Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak on a separate topic. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to try something. The idea was to create a pension plan for every American. Why? Because many people, despite working hard their whole lives, doing their best to save money, ended up almost penniless when they retired, when they were forced to quit working. Those were the days when Grandma and Grandpa moved into the spare bedroom in your house. If that didn't happen to you, ask your father or even grandfather--they will remember those times. So Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's create a pension system so that after you retire, there will be some money coming in. You pay into it all your working life. When you reach the age of retirement, you get a benefit from it. They called it Social Security. It was passed into law in 1935. It made its first payment 5 years later in 1940. I think it has become arguably the most important social program in America. Certainly, more Americans have participated in Social Security than almost every other program. And they should. They earned it. They worked for it. They were promised. The promise should be kept. How is Social Security doing? Well, that is why I am standing here before you today. Last month, the Social Security Board of Trustees released an alarming report about the status of Social Security's finances. That Board found that Social Security will be unable to make full payments to eligible Americans by 2032. That is not that far away--6 years. This is alarming, and it is a call to arms to Congress. I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Scared to death that I was going to be a one-term Congressman, I was looking over my shoulder every 5 minutes to see what was going to knock me out of my perch there. Well, they came in and said: There is news for you, new Congressman. Social Security is about to go broke. The year was 1983, and we could see in the short term, Social Security unable to make its benefit payments. That would have been a disaster in 1983. We rose to the occasion. We had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. We had a Democratic House of Representatives with Tip O'Neill. We set out to write a change in Social Security that would save it so it could keep making payments. Well, it took a long time, it took several months, but we got it done, and we passed it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security, make changes to the program so that it would last, keep paying its benefits as promised for 50 years. That was 1983. I voted for it. Democrats and Republicans all voted for it. To my knowledge, not a single Member of Congress lost reelection over that vote. People said: We had to do it. There was no question about it. It was a tough vote, but it was the right vote. It was 1983. Fifty years of solvency--where does it take you? To 2033. And what is the situation we were just told? This program that we value so much is going to last until the end of 2032. It worked. Fifty years of changes worked. Now the question is basically this: Can we respond with the same bipartisan effort to buy 50 years more of solvency in Social Security? I think we can. Social Security unable to make its payments in 2032 is an alarm bell. It is a call to action for Congress, both political parties--not just Democrats but Republicans as well. Social Security is the bedrock promise of secure retirement and has been for over 90 years in America. Americans pay into the system throughout their careers of hard work, and come the time, that same program was supposed to be there to give them peace of mind when they seek retirement. Well, we know we have 6 short years to achieve that. What is going to happen at the end of that 6-year period? The Board of advisers tells us Social Security will only be able to pay 78 percent of benefits. Translate that, Durbin. Put it in English. That means the average senior citizen faces monthly--monthly--benefit cuts of $450--$450 a month cut from Social Security. For some, that is quite an inconvenience. For others, that is quite a disaster. It would force many seniors to choose between purchasing groceries, paying their utility bills, or filling their prescriptions. Honest to goodness, it is that basic. Seventy million Americans, including seniors and people with disabilities, rely on Social Security to afford the basics in life: food, medication, housing, utilities, and so many other things. In my home State of Illinois, more than 2 million people receive Social Security. Twenty percent of Illinois seniors rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. That is it, that Social Security check. If Congress sits on its hands and does nothing to respond to this crisis, millions of Americans will be expected to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars each month. The fact of the matter is that Congress has known about this issue of insolvency for quite some time, but year after year, Congress has avoided confronting the question, instead kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to show the courage to step up and save the program. That is unacceptable. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our reputation. We know that the longer we wait, the more drastic the policy changes become. We owe it to every American to save Social Security. Today, I am doing something that is rarely done in the Senate: introducing a bill sponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans. Our goal is to protect and strengthen Social Security. Our bill is called the PROMISE Act. It seeks to create a fair, bipartisan process to ensure Congress finally debates and votes on the future of Social Security. Under our proposal, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would collect public input and send a proposal to Congress that would keep the trust fund for Social Security solvent for 50 years at least. That would kick-start a process in both the House and the Senate to do something we rarely, rarely do around here. It is called legislating--writing a law, passing a law. Under our bill, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings, offer amendments, debate competing proposals, and ultimately vote on them. You say at this point: OK, Senator Durbin. What is this plan to save Social Security? That is the beauty of this proposal. We create an opportunity for alternative plans to be offered, and the one with the most votes--as long as it gets 60 votes in the Senate--the one with the most votes will prevail and will be the work product