Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Mark Kelly for bringing us together on the floor to talk about Citizens United. Senator Kelly has the honor of representing the State of Arizona. When I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I served with a Congressman from Arizona named Morris Udall. He was a great guy. He ran for President. He was, I guess, the source of more jokes and comedy than any politician of his day. He used to say: If you have politics in your bloodstream, only embalming fluid will replace it. I am living proof that he was right. In 1982, I decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time. This was after I lost three straight elections. My wife said this is my last chance. So I took on an incumbent in 1982 for the U.S. House of Representatives. He had been in that seat for 22 years. But because of the quirky law in Illinois, the Democrats got to draw the map, so I got a map against the Republican incumbent which was 40 percent new territory. I had a chance. And 1982 was a big year for Democrats. I remember it. I still remember my fear: Would I raise enough money to be a viable candidate? Nobody knew for sure. The average cost of a congressional campaign in 1982 was $215,000, for a campaign to run for the U.S. House. I raised and spent, as did my opponent, $800,000. We set records--$800,000. If you say that today--``Would you start off and wage a campaign for the House with $800,000?''--they would say ``Well, that is just for the announcement, right? You are going to need a few more dollars if you are serious about a campaign.'' The number has grown dramatically and now is in the millions for candidates for the House and for the Senate. You are looking at the last open, public sponsor of public financing of campaigns. Nobody else has tackled it since I stopped introducing it. At the time I introduced it, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican, was my cosponsor. We had a bipartisan bill. I still believe it is the right way to go, but it doesn't have a chance. Under the current system that has been described by my colleagues here on the floor, there is so much entrenched money that they virtually control the agenda and scare the living hell out of average individuals who don't have a fortune to spend. That is the reality of what we face. Senator Booker is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is an interesting world we live in. There is a group--I won't name their names on the floor, but it would be easy to figure out who I am talking about--that admonishes me regularly, as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that I am just not progressive enough; I am not doing enough. This influence group here in Washington is a dark money operation. We don't know where their money is coming from. They are the reformers, this dark money operation. We now have, currently, a debate going on on the floor about cryptocurrency. Remember what happened in the last campaign on cryptocurrency? The industry decided that they would pick out one or two Democrats and make a point that they were in the wrong position when it came to cryptocurrency. So they spent $40 million to defeat one of our colleagues here in the Senate, and they succeeded. That is the kind of thing that happens now: 40 million bucks. That is more than a good day raising money for most candidates, but that is the reality of what we face. This decision that we face today--Citizens United--was mindless. To say that a business has the same rights as individuals under the Constitution is a mindless conclusion. And it is no surprise. If I am not mistaken--I will double-check--if I am not mistaken, not a single Supreme Court Justice who ruled in that case had ever stood for office, ever had a fundraiser, ever had to go through it and understand what it does to you. I think ethical reform that is meaningful requires a scandal that is earth-shattering. I am not sure what is left by way of scandal. What is going on with corruption in this business has become almost routine. And I am sorry to say that because so many people on both sides of the aisle are good, honest people who are public servants trying to do their best. But this Citizens United decision and where we are in politics today have changed this business so much, I am not sure we can ever reclaim the kind of idealism that we all aspire to as public servants in this institution. I thank the Senator for drawing us to the floor today. There is a lot of work to be done, and I may not be around for some of it. But I will still remember that $800,000 when I first ran was a record. Now it is rather routine. Let's make sure that if you have politics in your bloodstream, it doesn't take embalming fluid to replace it. Let's replace it with the ideals that we all aspire to. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my good fortune and honor to serve in this Chamber for many years and to represent my home State of Illinois. I can reflect for a moment about the changes in the Senate Chamber in the time that I have been here. I am afraid it would take me too long to express my thoughts on that at the expense of the regular business of this Chamber. But we have reached a point where there are few and far between moments where we come together and agree on something the American people think is important. A year ago, I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--for 4 years. We considered many judicial nominees and many pieces of legislation in that committee. We were evenly divided or closely divided during the entire period of time. I think we achieved quite a few things despite those divisions. We approved more judicial nominees for Federal judgeships in that 4- year period of time than any 4-year period in the history of the U.S. Senate. It took 80 percent of the votes to be bipartisan for that to happen. So I tried as chairman to always find something we just might agree on, Democrats and Republicans would agree. The issue which I am going to address very briefly this morning is one of those issues. There was a time when the Senate Judiciary Committee was so equally and evenly divided that people thought we would accomplish nothing, but there came an issue where there was a consensus among Democrats and Republicans, and it is one that every parent and grandparent--I think every individual--will understand. Have you seen your kids or grandkids lately? Have you noticed what they are doing? They are looking at this virtually all day long if you let them. It is a concern for many conscientious parents that what is being broadcast on those cell phones could be life-altering and -changing for young people, and that is one of the issues I will address this morning. You see, during the period of time when I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, we considered the negative impact that these cell phones and laptops have on children. It is frightening. Parents came and testified before us that their kids--normal, happy, productive, good students--in a short period of time were captivated by laptops and cell phones into changes in attitude, changes in conduct. Sadly, some of the children took their own lives because of their exposure to what happened on these devices. It is heartbreaking. I recall one in particular: a young, African-American, high school student--a track star at his school--who got swept into some sort of broadcast on social media and in the span of 19 hours became so despondent and excited and emotional, he harmed himself and took his own life. The parents couldn't understand it. They didn't see it coming. And when they reflected on what was being done, it was an outrage. There is another thing going on which everyone should be aware of, and if you look closely on television, you might just spot warnings. It is this whole issue of deepfakes, AI, taking what looks to be real and broadcasting it as reality when, in fact, it is not. Last Congress, we considered a measure which I introduced and would like to ask for passage today. There will be a unanimous consent request made at the end of my statement. If that unanimous consent request passes, and I hope it does with bipartisan support, it will go to the House of Representatives for their consideration. It will be miraculous. We just might pass a bill. We just might create a law. Stay tuned. Let me tell you what it is all about. I rise today to ask the Senate to pass the DEFIANCE Act--bipartisan legislation that gives victims of nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes the tools to fight back against those who would exploit them. I want to thank the Senate sponsors of this legislation, including my Republican colleague Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. I told you it was bipartisan; it is. I have been proud to partner with a person I don't know well on a personal basis, but I certainly have seen her work. Her name is Representative Ocasio-Cortez. She represents the