Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 2\1/2\ years ago, a native of my home State of Illinois and a veteran of the U.S. Navy, Mark Frerichs, was abducted by the Taliban or one of its affiliates in Afghanistan. He was working there as a contractor, and his disappearance was devastating to his family back in Lombard, IL. Senator Duckworth and I have spent countless hours and staff hours working with his family trying to find out what happened to Mark. We spoke to his sister Charlene and repeatedly raised his case with both the Trump and Biden administrations. We wanted to let them know we cared, and we joined the family on that course. Well, today, the family's prayers have been answered. The news was released that Mark is coming home. I want to commend President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and their teams for never giving up on Mark and ultimately securing his freedom. His sister Charlene said upon news of her brother's release that ``[w]e never gave up hope that he would survive and come home safely to us.'' She was right. And Mark was so fortunate to have her as his steadfast champion. Welcome home, Mark Frerichs.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 that I be permitted to complete my remarks before the rollcall.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, September 9, 2021, over a year ago, was supposed to be a historic day in America's efforts to stop the purveyors of candy- and fruit-flavored e-cigarettes from preying on America's kids. September 9, 2021, was the deadline, and it was set by a Federal judge for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to finally-- finally--clear its enormous backlog of applications from e-cigarette companies seeking to sell their products in America. Companies that can prove that their vaping products are, in fact, ``appropriate for the protection of public health,'' they can go ahead and sell their products legally, but e-cigarette products can't meet that standard. They can't demonstrate a benefit to public health. Vaping, as we know, is dangerous and addictive, and these companies, like the tobacco companies of years gone by, are preying on our children. FDA had a legal mandate to ban these products from U.S. markets on September 9, 2021, but the Food and Drug Administration failed to meet the deadline--not by 1 day, not by 1 week, not even by 1 month. Last Friday marked the 1-year anniversary of the FDA's failure to meet this Federal court order. As of today, the FDA has completed reviews of about half of these e- cigarette products that represent a large share of the market. As a result of FDA's inaction, dangerous, kid-friendly e-cigarettes remain available on store shelves without FDA review or authorization. The cops are not on the beat. There are consequences to this action. The Truth Initiative is a nonprofit consortium of health groups that aims to protect young people from using tobacco. It estimates that, in the year since the FDA missed the court-ordered deadline to approve or reject e-cigarette applications, nearly 2\1/2\ million kids in America started using vaping products. Many of these young people will go on to develop nicotine addictions, with serious harm to their health. That is the human cost of this FDA failure. Now the FDA says: Well, we might be able to finish this by 2023, 2 years after the Federal court-ordered date. And that is not the only deadline the FDA has blown when it comes to protecting kids from nicotine. After parents and public health groups demanded the FDA take action against candy-flavored, nicotine-spiked e-cigarettes, the vaping industry came out with a brandnew miracle product designed to evade FDA jurisdiction: synthetic nicotine. Products like Puff Bar are incredibly popular with middle and high school students. These new synthetic nicotine products include all the health dangers of traditional e- cigarettes, none of the regulation. When Congress learned about this loophole, we changed the law to say that the FDA had jurisdiction over synthetic nicotine products. To make matters worse, even when the FDA does review a product and issues a denial, many e-cigarette companies just ignore them. It has reached a point that they are not viewed seriously. The No. 1 regulator of food and drugs in America, when it comes to protecting our kids from these deadly, addictive products, isn't viewed seriously. The FDA has the legal right and the legal authority to do so. They can pull these products off the shelves tomorrow. Yet, with respect to illegal e-cigarettes, they do nothing--nothing. Look, I understand they are understaffed. I understand they are underresourced. FDA is not currently authorized to collect user fees for e-cigarettes, as it does for so many other products. And Congress fails to appropriate the funds many times that they need. These are real problems, but they do not absolve the FDA of its repeated failure to effectively regulate e-cigarettes. I am at my wits' end when FDA continues to miss these court-ordered deadlines, fails to enforce orders, and shows a lack of urgency when it comes to vaping products. Last week, I asked Health and Human Services Secretary Becerra to step in. If FDA cannot or will not do its job, then it is time for the lead Agency, Health and Human Services, to take a more active role. The FDA cannot continue to let unscrupulous e-cigarette companies flout the law and put their own profits ahead of the health of our kids. This has to stop.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Lara Montecalvo to serve on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Montecalvo has significant litigation experience at both the trial and appellate level and will be an outstanding addition to the bench. She attended Swarthmore College and Boston College Law School. Ms. Montecalvo then worked in the Justice Department's Tax Division as a trial attorney. In 2004, Ms. Montecalvo began working in the Rhode Island Public Defender's Office. She became the Rhode Island Public Defender in 2020. As a DOJ trial attorney and as a State public defender, Ms. Montecalvo gained experience in both State and Federal court. She has tried more than 20 cases to verdict, including 15 as sole counsel. In addition, she has personally handled more than 80 appeals. The American Bar Association rated her ``well qualified'' to serve on the First Circuit, and she has the strong support of Senators Reed and Whitehouse. Ms. Montecalvo has shown that she is committed to equal justice. I will be supporting her and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like you, I am proud to represent the city of Chicago. On Friday, returning back home to Chicago, I had a chance to see the best of that great city. I traveled to the Salvation Army Freedom Center in Humboldt Park, in the city of Chicago, where residents from around our city have come together to welcome the families who are seeking refuge in America. Our city's agencies, State agencies, members of the faith community, and kind families have stepped up to provide supplies--the basics: clothing and such--and a safe place to sleep for