Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?

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 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, we have an industry in America called for- profit colleges and universities. It is a unique part of America's private sector--and I use the phrase ``private sector'' with some caution. These are profitable entities which portray themselves as colleges and universities. We know their names: the University of Phoenix, DeVry University, Kaplan University, and--until very recently--Corinthian, one of the largest for-profit schools. What do they do? They entice young people to sign up at their for-profit colleges and universities and promise them they are going to give them training or education to find a job. Now, it turns out that as alluring as that is, it doesn't tell the whole story. The real story about the for-profit college industry can be told with three numbers: Ten. Ten percent of all high school graduates go to these for-profit colleges and universities. Twenty. Twenty percent of all the Federal aid to education goes to these for-profit colleges and universities. About $35 billion a year flows into these schools. If it were a separate Federal agency, it would be the ninth largest Federal agency in Washington, DC--$35 billion. But the key number we should remember is 44. Forty-four percent of all the student loan defaults in America are students at for-profit colleges and universities. How can that be--10 percent of the students and 44 percent of the loan defaults. First, they overcharge their students; secondly, when the students get deeply in debt, many of them drop out; and, third, those who end up graduating find out many times the diploma is worthless. That is what has happened. Back in December of 2013, I wrote to the Department of Education asking them to investigate Corinthian Colleges. There was an article in the Huffington Post that drew my attention to it, as well as the actions by the California attorney general, Kamala Harris. It turned out that Corinthian was lying. It was lying to the students about whether they would ever end up getting a job, and it was lying to the Federal Government about their performance and how well they were doing. They were caught in their lie. As a consequence, the Department of Education started threatening Corinthian Colleges for defrauding taxpayers and the government in their official reports. Things went from bad to worse. Corinthian Colleges declared bankruptcy. What happens when one of these for-profit colleges and universities declares bankruptcy? Well, the students many times are left high and dry. They have nothing, no school to go to. Oh, wait a minute. They don't have ``nothing.'' They have something. They have debt--a debt that they carry away from these failed schools. Well, we have a provision in the law which says if your school goes bankrupt, you might be able to walk away from your student debt. The Department of Education made an announcement yesterday, which I support, that says that they are going to work with these students who have been defrauded by Corinthian Colleges and misled into believing this college was worth their time and money. Some of these students will get a chance to be relieved from their college debt. It is a good thing because student loan debt is not like a lot of other debts. It is not like the money you borrowed for a car. It is not like the money you borrowed for a home. Student loan debts are not discharged in bankruptcy. You have them for a lifetime. If you make a bad decision when you are 19 years old and sign up for $18,000 a year at Corinthian Colleges or at ITT Tech, you have it until you pay it off. We find that many of these schools garnish Social Security checks. They will stay with you for a lifetime. So now the Department of Education is working on this, trying to do the right thing by these Corinthian students. I have been in touch with Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, whom I respect. I told him this is, unfortunately, an early indication of an industry that is on hard times. The stock prices of these for-profit schools are in deep trouble across the board. People are finally realizing there is too much fraudulent activity going on at these institutions. Who are the losers? It is not just the students with debts from these worthless schools but taxpayers. We are the ones who send these billions of dollars to these so-called private companies that have their CEOs take home millions of dollars while the kids are getting little or no education. They are the losers. What should we do about it? I think we ought to be a lot tougher when it comes to the for-profit colleges and universities--holding them accountable for what they are doing to these young people and their families, holding them accountable for what they have done to taxpayers. Do you know how much money we sent to Corinthian after it became clear they were lying to us? It was $1 billion dollars--$1 billion dollars, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. There are schools like that, unfortunately, across this country. The last point I will make on this is that, speaking to the Secretary of Education and others, the real losers many times are also veterans-- veterans. The GI bill was offered to veterans after they served our country for a chance to get an education, training, and to make a life. They used it, sadly, at worthless for-profit colleges and universities, and they have used up a once-in-a-lifetime chance to build a future. They are left high and dry, not with a student-loan debt but with an empty promise that this education is going to lead to something. I am going to continue to work with my colleagues, including Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, to change that and to protect our veterans. But I am also going to continue to work on these for-profit colleges and universities. America can do better. These schools with 10 percent of the students, 20 percent of the Federal aid to education, and 44 percent of the student loan defaults have to be held accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 204 on Tillis amendment No. 1506. Had I been in the Chamber I would have opposed this amendment. Section 136 of the underlying bill requires the Secretary of the Air Force in consultation with the Secretary of the Army to examine the daily training and contingency requirements of the C-130 fleet on this issue.

