Richard Durbin

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we recently passed a tragic milestone: the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine. I remember the morning vividly, sitting with Senator Coons, the senior Senator from Delaware, on a dark, early morning at the airport in Vilnius, Lithuania, a country that knows all too well the threat posed by Russia throughout history. The loss of life from Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has been staggering, with nearly 2 million total casualties. Millions more Ukrainians have been displaced. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted to Russia. President Trump bragged more times than I can remember that he would end the Ukrainian war on day one if reelected. To his credit, the United States has fostered a series of talks between Russia and Ukraine. While I strongly support American help to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself, and a diplomatic resolution is always preferable, it is devastatingly clear to everyone--except, it seems, the President-- that Putin isn't serious about reaching a peace deal in Ukraine. Putin continues to play for time, calling and manipulating President Trump at key moments, including last week, to brazenly offer help in the Middle East while simultaneously, we know, Russia is giving intelligence to the Iranians to target American forces. Time and again, President Trump has only pressed Ukraine to reach a deal--never pressed Putin. And last week, Trump defied common sense-- defied common sense when he lifted sanctions on Russian oil because of what should have been foreseen chaos in the energy markets due to his invasion in Iran. And for reasons I simply cannot explain, this Chamber has refused to pass Russian sanctions legislation with more than 85 cosponsors. Let me be clear, Putin only responds to strength. He is stringing along United States-led peace negotiations while relentlessly bombing Ukraine, while helping Iran target American servicemembers. It is time for President Trump to finally learn this lesson and for the Senate to pass legislation increasing pressure on Putin to negotiate. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

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 Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Anna St. John to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Ms. St. John's record reflects her partisan ideology and raises serious questions about her ability to impartially administer justice if she is confirmed. Her practice largely consists of challenging class-action settlements, and she has also made time to file amicus briefs in politically charged cases, in which she demeaned LGBTQ Americans and opposed diversity initiatives. Her public commentary is also troubling. She has criticized what she calls ``woke ideology.'' She has challenged First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Supreme Court more than 60 years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. In November 2021, Ms. St. John testified against bipartisan legislation ending forced arbitration in cases of workplace sexual assault and harassment. The legislation--the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act--enjoyed broad support among lawmakers from both parties. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson was one of the leading advocates for the legislation. She is speaking out about Ms. St. John's nomination, including in an article in which she wrote: ``While women around the country bravely shared the urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women and the public. She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain.'' I oppose Ms. St. John's nomination. I ask my colleagues to join me.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) 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. Mr. President, the sweeping surveillance powers authorized under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, expire in just 40 days. Section 702 grew out of a secret, warrantless surveillance program conducted by the Bush administration after 9/11. When this illegal spying program was finally discovered, Congress enacted 702 as a temporary measure--a temporary measure. Like so many expansive government powers that are adopted during times of emergency, this authority has now become a fixture of our surveillance architecture. When it comes to collecting intelligence on foreigners located abroad, the value of this tool is not in serious dispute, but there is a fatal flaw at the core of section 702. This authority is also used for warrantless spying on innocent Americans. Americans' private emails, phone calls, and text messages with friends, family, colleagues, business, and any number of other contacts around the world are swept up under section 702. The government then searches these private communications--protected by the Fourth Amendment, I might add--without a warrant or other court order. Congress has repeatedly failed to fix this end run around the Constitution. As a result, for years, the intelligence community has abused section 702 to spy on business and religious leaders, political parties, campaign donors, journalists, and protesters across the political spectrum. In passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in April 2024, Congress codified new reforms intended to rein in these abuses. These measures have substantially reduced the number of unlawful searches. But Congress failed to require a warrant for searching American communications--once again, leaving the fox guarding the henhouse. At the same time, Congress greatly expanded 702 to include counternarcotics and immigration vetting, and conscripted a shocking array of American businesses into section 702 spying. Congress has a responsibility to protect our national security and the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. That is why Senator Lee, Republican of Utah, and I have introduced the SAFE Act, a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize 702 with commonsense reforms to protect our privacy as individuals. Our bill preserves the core values of 702 as a foreign intelligence collection tool, while preventing the government from using it to target the constitutionally protected communications of Americans, unless they get court approval. Our warrant requirement takes legitimate operational and security needs into account so that it won't be unduly burdensome or impede any action in an emergency. There is an exception for emergencies. What it would do is stop the government from accessing the private communications of Americans without a proper basis under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a simple requirement to comply with the Constitution should have been included in section 702 from the outset. The SAFE Act would also prevent government Agencies--like ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the FBI and others--from skirting the Fourth Amendment to obtain Americans' sensitive information and other personal details from data brokers. ICE is using this data to track U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest, which should concern Senators on both sides of the aisle. If the FBI wants to track someone's phone, obtain their location information, or access their Google search history, the Agency should be required to get a judicial warrant. Instead, government Agencies are exploiting gaps in our outdated laws to buy our sensitive