many of these people who have come to America. These modest acts of generosity have changed everything for the families who have arrived at that Salvation Army Freedom Center because, for the first time in months, they feel safe and secure. And that is exactly why they left their home in the first place: to survive. In Chicago, we are honored to offer a warm, welcoming hand to these families escaping unimaginable circumstances because in them we see ourselves, we see America, we see our history as a nation. And for me, personally, I see my own family. Back in 1911, a young Lithuanian woman set sail for America. She carried two things with her: her Catholic prayer book, published the year before the Czars outlawed it in the nation of Lithuania; and her 2-year-old daughter Ona, my mother. More than a century stands between my mother's arrival in America and the arrival of families I met Friday, but in many ways it is the same story. America opened its doors to my family all those years ago and gave us a chance to find a place for a new land of opportunity. Today, it is our responsibility to welcome families fleeing violence and persecution, families seeking nothing more than safety and a fair shot. This is fundamental to who we are as Americans, but, sadly, it seems that some in politics think otherwise. You see, there is a reason these families arrived in Chicago, and it is not because they booked a bus on their own accord. It is because the Governor of Texas has chosen to exploit this humanitarian challenge to score political points. When these families arrived at our Nation's border seeking asylum, what did the Governor of Texas do? He didn't help. He took advantage of the fear and confusion. He rounded these families up, boarded them onto a bus, and shipped them to cities like Chicago and New York without even telling them where they were headed and without any consultation with their destination States. This is cruelty of the highest degree. The Governor of Texas didn't provide any notice to Illinois or Chicago. He bused them to our Union Station downtown, nearly 1,500 miles away from their Texas border, without sending as much as a text message in advance. No logic. No rationale. Just plain meanness. Look, we can have reasonable disagreements about how to address the situation at our Nation's border, but there is no excuse for playing games with human lives. It is not the first time. Sadly, it is the playbook for many of the other party. You will recall when President Trump, the nominee or candidate, stood up and said they are all murderers and rapists coming in from Mexico, or do you remember when more than a thousand children--infants and toddlers--were separated from their parents at the border? Some of them are still adrift, never being reunited with their families. One of the people I met on Friday was a man named Carlos. He and his wife are from Venezuela, a country with an economic and political crisis so severe that their family feared persecution and was on the brink of starvation, even though Carlos was a hard worker, always looking for a job. So on May 15--May 15--Carlos and his wife did what they needed to do. Imagine this, if you will. They picked up their two children--a 5-year- old little girl and a 1-year-old infant--and set out on a trip to the United States. They set out on foot to reach the Texas-Mexico border. Their journey was a nightmare: violence, theft, and exploitation. Carlos told me that at one point he thought he would die, with his wife and kids forced to spend nine nights in a Panamanian jungle. They were finally rescued by a local military force, but they had lost all their money, their cell phones. Everything had been stolen. They didn't quit. They were determined, slowly making their way across Central America, primarily on foot, stopping from time to time. Carlos said: I would take any work they would give me. I would sell things on the street--whatever it was--to feed my family. It took 4 long months for them to reach our Nation's border, and they had no destination in mind when they arrived, no contacts. They simply followed instructions, and then they were placed on a bus by the Governor of Texas that took them to the city of Chicago. Carlos had no intention of ending up in this great city when he and his family arrived in America, but he told me, with real gratitude, that he wanted to stay in Chicago. I warned him to get ready for the winter. They have been amazed by the welcome they have received from the Salvation Army and from so many others--Catholic Charities and other groups--that stepped up to help. That is a similar sentiment I heard expressed by another man I met on Friday, William. William is 42 years old. He sat down next to me as I was talking to this family. I thought he was a translator. He happily listened to the conversation back-and-forth. Finally, I turned to him and said: So what is your story? Again, he left Venezuela, left his family behind, and is hoping to get some work here so he can send some money back to his family. We talked about what he would do, and it was literally anything; he would take any job. I asked him if he had any family or friends in the United States. You know what he told me? He said: ``I have you.'' Before I left on Friday, both Carlos and William had something else to say to me. They both asked me the same question: When can I go to work? It should be a simple answer because the reality is they are legally in the country now awaiting a hearing on their ultimate status. That hearing could be a matter of months or years. And there are no shortage of work opportunities in Chicago and all across the country. Plenty of businesses--restaurants, entertainment venues, nursing homes, landscaping--all of them would be happy to hire them, but under the law, currently, they cannot do that because asylum seekers like Carlos and William could be years away from the final determination of their status in America. They are at least prohibited for the first 6 months from taking any kind of legal employment in the United States. How did that happen? We let them in the country. Yet we wouldn't even allow them to work to feed their families. Well, you won't be surprised to know that was a decision by the Trump administration. This administration of President Biden is trying to change it, but, in the meantime, they are faced with a horrible dilemma, a Jean Valjean moment if there ever was one--when they are trying to find some way to feed their families, but if they take a job and are paid for it in any way, they risk deportation. This is yet another example of a broken immigration system. The system has failed not just these families but our Nation's economy as well. We have 10 million unfilled jobs in this country. We have 5 million unemployed Americans. There are jobs in every direction. A leading restauranteur in Chicago, whom the Presiding Officer knows very well, said to me: If you took the undocumented workers out of the restaurants in Chicago, you would turn out the lights. Behind those swinging doors in each of those restaurants are undocumented people doing the hard work: the