Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, each of us serving in the Senate hopes to leave behind some sort of legacy. My own begins with the interns that have passed through my office. Over my four decades in Congress, I have had more than 3,000 interns work for me at one point or another, although my staff are convinced that the true number is even higher. These young people have covered me with glory, and it has been a great privilege to help them get their foot in the door of politics. Today, I would like to recognize one of my former interns, who has made a name for himself in his own right: mayor of Rockford, Tom McNamara. Tom worked in my office in Washington, DC, in 2005, around the time he completed his undergraduate degree at John Carroll University. He arrived with a strong commitment to public service--a commitment instilled by his parents and honed during his time at school. At John Carroll, Tom volunteered at a correctional facility, where he assisted parolees and probationers who struggled with alcohol and substance use disorder. In between answering phone calls and giving tours of the Capitol, Tom's interest in the criminal justice system only deepened. He contemplated how he could improve the way we treat the incarcerated and how he could make his vision a reality. After completing his internship, Tom took on a full-time role in my office as a staff assistant. But, in a great loss for my operations, he soon decided that he wanted to continue his education at John Carroll and returned to his alma matter to obtain a master's degree in nonprofit administration. While studying, he simultaneously worked at a nonprofit to help incarcerated individuals reunite with their families and reintegrate into society. But Tom couldn't stay away from Rockford for long. After completing his master's, he moved back to the Forest City to be closer to his family. Upon his return, he immediately plunged himself into a wide array of community service initiatives and began to assist candidates in various political races. As Tom settled down in Rockford, he increasingly reflected on those who lacked the same opportunity. He could count on his fingers the number of his high school classmates who still lived in Rockford and was worried that this trend would continue unless someone fought to change it. Fortunately, Tom is not the kind of person to sit on the sidelines. In 2013, he ran to be alderman for Rockford's 3rd Ward, where he ran against a three-term Republican incumbent. Tom won and quickly got to work investing in Rockford. As alderman, Tom led initiatives to revitalize Rockford's housing market and spark new commercial developments across the city. When the city faced a budget crisis in 2017, Tom helped to craft a compromise resolution that spared the city from tax hikes while investing in public safety initiatives. With his success as a first-term alderman, it is no wonder that he won Rockford's 2017 mayoral race with 68 percent of the vote. If you want to know how Tom has performed as mayor, just look at the numbers. In 2021, there were 2,301 instances of violent crime in Rockford. Last year, there were 1,359--a 41-percent decrease over the course of 5 years. In 2017, Rockford's property tax rate was 3.31 percent. Today, it is less than 2 percent. Property values have increased 56 percent since 2017, the number of vacant buildings has decreased by 17 percent, and the city is adding thousands of jobs as major corporations move in. It is remarkable to witness the transformation Rockford has undergone under Tom's leadership. Dilapidated factories are being turned into new homes and businesses, and people are flocking to what the Wall Street Journal has described as America's ``top housing market.'' The problem of vacant homes has been reversed, and now Rockford is racing to construct enough houses for all those who hope to move to the area. While these changes are the fruits of the labor of thousands of people committed to Rockford's future, it is important to note the central role Tom has played in the city's redevelopment. Tom brought together police and community groups for more effective violence prevention programs. He worked with businesses and the city council to incentivize new developments across the city and balance Rockford's budget. As mayor, he brought an infectious sense of hope and optimism that now permeates throughout the city. I have worked with Tom throughout the years on a variety of Federal initiatives in Rockford, where I have had the opportunity to see his love for his city and community firsthand. Of course, if you knew Tom's family, none of this would be surprising. Public service runs in the McNamara blood. Tom's grandfather served on the city council and school board in Whiting, IN. And John, Tom's father, was a U.S. Army veteran, having earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, and was mayor of Rockford during many of the Forest City's darkest years. Like Tom, John guided Rockford through an incredibly difficult time and helped the city recover from a devastating manufacturing recession. Also, like his son, John did it all with unyielding optimism. John was a dear friend of mine, and I know that he would be so proud to see all that Tom has accomplished. While Tom is stepping down from his position as mayor, his time in public service is far from over. Later this year, he will become CEO of the Illinois Municipal League, an organization representing Illinois' 1,300 municipalities. I look forward to seeing how he will support the State of Illinois in this new role. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to welcome Tom to the world of politics more than two decades ago. It has been a great honor to see him develop as both a leader and public servant. I hope the whole Senate will join me in congratulating Tom, his wife Sarah, and their children Olympia and Malachy as they begin the next chapter of their lives.

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, I am nearing the end of my Senate term, and I am reflecting on some historic events which I have witnessed at this table, at this desk. One of the most historic I remember--and specifically the date--January 6, 2021. The reason why that day was important was that the votes all across America had been counted to see who was elected President in the 2020 election, and the process involved certification by the House and the Senate of the electoral votes that were to be counted. In the past, it has been almost a pro forma event, hardly noticed by anyone. But on January 6, 2021, it was much different--much different. The Presiding Officer of the Senate for that electoral vote count is the Vice President of the United States; in this case, it was Vice President Pence. There was more security than usual in the Capitol Building. To those who are here today witnessing this session and visiting the Capitol, you are lucky. You are protected by one of the best security forces, police forces, in the Nation, the Capitol Hill Police. Most Americans don't know much about them. Those of us who serve in Congress know a lot about them. These are men and women who keep you safe and me safe in the Capitol Building and make sure that the visitors have peace of mind when they come and go. We want to maintain the availability of this building to visitors from certainly the United States, but from all around the world. And these men and women--some in uniform, some in ordinary dress--make sure that happens. Well, on January 6, 2021, there was a special emphasis on security. The reason: It was not only a historic event with Members of Congress in their chairs and the Vice President of the United States presiding over the Senate. There was also a rally going on downtown by the outgoing President of the United States, Donald Trump, at the end of his first term. He had summoned his supporters and friends to come for a rally down by the White House and the Washington Monument that day. No coincidence. It was an attempt to put pressure on Congress not to count the electoral votes. You see, the President then and now had this fiction in his mind that he actually won the election. He was only off by 7 million votes--that is how much he lost it by. But he kept filing lawsuits and making protests and arguing that he should be President again. At one point, he dispatched the thousands--thousands--of people that he had summoned to Washington to leave the Washington Monument area and to march on the Capitol, and they did. So we were sitting inside with the knowledge that these thousands of people were coming up to our building here, the Capitol Building, where we did business