of the Senate on Social Security. Our legislation does not lower the 60-vote threshold of the Senate, nor does it predetermine any specific outcome. It may not work. We may not be able to put together any bill that gets 60 votes. But goodness gracious, we were sent here to try, weren't we? It simply guarantees that the American people, through their elected representatives, are finally going to have an open, transparent debate. I have gone to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle and said: What we want to do is give you your day in court, give you your day in the Senate. You bring your best idea and the Parliamentarian looks at it and says there is proof here that this has at least 50 years of solvency for Social Security, you can offer this amendment, Senator. Give it your best. Members would be able to offer substitute proposals provided that it is at least 50 years of Social Security solvency. Let me say it another way. Every Member with a serious proposal for the most important social program in America would have the opportunity to bring their idea to the table, to the floor, and get a vote. That is so rare around here. It restores the Senate to debating, amending, and voting under regular order--compared to what we see today. Many of my colleagues have been working on proposals for a number of years. Many are broadly popular. I will note that the senior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat, recently shared their idea to shore up the program, a bipartisan plan. They may offer an amendment to do just that. Congress has no shortage of ideas; we simply have a lack of will on both the left and the right. Many stakeholders would rather wait for that perfect political moment. Well, that is a mistake. I worry that moment will never come, and Americans will suffer because of that calculation. The PROMISE Act finally creates a pathway for those ideas to receive the consideration they deserve. Americans sent us to Congress not to observe the problems but to solve the problems, and that is what I am trying to do with the PROMISE Act. There is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than preserving Social Security. No excuses--we can do it this year. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to set up the process, the procedure, to bring it to the floor and have alternative substitutes for Social Security's future offered for consideration, for debate, and for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally kick-start the process of tackling this important issue. We will be working to pass this measure before we depart for the August recess. Is it a long shot? Maybe it is. But I think, when we understand the gravity of the challenge and the important responsibility we shoulder when we accepted this position as Senators, we will understand that we have to rise to that challenge. The eight of us--four Democrats, four Republicans--are willing to step up and say: Let's move forward. Let's not be afraid to legislate. Let's do it for the good of Social Security and the millions and millions of Americans who count on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, I joined several of my colleagues from the Senate and from the House at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye. It was a historic meeting in terms of the future of NATO and the future of Ukraine and so many other issues that relate to that critical and important alliance. Last Wednesday, we had a dinner that was hosted by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkiye, Tom Barrack. There must have been 50 or 60 people there who all shared concerns of the summit conference. Among them were Members of Congress, Turkish leaders, and representatives of other countries around the world who had gone to that famous summit. At the heart of that dinner was my colleague and friend Senator Lindsey Graham. When I arrived that night, it was no surprise that he had been there before me and had been working the crowd. He had been speaking to each and every person who was there--business leaders and political leaders from all parts of the world--about his concerns. Lindsey was walking them through, one at a time, his vision on how we could end the war in Ukraine and the legislation we needed to accomplish that, which was typical of Lindsey Graham. We all shared that concern, but he was buzzing around that crowd like an aspiring candidate, convincing everybody that there was a way to end this war the right way. Only a few days after that dinner, my friend Lindsey Graham passed away. It was a shock. I would like to take a moment to recognize his lifetime of public service both in the State of South Carolina and for our Nation. I served with Lindsey Graham in the Senate for more than two decades, and during that time, I counted him as a trusted friend. I will tell you that my friends and supporters back in Illinois many times would just shake their heads and say: Durbin, what are you doing with Lindsey? You shouldn't be working with him. They didn't know how the Senate works, and they certainly didn't know him. Lindsey, for many years, was the only Republican who was willing to cosponsor the DREAM Act, a bill that I introduced over 20 years ago and had reintroduced in successive Congresses, which provided protection to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to this country as children. His support took guts. At a time when issues surrounding immigration were becoming politically toxic, Lindsey stuck his neck out for me and for these young people. I will never ever forget it. I will also never forget a meeting that Lindsey and I had with President Trump in his first term in 2018. It was a meeting to discuss a possible comprehensive immigration reform package. It didn't go well at all. President Trump made what I considered to be profane comments about some immigrants, but I won't repeat them here. Lindsey, while sitting next to me in the Oval Office, passionately, vocally, and with real commitment disagreed with the President, arguing that America is not defined by race or color but by its ideals and of the many contributions that immigrants have made to our Nation. He said to the President, as I sat right next to him in the Oval Office, that he was just wrong; that these people who are immigrants make a difference in America. It was the story of our country, and Lindsey said it was the story of his family. Lindsey spoke publicly about this interaction after it occurred, and despite the scorn that he earned from certain segments of the Republican base, he stuck to what he believed was