dishwashing, the food prep and cleanup that is part of being a restaurant. And the same thing is true when we talk about other areas. I had a visit from the Farm Bureau of Illinois, and they told me just pointblank: We are desperate for workers, for migrant workers, to pick the crops at Alto Pass orchards in Southern Illinois, to work in the dairy farms and dairy operations in Northwestern Illinois. In every direction, they need these workers, and they need them now-- farm workers, ag workers. And it isn't just in the Midwest. It is across the Nation, and yet we don't have a system that allows for these people to come to this country and to legally work. It doesn't make any sense. Now, of course, there are standards we ought to apply. They shouldn't be offered any job that hasn't been offered first to an American. That is our first obligation. I get it. And we ought to make sure that if they are going to be here, they are good people. I don't believe we should knowingly allow any dangerous person to come into this country or to stay. If they are guilty of crimes while they are here, they should be punished and deported, period. The standards we should establish should keep our country safe, first and foremost. But, secondly, we have seen over the past 4 years, under the previous President, a complete downturn in the immigrants coming into this country to work, and that is why there are so many shortages in our current workforce. We can do better, and we should do better. And there is a problem we have that is very fundamental. Our Nation's birth rate is not keeping up with our demands for new workers. We have to accept that reality, particularly when it comes to entry level positions. We are a nation desperate for workers, particularly young, able- bodied people like those two men that I met. But we can't put them to work under the law as it stands today. How does that make any sense? It is the same story for millions of people living throughout our hemisphere. Even though American employers should be willing to sponsor them, there are few, viable legal immigration pathways to bring them to America, and, as a result, the arduous journey to the Mexican-American border is the only option they have. I will be the first to agree with my colleagues on the other side in saying we need an orderly process at the border, and we do not have it today. I am chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have the responsibility of writing the laws on immigration. And you say to yourself: Well, Senator, why haven't you done it? And I can tell you why: Because our committee is evenly divided--11 Democrats, 11 Republicans, as is the Senate, 50-50--making it extremely difficult to pass anything controversial. It was 7 or 8 years ago when we put together a group of 8 Senators--4 Democrats, 4 Republicans. I was glad to be part of forming that group. John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, and Jeff Flake were on the Republican side; and on the Democratic side: myself, Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, and Michael Bennet. We put together a comprehensive immigration bill and called it on the floor of the Senate here, and it passed with 68 votes. We were elated. We finally found that sweet spot, that agreement. Oh, we said to President Trump: We will build some more of your wall. And I had second thoughts about that. But if that is what it took, we had an agreement for a comprehensive bill. We passed it in the Senate and sent it over to the House of Representatives, and under Paul Ryan's Republican leadership, they refused to call it or consider it. It died, and nothing--nothing--has been done ever since. In fact, nothing has been done for 30 years, when it comes to the immigration laws of this country. Is it any wonder the problems we face? We need an orderly process. We need to make sure that no dangerous person is going to come into this process and do our level best to keep them out. And we need to accept one reality, and that is that we cannot accept everyone in the world who wants to come to America tomorrow. The numbers are overwhelming. We have to have an orderly process and bring those people in that help us grow as a nation. Imagine, if you will--I thought about it from time to time in my own family--sitting down in a small town--a small village then--in Lithuania. Jurbarkas was the name of the village. I can't imagine what it was like over 100 years ago, when my grandfather sat down with my grandmother and said: We are leaving for America. We are going to the land of opportunity. We are going to a place called East St. Louis, IL--which is where I was born. Imagine that decision--leaving your home, your church, your relatives, everything behind, and going to a land where you don't speak the language. It sounds like an incredible decision on their part, and I marvel today that they even did it. A lot of the people around them in their same village must have said: Oh, that family, the Kutkaite family, they will be back. They weren't. They came here. They endured, and because of that endurance and determination, I am standing here today. That kind of spirit in the DNA of people who are willing to sacrifice everything to be part of America is something we should not dismiss. This is not a selfish decision on the part of the heads of those families. This is a selfless decision. For their family, they are willing to risk everything to come to this country. Now, we need an orderly process to bring them into this country, as needed, in the right fashion, and I believe we can achieve that. But, unfortunately, politically, we are stopped at the moment. I am going to continue to work to try to find some bipartisan approach to this which will solve this problem. Our Nation's immigration system should reward hard work and the determination that these people have to be in America. Instead of exploiting families who are fleeing for their lives, we should all work together to create a system that reflects the best values of America. We are a nation of immigrants. Our diversity is our strength. Those who say we need some kind of ethnic purity are aspiring to a goal which does not serve us well. We have done just the opposite. We have taken people from different sections of the world and brought them together into the American family, and that is what is important for our future as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate is poised to confirm another outstanding judicial nominee: Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Mendoza is a highly experienced jurist with a lifelong commitment to public and community service. After graduating from the University of Washington and UCLA School of Law, Judge Mendoza joined the office of the Franklin County, WA prosecuting attorney, where he handled a range of felony and misdemeanor cases. Following this role, Judge Mendoza entered private legal practice, simultaneously serving as a judge pro tempore on various Washington State municipal, district, and juvenile courts. He then served 2 years on the Washington State superior court. In 2014, President Obama nominated Judge Mendoza to the Eastern District of Washington, and the Senate confirmed him on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 92-4. Judge Mendoza has distinguished himself on the bench, presiding over dozens of trials and demonstrating evenhandedness and impartiality in all matters that have come before him. And once confirmed, Judge Mendoza will be the first judge of Hispanic origin to sit on a Washington seat on the Ninth Circuit. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Mendoza ``well qualified,'' and he enjoys the strong support of his home State Senators, Mrs. Murray and Ms. Cantwell. I will support Judge Mendoza's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Socialism. This is all about socialism. I listened very carefully to my friend from Texas, and he is my friend--we work together on many things--and he believes the downfall of America is the advent of socialism. Well, I am not sure what that label means to him, but I want to take a look at some of the areas that he made a comment on. He thinks it is socialist for us to expand the coverage of the Affordable Care Act. We are down to 8 percent of Americans without health insurance--8 percent. The goal is zero. We may never reach it. We have dramatically decreased the number of Americans without health insurance. Have you ever lived in a situation where you didn't have health insurance, when you are a new father of a baby with a health problem and no health insurance? I have been there. You don't want to go to that place. We want to give everybody the peace of mind that they have quality healthcare available to them. Is that socialism? Is that the government making the decision that you are going to have health insurance? I don't think so. Right-thinking people across this country, regardless of political stripe, believe that health insurance is critical for a happy and healthy family. He used the term--he said Medicare is a socialist objective. Ha. Try that one on for size in any State. Run your campaign on getting rid of Medicare and see how it works. I can tell you what the result will be. Medicare, over the last 60 years, has liberated senior citizens in America so that they can live longer and live independently and have quality care through the later years of their lives. Socialism? The government knows better? It is a program which people value, just like Social Security. I hope people won't brand that as socialism. Many did when it was created. These are programs that families count on, real families. These programs are not socialist; they are as American as can be. The student loan program? I support what President Biden did. I might have done it a little differently. But the fact that he is tagging that student loan forgiveness to the wealth of the individual and family is the right thing to do. A $10,000 student loan forgiven for those with individual income below $125,000 a year--that is not unreasonable. That means that middle-class and lower income kids are going to have $10,000 of their student loan forgiven. If they happen to be on Pell grants, which means they really were low-income families when they went to school, they get an additional $10,000. I hear all this lamenting and whining and crying of socialism. Where in the heck was this comment about socialism when we were giving out PPP loans all across America by the thousands? It turns out that some of the harshest Republican critics of student loan forgiveness took out PPP loans. Do you know what that meant? They were forgiven. They didn't have to pay them back. It was OK when they were receiving the money, these conservative Republicans, but the idea of some student burdened with student loans having loan forgiveness is socialism. Not where I am standing. Now, I also want to say something about fiscal responsibility. Do you know, after the reconciliation bill, after the Inflation Reduction Act, how much we will reduce the deficit this year? One-point-seven trillion dollars. How did we achieve this? Well, we achieved it by saying we are going to establish a minimum tax for certain corporations. Which ones? Corporations that showed an average of $1 billion a year in net profit--average of $1 billion in net profit a year--over a 3-year period of time will finally have to pay some Federal income tax. Is that too much to ask? Is that socialism? No. It is fairness. In terms of the EV socialism, this is one where Senators ought to take care. When they give speeches on the floor about electric vehicles and electrification, they are basically betting that the future is going to be a lot different than I see it. Why do we have so many electric vehicles? Well, it must be a Federal mandate. No, it wasn't. It was a decision by the private sector to build electric vehicles and make that the future of transportation in America. Take a look at Ford Motor Company. We had one of the Ford family come and tell us this story. They made a decision that electric vehicles were part of their future, a big part of their future, and they made a marketing move that I thought was genius. What were the first two vehicles they electrified and advertised? One was the Ford F-150 Lightning--the most popular pickup truck in America. A lot of White males drive those around. I am sure the Presiding Officer knows a couple. I drive one myself. They are going to electrify that vehicle, and they can't produce them fast enough to meet the demand. So the people who many Republicans feel are the national allies on this subject are waiting in line to buy a Lightning, an F-150. Then what was the other car they were going to electrify? A Mustang. Well, I just want to tell you that certain age groups still dream about Mustangs. I can remember in 1964 when they put them on the market for the first time. They are going to electrify them. These cars are wildly popular, and they can't build them fast enough. So the Republicans who are betting that this is just a fad and it is going to go away are dead wrong on this. The private sector's production of automobiles is moving toward electric vehicles in a big way, and it is going to happen. I would say the Republicans who believe it is pure socialism to have electric vehicles in our future should get out of the way because those electric vehicles are going to run all over you in no time at all. Also, this idea of 87,000 IRS agents was invented by one Senator who came to the floor and made his calculation. It was like the death squads. They pick up a phrase, and they say this is the reality--87,000 IRS agents. That isn't even close to the truth. What we know is this: The vast majority of Americans and American families pay their taxes legally and on time, and they should be respected for doing that. Who we are looking for are the people who don't do that--either don't pay their taxes or don't pay what they owe. Those people are not accepting their fair share of responsibility for this Nation's future. The IRS has been starved in the past of basic things-- computerization, for example, and agents to do audits. The President has made it clear that his target is never going to be working families. His target