on this historic day. We didn't quite know what they would do when they arrived. But if you witness the videotapes from that day, draw your own conclusions. They tried to storm the Capitol. They broke through locked doors, crashed through windows to come into the building. At approximately 10 minutes after 2 o'clock in the afternoon on January 6, 2021, I was seated at this desk. Vice President Pence was presiding, and I noticed something curious: Those doors opened and members of the Secret Service came in and grabbed--literately grabbed-- the Vice President to pull him out of that chair; took him out that door. And here we sat with no announcement, nothing, but we knew something was going on outside with this rally that had been directed up this way. In a few minutes, a representative of the Capitol Police spoke to us in the Chamber and said: Stay calm. Stay where you are. We are going to make the Senate Chamber a safe place for you to stay no matter what happens in the rest of the building. So some of us relaxed in our chairs and looked around and waited for the next development. The next development took about 10 minutes. Mr. President, 10 minutes later, the Capitol Police came and said: Disregard that earlier alert, leave in an orderly fashion, file through those doors, and follow us to a safe location. So we abandoned the Senate Chamber and the Capitol and left to go to a building nearby and wait out this ordeal, which was going on in the Senate. What happened you can witness yourself on videotape. It is all there. About 150 of our Capitol Police were assaulted by these demonstrators-- some seriously injured, others pushed to the brink psychologically, which led to their deaths a day or two later. It was a horrible scene. It wasn't until late in the afternoon that we were able to return to the Senate to complete our business with the electoral vote. What followed from that with the new President was an attempt to investigate what happened that day and who should be held responsible. There was nothing extraordinary about that. Anyone who did damage to this great building or the people in it obviously should be held accountable. And so the largest investigation in the history of the Department of Justice and the FBI started. At the end of the day, almost 1,500 individuals were charged with a crime, and they were convicted. Some of them paid a fine, some served brief periods of time, and others more serious offenses depending on what they did. That was the reality of what happened. Fast-forward four years, and what happened next? President Trump was reelected. And with the power under the Constitution to pardon those who committed crime, on his first day in office in his second term, President Trump gave a full and unconditional pardon to every one of the convicted demonstrators who stormed this building. If you remember the scenes afterwards, it wasn't just an orderly procession of people visiting this building. They crashed through doors. They broke windows. They did their darndest to cause as much damage as possible. C-SPAN, which televises what happened here, kept the cameras running, and we were able to see them scramble into the Senate Chamber, pose for pictures sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer, and riffle through our desks. I watched as some person--I still don't know who it was--went through my desk to look and see if there were some things that he could take that day. I don't know whether he did or not. But that is the sort of thing that went on for 4 or 5 hours while an effort was made to mobilize police and state troopers and others to reclaim the Capitol Building from the demonstrators. The reason I bring up this event years later is because there is an important issue to be voted on this week by the U.S. Senate, and that is the choice of the next Attorney General of the United States. The Acting Attorney General is Todd Blanche, who was President Trump's personal lawyer when he was charged with crimes and who has been Deputy Attorney General for months now. He is seeking a full-time position. One of the items of controversy is pretty easy to explain. President Trump believes--and Todd Blanche believed at one point--that the people who attacked the Capitol, the people who breached the Capitol, who crashed through the doors, broke down the windows, threatened individuals inside, should receive financial compensation for doing it. Financial compensation. And you say to yourself: They got a full, unconditional pardon by President Trump. Now they want money too? And the answer is not only yes, but, unfortunately, they have done it with some pride. The Trump administration proposed an Anti-Weaponization Fund. And just to give it a cute little twist, they appropriated $1,776 billion for that purpose. Well, it didn't go over very well with Congress because as we read this decree by the Trump administration, people said: Wait a minute. We are giving money to people who were convicted of a crime of attacking the Capitol, disrupting the business of the Senate, injuring 149 Capitol policemen? We are going to give them not only a pardon, but some sort of financial compensation? That was the plan: The Anti-Weaponization Fund. And who was the person who executed that plan? Todd Blanche, the person who is seeking to become the next full-time Attorney General of the United States. The controversy involving that particular proposal is well-known. Not only was there a bad reaction among Democrats to this idea but many Republicans as well. Some of them kept their opposition behind closed doors. I understand. But others were very vocal about it. In fact, two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they want in writing, from Todd Blanche, a promise that he would never create this fund to reward cop beaters and demonstrators in the Capitol on January 6, 2021. It went forward in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the negotiations between two Republican Senators and Todd Blanche continued until the beginning of this week when it was announced they had reached an agreement. Sadly, that agreement--the so-called agreement not to create the Anti-Weaponization Fund--is written in a way it wouldn't pass law school Contracts 101. There is no signature on any of these pages of promises when it comes to future activity. They say: We are rescinding the previous order, but there is nothing to stop a new order from taking place. That is a gaping hole in the logic and the effectiveness of any of these documents. We should have clear indications from the parties to that lawsuit that both sides agree; that would include the President of the United States, who was a party to the lawsuit that led up to this. But they can't bring it together because the President doesn't believe that the Anti-Weaponization Fund should go away. He said publicly over and over again he believes in it, wants to do it, wants to give the demonstrators money. Todd Blanche thinks he has taken care of this problem, but he has not produced any documentation to make that point clear. Secondly, there was a provision in a lawsuit. Now, here is what the lawsuit is all about: The President sued the IRS and Treasury arguing that they disclosed his income tax returns without his permission. They arrested the man who actually did it--they caught him--and he was prosecuted, as he should be. He broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law when he disclosed the President's income tax returns. The President sued the IRS and Treasury for billions of dollars-- billions--because they disclosed his income tax return. I have completed quite a few years of public service. I disclose my income tax return every year without fail as a Member of Congress and the Senate. I am not posing for holy pictures; I am just trying to tell you it isn't that big a deal if you follow the law. Do you know what the settlement of the Trump lawsuit was for disclosing his income tax returns? Part of the settlement said--get this now, and Todd Blanche is the draftsman of this as well--part of it said neither the President, his family, or any of the companies in his Trump empire business can be held for violating any tax crimes in the United States. How would you like that? Get-out-of-jail-free card. And that was part of the agreement, and it should be contested. If we say no one in America is above the law, how in the world can you justify doing this for the Trump family and their businesses? And we know this President deals in big numbers when it comes to income. His first year in office--estimates--between $1.4 and $2 billion in the President's first year in office of his second