Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the junior Senator from Michigan for his opening speech in the Senate. My State of Illinois is separated from his State of Michigan by another State and a Great Lake, but we have many things in common. People of Chicago and Illinois, many of them, spend a lot of money in the State of Michigan and particularly in western Michigan. We love the Senator's State. It is a beautiful State. Many of us vacation there and get to know the people. We have so much in common as midwesterners, looking at the world from our vantage point, smack dab in the middle of this country, and bringing to the conversation in the Senate many of the values that have guided our lives and inspired our families. I listened carefully and thought it is amazing that we have such parallel backgrounds--a father who can trace his family roots back to the Revolutionary War and, in both cases, mothers who were immigrants to this country. So being a first-generation American, I am sure the Senator feels as I do, a special honor, standing on the floor of the Senate, representing a State as great as Michigan--or Illinois. I wish to say my colleague's background in the House of Representatives prepared him well for this challenge. Although he follows one of the greats in the history of the Senate, Carl Levin, he brings to this job an extraordinary talent and a great partnership with Senator Stabenow. Already, the two of them have been in contact with me about Michigan's needs as they relate to our Department of Defense--and it is a significant investment which Michigan has made over the years in keeping America strong, one we want to continue for many generations to come. I am pleased Senator Peter's family was here to be part of this official opening of his service in the Senate, and I certainly look forward to working with him for many years to come.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning the majority leader and the Republican leader Senator McConnell came to the floor to speak to us about the challenge we are going to face, as soon as this week, when it comes to the Department of Defense. This is a department I have paid special attention to over the last several years during the time I chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and now serve as ranking member or vice chairman of that same subcommittee. First, I salute the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Defense Subcommittee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. It has been a joy to work with him. He is a professional. He is a kind and gentle man and fair in every respect. I told him on the floor yesterday what I have said publicly in my caucus luncheon, the Democratic caucus luncheon. I am fortunate to have a partner in this effort from the Republican side who is so good to work with. But we face a real serious challenge this week, and we have to decide as a nation what we are going to do about it. Most people, if you ask them on a final exam what does sequestration mean, they would basically throw up their hands and say: It sounds like something out of Washington. It doesn't mean much to me. Sequestration is the penalty we face if we don't hit certain budget spending numbers, and that penalty is virtually mindless. Here is what it says: We will make across-the-board cuts in spending. Think about that in your own family life. If you were looking at the budget for your family and had some misfortune--a paycheck didn't come in--you would have to gauge priorities. While sitting at the kitchen table, you might say: What do we have to pay this month? Well, we have to pay the mortgage or we will be foreclosed upon. We better pay the light bill or they will turn off the electricity. So what can we cut back on? We are going to spend less at the grocery store. Families make those decisions--many of them--on a weekly or monthly basis. But sequestration says we will cut across the board. We will take a 5-percent cut off the mortgage, off the utility bill, and off the groceries. It doesn't make sense, does it? But we did it. We did it for 2 years, and it was devastating. We cut across the board when it came to medical research, for goodness' sakes. Here we were trying to find cures for cancer and heart disease and diabetes and Alzheimer's, and we said we are going to make a 5-percent cut across the board. It made no sense whatsoever, nor did it make sense for the Department of Defense. They said: How in the world can we prepare for America's defense with across-the-board cuts? We are supposed to be recruiting and training the very best men and women to serve our Nation. They need to be ready for combat. We have to make them battle-ready so they will win any battle they are sent to and come home safe. We have to decide what equipment to purchase. We have to decide how to invest in long-term investments in technology and equipment so that we never come in second in any battle. Yet you are going to give us an across-the-board cut, Congress? Stop it. Stop sequestration. That is what this debate is about. What we have now is a proposal from the Republican side of the aisle to stop sequestration--across-the-board cuts--in only one Agency: the Department of Defense. I think that is a good thing, to stop it, but it certainly isn't a balanced approach. We have a lot of other things we do as a government that are important to the people of this country. We finance the education of young people who want to go to college. We do it with Pell grants and we do it with government loans. If we make across-the-board cuts there, we will create hardships and lack of opportunity for a lot of young people in America. When it comes to education, sequestration makes no sense. When it comes to health care, it certainly makes no sense. We have obligations that we have entered into when it comes to our veterans and their health care. Are we going to make across-the-board cuts when it comes to veterans' health care? God forbid. We promised those men and women that if they would serve our country, we would stand by them when they came home. Sequestration is a mindless cut when it comes to education and health care and medical research, as I mentioned earlier. So Democrats are saying to Republicans: Here we are on June 17, and our fiscal year ends on October 1. Let's not wait until the last minute to sit down and work out this problem. But what we hear from the other side of the aisle is this: We are not going to do it. We are just going to ignore it. That is the problem in Washington when you don't face challenges squarely, honestly, on a bipartisan basis. So here is what is likely to occur this week. We are going to vote for an authorization bill on the Department of Defense. Some of us will oppose the way it is being funded, but others will vote for it. Then we will come to the Defense appropriations bill, and I think what you will find is a unified effort on the Democratic side to say to the Republicans: Now is the time to sit down, not just on this appropriations bill but all the appropriations bills. Let's come up with an answer and solution to sequestration. I heard the Republican leader say: Well, this is an indication that the Democrats are not committed to the defense of America. I couldn't disagree more because, you see, when we look at those who agree with us on the need for a different approach to budgeting, they include our Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey. These are the men who have been assigned the responsibility of leading this great military and keeping America safe, and they say this budget process which the Republican leader endorses is not a good one for the safety of America. So let's do the right thing for the men and women in uniform, for our country, and for all the agencies of government. Let's sit down and solve this budget challenge now before it reaches the last minute in a crisis. Let's do it in June rather than in September, October, November, or December. Let's do it calmly, on a bipartisan basis, and engage the President as well as our colleagues from both sides of the aisle in Congress. That is the responsible, bipartisan, honest way to face the problem. I hope the Republican leader will join us in that effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that the Senator from Arizona, although we are of opposite political faith, has been my friend and colleague for a long time--since we first were elected together in a class in the House of Representatives. Our friendship and relationship has had its peaks and valleys. I hope we are at a peak at this moment. I will concede, before I say a word about his amendment, that I have no question in my mind, nor should anyone, about the commitment of the Senator from Arizona to the men and women who show extraordinary courage in battling for the United States of America in our military. The Senator's own personal life is a testament to his dedication to the U.S. military. I know he has brought that dedication to his service as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and in bringing this authorization bill to the floor. Secondly, I don't question his commitment to medical research either. As he said, when we reach a certain stage in life, we may value it more because we realize our own vulnerabilities and the vulnerabilities of those we love. So what I am about to say is not a reflection of his commitment to the military nor his commitment to basic medical research, but I do question this amendment, which Senator McCain has said he will not offer but has filed, and I have been prepared for several days now to debate. Here is