is those who are defying the law and defying the system of taxation. He believes they should pay their fair share, and I couldn't agree with him more. In terms of this idea--of this socialist mantra--that we know better, that the government knows better, it is interesting when it comes to personal liberty and freedom. When you get into another area, like the reproductive freedom for women, exactly the opposite position is being taken by many people on the other side of the aisle. Here is the point I want to make: We considered the reconciliation bill just a few weeks ago. We had 41 straight rollcalls. I know because I was on the floor for every one of them. At the end of the day, we passed the reconciliation bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. What has happened since? Well, if you want to call it socialism, let me tell you what our socialist moves have done so far. Tomorrow, President Joseph Biden is going to New Albany, OH, to join the CEO of Intel in breaking ground on a new multibillion-dollar semiconductor plant. It is one of the largest investments of its kind in American history, and it is going to create thousands of good-paying jobs for construction workers and engineers. Over the next decade, Intel plans to transform New Albany into one of the largest semiconductor manufacturing sites in the world. That is a big shift from the days when we shipped microchip production overseas to Asia. Socialism? Is this Joe Biden's brand of socialism to open up a plant that finally is going to make computer chips, which are absolutely essential to the growth of our economy? This investment in America's future was made possible by the CHIPS and Science Act, and I want to give credit where it is due. There were some Republicans who stepped forward and joined us in that effort. I wish there would have been more. I wish they all would have been with us in this effort. We believed--and the President backed us up--that if we were going to make this investment in semiconductor chips for our future, America was going to be there. I don't think that was inspired by socialism; that was inspired by common sense. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that, in the weeks since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law--and that is the one with 41 rollcalls--companies throughout the country have unveiled ``a series of big-ticket projects to kick-start our clean energy future.'' Socialism--a future that will be made in America by American workers? I would like to remind everyone that we passed that law without a single Republican vote. Not one Republican Senator would join us in this effort. Well, what has happened in the 4 weeks since we passed it? Well, Toyota announced it is going to invest billions of dollars in manufacturing batteries for those electric and hybrid vehicles here in America. That has happened since we passed the bill. One solar company, named First Solar, announced another billion- dollar investment to build a new facility in the Southeast. Socialism? Honda, LG, Samsung--all of them announced billions of dollars in investments to make components for electric vehicles right here in America. In West Virginia, one company plans to build a nearly 500,000-square foot electric battery factory. And who is going to be working in it? Well, they are targeting laid-off coal miners. They want to put them to work first. Socialism? Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, these jobs aren't going overseas anymore. They are staying right here in America. New manufacturing projects are lighting up across the country, like a constellation of hope, marking a new era of renewal and renaissance for American families. I am glad to say that a big piece of it is taking place in the Midwest. Earlier this week, in my home State of Illinois, the company T/CCI announced it is going to invest millions of dollars into retooling its facility in Decatur, IL, to make compressors for--hold onto your socialist hat--electric vehicles. Here they come again. And our Governor, Pritzker, announced that the State will work alongside Richland Community College to establish a climate center for innovation and research--an innovation hub. Socialism? This is a chance for the Decatur community to play its part in an electric vehicle revolution. Most importantly, once again, these investments are going to create good-paying jobs right here in America. For cities like Decatur, this is a lifeline. It wasn't that long ago that the city was struggling with population decline. Now it is a new story. Under President Biden and a Democratic Congress, we are leaving no town behind. We are investing in the future of every community from Chicago to Decatur. In doing so, we are honoring America's history as the land of opportunity. There is a statue in downtown Decatur. It is a site where it says that a 21-year-old, barefoot Abraham Lincoln delivered his very first political speech supporting the Whig platform. Just 2 years after that speech, Lincoln announced his first campaign for public office in my home county of Sangamon. He ran for the legislature. So, as we celebrate the new funding for jobs and development coming to cities like Decatur, I find it interesting that one of the first policies Lincoln supported was known as internal improvements. He announced at his first run for office: Time and experience have verified to a demonstration, the public utility of internal improvements. That the poorest and most thinly populated countries would be greatly benefitted by the opening of good roads, and in the clearing of navigable streams within their limits, is what no person will deny. The challenges we face in America today are more sophisticated, but we also passed an infrastructure bill, the largest in the history of the United States. Under the previous President, Donald Trump, he promised every week was going to be infrastructure week. Unfortunately, his response was so weak there was never an infrastructure week--never during his Presidency--and that is a fact. President Biden turned that around, and we passed an infrastructure bill that is putting America back to work, as it should. It is about time. For decades, the Republicans have prayed to the altar of trickle-down economics. They call every initiative that we have on the Democratic side socialism: Social Security, socialism; Medicare, socialism; this idea of leading into the electric vehicle revolution, socialism; the government knows best. Well, I will tell you they are wrong. What we see is leadership and leadership that is long overdue. We can't leave working families behind in this country. Four decades of cutting taxes for the rich on some wild theory that this was somehow going to lift all boats just turned out to be false. I will tell you this: Roads and bridges crumbling beneath our feet, generations of good-paying jobs going overseas, the world's wealthiest trying to save a few bucks, and skyrocketing economic inequality is not American. Fixing it is not socialism; it is just fairness. The last President spent 4 years declaring infrastructure week but had nothing to show for it. In