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

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, it was 3 years ago this month in June of 2012 that President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, that provides temporary--underline the word ``temporary''--legal status to immigrant students who arrived in the United States as children. DACA is based on the DREAM Act, a bill I introduced 14 years ago, to give undocumented students who grow up in this country a chance to earn their citizenship. These young people have come to be known as DREAMers, and this has become a term of art that is used now across the United States to capsulize the immigration dilemma we face. While this DACA Program by President Obama has been an amazing success, more than 600,000 of these DREAMers have come forward, paid the filing fee, submitted themselves for background checks, and are now temporarily living in America, going to school and working. DACA has allowed these DREAMers to become part of our country as they strive for education in engineering, education in business--just about every profession you can think of. This policy of giving people a chance to be part of America's future unfortunately infuriates my Republican colleagues. They have tried over and over and over again to stop the DREAMers, to deport the DREAMers. I don't understand it. President Obama established this new program called DAPA to build on DACA's success, which allows their parents, under certain circumstances, to stay in the United States on a temporary basis. Under the President's second program, DAPA, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States at least 5 years and have American children are required to come forward, pay a filing fee, register with the government, pass a criminal and national security background check, and then pay their fair share of taxes. Those are the conditions. If they violate any of them, they are subject to deportation. If the government determines that these parents have not committed any serious crimes, do not pose any threat to our safety, this new Executive order says, on a temporary basis, they will not be targeted for deportation. I have seen this in Chicago, and I have seen it around Illinois. Many people think the undocumented live in a household full of undocumented people. That is almost never the case. What I found over and over again is that perhaps one parent, usually the mother, is undocumented--the father, a citizen; kids born in America, citizens; the mother, undocumented. Are we really safer as a nation to break up that family and deport the mother if she is no threat to this country? I don't think so. DAPA was scheduled to go into effect last month. That is what President Obama had hoped for--and I joined him--but it didn't. Why? Because some Republican Governors and attorneys general have filed a lawsuit to block this new program. The Supreme Court has been clear that Presidents have the authority to set Federal immigration enforcement priorities. I am confident all of the President's decisions in this matter will be upheld. It is hard for me to understand or explain why the Republicans are so determined to stop any reform of our broken immigration system. For years, Republicans in Congress have refused to even consider legislation to fix our broken immigration system. I spent a good part of my life, 6 months or more, working in a bipartisan group to write an immigration reform bill for Democrats, for Republicans. We brought it to the floor of the Senate. It passed with 68 votes. Fourteen Republicans, virtually all of the Democrats voted for it. It really addressed every aspect of immigration. Parts of it I didn't like, but overall it was a very good and balanced bill. When it came to the floor, the Republicans said: Wait a minute. No immigration reform until you get tough at the border. Well, the record says and shows we are already pretty tough at the border. Illegal immigration is down dramatically. But in an effort to make this bipartisan, we agreed to even more enforcement at the border. Think about this for a second. Today, there are more Federal law enforcement agents on our border with Mexico than the combined total of all Federal law enforcement agents in every other agency, and we increased it in this comprehensive immigration bill. So the argument that we are not getting tough at the border is kind of hard to make. We passed the bill with 68 votes. We sent it to the House 2 years ago. What did the House do? Absolutely nothing--they refused to call the bill. They refused to call any version of the bill. They refused to call their own bill. They refused to even debate the issue of immigration. Everyone acknowledges our immigration system needs to be improved and changed. They wouldn't even take up the issue. And now, when the President tries, on a temporary basis, to say: I am not going to deport the mother in a family where everyone else is an American citizen or I am not going to deport children who were brought here at the age of 2, who have grown up in America and simply want to be part of our future, the Republicans have said: We will fight you to the death. We will challenge you in every court in the land. We want to deport these people. What I have found is that it is best for Members of Congress, the Senate, and the American public to meet some of the individuals who are the target of these high emotions and negative feelings on the Republican side. I want to introduce one of them today. This is Jean-Yannick Diouf. When he was 8 years old, his father, a diplomat from the African country of Senegal, brought his family to the United States. Unfortunately, Yannick's parents separated and