the question: Should we have within the Department of Defense a medical research capacity? I think yes, and I think for obvious reasons--because there are certain challenges to the men and women who serve in our military and to their families which relate to their military service. Secondly, if we are going to have such a military research program, should politicians and lobbyists, as the Senator said, be able to pick the diseases and pick the research? No, of course not. That is why this appropriations bill, which we will consider later this week, and this authorization bill address a situation where this is done by competitive grant. In other words, if we have researchers at some hospital who are researching a medical condition important to our military, we have to compete for it. It is not automatic. The decision is not made by Senators or Congressmen. It is made by medical professionals about which research makes a difference. So I think medical research is important to our military. Politicians shouldn't pick and choose those researchers and those research grants; it ought to be done by professionals. Third, this undertaking in the Department of Defense is substantial. It is about $1.8 billion for all of the different medical research. In perspective, the funding for the National Institutes of Health is about $30 billion. This is relatively small. Dr. Francis Collins heads up the NIH and I went to him and I said: Doctor, I am working on this defense medical research bill; I want to make sure we don't waste a penny. I don't want to duplicate anything you are doing at NIH. He said: Trust me, we will not. We coordinate everything we do. What they do is complementary to our work and what we do is complimentary to their work. We are not wasting a penny. So I think those three things are an important starting point in this debate. Medical research is important to national defense. Politicians have no role in choosing who is going to do the medical research. Also, whatever we do is going to be coordinated with medical research at leading agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. There are a lot of items on this list of research that I think very few people would ever quarrel with. Should we have a joint warfighter medical account in research? Should we have orthotics and prosthetics research for those who have lost a limb in military service? How about a military burn research unit, wound care research, military dental research--all of these topics relate to actual service. The only specifics which the Senator from Arizona raised, questioning why the Department of Defense would get involved in research, I would like to address. One item he specified is breast cancer. It is true the second largest undertaking for breast cancer research in America takes place at the Department of Defense. It started there--and I will be honest--I remember why. It started there because the funding through the National Institutes of Health was not reliable or predictable, and the Department of Defense made a commitment: We will make our commitment to breast cancer research. Is there a reason it would be in the Department of Defense? Even though the Senator from Arizona has raised questions about it, I wish to call his attention to the following: In 2013, researchers in the Department of Defense developed a vaccine that promises to protect women against a recurrence of breast cancer. Breast cancer is a disease diagnosed in female troops at a rate 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the civilian population. I am a liberal arts lawyer, so I don't know why. Can I figure out why more women in our military are diagnosed with breast cancer than women in our civilian population? I don't know the answer to that, but I want to know the answer to that. I want to know if there is something--anything--environmental or otherwise that our troops, and particularly women in the military, are exposed to that makes them more likely to come down with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Is that a legitimate question at the Department of Defense? It is obvious it is. How good are these researchers if we put several billion dollars into breast cancer research in the Department of Defense? The researchers recently completed a 10-year study of this vaccine known as E75, tested on more than 100 female soldiers recovering from breast cancer and they had a similar test group of civilian women. The research is happening within the Cancer Vaccine Development Program, an Army research network studying vaccines' potential to fight breast, ovarian, uterine, and prostate cancers. Researchers indicated that in trials, the vaccine cut the risk in half that a woman's breast cancer will return--in half. Is it worth it? Is it worth it for us, through the Department of Defense, to put money into breast cancer research when female troops have a rate of breast cancer diagnosis 20 to 40 percent higher, when these researchers are finding a vaccine which in trials is cutting the recurrence of breast cancer in half compared to other populations? It seems very obvious to me. This is not the first time the defense researchers in breast cancer have done extraordinary things. In 1993, defense researchers developed Herceptin, now FDA approved, and one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer--developed at the Department of Defense. Do we want to take the research decisions away from the researchers? The amendment which the Senator from Arizona offers would give the Secretary of Defense the last word as to whether we do this research. Now, I have known Secretaries of Defense, and they are talented individuals, but when it comes to making medical decisions about medical research, I don't think any of them are qualified to do that. Let's leave it in the hands of the professionals, not in the hands of politicians, not in the hands of political appointees, and not in the hands of bureaucrats. Let me also say this: When we look at the list of diseases that are studied at the Department of Defense, some of them may sound odd. Lou Gehrig's disease--ALS--why would we include that on a list for Department of Defense research? Let me explain. Men and women who have served in the U.S. military are 60 percent more likely than civilians to develop Lou Gehrig's disease--men and women who serve in the military. Gulf war veterans are twice as likely as the general population to develop Lou Gehrig's disease. Should we invest money for medical research in the Department of Defense for Lou Gehrig's disease? And then should we ask the basic question, Why? Why would it be more likely that one would develop Lou Gehrig's disease if one served in the U.S. military or if one was in the Gulf war? Those are legitimate medical questions that relate to our military. For the Senator to offer an amendment to take out any of that type of research, I think that is the wrong thing to do. We don't have to speak about traumatic brain injury. Everybody knows what has happened. We have seen the returning veterans--roadside bombs--what they have gone through. Between 48,000 and 169,000-- 169,000--military servicemembers who have served and are serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan have developed post-traumatic epilepsy--head injuries. Post-traumatic epilepsy is a form of epilepsy resulting from traumatic brain injury. I put a provision in here for competitive grants on epilepsy and seizures for this reason: $7.5 million--we have 169,000 who are dealing with these traumatic brain injuries and dealing with seizures and epilepsy afterward. Is this a legitimate area of Department of Defense medical research? Absolutely. We cannot ignore the reality of what our troops have gone through and what they need when they come home. To cut out this research would be a mistake. Let me also say, in 2013 alone, 100,000 servicemembers sought treatment for seizures at our veterans hospitals. It is a serious, serious problem. I could go through every single element I have here of medical research at the Department of Defense. I hope the examples I have given illustrate that men and women who serve our country face medical challenges which the ordinary civilian population may not face. I think we have a special obligation to them to engage in the research that can make their lives whole again and give them a chance to come back from our military and have a happy and full life, which we promised them. We said: If you will hold up your hand and give an oath to America that you will risk your life for our country, we will stand by you when you come home, and that includes more than a GI bill to go to school. It is more than a place to live. It is even more than basic medical care. It involves medical research. The final point I wish to make is this. This Senator will never apologize for trying to come up with more money for medical research. Never. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's in America. When my staff told me that, I said you have to be wrong. They are not. It is once every 67 seconds. We spent $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's patients last year, not to mention the devastating costs to individual families who have someone they love suffering from this disease. We don't have an Alzheimer's provision. Well, we have a small Alzheimer's provision in this particular medical research bill. Am I going to stand here to apologize for putting $12 million in Alzheimer's research? I will tell you, if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's by 1 month, by 2 months, by 6 months, God willing, if we could find a cure, we would more than pay for this medical research over and over and over again. We would spare people from the pain and suffering they go through with this disease and spare their families as well. When it comes to medical research, I will never stand and apologize for putting money into medical research. Every one of us has someone we love in our family facing a terrible, threatening, scary diagnosis and praying to God that there has been some area of research that may find a cure or a surgery. That is what this is about. I am glad the Senator has withdrawn his amendment. I repeat what I said at the outset. I will never ever question his commitment to our members in uniform and our veterans, nor will I question his commitment to medical research, but I will be sending him information that I think demonstrates what we are doing here has a direct impact on military families and military veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three pages of organizations that support my effort to stop this amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that is being followed very closely. It is the case of King v. Burwell. It is a case that really is challenging one of the fundamental premises of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was passed 4 or 5 years ago here in the Senate and in the House and signed by President Obama. Because of it, over 11 million Americans have chosen or reenrolled in a health insurance plan, most with a tax subsidy that makes their coverage affordable. The subsidy is based on their income. In the private market, millions more now have access to expanded coverage for preventive health services, such as mammograms or flu shots, without any cost sharing. Because of the Affordable Care Act, a person no longer needs to stay in a job simply to carry health insurance or be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Because of this law, prescription drugs for seniors cost a lot less. There was a time not that long ago that if a member of your family--for instance, one of your children--had a history of diabetes or mental illness, they might find themselves in a position where the family couldn't afford to buy health insurance. But the new Affordable Care Act said: You cannot discriminate against a person or family because there is a preexisting health condition. The reason that works, the reason why insurance companies can still get by covering people who are sick is that there is also a requirement that people carry health insurance. That means healthy people need to buy health insurance as well as those who are sick and worried about coverage in the future. That enlarges the pool and diminishes the cost to the applicant for health insurance who is suffering from a preexisting condition. This month, the Supreme Court will make a decision in the case of King v. Burwell. The plaintiffs in this case have made an unusual argument. They claim that Congress intended to provide tax credits to help people buy health insurance only in insurance marketplaces established by each State but not in the Federal marketplace. I was here during the debate. I was here when we passed the Affordable Care Act. I can tell you that absolutely no one made that argument that I heard on the floor of the Senate. Overwhelmingly, those who were in exchanges--in either State or Federal exchanges--were treated the same way when we calculated the cost and savings of the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans get their way--and some of them are rooting for the Supreme Court to eliminate the subsidy--6.5 million people will lose their Federal tax subsidy for health insurance. According to the Urban Institute, premiums for people able to purchase insurance would increase by 35 percent. Now, $12 billion in uncompensated care would be shifted to hospitals and Americans with employer-based insurance, making a ruling in favor of King in the Supreme Court a tax increase on everyone. Here is how it works: If you have people--millions across the country--who have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act and they lose their health insurance, they are still going to get sick. When they get sick, they will show up at a hospital. Nine times out of ten--maybe more--the hospital will treat them even if they can't pay. Their expenses and costs will be passed on to someone else who comes to that hospital, someone with health insurance. Ultimately, everyone who has health insurance is going to subsidize those who don't. I don't think that is a very fair or wise system. If the King v. Burwell decision goes the wrong way, it may move us toward that. There are some in the other party who say they have an alternative plan to the Affordable Care Act. The House and the Senate Republicans have already voted to repeal subsidies for working families by voting to repeal the law. I lost track in the House; I think it is 57 times, 58 times they have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have come out with a plan that they say would restore the subsidies, but it eliminates the requirement that people carry insurance. It eliminates what is known as the individual mandate. There were some who argued--and I am one of them--that the individual mandate is a question of personal responsibility. If you want to drive a car in my State of Illinois, you need automobile insurance. It isn't a question of you making a decision. The State requires it because if you are going to be in that automobile and if you get in an accident, the victim in the other car shouldn't have to bear the expense of damage to their car or personal injury, the person responsible for the accident should, and the only way that works is if everybody carries automobile insurance. If you want to buy a home in my State and I think in almost every State, the mortgage company requires fire insurance. If a fire destroys that home, the mortgage company will get paid the proceeds and will not end up with an empty bag. Similarly, when it comes to health insurance, the individual mandate says: We think everyone should buy health insurance. We will help those in low-income categories with subsidies because we think everyone should have health insurance. That is what is behind the individual mandate. If you eliminate the individual mandate, you will be back in the situation where people seeking health insurance will be those who are the most vulnerable and sick, those with preexisting conditions. That makes it tough to create an insurance pool that makes sense when it comes to risk. According to the American Academy of Actuaries, putting out a plan that eliminates the individual mandate will really be of no help. That bill would only delay the onset of higher insurance premiums and loss of coverage for millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act puts families in charge of their care instead of insurance companies. It expands health care coverage, lowers health care cost, makes Medicare stronger, and lowers the deficit. I don't know why there is opposition to any of those elements. Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 50 million Americans didn't have health insurance, while health care costs for working families and small businesses were increasing out of sight. The Affordable Care Act changed that, and 11 million people of the 50 million now have private health insurance. Millions more are now covered by Medicaid. And for the first time ever, insurance companies have to live up to their promise of being there when you really need them. Many in the other party have argued that this is not the way to do it and that there should be a viable alternative. I would like them to meet a couple of people from my home State. The Supreme Court could put in jeopardy health insurance coverage for Ariana Jimenez. Ariana lives in Chicago and works part time as a nursing assistant at a community health center. Ariana pays $52 a month for her basic health insurance premium--$52 a month. When asked what would happen to her coverage if the Supreme Court took away her tax credit, Ariana simply said: I wouldn't be able to afford it. In Illinois, over 800,000 people--in my State of about 12.5 million, 13.5 million--800,000 people in Illinois now have health insurance through the marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act or through Medicaid, and 240,000 people purchased a plan through the Illinois marketplace with a subsidy. I might say that the only marketplace is a Federal marketplace. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the plaintiffs, a quarter-million people in my home State will not be able to afford their health insurance. What happens to everyone else? If the Court rules for King, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, consumers in the individual market in States such as Illinois who use the Federal marketplace would face premium increases of 47 percent--$1,600 a year more that people would have to pay for health insurance. A few years ago, Domingo Carino found out he had a health condition that required medication and he could not afford it. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act and help from the staff at the Asian Human Services Family Health Center in Chicago, Domingo found good health insurance. He pays $11 a month. Domingo's plan not only allows him to afford his medication, but it also keeps him in a position where he has access to a primary care physician. According to Domingo, he can now live without worrying about how to afford his medication. For Domingo and millions like him, tax credits provided by the Affordable Care Act are literally a lifesaver. 