Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Vernon Oliver to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Judge Oliver's long career on the bench and in public service make him an outstanding nominee to the Federal bench. Born and raised in Connecticut, Judge Oliver received his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Connecticut. After spending approximately 3 years in private practice, Judge Oliver devoted the rest of his legal career to public service, serving as an Assistant State's Attorney in the division of criminal justice and as an Assistant Attorney General in the child protection unit of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. In 2009, Judge Oliver was appointed to be a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court, presiding over criminal, civil, habeas corpus, and housing matters. On the bench, he has presided over more than 320 trials that have gone to verdict or judgment. He has also sat by designation on the Connecticut Appellate Court in three matters. Judge Oliver has strong support from his home State Senators, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy. In addition, he was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge Oliver's deep ties to Connecticut and significant courtroom experience, as a longtime litigator and on the bench, make him well-positioned to serve the District of Connecticut with distinction. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Oliver's nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what you just witnessed here is, we hope, a new day in the U.S. Senate. You see, we have the responsibility of appropriating the money for the Federal Government. We do it in 12 different bills. The total cost to the taxpayers for the resources for the government come to the neighborhood of $1 trillion, so it is a big undertaking. For 5 years, we failed to pass those 12 bills individually. We passed them in a group known as an omnibus. It is usually done either at the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30, or a few weeks or months thereafter. So this year, we decided in the Senate to try to do it differently, do it better. What we have done through the Appropriations Committee, which I serve on, is to take up each individual bill of the 12 bills. We are trying to pass them on a bipartisan basis because this body is divided, 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. We picked two of the best legislators in the Senate to accomplish this--Senator Patty Murray, who just spoke, from the State of Washington, a Democrat, and Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, from Maine. The two of them did miracle work in the committee; they got all 12 bills individually passed. We are in the process of trying to consider three of those bills at a time--three of those bills now. That is what we were embarking on last week. In order for us to take up these bills, we needed to suspend the rules of the Senate because of the procedure that we face. When we tried to do that, one Senator, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, objected. Because of his objection and the nature of the Senate, we were back to the starting point, and it led to what we saw today. Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and Senator Murray, the President pro tempore and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, have asked for permission to take up those three bills and to amend them and debate them and pass them. In order to do that, we have to suspend the rules of the Senate. It is not an easy thing. Usually we do it by saying, ``Do I have unanimous consent to suspend the rules?'' and it happens. This time, when we said, ``Do we have unanimous consent?'' that one Senator objected. He has his own reasons. He can explain them. But it meant we had to come back here today and start to suspend the rules. It takes a two-thirds vote, 67 votes, in the Senate. So, you see, this isn't an easy Chamber in which to get things done, but I think we are on the right track. It is a bipartisan undertaking, and we are considering each of the bills and subjecting them to amendments--just the way it used to be for many years, for many decades. I think that is better. Contrast that with what is going on in the House of Representatives. At this point, they can't pass any bills. They couldn't pass any appropriations bills, and now they are considering a bill for short- term spending for our government. Speaker McCarthy said he will call for a vote this week. I don't know if it will pass or not. There is quite a feud going on over there. We are following an orderly, bipartisan process to have a closer look at each of the spending bills for the Senate and for taxpayers in this country. I think this is the right way to do it. I hope the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives can get their act together. We will find out this week. That is not the reason I came to the floor, but I wanted to make sure that we made a point of what Senator Murray said. This is a historic, bipartisan undertaking. I think the American people more than anything want us to get along and work together and solve some problems, and this will be a step in that direction. So that is