Floor Statements

Madam President, let me first salute my colleague from the State of Washington. She has really shown extraordinary leadership on this

and so many other issues. She asked us to gather today, on the first anniversary of the Dobbs decision, to really reflect on what has happened to America in 12 months.

I am saying that 2 months ago the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on the devastating consequences of the Dobbs decision on the women and doctors who are affected by it. We did it 2 months ago because the news was pouring in of incidents which had to be told and shared with the American people. Growing reports of chaos and harm caused by that decision are so alarming that we decided to move up our fact-finding to 2 months ago.

There was one witness I will never forget. One of the people we heard from that day was Amanda Zurawski. She shared some of the most heartbreaking testimony I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot.

Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda suffered a catastrophic medical condition which ensured that she would lose her much loved and much longed-for baby. What is more, without medical care to help manage her miscarriage, Amanda was in grave risk of dying herself. But she was denied that medical care for one reason-- she lived in the wrong place--because Amanda Zurawski lived in Texas, which was one of the first States to impose a near-total ban of abortions after Roe v. Wade was overruled. So Amanda waited at home, in agony, for days. Then sepsis set in. Her husband rushed her to the hospital. Hours later, her daughter arrived stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in the ICU, fighting for her own life.

Amanda told our committee:

People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our

car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive.

But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest

``sanctuary'' state is at least an eight-hour drive.

Developing sepsis--which can kill [very] quickly--in a car in

the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the

ground, is a death sentence. . . . So all we could do was

wait.

This was Amanda's first baby. Tragically, because of the trauma her body endured, she may never have another.

And she is not alone. This is happening to women across America. Every day brings us another heartbreaking story of a woman who is denied healthcare, another story of a woman whose life was needlessly put at risk by the Dobbs decision.

According to a new survey, nearly two-thirds of OB/GYNs say the Dobbs ruling has worsened maternal mortality rates in the United States, which were already the worst of any developed nation, and 70 percent of these doctors say the ruling has deepened racial disparities in maternal and infant healthcare. These findings are from a survey released this week by KFF, known as Kaiser Family Foundation.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the AMA both warned that the Dobbs case would unleash an immediate healthcare crisis in our country. With the first anniversary of this ruling, those warnings, sadly, have come true.

Just 100 days after the Dobbs decision, 22 million Americans of reproductive age--almost one out of every three women in America--found themselves living in States where abortion is now illegal or highly restricted. Abortion is now completely banned in 14 States, leaving large swaths of the country without care. Some statewide bans include jail time for healthcare providers who perform abortions. And make no mistake: Unless we act, more and more severe restrictions are coming.

The last year has exposed the true aim of the anti-choice extremists. They want a national ban. Medication abortions account for more than half of all abortions in America. More than 20 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug mifepristone as safe and effective for use in medication abortions. Yet anti-abortion groups are now seeking in Federal court to ban its use in every State in America.

The impact of abortion restrictions in any State are felt well beyond that State's borders. In my State, largely as a consequence of near- total bans in many surrounding States, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in Illinois increased by 54 percent last year. That increase was driven largely by women from out of State seeking access to abortion that is now outlawed in their home States. As a result, wait times to obtain abortions have increased dramatically in our State.

In addition, some anti-choice extremists are seeking to deny women's right to abortions through increased threats and violence against abortion clinics.

We saw this recently in Illinois, when a man rammed his car into a building that was being renovated to serve as an abortion clinic in the Danville area. He also tried to set fire to the clinic; but, thankfully, he was stopped.

According to the National Abortion Federation, last year saw a huge increase in violence at abortion clinics, and a disproportionate increase occurred in States like Illinois that protected women's rights to reproductive care.

Personal decisions about healthcare should be made by individuals and their doctors, not by politicians with an ideological agenda. That is why I strongly support the four measures that my Democratic colleagues have offered to today to protect women's rights to travel to receive healthcare, protect patients' data privacy, protect healthcare providers' ability to provide abortions in States where it is legal, and protect the right to contraception. It is hard to imagine that in 2023, we are actually facing the prospect of losing a woman's right to contraception, as well as access to reproductive healthcare.

The Dobbs ruling has sown chaos, fear, and division. It has usurped doctors' rights to make the best healthcare decisions for their patients. Doctors live in fear of these new laws, whether they include criminal liability for what was good medical practice and still is. They have stripped women of their right to make healthcare decisions and given the power to politicians. It is now up to Congress to protect women and healthcare providers from the results of this disastrous ruling.