city of New York. She introduced legislation in the House with seven Republicans and six Democratic cosponsors. So her measure was bipartisan as it passed the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez herself is a publicly confessed and admitted victim of explicit deepfakes. I commend her for working to create tools for victims in the fight against this despicable crime. She has been an innocent victim, and she has spoken out to spare others what she has been through. In 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law. This bipartisan legislation makes it a Federal crime to knowingly publish or threaten to publish nonconsensual intimate images on social media. The DEFIANCE Act, which provides victims with a civil remedy--a remedy in court-- builds on the progress of the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The vast majority of American people support prohibiting nonconsensual, sexually explicit, deepfake images, with one survey finding that 85 percent of Republicans and Democrats support this measure. That is why I am hopeful it will pass today and be considered favorably by the House, and that is why, last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed this measure. We didn't get it done then, and we are returning to it now. The Senate should pass this bill again, and the House should take it up quickly as the problem of nonconsensual, sexually explicit, deepfake images continues to spread. With the push of a button, generative AI can swap someone's face onto another person's body, remove that person's clothing so they appear nude, or undress someone to show them in lingerie or other exposed positions. Recent reporting details how users of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, can ask its AI chatbot Grok to undress women and underage girls in photos. Grok will comply with requests to show subjects in various states of undress with images which I won't repeat for the record, but they are horrible. Even after these reports, X still has not prevented Grok from creating these exploitative images. Let me make sure you understand what I just said. Even after these terrible, deepfake, harming images are pointed out to Grok and to X, formerly Twitter, they do not respond. They don't take the images off the internet. They don't come to the rescue of people who are victims. That is why this legislation is critical, because this legislation says that if they are guilty of such reckless misconduct, they can be sued for it and held civilly liable for the damages. Imagine losing control of your own likeness and identity. Imagine that happening to you when you are in high school. Imagine how powerless victims feel when they cannot remove illicit conduct, cannot prevent it from being reproduced repeatedly, and cannot prevent new images from being created. The consequences can be profound. Victims may endure threats to their employment, education, or reputation or suffer additional criminal activity, such as extortion and stalking. Many experience depression, anxiety, and fear of being in public, and in the worst cases, victims have been driven to suicide. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez described her own reaction being depicted this way without her consent. She said: There's a shock to seeing images of yourself that someone could think are real. While prominent women are often the target for nonconsensual, sexual deepfakes, sadly, the victims can be virtually anyone. There are distressing reports of high school students struggling to respond to this crisis. In March 2024, at least 22 students at a high school in McHenry County, in my home State of Illinois, learned they were depicted in deepfakes circulating online. One was a doctored version of two female students taken at the school prom. I will not describe in detail what that deepfake did, but it had to be crushing for these young women and their families. Sadly, we are seeing an explosion of these images. One researcher found that the number of nonconsensual pornographic deepfake videos available online has increased 900 percent--900 percent--since 2019. Such videos have been viewed almost 4 billion times--4 billion. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse images increased from 5,000 in 2023 to over 485,000 in the first 6 months of 2025. Tragically, currently, victims have no civil legal remedy to pursue justice. The DEFIANCE Act changes that and gives victims their day in court. The bill would permit victims to bring civil cases against those who produce, disclose, solicit, or possess with intent to disclose sexually explicit deepfakes, while knowingly or recklessly disregarding that the person depicted did not consent to the content. I am proud to have collaborated with survivor advocates on this bill. Their lived experience and leadership have shaped this legislation. Congress needs to act. It is past time to give victims of nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes the tools they need to fight back. I am going to make a unanimous consent request on this bipartisan legislation. Senator Graham could not join me on the floor today, but he is a cosponsor and supporter of this bipartisan bill. I make the following unanimous consent: Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1837 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it feels good. It feels good to see the Senate actually passing legislation. It is rare. It doesn't happen a lot. With a measure of this importance, it is critically important that we come together, both political parties. I want to thank Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez for her leadership on this issue and her bravery on this issue throughout this debate. Now, let's pass this in the House and make it the law of the land. Give to the victims their day in court to hold those responsible and continue to publish these images at their expense. The Senate voted to unanimously pass this important legislation. The victims of this horrible crime deserve their day in court and, today, we are one step closer to making that a reality. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, against the direction and wishes of the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, 17 House Republicans joined every Democrat in the House to vote for an extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits. Last year, 22 million Americans relied on these tax credits to be able to afford their health insurance, but on January 1, those credits expired because the Republican-controlled Congress refused to extend them. Because these tax credits have lapsed, millions--millions--of Americans are being forced to drop their health insurance or to pay double or triple for their healthcare plans. Families are already struggling with the expenses they face every single day--grocery prices, electric bills, mortgage payments. We shouldn't add health insurance to that list. The House has done its part. The only barrier to putting a bill on the President's desk is this body, the U.S. Senate. Last month, Senate Democrats voted to extend these tax credits. Four Republicans joined us, but we fell short of the 13 we needed to get the job done. Now we have another chance. There is no excuse for further delay. We can act this week, before we take a break, to avoid this healthcare catastrophe. I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have said that they want to make healthcare more affordable. They have spoken to these families. They know the hardship they face with these premiums. Extending the premium tax credits is the only way to do that immediately. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis and surprise everybody. We can help provide Americans with the peace of mind that their families need, give them coverage so that if there is a bad diagnosis, an accident, a tough hospitalization, they are covered. Crypto Mr. President, on a separate topic, later this week, the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees plan to mark up and vote on landmark crypto market structure legislation. While we await the release of the specific bill text, let me be clear. A strong crypto market structure bill must include the following provisions: ensure protection for investors, especially retail consumers; protect victims from fraud, like crypto ATM scams; strengthen our financial stability; provide strong guardrails against money laundering; and prevent the President and his family from further enriching themselves. In the year 2008, the American people faced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This was spurred in large part by risky, subprime mortgages that went belly-up. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has stated that ``financial innovation and deregulation contributed to an environment in which the [United States] and global financial systems became far . . . less stable than in previous decades.'' In the wake of this, we did something to prevent a future crisis: We passed the Dodd-Frank bill, providing much needed reforms to the financial system that protected consumers and increased accountability on Wall Street. But it has been 16 years since Dodd-Frank was signed into law, and the financial system in America has changed dramatically. Today, it is the rise of cryptocurrency--a risky, volatile, unpredictable investment that requires meaningful--meaningful--regulation. The crypto industry has wide reach. It was valued in excess of $4 trillion in 2025, and estimates show that the industry has 40 to 70 million active users each month. Naturally, the crypto industry is calling for rubberstamp regulation of this asset in the name of innovation. Sound familiar? It is the same reason the FDIC gave us as the cause for the great recession. What does this mean? The next crypto crash could wipe out not just the fat cats but a lot of working families--just like in 2008. President Trump has failed to put in place commonsense guardrails to fend off another market collapse. Since returning to office, financial regulators like the SEC have dropped lawsuits against some of the largest and most dubious crypto companies, creating an environment of unaccountability. President Trump has pushed for deregulation of financial markets, including by taking his chain saw to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the name of ``government efficiency.'' He has pardoned crypto executives that have allowed funds to flow to terrorists, drug cartels, and cybercriminals--the worst of the worst. Trump has personally enriched himself--to the tune of nearly $1 billion in the first half of 2025--through crypto scams like meme coins. The industry has proven repeatedly that it plays a key role in facilitating fraud. Crypto ATM scams illustrate this perfectly. These scams swindle unsuspecting Americans--usually senior citizens--out of their life savings when they receive phony phone calls telling them that they owe taxes to the Internal Revenue Service or a penalty for missing jury duty. The scammer who calls tells the victim that they can pay what they owe at a crypto ATM machine. They are popping up all over the United States. Little does the victim know that the money they deposit into the crypto ATM is transferred to the criminal's digital wallet. The person putting it in the machine will never see it again. The FBI estimates that in 2025, last year, victims lost more than $333 million to scams facilitated by crypto ATMs. Congress must meaningfully regulate this industry and address these scams. We cannot make the same mistakes we made leading up to 2008, and we cannot expect taxpayers to support a multibillion-dollar bailout for the crypto industry if there is a crypto crash. Capitulating to the crypto industry and the self-imposed rush to mark up these forthcoming crypto market structure bills comes at the direction of a President who is trying to enrich himself and his family. I wish I didn't have to say that, but it is true. As the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees consider cryptocurrency legislation, I advise Chairmen Scott and Boozman to work across the aisle to explore proper protections and regulations in the crypto market. Rushing this process is unwise and poses a serious danger to the U.S. financial system. We have been warned. We have been through this in recent memory. Let's not do it again to unsuspecting victims. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on December 23, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Illinois that checks this President and his authoritarian tendencies. The Court rejected the Trump administration's request to stay a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge April Perry, which had blocked Trump's unnecessary deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. In that unsigned order, the majority of the Supreme Court wrote, ``The Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.'' This is good news, and we should recognize the significance of this moment: Even the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority refused to greenlight the President of the United States' blatantly unlawful overreach. Our government is supposed to help Americans--not go to war with them. The administration's deployment of the National Guard was dangerous political theater intended to sow fear and escalate the President's mass deportation campaign, not to reduce crime. The President's false rhetoric about Chicago being ``overrun'' with chaos was clearly a pretext to intimidate our city and normalize the deployment of soldiers on our streets. To protect civil liberties and civilian rule--pillars of democracy-- our country has long upheld the norm that the military does not police our cities. The Supreme Court recognized that, in this country, the circumstances where the military may be used to execute the laws are exceptional and thankfully acted as a check on this President, at least at this preliminary stage. The cost of this National Guard operation has already been enormous. The operations, maintenance, and personnel costs for federalizing the 500 National Guard soldiers for deployment in Illinois reached an estimated $20 million in a 2-month span. That comes out to more than $300,000 per day. That bears repeating: $20 million and 500 Guard personnel away for weeks on end from their families, their jobs, their communities . . . not performing any missions, but simply used by the President to threaten a reign of terror in the city of Chicago. It is unconscionable. As of today, these troops are finally, slowly demobilizing and getting ready to head home. But unfortunately, the presence of militarized immigration operations is likely to continue in Chicago and around the country, along with the egregious use of excessive force by these Federal immigration agents. Just yesterday, an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis. The video of the shooting is horrific and contradicts the self-defense narrative that DHS has attempted to spin. Minnesota officials have rightfully promised a full, fair, and expeditious investigation. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has dodged testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee for months. What happened in Minneapolis yesterday was an unacceptable tragedy. She must testify before the Judiciary Committee, immediately. Meanwhile, across the country, camouflaged and masked Federal immigration agents continue to deploy Black Hawk helicopters, armored vehicles, and a variety of chemical agents, including near schools, playgrounds, apartment buildings, and churches. And the Department of Homeland Security refuses to provide information about the costs of these dangerous operations in Illinois. The Chicago Tribune estimated that these militarized immigration operations cost at least $40 million over a 10-week period. In the wake of these operations, families are afraid to leave their homes, parents are scared to walk their children to school, and workers and vendors fear being pulled from the streets and detained simply for the way they look or the language they speak. The Trump administration has repeatedly justified these militarized raids as necessary to target the ``worst of the worst.'' But the facts tell a different story, one that I have laid out repeatedly on this floor. In one instance, on a list of 614 detainees submitted to a Federal court, the administration identified criminal histories for just 16 of the detainees. That shakes out to less than 3 percent of arrestees. And people with no prior criminal backgrounds, including legal residents and U.S. citizens, were swept up. As the President flirts with future military deployments and continues his militarized immigration raids, we know his campaign of terror will not stop at Chicago. And while he failed in his attempt to use Chicago as ``training grounds'' for military forces, the scale and tactics of Operation Midway Blitz have given him a blueprint for similar operations across the country, including in Minneapolis this week. So I ask my Republican colleagues, Will you denounce this President's use of troops in our communities before a city you represent becomes the administration's next ``training grounds''? I will continue to speak out and conduct oversight of this President, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in that effort.