right. When I happened to become the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 4 years, Lindsey Graham was my ranking Republican. He sat right next to me in every session of that committee. We had our share of disagreements over issues and nominees, but I knew that his word was always good. If he told me he was going to vote for something or some person, he did--he delivered--and we had a good working relationship between us--no cheap shots, no stabs in the back. He voted in favor of 75 percent of the judicial nominations that we considered while I was chair, and there were 235 lifetime appointments that came out of that committee. Even though they were nominated by a President from a different political party, he announced early on that, if I expect Democrats to vote for Republican nominees, I have to support Democratic nominees to show the same spirit of cooperation. And he did. He kept his word. That was who Lindsey was. He was proud to be a fierce Republican partisan, but he never lost sight of the need to work across the aisle to make a difference in the lives of Americans. Loretta and I send our condolences to Lindsey's family and his legion of friends in South Carolina and around the world. He was an extraordinary Member of the Senate. He helped to make it work. There was never any bipartisan meeting of a gang--or however you would characterize it--during which Lindsey wasn't within its ranks. I remember when John McCain and he led the Republican side of an immigration reform effort, and I was part of that on the Democratic side. After months--literally months--of negotiating, we brought a package to the floor, which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, showing that we could do things like that and that we should still be able to. For those things to occur, it is not just a matter of having a good idea; you need good people who are willing to be respectful of one another and to work hard to find common ground. Lindsey was one of those people.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Arthur Roberts Jones to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Mr. Jones' association with a far-right organization and refusal to disavow that organization's extreme views on firearm safety are disqualifying. Mr. Jones joined Gun Owners of America in 2025. This group has criticized the National Rifle Association for being too moderate, called for ATF to be abolished, and argued that all gun safety laws are unconstitutional. I gave Mr. Jones the opportunity to explain his choice to join this group. In response, he disputed that Gun Owners of America has radical views on firearms and stonewalled on the question of whether he believes the Second Amendment renders all gun safety laws unconstitutional. His refusal to admit that the Supreme Court has, in fact, upheld various regulations on firearms under the Second Amendment is unacceptable for someone who seeks a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Michael Hendershot to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Mr. Hendershot's record reflects his partisanship. In the Ohio Attorney General's Office, he defended the State's laws restricting abortion access. He continued to defend the State even after Ohio voters enshrined reproductive rights in the Ohio Constitution in 2023. He also represented Ohio officials against challenges to the State's gerrymandered State legislative and congressional maps as they were struck down five times by the Ohio Supreme Court for violating the Ohio Constitution. Finally, Mr. Hendershot is yet another Trump judicial nominee who is an election denier. In November 2020, he joined an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to grant cert and reverse the underlying decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that allowed for the counting of absentee ballots received after election day. I oppose Mr. Hendershot's nomination and ask my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to reflect on the costs of war. The heaviest burden is always paid by those who serve. In the President's war of choice against Iran, 13 American servicemembers have lost their lives, their families forever affected. The damage to the global economy and the American economy also has been staggering. Energy prices and commodity prices worldwide have skyrocketed, worsening global poverty and food insecurity rates. At home, gas prices rose to an average of $4.56 a gallon, the highest we have seen in 4 years. Mortgage rates jumped, and operating expenses surged for American farmers. Moody's Analytics put the total U.S. cost at $132 billion when factoring in military spending, rising prices, and interest rates. Every dollar spent on war is 1 less dollar to improve healthcare or repair our roads. Here is another cost associated with the Iran war: $29 billion. That is the estimate that Pentagon officials shared during a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing last month. That figure includes only short-term operational expenses and the costs associated with replenishing some munitions. However, it does not include the heavy cost required to repair or rebuild U.S. military bases and facilities in the Middle East that sustained damage from Iranian retaliatory strikes. And every service Secretary has come to Congress to tell us they are running out of money and will need to delay critical training for troops, defer maintenance on military bases, and pause duty station changes. Yet, while Pentagon officials testified before Congress that the war apparently only cost $29 billion, they were reportedly putting together a supplemental request for upwards of $80 billion. That is on top of the $1.5 trillion that the President has requested for the national defense budget for fiscal year 2027, at least $350 billion of which the President hopes will come from yet another partisan reconciliation bill. Can you imagine? $1.5 trillion, with a t, for the national defense budget--a 50-percent increase over current funding levels. Has the Pentagon provided Congress with a detailed accounting of its expenses and needs associated with the cost of the Iran war? No. Do we know what will be in the Pentagon's supplemental request? No. Do we know when we will see a supplemental request? No. Will a reconciliation bill include strict financial guardrails for the Department of Defense? If it is anything like the $150 billion that DOD received from the majority last year, probably not. I, for one, am not interested in giving the President a blank check, especially when he threatens further strikes against Iran one day, then touts a supposed peace deal the next. Here is one more dollar figure I would like to point out: $300 billion. That is the figure tied to a reconstruction fund that President Trump has apparently promised to Iran under the terms of the preliminary agreement he signed last week. This funding is apparently what is needed to help Iran rebuild its economy after the war--but the details are murky. Who will provide this funding? Will it be the American taxpayers left holding the bag after the President's failed war? Unclear. Will there be any constraints on how Iran can use this funding? Can they use it to reconstitute their military? Unclear. What mechanism will there be for oversight of the fund? Also unclear. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if President Obama, while negotiating the JCPOA, promised Iran $300 billion in reconstruction funds? Under the JCPOA, economic relief for Iran was provided through certain sanctions waivers and access to its own previously frozen foreign assets. President Obama faced significant scrutiny from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the release of those Iranian funds. I recall many distortions about a $1.7 billion payment at the time, including bogus claims that the United States was paying out for prisoner releases when, in reality, we were clearing up a decades-old legal settlement that had nothing to do with the JCPOA. Less than $2 billion seems like pennies relative to the $300 billion promise made by President Trump to the Iranians today. Already this week, the Trump administration issued sweeping oil sanctions waivers, unlocking billions in new revenue for Tehran. And apparently, the U.S. is working with Qatar to free up billions of dollars in frozen assets available for Iran. These financial incentives for an adversary before we have compliance are remarkable. Ultimately, I hope my colleagues reassert Congress' constitutional responsibilities when it comes to the war against Iran. I am glad that the Senate adopted a resolution instructing the President to end the war yesterday, and I hope when it comes to the national budget or any supplemental request, we will uphold our power of the purse. I also look forward to reviewing any final nuclear agreement with Iran as required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Anything less is an abdication of our duties as Members of Congress.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, I joined my colleague from California Senator Alex Padilla for a spotlight forum on the Trump administration's ongoing effort to undermine free and fair elections, particularly the upcoming midterm election, a few weeks away. I want to thank Senator Padilla for hosting that forum and his leadership. During the forum, we heard from a person who was a 15-year veteran in efforts to counter foreign malign influence across various government Agencies, most recently at the Department of Homeland Security. She warned us: There are bad actors out there who will take advantage of the diminished Federal effort to prevent foreign influence in our elections. She was specific. Particularly under this administration, the Trump administration, and DOGE--you will remember that exercise by the richest man on Earth, Elon Musk--they attempted to and did gut the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA, and dismantled the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. Unfortunately, instead of taking serious steps to counter real threats to our elections, the President's cherry-picked so-called solutions to problems are nothing more than attempts to rig midterm elections and cling to power. For example, Republicans tried to sneak the SAVE America Act into the President's ICE and CBP funding bill as an amendment, but Democrats defeated it. Now, the President is back at it. Last week, in one of his many social media posts, the President said: I will not approve a FISA extension without the SAVE America Act going along with it. Republicans are blaming Democrats for holding up FISA. It turns out the President is holding it up to get his-- what I consider to be--unconstitutional measure adopted by Congress. The bill, the SAVE America Act, sounds like something you want to salute. You shouldn't. The bill would require all States to obtain proof of citizenship in person from people registering to vote. Most driver's licenses--the most common form of identification of most Americans--including most REAL IDs, would not be sufficient to register to vote. Instead, people would need to provide birth certificates or passports or similar documentation that denotes one's citizenship. So how many of us know where you are going to find your original birth certificate? I think it is upstairs in a box in a closet, in my case, but I haven't seen it in a long time. And what about passports? Well, just show your passport. It turns out half of the people in America don't have a passport. Well, OK, get a passport before the next election in November. Oops, there is a filing fee--a $165 filing fee. So you have to pay a filing fee for a passport in order to get the right to vote under the SAVE America Act that the President wants? Do you want to expedite it? You are afraid the passport won't show up in time for the next election. Add another $60 to the cost. A $225 filing fee for an expedited passport--think about that as a poll tax. The bill would also unfairly impact married women who have taken their spouse's name, because their current legal name may not match the name on that birth certificate that you found upstairs in the attic. These women would have to jump through additional hoops to amend their original proof of citizenship documents or provide supplemental materials or affidavits to register to vote. How much more complicated can we make it? Well, you say: Wait a minute. If it means we are going to have an honest and fair election, Senator, face up to it. It is a reality. Well, it is a legitimate question. How many aliens--noncitizens--try to vote in the United States? Well, they did a survey over a span of 30 years. Millions and millions of people registered to vote, and they checked how many times they found out those people were ineligible because of their citizenship. Out of the millions and millions of people who voted, how many times do you think this happened in America? Well, the survey that was done found that it happened--well, let's take a guess. Seven hundred thousand times out of millions? No. Seventy thousand? No. Seven hundred? No. Seventy-seven times out of the millions of registrations to vote, they