Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me join in the bipartisan comments that have been made on the Senate floor this afternoon relative to the tragedy in Boulder, CO. The point is obvious: The use of force and violence is never--underline ``never''--appropriate in a political context in an exchange of ideas. As I understand it, there were people who were peacefully demonstrating on behalf of the hostages being held by the Hamas terrorists in the Middle East, and they were brutally attacked by a person who was shouting slogans about his political views. Who that person is, where they are from, is really important at this moment in the investigation but not critical to the observation I am about to make. That sort of conduct--physically attacking other individuals over a political issue--is never--never--appropriate nor consistent with the guarantees given to us in the Constitution. Ukraine Mr. President, on a separate topic, there recently were efforts in Istanbul to advance peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. After 3 years of this bloody war in Ukraine, it is clear that we should move as quickly as possible to a peaceful resolution and the end of hostilities. I wish I could say I was surprised that Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to attend, but I wasn't. Anyone following this war can clearly see that Vladimir Putin isn't serious about ending this bloody conflict which he started. There was some confusion in the early days of the Trump administration, and they were blaming the Ukrainians for invading themselves, which made no sense whatsoever. It was Putin's idea, and he executed it. Let's not forget that 11 years ago, he militarily seized Crimea and other parts of eastern Ukraine. More than 3 years ago, Putin tried to take over Ukraine itself and install a puppet regime beholden to him. With advanced warning and weapons from the United States, the brave Ukrainians defied the experts. They said the Ukrainians couldn't last 2 weeks defending their country against the second largest military in the world. The experts were wrong. Those Ukrainians have protected their independence from brutality but at great cost in lives, destruction, and territory. The costs have been staggering: Thousands of individuals have lost their lives because of this Russian invasion; countless children were abducted from their schools and homes by the Russians and sent for indoctrination in Russia itself; desperate use of North Korea and Iranian assistance; Russian sabotage, mayhem, and threats to our NATO allies across the world, all inspired by one man: Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia. Why do I revisit the obvious? Because it has been obvious for more than a decade that Vladimir Putin isn't interested in ending the war, obvious to everyone except perhaps our own President. President Trump promised that he would end this war on his first day in office. Instead, Trump and his Vice President publicly humiliated Ukrainian President Zelenskyy when he visited the White House and made embarrassing overtures to Putin. Putin's response has been to thumb his nose at the United States and peace efforts. In fact, already this year, civilian Ukrainian deaths from Russian attacks are higher than they were last year, and assaults on civilian targets in the last 2 weeks alone have been relentless. Innocent people are dying because of these drones and bombs and artillery. I want this war to end, but it should not be a blatant giveaway to Vladimir Putin or driven by any illusion about Putin's long-term intentions to control Ukraine and weaken the NATO alliance, nor can it be done at the security expense of Baltic and Polish allies who are also in Putin's crosshairs. That is why Leader Thune, here in the Senate, needs to immediately put Senator Graham's Russia sanctions bill--which I and 80 other Senators have cosponsored--on the floor for a vote. Let me tell you about this bill. Senator Graham's Russian sanction bill, on which I was an early cosponsor, now has 80 total cosponsors-- maybe more now--80 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. This bill would impose primary sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions on those supporting Russia's war in Ukraine if Putin refuses to engage in good-faith peace negotiations or initiates another effort, including a military invasion, that undermines the sovereignty of Ukraine after any such peace is negotiated. This bipartisan legislation imposes a 500-percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products. Fortunately, many European countries have already eased their dependence on Russian gas and oil. Behind the scenes and amid brazen indifference by Putin to negotiate, Senator Graham, a Republican, and other Republicans, such as Senator Grassley of Iowa, have wanted to move the bill forward in the Senate but keep getting asked by the White House to wait. We cannot wait any longer. Innocent people are dying because of Putin's aggression. Russian assaults on Ukraine have continued, with attacks during the first quarter of this year even worse than last year, and Trump seems unwilling to do what is necessary to force Putin to the table. My colleague the ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee recently argued: It is also time for us to prepare another Ukraine supplemental. Ukraine needs the equipment and the ammunition to defend this nation against Putin's invasion. We cannot give up on them. We should not give up on them. Ukraine's delegation is back in Istanbul today and will again reiterate its support for an immediate cease-fire and call for the further release of prisoners and the return of thousands of children kidnapped by Russia and snatched away from their families in Ukraine. Putin has yet to even formally offer his demands, and a breakthrough today is not really expected. President Trump, the whole world is watching the United States to see if you will stand firm against Putin, especially those other adversaries. Putin is not our friend and is not a friend of the United States. Mr. President, you do not want our legacy to be appeasement and surrender to Russia and a weakening of our Transatlantic security. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I don't know how many years he has been delivering this message on the floor, but he has become the spokesperson for a cause that we all should share and try to make certain we address the deterioration of this planet that we live on; that our kids, our grandkids, and their children have a fighting chance against elements that they can't personally control. It is up to our generation. And Senator Whitehouse comes to the floor and reminds us on a regular basis about our moral and economic and environmental responsibility. I thank him for his statement today. I want to join him in that respect. S.J. Res. 55 Mr. President, last month, the Senate Parliamentarian analyzed the GAO's opinion ruling that Senate Republicans cannot use the Congressional Review Act to overturn a waiver granted to California by the U.S. EPA to regulate its own vehicle emissions. I remember a time in the House and, again, in the Senate when we had a hardy debate here over miles per gallon and what was reasonable. I remember the automobile industry saying that we shouldn't impose a standard that they could never live up to, never produce cars that meet that standard of the higher miles per gallon. I remember that California stepped out ahead of the rest of the Nation and said: Let us prove we can do it. Our economy is so big, you can't miss it if we succeed or if we fail. And they succeeded. They proved that if you create the right incentives, technology will move in that direction, and it has, successfully, when it comes to miles per gallon. Now Republicans have decided, with the new President, to attempt to block a California law requiring all new cars sold in the State by 2035 to be zero-emission vehicles. It is an ambitious goal. It is as ambitious as some of the MPG goals they set in earlier times. That is right. Despite the claims of being the party of States' rights, Republicans want to end the State-level regulation in the State of California. And get this, Elon Musk--the unelected adviser to the President--previously wrote to the EPA in favor of California's waiver. Now he has joined the Republican majority to try to gut the rule. The Parliamentarian's decision was not one of party loyalty. It followed decades of precedent showing California's Clean Air Act waivers are not subject to the Congressional Review Act. Despite the Parliamentarian's decision, my Senate Republican colleagues want to override the GAO and Senate Parliamentarian to advance the fossil fuel agenda. It is ``burn, baby, burn; drill, baby, drill.'' Now, I understand using the CRA might be faster than Agency rulemaking or even considering legislation. Think about this. There was a time when we actually legislated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I can vaguely remember, it was so long ago. Rather than deal with legislation, hearings, and public review, we are all about these shortcut methods, which in some cases are disastrous. In fact, President Trump, in his first term, took administrative action to rescind California's Clean Air Act waivers and can take that path again. But what Republicans are pursuing today is a procedural nuclear option, a dramatic break from Senate precedent with profound consequences. Let me repeat. Should my Senate Republican colleagues overrule the Senate Parliamentarian, it will have a major long-term impact for the Senate and the legislative filibuster. This move is unprecedented. The Senate has never overruled the Parliamentarian regarding the CRA or allowing a bill to pass by majority vote. Before, when the tables were turned and the Senate Democrats were in the majority, my Republican colleagues were singing a very different tune about never breaking from the Parliamentarian. Leader Thune, himself, acknowledged in January of this year that overruling the Parliamentarian is ``totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there,'' Leader Thune said, ``People need to understand that.'' If Senate Republicans disregard the Parliamentarian's decision, they would set a new precedent in the Senate, eliminating longstanding guardrails and paving the way for future Senate majorities to overrule the Parliamentarian to achieve its partisan goals. I caution my Senate Republican colleagues from toeing this line and setting the wrong precedent. As I said, time and time again, there cannot be one set of rules for the Republicans in the Senate and another set of rules for the Democrats. I hope my Republican colleagues will heed my warning and make the right choice--the only choice: accept the GAO and Senate Parliamentarian's decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was my good fortune as a young man to work for a Senator from Illinois named Paul Douglas. He was known as Mr. Ethics in the U.S. Senate. He believed--and he shared that belief with me and all who worked with and for him--that the first obligation of a public official is to not betray the trust of the voters when it comes to self-dealing or making money out of public office. He started me down the path in my early years in politics of making a complete disclosure--both my income tax return and net worth in detail, specific amounts--every year. I have done that for over 40 years. I believe he was right. I remember Paul Simon, my predecessor in the U.S. Senate, used to say: People may not agree with my vote, but they know I didn't cast it to make a buck. It is just that simple. So what has happened at the highest level of the Government, the Office of President? Throughout our history, there have been examples of corruption which have been well documented. The Teapot Dome scandal comes to mind, and certainly the departures of previous Vice Presidents for wrongdoing have been well documented. What we have going on in the White House now with the Trump administration is unprecedented not just in the amount of money involved going to the President and his family but also in the very real fact that the bottom line is that he is bold and states clearly: I have done it, and I defy you to do anything about it. It is one of the reasons I am opposing the pending legislation on the floor on cryptocurrency. The President, as has been documented by my colleague from Connecticut, is making millions of dollars exploiting cryptocurrency, and he is inviting those who buy into his scheme--his profit-making scheme--to official gatherings and occasions at the White House. It is the most bald-faced demonstration of corruption we have ever seen in the Office of the Presidency. And this plane now--this $400 million airplane--says it