(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, you were at the Judiciary Committee today. We had a hearing on LGBTQ rights, and there was some extraordinary testimony. A 16-year-old came to us who has gone through a change to her status. This young woman, 16 years of age, explained how she realized at the age of 10 or 11 that she was really inclined toward being a woman and not a man. She sought counseling, through her understanding parents, sat down with doctors, and they began working through the psychology of that decision, the importance of it.

Fortunately for her--and she testified--her parents were supportive of her all the way. We were lucky to have Dr. Ximena Lopez at the hearing as well. She practices medicine in Texas. She is an endocrinologist who treats patients just like this young 16-year-old girl.

She disabused us of many of the myths which are outstanding when it comes to healthcare for those who are in a trans situation. No, there are no surgeries early in life on these children who are making this decision. Yes, medications are held back until puberty to make sure that they are doing the right thing at the right time. Yes, parents are consulted every step of the way.

These are important and critical decisions which parents and families make every day across America. Every day. They are decisions based on the advice of a doctor, as well as what is right for your child. They are decisions that parents will never forget. I know; I have been involved in them. And they are decisions which really would determine the future lives and the well-being of so many individuals.

To think that so many legislatures across the United States are now regulating and putting criminal penalties on the conduct of that doctor who was before us today is heartbreaking. It defies medicine. It defies science. It is politics, pure and simple. The same thing is true on this issue of women's reproductive healthcare.

We have got to leave these basic decisions, fundamental decisions, to the families who are affected by them directly, to the women who are affected by them directly. We have got to say to the doctors across America: Follow the science. Practice good medicine. Don't let a local legislature divert you from the best treatment of your patient to make sure that they come out of this process in a very positive way.

It is a sad moment in America that we are debating these things and debating whether or not to rely on sound medical judgment. In the end, that is the only thing we can count on.

I am glad that we had the hearing today, and I am glad that we gathered on the floor to make a record out of what is happening in our great Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations: all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, over the past 17 years, a lot has changed in the Senate. Back in 2006, we counted two future Presidents in our ranks: Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate was the late Arlen Specter, back when he was a Republican, and I was the most junior member of that Judiciary Committee.

Well, today, I want to tell you about one thing that has not changed since those days, and that is the dedicated, diligent public service of a man who stood by my side every step of the way as I have gone from the Judiciary Committee's most junior member to serving as chair of the committee. That man's name is Dan Swanson.

Dan is the embodiment of wisdom, patience, kindness, dedication, and selfless public service. Sadly, this is his last week as general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While Dan would never say it himself--he is just too humble--the truth is, he has made an indelible mark on the history of this Nation.

For nearly two decades, Dan has been my go-to man in addressing our Nation's most complicated and urgent challenges. In every one of those challenges, he has been guided by a love for the law and a belief that our government can and should help people.

When you consider his background, you can understand. Dan is the son of two teachers, and you can see their influence in the way he engages with others. No matter the time of day, he always finds time to talk through the details of statutes and case precedent, often from memory, and never--never--loses his temper or patience.

And just about any other staffer on the Judiciary Committee will tell you: Dan is the best teacher and mentor you could ever hope for. Moreover, his integrity and intellect are respected by Senators and staffers of both parties.

He is remarkably consistent. Growing up, he was always calm and kind. He always knew what he wanted to do. In fact, Dan's parents say he was just about 10 years old when he first told them he wanted to write laws when he grew up. While other kids were dreaming of being astronauts or athletes, Dan knew that his future was in the law.

Years later, he pursued that dream by going to Harvard Law School because he thought it would help him land a job in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He then had the courage and determination to leave a well- paying job at a prestigious law firm and accept a job as a legislative correspondent in my office. Within weeks of joining, we realized Dan Swanson was indispensable. And soon enough, we were directing the hardest assignments of all to his desk. No matter how complicated the topic, Dan always mastered it quickly. Frankly, Dan's legislative legacy is too long to list in a single speech, but let me tell you about a few notable accomplishments.

Dan is the mastermind behind what is known in banking circles as the dreaded ``Durbin amendment,'' a financial reform that has saved consumers and retailers billions of dollars by setting limits on the so-called interchange fees which banks charge merchants every time you swipe a debit card.