found someone who was ineligible because of citizenship-- 77 out of millions. And because of that, the Republicans are suggesting we need to change the way we register to vote in America, with a filing fee for passports of $225 or some other form of identification. And the bottom line is this: It is a solution looking for a problem. It is not a problem. It is against the law for anyone who is not a citizen to vote, and they know it; and they pay a price if they are caught. If passed, this legislation would apply to this year's election-- think about that--in a matter of 4\1/2\ months. It would wreak havoc in communities across the country, as voters are kicked off voter rolls and States scramble to implement drastic change. Republicans, with a historically unpopular President--let me repeat that: a historically unpopular President--don't think they can win this election without a boost. That boost will mean keeping people from voting that they think will vote the other way. So they have resorted to voter suppression to create a fighting chance in November. Don't believe me? Just ask President Trump, who claimed on social media: ``The Republican Party will never win another election'' without the SAVE America Act. He is pretty blunt, isn't he? He doesn't beat around the bush. He says what he is thinking, whatever that may be, and that is clear. He believes the SAVE America Act is the only way to win in November. That means reducing registration to vote, reducing the number of voters, requiring identification that has never been required in the past. The SAVE America Act is just one piece of the puzzle in this larger scheme. The truth is the President has been laying the groundwork to sow doubt and distrust in our electoral process and disenfranchise voters for some time now. Remember, just a few months ago, when FBI agents raided an election office in Fulton County, GA, to seize the ballots in a past election? Why? Because Donald Trump just can't shake the Big Lie and admit he lost to Joe Biden in the 2020 Presidential election. You ought to see these lawyers, many of them judges who want lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We asked them really stump questions, really hard questions, difficult questions. Here is one of them: Who won the 2020 election, in the United States of America, running for President? Boy, that is a tough one. Only every eighth grader you ever met knows the answer to that question. But these nominees cannot say those words for fear that Donald Trump will hear them say he actually lost that election to Joe Biden--and he did. And so they squirm, and they wiggle. And they fret, and they perspire. And they want to get out of the place as fast as possible because they don't want to say the truth: Donald Trump lost an election. They are afraid, if they do, he will yank their nomination. So they talk about what the Constitution really means and all sorts of other topics. That is the reality. President Trump wants to justify interfering in this year's election. In fact, his weaponized Justice Department is seeking confidential voter roll data from States around the country to purge eligible voters. There is a ruling by a local court this week on that subject, saying they can't do it. And then there is the Supreme Court, which recently cleared the way for Alabama Republicans to eliminate one of the State's two majority- Black districts as part of a plan to give Republicans an additional House seat in the State. It is not the only State that is going through this exercise to eliminate minority representation. Last Thursday, it was my privilege to be invited for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in Chicago. I had been through it a few weeks ago. It is amazing. It restores your confidence in the Presidency and your belief that you can have a President who is admired and respected and follows the law. The feeling, of course, was multiplied by the fact that Barack Obama, who is a personal friend, who was a colleague of mine in the Senate and the first African-American President--to represent Springfield, IL, the home of Abraham Lincoln, and to stand on the inauguration platform with Barack Obama and watch him put his hand on Abraham Lincoln's Bible and become the first African-American President in our history was something I will never forget as long as I live. That was an amazing achievement. We moved forward toward equality in America, as it should be. Sadly, we have to say the obvious: Under President Trump, we are headed in the wrong direction. Some of the things that are being done by members of his administration are impossible to explain other than their being the product of racial bigotry. For instance, some of the promotions that have been denied in the Department of Defense just don't make any sense other than using that as a basis. That is the reality of where we are today. I believe that all Americans who are eligible should have access to vote. I have trusted the outcomes of our Federal elections year in and year out. Even when I lost, I believed it was a fair election. I have said as much publicly. Today, we are now facing a new challenge: Will this election in November deny Americans who are legally eligible to vote the opportunity to do so? If so, it will be one of the worst days in our constitutional history. We need to make sure that we guarantee people's right to vote. That is why I am cosponsoring legislation entitled the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. I am proud to lead it with my colleague Senator Warnock of Georgia. Our bill would restore and strengthen the landmark Voting Rights Act that has been under attack by the Supreme Court. As we celebrate our country's 250th year of independence, we must join together in support of free and fair elections and condemn any attempts by this President or otherwise to undermine our democracy before it is too late. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the provision that is being offered by the Senator from Montana, we should be very clear as to what it does: It makes it illegal for a medical professional to perform an abortion with the knowledge that a pregnant woman is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part--in whole or in part--on the basis of a test result indicating the fetus has Down syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis that the fetus has Down syndrome, or any other reason to believe the fetus may have Down syndrome. Understand what the Senator from Montana is saying. We are holding the medical professional--the doctor, in most cases--responsible for understanding the reason why a person is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part, which suggests to me that it may not even be a major part but just a consideration, if at all. So what is the penalty that the Senator from Montana would assess on the doctor who proceeds with the procedure which may be legal in the State it is being performed? If there is any question, even in whole or in part, that it involves Down syndrome, 5 years in prison--5 years in prison for that doctor. It goes on to say that it would be illegal for a medical professional to help a woman cross State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion due to a Down syndrome concern. That also has a penalty of 5 years in prison. It is serious. So I guess the question I have to ask is, Is it our role as a politician, elected official, to call into question the reasons why someone may pursue a particular medical procedure? The Senator from Montana says, yes, and if that involves even partially a consideration of Down syndrome, 5 years in prison. I understand the compelling argument being made here, but there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides when it comes to this issue. If Republicans actually really wanted to help the Down syndrome community, they ought to focus on the issues that the community cares about. How would I know those issues? I went to the National Down Syndrome Society and saw the list of their top legislative priorities. No. 1, the top legislative priority for Down syndrome: Protecting Medicaid, No. 1, because it provides free health coverage for people with Down syndrome. And yet, we know what happened. This measure, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the future of Medicaid. Every Republican Senator, including the Senator offering this provision, voted to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next several years. I have checked in my State, downstate hospitals and clinics and doctors alike, and they said this is going to have a devastating impact on low-income individuals and individuals with disabilities. The National Down Syndrome Society knows that. That is why their highest priority--they would ask this Senate, this Congress, to function in this capacity, to protect Medicaid. But that is not the subject of the Senator's amendment before us today. Their second priority at the National Down Syndrome Society is ending discrimination with organ transplantation. And the third priority is important as well: Increasing funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. That is the same appropriation which, for 2 successive years, Republican President Donald Trump has attempted to cut dramatically. Some restoration has taken place in Congress. So the three highest priorities of the National Down Syndrome Society do not include the amendment coming before us today. Whether or when or how to start a family is an important decision best left entirely to a woman, her family, her healthcare provider. The U.S. Senate should not be involved in that decision making. There is no Member of the Senate who I think is competent to judge someone else's circumstances and what is going through their mind when they make a critical medical decision like this one. Today, we had a hearing, a spotlight hearing, on this issue, noting, as the Senator from Montana did, that we soon--tomorrow--will reach the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision. There were two women there who testified about their pregnancies and the problems that they ran into. Coincidentally, they were both mothers of children who were having subsequent babies, anxious to welcome those babies into the world, and then a sonogram disclosed terrible circumstances affecting that fetus. One lady's situation in Texas was she had to carry a fetus to term that could not survive. It was anencephalic. She was required under Texas law because they don't want to even get close to the notion of ending a pregnancy prematurely--she waited, risking her own health until a deadline was reached set by the legislature in Texas. Another lady, similar circumstance, a mother with a subsequent child, she thought everything was just fine, and the sonogram disclosed that the baby could not survive. That is a fact. That is a reality. To generalize and suggest that people are making selfish or personal decisions is really unfair. Each circumstance really begs the question as to whether we, as legislators, have a better insight into what is proper for a person in those circumstances or not. I think that this provision is not necessary. I believe that the Down Syndrome Society has listed their priorities, and this measure from the Senator of Montana is not one of them. Therefore, I object.

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are memories you have as a child which you never, ever forget. And one of my memories was growing up, smack-dab in the Midwest, in the middle of our country, and the experience I had as a child when my mother would wake me in the middle of the night, and I would hear the tornado sirens blaring. And she would say: Get down to the basement. The basement was our shelter for the potential of a tornado hitting our home. That was part of growing up in the Midwest. But I thought it was a great adventure to go down and sleep in the basement on the spare bed, with the sirens blaring, wondering if our home would be touched. Thank goodness, it never was. But we have witnessed more tornadoes in our State of Illinois this year than any year in the history of our State. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois has experienced more than 147 confirmed tornadoes over the past 6 months, nearly three times the State average of 54 in the last 30 years. Even in 2024, the previous record year for tornadoes in Illinois, there were only 92 recorded as of June 22, nearly 60 fewer than what we have seen this year. Over the past weekend alone, as many as 24 separate tornadoes hit Downstate, killing two Illinoisans--Delores Shelton and Sarita Kimble-- and injuring many more. My wife and I are praying for the families and friends of Delores and Sarita, as well as for those who were injured in these storms, who are starting the daunting task of repairing the damage that has been done. While the traditional tornado season in Illinois will be over at the end of June, tornadoes have become increasingly common in the fall and winter months, in recent years. I can recall recently a tornado in December, unthinkable when I was a child. This was a summer phenomenon--spring and summer. With the frequency of