less than 2 years, President Biden and the Democrats have delivered on their promise of rebuilding America and putting American workers back to work. We have had the largest growth and job creation--ever in the history of the United States--in the last year and a half under President Biden, and 660,000 of those jobs are manufacturing jobs--real jobs with a good paycheck. We are investing in the interest of industries of the future. More importantly, we are investing in American families. The policies we have enacted during this Congress are going to help move America forward. Together, they represent a new vision for America's future: roads and bridges, microchips, wind turbines, deep research into advanced technologies like quantum computing. What does it mean for the American people? Take a look at the auto industry. Today, the industry, which with Barack Obama as President was saved despite Republican opposition, is an industry in which major manufacturers are betting big on its electric future. Members of the Republican Senate caucus may not see electric vehicles in the future, but they have closed their eyes if they are in that position. With the infrastructure package, we are going to create good, good jobs--union jobs--of fixing and building our roads and installing charging stations all across America. With the CHIPS and Science Act, we are shoring up the domestic supply of semiconductors so we can assemble the next generation of electric vehicles in American factories. That chips bill also authorized billions of dollars in funding for scientific research--laboratories like Argonne and Fermilab. This research even has the potential to unlock new discoveries in battery technology. Now, with the Inflation Reduction Act, we are making life more affordable for working families. That is not just to bring down costs of prescription drugs and energy bills; it will help lower the costs of American-made electric vehicles so more families can buy one. This is the Democratic platform in action: building products and components we depend on here at home, pioneering technology breakthroughs to change the world, and leveling the economy so that every family has a fighting chance. Thanks to the policies we have passed so far under the Biden administration, we are rolling. I do want to tell you this for the record: On my way to catch the plane at the airport in St. Louis earlier this week, I saw gasoline for sale at $3.46 a gallon. That is still high, but it is a heck of a lot better than the $5-plus we were paying just a few weeks ago. Is that socialism? I think it is the government at work, and this President has done everything he can to bring down the cost of living that families face. It is still a challenge. We haven't conquered it, but we are moving in the right direction, and this economy is moving in the right direction. I wish we could have had some Republican support for that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Andre Mathis to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Mathis is an outstanding nominee with extensive litigation experience and deep ties to the Tennessee legal community. Over the years, he has litigated hundreds of civil cases and has defended approximately 150 criminal cases as a member of the Criminal Justice Act panel in the Western District of Tennessee. Mr. Mathis has tried 19 cases to verdict or final judgment and has briefed 23 appeals. And if confirmed, he would be the first Black man to sit on the Sixth Circuit from Tennessee. Mr. Mathis was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, and he received a bipartisan vote in committee. Despite his extensive experience, some on the other side have questioned Mr. Mathis' credentials, as well as his confirmation process itself. Let's set the record straight. Mr. Mathis is highly qualified for this job. And any claim that there was no meaningful consultation between the White House and the Tennessee Senators on this vacancy is simply false. Over a period of 6 months, the White House asked the Tennessee Senators for proposed candidates, interviewed one such candidate, and made Mr. Mathis available to the Senators to conduct their own interviews. There is a clear record of good faith consultation regarding this vacancy, consultation that far exceeded that afforded by the Trump White House to several Democratic Senators. Remember, under the former President, Senate Republicans regularly supported circuit nominees who were nominated, even though the Trump White House did not seek any input from home-State Democratic Senators. I have said it many times: There cannot be one standard for Republicans and another for Democrats. With Mr. Mathis' nomination, this Senate has an historic opportunity to confirm a lifelong Tennessean and a person of outstanding credentials and integrity to serve the community that raised him. I look forward to supporting him and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have two request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 8, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 8, 2022, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, October 4, 1957. Many in the Chamber were not alive at that date. I was. I was a teenager, maybe in high school, just starting, or at the end of grade school. But it was a big day in the history of the world, October 4, 1957, because at 7:28 p.m. at night, the Russians launched Sputnik. Sputnik was a basketball-size satellite, and we were concerned because we believed the Russians--then the Soviet Union--had the capacity to drop an atomic or nuclear bomb on the United States, and if they could do it from space, for goodness' sake, how would we defend ourselves? So a mild panic hit America, particularly in this town of Washington, and out of that panic came a pretty good idea, as far as I was concerned. They decided that for the first time in the history of the United States, we would start loaning money to college-age students so they could go to college. The notion was, if we had to fight the Russians or the Soviets in technology, we better have people educated and prepared to do it. So someone who in those days sat down and wrote up the names of these wonderful ideas came up with a great one. It was called the National Defense Education Act. The National Defense Education Act said that those who applied for Federal college loans could borrow money and pay it back at 3 percent interest but not have to pay until 1 year out of college, and then they had 10 years to pay it off. I didn't know at the time, but that turned out to be my ticket to college. There was no way that my family could afford to send me, nor could I afford to go to school at good schools from any money that I had saved or could earn during the summer. It was the government loans that got me through it. And I wasn't alone. By the tens of thousands, students all over the United States took out these National Defense Education Act loans. Well, what happened as a result of that idea that we could educate ourselves out of this problem? It worked. It worked dramatically. In the early 1960s, there was this