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, politicians live in a world of advocates. The rich and powerful engage effective people to represent them. Those less fortunate strive to keep up in the world of politics. It was 1982 as I, first-time congressional candidate, received a questionnaire from the Children's Defense Fund. My first thought was: Is this for real? Helping kids is the right thing to do, but who would make the most vulnerable people in America their ``cause''? Enter Bill Harris. Bill was born on March 11, 1940, in Saint Paul, MN, to Irving and Rosetta Harris. While they moved around frequently in his youth, his family eventually settled in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. Bill's father Irving was one of the most amazing people I have ever met, and anyone who knew him would understand how Bill developed a passion for advancing the interests of children. Across the United States, Irving invested in charities and institutions that supported childhood development. He helped create the Yale Child Study Center at Yale University, the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, which bears his name, and the Erikson Institute for Advanced Studies in Child Development. He worked tirelessly for the rights of all children and was so proud that Bill ended up working for children as well. After graduating from Highland Park High School, Bill left the North Shore to attend Wesleyan University in Connecticut, where he graduated in 1961. He went on to work at Janus Films in New York, where his interest in childhood development programs blossomed. In his position he had the opportunity to work with Fordham University to create novel media programs for underserved youth. In this position, he founded a newsgathering team, a radio station, and a newspaper all made for and run by children. In bringing new media to impoverished areas, Bill gave children more than just a job, he gave them a chance to advocate for themselves and their interests. Bill would end up writing his doctoral thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on his work, and it would continue to leave a deep impression on his life. And in his work, Bill received his life's greatest blessing. While organizing a film festival at the Lincoln Center, Bill met his wife Robie. She had submitted an entry to the festival titled ``Child's Eye View,'' which documented her work teaching underserved children. The two felt an instant bond over their passion for childhood development, and they soon married in 1969. Their relationship flourished for 55 years, with both advocating for vulnerable children throughout their union. After Bill completed his doctorate, he reflected on his work with children and how he could make more of an impact. At the time, nearly every large corporation and labor union in America had an organization devoted to fundraising and advancing its priorities in government, except for children. Bill set out to change this. He felt that children were a public good, whose needs were far greater than what private companies or philanthropy alone could protect. Only the government possessed the power and responsibility to adequately address the best interests of children. In 1981, Bill formed Kidspac to raise money to back politicians who supported evidence-based policies for children and families. Since its inception, Bill and Kidspac remained at the forefront of the major childhood welfare reforms of the past 40 years. Bill's efforts led to the creation of Early Head Start under the Clinton administration; he pushed Congress to change the Child Tax Credit to be fully refundable so the poorest families would be able receive its benefits; and he helped establish the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative to treat the mental health impacts of childhood trauma. In the years since, I have been honored to help carry that torch and double the funding for this critical program to improve our knowledge and expand services for children who are exposed to trauma. Bill was relentless in pursuit of his mission to push politicians to advance the best, most evidence-based practices that would support children. In his work, Bill was not content with only assisting children at home. He advocated for international HIV and AIDS relief funding long before the establishment of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief under the Bush administration. I had the great fortune of traveling with Bill to Sub-Saharan Africa to examine the effects of international investment in the region, and one memory of our trip stands out to me. Shortly after we arrived in Africa, I learned that the airline had lost my luggage. When I told Bill, he did not hesitate to offer me access to his wardrobe. He was ready to give me the shirt off his back. That was the kind of person Bill was. Bill never stopped advocating for children, and he did so without an ounce of vanity or desire for personal recognition. His passion was born out of a true sense of altruism that could not be tainted or subdued. Although Bill is no longer with us, his legacy lives on through his children David and Ben. David worked together with Bill to support the expansion of the Child Tax Credit, and he serves as executive director at the Children's Research and Education Institute, a nonprofit organization that Bill founded to educate policymakers and the public about the policies that best serve children. Ben worked for many years as a clinical professor at the Psychological Center at the City College of New York, where he provided therapeutic services in the same neighborhoods that his father made children's news programs five decades prior. Today, he continues to work in clinical psychology. Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to David and Ben; their wives Emily and Hilary; Bill's sister Virginia Polsky; and Bill's grandchildren Ella, Rosie, Sam, and Daisy. Bill was an optimist. He believed that there was no limit to what a child could achieve if they received the right support from their families and their country. With no ego or agenda, Bill gave his life to providing children with that support. His work has left a permanent mark on America's children, families, and politics. He will be dearly missed. Bill Harris was truly one of the good guys.

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, it is a heady experience to go through a classified briefing at the highest levels of our government, and virtually every U.S. Senator of both political parties had that opportunity this morning. I took advantage of it. It is rare and important. It was an explanation by our leaders in the Cabinet and the administration of what happened in Venezuela just a few days ago when Mr. Maduro was removed from power and brought to the United States to be held accountable for his actions in narcotics terrorism. This is not a new issue to me. In 2018, I took a trip to Caracas and met with President Maduro, his First Lady, and members of his administration. It was clear to me that Venezuela was in trouble. You could see it on the streets. People were literally starving, and hospitals were going without medicine. It was pretty clear to me that Maduro was ruling not by democratic appeal but by the force of his power in office. He was facing an election in just a few weeks, and I told him at that time that, if he did not have international observers at his election to verify that it was an honest election, the world would not believe the results. He ignored my advice, which was no surprise. He went ahead with the election and had a disputed result. He claimed victory, which others said didn't happen, and he did it again a few years later. So he discredited himself in the eyes of the world community, and his country continued to suffer. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Venezuelans abandoned Venezuela, saying it was impossible to live there under his authoritarian rule without the basics of life: food, medicine, and shelter. So this decision to remove him is not one that causes tears in my household. We believe he was unfit for office. He was defeated in the election, and he had to pay a price for it. I am glad that he is not in power today. During the course of our briefing this morning, our military leaders and others spelled out the details of how he was physically removed from office just a few days ago. He still is going to be held accountable in the courts of law in the United States--that is for sure--but there is also discussion about where we go from here. If you remove the President of a country, what happens next? Under their constitution, a woman named Delcy Rodriguez, the Vice President, was sworn in as his successor. I met her during my visit there. She is a hard-liner when it comes to the politics of the region and her brother even more so. We spoke for a period of time, and I became convinced that they would be difficult to deal with, although that is the reality of the moment. Here is the point I want to make: I understand why our administration was very careful in disclosing information about the removal of Maduro from office. The lives and futures of the men and women in uniform from the United States were on the line, and we should not compromise their safety in any way to achieve our goal; but there comes a point--and that point should be immediately--when this administration decides to trust the American people and tell them the whole story. I believe there are things that can be said which will not