Yannick's father returned to Senegal, leaving him and the rest of his family behind. Yannick was too young to even realize it at the time--he was just a little kid--but when his father left the United States, he lost his legal status to live in this country. Yannick grew up in Montgomery County, MD. In high school, he was a member of the National Honor Society. He volunteered weekly at a homeless shelter. He organized soccer tournaments for 3 years to raise money for the Red Cross for Haiti earthquake relief. After high school, Yannick wanted to continue his education. But remember, if you are undocumented in this country, you don't qualify for a penny when it comes to Federal assistance--no Pell grants, no Federal Government loans. So he went to Montgomery College, a junior college, and earned an associate's degree in business. He was on the dean's list. Yannick then transferred to the University of Maryland, College Park. Again, he had to pay for it all. There was no government assistance since he is undocumented. He is working now on a bachelor's degree in business management. He runs the Achievers Mentoring Program. It is an after-school program to advise middle and high school students on how to get into college. Yannick is also a volunteer for United We Dream, the largest organization of undocumented young people such as himself in this country. He was a leader of the campaign to pass the Maryland DREAM Act, which allows Maryland residents who are undocumented to pay in- State tuition. That is the only break he can get, and it comes from the State. Keep in mind that Yannick is undocumented. So he doesn't qualify for any financial aid from the Federal Government. Yet he is trying to make a life. Here is what he said in a letter: DACA means dignity. More than making money, having a job gives you dignity and self-respect. I want to work for what I have. I don't look to anyone for pity. People should judge me based on what I do and what I stand for, not based on status. I want to be given a chance to prove that not only am I a functioning member of society, I am here to serve and share my talents with those in my community. Earlier this year, Yannick was one of six DREAMers who met with the President of the United States in the Oval Office. Here is what the President said after he met with Yannick and the other five. He said: I don't think there's anybody in America who's had a chance to talk to these six young people who wouldn't find it in their heart to say these kids are Americans just like us, and they belong here, and we want to do right by them. Well, I think President Obama is right. Yannick and the other DREAMers have so much to contribute to our country. But sadly, Republicans in Congress have a different agenda. They want to shut down DACA, which allows this young man to go to school in the only country he has ever known, and they want to shut down the DAPA Program, which the President has instituted to try to protect the parents of those who have been here at least 5 years. If they have their way, this young man will be deported to Senegal, a country where he hasn't lived since he was a little boy. Will America be better, if we get rid of folks such as him? Will it be a better country if we tear families apart? I don't think so. Instead of trying to deport DREAMers and moms and dads, congressional Republicans should work with us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill to fix our broken immigration system. The estimates are wide-ranging as to how many young people there are in America like Yannick. Some say 1.5 million. Some say 2.5 million. I have met so many of them. It wasn't that long ago that we had a bill on the floor of the Senate, and that entire Gallery was filled with young DREAMers. They came wearing caps and gowns--that was their decision--to make the point that they are students--students who are learning and trying to improve their lives to be better and to be a better part of America. That bill was defeated that day. It broke my heart. I went to meet with them afterwards, and I said to them: Don't give up. Don't give up on me, because I am not giving up on you. I got started on this battle 15 years ago--15 years ago--when I met a young Korean girl in Chicago who was brought here at the age of 2 and who was a musical prodigy. She had been accepted at the Juilliard School of music, the Manhattan conservatory of music, but she was afraid she couldn't go. She was undocumented. Her mom and dad brought her here to this country at the age of 2, and they never filed the papers. She grew up in a very poor family, but she went into the Merit Music Program in Chicago and became an accomplished musician. It was because of her that I started and introduced the DREAM Act. There is good news. She went on to the Manhattan conservatory of music. A generous family in Chicago paid for it because she couldn't get any assistance. She married a young man, became an American citizen, and played in Carnegie Hall. She is now pursuing her Ph.D. in music. Is America better because of that? Yes, it is. I have no doubt that it is. Those who don't see the promise in the eyes of these young people and don't see what they can bring to America have forgotten who we are. We are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation that has allowed young people such as these a chance to succeed. One of them happened to be my mother. My mother was brought here at the age of 2 by a mother who didn't speak English. My mother grew up in this country and raised a family, and I was one of the kids. Here I stand on the floor of the Senate. That is my story. That is my family's story. It is America's story. The people who show such loathing for these young people and what they mean to us have forgotten that. They have ignored that. Let's rekindle our faith in what makes America great--our diversity, the ambition of young people such as Yannick, and the determination of our generation to open a door to give them a chance to prove themselves to make us better. That is what we are called on to do. All the petty politics aside, we are talking about human lives and about an opportunity for this young man and so many others to prove to us what they can do for the future of America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you had to characterize the current Congress with one symbol, I would tell you what I think it should be: an extension cord--you know what I mean?