I had never heard of a swipe fee or an interchange fee. And I stumbled into a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over by then-Chairman Arlen Specter, where he described the process where retailers across America were forced into signing agreements with the major banks and credit card companies, Visa and Mastercard--agreements, which many times they never even had a chance to read. It was a take- it-or-leave-it proposition. And in many ways, it still is.

The notion is, if you are a restaurant or shop or a chain of stores and you want to use Visa and Mastercard for your customers, you have to pay what they demand, the so-called interchange or swipe fee.

It turns out, for most of these retailers, it is the third most expensive item of business. The labor costs, of course, and, of course, the basics of food in the restaurant or the supplies that are needed in stores, but the third most expensive thing, which retailers face day in and day out, are these interchange fees or swipe fees charged by the big banks and the big credit card companies.

Can you imagine taking on that industry, trying to force through reform? I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it without him. Dan Swanson understood. He reached the point where he mastered that particular area of the law to the point where we offered a change in the way we do business in America when it comes to debit cards.

It was a long process. We had to offer an amendment on the floor in the banking reform bill. And Dan, every step of the way, was my guide as to what we could achieve.

We changed the law, and we reduced the costs to the retailers and to merchants and restauranteurs of using those debit cards for that purpose. I don't have many friends in the big banking industry as a result of it, but I can tell you, we made the big banks pay $8 billion a year that they otherwise would have collected in these swipe fees. And by not collecting them, consumers and retailers were the winners. My lead advocate in that area, my expert in that area, was Dan Swanson. He understood it, and he did it so well.

He also helped save countless lives from gun violence, a topic on which he has been my top adviser. Just last year, he joined the group that wrote the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most important gun safety reform to pass Congress in nearly 30 years.

And Dan Swanson has also been my point person on the Federal judicial nominees for my State of Illinois. He even helped create the bipartisan process we use in our State to select candidates to recommend for Presidential judicial nominations.

Dan has overseen the confirmation process for all but two of the Federal judges currently serving in the entire State of Illinois. And the judges he has helped reach the Federal bench bring not only strong credentials and experience, they have brought vital new perspectives.

With Dan's help, this Senate has confirmed the first women to serve as judges in the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois, the first Black and Asian American judges to serve in those districts as well as the Seventh Circuit. And he was instrumental in the confirmation of the first African-American woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Throughout his more than 17 years of service in my office, Dan has not only changed America for the better, he has also experienced some changes of his own.

Dan does not like to be in the spotlight. But 10 years ago--I love this story--he and his wife Priva made a splash in the Washington Post. They were on their way to the hospital for the birth of their second child, but they didn't make it in time. Little Arya was born in her parents' car. She arrived a few years after her big sister Maya, who was born in more traditional circumstances.

So while our team regrets losing Dan, I know there are two little girls, along with their mom, who are going to enjoy a summer of quality with dad, which is just up around the corner. I hope the four of them have a chance to head up to Vermont soon with Dan's parents Alan and Donna, as well as his brother Allie, to take long walks in nature, watch the Bronx Bombers play, and enjoy countless helpings of Dan's favorite: Jell-O and pie.

A writer I admire once observed:

With the lives that we live and the choices we make . . .

let our goal be to give the world more than we take.

Dan, you have given everything you can possibly give to public service, and I have been a beneficiary. I am grateful. America is grateful. Thanks, Dan Swanson.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Julie Rikelman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She is a highly skilled litigator with almost 25 years of experience in private practice, as in-house counsel, and in public interest law.

After graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Rikelman clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and Judge Morton Greenberg on the Third Circuit. Ms. Rikelman then began her legal career as a Blackmun Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights--CRR--litigating reproductive rights cases around the country. In private practice, Ms. Rikelman has handled a wide range of civil and criminal cases, at both the trial and appellate level, including securities fraud, commercial breach of contract, State antitrust law, and election law. As an in-house attorney at NBC Universal, Ms. Rikelman litigated a variety of matters in Federal and State courts-- including defamation, intellectual property, and employment discrimination. In 2011, Ms. Rikelman returned to CRR to take on a more senior role litigating cases, as well as spearheading case strategy.