information from data brokers. It is a loophole that Congress must address. Our bill--my bill with Senator Lee--does that. Once again, however, those who want to avoid real reforms are urging Congress to just reauthorize section 702 without addressing this issue. When Congress extended 702 in 2024, the argument was that we needed more time. So Congress reauthorized section 702 for just 2 years to see how the existing compliance measures were working. ``Later,'' they said. ``We need more time. . . . Let's see how the reforms are working.'' Now, here we are, 2 years later, and the opponents of real reform are saying exactly the same thing: Just give us more time. We have been hearing these same excuses for over 20 years. It is time to stop avoiding the issue and to protect Americans' constitutional rights once and for all--not later, not next time. In 2024, the last time section 702 was up for reauthorization, I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had jurisdiction over FISA. I held a public hearing more than 6 months before the authority expired so Members could ask the Biden administration how they were using section 702. Now, the Trump administration refuses to testify publicly about how they are using this power. Enough is enough. There is no excuse for ramming through an extension of 702 at the last minute without regular order and without common sense and in violation of the Constitution. The American people deserve better from their representatives. They can and they should protect the American people from threats to their security and threats to their civil liberties. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I think about the American dream, I think about my friend Sunil Puri. In 1979, Sunil immigrated to the United States from India when he was just 18 years old. He arrived in Rockford, IL, with little more than hope, tenacity, and $150 in his pocket. Yet, over the span of four decades, he became one of Rockford's leading businessmen and philanthropists. Sunil was defined by his commitment to his city, his country, and his family, and his contributions can be found anywhere you look in Rockford. Sunil left his adopted city far better than he found it, and it is with great sadness that I share the news of his passing. Sunil made the journey from Bombay (Mumbai) to Rockford without the explicit permission from his parents and with the hopes of receiving a liberal arts education at Rockford College, now Rockford University. Through hard work, dedication, and many odd jobs, including cleaning bedpans and laying concrete, Sunil put himself through school. Yet it was the kindness of Illinoisans during his college career that stuck with Sunil: the elderly Swedes who taught him English, the families who hosted him during their holiday celebrations, and his classmates, who took an interest in him and celebrated his culture when he was thousands of miles away from his childhood home. The citizens of Rockford opened their arms to Sunil, and in return, Sunil would spend the next four decades repaying the favor. After graduating from Rockford College with a degree in accounting, Sunil founded First Rockford Group, which is now known as First Midwest Group, a real estate development firm. If you have played a round of mini golf at Volcano Falls, taken a walk along Perryville Path, or filled up your tank at a Road Ranger stop, you may have seen some of Sunil's work. In fact, if you live in or visit Rockford, it is hard to avoid First Midwest's many projects. They have turned abandoned and forgotten buildings into thriving restaurants, offices, and warehouses. First Midwest's investments in Rockford have breathed new life into the city, driving economic growth and creating jobs for thousands of Illinoisans. But none of this success would have been possible without Sunil. His drive and passion were the defining features of First Midwest. Sunil ensured that First Midwest's projects did not just replicate amenities a neighborhood already possessed, but that they contributed something new to his adopted town. Because of Sunil, when his developments succeeded, so did the community. Sunil's contributions to Rockford and the State of Illinois extend far beyond his work at First Midwest. Inspired by his parents' lesson to ``water the flowers where you smell the roses,'' Sunil gave millions of dollars and--equally as valuable--countless hours of his time and energy to various charities and community projects. Sunil's passion for development was obvious in his charity work, where he funded the construction of many Rockford city staples. His donations led to the creation of the Keeling-Puri Peace Plaza, the southeast Rockford branch of the YMCA, the Salvation Army Puri Family Disaster Services Center, and many more community hubs. Sunil helped families access vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and encouraged children to find their passion by sponsoring youth sports programs. He supported educators by spending hundreds of hours a year working on Rockford Public Schools' budget and operations committees and funding the Golden Apple's Outstanding Principal Award. It is no surprise that Sunil received a key to the city of Rockford not once, but twice in his life, as a recognition of his enduring devotion to his home. Despite the attention required to manage his large real estate business and numerous charitable contributions, Sunil never forgot the university that made it all possible. Through a donation of $5 million and a 28,000-square-foot building, Sunil helped create the Puri School of Business at Rockford University. He founded the school with the hope that it would serve as a vehicle for economic revitalization and as an engine of opportunity for bright and talented students. Soon after, Sunil created the Charles Box Scholarship, which provided a full ride to the Puri School of Business to 30 Black students from the Rockford area. Sunil also served on the board of trustees at Rockford University, using his role to give the next generation of students the same opportunity that he had. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle have praised Sunil for all that he has done for his community, and I am pleased that, last year, the Illinois State House adopted a resolution honoring his contributions to the State. But Sunil's work extended far beyond Illinois, and his contributions and insights were appreciated by more than one President. Never forgetting where he came from, Sunil was a passionate advocate for improved U.S.-Indian relations and traveled with President Clinton and President Obama to India, in hopes of expanded ties between our two countries. He was appointed by President Obama to the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and by President Biden to the President's Advisory Committee on the Arts for the John F. Kennedy Center. Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to Sunil's loving partner Candace Ross and his three children Ashwin, Chandan, and Anjali. Sunil was a living embodiment of what makes America the envy of the world. Coming from humble beginnings, he found much success, both in his business and in his community. The contributions that Sunil made to Rockford were an indispensable part of the city's revitalization and will continue to fuel the city's growth for years to come. While I will miss my friend Sunil, I take comfort in knowing that I can always feel his presence whenever I am in Rockford.

