Floor Statements

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

Good news to report to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Kentucky: a gallon of gasoline on the way to the airport this morning--$3.46 a gallon. I wish it were lower, but we have made progress from the days when it was over $5. We are moving in the right direction.

And, incidentally, this President has created more jobs than any President in a similar period in the history of the United States.

Do we have challenges? You bet we do. But to write this administration off as unproductive is to ignore the obvious.

We came out of this pandemic, and when we did, we faced the problems that nations around the world were facing. Literally, could we deal with inflation? Demand was pent up, and it overwhelmed the services and goods that were available and inflation started to rise.

It took its toll--it still does--on American families, but to ignore what we have been able to do is to really turn our backs on reality.

What about that rescue plan, the American Rescue Plan? I remember it, and I remember there wasn't a single Republican voting for it.

Almost 20 percent of the American Rescue Plan went to State and local governments to deal with issues like crime to make safer streets and safer neighborhoods for Americans across the board. That is the kind of money well-spent, and yet the Republicans wouldn't give us a single vote.

You heard the Senator from Kentucky deriding it at this moment as a waste of billions of dollars. It is money well-spent, and I found out personally, firsthand, when I went back in my State over the August recess.

I didn't just confine myself to the blue areas of the State, and there are big ones and a big part of our State, and I am happy to visit there. I went to some of the redder sections of our State, the areas that voted for Donald Trump in the last election over Joe Biden. I don't do particularly well there either, but I wanted to visit with them, and I felt that there were things I needed to learn about what families and communities were facing.

I went to Herrin, IL, in the southern part of our State, where my family has its roots, and I went to Southern Illinois Healthcare, which is a major healthcare consortium serving most of downstate Illinois-- rural, smalltown America, struggling with providing professional medical care but doing a fine job.

We have something called congressionally directed spending now. It used to be known as earmarks. I am unapologetic about it. I believe that if you make a public disclosure of these earmarks to justify them, taxpayers understand this is Federal money being brought home from Washington to their States and communities, where it is needed.

So I went to Herrin, IL, where we were able to announce an earmark of $1 million, which is going to provide for about half the cost of a new physical rehab facility--critically important.

I met some interesting people there. I met a little fellow, 4 years old, the victim of cerebral palsy. His name is Maverick. Maverick had a big smile on his face. He was there at the rehab center to introduce me to the nurse that has been working with him, strong, courageous little fellow--the pride of his family, the kind of courage he is showing.

Now, he has a rehab facility that is world-class in his region, in his neighborhood--the alternative, drive to St. Louis. You hear that over and over again in that part of the State: We just don't have any. We have to drive to St. Louis.

When it comes to rehab services for Maverick, kids like him, and adults as well, they now have a fighting chance to get something local.

And let me add, another fellow was there by the name of Riley Baird. Riley is a high school student, and he is an amazing kid himself. He is a Boy Scout, and I used to be a Boy Scout a long, long time ago. He had that sash with all the merit badges on it. I think I had five of them when I finally quit. He must have had 50, maybe 100. He had them all on his way and past as an Eagle Scout.

He decided to make that rehab clinic his project. He and his family built some toys that the kids are using there, and he was there to accept the recognition and praise he deserved.

He has a brother named Corbin--twin brother named Corbin, also an Eagle Scout, who picked a different charity to provide help to.

I just want to say for anybody who is despondent about the future of this country, you ought to meet Corbin and Riley Baird. Those two young men are going to be leaders, I am sure, in their community and beyond.

And it reminded me, too, that we ought to take a look at the positive things that are coming about. This notion of the reconciliation bill not serving America is ignoring the obvious.

How many of us in the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--have had press conferences put on campaign ads talking about the cost of prescription drugs? Guess what. We finally did something about it. After all these years and all these headlines and all these brochures and all these ads, we finally did something.

The reconciliation bill, which passed the U.S. Senate without a single Republican vote--without one--will finally address the cost of prescription drugs for people on Medicare. And it starts reaching beyond that to say the pharmaceutical industry has to be responsible. They have never been able to defend or explain why the same drugs-- exactly the same drugs--made in America are charged in Canada for a fraction of what people have to pay in this country; why Americans have to go without, while in other countries there are discounts that allow families to afford the drugs they need to be healthy and to live.

Well, we have done something about it. We passed a bill that will make a difference.

And when we talk about issues like electricity--I am going to brag a little bit here--my wife and I decided 2 or 3 weeks ago to start producing electricity. We bought solar panels for our roof in Springfield, IL. We are not the first family to have them, but we are one of the few. I predict that is going to change in a hurry. Why? Because in that reconciliation bill, we started taking an honest look at what it takes to reduce climate change and to give our kids a planet they can live on. It means that each of us has to change our lifestyle some.

