Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when people ask me to describe my politics, I sometimes say that I try my best to follow the Gospel of St. Paul. By that, I mean I try to follow the examples of two good and wise men who showed me that politics, at its best, can solve real problems and advance our common good. The first of these two Pauls was Senator Paul Douglas, the brilliant economist and World War II hero who served in this Senate--in the same seat I now hold--and gave me my start in government when he hired me as a college intern to work in his Washington, DC, office. The other Paul was Senator Paul Simon, my greatest political teacher and dear friend. When he retired, he encouraged me to run to succeed him in this body. Paul Simon was the most decent public servant I have ever known--a man of uncommon integrity, vision, and accomplishment who was gifted with a capacious intellectual curiosity. And he was helped by a staff of men and women who shared his compassion and tireless work habits. Donna Eastman was one of those helpers. She was also my friend. And I was sad to learn that she passed away this past Saturday. She worked for Paul Simon for the 18 years he served in this body. And when he retired in 1996, it was my good luck that Donna agreed to join my staff. She ran my southern Illinois district office in Marion until she retired in 2008. Donna loved helping people and making their lives better, like so many of the dedicated Federal employees who are being fired illegally today. No case was too hard for Donna. She knew how to cut through redtape and how to calm people who were frustrated, frightened, or angry. She treated every person with dignity and respect. If you were lucky enough to meet Donna Eastman, you would not forget her. She was tall--5 feet, 11 inches--with a firm handshake, a warm smile, and an infectious laugh. She was quick-witted, caring, generous, and genuine. She also was a woman of many interests and seemingly inexhaustible energy. She was active in her women's club, her church, and in the civic and political life of her community. She was a gifted ``best of show'' painter of portraits and still lifes and an award-winning gardener with a magnificent flower garden. For a few years, when she was a young mother, she wrote a humorous column for her local paper, the Goreville Gazette. And those were just her hobbies. In addition to her public service work, Donna's primary occupation was co-owner with her husband Barry of Eastman's Orchard in Goreville, an 80-acre farm that produced some of the most delicious peaches and apples anywhere. Their secret was to wait until the fruit was perfectly ripe before picking it and selling it quickly to loyal customers. You couldn't miss the orchard's big red barn as you drove down Route 37. Donna and Barry knew each other their entire lives. They were a year apart in school. When Donna was a junior in high school, she was prom queen, and Barry was her escort. Three years later, they were married. Like Donna, Barry relishes new challenges, like grafting together two different trees to produce a better-tasting, heartier fruit. In the early 1970s, he ran successfully for sheriff of Johnson County. Donna Kelley Eastman came from good, strong stock. When she was a young teen, she watched her mother Juanita swing a hammer as she helped Donna's grandfather build the Kelley family home. Donna's father Bill Kelley was a person of many interests and accomplishments, like Donna. He was a World War II veteran and, at various times, an Illinois State trooper, long-distance truck driver, gas station owner, and board member of the local bank. Her parents taught Donna to be tenacious, work hard, and pursue her passions. They also taught her to be generous to others in need. The Kelleys were committed Democrats, and in 1960, Donna and her parents were all dazzled by John F. Kennedy. Her parents were awed by his charisma. Donna was captivated almost equally by JFK's idealism and Jackie's elegance. She decided that she wanted to be part of Camelot; she wanted to work for a common cause and a greater good. And she spent the rest of her life doing just that. Donna Kelley Eastman believed that a wise and compassionate government could help people live better lives and that she had a personal responsibility to help make that happen. She loved being in her garden and orchard in the springtime and witnessing the promise of another new beginning. She loved her country and community and, most of all, her family. Loretta and I offer our deep condolences to Barry, Donna's beloved husband of 62 years; their children Teresa, Matthew, and Melanie; and their families, including Donna and Barry's six grandchildren and three great-grandchildren; to Donna's sister Pam; and to her countless friends. We will all miss her. I couldn't have asked for a better ambassador.