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 Americans. Medicaid also provides for people with disabilities. Before the Affordable Care Act, almost 3 million people were covered by Medicaid in Illinois, and more than half of the children born in our State were covered by Medicaid. Since the Affordable Care Act, another 530,000 people have signed up for Medicaid. That means that finally these people can get better from a condition they couldn't afford to treat. I call that a success. It is interesting, too, that now that people on Medicaid can shop at different hospitals, traditional hospitals that serve the poor--there is one, Stroger Hospital, which used to be Cook County Hospital, in Chicago--have to change the way they do business. They are competitive now. They realize that Medicaid patients can go shopping at another hospital. The administrator at Stroger Hospital told the doctors and staff: Be on your toes. Provide better care. We are competing for business now. These Medicaid recipients can go to every hospital. According to a recent Gallup poll, the uninsured rate has dropped 3\1/2\ percentage points from 2013 to 2014. In Illinois, the uninsured rate dropped 4\1/2\ percent during that same period. The Affordable Care Act includes several changes meant to help slow the growth in health care costs. The CBO this week forecast lower private health insurance premiums. Health care spending per enrollee has slowed in the private insurance market and also in Medicare and Medicaid. Instead of paying hospitals for the services they provide, because of the ACA, hospitals are paid to make people well. If their patients have to go back to the hospital, many of the hospitals are penalized for that. Despite climbing readmission rates since 2007, those rates started to fall with the Affordable Care Act. Hospitals are responding to the incentives in the Affordable Care Act and more of their patients are getting better and staying better. The solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund is now 13 years longer than it was prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act--which means it will be solvent for 13 more years--which the trustees in 2010 said had ``substantially improved'' the financial status of the trust fund. The law also helps seniors with the cost of prescription drugs by closing the doughnut hole. There was that moment in time when seniors weren't covered by Medicare Part D and had to reach into their savings account. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, people with Medicare in Illinois have saved over $554 million on prescription drugs. We closed the doughnut hole with the Affordable Care Act. That is an average savings for each senior in Illinois of $925. Those who want to abolish the Affordable Care Act have some explaining to do to seniors who are pretty happy that they have a helping hand when it comes to paying for drugs. It is my hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and realizes Congress never intended to have tax subsidies go to only some Americans and not others. I have always said the Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law. As I have said several times on the floor of the Senate, the only perfect law was carried down a mountain by Senator Moses on clay tablets. Ever since, we have tried our best to put a law together that serves the purposes of our Nation. We do our best, but we can always improve it. The same thing is true for the Affordable Care Act. I hope the time comes--and I hope the Supreme Court doesn't force this sooner rather than later--when we can have a constructive, bipartisan conversation about the Affordable Care Act. It is not a perfect law. It can be improved. There are parts of it on which I would gladly work with Republicans to change. I have told my friends in the restaurant business that I know they are concerned about the number of hours employees have to work to be covered and how many employees work at the restaurant and so forth. All of those things can be and should be addressed. If they are addressed in a positive and constructive way, we can improve this law and make it serve the American people better. I think that is why we were elected. I yield the floor.

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, there are serious matters on the floor of the Senate involving the Defense authorization bill, and I just asked the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for 5 minutes to speak on an issue totally unrelated to it but one which is critically important to the future of America and critically important today to the city of Chicago, IL. Last night, I stayed up late to watch the Chicago Blackhawks win the Stanley Cup. They were playing the Tampa Bay Lightning--an extraordinarily good team--and in the sixth game they won 2 to zip. That is three Stanley Cups in 6 years. I can tell you that you can't visit Chicago, go to any street corner or anyplace without seeing evidence of loyalty to the Chicago Blackhawks. It is an incredible story of a storied franchise in the National Hockey League that has become a premier sports story in the great sports city of Chicago. And last night was so much fun for all of us to watch that victory. Any child who has ever laced up an old pair of skates or put tape on a stick has thought about what happened last night. From Springfield, IL, to Saskatoon, from Moose Jaw to Miami, if you have spent any time at all around the game of hockey, you wonder what it must feel like to stand at the end of a very long season, after three long periods of total effort white-knuckled moments, before tens of thousands of elated fans, and hoist up the most storied trophy in all of sports--Lord Stanley's Cup. The goal of every team in the National Hockey League is to hoist up that cup at the end of the season. I rise today to pay tribute to the players, coaches, staff, and fans of the Chicago Blackhawks, the 2015 Stanley Cup champions, whose season-long mantra of ``One Goal'' was realized last night at the United Center in Chicago. Last night, the Blackhawks won their sixth Stanley Cup in franchise history and the third in the last 6 years, with the 2-to-0 victory over the Tampa Bay Lightning, a formidable team as well. Fans at the Madhouse on Madison, as we call the United Center, witnessed Duncan Keith and Patrick Kane score show-stopping goals while goaltender Corey Crawford seemed incredible in his defense, stopping all of the 25 shots that he faced. I congratulate especially owner Rocky Wirtz, head coach Joe Quenneville, who is known as Coach Q, ``Captain Serious,'' Jonathan Toews, the Blackhawks front office, the players, and, most of all, the legions of Blackhawks fans as they celebrate another Stanley Cup Championship. Those who know the history of this team, and those who have followed them for decades know that in the past 7 years there has been a transformation in the Blackhawks. With Rocky Wirtz taking over as the owner, this team went on television just at the moment when they were reaching this level of perfection, and they started winning over thousands of fans--not just across Chicago but across Illinois and the Midwest. Blackhawks fans, I think, are the best fans in hockey, and you can understand if a lot of them are a little tired this morning. The Blackhawks began the playoffs with a remarkable double-overtime victory against the Nashville Predators, another excellent team. They were down 3 to 0 after the first period. The Hawks stormed back to tie the game and won on a Duncan Keith goal. That victory set the tone for a great run through the playoffs. A goal by Brent Seabrook in triple overtime in game 4 helped the Hawks defeat Nashville in six games. A sweep of the Minnesota Wild followed, setting up a showdown with the Anaheim Ducks in the Western Conference Finals. The Hawks were behind in the series one game to none, 2 to 1, and 3 to 2, but they earned double- and triple-overtime victories on their way to winning in seven games, clinching a berth in the Stanley Cup Final. The Hawks followed a familiar pattern in dropping games 1 and 3 of the final, but they took a 3-to-2 series lead into Monday night's Game 6 on home ice. It was another close contest as Kane's one-timer with 5:14 remaining marked the first time either team led by more than one goal in the entire series. The time slowly ticked down until 22,424 fans at the United Center were finally able to erupt in celebration. It was a great night for Blackhawks fans and the culmination of a tremendous team effort. Antoine Vermette, acquired at the trade deadline, scored two game- winning goals in the Stanley Cup Final. Goaltender Scott Darling stood tall in the net when his team needed him the most, in relief of Corey Crawford when called upon against Nashville. Duncan Keith was an iron man, earning the Conn Smythe Trophy for playoff MVP, while logging more than 700 minutes of ice time in 23 games. Nicklas Hjalmarsson blocked shots left and right and seemed to be in the right place all the time. I can't tell you how happy I am for those Blackhawks and for all of their amazing fans on their Stanley Cup championship. It has been a thrill to watch this team throughout the years, and I look forward to seeing President Obama host the Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks yet another time at the White House. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader for his kind words. Today is the third anniversary of DACA. It was 15 years ago when I received a call to my Senate office in Chicago. A Korean-American woman who worked at a drycleaners in the city of Chicago had a question for me. It turned out that her daughter, Tereza Lee, had been offered an opportunity to go to school at one of the best music schools in America, but she had problems filling out her application. The whole story is that this family had come through Brazil from Korea to the United States years before. The family, including Tereza, who was then 2 years old, came in on a tourist visa. The idea behind their arrival in America was that her father was going to open a church. He would be a minister with his own congregation. It was a dream that was never realized. The family struggled. They were very poor. Tereza's mother went to work at a drycleaners. Her father didn't work much. He had health problems. Luckily, Tereza, this young girl, when she was about 10 or 12 years old, was enrolled in a music program in Chicago called the Merit Music Program. The Merit Music Program offers to children from poor families musical instruction and instruments. They introduced Tereza to the piano, and an amazing thing happened. She turned out to be an incredible musician. So she was finishing high school and was offered an opportunity to go to school in New York to a music school--the Manhattan School of Music. She had other offers, too, but when she went to fill out the application and they asked her to put in her citizenship and nationality, she asked her dad and mom: What am I supposed to put there? They said: We didn't file any papers for you. You are technically undocumented in America. Your sister and brother were born here and are legal citizens. We have become legal in America, but as for you, we are not sure. So what should we do? Let's call Durbin's office. They called my Senate office and the law is very clear. If you were brought to the United States undocumented and lived your entire life here and wanted to stay here, the law said you had to leave the United States for 10 years and then apply to come back. They asked me if there was anything else under the law, and I said no, that was it. It is because of that that I introduced the DREAM Act 15 years ago. This DREAM Act said that young people under circumstances like Tereza's, who were brought to the United States at a very young age, were raised in this country, were finishing school, and who had no criminal record, would be given a chance--a chance to become legal in America, the DREAM Act. Well, that DREAM Act has been a dream for 15 years. It is not a law. But, fortunately for me, when I served in the Senate, at one point I had a colleague named Barack Obama, who was my fellow Senator and cosponsor of the DREAM Act in his day. When he became President and it became clear we were not going to pass comprehensive immigration reform or make the DREAM Act the law of the land, this President said: I will give to these young people who would qualify for the DREAM Act temporary status so they can stay in America on a temporary basis without fear of deportation. That is what the President did 3 years ago with DACA, deferred action for childhood arrivals. As the Democratic leader reported, 660,000 young people have signed up, paid a hefty filing fee, had a criminal background check, and submitted their names to the government. It was a leap of faith for these young people to do this because if you grew up undocumented in America, you were told at a very early age by your parents: For goodness' sakes, keep your head down; don't ever get arrested; don't try to drive a car. Not only could you get deported, our whole family could get deported. Well, these young people wanted to be heard, and they stepped up and they signed up for the President's program. It has been an incredible story. Five years ago, in April 2010, I joined with my former colleague Richard Lugar in writing a letter to President Obama asking him to establish this program. Later that year, Senator Reid, who just spoke, brought the DREAM Act to the Senate floor. The Senate Gallery was filled with young people, undocumented people, who came for that bill to be considered wearing caps and gowns. They wanted to make it clear they were not looking for a free ride in America. They were looking for a chance. But despite the fact that 55 Senators out of 100 voted for it, we did not get the magic number--60-- and the DREAM Act did not become law. Senator Reid joined me, with 22 other Democratic Senators, asking President Obama to create this DACA Program so these children could sign up. The President did. It is an amazing success. What has happened to these DREAMers when they are given a chance to have a future in America, when they are not afraid of the knock on the door and being deported? Well, what has happened? Amazing things have happened. They are beginning to contribute to America as engineers, teachers, small business owners, and more. I know this policy of the President to give these young people a chance to be part of America absolutely infuriates most of my Republican colleagues. They cannot stand the thought that the President by Executive order would give these young people a chance. In fact, the House of Representatives on several occasions has tried to reverse this and take away this recognition that these young people can stay here on a temporary basis without being deported. Last fall, the President extended the program in what is known as DAPA--deferred action for parental accountability--for those who have been here for a long period of time and would also be given temporary status, registered with the government, and be able to work in our country. Today, the Center for American Progress released a new report on the impact on the economy of the United States of these people eligible for DACA, the young people, and DAPA, their parents. Over the next 10 years, in my home State of Illinois, these two Presidential policies will increase my State's gross domestic product by almost $15 billion, and it will increase the overall earnings of the people living in my State. How is that possible? How is it possible to take these undocumented people and turn them into a positive for the economy? Well, I will tell you, that is what happens when they are on the books and working and paying their taxes, as they want to be, as they should be. Senator John McCain of Arizona was just on the floor. He was one of four Republican Senators--it took some courage--who stepped up and worked with four of us on the Democratic side to write a comprehensive immigration bill. We believe that our immigration system is broken in America, and we want to fix it. We met together for months working on that bill. One of the good reports that came out of the bill was that a comprehensive immigration system where people register, submit themselves to a background check, and pay their taxes has a positive impact on the economy of the United States. Unfortunately, the expansion of these two programs has been blocked by a lawsuit in Texas filed against the President. Earlier this month, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to block the administration from any money to defend this lawsuit. That amendment was offered by a Republican Congressman from Iowa named Steve King, who has falsely claimed that DREAMers are actually drug dealers with ``calves the size of cantaloupes''--a direct quote from Congressman King--because they are carrying drugs across our border. That is a cruel game Congressman King is playing with the lives of these young people. And now they want to fix the game by blocking the Obama administration from defending the lawsuit. Clearly, the proponents of this lawsuit and their destructive efforts will ultimately fail. But the Supreme Court has been clear--the President has the power to make these policies. It is so troubling that so many on the other side of the aisle are determined to block immigration in America. I have come to the floor many times to tell the stories of these DREAMers, and I would like to tell one of those stories today on the third anniversary of this DACA Program. As shown in picture, this is Denisse Rojas. In 1990, when she was just a little infant, her parents carried her across the southwest border with the hope of giving her and her siblings a better life. Denisse and her family settled in Fremont, CA. Denisse said: ``In grade school, I recall feeling different from my peers. . . . my skin color was darker, my English was stilted, I was poor, and I was undocumented.'' Denisse remembers her dad in a restaurant uniform studying late at night so he could pass the GED test. And her mother attended community college part time for 7 years to earn a nursing degree. It was this perseverance that inspired Denisse to try harder. In high school she was an excellent student and athlete. She graduated with a 4.3 grade point average, and she received the U.S. Army Reserve National Scholar Athlete Award. Denisse was accepted to the University of California, Berkeley--one of the best colleges in the country--but because of her undocumented status, she did not qualify for any financial aid or government help. Denisse worked 30 hours a week while attending school full time, and she commuted an hour each way to and from school every day so she could live in affordable housing. At Berkeley, Denisse Rojas majored in integrative biology and sociology. Because she was such a good student, she was selected to work in the genetics lab. Her research was published in the journal Science. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes. I know the Senator is anxious, but if I could have 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Of course. I am sorry, the staff said we have one more thing to check. If you will give me 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I would have gladly yielded to my friend from Arizona but a higher order prevails. As a senior at Berkeley, Denisse cofounded Pre-Health Dreamers, a national organization of undocumented students who want to become health care professionals. She volunteers at the San Francisco General Hospital Community to Clinic Linkage Program, where she helps patients who are seeking affordable housing, healthy food, and employment. In 2012, when President Obama established DACA--its third anniversary today--her life changed. As a DACA recipient, Denisse's dreams finally seemed within reach. In this picture I have in the Chamber, Denisse is holding her letter of acceptance to Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. She will be in classes this fall. She wrote me a letter. She said: I have pledged allegiance to this nation's values since my first day of school; I consider the United States my home. Furthermore, serving others has instilled in me the notion that everyone deserves the opportunity for prosperity. I thus aim to dedicate my life to serving others as a physician and continuing to be a voice for immigrants. Would America be a better country if she were deported? Would we be better as a nation if Denisse Rojas was told: Leave. We don't need you. We don't want you. The fact that you have spent your entire life here means nothing. The fact that you are an exceptional student means nothing. Leave. It sounds like a harsh point of view, but it is shared by many in Congress. This last weekend, I took my two little grandkids--my wife and I did--out to the Statue of Liberty on Ellis Island. I took a look at that statue and was reminded that we are a nation of immigrants. I was blessed that my mother came to this country as an immigrant, and I stand on the Senate floor trying to do my best to make it a better country. There are people like Denisse Rojas who want to make this a better America. DACA has given them that chance. Today, we celebrate the third anniversary of this Executive order, but more importantly, we celebrate who we are--a nation of immigrants always striving to make life better for the next generation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 8 years ago that I first introduced the Fair Elections Now Act. Former Senator Arlen Specter, our late colleague and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was my lead cosponsor. We introduced the bill because we believed that America needs a system that rewards candidates with the best ideas and principles--not just the person who is the most talented in raising special interest money. I noted that day that our democracy was in trouble because special interests and big-donor money were choking the system and preventing us from facing up to the big challenges of our time. Little did I know that almost a decade later, this problem would have grown much worse. Through a series of recent cases--including the infamous Citizens United decision--the Supreme Court has allowed wealthy, well-connected campaign donors and special interests to unleash a deluge of cash in an effort to sway Federal, State, and local elections across our Nation. When it comes to understanding the influence of wealthy donors and special interests on Federal elections, the numbers speak for themselves. In the 2012 election cycle, candidates for both the House and Senate raised the majority of their funds from large donations of $1,000 or more. Forty percent of all contributions to Senate candidates came from donors who maxed out at the $2,500 contribution limit, representing just 0.02 percent of the American population. We saw this trend continue during the recent midterm elections. The 100 biggest donors gave a combined $323 million during the 2014 election cycle through official campaign contributions and donations to national party committees, PACs, Super PACs, and 527 organizations. In contrast to those 100 donors, an estimated 4.75 million people gave a comparable amount of $356 million through small-dollar donations of $200 or less. Astonishing as these figures are, they don't include the $173 million spent in the 2014 election cycle by tax-exempt ``dark money'' groups that are not required to publicly disclose their donors. Deep-pocketed special interests are aiming to control the agenda in Congress. It is time to fight back and fundamentally reform the way we finance congressional elections. We need a system that allows candidates to focus on constituents instead of fundraising--a system that encourages ordinary Americans to make their voice heard with small, affordable donations to the candidate of their choice. That is why I am once again introducing the Fair Elections Now Act. While this bill cannot solve all of the problems facing our Nation's campaign finance system, the Fair Elections Now Act will dramatically change the way campaigns are funded. This bill allows candidates to focus on the people they represent, regardless of whether those people have the wealth to attend a big money fundraiser or donate thousands of dollars. I would like to thank Sens. Baldwin, Boxer, Brown, Franken, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Klobuchar, Leahy, Markey, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Sanders, Shaheen, Udall, and Warren for cosponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act and joining me in this effort to reform our campaign finance system. The Fair Elections Now Act will help restore public confidence in congressional elections by providing qualified candidates for Congress with grants, matching funds, and vouchers from the Fair Elections Fund to replace campaign fundraising that largely relies on lobbyists, wealthy donors, corporations, and other special interests. In return, participating candidates would agree to limit their campaign spending to amounts raised from small-dollar donors plus the amounts provided from the Fair Elections Fund. The Fair Elections system would have three stages for Senate candidates. First, candidates would need to prove their viability by raising a minimum number and amount of small-dollar qualifying contributions from in-state donors. Qualified candidates would then be required to limit the amount raised from each donor to $150 per election. In the primary, participants would receive a base grant that would vary in amount based on the population of the State that the candidate seeks to represent. Participants would also receive a 6 to 1 match for small-dollar donations up to a defined matching cap. After reaching that cap, the candidate could raise an unlimited amount of $150 contributions, as well as contributions from small-donor People PACs. In the general election, qualified candidates would receive an additional grant, further small-dollar matching, and vouchers for purchasing television advertising. The candidate could continue to raise an unlimited amount of $150 contributions, as well as contributions from small-donor People PACs. Under the Fair Elections Now Act, candidates would have an incentive to seek small donations. And citizens would have an incentive to donate to the candidate of their choice, knowing that their small donation of $150 would be converted to a $900 donation through the 6 to 1 Fair Elections match. Citizens would also be eligible for a modest, refundable tax credit. The Fair Elections Now Act establishes the ``My Voice Tax Credit'' to encourage individuals to make small donations to campaigns. Citizens could also make their voices heard by aggregating small contributions of $150 or less into a type of small-donor political action committee, known as a ``People PAC.'' People PACs would then be permitted to make campaign contributions to qualified Fair Elections candidates. Coupled with the Fair Elections public financing system, People PACs would elevate the views and interests of a diverse spectrum of Americans, rather than those of the traditional, wealthy donor class. Our country is facing major challenges. We need to continue to create more jobs and restore economic security for the middle class. We need to build and sustain our transportation infrastructure. We need to fix our broken immigration system. We need to ensure that the right to vote is protected and preserved. But with high-powered, special interest lobbyists fighting every proposal to make our country stronger, it is incredibly difficult for members of Congress to make progress on behalf of their constituents. This bill would dramatically reduce the influence of these special interests and wealthy donors, because Fair Elections candidates would not need their money to run campaigns. As a result, the bill would enhance the voice of average Americans. Let me be clear: the overwhelming majority of people serving in American politics are good, honest people, and I believe that most members of Congress are guided by the best of intentions. But we are nonetheless stuck in a terrible, corrupting system. A recent poll found bipartisan concerns about our current system. According to the poll, more than four out of five Americans say money plays too great a role in political campaigns. Two-thirds say that the wealthy have more of a chance to influence the electoral process than other Americans. The perception is that politicians are corrupted by big money interests . . . and whether that is true or not, that perception and the loss of trust that goes with it make it very difficult for Congress to solve tough issues. This problem--the perception of pervasive corruption--is undermining our democracy, and we must address it. Everyone is entitled to a seat