term--$2 billion. How did he do it? Well, you won't be surprised to know that there are cryptocurrency fingerprints all over this deal. The President made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a meme coin or some contraption that comes out of the cryptocurrency world. That is the reality. And who was overseeing this operation? Todd Blanche, the man who wants to be the No. 1 law enforcement officer in the United States of America. Well, I will tell you, I am not going to go much longer because I see some of my colleagues are gathering, and they want to speak on this issue as well. This is a serious mistake for the Senate to approve Todd Blanche as the next Attorney General. If there was ever a moment in history when we need an Attorney General above reproach who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it is right now. The history of this era will be written, and it will be a shameful history for those who are empowering this man, Todd Blanche, to take his personal representation of this President to the highest possible level as he becomes the next Attorney General. I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I think I know how many of you feel privately, but I know you are afraid to cross this President. He has been guilty of retribution many times in the past, and he would be on this. But don't be in the history books on the wrong side when it comes to this issue. Come out against corruption; come out for the prosecution of corporate fraud; come out for changing the current situation in the United States to one that is more respectful of the law and more respectful of the families and voters who create this democracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Todd Blanche as the next Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. What a treat it is to be on the floor of the Senate with a colleague from the Republican side of the aisle working together-- together--to try to solve the problem. It doesn't happen much around here. You see these empty desks? They are empty almost all the days, week in, week out, month in, month out. We do important things like nominations. There is nothing that is trivial about that. But we don't tackle the issues that really affect people at home with their families. Here is one: Social Security. Mr. President, 75 million Americans rely on it. Half of them, it is their only source of income, so a Social Security check means a lot. So the experts on Social Security tell Dr. Cassidy and myself that just in a few years--6 years--Social Security will be unable to make full promised payments. It will be cut by 22 percent in terms of benefits. Let's take an example. The average Social Security check now is around $2,400 a month. If you reduce that by 22 percent, it means that people receiving Social Security will receive about $450 to $500 less a month. If this is your only source of income, imagine for a moment that $2,400--just lopped off $400, $500 from your monthly payment. How does it affect you? Paying your rent; paying your mortgage; paying your utility bills; paying what it might take at the grocery store to get by. It is going to be a real hardship. As Senator Cassidy said, for the senior citizens of America, it means that those under the poverty level will increase by 50 percent. We can't let that happen. We have to do something about it. And the bill that I have introduced with Senator Cassidy basically doesn't pick a solution--although we can come up with a couple. It doesn't pick a solution. It just says: Don't waste any time. Start talking about it; start debating it; let the American people engage in this conversation with you; and vote on some alternatives. Now ``vote'' is a word that used to be part of being a Senator. Not so much anymore. Except when it comes to nominations, there aren't a lot of votes on substantive issues around this Chamber. I know a little bit about this. I have given more than half of my life to Congress: 14 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate. I know what you are saying: It sounds like a career politician. Well, maybe I am--and proud of it and particularly proud of serving in this Chamber. I have seen some glorious things happen in this Chamber on a bipartisan basis, but it takes a couple Senators, maybe more, to stand up and say: We have got to do something that is risky and controversial but important. This is not the first time I have faced Social Security. When I was a Member of the House elected in 1982, came to serve in 1983, I was told that in a matter of months Social Security would run out of money. Imagine that. You are a brandnew Member of Congress scared to death you won't be reelected, and they tell you, you have got to make a big change in the biggest social program in America. It scares you to death. But you know what? We did it. Our goal was simple: 50 years of solvency in Social Security. Can we change Social Security and guarantee 50 years of solvency? We made a lot of changes. And you know what we got for it: 2032--1983 to 2032, we kept our word--50 years. It is not too much to ask this Congress to fix Social Security and keep it solvent for 50 years. We can do it. And the longer we wait to do it, the more difficult it becomes. I look back on voting for that, and I thought it was the end of my political career, which was only a few months old, but it turned out no Member of Congress--Democrat or Republican--in 1983 and 1984 lost an election because they voted for Social Security changes. The American people expect us to make the best choices we can, and they accepted what we did. We bought 50 years of solvency--that is an amazing thing when you consider how important this program is. And so what Senator Cassidy and I have suggested is a process which basically says we won't go by the old Senate rules. I might add--I was going to show it, but I think it violates the Senate rules. The Senate is a Chamber of tradition. Down here, a few of you can see it, is a brass spittoon--a brass spittoon. It has been held onto as part of the tradition of the Senate. Well, we have traditions in the rules that make things almost impossible to pass except after a long period of time. Weeks go by sometimes; days certainly go by, trying to get from a measure on the floor to an actual vote. The Senate rules are not kindly. They are tough. So the bill that I introduced basically cuts through some of this redtape and delay and says we will move after several weeks to consider alternatives to Social Security. The bottom line is: It isn't enough to get a majority in the Senate under the current rules, and it isn't changed at all under our proposal. We still need 60 votes to ultimately pass any change to Social Security. Well, Democrats don't have 60 votes; Republicans don't have 60 votes; but together, we think we can reach that goal. Now, I have been a little disappointed, but not surprised, that some of my colleagues that I have talked to about this said they thought it was a good idea, but on reflection they have decided it is too risky, that we are moving things too fast. The Senate has never been accused successfully of moving too fast on almost anything. We take our time. That is why we are here. The Senate is different than the House, and I served in both and respect both. So to my colleagues who oppose this approach and say we need more time to do it, I want to back up Senator Cassidy. It costs money over time. It costs benefits over time. The solution becomes more expensive over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to save Social Security. And we absolutely, positively have to save it. Too many people are counting on it. I bet you the folks who gathered here today have many relatives of their own who count on Social Security--either because they are disabled or elderly. I understand that in my own family. I think everybody does. So it is a great day in the Senate when a Democrat and a Republican stand on the floor and don't criticize one another but actually talk about working together. It has been a real pleasure for me, I would say to Senator Cassidy, to be part of the Cassidy-Durbin team. We are both ending our Senate careers on January 3 of next year. We hoped that this would be one of the things we could achieve before we left. I am still not giving up completely. Miracles do occur. But I had to step up and make a proposal with Senator Cassidy to get my colleagues into conversation. The conversation about Social Security has increased dramatically since we started this effort, and I think it should. The sooner, the better. The more expensive it becomes the longer we wait. I yield back to Senator Cassidy.