--an extension cord you use at home if the plug doesn't quite reach the outlet. Why would I pick an extension cord? Because this year, under the leadership in Congress, all we have been doing is extending things a little bit--just a little bit--when we have to. The Department of Homeland Security appropriation, one of the most important when it comes to the security and safety of the United States, had to be extended and extended and extended, sadly because many in the House wanted to fight the battle of immigration over that bill. Eventually, we prevailed and passed the appropriation after extension and after extension. Then 2 weeks ago, here on the floor of the Senate, we extended the Federal highway trust fund. What is that? That is a fund where we collect gas taxes every time a gallon of gas is purchased and put it in a fund and then build highways and bridges. We count on that. It used to be a glorious program. The inspiration for that program was President Dwight David Eisenhower. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, who had come back from leading America to victory in World War II, remembered what he saw. He saw in Europe, particularly in Germany, an amazing highway system that did not exist in the United States. So President Eisenhower said: We need an interstate highway system in America. It was a bold idea--that the Federal Government would lead in creating an interstate highway system to link every corner of our Nation. There is not a State that I know of, certainly not in my State, where the interstate highway system hasn't had a dramatic positive impact on the economy. So with the Federal highway trust fund, we built the interstate highway system, we extended the highway system, and now we are in the process of making bridges safer, making certain the highways are extended where they need to be to keep businesses thriving and to create new businesses and jobs in America. But along comes a group in Congress, a conservative group, that says this is all wrong. Some of them question whether the Federal Government should even have a role in transportation. For them, I have three words: Dwight David Eisenhower, Republican President, who showed the way. Some say it is just impossible to figure out how to fund the building of highways. Well, we have done pretty well so far with the Federal gas tax that is collected. Clearly, we need to look to other forms of revenue. But do we need to give up on the Federal highway program? Two weeks ago on the floor of the Senate we had the 33rd short-term extension of that program. What it means is we extended it this time for 60 days. The Federal highway program used to be a 6-year program. Why was it 6 years? Think about the planning, the engineering, acquiring land and building a highway. You can't do it in 60 days, not 6 months, not even in a year. You have to have a commitment of funds that are coming back to the States. In my State, in Illinois, about 75 percent of all the highway construction comes from Federal funds. So when we do short-term extensions, it really says to the States that they can't count on us. This money will run out at the end of July. Maybe we will extend it again, maybe we won't. Is that any way to run a nation? Is that any way to run a transportation system--again, using the extension cord example, this time for 60 days? Just a week or so ago, we had another effort on the floor of the Senate here to extend the PATRIOT Act--FISA--which keeps America safe and gives us the power to ferret out those who threaten us. The suggestion was made by the majority leader that we extend it for a few days--a few days. This has become a pattern, and it is a troubling pattern. One aspect of this that is particularly troublesome is that at the end of June, unless there is a sincere bipartisan effort, we are going to lose the Export-Import Bank. I have heard a lot of speeches in the Senate about how the United States businesses, especially small businesses, are really the backbone of our economy. Oh, we all give those speeches. As these businesses grow and expand, they often look to foreign exports. We know that every $1 billion in new export sales supports at least 6,000 new jobs in this country. So every opportunity to export U.S. products helps communities and families. The primary Federal program that allows most of these very small businesses to export is about to expire. It is about to expire at the end of this month. The Export-Import Bank provides financing insurance so that U.S. companies, many of them very small, can compete in the global economy. Here is how it works. The Export-Import Bank makes loans to firms exporting American-made goods. This allows businesses, including 3,340 small businesses across the United States, to sell their goods and services to businesses all over the world. They support about 164,000 jobs. More than 100 of these companies are located in Illinois, and more than 80 of them are small. The Export-Import Bank supports $27.4 billion in exports. And guess what. It doesn't cost the taxpayers a penny. It actually makes money--money that is returned to the U.S. Treasury for other purposes or to reduce our debt. Over the past two decades--20 years--the Export-Import Bank has returned $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. It is a moneymaker. It goes directly to deficit reduction. One of the companies the Bank helped is the NOW Health Group in Bloomingdale, IL. It is a natural food and supplement manufacturer with 640 employees, 35 of whom work in exports. According to their chief operating officer, Jim Emme, ``the flexibility in the payment terms we can offer through our Export Import Bank policy has allowed us to grow our business in existing markets