at the table, but wealthy donors and big corporations shouldn't be able to buy every seat. The Fair Elections Now Act will reform our campaign finance system so that members of Congress can focus on implementing policies in the best interest of the people who elected them--not just the wealthy donors and special interests that bankrolled their success. I urge my colleagues and the American people to support this important legislation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I recognize the 90th birthday of one of the outstanding business leaders of our time--Chicago businessman, Lester Crown. Lester Crown was born on June 7, 1925, to Henry Crown, the son of Jewish immigrants from Lithuania, and his wife, Rebecca Kranz. Like many other Illinoisans, Lester came from a family of Lithuanian immigrants with humble beginnings who moved to America to pursue a better life for their children. Lester's father worked hard with his two brothers to build their family construction supplies company, the Material Service Corporation. As a young man, Lester worked with his father at the Material Service's quarry over the summers to lend a hand. Through the hard work and dedication of the entire Crown family, the Material Service Corporation became one of the most successful companies in America. Several years later, that family business merged with General Dynamics Corporation to become America's largest defense contractor. From the start, Lester saw his father's work and learned what it took to be a successful businessman. He used his experience to excel and quickly became the president of Marblehead Lime and Royal Crown (RC) Cola. After years of managing companies, Lester took over as chair of General Dynamics and as the head of the family investment firm. One of Lester's many talents has been his ability to recognize great potential. His eye for promising investments has led him to grace the Forbes 400 list every year since 1982. With a quick glance at his impressive list of investments we can easily see why--he is a major shareholder in Maytag, Hilton Hotels, Alltel, Aspen Skiing Company, New York's Rockefeller Center, the New York Yankees, and Illinois' very own Chicago Bulls. But Lester is not just a successful businessman, he is also a dedicated philanthropist, husband, and father. He has channeled his successes to provide generous contributions to a wide array of local and national projects. His charitable footprint can be seen in landmarks such as the famous Crown Fountain in Millennium Park, the Lyric Opera of Chicago, Stroger Hospital, and in universities across the Nation. Lester and his wife Renee have been happily married for more than 60 years and have seven children. Renee serves as a founding member and former president of the Women's Board of Northwestern University and a life director of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. She also serves on the board of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Chicago, the Field Museum, the Joffrey Ballet, and as an honorary chair of the Shoah Visual History Foundation. Lester and Renee are an inspiration for many in their family who have become successful investors and philanthropists. Their son Jim is continuing the legacy started by Lester's father nearly a century ago by now serving as the lead director of General Dynamics. Together, the Crown family works with roughly 600 groups a year and donates millions of dollars annually to support organizations that focus on education and community development. In addition to the energy Lester has poured into his family and business life, he has been a pillar in the Jewish-American community in his support of Israel. Few can match his dedicated commitment to the survival and success of the nation of Israel. While few share Lester's long list of business achievements, even fewer share his level of leadership and generosity. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 90th birthday of Lester Crown and to congratulate him on his legendary career and his many contributions to the city of Chicago, the Nation, and the world. I offer my best wishes as he continues to provide visionary leadership through his business endeavors and family philanthropy for years to come.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would enable faculty working less than full-time to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after 10 years of full-time work in government or the nonprofit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. Many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part- time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members, those who work part-time, are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week. The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service. The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2015 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time. This bill would benefit someone like Alyson, an adjunct professor from Chicago, IL, who graduated with $65,000 in student loan debt and, after 10 years of on-time payments, has over $56,000 left. Like most adjuncts, Alyson strings together multiple teaching assignments along with part-time work to afford her monthly living expenses and minimum student loan payment. She comes from a family of educators and considers teaching her dream job. Alyson would like to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. This bill would ensure that Alyson and many thousands like her, could obtain credit towards the Public Service Loan Program for loan payments she made while teaching, whether she was teaching one course or seven. Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching. Nationally, over half of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, facing low pay with little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts. From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis. Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002. Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between 17 and 30 classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago. They would have to teach up to seven classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace. Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota for joining me in this effort. I hope my other colleagues will also join me to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would enable faculty working less than full-time to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after 10 years of full-time work in government or the nonprofit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. Many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part- time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members, those who work part-time, are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week. The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service. The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2015 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time. This bill would benefit someone like Alyson, an adjunct professor from Chicago, IL, who graduated with $65,000 in student loan debt and, after 10 years of on-time payments, has over $56,000 left. Like most adjuncts, Alyson strings together multiple teaching assignments along with part-time work to afford her monthly living expenses and minimum student loan payment. She comes from a family of educators and considers teaching her dream job. Alyson would like to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. This bill would ensure that Alyson and many thousands like her, could obtain credit towards the Public Service Loan Program for loan payments she made while teaching, whether she was teaching one course or seven. Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching. Nationally, over half of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, facing low pay with little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts. From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis. Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002. Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between 17 and 30 classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago. They would have to teach up to seven classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace. Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota for joining me in this effort. I hope my other colleagues will also join me to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education. 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 the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Dysart, an intern on Senator Leahy's personal office staff, be granted Senate floor privileges on Wednesday, June 10, 2015.