compromise the safety of the United States or our friends but that explains to the American people what is at stake here. What happened in that raid to remove Maduro from office? Most of the details are an amazing display of military superiority, which the United States enjoys, but there were other questions that were raised, too, during the course of this. In addition, the question is, Where do we go from here? What is going to happen to Venezuela's future? What is our responsibility? What are we accepting? The American people need to be in on that conversation. It is easy, I learned in my time in the House and Senate, to get into a war but that it is far more difficult to get out of one. I worry that, many times, we have blundered into a situation which looks so simple in terms of nation building, and it turned out to be so complex. Then the war went on for years and years and years at the expense of not only American taxpayers but, more importantly, American lives. It is time for the American people to be part of that conversation. Why do I think so? Because the Constitution explicitly says it. The Constitution says that the power to declare war in the United States resides in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives. Congress has the only authority to declare war. This President, like many others of both parties, has ignored that requirement and, I think, at his own peril. They are engaging us in a long-term conflict which could cost us dearly, and they are not engaging the American people in the discussion and rationale of our ultimate goals in the region. This briefing this morning was a good one. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia asked a question, and I think it was the right question: When are we going to trust the American people enough to tell them exactly what happened in Venezuela leading up to the removal of Maduro and what is likely to follow? It is an important, critical question. It will be costly in terms of the future of the United States of America if we are not explicit and honest with the people of this country. Now is the time for that honesty. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this month, January 2026, marks a new era for Medicare. After decades of empty promises about lowering the cost of prescription drugs, the prices of the 10 most expensive drugs under Medicare will finally fall. Starting this year, 2026, seniors who rely on medications to treat blood clots, diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers will see discounts of up to 79 percent for these essential drugs. There are 9 million American seniors who will save a total of $1.5 billion in annual out-of-pocket costs, including nearly 300,000 seniors in Illinois who take 1 of those 10 drugs. Why did it take so darned long to lower these prices? Politicians have been talking about it for years. For years, Medicare was blocked from negotiating the price of drugs by the pharmaceutical companies. They didn't want to cut into their profits. That changed when Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 under the Biden administration. This law empowered Medicare to bargain for fair prices for medications used by seniors. Not one single Republican voted for this bill in 2022. Let me say that again. Democrats overcame the objections of congressional Republicans and Big Pharma, who were complaining about how negotiating drug prices was socialism--socialism. Now seniors will be saving hundreds of dollars a month because Democrats rolled up our sleeves to deliver price cuts on prescription drugs. What has President Trump done to make healthcare more affordable? Nothing. Instead, he decided to slash Medicaid by $1 trillion with the passage of the so-called big beautiful budget bill. Because of this law, many hospitals across Illinois and across the country, especially in rural areas, may not survive. Rural hospitals are the backbone of communities in my State and in many others. They are the anchors of the local economy. Several hospitals that are barely squeaking by today have told me they will fall into the red because of the Republican healthcare cuts in this law. Recently, I surveyed all of the hospitals in Illinois, and 129 responded to my survey. They wrote to me to say they will struggle greatly with these cuts from the big beautiful budget bill of the Trump administration. These hospitals will face longer emergency room wait times. They will be forced to cut services, including behavioral health and maternity care. They will have to lay off doctors and nurses, which is exactly the opposite of what we need in rural America. My Republican colleagues know exactly how devastating these Medicaid cuts will be. That is why they attempted to remedy the situation by including a $50 billion rural health transformation grant in their Big Beautiful Bill. Let's do some math here. They are cutting $1 trillion out of Medicaid, and they are trying to fill that gap with $50 billion. I am a liberal arts major, but I think I can do basic math. What they are talking about doing is restoring 5 percent of the $1 trillion they are cutting from Medicaid--5 percent. In addition to cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid, congressional Republicans refused to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits under Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. Last year, 22 million Americans relied on these credits to afford their healthcare, but now they have expired. Despite pressure from patients, physicians, and providers, congressional Republicans refused to extend them. What is the impact of refusing to extend this program that makes health insurance more affordable? I am afraid it is obvious. During the 2026 open enrollment period, millions of people decided to drop their health insurance coverage. Others are being forced to make impossible choices between food, car payments, and housing costs. If we fail to immediately solve these problems, millions of people will become uninsured in this country, and those who will retain coverage will pay double or triple for their healthcare plans. It is not too late to do something even though we are hopelessly divided on most of the issues facing us. Let's hope that health insurance will be the exception. Congress can extend the tax credits and reopen the signup period before the worst impact is felt. At least some of my Republican colleagues recognize the pain their refusal to negotiate has caused. Last month, four Senate Republicans-- four--broke ranks to vote with Democrats to extend the enhanced premium tax credits and help people pay for their health insurance--four Republicans. In the House, four House Republicans signed a discharge petition to force a vote later this week to extend the tax credits. We must be ready to act when the bill arrives in the Senate. Americans do not have time for Congress to litigate the entirety of the U.S. healthcare system, but we do need to triage now. Let's do something to help these people keep their health insurance. I have spoken with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and have made it clear we want to help Americans pay for these bills. I want to join them. It should be done on a bipartisan basis, and we should waste no time.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Sara Bailey, nominated to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Ms. Bailey, like so many of President Trump's nominees, was chosen for her loyalty and MAGA bona fides, rather than any policy expertise or leadership experience. Ms. Bailey has spent years fanning flames of division and hatred in this country, attacking immigrants, Members of Congress, and praising dictators who indiscriminately strip the rights of their citizens. America is experiencing a drug crisis. Illegal narcotics trafficked from other countries and the abuse of prescription opioids have taken the lives of too many people. This great challenge demands an experienced, accomplished leader to serve as drug czar. Past nominees have been law enforcement professionals who have taken down drug smuggling rings, State public health experts, or physicians with a deep understanding of addiction. Ms. Bailey lacks any serious qualifications for this role. She is not a physician or addiction specialist. She has never been a prosecutor or law enforcement official. To prove her MAGA loyalty to President Trump, she endorsed the President's irresponsible and deadly plans to cut funding to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, which is on the frontlines of keeping illegal drugs off our streets and out of our country. If she were an expert on addiction, Ms. Bailey would know that kneecapping the Federal Agencies that provide substance abuse and mental health services would have deadly consequences. With his recent pardon of high-profile drug kingpin and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez and his nomination of Ms. Bailey, President Trump has proven once again that he prioritizes loyalty and political favors ahead of the safety and well-being of the American people. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose her nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Trump administration began a calculated show of political theater in force designed to spread fear and terror in Chicago and surrounding Illinois communities. Masked Federal agents pepper-sprayed, punched, body slammed, and even shot individuals, including U.S. citizens, during violent immigration enforcement actions. Virtually all of what I just said was captured on video. They deployed tear gas canisters against clergy, broke into apartments, zip-tied children. When they were required by the Federal courts to disclose how many people had been detained recently, they came up with 614 names; 16 of the 600 had any criminal record that presented a threat to public safety whatsoever--16 out of 614. President Trump has not gone after the worst of the worst as he promised. Instead, he has brought some of the worst, most unprofessional, and most poorly trained Federal law enforcement officers and agents into our city. Because of his so-called Operation Midway Blitz, children are afraid to go to schools, businesses are closing, and families are being torn apart. Yet the Trump administration shows no regret. They are reveling in the fear and chaos they are creating. Look at the Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino. On Tuesday, he returned to Chicago after leaving last month and bringing his campaign of fear to North Carolina and New Orleans. As soon as he arrived back in Chicago, Mr. Bovino went to the picket line of Local 705 of the Teamsters at Mauser Packaging Solutions. These workers are on strike for better benefits, safer working conditions, and measures to prevent ICE from entering their workplace without a Federal judicial warrant. Bovino brought Federal agents to this picket line to intimidate and interrogate these workers. He laughed in their faces as they demanded better working conditions. In court testimony, Mr. Bovino has praised Federal agents' use of excessive force as ``exemplary,'' even after multiple U.S. citizens were hospitalized following their encounters with his Federal agents. When addressing Federal agents prior to a confrontation with peaceful protesters, Mr. Bovino stated that ``if someone strays into a pepper ball, then that's on them.'' Bovino has tear-gassed peaceful crowds, encouraged his agents to fire pepper balls at protesters, and threatened to go ``even harder on the streets,'' when Federal judges dare to order him to follow the law. But Mr. Bovino is not alone in his cruelty. Many Trump officials have been posting and gloating about their clear violations of constitutional rights. While President Trump has given them carte blanche to violate the law, there is a reality ahead. One day President Trump will not be in the White House. When he goes, those who ordered these unlawful activities finally may be held accountable and prosecuted. Section 242 of title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime for a Federal law enforcement official acting under color of law to violate the constitutional rights of any person. I have no expectation that President Trump's Justice Department will investigate these violations currently taking place in Chicago. But the statute of limitations from these provisions is 5 years. The next administration will be well within its rights to hold accountable anyone who violated an individual's constitutional rights or directed others to do so during this Trump administration. While the Supreme Court's outrageous decision in Trump v. The United States may have personally immunized President Trump from prosecution, it provided no such protection for these agents. The Trump administration officials responsible for the use of excessive force or unlawful detention may face criminal consequences for their role in the Midway Blitz. That is why, today, my colleague Senator Duckworth and I have submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding the unlawful actions of senior Trump administration officials and Federal immigration agents in Operation Midway Blitz. To take one example, a Border Patrol agent shot a Chicago woman multiple times. Body camera video reportedly shows the agent threatening the woman, saying ``Do something,'' and then I will delete the next term he used, prior to shooting her. Afterward, the agent bragged in text messages to other agents about shooting the woman, writing ``5 shots, 7 holes.'' As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have directed my staff to continue gathering evidence of potential violations of section 242, and we will provide this evidence to the Justice Department in due course. In addition, Illinois elected officials are hard at work documenting crimes committed by these Federal agents. The mayor of Evanston has opened an investigation after Federal agents pinned down a man and struck him in the head. The Village of Broadview is conducting criminal investigations related to ICE's use of tear gas and rubber bullets against first responders and peaceful protesters. Tomorrow, the Illinois Accountability Commission will hold its first public hearing, which will examine the widespread use of chemical agents during Midway Blitz. There will come a time when the people responsible for these assaults, tear-gassing, and unjust detention during this unlawful immigration action will face real accountability. These officials swore an oath when they began their service to preserve and protect the Constitution, but in their role as Federal law enforcement officials, there is ample evidence they violated the very rights they promised to defend. Today, I am putting those participating in Operation Midway Blitz on notice: You can continue to terrorize people. You can ignore the rulings of our courts, our laws, and our Constitution. You can hide behind your masks. You can ignore due process requirements in the Constitution. The day will come when justice will be served. The day will come when you will be held accountable. The day will come when this pitiful display of meanness and intolerance will become one of the saddest chapters in our Nation's history, and you will be held accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this December marks the seventh anniversary of the passage of the First Step Act, the most significant reform to our criminal justice system in a generation. That victory was born out of years of bipartisan negotiations led by myself and my colleagues Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Senator Mike Lee of Utah--Democrats and Republicans working together. The end result was and continues to be life-changing for the people who were impacted. The First Step Act delivered much needed reforms to our outdated sentencing laws and provided real opportunities for incarcerated Americans to safely reenter their communities. Those reforms have reduced populations in overcrowded prisons, reunited families, and revitalized communities these men and women reenter as productive neighbors. The evidence backs it up. Just look at the numbers. Of the more than 40,000 people released under the law through January 2024, just under 10 percent have been rearrested--40,000, under 10 percent. Compare that to the Bureau of Prisons' overall recidivism rate, which is 45 percent. The difference between 10 percent and 45 percent is striking, and it shows what we can achieve when we are smart on crime and follow the data. I want to take a moment to highlight the story of one woman from Alton, IL. So often in my congressional career, things that have inspired me come from stories of real people and real lives. This is one of them. Her name was Eugenia Jennings. As a teenager, she, sadly, experienced the injustice of our antiquated sentencing laws firsthand. She was terribly abused as a child, and by age 15, Eugenia Jennings was addicted to crack cocaine. At age 23, as a mother of three, Eugenia was sentenced to over 20 years in Federal prison for selling less than 14 grams of a drug. In prison, she turned out to be a model for others. She took all of the courses available to her, overcame her addiction, and talked to students about the dangers of drug addiction. Sadly, while she was incarcerated, she developed leukemia. I asked President Barack Obama, my former colleague in the Senate, to commute Eugenia's sentence, and he did just that. It was the first commutation he issued. Eugenia was released just in time to see her oldest daughter graduate from high school. I cannot tell you the joy in her voice when she told me that. She passed away 2 years later, but her story has lived on and served as a driving force behind my efforts to reform our Federal drug sentencing laws. Eugenia's story led me to meet more individuals whose lives were forever altered by unfair sentencing laws, including Matthew