tornadoes rising across Illinois, it is more important than ever that we in Washington help families rebuild. My office has been in touch with State FEMA officials and is working with those affected by the tornadoes, but I am concerned that FEMA will not display the same level of urgency after its refusal, recently, to assist thousands of Illinoisans impacted by certain severe storms last year. Disaster relief is no place to play politics, period. I urge FEMA and the Trump administration to put aside political differences with our Governor or anyone--even me--and think about the families who have been touched by tornadoes and how desperate they are to get a helping hand. I know the Presiding Officer knows this phenomenon well. In her State, hurricanes, of course, and other damage are fairly common and devastating when they hit. You feel so helpless as a Member of the Senate or Congress going to view the damage afterward, and people look at you, waiting for one word or another of encouragement. And I came to play it down over the years: I will do my best. I will see what you qualify for. I will fight for you to try to help you. But we ought to make this a bipartisan commitment across the aisle, regardless of the natural disaster. The victims are not playing politics. They are trying to put their lives back on track. That is why I hope we will do the same. Iran Madam President, I want to take a moment to reflect on a rather infamous letter that was sent 11 years ago by the junior Senator from Arkansas to the leaders in Iran. The letter was signed by 46 of his fellow Republican Senators. What did it say? It, incredibly, warned Iranian leaders about entering into any nuclear agreement with the Obama administration without the approval of Congress. Let me read an excerpt in which the signers of this letter said: [They] will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear- weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. Understand what was happening here. We had a coalition of countries from around the world, many of them competitive, not many of them friendly. But they all came together, saying: Stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is the right thing to do. They negotiated for 2 years on an agreement known as JCPOA, and the object, among other things, was to have careful inspection and monitoring of nuclear activity in Iran and then have an enforceable agreement to stop them from ever developing a nuclear weapon. This letter was sent by Republican Members of the Senate, 11 years ago, to the Ayatollah, in the midst of the negotiations, telling him not to take it seriously, dealing with the White House, because the agreement had to be approved by Congress. The letter sent by the Senator from Arkansas went on to say: The next President could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses can modify the terms of the agreement at any time. What the Senator from Arkansas was basically saying to the Ayatollah was: Don't waste your time negotiating with this President because we can decide, at a later time, to reverse whatever he decided on. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent this unprecedented letter, in the midst of a negotiation with Iran, to Iranian leaders during a sensitive period. More than two dozen of those Senators are still here today. Presumably, they are drafting the same letter now to remind the Iranian leadership about the risks of doing any such deal with President Trump as well. Two months after this letter was sent, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with broad bipartisan support. I believe there was only one dissenting vote in the U.S. Senate. This law, which we passed 11 years ago, requires any nuclear agreement with Iran to be sent to Congress within 5 days for review and a potential privileged vote of approval or disapproval within 30 days. This law is very much applicable today. That is exactly what happened with the deal signed between Iran and the P5+1 nations during the Obama administration, known as JCPOA. I remember the debate in the Senate, very clearly, at the time. Republican opponents of the Obama deal in Congress said it was weak, that it awarded Iran with sanctions relief, that it empowered the Revolutionary Guard, and it weakened American security. In reality, the JCPOA included some of the most intrusive inspections ever agreed upon. I hosted the IAEA Director General a number of times, after the agreement was implemented, and he said repeatedly that Iran was in compliance with the agreement, which meant he said that, if he pointed to a door and said, ``I want to know what is behind that door,'' they opened it--period, end of quote. Ultimately, the JCPOA severely restricted Iran's enrichment capabilities at lower levels, notably extending any nuclear weapons breakout time--that is, until President Trump tore it up during his first term as President, leading to Iran's significant expansion of its uranium enrichment capabilities. Now, after 4 months of hostilities, after an invasion--or attack, let's say--on Iran by the United States, without support of any allies behind Israel, we have reached a point where we spent billions of dollars, 13 American servicemembers have given their lives, and the global economy held hostage. What do we have to show for it? A negotiation. I hope it ends well. I hope it ends as well as the JCPOA under President Obama. I hope that then the Congress, which was warned by Republican Senators, years ago, and to the Iranians, does its job in oversight, if it is deserving of that. I am also curious, though: What did we actually achieve at this point? Remember when he first started this war, alongside Israel back in February? The President gave several different rationales. Destroying Iran's military capabilities was one of his goals. Ending its nuclear ambitions was another. Regime change, even liberating the Iranian people--on each of these issues, we have seen little or no progress. Instead, President Trump seems to have signed an ambiguous deal with terms far more favorable to Iran and more vague than Obama's JCPOA. Iran is emerging from Trump's ill-conceived war with an ever more emboldened group of belligerents in charge, with the Iranian people continuing to suffer. These regime hardliners suddenly have a new way to blackmail the United States. When we attacked Iran weeks ago, there was no question about access to the Strait of Hormuz. Now we know it is an issue that is going to be with us for a long, long time. How do we know it? Gasoline prices. American families know exactly what has happened. In