what we just went through. Ukraine Madam President, each year, the United Nations in New York has a General Assembly meeting. Countries come with their leaders from all around the world. Many people--myself included--watch ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday. Last night on ``60 Minutes,'' Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, talked about what he is facing with this Russian invasion by Putin and what it has meant to his country. He said that he is coming to New York to make a presentation to the United Nations. I think it is important that he does this. I want him to remind the American people, who, through the NATO alliance, have been steadfastly in support of the Ukrainian people, what is at stake. Vladimir Putin said he wants to restore Russia's so-called ``lost glory.'' That is the twisted rationale behind his disastrous invasion of Ukraine, one that has led to nearly half a million Ukrainians and Russians being killed or wounded simply for Putin's bloodthirsty ambition. Putin will not be traveling much outside Russia. If you wonder why, it is because the International Criminal Court, when it looked at the activity of the Russian invaders in Ukraine, ended up issuing an arrest warrant, branding Vladimir Putin a war criminal. Why would they call him a war criminal? Because they killed innocent civilians certainly but equally because they had a mass abduction of Ukrainian children into Russia--something that has hardly ever happened in history, but Putin has done it. So they issued an arrest warrant for Putin over the war crimes. It is the first time in history for a leader of one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to be so charged. It is no surprise when you see what he has done and what he threatens to do. Putin has isolated Russia. He has arrested Russians for political dissent. He has quashed the freedom of the press. He is destroying the Russian economy. Despite these clearly tragic outcomes, he is doubling down even further in a move my Delaware colleague, Senator Coons, aptly called the ``devil's deal.'' You see, international sanctions, global isolation, and a determined Ukrainian military have left Putin scrambling for military supplies and weapons. He first turned to help from one of the world's worst rogue nations. You might have heard Senator McConnell talk about Iran earlier. That is right--while the Iranian Government was beating, murdering, and repressing mass protesters who were demanding basic freedoms, Putin was there, hat in hand, pleading for military weapons. Just last week--what classic photographs these are. He turned and asked for help from Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It is hard to imagine a more deadly duo than these two. While the Iranian Government was doing these things, he is pleading for weapons; and now he has met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, further request for weapons. His effort to restore Russian glory has, instead, resulted in pleading for help from two global despots and fostered NATO enlargement along Russia's border. That is the thing that we have got to keep in mind that has been achieved by this war. There is more unity in the NATO alliance than anytime in its history. In fact, for the first time in recent history, we have expanded NATO to include Sweden and Finland. It has been my good fortune to attend the Munich security council in Germany this spring and to meet, again, the President of Finland, President Niinisto. This morning's New York Times has an article, which I commend to you. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the September 18 New York Times, the Finnish leader, President Niinisto--now serving his second term--made an historic decision to ask for membership in NATO. He is a wonderful man; he is on a second term and is extremely popular in his country. And he asked to join the NATO alliance so that it could stand up against Putin. He reminds us in this article that Finland has a great experience with its neighbor Russia and an 830-mile border with the Russian leadership. He recalls ``Finland's numerous wars with Moscow, including the 1939 Winter War and World War II, when the Finns fought off the Soviets but had to cede some territory, Mr. Niinisto said European countries that let down their defenses after the collapse of the Soviet Union made a grave mistake.'' And so he has asked to join the alliance. I was at a meeting with President Niinisto, and he said he picked up the phone one day and called Vladimir Putin in Moscow. It is hard to imagine, isn't it? But he said: I told him, point-blank, I am joining the NATO alliance. Putin said: You don't have to. I am not going to invade your country. He said: I can't trust you anymore after what you have done to Ukraine. That is a message that Zelenskyy was delivering last night on ``60 Minutes.'' I want to make clear on the floor: Putin is not going to stop his ambition to acquire other countries, and there are many that are in fragile, dangerous situations. I am blessed to represent the State of Illinois and city of Chicago, as the Presiding Officer does. And there are some wonderful groups of people who have come to the State and our city that have made us what we are