Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), 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 Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled votes: Durbin for up to 15 minutes, Cotton for up to 5 minutes, Patty Murray for up to 5 minutes, and Mark Warner for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, from time to time, I come to the floor to discuss political prisoners jailed by some of the world's worst regimes. I have often been joined in that effort to secure their release by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including then- Senator and now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You see, despite periods of retreat on the global stage, the United States is still being seen as a beacon of hope for those who want freedom and democracy, and this American voice has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. President Reagan certainly understood this when he famously told the Soviets to ``tear down this wall'' at the Brandenburg Gate. The late-John McCain understood this when he joined thousands of Ukrainians aspiring for freedom on Maidan Square. President Trump's Special Envoy Keith Kellogg understood this when he recently secured the release of several Belarusian political prisoners. My former Senate colleague from Maryland Ben Cardin understood this when he passed the bipartisan Global Magnitsky Act. Many times, those released from gulags overseas as a result of pressure from this Chamber have even visited me here in Washington, and they note how important it is to be remembered despite their isolation. So today, I want to mention just a few cases that deserve the attention of this Senate. Let me start with the United Arab Emirates. If you follow soccer or football--depending on your choice of the name of the sport--you will see ``Emirates'' across the uniforms of some of the most famous, premier league teams. When you think of the Emirates, you think of those teams, and you wonder about the airline, but you may not think twice about human rights. The United Arab Emirates is where one of that nation's top human rights defenders, Ahmed Mansoor, has been in prison for 8 years. Mansoor is considered one of the last major human rights voices in the Emirates--one tragically being held at times in solitary confinement, separated from his family. He was arrested under the guise that his social media posts advocating for human rights threatened social harmony. Despite the dismal conditions of his incarceration, he remains steadfast in his commitment to human rights, even conducting multiple hunger strikes in protest of his jail conditions--the same conditions he spoke out against before his detention. Recently, his outrageous 15- year sentence was upheld on appeal. We have strong ties and shared interests with the UAE, but its continued involvement in the horrific Sudanese civil war and incarceration of Mr. Mansoor complicate that relationship. I appeal to UAE President Muhammad bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan to show compassion and allow Mr. Mansoor's release on humanitarian grounds. To those at the United Arab Emirates Embassy here in Washington, if you are listening to my voice, understand this: We are expecting a positive response for Mr. Mansoor, and we are expecting it soon. If you ignore this entreaty, believe me, many of us will remember. Next on the list is Azerbaijan. In 2023, anti-corruption research advocate Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu and his wife were forcibly dragged from their vehicle and severely beaten. He was taken to a prison, well-known for its torture, where he was denied medication and legal representation. What crime did he commit? Investigating and writing on the rampant corruption stemming from Azerbaijan's oil and gas industry. While he was eventually placed under house arrest in April 2024, he has still been denied a trial, legal representation, access to adequate medical care, and his family continues to suffer harassment. He is one of the many wrongfully detained individuals in Azerbaijan who should be released. If the Azerbaijan Embassy is watching this presentation, we are begging you: Do something to give this man a break, and release him from prison. We will be watching and hope you do. Next is Tunisia, one of the most promising nations to emerge from the Arab Spring that sadly has seen President Saied consolidate power and stifle dissent by arresting political opponents and critics. One such case is Sonia Dahmani, a prominent Tunisian lawyer and political commentator who was arrested in May 2024 for her radio and television commentary. She faces five separate legal proceedings and an additional 10 years on pending charges. Her sister Ramla was also sentenced in absentia to 2 years in prison for advocating for her sister's case on social media. Ms. Dahmani has endured appalling prison conditions, including sexual assault, and denial of basic medical care. I urge President Saied to release her on humanitarian charges and drop any remaining charges, including those against her sister. If you are watching this presentation from the Embassy in Tunisia, believe me, we are begging you to act on this quickly, quickly. Show that you have heard this. Show that you understand the severity of your decision and understand that those of us in Congress and in the Senate will be watching carefully to see your response. Lastly, two cases in Guatemala, cases new President Arevalo inherited and has bravely tried to solve: the troubling jailing of journalist Jose Ruben Zamora and legal harassment of anti-corruption prosecutor Virginia Laparra. Their incarceration occurred amid multiple efforts to derail the peaceful transition of power to President Arevalo last year. Both were eventually released from the prison to house arrest, but Mr. Zamora has now been sent back to prison, and Ms. Laparra continues to face baseless legal harassment from holdovers from the previous regime. Both deserve full release and dropping of remaining charges. If the Embassy of Guatemala is following my statement, please respond--and quickly--and give these two people relief. We will be watching carefully and hope that you do. What we do here matters around the world for the large and small battles occurring for freedom and democracy. My friend and jailed Russian dissident Vladimir Kara-Murza wrote the following from his Russian gulag a few years ago: The prisoner's worst nightmare is the thought of being forgotten. . . . I always