National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, early this morning I got a telephone call from a White House staffer who told me that the President was going to announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court occasioned by the passing of Antonin Scalia. This morning I was invited to the Rose Garden to witness that ceremony, and I thought it was one of the President's best deliveries of a message to the American people about a critically important issue.

I applaud President Obama for his nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. No one questions that Judge Garland is an outstanding attorney and has been an exceptional judge during his 19 years on the DC Circuit Court. No one questions his qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the Supreme Court. I congratulate him, his wife Lynn, whom I just met, and his daughters, Becky and Jessie, on this nomination.

Judge Garland is a proud son of Illinois. He is the grandson of immigrants who fled anti-Semitic persecution. He was born in Chicago to parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. He graduated at the top of his class from Niles West High School, received his undergraduate law degree from Harvard, and clerked for the legendary Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit and Justice William Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an incredible legal resume. He served in the Justice Department and worked in private practice before he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court.

Today President Obama told the story of how Merrick Garland in the U.S. Department of Justice was sent down after the Oklahoma City bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carefully, deftly, and professionally handled that prosecution in a way that it would stick and it wouldn't be overturned because of legal mistakes. He personally felt an attachment and obligation to the victims and their families, and he carried with him the memorial service bulletin that was given out with the names of each one of the victims. He brought it with him to the courtroom each day. He is that kind of person--a prosecutor but with empathy to the victims and a determination to make sure he followed the law. He did.

President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility, and now the Senate must do the same. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides the requirement that the President shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President did that today.

That same section of the Constitution goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the Senate--this Senate--to advise and consent to that nominee. There is no requirement that we approve the President's nominee. He wants us to. I hope we do. But what it says is we have a responsibility under the Constitution--the same Constitution we swore to uphold and defend.

So the President is using his authority and constitutional responsibility by naming Merrick Garland. Now what will happen? The Republican leadership in the Senate has said: End of story; we are not going to do anything. Some Senators have gone so far as to say they will not even meet with this man, will not even meet with the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. In the history of the United States of America, there has never--underline ``never''--been a situation where the President sent a nominee to the Supreme Court to the Senate and there was not a hearing. Never. And now the Republican majority here has said: Ignore history. Ignore the Constitution. We are not going to let this President fill this vacancy.

Their argument is this: Let the American people decide. There is an election coming. It will be in November. Let them pick a President, who will then choose that Supreme Court nominee.

Well, that is an interesting approach. It might make some sense had President Barack Obama been reelected in 2012 to a term of 3 years and 2 months. He was reelected to a 4-year term by a 5 million-vote plurality. He is the President. And to argue that in his last year in office, he should have no authority or power in the Constitution to exercise what is required of him is to ignore the obvious.

By what right do we, in the closing year of a Senator's term, vote on the floor of the Senate if we are disqualified from making important decisions in our last year in office in each term? It is a ludicrous position, a ridiculous position. It is a position which I find offensive.

This system of government gives to the American people the last word about who the President will be. There have been times when I have applauded that decision and times when I didn't. But if you are respectful of this Constitution and this government, then you follow the will of the people of this great Nation, and they made a decision by a plurality of 5 million votes that Barack Obama would have this power for 4 years, until January of 2017. So the President has sent this name, and now it is up to the Senate.

The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in this decision, and I am honored to serve on it. In 2001, then-chairman of the committee Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, joined with Ranking Republican Member Orrin Hatch of Utah and they sent a letter to the Senate about this issue of filling Supreme Court vacancies--a bipartisan letter, Leahy and Hatch. Here is what it said: We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.

We should hold a hearing without delay. If this letter was the case 15 years ago and Senator Hatch, who was then the ranking Republican, joined with Senator Leahy, the Democratic chairman, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is we have a President named Barack Obama.