explosive expansion of our economy, of technology and research and scientific endeavors that we took advantage of for decades and still do to this day. I think about the race to the Moon and all the other things that we set our sights on, and they were all based on enough well-educated people at every level who could compete with countries around the world and do it successfully. So the concept is sound, and I think it was executed--not flawlessly, but very well--for myself and for many others, and I ended up borrowing that money to get through college and law school. The amount of debt if I even said it on the floor maybe would draw a laugh by the pages and everyone else because it was so small, but it was enough debt that it just scared me to death. It was the equivalent of 50 percent of my gross pay coming out of law school in 1 year. But most students today would accept that in a second: 50 percent of their gross wages in their first year as their student loan debt. The average is higher. The average is over $25,000, and for some students, it is almost astronomical what they end up borrowing. I can't even imagine the cost of colleges and law schools today and medical schools and dental schools and the debt that is involved--which leads me to the second point in history and I think it was sometime in the 1960s. Somebody wrote a story about student loan borrowers who went to medical school, finished medical school, then got their licenses to practice medicine with a pretty good opportunity to make some real money in life, but they had one more stop. They stopped at the bankruptcy court and they discharged their student loans in bankruptcy court and then went on to practice medicine. Well, that sounded like a pretty bad deal for the government who trusted them to get a degree and earn enough money to pay back the loan and in the fairness of this, that they wouldn't accept their responsibility. So someone dreamed up the idea that, well, let's make sure you cannot discharge your student loan in bankruptcy court. There are a handful of debts that you can incur that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court--but just a handful. Taxes that you owe the government, for example, I believe, are not dischargeable; money that you owe in divorce settlements and child support are not dischargeable; and a handful of other things. But otherwise, anything you can borrow money for, you can go to bankruptcy court and say, ``I want to walk away from all my debts,'' and achieve that goal. For example, if you had a mortgage on your home and you want to be discharged from paying off that mortgage, you can do it in bankruptcy court. You may or may not have any home left after it is discharged in bankruptcy, but it is a fact. If you borrow money to buy a boat, you can discharge that loan in bankruptcy. If you buy a car, you can discharge it in bankruptcy. A second home? Discharge it in bankruptcy. But when it came to student loans, we said because some of these people took advantage and didn't pay back their loans, we are not going to allow you to discharge it in bankruptcy. That ultimately meant that those who borrowed money to go to school or college when they were 19 or 20 years old, they would have a debt that they will have to pay back or carry it to the grave--literally, carry it to the grave. There was no way to get rid of it. So what happened? We know. A lot of people got too deeply in debt. It turned out that even the promise of a college diploma was not enough to meet their obligations, so they are deeply in debt. (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.) Now, Mr. President, let me mention a third category of things that started before the Presiding Officer arrived. There was Sputnik which changed the world and the National Defense Education Act; we went and changed the bankruptcy law and said that you can't discharge a student loan in bankruptcy. Now, let me introduce a third phenomenon. And I have done so before, but I want to give you two numbers, and I want you to get out your pens and pencils, and I want you to write them down because they are going to be on the final. OK? There are two numbers: 8 and 33--8 and 33. So when you see the question on the final of what percentage of college students go to for-profit colleges and universities, hold up your hand. It is 8 percent. Eight percent of college students go to for-profit colleges and universities. Those are the ones that are heavily advertised. You see them everywhere. Thirty-three. What percentage of all student loan defaults are students who went to for-profit colleges and universities? Thirty-three percent. Eight percent of the students have 33 percent of the student loan defaults. What is going on here? Why are those students so disproportionately defaulting on their student loan debt? They were misled into going into these schools that were worthless--worthless. You see ads on TV that show this lovely young lady. She was in her bedroom in her pajamas with a laptop computer saying, ``I am going to college.'' And you think to yourself: Get real. This isn't real college. This is a way to get you to pay too much in tuition for something that is basically worthless. And students do. Eight percent of college students do it. So the point I am making is, many of these students are deceived and duped into going to these colleges because of the promises they make about what these degrees are worth and how easy it is to acquire an associate's or bachelor's degree. So they are deeply in debt, and they can't find a job and take care of them. I will tell you the story of one of them in just a moment. But put those together, and that is why we need to do something about student loans in America. Yes, we need student loans in America. They are good for America and its economy. Should they be dischargeable in bankruptcy? I think, under some circumstances, they should be. If 10 years have passed and you still had a balance on your student loans and you were literally head over heels in debt, you ought to be able to discharge that in bankruptcy. You tried your best. Ten years is enough. That is one approach. But the other approach, President Biden has just suggested. That is why he issued a one-time student loan debt relief program to ease the college debt burden on middle- and lower- income families. Under the President's plan, the government will erase $10,000 in Federal student loan debt for some borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year. If you are married and file taxes jointly or head of household, you qualify if your income is $250,000 or less. If you received a Pell Grant while you were going to college--and those are for lower-income families--you could qualify for an extra $10,000 of student loan cancellation. Under the President's plan, 43 million Americans will receive some amount of debt cancellation. A majority of them--about 27 million borrowers--will see up to $20,000 knocked off their student loan balance. For 20 million borrowers, that is enough to totally wipe out their entire student loan balance. They literally can start again. They can consider going