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, when I think about the issue of public health, I remember a time in my childhood when one of my friends didn't show up for school. I asked people: Where did she go? They shook their heads and said: Polio. When she finally returned, she couldn't walk without heavy leg braces. I will never forget the agony I saw in her eyes. Sadly, in my childhood, that story was common. For decades, a kid could go to school healthy and be paralyzed before the end of the day. But suddenly--suddenly--it all changed. Dr. Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine. Dr. Sabin came up with a form that didn't require a needle. By 1979, polio was eradicated in America. A disease that would strike fear in the hearts of everyone was a distant memory. I think there is a special place in history reserved for researchers and scientists like Dr. Salk and Dr. Sabin, who devoted their lives to saving others--people like Norman Borlaug, Edward Jenner, Madame Marie Curie, and Albert Calmette. There is another person whose name could be on that list as well-- someone who has saved millions of lives, both in America and around the world, through his lifetime of public service. His name: Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci worked for the National Institutes of Health for 54 years, 38 of which he served as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He has advised seven Presidents, of both parties, and seen our Nation through countless public health crises-- from SARS to avian flu, swine flu, Zika, Ebola, and on and on. Aside from his work against COVID-19, Dr. Fauci may be best known for his work on HIV/AIDS. Dr. Fauci's tireless efforts on HIV/AIDS, both domestically and worldwide, through the creation of PEPFAR--the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--is the main reason why this horrible disease is no longer a death sentence. In recognition of his achievement, Dr. Fauci was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008, our Nation's highest civilian honor, by then-President George W. Bush. Dr. Fauci is an example of American excellence, a brilliant scientific mind, and yet the Republican Party has chosen to make this doctor who has saved countless lives a political target. Last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subpoenaed Dr. Fauci, in front of the Congress, for a hearing with the express goal of humiliating and vilifying him. For nearly 3 hours, my Republican colleagues berated, cursed, and insulted a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the health of American families. This behavior is below the dignity of the Senate. Put simply, it was an embarrassment. If my colleagues had genuine concern for America's public health, they would turn their attention instead to the destruction wrought by this administration's anti-science agenda. Listen to this rollcall. Measle cases are at a 35-year high in the United States of America. Whooping cough has resurged. Our response to the hantavirus and cyclospora outbreaks has been abysmal. And hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the administration's vaccine skepticism and public health cuts. If my Republican colleagues want to hold hearings, perhaps they should hold one on the impact of President Trump's cuts to NIH research funding, which has slowed research into heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's; or they can investigate how the FDA has lost 20 percent of its staff under this administration, deeply damaging food safety efforts. If they were truly concerned for America's health, they would hold hearings on the fact that ACA premiums are doubling for many families across the United States because of the Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill. These are the real health crises of the day--all entirely of this administration's own making. But my Republican Senate colleagues have chosen to ignore real life-and-death issues to relitigate COVID conspiracy theories--not in an effort to find out what might have gone wrong or how to prepare for the next pandemic, instead, to try and tear down a man who has devoted his entire life to lifting others up. Dr. Fauci deserves an apology for the way he was treated by my colleagues, and the American people deserve better than the pitiful display we saw in the Senate last Wednesday.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have been in the House and the Senate for quite a while. I have written a lot of bills and amendments. I have read even more. I am absolutely confounded by the language of this proposal, S. 3101, by my friend and colleague from Florida. There are so many issues bouncing around in this proposal of a serious nature that we would be foolish to do this by voice vote here immediately in the Senate. This deserves a real hearing, a real investigation, because it involves a lot of elements that affect many people personally, many families personally. We are talking about reproductive rights. We are talking about personal freedom. I don't have a medical license. Some of my colleagues like to practice medicine on the floor of the Senate. I tend to listen to the experts on the subject. But I want to put this in perspective, if I can, for a moment. At issue here is the issue of surrogacy. How do I explain that in a few words as a layman? It is basically a person who says: This may not be a fertilized fetus that I have been responsible for creating, but I am willing to allow my body to have this fetus during the gestational period until its birth. That is the surrogacy involved in it. Let's put this into perspective for a moment, if we can. How many live births are there in the United States each year? There are 3.6 million. First, let's go in vitro fertilization because that is part of this conversation too. How many in vitro fertilization births are there out of the 3.6 million births in this country? There were 100,000--2.6 percent--in 2023 that were in vitro fertilization Surrogacy. How many gestational surrogacy births in the United States are there each year? I would ask the Senator from Florida. He may know, but I will tell him. It is somewhere between 5- and 6,000. It is a fraction of a percentage. Now, involved in this debate is the belief by some that we should allow no surrogacy. I am not one of those people. Let me tell you a story of a family I know. Husband--father and mother decided they wanted to have a family. They went to great lengths through IVF so that she could become pregnant. It was a tragedy to them personally when they lost the baby late in the pregnancy. She was crushed. Her sister, who is a medical doctor, said: It appears you have some problems with delivering a child. Let me suggest to you that if you go through IVF, I will be the surrogate mother and carry the baby for you and your husband. They agreed. She went forward with it. And wouldn't you know, shortly afterward, the IVF worked for the original mother, and she became pregnant as well. So sisters were pregnant by the same father and mother in this situation. It was an act of kindness and courage on the part of her sister to help them out. If you saw them in the park today with their little boy and little girl, you wouldn't pick them out of a crowd, but through IVF and through surrogacy, they have a family that they dreamed of. I think that is the right thing to do--legally and morally the right thing to do. Surrogacy has its place. It is an exceptional procedure. When there are 5- or 6,000 a year in America, it is certainly not one that really can be argued is part of any large conspiracy. But there are actually--we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee--there are actually Republicans who believe--listen to this; it sounds preposterous--they believe there is some kind of effort in a nation like China to have babies born in the United States and then bring them back to China and prepare them to come back to the United States someday to undermine our government or something. We have had hearings on that. When you ask them ``How can you prove what you just said?'' they have no evidence. But it is a conspiracy theory, and it is part of the calculation behind this amendment. This bill is purportedly about protecting our national security from foreign adversaries and protecting children from exploitation and trafficking. If you want to introduce a bill to deal with trafficking or exploitation of children or others, count me in, but this bill goes so much further. The Senator from Florida pointed out at one point a horrifying story of more than 20 children birthed by surrogate mothers. In one case, they were found abused and neglected in a home outside of Los Angeles. I am not in favor of those abuses. I join him in stopping human trafficking. But this bill would not stop child abuse or trafficking. It would not prevent espionage by foreign adversaries. This bill will do nothing to prevent the situation that I just described in Los Angeles. Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved. This bill is not only grounded in an objection to birthright citizenship but in some sort of a weird, unusual, national security theory that goes behind this. For the record, the Supreme Court has decided on birthright citizenship. And for the record, the 14th Amendment is as clear as can be: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court did not take long to agree with that, and I think that is part of the objection that is behind this amendment--the objection to that Supreme Court decision. Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved. This bill voids all surrogacy agreements between a surrogate parent who is inside the United States at the time of the birth or who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and a prospective parent who is a national or resident of certain countries. The bill criminalizes assisting with making or executing such a surrogacy agreement in any way. The bill's plan would impact all surrogacy agreements with nationals from Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. It does not allow for consideration of how long these parties have been in the United States or the nature of the surrogacy agreement. For example, it would prevent an Iranian asylum seeker and her spouse from starting a family. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding birthright citizenship as the law of the land, this bill reads like the latest MAGA conspiracy attempt to achieve what they were unable to achieve in the Supreme Court--ending birthright citizenship. State lawmakers from Florida and Texas are using similar legislation to chip away at access to reproductive rights. There was a controversy, and you may remember it, as to whether or not in vitro fertilization is consistent with MAGA principles. They ultimately announced that it was, that IVF was fine, but that just shows you that they have run into a number of cases already where the principles do not bear out the reality of life in America. Some are pushing to ban surrogacy altogether. The case I gave you is a good illustration in my mind of why we shouldn't do that. They argue that the surrogacy agreement amounts to slavery and violated the 13th Amendment, a preposterous argument. Voiding and criminalizing surrogacy agreements with nationals from certain countries looks like the first step in a broader troubling plan to restrict surrogacy. Countless couples, families, and individuals facing fertility challenges rely on access to surrogacy and other reproductive services to have children. Most people seeking surrogacy in the United States are Americans. Some are foreign nationals who reside in the United States; others are foreigners who are turning to surrogacy in the United States because of limited access in their home countries. I support thoughtful efforts to ensure that access to surrogacy in the United States is not exploited by those seeking to abuse our laws. This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and am ranking member. I would be happy to work with the Senator from Florida on the complex issues that he raises with the amendment. We won't agree on everything, but we certainly would agree when we talk about exploitation and human trafficking. This bill does nothing to address those two issues, which are a major concern for me as well as the sponsor. I hope we can work together to come up with something meaningful in the weeks ahead, and for that reason, I object.