Charles. Matthew also had a difficult childhood, enduring both physical and verbal abuse. He joined the Army at age 18 but found himself still filled with anger and hurt. He eventually turned to what he called wayward living and selling drugs. He received a State conviction and then a Federal conviction. Because he had a prior conviction when he ended up in Federal court because he had been selling crack rather than powdered cocaine, Matthew received a sentence of 35 years--35 years. While in prison, he worked as a GED tutor and law library clerk in addition to mentoring young people. He helped other incarcerated individuals who could not read to understand their letters and court documents, and he drafted filings for them. In 21 years in prison, Matthew did not receive a single disciplinary infraction. After Matthew's conviction and sentence, Congress passed a law I wrote called the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses, but the law was not retroactive. When Eugenia and Matthew were sentenced, the hands of their sentencing judges were tied because Congress severely limited a judge's discretion to impose an individualized sentence and, instead, mandated overly harsh, one-size-fits-all penalties. The First Step Act took one giant step toward correcting that unfair system. Among other reforms, it made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. Matthew Charles was one of the first people released from prison after the First Step Act became law. But, as the name of the First Step Act suggests, it is just that, one first step. There is more to be done. To make our system fairer and our communities safer, we need to continue to reform our sentencing laws in a smart way. That is why Senator Grassley and I reintroduced a package of bipartisan bills to expand on the progress of the First Step Act. One of those bills is the First Step Implementation Act, which is legislation, among other things, that would retroactively apply the First Step Act sentencing reforms to sentences imposed before the law's passage. This would impact people like Matthew Charles, who was sentenced before Congress reformed outdated statutes. People like Eugenia and Matthew deserve a second chance. The First Step Implementation Act would make redemption for more individuals likely impossible. The First Step Act's passage was a glimmer of bipartisanship in a political arena that has become increasingly polarized. It was signed into law by President Trump in his first term. This success shows what we can accomplish on behalf of the American people when we put aside our political differences, when we come to the table with reasonable approaches. We need evidence-backed solutions to reduce crime and make our communities safer. So, as we celebrate the seventh anniversary, I will continue to work with my colleagues to reform outdated sentencing laws. Let's rekindle the spirit of bipartisanship and get something done in the Senate. I call on my colleagues to support the Grassley-Durbin legislation, the First Step Implementation Act. Together, we can reduce crime, improve our justice system, and make America's communities safer. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on an unrelated matter, America's health system is in critical condition. In 17 days, 22 million Americans will be asked to pay double or triple for their current health insurance premiums. Rural hospitals will be facing closure, small businesses won't be able to cover expenses, and more than 4 million Americans will lose their insurance if we fail to do anything in Congress. Last Thursday, Senate Democrats put forward a bill to prevent this catastrophe. Our bill would have provided a clean extension of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, which 22 million Americans rely on to help them pay their insurance premiums. These credits expire at the end of this year. But too many Senate Republicans voted against extending them and, instead, rushed a vote on a partisan proposal that would upend the Affordable Care Act and the American healthcare system, less than a month before the insurance premiums spike. Their bill, which was introduced last week, has never been debated in committee, and no Member had a chance to amend it. I say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You are in the majority. You have the power to set matters for a congressional hearing. You have the power to go through a serious process to reform healthcare. You are in the majority. But, first, we need triage. First, we have to stabilize the patient. Americans who are about to pay thousands of additional dollars cannot wait as Republicans attempt to change the entire healthcare system in a week. Four Senate Republicans understood this and voted with all the Democrats to extend these tax credits. I thank them for their singular political courage. Each additional day we delay an extension of the enhanced premium tax credits, more Americans forgo their health insurance because it is just too darn expensive. Time is running out. I recently spoke to a waitress at Lou Mitchell's restaurant in Chicago--in downtown Chicago, across from the train station. She is personally worried that she will not be able to afford her healthcare next year without the enhanced premium tax credits. She sees her health insurance bill doubling or more. This waitress does not care about who is winning the political fight in Washington. She cares about whether she and her family can pay for their doctors' appointments and medications. I want to go back to that restaurant soon and tell my friend that the Senate did something to help her. We can help her, so long as we act on a bipartisan basis. If you don't like our proposal for a clean, 3-year extension, counter it with a reasonable offer. Show that there is a beating heart that cares to address the real problems Americans face. Let us come together and give American families the gift of health coverage they can afford for Christmas.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in Skokie, IL, a few miles north of Chicago, is America's second largest Holocaust museum. Those who visit see thousands of artifacts from victims and survivors and their families. There is one lesson that every visitor takes away: All who walk through its doors learn the importance of tolerance, the need to choose love over hate. I have been reflecting on this lesson in the wake of the two awful acts of violence that took place this past weekend. On Sunday night, in Australia, hundreds of people gathered at Bondi Beach to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah. Two men opened fire on the crowd. The attendees at Bondi Beach were targeted for simply one reason: They were Jewish, and they were out to celebrate their faith. At least 15 people were killed, and dozens more were injured. I am offering my prayers for the victims and their families. I am thankful for the heroic actions of first responders and civilians to end the gunmen's rampage. This act of violence is a grim reminder that we cannot stop combating anti-Semitism. This tragedy occurred just hours after Brown University, in Providence, RI, here in the United States, experienced its own mass shooting. In the aftermath of these two tragedies, I am in awe of the bravery and sacrifice displayed by those caught up in the attacks. One of them, Ahmed al-Ahmed, tackled one of the shooters at Bondi Beach in Australia, saving countless lives. He is now going through surgery. I wish him a swift recovery. Another, Spencer Yang, after being shot in the leg, continued to help one of his fellow students at Brown hide from the gunman. To Spencer, too, I wish a full and swift recovery. Ahmed, Spencer, and countless others should never be put in these unimaginable situations. Yet their selfless acts in the face of such violence are the ultimate demonstration of love--a willingness to risk their own lives to save a stranger. As we seek to address the scourge of anti-Semitism and gun violence, may we act in the path of these brave upstanders, who in crisis chose humanity and love over violence and hate.