as well as open new ones.'' This company has grown its exports from 2 percent of its business to more than 10 percent. They could not have done it without the Export- Import Bank. There are thousands of stories just like that all over the United States. I am a cosponsor of Senator Shaheen's bill that would increase the lending cap for the Bank to $160 billion and reauthorize it through 2021--not these short-term, 30-day, 60-day, 6-month extensions we have seen under this leadership in Congress. In the past, reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank was a bipartisan measure. Republicans used to support it as much as Democrats. But now there is a small group of Republicans, inspired by the Heritage Foundation, who have decided: Let's put an end to this Bank. Let's put an end to the opportunity for small businesses to hire Americans and export goods overseas. Their hatred of government blinds them to the reality of this Bank and the thousands of jobs that will be lost if they have their way and eliminate the Ex-Im Bank. They also refuse to recognize that by failing to reauthorize this Bank, U.S. businesses can't compete with businesses in other countries that will still have access to their own export financing agencies. Do you think China is going to put its export-import bank out of business? No. They just increased its size. Our major competitor has stepped up. In this case, many of the leaders in Congress are stepping back. So we are not only hurting ourselves if we can't find a way to go forward. The Bank is set to expire at the end of the month, which is less than 4 weeks from now. I hope we can come to an agreement by then to pass a bill to reauthorize a program that is critically important to U.S. exports. I hope reasonable voices in the Republican Party will not allow a vocal minority to prevent us from reauthorizing this important program.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the number of candidates grows for the office of President, we are hearing a lot of proposals for changes in the Tax Code. Many of them are interesting, and some of them are damaging when it comes to working for middle-income families. Sadly, we are seeing a race to the bottom on who can propose the lowest corporate tax rate, giving huge breaks to the very companies that shift jobs overseas. Most Americans don't realize this. If you want to move your production from the United States to another country, you can deduct the moving expenses from the taxes you owe America. We are subsidizing your decision to pick up and move jobs overseas. American workers--some of them are given the sad responsibility to train the supervisors at the new overseas companies while American workers are checking out their last paychecks. I have a different idea. Instead of rewarding corporations with lower tax bills, we should reward those companies in America that maintain their commitment to this country and its workers and give fair wages and benefits to the American workers. We call it the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act. It is very basic. When you look at the Tax Code, it is a huge document full of incentives and disincentives for businesses. We will reward certain things; we won't reward other things. Well, this is something we should consider rewarding. Senator Sherrod Brown and I have introduced the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act, which would provide a tax credit to American companies that treat American veterans and workers the best. It puts the Tax Code on the side of these companies. These patriot employers would be eligible for a tax credit equal to 10 percent of the first $15,000 of qualified wages for American workers, which is about $1,200 per worker. In order to qualify for this tax credit, these companies would have to meet five criteria. See if you think, as I do, that these are good ideas. First, the company has to invest in American jobs. Businesses must remain headquartered here in the United States if they have ever been headquartered here before. The company would also have to maintain or increase the number of workers in the United States compared to the number of workers overseas, and not decrease the number of workers through the use of contractors. The company can't pick up and leave, move to a foreign capital to avoid paying its fair share of U.S. taxes. First, invest in American jobs located in America. Second, pay fair wages. A patriot employer under our bill would have to pay at least 90 percent of its employees $15 an hour. Why do we pick $15 an hour? Do the math: $15 an hour, 40 hours a week, about $30,000 a year. Why? Because if you make that amount of money, you qualify for virtually no Federal subsidies, Federal programs. You are earning a paycheck and you are supporting your family. If you make less than that, you qualify for Federal Government assistance. So we are saying to employers: If you will pay at least $15 an hour, we will give you this tax credit. Third, provide quality health insurance for your employees consistent with the Affordable Care Act. Fourth, help your employees prepare for retirement. We want to reward companies that offer at least 90 percent of their employees a defined benefit plan, such as a pension plan or a defined contribution plan with decent employer contributions. Fifth, employ a diverse workforce. We want companies to have a plan in place to help veterans and people with disabilities. I don't think that is too much to ask. We grab our flags and march in parades as politicians and thank the veterans over and over. Why don't we thank them with a job? And let's reward the companies that do. That is it, five conditions. And with these five conditions, these patriotic American companies would get a tax break. Wouldn't it be better for us to incentivize American companies to do the right thing rather than pay the moving expenses for those that want to leave the country? That is a choice. I think it is pretty simple. I know it can be done because in Skokie, IL, there is a company doing it. It is called Block Steel. The