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, since taking office 72 days ago, the Trump administration has created chaos in our economy. The President, if you will remember, campaigned on lowering prices for American families. Unfortunately, his policies and actions have done the opposite. Many families are worse off today than when he was sworn in. In February, egg prices, which has become a political standard bearer, hit a new alltime high in the United States. Just last week, a typical U.S. homeowner's monthly mortgage payment also reached an alltime high. And now Donald Trump's ill-conceived, foolish trade war with one of our top allies is the latest example of this continued pain for Americans' wallets. On February 1, the President announced he was imposing a 10-percent tariff on energy imports from Canada as well as a 25-percent tariff on all other goods. Unsurprisingly, Canada answered and announced retaliatory tariffs. Just like that, a trade war with our second largest trading partner and closest ally is underway. So how did the President justify such an unprecedented, counterproductive, and harmful move? He cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency at our northern border, stating that fentanyl and undocumented migration constituted a national emergency in our relationship with Canada that justified the use of tariffs. The only problem: The justification just doesn't hold water. This International Emergency Economic Powers Act is intended for use in extraordinary cases related to foreign threats, such as placing sanctions on dictators. Trump's Executive order declared a so-called emergency at our Canadian border and tied it to Canada's failure to prevent illicit drugs from being trafficked across the border, but Canada is openly willing to address this shared challenge and has cooperated with the United States. Let me be clear. Preventing the trafficking of fentanyl is a bipartisan priority. The fact remains that less than 1 percent of fentanyl intercepted at the U.S. border comes from Canada--less than 1 percent--and Canada made it clear long ago they are willing to work with us to reduce that amount. The President's use of IEEPA to attempt to justify these tariffs is a shoddy excuse to ram through an unpopular agenda and bully yet another close ally of the United States. The President is manufacturing a fake emergency as a guise to enact billions of dollars in taxes on American consumers to fund massive tax cuts for his billionaire buddies. That is unacceptable. The consequences of this trade war will be painful and avoidable. Everyday Americans will feel it. If fully enacted, Trump's trade war will cause price hikes on nearly all basic goods. A new mother buying formula for her baby, parents buying groceries, a young person saving up for a car--every American is going to feel it. This tariff policy of President Trump's is going to be painful for American families. The impact on farmers, workers, consumers, and businesses across my State of Illinois, sadly, is going to be devastating. Canada is Illinois's largest export market. Illinois exports to Canada totaled $20 billion in 2023. Illinois ranks fifth among 50 U.S. States in exports to Canada and first in imports. States across the Nation are going to feel a similar impact. So it is no surprise that the vast majority of Americans cannot understand what the President is trying to do when it comes to our relationship with a good friend, a trusted ally, and historic partner, Canada. President Trump recently said he ``couldn't care less'' if carmakers hike prices in response to tariffs--``couldn't care less.'' He is pushing forward with his plan that economists, experts, and even the White House itself admits is going to be painful for American families. The last election was all about the cost of living. This is going to raise the cost of living for families across the United States, this tariff war. How does unnecessarily tanking our economy, alienating our allies, and taking money out of the wallets of Americans make us great again? Right now, we should be focused on commonsense ways to lower prices and fight inflation. We should be taking genuine steps to slow the flow of fentanyl across our borders, which Canada has made it clear they want to cooperate with us in achieving. We should be working with and not fighting against our closest allies like Canada. These tariffs do none of that. That is why I am supporting Senator Tim Kaine's resolution to block the President's abuse of emergency powers. I know Senate Democrats will stand up for American consumers. Can a few Republican colleagues join us or will they continue to let Donald Trump and Elon Musk enrich billionaires at the expense of hard-working American families?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on another matter, there are few more devastating words to hear than: ``You have cancer.'' The unfortunate truth is that millions around the world are faced with that reality every year. The statistics are devastating. Cancer kills 10 million people each year and is a leading cause of death globally. The good news? Medical research has led to breakthrough advancements that are helping in the fight against cancer, with new treatments and cures being developed each year. If some of the most painful words someone can hear are: ``You have cancer,'' then some of the most hopeful words are: ``You have promising treatment options.'' Thanks to research from the National Institutes of Health and other global medical research organizations, the scientific community is making ground-breaking advances in cancer treatment. For example, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have used NIH funding to develop a new system to predict a person's likelihood of developing lung cancer up to 6 years in advance, using a low-dose CT scan. Researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine used NIH funding to develop a test that identifies 95 percent of early pancreatic cancers, one of the deadliest cancers because it is rarely caught early. Medical research worldwide has also led to the development of personalized cancer vaccines, discoveries about the genetic causes of cancer, and the creation of drugs to