all. Mr. President, so that you understand, Pam Bondi is the Attorney General of the United States, duly appointed, and she has supposedly released a memo justifying the transfer of this airplane to the U.S. Government and then to Donald Trump personally as being acceptable--no objection. I am still looking for a copy of that public opinion. It should be public, if it hasn't been yet. There has been reference made to the Constitution on this issue. In the Constitution, article I, section 9 is explicit: [N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. How clear can you be? This President has no authority to accept this gift. And the notion that he would accept it, use it for the remainder of his Presidency, and then take personal title to the airplane is outrageous. The fact of the matter is--those of us who have taken the time to check--it will cost the American taxpayers a fortune to take this gift from Qatar and to make it safe for any President to travel in it. As one of my colleagues has said, if the Qataris said ``As a favor to the people of the United States, we are going to redesign and pay for the redesign of the Oval Office, the Situation Room, and the President's residence. We will do it on our dime,'' the American people would never fall for it. Why would we ever let them get that close to the decision making at the highest level in America? That is exactly what we are doing here if we accept this airplane. We have taken all those three functions of the President, added wings to the equation, and said the Constitution doesn't count. Republicans have claimed for years that Joe Biden, during his administration and his time as Vice President, engaged in wrongdoing due to his family's business dealings. I am sure we remember congressional Republicans' endless investigations into President Biden's son and his past business dealings as a private citizen. But despite multiple investigations and a failed impeachment inquiry against President Biden, Republicans are largely silent and willing to disregard the overwhelming corruption of President Trump and his family as they pocket millions of dollars personally at the expense of the American people. In the latest of a long line of shady dealings, President Trump is receiving a private jet as a gift from the royal family of Qatar and is claiming that it is simply a gift to the Defense Department. This aircraft that we are talking about is sitting in San Antonio, TX. It would be retrofitted to act as Air Force One for the remainder of Trump's term in office before ownership is transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. The President claimed it would be ``stupid [to] say `No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.' '' However, what he doesn't say is that it will cost American taxpayers millions more to retrofit the plane to meet the President's security, communication, and intelligence needs. Mr. President, what is stupid is retrofitting a very expensive plane from a foreign government, which constitutes a major counterintelligence risk, on the American taxpayers' dime when an American company is already manufacturing the next Air Force One. The Constitution, as I have read, explicitly gives Congress the power to control whether any officer of the United States, including the President, may accept a gift from ``any King, Prince, or foreign State.'' This unprecedented gift clearly violates the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress to govern such gifts. Yet Attorney General Bondi reportedly concluded it would be ``legally permissible'' for President Trump to accept this gift. I am calling on the Attorney General today to release this opinion and report in its entirety to the U.S. Congress. I am not surprised by it. This administration continues to abuse its power at the cost of the American people time and again, while Republicans in Congress stand by and allow it. Mr. President, do you hear it? The silence? The silence of the President's party? The silence of the lambs? Make no mistake, this is more than just a gift that benefits the President and not the American people. The President, we understand, it has been reported, has actively solicited this gift from Qatar. The question remains: In exchange for what? President Trump's acceptance of such a substantial gift from a foreign government could disproportionately influence the foreign policies of this country--exactly why the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to control these gifts under the Constitution. It is clear to our foreign partners and enemies that, under President Trump, America's policymaking is open to the highest bidder. We also see President Trump and his family profiting off the promise of influenced domestic policy. Right before his second inauguration, President Trump launched a valueless cryptocurrency token marked not as an investment but as monetary support for Trump. First Lady Melania Trump also promoted her own meme coin shortly thereafter. This scheme allowed the President to pocket millions of dollars in direct payments with little or no public disclosure or oversight. He has never denied it. He has since fired the heads of the Agencies that investigate these crypto schemes. Donald Trump, Jr., has founded a new private membership club in DC called Executive Branch with a $500,000 membership fee. The launch party, featuring several Cabinet and other administration officials, underscored Trump Junior's efforts to sell access. That is what this administration does. It sees a barrier to cutting corners or any check on its corruption and gets rid of it. These actions were entirely predictable because Trump and his family also blatantly used the Presidency to enrich themselves by selling access and the chance to influence policy under his first administration. I am saddened that our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle apparently believe that silence is the best response to these outrages. It is the ``Silence of the Lambs.'' When will they stand up for the American people and say ``enough is enough,'' or do they believe American policy should be sold to whatever country is willing to place the highest bid? If we are talking about a swamp in DC, sadly, this is a major part of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from new Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is 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.