the short period of time after President Trump's attack on Iran, the cost of gasoline has gone up dramatically and diesel as well. So they can bomb American and allied targets in the region and continue to cause mayhem in the Strait of Hormuz with their proxies, but the Iranians are in a stronger position today than when we attacked initially. They even seem to have blackmailed their way into a $300 billion reconstruction fund--a commitment from unspecified sources. Who is putting this money on the table? In the JCPOA under Obama that was being negotiated, that was one of the points made over and over again: Don't give Iran back money that we have held up in American and foreign banks. They will only use it for weapons and use it against us. We heard over and over again that Obama was selling out. Now when you look at this memorandum of understanding--and I read it--it says there is going to be some commitment of $300 billion for a reconstruction fund. Who is going to pay it? The memorandum of understanding is silent. So where are the howls of dismay and indignation from the Senator from Arkansas and others? After all, President Trump petulantly walked away from a deal that by all accounts was measurably constraining Iran's nuclear program with rigorous inspections. President Trump closed down that agreement in his first term as President. And what is President Trump's replacement? A promise of something, unfortunately, weaker. As I have said time and time again, it is a lot easier to start a war than it is to end one. We should not be risking any further American lives and taxpayers' dollars on this unnecessary, unconstitutional war. But let me be as clear as the junior Senator from Arkansas and his 46 colleagues were 11 years ago: The terms of any nuclear agreement with Iran must come to Congress for review as required by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The requirements under this law are not waivable or open to interpretation no matter who the President may be. Until then, the President may not move forward with any sanctions-related relief or final implementation of any agreement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hold President Trump to the same standard they held President Obama to 11 years ago. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to from the Senator from Arkansas be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, remember when President Trump announced he would end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office? Instead, over a year and a half later, President Trump and Vice President Vance have publicly humiliated Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and made embarrassingly friendly overtures to the man who attacked his country-- who attacked Ukraine--Russian President Putin. It is hard to understand. Mr. Putin's response has been to thumb his nose at the United States and any efforts toward peace. In fact, in recent months, Putin has launched some of the deadliest attacks on civilian targets since the Ukrainian war has begun. This invasion by the Russians of Ukraine has now lasted longer than World War I. Let me repeat that. This invasion of Ukraine by the Russians and Vladimir Putin has now led to a conflict that has lasted longer than World War I. On Monday, Russia fired a barrage of missiles at several major Ukrainian cities, killing at least 11 people and sparking a massive fire at one of the most important Orthodox monasteries, a UNESCO world heritage site. And Russia has continued its acts of sabotage and provocation throughout NATO and Europe, not to mention its supplying of targeting information to Iran to hit U.S. interests in the region. Imagine my surprise when, amid all of these Russian attacks on Ukraine and neighboring countries, the Trump administration sent a U.S. official to Putin's annual economic conference, earlier this month, in St. Petersburg, Russia. We had an official delegation to Putin's economic development conference for Russia, while we were trying to stop them from attacking Ukraine and other countries. At this annual event, we had the U.S. Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts representing the United States. His name is Rodney Mims Cook, Jr. He was at the event with President Putin, in St. Petersburg, to talk about economic development in Russia. You may recall that Mr. Cook has been officially helping President Trump with his grandiose ballroom and arch projects. Why would President Trump give any U.S. legitimacy to this Russia propaganda event, while Putin continues to bomb Ukraine and snub efforts to end the war? Why would President Trump proceed with recently reported plans to significantly reduce air and naval assets available for NATO operations in Europe, while Putin continues such mayhem? On Tuesday, President Trump went as far as to signal that the war in Ukraine was not a priority of the United States. President Trump told reporters at the G7 summit that we had ``nothing to do'' with a war that was ``thousands of miles away.'' I could not disagree more. It is long overdue that the Pentagon spend the $400 million in Ukraine assistance, which was appropriated by Congress and signed into law by the President, and the $200 million in Baltic security funds that this Congress passed several months ago. I raised the point that we had appropriated these funds officially-- signed by President Trump--at a recent hearing with Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio. They indicated to me the funds were just getting ready, any day now, to be moved, which I hope is correct, as these should have been sent long ago and should not be delayed any further. It is also long overdue for this Chamber to act on Russia- and Ukraine-related legislation. A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives, overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, passed a bill to provide additional security aid to Ukraine and to tighten sanctions on Russia. That is exactly what is needed to force Russia to finally negotiate peace and stop this attack on Ukraine and its people. Here in the Senate, we have a broad, bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that has been pending for months without action. So, while we send the President's ballroom representative to represent the United States of America in St. Petersburg, Russia, and talk about Putin's plans for rebuilding Russia's economy--while that is going on--Russia is attacking the Ukrainians and neighboring countries; and the United States, through the President, has announced that it is none of our business.