today. Among them are the Polish people. They say that Chicago is the second largest Polish city in the world, next to Warsaw. It is probably true. They are great folks, and I am honored to represent them. They know what the Soviet occupation through the Warsaw Pact meant to Poland, and they understand the danger if Putin is successful in Ukraine. The neighbors to Poland feel the same way--the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have a special connection there. My mother was born in Lithuania. I have been there many times, and I greatly admire the people of all the Baltic states. But they are small countries; they couldn't stand a chance of fighting off Vladimir Putin if he decided to invade them. The point made by Niinisto--the point made by the NATO alliance, the point that President Biden is making and, I might add, many Republican leaders, like Senator McConnell, is that it is in our best interest to stop Putin now in Ukraine because he has ambitions that reach far beyond the borders of that country. The United States is not sending troops. We are sending military equipment, artillery, ammunition; and we are giving advice to the Ukrainians so that they can win this battle. This battle is not just for Ukrainian sovereignty; it is for our own protection in the years to come. This week in Washington, we will be visited by President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. He will go to New York first to address the United Nations General Assembly. I think he is going to come through with a clear message to global leaders, to NATO, to Congress, and to the American people: Quite simply, Ukraine is fighting with the lives of its own people against a nuclear state--Russia--that threatens the world. If Ukraine falls, Putin will certainly go farther--to Poland, to the Baltic states--and trigger an even wider war. Putin cannot be changed, but he can be stopped in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are showing extraordinary courage and determination. I agree with President Zelenskyy. We must continue our support for these brave people fighting for their country and against Russian tyranny that threatens the world. We can start by passing the Biden administration's most recent funding request. I am going to do my part in the Senate to make sure we get that done, and I call on my colleagues to do the same. I would say to President Zelenskyy: Your message was delivered on ``60 Minutes.'' You are looking for allies who will stand up against the aggression of the war criminal Vladimir Putin. The United States and NATO will be those allies. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the August recess, the North Lawndale community on the West Side of Chicago witnessed the end of an era. Founding pastor of the Lawndale Community Church, the Reverend Doctor Wayne ``Coach'' Gordon passed the torch to the church's new lead pastor, Pastor Jonathan Brooks, or as the congregation affectionately knows him, Pastor J. Pastor Gordon first heard the call to serve when he was a junior in high school in Fort Dodge, IA. The call came so clear that he woke his mother in the middle of the night to share his newfound purpose and let her know that he was ready to forgo his studies and get started immediately. His mother heard him out and arranged for him to meet with the local pastor. That call set in motion a lifetime of service and selfless commitment to helping others. He listened to his mother and finished his studies. In 1971, he graduated from Fort Dodge Senior High School. He attended Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL, where he played football. From there, he attended the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he later would go on to obtain his doctorate in ministry from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. By 1975, Pastor Gordon had moved to North Lawndale, a predominantly Black community that at the time was ranked the 15th poorest neighborhood in the United States. He took a job as a teacher and coach at Farragut High School. Pastor Gordon, a White guy from Iowa teaching and coaching in a predominantly Black community, immediately stood out. His players and students called him ``Coach,'' a nickname that has stuck with him to this day. In 1977, Pastor Gordon would marry the woman of his dreams, his lovely wife Anne. On their first night together in North Lawndale, their home was broken into. Unfortunately, this would not be the only time. Many would question what the couple was thinking. Why would they want to continue to live in such a dangerous neighborhood? But as one of his mentors, the late-Reverend Tom Skinner would say, Pastor Gordon and Anne ``continued to continue.'' They refused to live amongst their neighbors in fear. When others saw a dangerous neighborhood stricken by poverty, violence, and drug addiction, Pastor Gordon and Anne saw a community desperate for opportunity. Many turned their back on North Lawndale, but Pastor Gordon and Anne would not do the same. They heeded their call to help and made the conscious choice to live where they served--and they wasted no time getting to work. They set up a Bible study through the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The Farragut High