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, we start with this little document called the U.S. Constitution. Every one of us has sworn to uphold and defend this document. And we go to article I, the first article in the Constitution, section 8, and it spells out with clarity who declares war under this Constitution: The Congress of the United States. We are now engaged in a war in Iran. Did the Congress declare war on Iran? No. Did the President even ask Congress to declare war on Iran? No. Well, were there public hearings in Congress about this decision to invade Iran, to attack Iran? No. Did this President of the United States go to the allies of the United States, like the NATO allies, to discuss the invasion of Iran? No. This President decided that we would go to war on his own--strictly on his own--without regard for what the Constitution requires. Now, I am glad to concede that there have been many Presidents that have gone to war under similar circumstances, but almost without exception they at least took the case to the American people directly or through Congress. This President did not. So where are we today? Mr. President, $88 billion--that is how much has been spent so far in Iran. We are in the fifth month of the first year of a never-ending war that this President promised over and over again at his rallies would never, ever, ever happen under his watch. Now we have the Senator from Alaska coming to the floor raising questions about why we aren't moving on certain items. It is because there has been no involvement in the decision process that led up to this. Do you know what the increase is in defense spending for next year: 40 percent of the Department of Defense budget--40 percent. Why? We have an $88 billion war going on in Iran. There are those of us who have serious doubts that that is the right thing to do. We look at the Strait of Hormuz. Before we invaded Iran, they were open for the transport of energy, oil, and fertilizers. Now, they are virtually closed because of President Trump's decision to invade Iran. Does it have any impact on you personally? Filled your gas tank lately? Do you know what is going on there? The cost of gasoline is going through the roof because of the invasion of Iran and the decision to move forward. So you can tell from my comments here that I have serious doubts that we are doing the right thing in Iran. I am not going to be a defender of Iran. I have called for sanctions on that country over and over again for their misconduct. But to sit here and argue that we are somehow shirking our constitutional and congressional responsibility by not funding this war is to ignore the obvious. This was the President's decision to go forward with this war. My advice to him over many years that I have served in Congress: It is easier to start a war than it is to end it. And we are learning that right now. The Strait of Hormuz are still at risk, and other parts of the world are at risk because of that decision. It is not the right decision. Remembering Lindsey Graham Mr. President, let me also say a word about Lindsey Graham. Lindsey was my friend. On some issues, my ally. He did things for me which I thought were politically risky but to help, for example, to pass the Dream Act. It was Lindsey Graham who was the sole Republican who would cosponsor my bipartisan Dream Act each year. I respect him so much for doing it. It was a political risk for him to do it. But either for me personally--God bless him--or for the thousands of young people who were facing deportation, he stuck his neck out for me. That is why I went to the service yesterday in respect for this man. I do respect him. We didn't agree on everything. Particularly when it came to issues of war, there were serious differences. But there are many things that united us. The gentleman from Alaska raises the question of: What would Lindsey do? I'm sure we can come up with our own interpretation. Government Funding Now, here is the bottom line moving forward: We have got to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to fund this government after September 30 when this particular budget ends and a new budget starts. I want to do that. Senator Murray wants to do it. I think Senator Collins would like to do it. But now we have to do it together on a bipartisan basis. We come to an agreement on the top line about how to reach a budget and then we start setting out on appropriations bills. I have been fortunate enough to serve in the Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate. I have seen some extraordinary bipartisan good work. We can have it again, but we have got to sit down and, in good faith, start working toward a conclusion. A conclusion that gives 40 percent increase to the Department of Defense and zero increase to the rest of the government is a mistake. It is a serious mistake. We have important things that need to be done to help families that are struggling with the cost of living. And so to the Senator from Alaska: I just disagree with you on the premise. We can and should work on a bipartisan basis, and it needs to start with next year's budget. Temporary Protected Status Designation Mr. President, last month the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to end a program called temporary protected status designation without any judicial review. The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has supercharged President Trump's mass deportation campaign, with devastating consequences for temporary protected status holders and the American communities who rely on them. Temporary protected status under American law was intended to prevent the deportation of immigrants to countries where it is not safe to return. By law, a TPS designation can only be made or extended in increments of 6, 12, or 18 months. It is truly temporary in nature. Ahead of every TPS expiration, the Secretary of State must reassess the conditions in the countries and decide whether to renew the designation or let it end. To take one example, there is no question that Haiti is unsafe. Our Department of State has issued a Level 4 travel advisory telling Americans it is unsafe to travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, and civil unrest. That is the official statement of the Department of State of the Trump administration. So why has the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti and many other countries where it is not safe to return? Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that TPS for countries like Haiti must end simply because it is the nature of the program--that it is temporary. Here is the thing: Since 1990, 36 years ago, when TPS was established, there have been 30--30--TPS designations. Even before the Trump administration, at least 10 of them--countries like Angola, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone had their designations made and then officially terminated. They were temporary. In some cases, like Haiti, conditions have never been safe enough to justify a termination. Haitian TPS holders have bought homes in the United States, started American families, and become part of our communities. Members on both sides of the aisle oppose deporting these Haitian immigrants. In fact, our former Senate colleague and my friend Republican Mike DeWine, now the Republican Governor of Ohio, called the Trump administration's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS ``a mistake'' and a ``job killer'' that is ``not in the best interest of the United States nor Ohio.'' Let me say parenthetically: Mike DeWine is my friend. We are opposite political parties. We served together in the Senate. It was Mike who encouraged me to join him and his wife when they visited Haiti, and I saw it for the first time. It opened my eyes to the poverty and danger of that island country. The Trump-Mullin administration has ignored the comments of Governor DeWine and others. Instead, ICE is preparing to target Haitian immigrants for arrest and deportation as early as this week. Immigrants who have been lawfully present in the United States for years now risk being deported. This is all so that Trump and his trusted adviser Stephen Miller can meet their 2,000-arrests-a-day quota. They are not looking for the worst of the worst with these Haitians. They are not looking for terrorists, murderers, sexual predators, human traffickers. It is just whether they are Haitian or not Haitian. It is time for Congress to give these long-term residents the security that they deserve. That