company started 100 years ago and has grown to be the largest distributor of aluminized steel in the Nation. It is a family-run business. It has ensured that 77 employees are treated fairly. Each of their employees is paid more than $15 an hour, has good health care, and a good retirement. Block Steel should be rewarded for its efforts. Under the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act, Block Steel could qualify for a tax credit of up to $100,000. That is money they can invest in their business and grow it, with even more people working. As this debate about tax reform continues, I hope we focus on rewarding companies that really care about America. We shouldn't be blindly focused on a race to the bottom to the lowest wages. And, I might add, this is paid for. It is paid for by eliminating the deduction for moving businesses overseas that is currently part of the Tax Code. So let's reform the Tax Code the right way, with an eye on helping the workers get a decent paycheck, decent benefits, and rewarding the companies that put American workers first. I thank Senators Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed, Tammy Baldwin, and Bernie Sanders for lending their support to this important bill. I look forward to continuing our fight for working families here in the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to seek recognition. Mr. TILLIS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DURBIN. I will be seeking about 5 minutes, no more. So if Senator Alexander comes to the floor, he will not have to wait long.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the ranking member of this important committee, the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, will be offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which I support. I hold the title of vice chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and have served as chairman of that subcommittee as well. This is an awesome responsibility--to handle the authorization bill for the greatest military in the world, and I salute both my friend Senator Reed and my friend Senator McCain for the hard work they have put into this bill, but there is a fatal flaw in this bill. Senator Jack Reed addresses it, and I want to speak to it for a minute. Senator McCain has stated publicly, with others on the Republican side, a sentiment that is shared on the Democratic side. We have to do away with sequestration once and for all. Sequestration is a bad idea. It was supposed to be so bad that we would never see it. It was supposed to be such an extreme, outrageous idea that it would never happen, but it did--because when we fail to hit the budget numbers, we automatically go into sequestration, which leads to across-the-board cuts, mindless across-the-board cuts. Those cuts hurt every agency of government when we did it, but most of all it hurt the Department of Defense. If there is one agency that needs to be thinking and planning ahead, it is the Department of Defense, and sequestration, sadly, made cuts making it impossible for the planners at the Department of Defense to think ahead, to plan ahead. So Senator McCain has said--Senator Reed has joined him and others have been in the chorus, me included. Senator McCain has said: Once and for all, we need to get rid of sequestration. We need to have a budget process here that befits a great nation, and we don't. Unfortunately, this authorization bill perpetuates some of the fundamental flaws of sequestration instead of solving the problem. I am cosponsoring the amendment of Senator Jack Reed. I believe we have to eliminate the budget gimmicks that are cooked into this Defense authorization bill. It doesn't do our servicemembers any service or our country any good for us to perpetuate this. For the entire Federal Government to still face ultimately the threat of sequestration, across-the-board cuts--as vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have heard testimony from the leadership of the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, our Guard and Reserve that sequester-level budgets really harm our national security, and it makes sense. How can you plan acquisition of important equipment? How can you be sure you can train our courageous young men and women if there is so much uncertainty with the budget? We know these cuts are going to have a dramatic negative impact on training for our servicemembers, grounded planes, wasted wrongheaded impacts to acquisition programs and more. The National Defense Authorization Act includes the same budget gimmick that was offered in the Republican budget resolutions. It increases spending on something called overseas contingency operations by the same amount as sequestration would cut from the budget of the Department of Defense. Let me explain. We fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we didn't pay for them. We added the cost of those wars to the national debt. So this President came in and said we have to put an end to that. So we have to have actual appropriations, and we have to accept the reality that we may face future wars. They created an account called the overseas contingency operations account anticipating that wars might come along. Well, thankfully we have brought our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan but for the limited commitment of troops to fight ISIS in Iraq at this moment. What we have seen in this budget is the attempt to take these overseas contingency funds and take what was an emergency expenditure and build it into this budget, which is the problem. It was the wrong way to fix the problem earlier this year. It is the wrong way to try to fix sequestration now. Cranking up OCO spending on a 1-year basis just to get us through in the Department of Defense does nothing but add to our deficit and create a bigger problem next year. What are we going to do next year? No answer. That is why this is a gimmick. It is not fixing the sequestration challenge. What do the Department of Defense leaders say? Are they celebrating because they are going to get this emergency money