Over the course of her career, Ms. Rikelman has proven to be a skilled trial attorney and an accomplished appellate practitioner, arguing multiple appeals, including two before the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. Rikelman ``well qualified,'' and she has the strong support of her home State Senators: Ms. Warren and Mr. Markey. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Ms. Rikelman's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

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

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

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

Mr. President, in June, our Nation celebrates National Immigrant Heritage Month. It is a reminder that, with the exception of Native Americans and the descendants of enslaved people, every one of us shares something in common with the families arriving in America today, and that is the fact that our own ancestors once traveled far and wide to reach this land of liberty and opportunity. In my case, it was my grandmother. The year was 1911. She was forced to flee her home in Lithuania. She boarded a ship in Germany, bound for America, carrying two things in her arms: her Catholic prayer book and my infant mother. She arrived in our country with the same hopes as every immigrant who comes to America--from the immigrant business owners in my State of Illinois and communities like Little Village to all of the immigrant farm workers who keep food on our tables.

And today, the month of June is not only a chance to celebrate America's heritage as a nation of immigrants, it should also serve as a call to action for us in Congress. That is because today, June 15th, marks the 11th anniversary of a life-changing program for a group of young people who share my mother's story--the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrival Program, DACA.

Back in 2010, on a bipartisan basis, the late Republican Senator Richard Lugar and I asked President Obama to use his power as President to protect from deportation hundreds of thousands of young people, many of whom arrived in our country as infants and toddlers, like my mom. And 11 years ago today, President Obama responded. He announced that he would use his executive authority to create the DACA Program.

These young people are known generally as Dreamers. They have grown up alongside our kids and grandkids. They pledge allegiance, as you said so many times, to the same American flag, and many have gone on to serve our Nation as members of the United States Armed Forces, first responders, and much more. In fact, over the years, Dreamers have become a household name. They have touched the hearts of Americans because in them, we see ourselves, our own history, our own families.

Dreamers have earned their place in the American story. But right now, they are still waiting on this Congress to finish the job that President Obama started with DACA.

This program was always intended to be a temporary solution. The permanent solution is obvious: Enact legislation--bipartisan legislation--that was introduced more than two decades ago--the DREAM Act. It would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers all across America. Without the protections of the DREAM Act, these young people have been forced to live a life of uncertainty. They have to renew their status every 2 years, which means they can only plan their lives in two-year installments.

Today I want to tell you the story about one Dreamer. Her name is Sumbul Siddiqui. Her story is the 136th Dreamer story that I have shared on the Senate floor. Sumbul's family moved to the State of Georgia from Pakistan when she was 4 years old. With most of her relatives out of the country, she relied on her neighbors in Georgia as her chosen family. Growing up, she was a star student with no shortage of passions. She spent hours in the library getting lost in books, learned to play the viola, and fell in love with the arts. In her mind, she was just like any other kid, until she started applying to college and discovered officially, legally, she was not an American citizen.

So even though Sumbul graduated from high school with the highest honors, she feared that her immigration status would prevent her from pursuing a college education. Fortunately, it did not.

Instead, Sumbul was awarded a private merit scholarship to attend Agnes Scott College in Atlanta, GA. During her first year, she was accepted into the DACA Program. She worked four jobs to cover the cost of tuition and graduated still a semester early with honors. She even found time to volunteer at a free health clinic. And it was in this role, working alongside doctors in her community, that she found her professional calling: medicine. So she decided to apply to a medical school that had supported Dreamers since the beginning of DACA. I am proud to say it is the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago.

You see, back in 2012, the Stritch School of Medicine made a brave commitment. They became the first medical school in America to adjust its admission policy to welcome Dreamers. And in the years since, nearly 40 Dreamers have graduated from this program at that medical school.

Last month, Dr. Sumbul Siddiqui became one of those graduates. I had the honor of speaking at her commencement ceremony before she and her fellow graduating class, which included five other DACA recipients, walked across the stage to receive their medical degrees. With her medical degree, Dr. Siddiqui plans to dedicate her career to serving families in the Chicagoland area. Soon, she will begin her residency at the University of Chicago, where she will focus on supporting underserved communities.

Ask yourself a basic question: Would America be better off if Dr. Siddiqui and Dreamers like her were unable to work here in the United States, when our communities are in desperate need of doctors and nurses? Of course not.

Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Dream Act with my friend, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. We have been on the cusp of passing the DREAM Act for years, but time and again, Congress has failed to finish the job.