is why I am calling for the passage of the SECURE Act, legislation that will provide certainty for these individuals and their communities by giving them the ability to apply for legal permanent residency. Later today, my friend and colleague Senator Van Hollen of Maryland will ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill. I join him and appeal to my colleagues: In the name of humanity, for God's sake, don't send these people back to an island which we have already declared is too dangerous for any American to visit. Let them stay safe with their children and families here in the United States until things have improved in Haiti. If they are a threat in any way to any person in America, they need to leave; but if they are leading good lives, doing the best they can for them and their families, give them a chance. It is not too much to ask, and to deport them into this dangerous situation is not consistent with the basic values of America. Confirmation of Walter Clayton Mr. President, on a separate subject, yesterday the Senate voted to confirm Jay Clayton to be the next Director of National Intelligence. He replaces Acting DNI Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist who purged career intelligence employees and who launched investigations into the President's political enemies as Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Similarly, anyone hoping Clayton will show loyalty to the Constitution over the President who appointed him is sorely mistaken. Much like his predecessor, Jay Clayton has peddled the Big Lie and worked to do the President's bidding, using the levers of government to target Trump's perceived enemies. Don't believe me? I will show you. Earlier this month, in a clear threat to freedom of the press, the Trump administration issued subpoenas targeting several journalists for the New York Times who reported on security concerns related to the President's brand-new, Qatari-donated Air Force One. Who issued the subpoenas? None other than Jay Clayton in his capacity as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. After sharp questioning by a Federal judge, prosecutors withdrew the demands. And 2 weeks ago, while appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his nomination, Clayton refused--time and time again--to say who won the 2020 Presidential election. We have seen this play out in the Judiciary Committee as the President's nominees for the Federal bench bend over backwards to avoid stating a simple fact: that Joe Biden won in 2020. And Donald Trump lost. Why? Because these people are loyal to the President above all. And that has been his guiding light when picking nominees for appointments. Most importantly, Clayton lacks the basic qualifications necessary for the job of overseeing and coordinating our Nation's 18 intelligence agencies. By law, the Director of National Intelligence is required to have ``extensive national security expertise.'' Not only does he lack extensive national security expertise, he lacks any. The Trump administration has already spent the past 18 months politicizing and denigrating our intelligence community. In fact, both of Clayton's predecessors, Pulte and former DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who took the unprecedented step of meddling in a domestic law enforcement action on election interference, laid bare just how important it is to separate politics from the work of the IC. I voted no on Jay Clayton's nomination to be DNI. Despite this, I hope Mr. Clayton will show fidelity to the rule of law and be an independent voice to safeguard our IC. His track record does not inspire confidence, but time will tell. Todd Blanche Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a key vote on Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General. The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice--our Nation's premier law enforcement agency--as well as the FBI, DEA, and many other essential Agencies. The position demands that the Attorney General be someone committed to the rule of law and the Constitution more than any one person or political party. This principle is exactly why Todd Blanche is the wrong person for this role. In his 16 months at DOJ, Blanche has shown that he is more concerned with serving Donald Trump than the American people. Pardoning January 6 rioters and cop-beaters wasn't enough for President Trump, so 2 months ago, Blanche colluded with President Trump's private lawyers to create a nearly $2 billion slush fund to benefit the January 6 mob that attacked the Capitol. When I met with Blanche earlier this month, he told me he recognized this decision for what it was: a ``mistake.'' But when I asked him under oath, Blanche insisted that he never made this statement, displaying either a short memory or a dangerous willingness to lie for President Trump. When pressed during his hearing, Blanche even refused to directly condemn those who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 and would not commit to permanently ending this slush fund. Blanche has done more than just support the President's allies; he has also used his position to directly enrich the President himself. Earlier this year, Blanche personally signed a document to provide President Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity for any past Federal tax law violations. And last year, he dismantled DOJ's crypto enforcement team and shut down ongoing investigations of the crypto industry, an industry that has made President Trump more than $1 billion since returning to the White House. Blanche himself held crypto assets worth more than $150,000 at the time--and when he finally did divest himself of these assets, he did so by transferring them to his adult children and grandchild. It is hard to believe how Blanche could possibly be an honest broker as Attorney General, especially when he refuses to even admit that the Department of Justice should decide who to prosecute without political interference from the President. During his nomination hearing, one of my Republican colleagues asked Blanche if he and President Trump are friends. Blanche responded, ``I'm his lawyer.'' That Freudian slip sums up why he has been nominated. The Attorney General should be the people's lawyer. The Department of Justice should work on behalf of the people. But President Trump still views Blanche as his personal lawyer, a role he held up until he was confirmed to be Deputy Attorney General. And it is clear that Blanche still views himself as the President's lawyer. Todd Blanche's DOJ has become one where the President and his allies are protected while ordinary Americans suffer and his perceived enemies are baselessly prosecuted. The position of Attorney General is too important to be held by someone unwilling to say no to the President, which is exactly why I will be voting no on his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, you often wonder if the speeches you give on the floor of the Senate are heard by anyone. Most of us have spent some time working with staff to prepare remarks to state a position or to make a plea, and you wonder if anyone is listening. Well, every once in a while, something happens which renews your faith that perhaps there are people listening who can make a difference. Late last week, I had an amazing visit in my office upstairs, here in the Capitol, from China--Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri. He had been jailed for 266 days in a Chinese prison. His crime? He had been operating a church, a Christian church. At least eight of his congregants remain in prison. Pastor Jin's daughter Grace and his 7-week-old grandson--also named Ezra--joined our meeting upstairs as well. Grace worked tirelessly to draw attention to her father's case, and it was a joy to see them reunited. In our meeting, Pastor Jin told me that his prison conditions were very stark. While in jail, in China, he was cut off from communications with his family. His lawyers were harassed and threatened as well. President Trump raised the case with Chinese President Xi, and here in the Senate, Senator Cruz and I, on a bipartisan basis, passed a resolution calling for his release and the release of several other political prisoners in China. I welcome the Chinese Government's release of Pastor Jin, and I call on them to release the remaining eight members of his church as well as the following who are mentioned in my Senate resolution: Dr. Gulshan Abbas, Jimmy Lai, Gao Quanfu, and his wife Pang Yu, and Epkar