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also want to draw attention to the crisis surrounding medical research in this country, created entirely by this new Trump administration. Ten years ago, I met with Dr. Francis Collins, then the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the world's premium biomedical research agency. I admired his work so much that I asked him what I could do to help. He said: If you can provide a 5-percent increase to NIH's medical research budget, year after year, we'll light up the scoreboard. So I took that message and went back to Congress. With the help of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Republican Senator Roy Blunt, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, and Democratic Senator Patty Murray--we increased NIH funding from $30 billion to $48 billion over the next 10 years, a 60-percent increase in research--a 60-percent increase in cures, hopes, and breakthroughs. But what took us 10 years to build, President Donald Trump has all but dismantled in less than 11 months. Recent reporting from the New York Times shed light on the dire consequences of President Trump's medical research cuts. The President and DOGE instituted a new set of rules at NIH that resulted in 3,500 fewer medical research grants, affecting virtually every area of medical study. Funding for mental health was reduced 31 percent, brain diseases by 26 percent, and cancer research by 19 percent. All of these reductions are in real areas of opportunity, which we are walking away from under Trump. This is a fundamental blow to how America supports medical research and has real implications for the progress we made. Instead of ushering in the next wave of medical breakthroughs, which could save you or your loved one from suffering, this administration has cut them off at the knees. I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, rejected Trump's proposed cuts and actually provided an increase for next year. But if the administration ignores Congress's wish and continues to upend research funding, that could create irreparable harm. As the father of a child born with a severe medical condition, I know personally that families across this country depend on the hope and promise that research holds. Cures and treatments that come from the National Institutes of Health funded the research behind 99 percent of the new drugs approved by the FDA in the last decade. Oh, sure, you see the ads on television for all these new drugs that they say hold onto some promise. The pharmaceutical companies that are selling them and developing them have virtually all started with Federal research by the taxpayers of this country--the same research that has been cut off now by President Trump. So when Donald Trump handicaps the NIH's work, he is telling patients: Your cure can wait. Our communities will feel the pain of this change too. Our universities, not just in blue States but in every State--great research institutions in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma--will be unable to pursue more cures. Our hospitals, already scaling back operations thanks to budget cuts and the President's so-called ``Big Beautiful Budget Bill,'' will be forced to diminish services even more. The scientists and doctors of tomorrow may decide to forego their profession entirely or bring their talents to other countries. As we fight to protect healthcare for millions of Americans, let us also not forget to fight for research that fuels that care. We cannot stand for this assault on medical research funding. We need to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure that funding does continue. It is not just a matter of national pride. It is a matter of finding cures and drugs that will help people all around the world and that has defined America for decades. We can't let the Trump administration kill off medical research and kill off that dream that people keep alive every single day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this year, Pope Leo XIV asked us to reflect on chapter 25 of Matthew's gospel. This passage details the questions that will be posed to determine the contents of a person's soul. They will be asked, ``How did you receive the foreigner? Did you welcome him or not?'' At this moment of judgement, I know two people who would feel confident in their answer: Sisters of Mercy JoAnn Persch and Patricia Murphy. So well-known among immigration groups that they were known simply as ``the Sisters,'' these two women collectively spent nearly two centuries doing God's work here on Earth. Sadly, both sisters passed away earlier this year, leaving a legacy of strength, kindness, and grace. Sister Pat was born on April 20, 1929, in Chicago, and Sister JoAnn was born on June 27, 1934, in Milwaukee. Although both women entered the Sisters of Mercy in Des Plaines at a young age, their paths would not converge until they both arrived to teach in Fox Point, WI. This meeting of two kindred spirits sparked a decades-long advocacy effort that began in the 1980s. That was a period of violent upheaval in Central America's Northern Triangle. Civil wars and conflict in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras were displacing thousands of people every month, and many of these refugees came to the United States to avoid persecution. But once these immigrants arrived in America, many of them found the asylum system completely inaccessible. Mass rejections of asylum applications threatened to return immigrants to the violence they had just fled. Witnessing this injustice, the Sisters became involved with the immigrant sanctuary movement to demand that the United States protect immigrants from chaos in their home countries. As the Sisters advocated for immigration reform, they simultaneously worked to provide charity and housing for those applying for asylum. In 1990, the Sisters established the Su Casa Catholic Worker House, a home for refugees in Chicago. The Sisters lived at Su Casa for 7 years, helping families and children fleeing war, torture, and unspeakable violence find a home in Chicago. Because this didn't keep them busy enough, during their time at Su Casa, the Sisters helped a single mother with a mental health condition raise her daughter. They became foster moms for 13-year-old Clarice, sharing their love while dropping her off at her dance class and song lessons. The Sisters left Su Casa in 1997 to go to Casa Notre Dame, a different shelter that provided housing and protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Sister Pat was 68, and Sister JoAnn was 61. One would think, at this stage of their lives, these two sisters would want to slow down after what were already four decades of service to others. But only a few short years after arriving at Casa Notre Dame, the Sisters were asked to become justice coordinators with the Sisters of Mercy, taking on a larger leadership position in the movement for immigration reform. In their role as justice coordinators, the Sisters were called one January day in 2007 to go to the Broadview ICE facility and pray for a group of detainees there who were to be deported from the United States. They arrived early in the morning, with temperatures plunging to negative 20 degrees, not that it would stop them. The two stood outside Broadview and prayed for the immigrants who were about to be deported. Seeing the grief and powerlessness experienced by these immigrants, the Sisters decided to return to Broadview every Friday and pray for its detainees. For more than 20 years, they honored this commitment. Through pouring rain and sweltering heat, the Sisters would be outside Broadview, offering support for immigrants and their families. Soon after they began this mission, the Sisters walked up to the front doors at Broadview and rang the bell. They wanted to go inside to speak directly to the detainees and offer them comfort. Their request was quickly denied. But what the ICE employees did not know at the time was that these were two women who, peacefully and respectfully, never took no for an answer. Together, the Sisters founded the Interfaith Committee for Detained Immigrants, or ICDI. This group ventured to Springfield the next year to lobby for the Access to Religious Ministry Act, a bill that would allow immigrant detainees in State and county facilities to consult with a religious worker regarding their spiritual needs. Less than a month after their visit to the State capitol, the bill passed both chambers unanimously. As Sister Pat said, ``The divine and the sacred are the ordinary human things of life. It's love, life, death, eating, sleeping, socializing with people.'' I had the great fortune of going to Broadview with Sister Pat and Sister JoAnn where we shared in these sacred moments. As these immigrants' lives were turned upside, sometimes there was nothing to be done but offer our support, our prayer for their situation. The Sisters helped counsel hundreds of immigrants amid their grief and offer them what little comfort they could. Even the guards at Broadview grew to appreciate the Sisters' presence, and they began to invite the Sisters to some of their office parties. Very few people could leave an interaction with these two women without being touched by their love for humanity. The decades of kindness that the Sisters showed immigrants, activists, and anyone in their path continues to leave a mark on Chicago. There are still dozens of people who show up outside of Broadview every day to offer prayer and hope for those inside. There are still those in Springfield and Washington, DC, who are fighting against the inhumane separation of immigrants from their lives and families. In their actions, the spirits of Sisters Pat and JoAnn live on. In each person's decision to welcome the stranger, the Sisters' memory is honored.