Right now, this legislation is more important than ever. That is because one judge in Texas--who has repeatedly ruled against DACA-- could soon end protections for nearly 600,000 Dreamers. That would be a disaster--not just for Dreamers, but for our entire country. It is time for Congress to step up and meet our responsibility to Dreamers once and for all--as well as our responsibility for America's future--on a bipartisan basis.

I think that time is already here, and I hope we will meet our obligation that is long overdue to solve this problem, not just for this wonderful young woman and the ambition she has shown to make a better life for herself, but for the future world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Nusrat Jahan Choudhury to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Her historic confirmation will be an important step forward in this Senate's efforts to bring greater professional and demographic diversity to the Federal bench.

Ms. Choudhury is a seasoned litigator who has dedicated virtually her entire career to defending the civil rights of all Americans. She attended Columbia University and Yale Law School before clerking for Judge Denise L. Cote on the Southern District of New York and for Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr., on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Following her clerkships, Ms. Choudhury began her career at the American Civil Liberties Union--ACLU--in New York, where she focused on racial justice and national security issues for nearly a decade. Since 2020, she has served as the legal director of the ACLU in my home State of Illinois, specializing in issues including prison reform, civil rights, and government transparency. Ms. Choudhury has spent the vast majority of her time in practice litigating in Federal court, and she has tried three cases to verdict. Her courtroom experience and commitment to ensuring equal justice under law will serve her well on the Eastern District of New York.

She will also bring important diversity to the bench as the first Bangladeshi American and first Muslim woman to serve as a Federal judge.

The American Bar Association rated Ms. Choudhury ``well qualified'' for the district court, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators: Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand.

I support Ms. Choudhury's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Patrick Casey Pitts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. After receiving his B.A. and J.D. from Yale University, Mr. Pitts clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Mr. Pitts joined Altshuler Berzon LLP, where he has spent his entire legal career. His practice focuses on advocating on behalf of employees--often from low-income, minority, and underserved communities--and unions in labor disputes. Mr. Pitts has extensive litigation experience, trying one case to judgment and litigating more than 100 matters that were resolved through a decision on the merits. And if confirmed, Mr. Pitts will bring vital demographic diversity to the Northern District of California as the only openly LGBTQ article III judge actively serving in that district. He will also bring professional diversity to the Federal bench as a lawyer who has defended the rights of employees and labor organizations.

The American Bar Association rated Mr. Pitts ``qualified,'' and he has the strong support of his home State Senators: Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Padilla. Mr. Pitts is a seasoned litigator whose credentials and experience make him an outstanding addition to the Northern District of California.

I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Pitts's nomination.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Dale Ho to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, Mr. Ho began his legal career as a clerk for Judge Barbara S. Jones on the Southern District of New York and Judge Robert S. Smith on the New York Court of Appeals. After working in private practice for 2 years, Mr. Ho pursued a career as a civil rights lawyer, focusing primarily on protecting Americans' right to vote.

Mr. Ho has more than a decade of experience litigating long-running, complex civil matters, giving him great insight into the real-world impact of judicial decision-making and an understanding of the importance of fairly applying the law to the facts. Mr. Ho will be a valuable addition to the bench, given his underrepresented perspective as a civil rights lawyer.

The American Bar Association rated Mr. Ho ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of his home State Senators: Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand. As a highly skilled litigator who has experience in complex civil litigation and has a significant appellate practice, including arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Ho is well-positioned to serve on the Southern District of New York with distinction.

I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Ho's nomination.

Mr. President, on another topic, last week, President Biden did something he has done only five times: He vetoed a resolution passed by Congress.

And let me say: Thank goodness. The proposal he vetoed would have blocked the administration's student loan forgiveness program. This program will be a financial lifeline for millions of student borrowers across the country so that working Americans can start a business, buy a first home, or, simply, keep a roof over their heads. And there is one group of student borrowers in particular who are in desperate need of this financial relief: That is the hundreds of thousands of students who have been ripped off by for-profit colleges. Just listen to this: Even though for-profit colleges enroll only 8 percent of college students, they account for 30 percent of all Federal loan defaults.

Thankfully, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration took another crucial step to support these student borrowers. The Department of Education announced that it will reinstate what is known as the gainful employment rule--or the GE rule. This rule would create accountability standards for for-profit colleges to qualify for Federal student aid. If they want to receive taxpayer dollars--in the form of Federal student aid--then they need to meet their statutory obligation to prepare students for gainful employment.