knew how true those words were--and how important were international campaigns of solidarity with prisoners of conscience. I now feel it with my own skin. Let me remind Ahmed, Gubad, Sonia, Jose Ruben, and Virginia, you are not forgotten. Today, as I deliver these remarks, members of the families of some of these people are in the Gallery. Don't give up hope. I will continue to be that voice to remind the world of the incarceration and treatment of those that you love. We need to be a beacon of hope in the United States. This is a demonstration, and we are begging these countries that are involved in these incarcerations and treatment to change their approach completely and give these people the freedom that they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are neccessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Several weeks ago, several Senators joined me in meeting with the Ambassador from Israel. It was an effort to discuss many of the things which we are discussing this evening. We asked him why Israel was not providing humanitarian aid in Gaza. He said: That is not true. We were providing it, but Hamas was stealing it from us and using it to buy weapons and to make them stronger. Then he went on to say--when we asked him about the children starving, the images we had all seen on television, he said: That is not true. That is a United Nations' narrative. Then we asked him basically: If there is such a difference of opinion about what is happening in Gaza, why don't you allow international journalists to come into this area and report to the world what they actually see? He said it was too dangerous for journalists to even witness it. Mr. President, I want to tell you, that was an incredible statement and, I believe, totally wrong. At the outset, Cindy McCain and others told us there is no diversion by Hamas of the humanitarian aid. It just isn't coming into Gaza. They went on to say that these children--of course, we see them on television. You can't avoid it. That is the reality of the situation. Furthermore, when it came down to it, we had to stand up and acknowledge the obvious--that Israel is part of this. Children in Gaza are starving and dying. The question is, What will the United States do about it? I thank the Senator from Vermont for offering these resolutions this evening. It is painful for many of us who devoted our congressional careers to supporting Israel, standing by them through difficult times. It is impossible to explain or defend what is going on today. Gaza is starving and dying because of the policies of Benyamin Netanyahu. It is time for us as a nation to say that our taxpayers are not going to support this effort. I will be joining the Senator this evening in supporting this effort.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) 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, soon, the Senate will vote on President Trump's nomination of Emile Bove to a New Jersey seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The swirl of information concerning the Department of Justice this year is almost impossible to follow. And as ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, we try to follow closely not only the nominees for judicial positions and positions of leadership at the Department of Justice but also those issues that are relevant to our jurisdiction. Surprisingly, a case that has been around for years, the Jeffrey Epstein case, has captured the attention not only of Washington but of many people in this country. I have never seen anything like it. The House of Representatives went into a rollcall vote that lasted for 8 hours. Eight hours the rollcall was open. I am sure it set a new record. What hung them up so dramatically? The Jeffrey Epstein case and whether the files would be released. As a result of that, the Speaker of the House decided that he would give a special recess to the House of Representatives and basically tell them: Leave Washington. We are not going to vote on the Epstein question. What is it in these files that is so frightening to the President, the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Republican leadership in Congress? The American people have had their doubts for a long time that we knew all that we needed to know about this case, but now they have been confirmed by the actions of the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States. I would just say flatout for the record: I know of no information that implicates the President in wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein, period. But I do believe, as many Republicans believe, the best thing to do for all of us is to disclose to the American people the truth of the situation. What actually happened with Mr. Epstein? Did he commit suicide? There are questions that are still unanswered. And then, last week, something happened that was completely unheard of: One of the leaders in the Department of Justice asked for a private, personal meeting with a woman who was convicted for her activity with Jeffrey Epstein. Her name is Ghislaine Maxwell, and she is serving a 20-year term in prison, in Federal prison, for her wrongdoing. She was involved in the trafficking of children and young women for Mr. Epstein and his friends, and she lied about it. According to the prosecution, brazen lies. The penalty she faced: 20 years in prison. That is a hefty penalty. It indicates some serious wrongdoing. The Trump administration sent a higher official to meet with her privately in the prison and to ask her questions. We don't know the nature of those inquiries, but it is certainly unusual for someone serving a 20-year sentence to have that kind of a visitor. We don't know what was said, but we should. I joined with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, of Rhode Island, in sending a letter to the Department of Justice. We want a copy of the transcript of that conversation between the Department of Justice officials and Ms. Maxwell, who is serving these 20 years in prison. We want to know what was said. I think we have a right to. If there is some aspect of it that relates to redacting or, perhaps, relates to national security, I will be sensitive to that, as I am sure everyone would want me to be. But if it is a question of what kind of strategy was behind meeting with this woman--Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend at one time--now serving a 20-year prison sentence, I think the American people have a right to know. And, secondly, let