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are considering this bill, and you can see by the size of it, it is a major undertaking. It comes up every year. It is the Department of Defense Authorization Act. It is an extraordinarily important bill. It literally authorizes programs for the defense of America. We have two able leaders who brought the bill to the floor. One is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John McCain, a man with whom I entered the House many years ago and a man whose reputation and service to America is well known. He is someone who has served in the U.S. Navy, was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war, and has been a leader in speaking out on behalf of the military throughout his life. It is built into his family. It is built into his soul. On our side, we have Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island. Senator Reed is a graduate of the West Point Military Academy. He served as well in the Active Army. He brings that service, that part of his life to his work on the Democratic side of the aisle. When it came to putting this bill together, I do not think we could have picked two more able leaders from the Senate, a Republican and a Democrat, to bring this bill to the floor. They have their differences. But for the most part they agree on this bill. It was troubling this morning to hear the Republican majority leader suggest that the differences we have over this bill suggest a lack of commitment by Democrats to the military of the United States. That is not true. It is not fair. We are as committed on our side of the aisle as those on the other side of the aisle when it comes to the men and women in uniform--committed to making certain that they have what they need to be trained, to fight effectively, and to come home safely. We are also committed to bringing them home to a welcoming America, preparing veterans programs for the rest of their lives, so they can have productive lives, happy lives after having risked their lives for America. So to suggest that the Republicans are for the military and Democrats are against it, I regret that the majority leader made that suggestion. Both sides are committed--both the chairman and the ranking member are committed. But what is the issue that divides us when it comes to this bill? It is basically an issue of funding. Here is what it comes down to: We have a Budget Control Act, and if we do not hit the numbers in spending, in comes sequestration. What is sequestration? It is an across-the-board cut. We do not want to see that happen. We have seen it. We know what it does. It was devastating to the Department of Defense when we went into sequestration. I know because I chaired the Appropriations Committee and I listened to the Secretary of Defense and the leaders from our branches and services tell us: It is impossible for us to budget an effective national security if we have to wonder whether we are going to face an across-the-board cut. I can understand that, not only in readiness, which is essential to the survival of our troops, but also in the procurement of substantial, expensive, important, and necessary technology. So Senator McCain on the Republican side brings to the floor this authorization bill and says: We will solve the problem of sequestration by inserting about $38 to $40 billion in wartime emergency funding into the Department of Defense. Well, we don't believe that is the right way to go, neither does the Secretary of Defense, neither does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because it is a 1-year fix. We need a fix that has some continuity and predictability to it. Therein lies the difference in approach between Democrats and Republicans. Is one side patriotic and the other side not patriotic because we disagree on a budget reform? Of course not. We happen to believe there is a better way to do this and so does the President. But there is another element I want to make a reference to. The Republican majority leader came here and said: Well, the Democrats are fighting to put more money into the rest of government--nondefense. It is true, we are. He used his two examples: Well, they want to hire more people at the Internal Revenue Service and maybe they want to put another coat of paint on their offices. That is what the majority leader said. Well, it could not be further from the truth. I will argue for adequate funding for the Internal Revenue Service. The overwhelming majority of Americans who pay their fair share of taxes and are honest people and try to follow the law should be respected. Those who don't, those who try to cheat our tax system should be held accountable. I do not think that is a radical idea. It takes employees at the Internal Revenue Service to make sure that is true. Right now we have cut back on their spending. But let me go to another issue which I think really tells the story about why we think we not only need to make sure the Department of Defense is adequately funded, but we want to make sure other areas of government are adequately funded. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's--once every 67 seconds. It is a disease which is now growing at a rapid pace because of the aging of our population. It is extraordinarily expensive. Under Medicare and Medicaid, $200 billion were spent last year in the care of those with Alzheimer's. That number is projected to grow dramatically in the years to come. Well, it is a heartbreaking disease, as you see someone whom you dearly love, someone in your family, and their mind is not as responsive as it once was. It is extraordinarily devastating to these families, and it is extraordinarily expensive to taxpayers. So what will we do about it? I hope we will be committed, on a bipartisan basis, to medical research. Medical research, through the National Institutes of Health, is part of the nondefense budget that we are trying to help by resolving this whole question of sequestration. It is not about putting a coat of paint on my office. That is not why I am fighting to make sure the nondefense part of the budget is not victimized by sequestration. I am fighting for the National Institutes of Health. How important is it that they not face sequestration? They have done it. They faced it. Let me tell you just one example of what it meant. Dr. Frank LaFerla is at the University of California in Irvine. He is a medical researcher. He and his team have created mice that develop Alzheimer's disease in the same way humans do. Now, his research team can study that disease in these mice, but the mice need to age 18 months before research on potential Alzheimer's disease treatments can be done. In 2013, when we faced sequestration, across-the-board cuts in the budget, Dr. LaFerla was faced with the prospect of having to sacrifice these laboratory animals and close his lab. If that had happened, months of research would have been wasted. That is what happens when you do something as mindless as sequestration in the Department of Defense and in the National Institutes of Health. We even have an amendment, which I hope will not be offered but is pending--has now been filed, I should say, in the Senate, which would cut medical research in the Department of Defense. I wonder what my colleagues are thinking; that we in America should cut back on medical research as a way of balancing our budget. I am praying for the day that Dr. LaFerla or someone like him will find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's and, God willing, find a cure. If they do, the investment in the National Institutes of Health will be paid off over and over and over again, and human suffering will be avoided. So when I hear the Republican majority leader dismiss the idea of funding outside the Department of Defense, when I hear him suggest that the Democrats are trying to work toward a budget solution that is fair to the Department of Defense and all other agencies so that we ``have enough money to paint our offices''--that is what he said--I am troubled by that. There is much more at stake. When it comes to medical research, I would hope the Senator from Kentucky feels, as all of us do, this is not partisan at all. The victims of Alzheimer's are of both political parties and people who never vote. They are just across the board. We ought to be committed to making certain that medical research makes a difference and that we believe in it. I hope this amendment that is being offered to cut Department of Defense medical research is not offered, because if it is, I plan to come to the floor and tell the story about what that medical research has meant over the last 20 years. For example, the second largest investment in breast cancer research is in the U.S. Department of Defense. There are dramatic stories to be told about what they have discovered and what they have been able to do in the Department of Defense. The suggestion that we should eliminate this research to me is a very bad one. It does not reflect the reality of the fright and concern that come with a diagnosis of breast cancer. I am prepared for that battle, not just on breast cancer but on all of the other areas of medical research in the Department of Defense, as well as medical research in the National Institutes of Health. If there is one issue that should unite us, Democrats and Republicans, it is medical research. I will tell you, the people I represent in Illinois, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we in both political parties should be making this commitment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for her comments and I ask her this question: So that we understand the procedure that just took place, there was an amendment offered that would have extended the Ex-Im Bank and then a motion to table it, and I believe 60 Members or more voted against the motion to table, which shows a positive sentiment about extending the Ex-Im Bank charter. After that vote, the sponsors of the amendment withdrew the amendment from this bill. So at this moment in time, I wish to ask the Senator, for absolute clarity: We have nothing before us that would extend the Ex-Im Bank either in this bill or in any other manner before the end of June when it expires; is that correct?

Mr. DURBIN. And that creates a disadvantage for businesses in Illinois, and I am sure in North Dakota, in terms of exports and jobs, and unless we do take this seriously and quickly, they will be jeopardized.

Mr. DURBIN

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