Asat. All of these people are noted on this poster that I presented on the floor several weeks ago. Here is Pastor Jin with a smile on his face--the same thing in my office upstairs with his beautiful daughter and grandson. I wish the Chinese Government would release the remaining individuals here whom I have spotlighted in this presentation: Dr. Abbas, Jimmy Lai, Gao Quanfu and Pang Yu, and Epkar Asat. This would be a welcomed move before President Xi's visit in September as there is simply no reason to fear these people who have done nothing but otherwise exercise the peaceful freedom of religion and expression. Appropriations Now, Mr. President, on a separate topic, last week the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on President Trump's supplemental request to pay for the war in Iran. At the hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to give us the latest accounting of the financial cost of this war. The Secretary estimated that it had cost $37.5 billion. I might remind those who are following this statement that we are in the fifth month of the first year of this war in Iran. The cost so far, at least, is $37.5 billion. I don't know how the Secretary arrived at that figure, especially considering the fact that it does not include the cost of repairing heavily damaged United States bases in the Middle East which have been attacked by Iran--all of this to say nothing of the cost to our servicemembers who shoulder the burden of lengthy deployment and, most importantly, to say nothing of the cost of the 18 brave--brave-- Americans who have been tragically killed in Iran. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. So now the White House is coming to Congress with an $88 billion-- that is right--$88 billion request for more money for the war in Iran and a few other items. To those of you watching at home who don't follow the ins and outs of Congress, this is a funding request outside the normal annual government funding process. This is usually reserved for serious emergencies and unexpected costs. This is despite the fact that the administration already has more than $75 million in unspent money for the Pentagon--$75 million unspent--and they are coming and asking us for another $88 billion. They are leaving a lot of change on the dresser. Moreover, if funding is needed for the war in Iran, the administration, at a minimum, owes Congress and the American people a plan to end this self-inflicted mess. Make no mistake, Iran is a troubling actor that has, for decades, threatened American and allied interests. It terribly represses its own people and has not given up on its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but President Trump's war with Iran has not resolved either of these issues. All it has done is to have drawn us into a messy foreign entanglement with no clear endgame, and now a growing number of American troops have been killed and wounded. Allies in the region are facing repeated missile attacks, and the global economy has been held hostage by Iran's totally predictable stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz. So, before this Congress provides billions of dollars more, there are some questions that need to be answered. I might add, I want to return--we have lost 18 brave servicemen. They can, obviously, never be replaced, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their service to our Nation, but the administration is virtually silent with the number of troops--our troops--who have been wounded in this war with Iran--some of them seriously wounded. The numbers are over 400--400 casualties--along with the 18 who have given their lives. This is a costly venture of a war that the President initiated without going to the American people or to Congress, as required by the Constitution, or to our allies or to the public at large. The President did this on his own, believing it would be quick and over. We are learning again what we have learned so many times in the recent past: It is far easier to start a war than it is to end one, and we are seeing that to this day. Ukraine Mr. President, on another unrelated topic--well, it is related, but it is different. The war in Ukraine has turned a good corner for us, with the real possibility for the first time in over 4 years that Russia will be finally forced to negotiate. I was at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, earlier this month with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen and Coons, the late Lindsey Graham, and Senator Rounds, and the message was clear: Momentum is with Ukraine, and this is the time for American and European support to step up. But amid this shift, Ukraine desperately needs more air defenses to protect civilians from brutal Russian attacks. Unfortunately, too many of these air defenses have been needed in the gulf for President Trump's other war in Iran, and Ukraine still has not received $400 million we appropriated in last year's appropriations bill, signed into law by the President. They are still waiting on it for air defense. I asked Secretary Hegseth why the Pentagon is taking so long to send this critical aid to Ukraine. He didn't have a good answer. President Trump needs to send the $400 million in funds immediately. They are desperately needed in Ukraine to stop the Russian advances. Doing so will help bring President Putin to the negotiating table. Secretary Hegseth also needs to move the $200 million we appropriated and the President signed into law for the Baltic Security Initiative to help frontline NATO allies prepare for Russian intimidation and retaliation. My last point is this: It is overdue for this Chamber to act on Russia and Ukraine and the legislation which Lindsey Graham was passionate about. The last time I met with him--just 3, 4 days before he passed away--he brought this issue up, this idea of sanctions against Russia. I think it is a valuable investment of our time, and I am happy to cosponsor this measure. Senator Graham understood the timeliness of this legislation to help force Russians to negotiate. He worked hard to find agreement on this bill--months and months of work with Senator Blumenthal and others, Senator Shaheen included. I know the majority leader cares about helping Ukraine, so I am glad the bill is set to move this week. I look forward to its passage. It is truly a tribute to the kind of work which Lindsey Graham made his career in the U.S. Senate and makes a difference in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, prior to his confirmation to the district court, Judge Daniel Traynor showed his true colors as a MAGA partisan. After he was confirmed, he had a chance to show that he could be a neutral arbiter on the bench. Yet after more than 6 years as a jurist, Judge Traynor has confirmed what Democrats warned about, that he would be a rubberstamp for President Trump. As just one example, Judge Traynor has ruled in favor of the Trump administration in all 28 cases on his docket involving challenges from immigrants who have been detained by ICE under the administration's illegal mandatory detention policy. That includes seven habeas corpus petitions Judge Traynor volunteered to preside over in the District of Minnesota following Operation Metro Surge. Judge Traynor is an outlier. Of the more than 17,800 cases in which Federal district judges have ruled on ICE's mandatory detention policy, at least 15,500 were rulings against the Trump administration, including the vast majority of rulings by Trump-appointed judges. Judge Traynor's partisanship was also made apparent when he served as a contributing author and signatory of a May 2024 letter from Federal judges to the Columbia University president. The signatories vowed not to hire anyone who attended Columbia University beginning that year. But Judge Traynor denied a recusal motion in a case brought by Columbia Law School's Initiative for a Just Society, implausibly claiming he wasn't biased against Columbia. While he was comfortable taking a position on this controversial political question, Judge Traynor refused to answer questions at his hearing on who won the 2020 election, calling that well-settled fact a matter of ``political controversy.'' It is very clear that Judge Traynor seeks to remain in the good graces of President Trump, at the cost of his integrity and independence. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Benjamin Flowers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Flowers' record in both government service and private practice reflects his MAGA extremist agenda. He has given us no reason to think he will stop pursuing this agenda once he is on the Federal bench. During his time as Ohio solicitor general, Mr. Flowers defended Ohio's severe restrictions on a woman's right to choose. Kowtowing to corporate interests, he defended a cap on damages for a victim of child sex abuse. Mr. Flowers is an election denier. In November 2020, he authored a Supreme Court amicus brief asking the Court to reverse the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision that allowed for the counting of absentee ballots received after election day. Mr. Flowers is currently a partner at a rightwing law firm that he claims can ``grow up with the conservative legal movement'' following President Trump's election. He has argued against birthright citizenship, demeaned LGBTQ Americans, and claimed that efforts to lower the costs of prescription drugs are unconstitutional. Mr. Flowers's public commentary reveals his lack of judicial temperament. He has been a frequent speaker for the Federalist Society, and his commentary has been extreme even for conservative legal circles. Mr. Flowers has questioned the need for the Trump administration to follow court orders in public remarks and in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has even criticized the landmark bipartisan First Step Act, calling it ``terrible policy,'' implausibly claiming it is unconstitutional, and arguing that Congress should repeal it. I opposed Mr. Flowers' nomination. And I urged my colleagues to join me in doing so.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, being an air traffic controller is a hard, often thankless job. The hours are long, the stakes are astronomically high, and the work is essential to millions of families across America who are anxious to see their loved ones. Today, I would like to salute one of the best who ever served in that critical job: my friend Toby Hauck. Toby is a veteran. He served 6 years in the U.S. Air Force, following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, both of whom also served in the U.S. military. After Toby left the Air Force, he wanted to find a job that would allow him to continue to serve his country, which led him to the air traffic control. Toby rose through the ranks at air traffic control, eventually becoming president of the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center. For 38 years, Toby was responsible for keeping millions of airline passengers--including myself--safe as they flew in and out of Chicago. With what little free time he had, Toby spent it advocating for his fellow air traffic controllers both in Washington and Illinois as a 28- year member of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. At NATCA, Toby served as its Illinois State coordinator, where he pushed for better pay, staffing, and benefits for his coworkers. Those at NATCA knew Toby as simply ``the Tob''; his colleagues described him as someone who ``always makes time for a fist bump and a smile, greeting everyone he sees by name.'' In May, NATCA awarded Toby the Dale Wright Award for exceptional career service, which speaks not only to his character, but to his reputation nationwide. I have known Toby for many years. In 2019, he was my guest to the State of the Union, and he has worked diligently with me to try and improve the conditions for air traffic controllers in my State and across the country. As Toby knows, air traffic controllers have too often, and unfairly, been caught in the middle of government shutdowns, forced to continue their work--still understaffed and overworked with the same high stakes--but also with no paycheck. Since I have met Toby, during every shutdown, he has gathered a group of local controllers to share the real-life impacts of partisan stalemates, which include controllers setting up food pantries for their peers, failing to afford medical treatment for themselves or their families, and struggling to pay their bills. These stories have informed my votes and again highlighted how thankless, yet crucial, the work of a controller is. Toby is truly the best of the best, and last month, after 38 years of service, he retired from his job as an air traffic controller. While Chicago will certainly miss Toby protecting its skies, I am sure his wife Darla will appreciate having him home. Fortunately, Toby will not be leaving his advocacy for air traffic controllers behind; he will remain working with NATCA in an advocacy role. I hope the whole Senate will join me in thanking Toby for his service and congratulating him and Darla on this milestone. And there is a large list of air traffic controller priorities that must be tackled--especially at our Nation's and the world's busiest airport, found right at home in Chicago. Last year, more than 850,000 aircraft landed or took off from O'Hare, more than any other airport in the world. O'Hare is central to the national aviation system and is a leading hub for connections. Yet the flight towers that manage its airspace are staffed well below the targets established by both NATCA and the FAA by 25 percent. That means the air traffic controllers who are at these towers are forced to work longer hours and additional shifts, taking a significant toll on their mental health. In a job that requires split-second and lifesaving decisions, it is dangerous to add more stress and fatigue into the equation. This is why Congress allocated $22.2 billion for the FAA for fiscal year 2026 to hire an additional 2,500 new air traffic controllers. I urge the FAA to put that investment to good use and prioritize O'Hare as new controllers become trained and as new technology and infrastructure upgrades become available. Ensuring that there is proper staffing at towers around Chicago will become even more essential as O'Hare nears the completion of its Terminal Area Plan project, which will increase gate capacity at O'Hare by roughly 25 percent. This project was designed to accommodate growth for airlines and ensure that O'Hare remains competitive as a world- class airport for decades to come. I hope the FAA will give full and fair consideration of any requests from O'Hare to assist in this expansion, whether that be via requests for Federal grant funding or FAA resources. As more Americans take to the skies every day, it is our job in Congress to support the men and women, like Toby, who keep them safe on their journey. Let's show our gratitude to these public servants by ending the understaffing, irregular paychecks, and insufficient workforce investment that have plagued their work for far too long. It is the least we can do for the people who have dedicated their lives to protecting us every time we fly.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to react to the statement of my friend and colleague from Wyoming. I am against fraud. That is it. On the record: I am against fraud. I am a Democrat, and I don't know where he reached this different conclusion, but I want to make it very clear. Having said that, I am also a realist. I know that the families I represent in Illinois and across the Nation are facing budgets, family budgets, which are impossible to live with. They are not only struggling paycheck to paycheck, they are also watching the price of groceries go up. They know the price of gasoline goes up and down, and now it is on the upward trend because of the President's war in Iran. Utility bills in my State are up 15 percent this year over last year because of President Trump's energy policy, which is opposed to sustainable, renewable sources of energy, which are the most affordable. The list goes on and on. The Big Beautiful Bill, which Republicans brag about, was a bill that ended up with millions of Americans losing their health insurance because the cost of premiums had gone up too high. So I think it is just great that we have tipped income exempt from taxes and that other breaks are given to working people. I would support those any day. But the bill that created those also gave the biggest tax cuts in the history of the United States to the wealthiest people in the United States--nothing, very little, for families in comparison. That is the difference. I think we ought to be honest with the American people. The No. 1 issue in this campaign is the affordability that families worry about every single week. There is an issue I am going to address here more particularly, which gets to the heart of this as well.

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.