I don't think that is too much to ask. This GE rule is years in the making, first introduced by the Obama administration, after years of deliberation, but it was rescinded under former Secretary Betsy DeVos. As a result, executives of for-profit colleges have lined their pockets with taxpayer dollars, while students were left to fend for themselves.

Let me tell you about one of these predatory for-profit schools: the American Intercontinental University. Five of its programs failed the GE rule--five--at one school, including a bachelor's degree in fashion and apparel design. The company claims it is one of their ``career- focused degree programs . . . designed to provide students with the foundational skills required to apply their creative vision in the real world.''

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Wrong. Because here is the reality: The total cost over 4 years is nearly $55,000. Seventy-four percent of students who attend this school borrow Federal student loans. And the median total debt is $31,000.

Here is the biggest problem: The graduation rate is only 19 percent. And the students who do graduate are hardly any better off. According to the 2015 GE earnings data, the median annual earnings of a fashion and apparel design graduate were $18,896. So even if you earn your degree from this fraudulent program, you do not even have a chance to earn enough to pay off your loans. That is why it is so important that the Biden administration has proposed to reinstate the GE rule. And this new version will provide the strongest accountability and transparency framework to date.

Under the proposed rule, for-profit colleges would have to prove that graduates make enough to pay back their loans. So what would happen to a school like American Intercontinental University if it does not improve its failing programs? Well, under the new GE rule, the company would lose access to Federal student aid for its failing programs. I am glad the Department of Education is holding the for-profit industry accountable for its lies and protecting students and taxpayers.

Mr. President, this coming Monday is Juneteenth, our newest national holiday, a day set aside to celebrate the triumph of freedom over slavery in America.

The name ``Juneteenth'' is a combination of two words, ``June nineteenth.'' That was the day, in 1865, that the U.S. Army's ``General Order No. 3'' was issued, finally informing the people of Texas of the Emancipation Proclamation--and that all of the remaining enslaved people in that State were free.

Sadly, on this Juneteenth--even as our Nation celebrates--we are witnessing the most concerted effort in decades to erase from our history America's long and still unfinished struggle to fully end racism, the odious lie on which slavery was built. Last year, according to the American Library Association, there were 1,269 demands to ban books in school libraries in various States. That is more than double the number of book bans sought in 2021. And it is the greatest number of book bans demanded in the 20 years that PEN America, an organization dedicated to the freedom of expression, has kept records on this troubling trend.

What is the most frequent target of these new bans? Books involving, or even just mentioning, issues of race. And what are the books that these censors are demanding be pulled from the shelves of school libraries?

Here are some examples: ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' is one. Another is a biography of Jesse Owens, the great American runner who won four gold medals at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1936, shattering the Nazi myth of racial supremacy. In Florida, the book banners demanded that school textbooks containing the story of Rosa Parks remove race and racism as reasons she refused to move to the back of the bus. Such efforts to erase history are an attack on the freedom to read and learn.

This week, my State of Illinois became the first State in the Nation to ban this form of censorship by public libraries. I hope more States will stand up for history--and that on the eve of this Juneteenth, Americans will commit ourselves firmly to truth.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Hernan Vera to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. With his years of experience defending equal justice under law, Judge Vera will make an excellent addition to the Federal bench. He received a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law before clerking for Judge Consuelo B. Marshall on the Central District of California. Following his clerkship, Judge Vera entered private practice and focused on complex business disputes with an emphasis on commercial civil litigation and intellectual property issues. He then spent 12 years working for Public Counsel, the Nation's largest pro bono law firm, and eventually became the firm's CEO. During his time with Public Counsel, he exclusively represented low-income clients and litigated hundreds of matters involving consumer fraud, housing, employment, and other civil rights issues.

In 2020, Judge Vera was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Since his appointment to the bench, he has presided over more than 200 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment, including cases involving juvenile dependency issues and allegations of child abuse and neglect.

Judge Vera has extensive litigation experience and a proven track record of independent decisionmaking on the bench. And having dedicated such a significant portion of his career to pro bono work, he will bring a unique perspective to the Central District of California.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Vera ``well qualified'' for the Federal bench, and he has the strong support of his home State Senators: Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Padilla.

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.