me make it clear: For her wrongdoing, she is being penalized dramatically--and should be. Any notion that she is going to receive a pardon from Donald Trump, which seems to be a rather common thing in his administration, is totally unacceptable--totally. She was branded as a brazen liar when she was sentenced. Now that she has a chance to reduce the sentence or eliminate it by making statements, her credibility is zero. Any notion of a pardon or any notion of clemency by this President is totally inappropriate. Let's go back to the nomination of Emil Bove to a New Jersey seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. An unusual thing occurred with this. He came and answered questions, as he should, for the White House as well as for the Judiciary Committee and then appeared before us under oath and answered questions. But what was unusual about this situation is that the many questions he tried to answer, he didn't get close to coming to the truth. So egregious were his statements that individuals who worked with him were willing to risk their career in public service to come forward as whistleblowers to members of the committee in Congress to tell them that Mr. Bove had misrepresented the facts before us. They risked their public careers to come and tell us this information, and as a result of it, some of them are going to have to leave the Department of Justice. But it seems that when given a test of values and ethics, time and again, Mr. Bove fails, and those around him step forward and risk their own careers to tell the truth. So we said, as Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to the chairman: We believe these whistleblowers are credible. They are telling us things about Mr. Bove that contradict his testimony before the committee, and we believe that they should be heard. They are willing to come before the committee and take an oath to tell the truth and run the risk of retribution or penalty if they are found to have misled the committee in misrepresenting the facts. You can't ask for more than that; someone willing to risk their job to tell the truth and then to appear before our committee under oath and testify as to what happened. I think that is credible, and I don't think it is avoidable. We are talking about Bove being appointed to a Federal circuit bench that is a lifetime appointment. This is a critical decision, and we need to have the facts before the American people. So what was the response of the Republicans on the committee, the chairman? They turned us down. They don't want to hear any whistleblowers. They don't want to hear people who are willing to stand before us under oath and tell us what actually happened with Mr. Bove and his misrepresentations to the committee. As members of the conservative legal establishment have noted, Mr. Bove's nomination represents an alarming departure for the type of nominees we considered under the first Trump administration. Like other individuals President Trump has installed at the highest positions of our government during his second term, Mr. Bove's primary qualification appears to be his blind loyalty to this President. As Acting Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Bove personally ordered the terminations of dozens of career Federal prosecutors who worked to put violent January 6 offenders behind bars. Remember what happened January 6? Vice President Pence was sitting in the President's chair. They were counting the ballots for the electoral college to determine who won the Presidential election, and we had to stop. Capitol Police came in, took the Vice President off the podium, and then notified us that there was a demonstration taking place in the Capitol Building that was dangerous. I remember the first thing they said to us: Stay in your seats. This is going to be a safe room. You can stay here. Ten minutes later, the same policeman came up and said: We were wrong. It isn't safe. Leave as quickly as possible. We filed out that exit door, all the Members of the Senate. The Vice President was gone. These demonstrators swarmed through the Capitol, attacked the Capitol Police, who were there trying to defend the building and the people in it, causing 140 of them to be injured and 5 of them lost their lives as a result of this. Then they went on and started doing the job of ransacking this Chamber and the offices of the Senators in this building. They did great damage to this building--millions of dollars--and even worse, in my estimation, they desecrated what I consider to be a cathedral to democracy, the U.S. Capitol Building. Many of them, of course, when they were aping for the cameras, were creating videotape evidence that was used against them. The Department of Justice went into an investigation of these demonstrators who had ransacked the Capitol and threatened the lives of people who were here. As a result of it, more than 1,500 were prosecuted for that wrongdoing. It took a long period of time and a lot of investigation. U.S. attorneys were asked all over the United States to participate in this. What happened? The 1,500--many of them ended up with criminal sentences, some very serious sentences, and some were incarcerated. Then came Donald Trump, and he gave a full, unconditional pardon to the January 6 rioters who came into this building--full and unconditional. Then, to make it even worse, his new administration and the Department of Justice came in and said: If you were an assistant U.S. attorney following orders to prosecute these individuals and these rioters, you can be fired for doing that. We want you to disclose whether you participated in the investigation and prosecution of these individuals. Who was behind all this? Well, quite a few members of the Trump administration. But as Acting Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, the man who is seeking this judgeship, personally ordered the termination of dozens of career Federal prosecutors who worked to put violent January 6 offenders behind bars. Mr. Bove even made the outrageous claim that the prosecutions of January 6 rioters were ``a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people.'' Imagine that. He doubled down on this sentiment during his confirmation process and further insulted the law enforcement officers who kept us safe and risked their lives from these rioters. In response to a question before our committee, Mr. Bove wrote that the ``heavy-handed tactics'' by January 6 prosecutors were ``equally unacceptable'' as rioters' attacks on