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. 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. Mr. President, 23 years ago--that is quite a few years--I heard about a threat to the future of the Great Lakes. The threat turned out to be a fish. Yes, a fish. This fish was imported from somewhere in Asia--we believe China--by some people in the United States who believed that it could be raised in confinement ponds and sold for a profit. Whether that was ever a possibility, I don't know, but the problem is that the area where they chose to have the confinement ponds was flooded. And when it was flooded, this new invasive species, this new fish, found its way into the Mississippi River and started propagating. It was a voracious fish. It didn't leave much room or food for other fish in the area. It made its way into the Mississippi River and, heading north, hit the Illinois River and headed for Lake Michigan, the Great Lakes. It was then that they sounded an alarm and said if this fish ever becomes commonplace in the Great Lakes, it will destroy it as a fishery and change it forever. So I decided 23 years ago to call on the experts and ask them: What can we do to stop it? They weren't sure. They hadn't faced a challenge like this in the past. But they made some suggestions. As a layman and a person who is not a professional in the area in any way whatsoever, I was dedicated to doing what I could to save the Great Lakes, but I wasn't sure what that would be. They suggested we try a number of things. Over the years, we invested millions of dollars into the Illinois River to stop it as a conduit for this fish into Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. Some of the suggestions were almost comic: the suggestion of an electric barrier to shock the fish and hold them back, a bubble machine that sounded like some disco program to me. All of the suggestions went on and on. The good news is we tried a lot of things-- a lot of things--over the years, and we have been successful so far in keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. There are people who were skeptical from the beginning that we could achieve that, but we did. Well, yesterday, there was a development in this plight of trying to restrain this fish from making it into the Great Lakes. It could be a positive one. You see, the President of the United States met with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer yesterday, and President Trump posted on Truth Social that he was now joining forces with us to stop this invasive species. In the post, the President noted that the carp were already in the Great Lakes. We don't believe that is true, but they are a threat to the Great Lakes every day, every week, every year. But there is a problem. The measures that we are taking--the significant measures--to protect the Great Lakes depend on an infrastructure investment known as Brandon Road. Brandon Road is a stretch of the Des Plaines River in Illinois, in the northern part of Illinois, which needs to have an accommodation made to make sure that the ships that are moving back and forth between the river and the Great Lakes aren't allowing fish into the Great Lakes area. It is a massive investment. The problem we have is the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for building this facility in the Great Lakes, and, at the end of last year, the Trump administration delayed the Brandon Road Interbasin Project for so-called further review. The funding that was in place and ready to be spent to protect the Great Lakes has been on hold. On January 15 of this year, I wrote a letter with Senator Duckworth, my colleague from Illinois, and the Michigan Senators asking the Trump administration to lift this review and pause so that we can get going forward with this project. We still have not received a response to that letter. I called the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Adam Telle, who reiterated the administration's support and the importance of the Brandon Road project. However, he didn't give any indication of when the current pause will end. So here is the state of play: We have a new means--an effective means--to stop these fish from invading the Great Lakes. We need the approval of President Trump for that to happen. Yesterday, he promised that he would be part of the solution. Today, I am asking him to really step forward: Make the call today, not tomorrow. Make a call today to the Army Corps of Engineers to tell them you are lifting this Trump administration pause on the development of Brandon Road. I believe this is a serious threat to the future of the Great Lakes. I am happy to have the President on board, but we need him to do so immediately to help us move forward. Affordability Mr. President, on a separate topic, last week, I met with leaders from Bloomington-Normal, IL, to discuss infrastructure. One part of that conversation I won't forget. They showed me bottles of liquid. It looked like tomato juice or lemonade. It was a strange looking concoction. It turns out it was well water found in the pipes of more than 80 homes in a community called Colonial Meadows, an unincorporated area of McLean County, IL. It is often referred to as a county island. I thought instantly of Flint, MI. You remember that story; we all do. Decisions were made by local governments which exposed a lot of people to unsafe drinking water, primarily minority populations. Years after that happened, there were still health consequences. We wouldn't want anyone to drink water that was coming from Flint, MI, until it was cleaned up, and we certainly don't want that to happen when it comes to Colonial Meadows. For nearly 180 people living in my State, when they turn on their faucets, they see Flint, Michigan-type water. As I heard about these families--many of them low income or senior citizens--I thought to myself: How can this happen after Flint, MI, and in this year? How can we be at a point where we can't provide clean water to Americans in the year 2026? The answer, of course, is money. It is costly to extend water lines to new areas, and because it costs more than these families can afford, they have to worry about their children bathing, brushing their teeth, or cooking with this type of water. That is what we are talking about when we say the word ``affordability''--that all Americans should be able to access the basic goods they need: food, water, power, housing, and healthcare. That should be part of the American dream that is a reality. Our job as elected officials is to give Americans a helping hand to afford these necessities. Sadly, the administration has not learned that lesson. On President Trump's watch, prices are up, and Americans are feeling the pain of his misguided policies. More than half of all Americans say President Trump has made the economy worse in the second term. In February, the economy lost 92,000 jobs, and Americans are losing faith that the President cares enough to change that. Through chaotic tariffs, mass firings of Federal employees, and cuts to Federal energy grants, the President has left the economy in a weaker state than when he first came to office. On Monday, the price of oil rose to its highest point in years because of President Trump's invasion of Iran. Americans are already feeling the impact. It was October 11, 2002, in this Senate Chamber, near the hour of midnight, that a vote was cast to determine whether or not American forces would invade Iraq. I remember it well. I voted no. It was 23 Senators out