You see, in 1987 there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan was President. In 1988 he sent the name Anthony Kennedy to this Chamber to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate at that time was under the control of the Democrats. Ronald Reagan, a Republican President, sent his nominee to the Democratic Senate, and what happened? Did they announce: We are not going to fill this; we will wait until after the election. No, no. The Democratic-controlled Senate held a hearing for Anthony Kennedy, brought him up for a vote, and passed him unanimously to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now look at what we are facing--Republican colleagues who refuse to do their job under the Constitution. For what reason? Obviously for political reasons.

My Republican colleagues say they are standing behind a principle that the President should not get to name the Supreme Court Justice in his final year. That principle has no history, no precedent, and is virtually impossible to defend.

I would suggest a different principle to my Republican colleagues. Since Judge Merrick Garland is unquestionably qualified and you clearly would vote to confirm him under the next President, why wait? Why not vote to confirm him under this President? Failing to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court means there will be over 1 year from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia until a successor is chosen. The only time in history when the Senate left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for that period of time--1 year or more--was during the Civil War when we were literally at war with one another in the United States. If that is the only time that ever happened, there is no excuse for us to let it happen again at this moment in our history.

To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, do your job. Fill this vacancy. Meet your constitutional responsibility. For-Profit Colleges and Universities

Mr. President, on Friday the Department of Education released its latest proposals for new regulations on borrower relief when a school engages in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct. The proposals will be debated this week at the third negotiated rulemaking session as part of the formal rulemaking process.

I want to speak about one of the issues addressed in the latest proposal from the Department of Education--the use of mandatory arbitration in enrollment contracts by institutions of higher education. These clauses, which for-profit colleges and universities often bury in fine print, prevent students from bringing suit against a school in court as an individual and often as part of a class action. It means, for example, that if a student applying to a school is deceived and misled by that school as to the degree they will receive or the job they will qualify for, they can't bring a legal action in court against the school. Instead, the student is forced into a secret proceeding where the deck is stacked against him. It allows schools to avoid accountability for their misconduct and prevents misconduct from coming to the attention of Federal regulators.

While nearly unheard of in not-for-profit institutions--think about public universities and private, not-for-profit colleges--mandatory arbitration has now become virtually standard in for-profit colleges and is used by all of the majors, such as the University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and DeVry University, just to name a few. It was also used by Corinthian. Corinthian, another for-profit college, made sure that if their students signed up for a contract with the school, they signed this arbitration clause which eliminated the student's day in court.

I was pleased when the Department, in its latest proposal for current rulemaking, included an option for banning the use of mandatory arbitration by all institutions receiving Federal title IV dollars. I thank the Department for including it in its proposal.

I also want to take a moment to discuss ITT Tech. ITT Tech is another for-profit college that is under scrutiny by Federal and State regulators. Last year the Department of Education found that the company, ITT, failed to meet its fiduciary duty to the Department and failed to meet the standards of administrative capability required of institutions under title IV, and they placed restrictions on ITT. The Department then required ITT Tech to pay nearly $80 million to be kept in escrow to guard against the potential collapse of this for-profit school. The company is under investigation by 18 State attorneys general related to deceptive marketing. This is deceptive marketing of college students who are being misled into signing expensive tuition contracts with this school.

The New Mexico attorney general found that ITT Tech placed students into loans without the knowledge of the students, falsely stated the number of credits a student had to take in order to push them into more debt, failed to issue refunds of tuition and fees in compliance with Federal law, and a variety of other deceptive practices. If that wasn't enough, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is also suing the company for predatory lending.

This is the exploitation of college students. This is piling up debt.

We have to frequently remind ourselves of the basics. Ten percent of the students in college are in for-profit colleges and universities. Among those are the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan, and ITT Tech. Out of that 10 percent, 40 percent of all student loan defaults are from students in the for-profit colleges and universities.

How is it that 10 percent of the students in for-profit schools account for 40 percent of all student loan defaults?