to come ride to the rescue this year? No. Secretary Ash Carter testified last month to the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He criticized this approach which is part of the bill before us. He called it ``managerially unsound'' and ``unfairly dispiriting to our force.'' He then went on to say: Our military personnel and their families deserve to know their future, more than just [one budget] one year at a time. . . . [O]ur defense industry partners-- Think about the contractors, for example, who are building the planes, the tanks, and the ships of the future-- [O]ur defense industry partners, too, need stability and longer-term plans, not end-of-year crises or short-term fixes, if they're to be efficient and cutting edge as we need them to be. That is what the Secretary of Defense said. Then General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came in uniform. What did he say about the budgetary approach we have before us in this bill? He emphasized that it, too, created problems because of the lack of predictability in defense budgets. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Gortney of Northern Command and General Kelly of Southern Command pointed out that numerous domestic agencies also contribute to our national security, and they noted the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies that are all subject to these across-the-board cuts. So if we say that in the name of America's national security defense and security, we are going to take care of the Department of Defense and then subject all these other agencies to across-the-board cuts, we will diminish protection for America. These agencies are important, too, not just the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, but also the FBI. For goodness' sake, they fight terrorism every day. The Department of Homeland Security has the same responsibility, the same type of mission. As we go through the list on the so-called nondefense side, we find a lot of agencies that are critically important to keeping America safe, and this approach in this bill does nothing for them. This gimmick will also come at the expense of other programs not directed exclusively at homeland security and national defense. So if the Department of Defense gets relief from sequestration by using this overseas contingency operations maneuver, what are the odds that we are going to do the same for the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Veterans' Administration, the National Institutes of Health, or America's infrastructure? Let me say a word about that. The last time we did sequestration, I am embarrassed to say that we did an across-the-board cut at the National Institutes of Health. It was so damaging to NIH--which is the premier medical research agency in the world--it was so damaging that they are still trying to recover today. Before we went into sequestration--consider this--if you had an application for a medical grant at NIH, your chances before sequestration were one out of three. One out of three. After sequestration and the cuts that took place--one out of six. There was recently a Fortune magazine which had a cover story about the Alzheimer's crisis facing America. I have done a little work in this area, and it is frightening to think about what we face. One American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every 67 seconds in our Nation. I didn't believe that number and challenged my staff. They are right. Once every 67 seconds. Last year, we spent $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid when it came to the Alzheimer's patients across America. That didn't even touch the amount of money families put into the care of their loved ones who are suffering from this disease. The projection of the rate of growth of Alzheimer's in America says that in just a few years, we will be spending more than $1 trillion a year on that disease alone--the government, over $1 trillion a year. The Fortune magazine article--and the reason I rushed to buy it--says that at least two major pharmaceutical companies are starting to develop research that is promising to treat the onset of Alzheimer's, the early stages, and perhaps to alleviation some of the suffering. We have new imaging devices that are coming through that really can show Alzheimer's in living human beings at the earliest stages when it can be treated or at least ultimately should be treated--let me make certain I say that correctly. But if you look at these breakthroughs, as promising as they are, you will find that in every single instance, the National Institutes of Health was there before, doing the basic research leading to the new drugs that are being developed, leading to the new technology. What happens when you go through sequestration and cut the National Institutes of Health? You stop the research. You slow it down, at least, and in some areas actually stop it. Is that really in the best interests of this country? So when we come to the rescue of the Department of Defense, as we should, and we say that the Budget Act--sequestration--has to come to an end when it comes to the Department of Defense, we can't ignore what sequestration's across-the-board cuts will do to so many other critically important agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, is going to offer an amendment to try to address this honestly and directly, and I am going to support him. Let's talk about infrastructure for a minute. Two weeks ago on the floor of the Senate, we gave the 33rd short-term extension of the Federal highway program, a short-term, 60-day extension. Let me ask, if you are planning to build an interstate highway, is 60 days enough? Hardly. Most of our Transportation bills have been long-term bills, 5- and 6-year bills, as they should be. There are some Members of the Senate who question whether there should be a Federal program, but most of us believe there should be. And if there is going to be one, we can't limp along every 60 days or 6 months in funding it. Keeping this Budget Control Act and sequestration guarantees we are going to