students enjoyed it so much that they talked Pastor Gordon and Anne into starting their very own church. While it took some convincing, Pastor Gordon agreed, and the Lawndale Christian Community Church began its mission of building a better North Lawndale. He assembled the congregation before a blackboard and asked what were the top issues facing the community. No.1 was a safe place for residents to do their laundry, since the local laundromats were often sites of violence. The church made room in its basement using donated equipment to give residents a safe place to do their laundry. The second issue on the congregation's list was access to quality, affordable health services in the area. Through several grants from charitable organizations in Chicago, countless volunteer hours, and faith, in September 1984, they were able to transform a run-down Cadillac dealership into the Lawndale Christian Health Center. This clinic, which started with a staff of just five, has now grown to have more than 100 medical providers across six locations, transforming access to healthcare in the area. Apart from providing services through the church, Pastor Gordon and other community leaders knew for the Lawndale area to thrive, they would need a strong economic base capable of attracting businesses, employing residents, providing goods and services, and supporting the community. With that goal in mind, Lawndale Community Church began reaching out to businesses encouraging them to set up shop in the neighborhood. Their outreach efforts would pay off. In 1995, the iconic Lou Malnati's Pizzeria opened a branch of its restaurant in North Lawndale. Lawndale Community Church owned the property in which the restaurant operated, and the church converted the four apartments above the pizzeria into affordable housing units for families. Aside from proving that North Lawndale could sustain mainstream businesses, Lou Malnati's also committed to staffing the restaurant with local employees and donating its profits to the community. And more than 25 years later, Lou Malnati's remains open for business in North Lawndale. They did not stop there. To promote homeownership and build wealth, they opened the Lawndale Christian Development Corporation, which purchased and rehabilitated abandoned homes and then sold them to members of the community at a discount. To support health and wellness in the community, they opened the 60,000-square-foot Lawndale Christian Health and Fitness Center. And to expand access to legal services, education, social services, employment, and training opportunities to young people, they opened the Lawndale Christian Legal Center. These successful community development efforts have come to be known as the Lawndale Miracle--and it has laid the foundation for future investment in North Lawndale and served as a model for community development efforts in other disadvantaged communities. But while these achievements may be divine, they are far from unexplainable. They are a testament to the leadership of Pastor Gordon and his congregation. They have renovated apartments, built fitness centers, mentored students, established medical clinics, started businesses, and helped breathe a new energetic life into the entire community. Through it all, Pastor Gordon has remained a dedicated husband to Anne; a loving father to their three children: Angela, Andrew, and Austin; father-in-law to Nate and Stacy; and grandfather to Mack, Brooke, and Langston. I have had the pleasure of knowing Pastor Gordon and Anne, and I have been fortunate to witness much of the progress they have helped make. Pastor Gordon is no ordinary preacher. His work does not end with his sermon. He has used his faith to power a lifetime of service to help his neighbors and community. While Pastor Gordon may have passed his torch, I am certain the work of the Lawndale Community Church is not finished. Loretta and I thank Pastor Gordon and Anne for their service to the community, and we wish Pastor J. the best of luck in carrying on the legacy of the Lawndale Community Church.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was about 12 years ago when I went into a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think it was about the time that Arlen Specter was the chairman of the committee, and he had a hearing on something that I knew nothing about. It was called interchange fees. I walked in there, and the room was packed. It turned out there were two sides to a debate over this so-called interchange fee. On one side were the monsters and giants of the credit card industry, Visa and Mastercard--the duopoly that controls 73, 75 percent of the credit transactions in the United States--and on the other side were a handful of people from gas stations and restaurants. What were they talking about with the interchange fee? They were talking about the fact that credit cards issued by the banks that honor the Visa and Mastercard exchanges are required to pay fees on every transaction. What was interesting about the conversation was that when it got down to it, the retailer--the restaurant owner, the gas station--had no control over what the fee was going to be charged by the bank and Visa and Mastercard. Take it or leave it. If you want to honor