the police. Think about that for a moment. He is saying the assistant U.S. attorneys--the prosecutors--who went after the individuals who stormed through the Capitol were just as bad as the rioters themselves. I pointed this out to my Republican colleagues; that a man seeking a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench believes that those who prosecute cop-beaters are as bad as the cop-beaters themselves. Expecting my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to react as I have this morning, what did I get? Crickets. Silence. No response. He said the prosecutors were as bad as the rioters themselves. Mr. Bove has been up to far more as a senior Justice Department official than just excusing the conduct of January 6 offenders. He personally led the administration's attempt to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City Mayor Eric Adams by offering to drop his pending prosecution in exchange for Mayor Adams' cooperation on President Trump's immigration policies. Get that straight--investigations of corruption on the mayor of New York City, the response from the Trump administration, from Mr. Emil Bove, was: We will cut a deal with you. We won't prosecute you if you promise to play ball with us when it comes to mass deportations. In response to Mr. Bove's alleged quid pro quo, several Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, including the U.S. attorney herself--a staunch conservative who clerked for Justice Scalia and was appointed to the position by President Trump--made it clear that they would not participate in Emil Bove's deal with the mayor of New York. Mr. Bove's disdain for the rule of law has been a theme throughout his entire career. As a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, he once admitted that prosecutors he supervised told the defense team a ``flat lie'' regarding their disclosure obligations--a flatout lie. Given that background, it appears Mr. Bove's time in the Trump administration has been true to form. Last month, Erez Reuveni, a career DOJ attorney who defended the first Trump administration's administrative policies in court, filed a whistleblower complaint with my office. According to Mr. Reuveni, Mr. Bove told other Department attorneys they might need to say ``f you'' to Federal courts that issue orders which the Trump administration disagreed with. Remarkably, when he was under oath before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Bove would not deny that he delivered such a message. He merely said he did not recall whether he had used the explicit language. So I asked Mr. Reuveni, the whistleblower, to substantiate his claims, and he did. Mr. Reuveni provided text messages, emails, and a trove of other documents corroborating his claim that Mr. Bove had both suggested the possibility of violating court orders and had spearheaded efforts to mislead judges. Mr. Reuveni is willing to testify under oath about what I have just said. I asked the Judiciary Committee, in a formal letter, to take his testimony, but apparently my Republican colleagues have no interest in learning the truth about Mr. Bove. Mr. Reuveni is apparently not alone. According to public reporting, another whistleblower filed a complaint with the Justice Department's inspector general that further backs up these allegations. My office is working to obtain a copy of that complaint filed with the inspector general. The contents of that complaint are one of many unanswered questions regarding Bove's conduct. It appears my Republican colleagues fear the answers. That is the only reason I can see for their insistence on forcing this nomination through at breakneck speed before all the facts are public. In addition to the outstanding inspector general complaint, we have absolutely no idea how involved Mr. Bove has been in the Trump administration's Jeffrey Epstein coverup. As I noted previously, it was very convenient for Senate Republicans that Attorney General Bondi did not announce her plan to keep the Epstein files hidden until shortly after Mr. Bove's obligation to answer questions before the committee. Interesting timing. Mr. Bove has served at the most senior levels of the Justice Department in these early months of the administration. It is highly unlikely that he does not have knowledge of the Epstein coverup. So my colleagues and I sent him followup questions to assess his involvement. No surprise, refused to answer. Some conservative voices have been willing to speak truth to power regarding Mr. Bove's nomination. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, a known liberal newspaper, pointed out that Mr. Bove's record ``creates an impression of . . . a lawyer comfortabl[y] pursuing policy outcomes by pushing legal boundaries.'' Conservative legal commentator Ed Whelan wrote that he has ``serious doubts that Bove has the character and integrity to be worthy of confirmation as a federal judge.'' You don't have to take it from them or me. President Trump, himself, has made the claim that Mr. Bove was selected for his position not because of his legal accomplishments or his dedication to a conservative method of constitutional interpretation. As the President put it, Mr. Bove will ``do anything . . . that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to consider the implications of giving this man, Emil Bove, a lifetime seat on the Federal bench. Join me in opposing his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wanted to make a very brief response about whistleblowers. Senator Grassley of Iowa is recognized for his working with whistleblowers in a constructive way throughout his Senate career. I don't question that. In this particular case, Mr. Bove is seeking an appellate court position, which came before the committee, and we were contacted by a whistleblower who worked with him at the Department of Justice. This man has now been disclosed and identified. He wanted to give us information which he said contradicted the testimony of Mr. Bove before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was willing to appear before the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Grassley, under oath and tell us his side of the story. I don't think you could ask for much more in someone who could subject themselves to possible perjury charges by misleading the committee and do so under oath. I think he was a credible person. I am sorry the Republicans on the committee rejected his offer. It would have brought more truth to light. I yield the floor.