of 100 who voted no--1 Republican, 22 Democrats. In fairness to President George W. Bush, he understood the meaning of the Constitution when it says Congress should declare war. We had a fulsome debate about whether or not we should invade Iraq. The administration, through Secretary Powell and Vice President Cheney, presented their side of the case. It was pretty clear they believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened the region, our allies and friends, and even the United States itself. They believed that Saddam Hussein was not trustworthy and invaded Kuwait, and they believed that we needed to do something about it. They made their case, we debated it at length, and a vote was taken. Approval was given to President Bush to move forward on the invasion of Iraq. As I said earlier, I voted no. I had questions in my own mind as to whether or not we could prove there were actually weapons of mass destruction. What happened next? American forces rolled over Saddam Hussein and then returned Kuwait to its independent status. But in the process, they started searching for those weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Our vast intelligence agencies and network were just plain wrong. As a consequence, we found ourselves in a place in the Middle East with an American force of troops on the ground and all the intended complimentary forces in a mission that was hard to explain to anyone. It took us years before we could finally extricate ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan nearby. In the process, 4,500 American lives were lost, brave men and women in our military who served our country as required and did it with honor. It was an expensive lesson for America and one I hope we have learned today. Our invasion of Iran is quite different. It was done by this President without consultation from Congress. There was a last-minute notification that it was going to happen in a matter of hours. That was it. The American people didn't get to hear the debate as to why it was necessary to invade Iran. The war just launched itself, I guess, with the President's approval. The net result of that, of course, is we have so many different explanations from the Trump administration as to why we have invaded Iran. By my count, there are at least six or seven different explanations in a matter of few days that we have been in that country. The average American can't possibly understand which is the one real reason. It is hard for me to understand with the classified briefings we have been given. The fact of the matter is that war is underway. We feel it, and we see it at the gas pumps of America. Yesterday, the average price at a gasoline pump in America was $3.50 a gallon, 60 cents higher than when the President gave the State of the Union Address, a few weeks ago. It is even worse for diesel. We saw prices skyrocket by more than $1 a gallon this month. That means higher costs for farmers who grow feed and higher costs for shipping. In less than 2 weeks, the President's war wiped out a year of stable fuel prices, without any clear or coherent endgame. In fact, just yesterday, the President lifted--lifted--sanctions on Russian oil in an ill-conceived attempt to lower gas prices. His sanctions relief will fund Putin's war in Ukraine while, at the same time, Russia reportedly shares intelligence with Iran on the placement of U.S. forces. This dizzying mess in the Middle East comes on the heels of one of the largest increases in utility rates American families have ever lived through. Last year in America, electric and gas utility companies requested to raise their rates by nearly $31 billion--$31 billion. That is more than double the increase in 2024. Utility bills are going up. Next are your groceries. American people complain they are the toughest bills to pay each month. What caused this large increase? The policies of the Trump administration. The Trump administration cut $8 billion in low-cost clean energy and grid enhancement grants. Think about that. We had appropriated the money. We had it ready for distribution to lower the costs of energy into the grid in America and to reduce the utility bills, and the President stopped it. Why? Because one of his closest friends and supporters, a man named Harold Hamm, announced that he would give the President $1 billion for his campaign if the President would stop the regulation of oil and gas. The President agreed to do that. As a consequence, American families are paying higher utility bills than ever because of Mr. Hamm. If you ask the President his response, ``Drill, baby, drill.'' That is his response to everything. It may sound bold and courageous, but it is feckless and counterproductive when it comes to the American families' annual budgets. These grants that were eliminated by the Trump administration would provide more affordable energy on the grid for families and lower utility rates. The President stopped it. Without them, utility companies will make consumers pay for grid upgrades in the form of higher energy bills. While this administration is making it harder to generate electricity, they are also allowing AI data centers to proliferate with no consideration of their impact on energy demand. It is interesting. Public sentiment questions these data centers, under the current circumstance, until you add one factor: If you require them to have clean energy sources which they have developed for the electricity they need, public approval of the data center moves forward. By the year 2030, the electricity for data centers is expected to increase by 350 percent--350 percent. One estimate predicts we will need 100 gigawatts of new power generation to accommodate this growth. That is enough electricity to power one-fourth of American homes--75 million homes--electricity for data centers. If there is a clean source, let's talk about it. But if it is going on the utility bills of American families, it is a legitimate question as to whether or not this is a wise investment. The President is weakening our electricity supply when demand is spiking. The recipe would make American families pay more for their energy. Americans will not find any relief at the supermarket either. The prices of groceries are at record highs. The cost of a pound of ground beef is up more than 20 percent from last year. Orange juice is up 28 percent. Coffee is up 33 percent. I have seen that in the grocery store myself. Prices on baby food items have increased by an average of 24 percent. It is the No. 1 complaint from American families when it comes to affordability. The President promised Republicans would be the party of working families, but instead American parents have seen the cost of raising a family increase under this administration. These higher costs are explained by President Trump's tariffs, which made it harder for businesses in America to import food we cannot grow at home. And despite the Supreme Court striking down Trump's tariffs as illegal, this administration is doubling down on this tariff trade tax. So the next time you shop at a grocery store and see prices even higher than what you saw last week, remember President Trump said, ``Affordability is a hoax''--the President of the United States. This administration is becoming increasingly detached from the reality that American families face every day. Illinois families are telling me they are afraid--afraid they may not be able to pay for their groceries, their power bills, their rent. For residents like those in unincorporated McClean County, IL, some cannot even afford clean water. We must give them relief, and that requires ending the President's disastrous economic policies. The American people will have the last word when the election is held. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in following the leader's remarks, I want to make an additional point. This is not the first time we have made this offer to the Republicans. On the floor of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, they keep notes of everything that is said. This young lady is a stenographer, and she keeps these notes together and creates a record-- literally known as the Congressional Record--that is passed out every single day to Members to read as to what happened the day before. I took a look at this Congressional Record for March 5--that was last Thursday on page S870--and it contains a debate between Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic ranking member in the Appropriations Committee, and the junior Republican Senator from the State of Alabama. An offer was made on that page by Senator Murray to do exactly what the leader just said. This was last week. Last week, Senator Murray said: Let's narrow this down to the items of debate and contention, the future of ICE and the future of the Border Patrol. But let's fund everything else in that Agency so there is no question that the men and women who work with TSA at the airports are going to be paid on time; the Coast Guard will be paid on time; and the other Agencies--others separate and apart--will also be paid on time. She made this offer on page S870, and there was an objection. Now, the rules of the Senate, it just takes one Senator to object. But the junior Senator from Alabama, speaking on behalf of the Republican side, objected to funding all of the rest of this Department, save two specific Agencies. She objected to it, so she had her chance last Thursday. We are going to give the Republicans another chance. We have been told that TSA is about to miss a paycheck. Think of the thousands and thousands of men and women who work in the airports to keep us safe and whether they should receive a paycheck. We think they should. That is why Senator Murray is going to make that offer today. I hope the Republicans will cooperate this day in a way they didn't last week. It has been nearly a month since the shutdown started. Already, it is the third shutdown of President Trump's second term, the third time. Why? Because the White House and my Republican colleagues refuse to consider reforms of ICE. Did you see the videos of what happened in Minneapolis? With your own eyes? You don't need my interpretation. You saw what happened to people there, protesting the activities of ICE who ended up being shot and killed on the streets of Minneapolis. Is that something that we signed up for when we started this deportation effort? Remember what the President said over and over again? We are going after the worst of the worst; terrorists, murderers, rapists, the criminally insane who snuck in across our border in the past several years. We are going to go and arrest them. Well, I will tell you this: Sign me up for that mission. We want to make sure our streets are safe. And if someone is here illegally, commits a serious crime, they go to jail or they get out of the country--two choices. That is a bipartisan feeling. But they have gone further. Take a look at the actual record of ICE and Border Patrol and this mission they have of mass deportation that has been ordered by Stephen Miller, the President's Deputy Chief of Staff. Six out of seven--six out of seven--of the people who have been arrested and detained and moved to different locations by ICE and CBP were people who had no criminal record, none, not one--six out of seven. What kind of law enforcement operation is that that gets six innocent people for every person who is guilty? Something is wrong here. We have got to change it. And some basic questions: Would you want the door of your house to be crashed down? Of course not. And if you did, you would think, It better be for good reason if the government is going to do that to my home and my family. And that requires the court to give approval for it to happen. It is called a judicial warrant--except the ICE agents believe they are not bound by that law and they can crash down a door if they wish, and they have done it over and over and over again. Do you think that is right? I don't. It is one of the issues we want to debate with them. When it comes to the masks they are wearing, I talked to law enforcement back in my home State of Illinois. How many of our State troopers wear a mask to work every day? None. How many of the Chicago policemen wear a mask every day? None. What it comes down to is, we are pushing for good police practices that are applied in communities all across America. Somehow or another the ICE agents think they are exceptional; they don't have to identify themselves; and they can wear a mask. I think that is wrong. And when it comes to their jurisdiction, it is an esoteric legal question, but it is an important one. How far can the Border Patrol go beyond the border to enforce the law? They believe, under this administration, they can go anywhere in the United States. Previous administrations believed that the statutes had restraint on where they can go. These are fundamental questions that relate to the Constitution, to the Bill of Rights, and to the laws of this land. We want to make sure that they are followed, and that is why we are negotiating the future of ICE and Border Patrol. But today, Senator Murray is going to give notice again. We are prepared to fund every other aspect of the Department of Homeland Security. That is something that I think is fair and should go forward. The Republicans opposed it last week. I hope that they will support us this week. The men and women of TSA should not be held hostage to our negotiation. Let's get serious on getting all the negotiations done. But in the meantime, let's fund the Agencies that are critical in this Department. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was October 11, 2002--24 years ago. There was a vote on this Senate floor. I was here. The vote was an important one in the history of this country and maybe one of the most important votes I ever cast as a Member of the Senate. What was the question? The question before the Senate: Will we go to war? Are we ready to invade Iraq? President George W. Bush had told us that we needed to do it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could obliterate our allies and friends and eventually threaten the United States. The vote took place at about midnight. The floor was full because of the importance of the vote. I remember it well. Twenty-three of us voted no--1 Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats. Three of us who voted no that night are still here, 24 years later. We invaded Iraq. What did we find? No weapons of mass destruction-- none. They searched long and hard, as the intelligence Agencies had told us they were there and were a threat to the United States. We stayed in Iraq for year after year after year afterward, and 4,500 American lives were lost in that war of Iraq. I remember going to visit Walter Reed Hospital and meeting the veterans who came back from Iraq. Most of them had lost a limb because of IEDs. There were terrible stories of what they had endured and some of them had scars