our credit cards and use them in your business, you will pay the interchange fee. I kind of thought that was unusual or maybe unfair. There was no competition. There no was voice. The retailer just had to pass along the charge, and Visa and Mastercard raised the charges on a regular basis. They just did recently. We are fighting inflation in America, and Visa and Mastercard are on the other side of the battle. Consumers and retailers are trying to keep prices down; Visa and Mastercard are trying to run them up with the fee they charge for each transaction. So I decided to ask for a study--that is pretty easy and innocent--a study to find out how much the fees were, why these credit card giants were charging fees in the United States which they weren't charging in other countries. They fought me tooth and nail to stop me from this study. So I got my back up and decided to offer an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which dealt with Wall Street and the excesses of the 2008 recession. I came to the floor, offered it, and to everyone's surprise, it passed. It regulated the amount of interchange fees on debit cards. Debit cards are just like a checking account. It didn't touch credit cards. It turned out that that was a big deal because the big banks on Wall Street that were affected by my amendment were losing up to $8 billion a year in interchange fees that people were paying. Debit cards were at least containing the growth of these fees, while credit cards were still untouched. And so here we are today. American consumers are concerned about inflation and the high price of groceries and gas. What they may not know is that the fees charged by the credit cards that they use, known as swipe fees or interchange fees, are adding to the problem. Visa and Mastercard control just about 80 percent of the credit card market. Each time a credit card is used--whether for groceries, gasoline, critical drugs, anything else--Visa and Mastercard charge an interchange fee. Some of that they keep for themselves, but most of it is given to the bank that issued the card. It is usually charged as a percentage of the transaction plus a flat fee; for example, 2 percent of the transaction plus 10 cents each transaction. Visa and Mastercard set the fees on behalf of thousands of banks and tell the merchants--the retailers, the restaurants--take it or leave it. Merchants have no choice but to accept these outrageous fees if they want to have credit cards used by their customers. There is no negotiation. There is no competition. Small business owners and consumers, take it or leave it, are holding the bag. In 2022 alone, U.S. merchants and consumers paid $93.2 billion in these fees, credit card interchange fees, to line the pockets of the biggest banks on Wall Street. If you ask the man who owns the restaurant or ask the lady who owns the shop: What percentage of your overhead cost is interchange fees on credit cards, you will be shocked. Interchange fees are the second largest cost for small businesses only behind labor costs. Just think of that for a moment. Making your payroll is the highest expense. The next expense is not utilities or rent; it is the interchange fees charged by Visa and Mastercard and their banks. Despite the nearly $100 billion Visa and Mastercard took out of communities and small businesses across the country last year, guess what they are going to do in October? They are going to raise the interchange fee again. While we are trying to fight inflation at every angle that we can find to bring down the cost of groceries and gas, the credit card companies have decided it is just the right time to have this take-it-or-leave-it fee increased. When credit cards fees go up, it increases inflation, and consumers pay it. I strongly urge Visa and Mastercard to reconsider this misguided decision. I wrote them a letter. I doubt if they will read it. I am not holding my breath. That is why I have made it a priority to pass the bipartisan Credit Card Competition Act this year. The Credit Card Competition Act, which I introduced with Senator Marshall--there he is on the floor now; good to see you--Senator Welch from Vermont, who has joined us, and Senator Vance of Ohio. A bipartisan bill would finally introduce competition and choice to the credit card market and bring down the excessive credit card fees. It would require only the largest 30 banks in America--and they are the big boys, banks with more than $100 billion in assets--to enable at least 2 credit card networks to be used on their credit cards, with at least 1 of the networks a company outside the Visa and Mastercard duopoly so there would be competition. I thought that was part of a free market. But when it comes to credit cards, they want no competition. Merchants would then get to choose one of the networks. There would be real competition for their business, and it would keep the fees as low as possible. The Credit Card Competition Act is estimated to save merchants and consumers $15 billion a year. With that in mind, nobody should be surprised to hear that Visa and Mastercard and their big bank buddies have committed to ``spend whatever is needed'' to stop the Durbin- Marshall amendment. I stood up to the big banks and giant