back to school--maybe even a good school that gives them the kind of training, education, or degree that really can lead to a better life. Or they can try to take another course of action. There are other approaches. I have got labor unions all over my State begging for apprentices--good-paying jobs for skilled craftsmen and the like. They don't need a college degree to achieve that. Some of them may consider that. Everyone who qualifies for relief will get a lower monthly payment at least, and that means real help now. Of course, it isn't a real complete solution to the challenge. Too many colleges are charging too much money. When I ask of a nice college: What does that nice college ask for tuition? I visited one just over the August break. And someone said: It is $72,000 a year. I said, For tuition? How in the world can it be? Well, they give a lot of student grants and scholarships and fellowships and this, that, and the other thing. But the cost of higher education is getting beyond the reach of average people, and that is a big problem. We need to have affordable education and education that helps you meet your goals. I might also say that some of the people who have been involved in borrowing money have some sad stories to tell. Vickie Vences is one of thousands of Illinois students who were deceived by one of these for-profit colleges called Westwood. Vickie grew up on the South Side of Chicago. She is the first person in her family to attend college. She decided that she wanted to go into law enforcement. She enrolled in a criminal justice program in Westwood College in 2004 in Chicago. She believed the recruiters. They said: A degree from Westwood is going to open the door for you, young lady, right into the field of law enforcement. She found the opposite was true. They laughed at her when she showed her resume from Westwood College. They said: That is not a real college. That is not a real degree, and that doesn't help you a bit-- because Westwood hid the truth about the fact that they were not accredited in Illinois. A lot of young people were duped into believing it was a ticket to a good law enforcement job. By the time Vickie found out how badly she was into it, she had $50,000 in student loan debt, and she didn't have even a Westwood degree to point to. That is unfortunate. She could have done a lot more with her life, were it not for the student debt and the deception of these for-profit schools. She is working mostly for nonprofit organizations. She finds it hard to make any of her loan payments. The good news is that the Department of Education canceled the student loan debts of all former Westwood College students following investigations into Westwood's widespread misconduct. Vickie is going to get a break. That is why, I have to tell you, I was a little upset with one of our colleagues--and I won't name names. We are not supposed to do that on the Senate floor. But he started mocking the students who are heavily in debt. I think he referred to them as ``slatternly baristas.'' I think that means they are lazy and work at Starbucks-- and here, they have too much debt, and it is their own damn fault. I couldn't disagree more. Students, when you are 19 or 20 years old, don't know what is a reasonable debt and what isn't. They just don't have life experience. Many of them are first-generation college students in their family. Mom and dad are not much help. They want to see their kids get a college degree. That is supposed to be the ticket to success. So young people sign up for loans, and they sign up in schools that can't produce a diploma that leads to a job, and they get stuck with it. Vickie, I mentioned earlier, tried her best to pay off these loans and doesn't have much luck. She says that being freed of some of this debt is going to be at least lifting part of the burden. Let's be honest about it. I don't know that she is lazy or if ``barista'' is now a negative term. I don't think it is. Those folks are working, and I respect the fact that they are. She said, ``I'm not asking for anything for free. I just think things should be fair. Education should be affordable. And we ought to be able to earn enough to pay back what we owe.'' These Republican colleagues of mine are setting out to stop this plan by Joe Biden. I guess it will be a great source of pride if they do it. They can say: We stopped this relief for all of these young people who are in debt. We sunk them deeper into despair. And we did it because it is an election year. I think it is unfortunate. The President's student loan forgiveness plan is not a giveaway to rich doctors and lawyers who racked up big debt at Ivy League schools. Ninety-eight percent of the student loan borrowers did not attend those schools. The majority of these debts are held by families who have zero net worth--zero. What will their life be like without help? Nearly 90 percent of the relief dollars in the President's plan will go to borrowers who earn less than $75,000 a year. And let's reflect for a moment on what has happened over the last few years in the United States of America under the previous President who will go unnamed and what we have seen as a result of this pandemic. Remember when we came up and were unable to articulate the number ``trillion dollars'' without shaking? We started talking about trillion-dollar relief packages in the pandemic. And we said to people: We are going to have loans through the Small Business Administration for people who have a job or a business and need a helping hand in terms of borrowing money to get by. And if you can prove that you spent the money on payroll and utilities and rent, it is forgiven. So take a look at that mechanism. Through no fault of their own, they were stuck with debt because of the pandemic. They borrowed money from the Federal Government--taxpayers' money--and if they could spend it for the right things, it was forgiven, a walkaway. I didn't hear a lot of speeches about ``slatternly baristas'' at that point in time. And we have also seen it happen before. In fact, we have had a number of Members of Congress who applied for some of those PPP loans. The same people who are criticizing forgiving student loan debts literally personally borrowed money that they didn't pay back to the Federal Government, and they don't think there is anything wrong with that. I can go into a long list of people who have benefited by loans that were forgiven or grants given by the Federal Government. Better than going through that list, let me say the bottom line is this: If we can help these young student borrowers with an opportunity to reduce the debt they owe and get their lives back online, that is a great outcome for them and a great one for this Nation. The same type of idealism that drove us to the National Defense Education Act after Sputnik applies as well today. We should have a well-trained, well-educated American workforce ready to compete with the world. I think we can do it. Joe Biden's step is a reasonable, humane step in the right direction. It should have bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) are necessarily absent.