First, the students go too deep in debt. These for-profit schools are way too expensive. Second, when the students can't keep up with the debt they are accumulating, they drop out, and when they drop out, it is the worst of both worlds. They don't even have a diploma from the for-profit school, and they still have a debt. Third, if they hang around long enough and finish and get a diploma from these for-profit schools, they find out many times they are worthless. Forty percent of the loan defaults are from students who attended for-profit colleges and universities. These schools are coercing students into high-cost loans with interest rates as high as 16 percent and more, and they misrepresent future job prospects to them.

Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suing the company, ITT, and two of its executives, Kevin Modany, its CEO, and Daniel Fitzpatrick, its CFO, personally for concealing the poor performance of private institutional student loans from investors.

Behind all of this scrutiny by Federal and State regulators are students who have been harmed irreparably. According to a recent Brookings study, ITT Tech students cumulatively owe more than $4.6 billion in Federal student loans.

How much is being paid back on this cumulative debt? According to the study, negative 1 percent of the balance has been repaid in 2014. What does it mean? How can it be a negative number? Simple--the interest on this accumulative debt is occurring faster than it can be paid off by the students. Individual students often have no chance of paying back this personal debt when they have taken out a loan and end up with a worthless degree from ITT Tech.

What responsibility do we have as a government when it comes to these schools that are deceiving students, dragging them into debt, and then watching as they default? We have a major responsibility. For-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America today. We have all heard the term ``crony capitalism.'' It couldn't apply more aptly to for-profit colleges and universities. Most of their revenues don't come from students and families--only indirectly. Most of their revenue comes through the Federal Treasury in the form of government loans that end up in the pockets of the owners of these for-profit colleges and universities.

More than half the students who left ITT in 2009 are in default on their student loans 5 years later--half.

One former student of ITT Tech is Marcus Willis from Illinois. He was aggressively recruited by ITT Tech with multiple phone calls each day. He finally signed up for classes. He graduated in 2003 from ITT Tech and spent months unable to find a job. When talking about his debt, Marcus said:

It's too much to even keep track of. I will never, ever be able to pay it back.

He said that he ``wouldn't wish ITT Tech on his worst enemy.''

Despite all the lawsuits, the scandal, and students like Marcus, January was a big month for ITT Tech executives Kevin Modany and Daniel Fitzpatrick. They both got big bonus checks. Modany received $515,000 and Fitzpatrick received $112,000. They can expect more. In 2014, Mr. Modany was paid more than $3 million. These are the same two who the SEC says violated numerous Federal securities laws in a fraudulent scheme to hide information from investors. But ITT Tech's board looks the other way. Instead of penalizing or dismissing them, they give them a bonus. ITT Tech investors have a right to be outraged.

Current and former ITT Tech students are also outraged. The Federal taxpayers should be outraged too. You see, ITT Tech receives 80 percent of its revenue from Federal student aid funds. Nearly $1 billion a year comes from the Federal Treasury, and even more than that when you count the money they take in from VA, GI bills, and the Department of Defense tuition assistance funding.

Recently, I sent a letter to ITT Tech's accreditor, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, asking them what steps they were going to take to respond to this company's misconduct and shaky financial situation. They responded last week that they have required ITT Tech to submit teach-out plans to ensure that students can continue their education at other institutions should the company fail. Incidentally, the other institutions are probably going to be more for- profit schools. So they transfer the kids from one failing for-profit to another questionable for-profit college.

They also told me that they will assess ITT Tech's financial stability, education quality, and program integrity when they get together in April.

I encourage the council which accredited Corinthian, which is now out of business, to make sure they take a hard look at ITT Tech. The writing is on the wall. There are reports that the University of Akron may be interested in buying this questionable college. I will be watching this development carefully to ensure that any potential transaction is in the best interest of students, their families, and taxpayers. Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act

Mr. President, mental health conditions affect one out of five American adults. Yet this disease continues to be stigmatized, undertreated, and reduced to second-class status when it comes to certain health care benefits. Just like any other physical health disease, mental health conditions require a dedicated treatment plan and support for full recovery.