debit card companies in 2010 when I introduced similar reforms, and I will always choose Main Street over Wall Street. It is long overdue for Congress to break up the sweetheart deal that Visa and Mastercard and the biggest banks in America and certain airlines enjoy. We must bring the bipartisan Credit Card Competition Act to the floor for a vote. Madam President, the question is whether my colleagues will listen to the consumers and families who are struggling with inflation, whether they will listen to the restaurants that they frequent, as I do, whether they will listen to the small shops and businesses that have to pay these outrageous fees. Give them a chance. Bring competition into the duopoly. Tell Visa and Mastercard that they cannot lord over these people who are working hard for a living and shouldn't be stuck with these duopoly fees. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Jeffrey Cummings to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Cummings received his bachelor's degree from Michigan State University and his J.D. from the Northwestern University School of Law. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Ann Claire Williams on the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Cummings then entered private practice in Chicago, where he developed expertise in various civil rights issues, including employment discrimination, voting rights, and housing discrimination. He has spent nearly his entire practice litigating in Federal courts and has tried eight cases to verdict. Notably, he worked on the largest ever hospice-related recovery for the United States in the history of the False Claims Act. While in private practice, Judge Cummings also served as an administrative hearing officer for the city of Chicago Commission on Human Relations and as a hearing officer for the city of Chicago Police Board, where he was responsible for conducting contested disciplinary hearings in cases involving allegations of misconduct against Chicago police officers. In 2019, Judge Cummings was selected by the district judges of the Northern District to serve as a magistrate judge. Since joining the bench, he has handled both civil and criminal matters and has presided over three jury trials. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Cummings ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senator Duckworth and myself. Given his vast litigation background and experience on the bench, he will be a tremendous addition to the court. I am honored to vote for his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues join me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is indeed a historic moment in the U.S. Senate. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee for more than two decades, I can remember a time when, in fact, 12 different appropriations bills came to the floor of the Senate for consideration. It has been at least 5 years--maybe longer--since we have done that. Instead, we bundled all of the appropriations in one big omnibus bill and handed it over to leadership to decide. We waited for that desperate vote where they said: You have to vote for this; it is take it or leave it. Well, we are back in the stage of due deliberation on appropriations, and I want to commend those who have brought us to this moment. If you asked me at the beginning of this session to pick two Senators--one a Democrat and one a Republican--who could achieve this goal, I would have chosen the two who are here on the floor today, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Susan Collins. They are extraordinary legislators, some of the hardest working people in the U.S. Senate, and they truly have dedication to a national purpose beyond anything that partisan politics might generate. I have seen them at work for years and worked with them together. I can't think of a better team, and I am more than happy to work with them to achieve their goal for 12 appropriation bills considered and passed on the floor of the Senate. It will be historic, and it will serve the American people better than most of them could imagine today because it will mean we will take the time to do each of these bills in a thoughtful, careful way. So let me start by commending them for being here today and for the work that has brought us to this moment. United Auto Workers Negotiations Mr. President, on July 12, the United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers--General Motors, Ford and Stellantis--began contract negotiations to determine their next 4-year labor deal. Since it was founded nearly 90 years ago, the United Auto Workers have fought for and won victories that have helped strengthen America's working families. The UAW has won better pay for its members, safer working conditions, employer-funded pensions, health insurance, education benefits, and much more. UAW helped to allow autoworkers and their families to buy homes, take vacations, send their children to college, and retire with dignity. Autoworkers work hard; they deserve their opportunity to enjoy the American dream. But the legacy that I have just described is in danger. Over the last 20 years, autoworkers have faced dozens of plant closures, lost jobs, wage cuts, and contract concessions. In 