from that war that they would never, ever live down. There were many heroes, too, among our military. They did their duty. Their Commander in Chief said: We are going to invade Iraq, and they did. One of those is my colleague in the U.S. Senate today, Tammy Duckworth, who was a member of the Illinois National Guard and was a helicopter pilot who was shot down over Iraq and suffered serious wounds and injuries as a result. I don't take anything away from the soldiers, the airmen, the sailors, and those in the Coast Guard who did their duty. But the reason we had a vote is because we said the American people have to decide whether their sons and daughters will fight this war. This isn't an idea that just comes to us new. This idea is written right here in a little book called the Constitution of the United States. In article I, the powers of Congress, section 8, the power to declare war is given to Congress. Now the Senator who just spoke, from Wyoming, is a friend of mine, but I disagree with what he said. I do believe the American people have a constitutional right to make the decision as to whether their children will be called on to fight a war. That is not too much to ask. We are now engaged in a war which, by definition, changes by the day. There have been at least seven different explanations by this White House as to why we are fighting this war. Yesterday, the President of the United States, in the chaotic manner which has become so typical of him, at one time said it is going to be a very short war in duration, and then, later in the day, he said: We will make it a longer war. We will fight to the finish. We don't know where he is on so many things. He is an impulsive Commander in Chief. I can't think of a worse combination. That is the reality. When Senators come to the floor and want to have an open debate about the war in Iran, which we are currently engaged in, I will vote yes every time. I believe the American people have an obligation to step up and make the decision publicly as to whether or not we are going to fight a war that is going to last for a long period of time. The way they do that is through Senators and Members of the House. To say that any President can take us to war anytime is foolhearted. We learned that in Iraq. We shouldn't have to learn it again in Iran. SAVE America Act Mr. President, on a different topic completely, on Sunday, President Trump said he would not sign any legislation until Congress passes a bill that I believe threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans-- to take away their constitutional right to vote. Amidst a war in the Middle East and DHS funding negotiations, the President of the United States now insists that the SAVE America Act should be our No. 1 priority--our only priority. He made it clear. Don't let the name of this bill fool you. The SAVE America Act would not protect our elections. Instead, it would make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote. To start with, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in the United States. President Trump and his followers would have us believe that it is commonplace, and that is why he ``lost the election'' a few years ago. Election officials are required to verify, now, under the law, all registered voters' citizenship status. The system works. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation--and you can look this up online-- from 2003 to 2023, 20 years--in 20 years, do you know how many non- American citizens they caught voting in 20 years? Twenty-four. There were 24 people who were ineligible for voting in a 20-year period of time--20 years, 24 cases. The SAVE America Act would upend the past two decades of successfully secure elections with untested, dangerous limitations on voter registration. Here is how it goes. You want to buy an airline ticket, and they ask you for identification. You pull out your driver's license, if you have one--simple. So why shouldn't we ask the same of voters? Well, there are a couple of elements you should know. The SAVE America Act does not allow you to use your driver's license as identification. It doesn't allow you even if you have a REAL ID, which you are supposed to have on your driver's license. So the most common form of identification for Americans is ineligible under this new law. You have to prove where you were born. They will accept a couple-- three things. One is a passport. Do you have one? Half of Americans don't have a passport. They don't own one. I do, but half of Americans don't. What would it cost for you to make sure you have a passport by the next election in November? It is a $165 fee. That is one of the ways that you can prove you are actually American, but it is not the only way. There is another way. Your birth certificate--have you seen it lately? Do you have it in your home? Do you know where to find it? And if you have a birth certificate which says your maiden name as a woman--it doesn't say your married name--it doesn't work. It is ineligible. So this notion of proving you are an American citizen turns out to be a lot more complicated when you actually read the proposal the President is insisting on. Suddenly, providing your driver's license, even if REAL ID compliant, will no longer be enough to register to vote; nor would military IDs be sufficient for servicemembers. Men and women serving actively in the military, sworn to uphold the Constitution, when they go to vote, they show their military ID and are told by the election official, whoever it is: Sorry, that doesn't qualify. We need a passport or we need a birth certificate. Under this legislation, election officials would accept a limited number of documents, and this could prevent millions of Americans from being eligible to vote in November. Why would the President of the United States be pushing so hard for a bill which would make it more difficult to vote? Because he is worried about the outcomes of this election. He thinks he is going to lose. And he believes that more and more people who have limited access to the identification requirements don't own a passport, don't have a birth certificate, and are going to be ineligible to vote, and help his chances to win the election in November. It is that simple. Tens of millions of married women that took their spouse's last name are going to have to spend the time and money to obtain an amended birth certificate, if your State allows you to have one. Why are we making it so complicated? As I said earlier of the incidents of fraud over the last 20 years, there are 24 cases of fraud in the United States of non-Americans trying to vote--24 times in 20 years and in the millions and millions of votes that have been cast. Making America fill out more paperwork will not secure our elections. This bill only makes it harder for women, members of our military, and seniors to participate in the democratic process. The President says he won't allow us to send any bill to him to be signed into law until we pass this one, denying the right to vote to millions of Americans in November. That is what the whole issue is about. Housing for the 21st Century Act Mr. President, on a different issue, this week, the Senate is considering the Housing for the 21st Century Act, a measure intended to address the affordability crisis by boosting housing supplies and making homes more affordable for Americans. I want to speak to three amendments I filed to that bill and the important protections they provide American taxpayers and consumers. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis spurred by lax lending standards and subprime mortgages that went belly-up, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Dodd-Frank placed guardrails on the financial sector to prevent such a crisis from happening again. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while promoting one industry over that almost exclusively. Which industry is that? It is the cryptocurrency industry. This administration is playing with fire--dropping lawsuits, hollowing out enforcement, and curtailing investigations into bad actors, while cozying up to crypto donors. If this administration refuses to act, then it is on Congress to provide strong guardrails to protect consumers and curb corruption. Cryptocurrency is a highly risky, volatile, unpredictable asset. Take the Bitcoin, the gold standard of crypto. It has fallen in value nearly 50 percent since setting a record-high last October. And it is not just Bitcoin. The total value of the crypto market has dropped from nearly $4.2 trillion in October 2025 to $2.36 trillion today. All the gains from last year have been wiped out for investors in that cryptocurrency. Crypto has developed a troubling reputation for fraud, including scams facilitated by crypto ATMs, which disproportionately target senior citizens. In 2025, last year alone, the FBI received more than 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud that resulted in more than $333 million in losses. How does it work? A senior citizen gets a telephone call and is told: You were supposed to show up for jury duty last month and you didn't show up. Did you know there is a warrant out for your arrest? The senior citizen says: I didn't know anything about that. Well, that is a fact, the warrant will be served on you, unless you pay your fine. I will tell you how you can do it and spare yourself the embarrassment. Go to the crypto machine and feed in $10,000, and it will all go away. The senior citizen worried that their family is going to learn that they missed their jury duty or whatever it might be, embarrassed at the prospect of discussing it with their kids just does that, goes to the crypto machine. Does that happen very often? Mr. President, 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud, $333 million in losses, seniors convinced by scammers to plug money into the crypto machines. And the President has used crypto to enrich himself and his family. Fresh off returning to the Oval Office for a second term, Donald Trump launched a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit. President Trump issued a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit since he was reelected as President. And his family's crypto firm World Liberty Financial has brought in approximately $1 billion in revenue, the family firm. President Trump's crypto dealings reportedly account for more than 20 percent of his net worth. In 1 year, President Trump and his family have increased the family fortune to the tune of $1.4 billion, primarily through crypto. My first amendment would crack down on what some have called ``the getaway vehicle'' for criminals. I am talking about crypto ATMs. You might not know that they are there, but the next time you go to a grocery store and look at an ATM machine, look what is next to it; it is a crypto ATM machine so you can funnel money in and buy Bitcoins. I am talking about crypto ATMs that are all over America, 30,000 of them--30,000 of these machines. If you look at your gas station or your grocery store, you are going to see them. They are being used by criminals to cheat Americans, primarily senior citizens, out of their life savings. I have spoken before about how scammers are targeting Americans, impersonating their banking institution that they can trust, and scamming them into putting their hard-earned money into these crypto ATMs. Because of the untraceable and anonymous nature of crypto, once the victim deposits cash into a crypto ATM, sends it to the scammer's wallet, it is nearly impossible to recover. My amendment would require crypto ATM operators to register with the Treasury Department and report their kiosk locations. It also would require crypto ATM operators to provide mandatory disclosure and fraud warnings, impose daily transaction limits, and provide refunds for customers who were scammed. I have also filed an amendment that would prevent crypto companies from receiving a taxpayer-funded bailout. Imagine, these crypto operations don't pay deposit insurance like banks and savings and loans and others. And when it comes to a crisis like the one we had in 2008, that insurance becomes important to saving those institutions. Currently, crypto is considering asking for that kind of protection without paying any insurance premiums. If and when the crypto crash occurs, American taxpayers should not be the ones on the hook for these crypto ventures that are owned by President Trump and his family. Mr. President, 2 in 3 Americans oppose a government bailout of the crypto industry, while only 9 percent support one. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all the 80-20 issues; this is a 90-10 issue. There should never be a taxpayer bailout for crypto. I have also raised serious concerns about crypto with the Trump administration exposing the retirement accounts of millions of America to crypto. You cannot discuss retirement security in the United States without mentioning Social Security. While the Social Security trust funds can only invest in government bonds, I have filed an amendment to make it explicitly clear that the trust funds cannot currently and can never invest in crypto. Social Security ensures our seniors have food on their table and clothes on their backs. It is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, the safest asset in the world, because of the full faith and credit of the United States backing it up. If the trust funds were exposed to the volatility of the crypto market, the financial security, under Social Security, that our seniors depend on could be pulled out from under them, rising and falling with the swings of this risky asset. Here is the bottom line: Do we want to expose the bedrock promise of Social Security to risky assets like crypto? If your answer is no, I hope you will support my amendment. It is past time we put guardrails in place to stop fraud and corruption in the crypto industry. When the GENIUS Act came up for a vote last year, I voted no because it gave Congress' blessing for President Trump and his family to further enrich themselves with very little protection for consumers. As Congress considers market structure legislation, I intend to submit these amendments to the bill to fully place meaningful guardrails in this industry. The American consumer is not aware of what is going on with crypto; it is time for them to open their eyes. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week was historic in the Senate Chamber. For the first time, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security came and appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She had been in the position for almost a year and had never agreed to publicly appear and account for her mismanagement of that Department until last week--1 day before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve as ranking Democrat, and the second day before the House Judiciary Committee for a similar hearing. When the smoke had cleared, President Trump announced, via a social media post, that he was firing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The reason for the decision was obvious after her 2 days of testimony and 2 days of refusal to respond to important questions. Under Kristi Noem's disastrous stewardship, the Department was devoid of any moral compass or respect for the rule of law. The city of Chicago was one of the first victims of Secretary Noem's political theater campaign with her so-called Operation Midway Blitz. Instead of targeting the ``worst of the worst,'' as the President has frequently announced, Secretary Noem unleashed masked, militarized immigration enforcement officers onto our streets. These officers detained American citizens, green card holders, and community members with no prior criminal records in violent, indiscriminate, and unconstitutional roundups. Do you remember the President's pledge at rally after rally? We are going after ``the worst of the worst.'' We are going into the neighborhoods of America. We are going to find the terrorists and the rapists and the murderers and the criminally insane who managed to sneak across our border. We will find them, and we will send them out of the country or to jail, one or the other. What does their record show so far with that project and campaign under Secretary Noem and President Trump? They found that only one out of seven of the people who have been detained and deported--one out of seven--has any kind of serious criminal record. One out of seven. So for their best efforts and for billions of dollars in recordbreaking amounts, DHS, with these Agencies, has more money than the U.S. Marine Corps, more money than the FBI. How are they doing? If they were batters in Major League Baseball and hit the ball one out of seven times, they would be not only in the minors, but they would be out of the game. One out of seven people deported has any kind of serious criminal record. Her roving patrols shot a Chicago resident and citizen, Marimar Martinez, five times. Marimar Martinez is a miracle--``el milagro''-- lucky to be alive. What did she do that was so dangerous--worst of the worst--that invoked the reaction from the ICE and CBP agents? She was taking a box of extra clothing to her church on a Saturday morning, driving through the streets of Chicago--Kedzie Avenue to be specific-- when she was stopped by these agents of DHS. When it was all over, they had shot at her car as it departed and struck her with five different bullets. Imagine, she is alive today to tell about it. She miraculously survived, but Renee Good and Alex Pretti of Minneapolis were shot by immigration agents there and did not survive. That is why we are in a conversation with the Republicans about changing the procedures of ICE and CBP when it comes to this Presidential campaign. To think that innocent American citizens are being shot and killed in our streets is unacceptable, unthinkable, unimaginable, but it is a fact, and that is why we are standing for the premise that these agents have to be held to similar standards that police and troopers are held to all across the United States. How many of your State troopers are wearing a mask today to go out and do their job? In Illinois, none; in your State, probably the same. How about your local police? Are they wearing masks? Do they have video cameras on? The basics of policing that we accept as professionalism have been rejected by the Department of Homeland Security. We are trying to establish a standard for these enforcement officers that is comparable to the standard of your police and State troopers and deputy sheriffs. That is it. When I talk to law enforcement leaders in Illinois, they shake their heads and say: How many of our law enforcement officers are wearing a mask every day? None--virtually none. Yet they are insisting that these ICE agents and CBP agents wear a mask. They say it is for their own safety. Let me tell you what is for their safety: to have the confidence of the people you are trying to protect. That, when it comes to safety, is the standard we should have. Wearing a mask and no identification does not instill confidence in the body politic. Secretary Noem wasted no time in labeling all three of the victims that I referred to--Marimar Martinez, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti--as domestic terrorists, misleading the American public and causing immeasurable pain to their families. They were not domestic terrorists or anything like it. Yet she said it in each of the three instances. So last week when Secretary Noem finally appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my colleagues and I sought to hold her to account. She proceeded, unfortunately, to lie under oath multiple times, including saying DHS followed court orders and had not detained American citizens, despite ample evidence to the contrary. But Noem's abysmal track record wasn't enough to spur the President into action. What was the tipping point? Well, it turned out she had a multimillion-dollar--in fact, over $143 million--self-promotional campaign which showed Kristi Noem riding horses at Mount Rushmore while wearing cowboy shoes and outfits, talking about how tough she was. Well, it turned out President Trump got wind of it and said to one of the Senators: She spent more money on her self-promotion campaign than I spent to get reelected. Think about that. As we started asking questions about this TV promotion campaign, it turned out it involved some firms she had been doing business with in her home State. Too many questions. Donald Trump announced that our colleague from Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin will succeed Kristi Noem. We will find out how he plans to lead the Department in this perilous moment as the Senate exercises its authority under the Constitution to provide advice and consent on this nomination. I want to make it clear for the record what happened last week. Senator Patty Murray of the State of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, came to the floor and made a unanimous consent request that we fund every other Agency under DHS, as we had agreed in a bipartisan manner, and work solely on ICE and CBP to come up with an agreement and establish some reasonable policing standards. Who objected to funding the rest of this Department? The Republican leader. So he had his chance--and I think he will have it again, I hope, soon--to restore the funding for these critical Agencies at this moment and give us enough time--we certainly have enough time--to work out an agreement on the procedures when it comes to ICE and CBP. It won't be unreasonable to ask Senator Mullin, if he pursues this appointment by the President, what he will do to change this Department in those critical areas. What does he think about shooting innocent Americans in the street? What does he think about his officers wearing masks? What does he think about them carrying videos cameras to record exactly what happens at these scenes? What does he think about someone bashing down the front door of your home without a judicial warrant, without the permission or the approval of a judge, in accordance with just basic policing across America? These are fundamental questions. The Republican leader said earlier: We can do something this week. Yes, we should. We have been waiting for the White House to pitch in in a constructive way. Now is the moment to do it. I certainly hope we can achieve it this week, as Senator Thune promised.