I still remember years ago, when Paul Wellstone, who used to sit right back there, and Pete Domenici, who sat over there, were in the Senate. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was a Democrat, and Pete Domenici of New Mexico was a Republican--what an unlikely pair. They came together because each of them had family experiences with mental health. What they tried to do--and successfully did--was to include in all of our health insurance plans coverage for mental health counseling as well as substance abuse treatment. It became standard. When we passed ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, it was built into health insurance policies. I have heard Members stand here and say: I am getting rid of ObamaCare. We are going to vote against it and make that go away. When they say that, we need to ask them: Will the coverage for mental health conditions go away too? How about the coverage for substance abuse treatment, will that coverage go away too?

This change made a big difference. It was a huge step in the right direction to expand access to mental counseling. We have to further eliminate barriers to treatment.

Last week, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, authorizing several important programs to help people deal with mental health and substance abuse issues. I supported it because it was a step in the right direction. We know that approximately 44 million Americans experience some sort of brain health or mental illness issue during the year, and millions don't receive treatment or support. This need for mental health services is especially dire with one group of Americans.

How often in your life experience have you noticed a young man or woman go off to college and for the first time ever manifest some serious mental health issues? I have seen it with frequency, and I know that many schools struggle with it.

Studies have shown that one-half of all chronic mental illness begins by age 14 and three-fourths by age 24. College students can face stress in new academic surroundings and new social environments. Many of them are away from home for the first time, and mental health concerns start to manifest. Despite this, colleges and universities have limited resources to deal with it. The ratio of counselors to students far exceeds recommended levels, preventing colleges and universities from identifying the most at-risk students.

Right now, we are seeing a huge disparity between reported mental health needs and services being provided. In one nationwide study, 57 percent of students reported having felt overwhelming anxiety, 35 percent felt so depressed it was difficult to function, and 48 percent felt hopeless. Now, I remember some bad nights and bad mornings when facing a tough test, but we are talking about young people who have gone beyond that. They are facing some serious personal challenges.

Only 10 percent of enrolled students seek any kind of counseling. This means that too many are slipping through the cracks and too many are not receiving treatment for mental illness. This can have tragic results.

While millions of Americans suffer from serious mental illness, a very small statistical group engages in violence against themselves or others. We have examples of what happens when someone dealing with mental illness becomes violent. There was a horrific tragedy in 2008 on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Six people died in a school shooting as a result of someone suffering from mental illness. Their families were changed forever, and so was the campus.

Not all mental health emergencies grab national headlines. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 34. We can't ignore the silent suffering of millions of Americans, including many young people. That is why I have joined with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, and Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat of Colorado, to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve mental health services on college campuses, expanding outreach and counseling and tackling the mental health illness stigma. I am happy to partner with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois in introducing this legislation.

Our bill, the Mental Health on Campus Improvement Act, will support colleges and universities by giving them resources to better support the mental health needs of their students. It establishes a grant program to provide direct mental health services and outreach. Our bill will also increase awareness and treatment by promoting peer support training and engagement with campus groups. It launches a national education campaign to reduce the stigma, encourage identification of risk, and enhance the conversation about mental health and seeking help.

This bill is sponsored by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Psychology Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Chicago, and the American College Health Association, among others.

This morning this legislation was adopted by a voice vote as an amendment to the Cassidy-Murphy Mental Health Reform Act in the HELP Committee.

I thank Senators Collins and Bennet for their efforts to advance the bill. I also thank Senators Cassidy, Murphy, Murray, and Alexander for working with us to ensure this important provision was included in the larger bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan measure. I also know there is a lot of interest in addressing barriers to treatment in Medicaid, known as the IMD exclusion, which is under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I will continue to push a bill that I cosponsored with Senator King of Maine, the Medicaid Care Act, which expands access to treatment and coverage.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source