2009, the UAW made major concessions in its contracts to help these same automakers receive government assistance. This included job security provisions, cost-of- living adjustments, and financing for retiree healthcare. They made sacrifices so that their employer companies survived during that terrible situation in our economy. How have they done? The automakers have reaped billions of dollars in profit since. But these benefits have not been passed down to the workers, and UAW members have seen their wages and standards of living suffer. Over the past 4 years, the CEOs of the Big Three that I have listed have seen 40-percent wage hikes on average, while autoworkers have seen 6.1 percent. Decades ago, the ratio between CEO and median worker pay was around 20 to 1, which meant the big shots in the boardrooms were making 20 times what the fellow was making on the assembly line. Today it has changed. No longer 20 to 1; it is 300 to 1. Should CEOs be earning 300 times more than autoworkers? I don't think so. Stellantis, General Motors, and Ford have reported collective profits of nearly--get ready--$250 billion between 2013 and 2022 and a combined profit of $21 billion alone in the first 6 months of this year--$21 billion. The salaries of their CEOs--listen to these--$29 million for the CEO of General Motors, $21 million for Ford's CEO, $24 million for Stellantis--further evidence of this notion of corporate royalty. In 2007, the average wage for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors was $28 an hour--in 2007--while the starting wage was $19.36 an hour. In today's dollars, that is $28.50. Today, the starting wage for autoworkers at the Big Three is $18.04 an hour--more than $10 lower than what starting wages would be if they had kept up with inflation since 2007. Eighteen dollars an hour. In Springfield, IL, coming back from picking up some hardware at Lowe's, I passed a Taco Bell. The sign out front said starting pay $17 an hour at Taco Bell. Autoworkers--professional men and women who work hard--are being offered $18; Taco Bell, $17. Meanwhile, these same workers who are making $18 an hour for the automobile manufacturers are asked to work 10- to 12-hour days, 6 to 7 days a week. And 61 GM, Ford, and Stellantis plants have been idle or closed since 2003. Thousands of jobs have been lost. And I can tell that story personally because one of the idled plants was a Belvidere assembly plant in Belvidere, IL, owned by Stellantis. That plant opened 58 years ago. They once had 4,500 union workers. In February, they laid off 1,350 workers who were blindsided at the time by that announcement. This was devastating, not just to the families of the workers but to the community. I begged Stellantis: Reconsider this decision. And I have spoken to the president of the United Autoworkers who tells me it is one of his highest priorities. Workers are fed up. Earlier this year, autoworkers struggled to breathe in factories across Illinois and other States due to unprecedented wildfire smoke in Canada. Now they are saying, in this negotiation: Enough. At the same time, Congress and the Biden Administration have made major investments in clean energy--including the production of electric vehicles. Corporations cannot impose the cost of transitioning to electric vehicles on the shoulders of today's workers. We can and should invest in these vehicles while making sure they continue to be produced with union labor. These corporations that I talked about--the Big Three-- have benefited from billions of dollars in profits in recent years. Why haven't the workers benefited as much? In just two days on September 14, contracts covering 150,000 UAW workers at Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis will expire. At the same time, Stellantis put plants on critical status for 90 days. What does that mean for the current workers before the contract would be announced? It would mean that they would work 7 days a week, 12-hour shifts. Why are they doing this? They are trying to pile up inventory. Under critical status, workers can only receive 1 day off every 30 days, unless they use family medical leave. Meanwhile, Stellantis complains that it is behind thousands of units, while it continues to lay off workers. It just doesn't add up. I urge the Big Three and the UAW to negotiate in good faith, reach an agreement before September 14--just 2 days away--and prevent a strike that will cost billions of dollars and impact 150,000 hard-working autoworkers. This agreement must be fair to workers, include a restoration of the benefits that autoworkers sacrificed more than a decade ago, to keep these families afloat. And Stellantis must reconsider the closure of Belvidere assembly plant and welcome back the workers it laid off in February. There is a lot at stake. The automobile industry is a major part of our economy. Autoworkers have done their best; they have sacrificed right and left to make sure that this industry stays as strong as it is--and even stronger--in America. The CEOs need to show a spirit of cooperation and teamwork to make sure that when they reopen this with a new contract, we are going to have many more years of prosperity for American automakers. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for nearly three decades, the crack of the bat, the smell of fresh cut grass, the greening of the ivy, and the sound of Pat Hughes' voice reporting from the ``beautiful and historic Wrigley Field'' has let Cubs fans far and wide know, it is time for baseball. This July, Pat Hughes--the voice of Cubs baseball and a Chicago legend--was awarded the 2023 Ford C. Frick Award by the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY--the highest honor in broadcasting. Born in Tucson, AZ, Pat was raised in San Jose, CA. His father worked in the education department at San Jose State University, where Pat would later enroll. Pat would frequent the university's sporting events with his father and brother, smitten by the cadre of future greats that took the field for the Spartans. At around 17 years old, he realized he wasn't quite good enough to make a career playing, but his passion for sports fueled his determination to find a sports career. Just hours before Pat's acceptance speech at Cooperstown, he recounted that, ``It kind of feels a little bit surreal. As if it's almost happening to someone else, and I'm just kind of watching.'' Ironically, watching on sidelines was where Pat's broadcasting career began. At San Jose State University, while sitting on the bench for his college basketball team, he started to announce the game unfolding in front of him before his first listening audience: the other benchwarmers on the team. One of his teammates complimented Pat's knack for play-by-play. Once basketball season was over, Pat called his first baseball game, San Jose State versus the University of California Santa Barbara. In 1978, Pat graduated from San Jose State University with a degree in radio/TV journalism and began his baseball broadcasting career for a minor league team: the San Jose Missions. After a season with the Columbus Clippers, he joined the Minnesota Twins broadcast team in 1983 before moving to Milwaukee just a year later, where he called Brewers games on radio with Milwaukee legend Bob Uecker. I first heard Pat when my son Paul enrolled at Marquette University. Back then, Pat was calling basketball games for Marquette, and even then, Pat had the distinct style that we all have come to appreciate. Pat would go on to call basketball games for Marquette for 16 seasons, including years spent alongside local legend, Coach Al McGuire. Since 1996, Pat has been the radio play-by-play announcer for the Chicago Cubs. The 2022 season marked the 40th consecutive year that Hughes served as a Major League Baseball announcer. With nearly three decades in Chicago, Pat is a Cubs institution. And, not only has he been a fixture in Wrigley since 1996, he almost never misses work. For nearly 11 years, he called nearly every inning of every Cubs game before he finally took a day off. A student of the game and a master of his craft, Pat regularly studied broadcasters he admired. He would listen to recordings of games that he called, analyze the modulation of his voice, eliminate filler, and perfect his catchphrases, setting the standard of meticulous preparation that he carries with him today. And just like the benchwarmer back in the 70s that called the basketball game, Pat seizes every moment. Never one to rest on his laurels, when Pat learned that he would be the just the third broadcaster to be inducted into the Cubs Hall of Fame, he went right back to calling the play, completely awestruck, but like the true professional he is, he never missed a beat. And little did he know that just a few months later, he would be getting the call from Cooperstown. Pat lives his life play-by-play--staying in the moment, constantly improving, and transporting Cubs fans everywhere to Wrigley Field with his distinctive voice. During Pat's acceptance speech in Cooperstown, he thanked Cubs fans for making him part of the Cubs family, inviting him to graduations, bar mitzvahs, and birthdays. And he was quick to give credit to the line-up of broadcasters that he deeply admired. Many remember Pat's time in the booth with Cubs Hall of Famer, the late Ron Santo, his broadcasting partner from 1996 until 2010. The ``Pat and Ron'' show was a favorite for the fans as Hughes worked well with the former third baseman, who wasn't shy to hide his love for the Cubs. A nine-time winner of the Illinois Sportscaster of the Year Award, Pat also won three straight Wisconsin Sportscaster of the Year Awards from 1990-92. He has called more than 6,000 MLB games, including eight no-hitters, the 25-inning White Sox v. Brewers contest in 1984 that was the longest game in American League history, and Kerry Wood's 20-strikeout game in 1998. On November 2, 2016, when the Chicago Cubs ended a 108-year drought by winning game seven of the World Series, it was Pat who called the final out. He will forever be a part of Chicago Cubs history, and just as Pat studied other broadcasters, his legacy will be one to learn from. I congratulate Pat; his wife Trish; their daughters Janell and Amber; and his entire family on this achievement. Cubs fans everywhere are flying the W for you. And, as Pat would say, ``Get out the tape measure, Long Gone!''--all the way to Cooperstown.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.