Well, I left this morning a little bit of sunshine in Springfield, IL, and it means that I am producing electricity with the local utility. I am going to try to do even more. My wife and I are devoted to showing--at least setting an example in this region, in this area.

The bill we passed in reconciliation is going to create incentives for people to put solar panels on their homes, to buy heat pumps, electric water heaters--things that will reduce the use of fossil fuels and, instead, move us toward a more electric economy.

And, yes, automobiles are headed in that direction too, and it didn't take a Federal mandate. The major car producers are headed that way, whether we like it or not. They understand where we need to go as a country and where the consumers are headed, and I think that is a good indication as well.

So when I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and say that things are so awful, I don't doubt that many families are struggling, and we should be sensitive and mindful of that every single day, but a lot of good things are happening too. The employment figures are encouraging. Our move toward dealing with climate change is encouraging, as well. The fact the pharmaceutical companies are going to be held responsible and the fact that corporations that have had a net profit of $1 billion or more--listen to that closely--net profit of $1 billion or more in the last 3 years are finally going to have to pay some Federal income taxes. Americans are used to paying their fair share of taxes. Why are these corporations making over $1 billion in net profits each year not paying a penny? That is going to change, and it is in the bill too. And I know it is a bone in the throat of my Republican colleagues, but it is only fair.

This week we return after a 4-week recess. I was traveling around my State, listening to ideas and concerns. And you know what I heard over and over again? And this is overwhelming, particularly in the area of healthcare, but not exclusively: We just don't have enough people to fill the vacancies and jobs in America. We have roughly 11 million vacancies and 5 million people unemployed. That is the reality.

And when it comes to healthcare workers, it is a reality that means the cost of medical care is going up. If you can't find a local nurse to go on staff, on payroll, and be with you for a while and you have to rely on contract nurses, those who come and go, they have all the skill and training, but they are looking for a pretty big paycheck, sometimes three times what the regular nurses are receiving. That drives up the cost of healthcare. And hospitals and clinics are desperate for these nurses to be there.

I found all across my State--from the city of Chicago to the smallest town downstate--this is a challenge that we face and need to do something about.

But people, over and over again, despite what we saw in many of the reports on television, really do still love this country. They are concerned about the divisions we see every single day.

America has always been a can-do nation. Faith in the future and in our ability to solve our problems, create a better future, has always been part of American DNA.

It is hard to find common ground on scorched earth. As President Lincoln warned us long ago, ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.''

A few years later, as the Civil War ended and victory was in sight, President Lincoln pleaded, just outside this room, on his inauguration, with the people of the North and the South, and he said:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

He said that after the deadliest war that America ever experienced. He knew that the work of rebuilding this battered Nation and creating a better future would only be achieved if we were united--the United States of America.

This week marks the 21st anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack on America. I will never forget that day as long as I live.

I know, Mr. President, that you won't forget it either because it affected your State and many people who live there.

Those who are old enough to remember not just the shocking grief of that day will also remember the intense sense of national unity that sustained us through the terrible days and weeks that followed. We lost so much, but we found a common purpose. We understood that we are one Nation, one people, with one destiny. We rise or we fall together.

As the Senate returns to the work of legislating, I hope that we will remember President Lincoln's plea that ``we must not be enemies.'' Politics is not war. It is where we resolve our differences without war, in a democracy.

People in Illinois are concerned about our state of the economy. They are worried about inflation. I understand that. They are also feeling something that many haven't felt for a while, and that is hope. Why? Because of results. Inflation is, in fact, slowing. Gas prices are falling. At $3.46 a gallon, I would have grabbed that a few weeks ago, and I hope it can go lower. Gas is down by more than $1.20 a gallon on the average since the start of the summer.

Wages are up. People are back at work. We now have more than recovered all the jobs that our economy lost during the pandemic. Our economy has added more than 10 million new jobs, including 600,000 manufacturing jobs, under President Biden.

We are investing in infrastructure. I remind myself over and over again: Don't complain if construction on highways just slowed you down. You voted for it, Senator.

And I would vote for it again.

President Biden said yesterday, on Labor Day, in one of his speeches, that when we make this investment in infrastructure--a recordbreaking, historic amount--we will have the most

modern infrastructure in the world. Now, that is what a nation that is prepared to compete does.

We passed the CHIPS Act to preserve America's leadership in research and innovation and to produce semiconductors and jobs and the industries of the future in America, not in China. As the President also said yesterday, why wouldn't it be in America? We invented the chip. Shouldn't we be leading the world still?

Well, with the passage of the CHIPS legislation in a strong bipartisan vote on the floor, we are going to reclaim that lead.

We passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the biggest ever investment in climate change and climate resilience. It will reduce inflationary pressure by cutting energy costs now and in the future, and it also reduces the cost of prescription drugs.

We are investing in the American people on the basis of a shared, sustainable economic prosperity.

Oh, one footnote that is well worth mentioning: The Federal deficit will shrink by $1.7 trillion this year. All of the things that I have mentioned and all of the criticism we have heard from the other side of the aisle, and the deficit is going down.

Nearly all of these economic prosperity proposals were passed with Democratic votes only. Chips is an exception. Infrastructure is an exception. But the American Rescue Plan and the inflation reduction plan were strictly Democratic votes. It is our hope that our Republican colleagues will now join us and help us get back to work in fighting the common challenges facing the Nation.

Mr. President, on another matter, I want to take a moment to speak about one of my highest priorities as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee: the confirmation of highly qualified judges. This is one of the great shared successes of President Biden and the Senate Democrats and Republicans who have stood with us on some key votes.

As of today, the Senate has confirmed 76 judges to lifetime positions during this 117th Congress. That figure includes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an outstanding jurist, the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would just state that I have been in politics most of my adult life. I did not appreciate the impact that the selection of this African-American woman would have on the people I represent. Some of the toughest, hardest bargaining African-American women that I have known in politics have come up to me and, in a moment, broken down in tears to thank me for President Biden's leadership and the fact that the Senate approved this new Justice. It means that much to them. Her historic confirmation was a crowning achievement in our efforts to build a system of justice that works on behalf of every American.

Outside of the Supreme Court, as I mentioned, the Senate has confirmed an impressive number of Federal judges: 18 circuit court nominees, 57 district court nominees. Why is that important? Because the vast majority of cases don't make it to the Supreme Court. They are resolved by judges like these nominees, at the district and circuit court level.

Look at the most recent ruling yesterday, in terms of the judge in Florida and the special master that has been appointed for the records that were removed from Mar-a-Lago. That judge made a critical and historic decision. The judges we are approving are in the same position to do that, and with each one of the judges we have confirmed, the American people can trust that they will apply the law to the facts, follow the precedent, and defend the rule of law.

Now, these 76 judicial appointments are more than a statistic. With each confirmation, the Senate has taken a crucial step toward ensuring diversity in the Federal judiciary. President Biden and Senate Democrats have made it a priority to elevate judicial nominees from demographically and professionally diverse backgrounds. Many times, Republican Senators have joined us in this effort, and I want to give them credit where it is due.

During the 117th Congress we have shattered records when it comes to diversity on the Federal Bench. Of the 18 circuit judges confirmed by Senate Democrats, 14 are women and 13 are people of color. And of the 57 district court judges we have confirmed, 42 of the 57 are women and many represent a historic first--the first Muslim American article III judge to the first Latina article III judge in the State of Illinois.

We have confirmed a record number of nominees who have experience serving not only as prosecutors but also as public defenders, voting rights experts, civil rights attorneys. For too long, the perspectives that they represent have not been seen on our benches in Federal courts. Thanks to President Biden's leadership and the work of the Senate Democrats, the Federal Judiciary now includes many dedicated public servants who will help bring balance to the Nation's courts. And let me add that some of the key votes came from a handful of Republican Senators who have looked at these nominees in an honest fashion.

Every one of these jurists is highly qualified to serve our Nation and the American people. That is a welcome shift from the previous administration, which often advanced nominees who simply checked the box ``Federalist Society.'' Thankfully, the judges taking the bench under President Biden are impartial and evenhanded. All of them will continue to administer equal justice under the law.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, first, let me say I am joining in with the action just taken by the Senate, led by Senator Coons, who has shown an extraordinary gift of understanding of the importance of the African continent and the people that need to be part of its future.

I wholeheartedly support the effort which he initiated on the floor this afternoon. And I believe that Dr. Muyangwa is going to be a valuable asset to AID and to Africa, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this issue before us today.

Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs.

But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/ Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall.

And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world.

Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia.

The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just.

Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs.

They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing.

They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more.

The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history.

You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty- seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation.

And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses.

There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again.

For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on.

Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabit

this planet Earth--bear some responsibility.

The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat.

Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change.

The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030.

We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious.

For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it.

A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services.

To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may.

The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years.

I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget.

Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is.

Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices.

Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals.

Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe.

When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense.

These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs.

You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising.

Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto.

The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high- priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money.

They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well- known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here?

To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that.

Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much.

We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America.

Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs.

So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance.

Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end.

Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt.

Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture?

The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same.

Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets.

And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said:

This bill is fighting inflation.

He also said:

This is an easy bill to get behind.

I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation.

Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us.

I yield the floor.