face this over and over again until Congress faces its responsibility. The unfortunate reality is, if Congress cannot tackle the issue of sequestration honestly, directly, and head-on, our domestic agencies will likely be stuck with these artificial caps for years. America will pay a heavy price for our inability and unwillingness to tackle this challenging issue. The Senate should be providing real sequestration relief not only to the Department of Defense but to all of the agencies of our government that do such important work. That should be our focus--not a budget gimmick using overseas contingency funds to get through 1 year with the Department of Defense but something more befitting of a nation like ours that deserves real leadership. I urge my colleagues to support Ranking Member Jack Reed's critical amendment so that we can begin to get serious about the challenges that face us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, big storms and heavy rain often lead to flooding in cities. It seems like that is happening more frequently and the floods have been more damaging. In May we saw the extent of the damage that can be done when flood waters inundate a city. Twenty-seven people died in Houston, TX as a result of the rainfall and flooding there. Eleven people are still missing. The truth of the matter is, we don't have very much data on frequency, severity, or how we might better prepare for the kind of weather that turns into flooded streets, businesses, and homes. I introduced a bill this week, with Senator Whitehouse and Congressman Quigley in the House, to address that. The Urban Flooding Awareness Act calls for a study to document the costs to families, business, and government associated with urban flooding. There are many ways we can do a better job of preparing for storm flooding--including creative, environmentally sound, ``green infrastructure'' approaches-- but first we need to have a firm understanding of the scope of the problem. Stronger, more destructive storms are pounding urban areas at an alarming rate. They threaten the quality of drinking water. Urban floods erode river banks and spread pollution. They bring massive damage to homes and businesses. When you consider events like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, it is clear we need to do more to understand how flooding can be predicted and prevented. In Illinois we have had more than our fair share of urban flooding in recent years. Chicago has seen three ``hundred year floods'' in the last 5 years. Just a few inches of water can cause thousands of dollars in damage for both home and small business owners. Wet basements from flooding events are one of the top reasons people do not purchase a particular home. Industry experts estimate flooding can lower property values by 10 to 25 percent. Moreover, nearly 40 percent of small businesses do not reopen following a disaster, according to FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most homeowners in urban areas do not have Federally backed flood insurance through FEMA's flood insurance program. They are not able to participate in the flood insurance program because it focuses entirely on designated floodplains along rivers, not in urban areas. With the frequency and severity of storms growing year by year, we need to gain a better understanding of flooding in our cities. A clear definition of urban flooding--which this legislation would establish--would allow experts to understand the scope of the problem, develop solutions, and consider more than just coastal and river flooding when designing flood maps. The bill also would require FEMA to coordinate a study on the costs and prevalence of urban flooding and the effectiveness of green and other infrastructure. The Urban Flooding Awareness Act will help American communities identify ways to protect our investments and our environment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on January 29, 2013, Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down while standing in a park on the South Side of Chicago. Hadiya was a talented, beautiful, caring young woman with a bright future ahead of her. She was 15 years old, a sophomore honor student at King College Prep. Her family described her as a spectacular source of joy and pride for them. One week before her death, Hadiya was here in Washington with her school band, performing for President Obama's second inauguration. She was thrilled by that opportunity. But a few days later, she was gone, murdered by men who mistook her and friends for members of a rival gang. What a senseless tragedy to lose children to gun violence. It happens every day in America. Overall, on average, 88 Americans are killed by gun violence every day. Today, June 2, 2015, would have been Hadiya Pendleton's 18th birthday. Today also marks the first annual National Gun Violence Awareness Day. It is an idea that was inspired by Hadiya's family and friends in Chicago. They decided they would ask us to wear something orange today. It is a color that hunters use when they are in the woods to make sure that no one shoots them. All across the Nation, Americans are wearing orange in tribute to Hadiya Pendleton, in tribute to the tens of thousands of other Americans killed by gun violence every year, and in support of a simple goal: Keep our kids safe. I am proud to join them in wearing orange today. I want to commend Hadiya's parents--my friends--Nate and Cleo, her brother Nate, Jr., and her friends who have turned their pain into purpose. They are working to reduce the scourge of gun violence and to spare other families and loved ones what they have gone through. I hope lawmakers here in Washington and throughout the Nation will pay attention and commit themselves to do something about these terrible shootings and deaths. We need to do all that we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them and, especially, keep our children safe. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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 the text of the bill be printed in the Record.