats. We stepped up and made the difference to help move this process forward. So here we are. We are close to the finish line. We are not quite there. Because of the procedures of the Senate, we can't do it as quickly as we would like because we have to follow the rules. The rules tell us we are likely to get this wrapped up perhaps tomorrow--I hope as soon as tomorrow--and then we say thank goodness. With a Friday deadline, we will get something done this week before we go home for the August recess. I would say from the Senate point of view, that is exactly right. It means I can say to not only the mayors back home but also to the Governor, the contractors, the workers: OK. Here are the resources to move forward for 3 years. I can also say we have done what we were sent to do, to solve a problem and to do it on a bipartisan basis. There is a problem. The problem we have is that Senate action alone is not enough. We need the House of Representatives to take the same action. There was an announcement yesterday from a Congressman from California that the House is not going to take up this measure. They want to go home. They want to start their August recess earlier than any other August recess has been started in 10 years. They want to leave. The Republican majority has decided they don't want to take up this bill; they just want to leave, and that is truly unfortunate. This is our chance to solve a problem for America on a bipartisan basis. This is our chance to invest in our country and put people to work building roads and bridges and expanding mass transit, buying the buses we need to serve our communities. This is our chance. Yet what we hear from the Republican side in the House of Representatives is, Sorry, we are going home. We will see you in September.

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Rhode Island for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to take judicial notice that according to the Calendar of Business, it is still July; Tuesday, July 28, 2015.

Mr. DURBIN. For the past 10 years, the August recess has started in August. The House of Representatives wishes to start it in July.

Mr. DURBIN. Apparently, they need a rest and they want to go home for that purpose, but I wish they would stay and finish this business before they go.

Mr. DURBIN. Of course. I yield to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, through the Chair, let me respond to my colleague from Oklahoma, to first thank him for his bipartisan leadership on the committee. He and Senator Boxer are an outstanding example of bipartisanship when it comes to this issue. They have produced a 6-year authorization, and though I may not agree with some of the particulars, I thank him for that leadership on his side on a bipartisan basis. As far as the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to speed up the vote in the Senate so we can catch our House colleagues before they leave, I would support it completely, but the Senator from Oklahoma and I both know that any single Senator can divert and stop that effort. I will support the Senator in bringing this forward as quickly as possible.