cut breast cancer risk and treat cervical cancer. This lifesaving research is creating hope for millions across the world at a time when the estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths is only predicted to rise. But the Trump administration is directly threatening the very research that provides the foundation for new discoveries, treatments, and cures. Since the President took office and ceded power to his unelected billionaire buddy Elon Musk, they have attempted sweeping cuts and illegal caps on medical research funding. Already, because of these efforts, NIH has been forced to hold back more than $1 billion in Federal grant funding for researchers. Imagine that. The President cutting funding to help find cures for cancer. As if that weren't bad enough, Elon Musk and RFK, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, have taken their chainsaws to the medical research workforce, cutting more than 1,000 jobs from NIH and threatening thousands more. Just yesterday, NIH employees reported to work, not knowing if they still had jobs or not. How does dismantling our Nation's premier medical research agency make our Nation better? Or healthier? When you freeze NIH's work, limit its resources, fire its experts, or cut its budget, you are hamstringing the world's leading medical research agency from doing what it does best: saving lives. We are at a very dangerous precipice. If this attack on medical research is allowed to continue, we will lose an entire generation of researchers, medical breakthroughs will be delayed, and the words ``you have cancer'' will be heard by far more people who will have far less hope in a treatment or cure.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this point, Congress is in the midst of an important duty: crafting a budget resolution. The resolution is a framework that will guide Federal spending over the next 10 years and ensure that the United States can fulfill its financial commitments and its priorities. But under the direction of President Trump, congressional Republicans are using this moment as an opportunity to make cuts that hurt working families and repurpose the savings to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America. And what is the most egregious example of this? The Republican plan to slash health coverage for millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid. House Republicans have proposed $880 billion in cuts to the Medicaid Program in order to pay for Trump's tax cuts for billionaires, and Senate Republicans have similarly put this program in the crosshairs. Why? Not because they want to lower healthcare costs to improve our healthcare system but because they want to use Medicaid cuts as a source of revenue for tax breaks for billionaires. The richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, can dance around a stage with a chain saw, cheering cuts to basic healthcare programs, but let me explain to you what that really means for working families. Medicaid covers 30 million children in America, nearly half of all our kids, 60 percent of seniors in nursing homes, and it is the largest funder of addiction and mental health treatment. Let's zero down on that statement: Thirty million kids, half of all the kids in America, rely on Medicaid for basic health coverage. And if you have a parent or a grandparent in a nursing home or assisted living, 60 percent of them rely on Medicaid to pay for it. What happens to the family of the parent or grandparent if Medicaid isn't there? Bet you know the answer. The family has to pay for it or mom can't go where you think the best care is offered. That is what Medicaid is all about, 60 percent of folks in nursing homes, and it is the largest funder of addiction and mental health treatment. How many times have we said that we are so enlightened these days, unlike previous years, that we talk honestly about mental illness and dealing with it? My family, like most families, had a history of mental illness, but it was a deepest and darkest secret. Now we are open about it, and thank goodness we are because it is an illness--it is not a curse--and an illness that can be treated if you can pay for it. Medicaid pays for more mental health counseling than any other source. And when it comes to narcotics addiction, we talk about fentanyl, we talk about heroin, all these different narcotics, and God forbid, any family has to face that, but if they do, where do they turn for counseling? It turns out, the biggest source of counseling from narcotics addiction is paid for by Medicaid. So if you cut down the coverage of Medicaid, you reduce the likelihood of good professional care for people who are suffering from mental illness, addiction, or other serious medical problems. In Illinois, 3.4 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, including 1.5 million children. Under Republican plans to dramatically cut the Medicaid Program, 775,000 adults who gained health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act would lose coverage almost overnight. When I think back to things that I have been part of as a U.S. Senator from Illinois, I am particularly gratified to remember when we passed the Affordable Care Act. Too many Americans at that time had no health insurance coverage. I found myself stuck in that situation as a law student here in Georgetown many, many years ago. My wife and I were blessed with a little baby girl that was born with a serious health problem, and we had no health insurance. So where did I go? I went over to the Children's Hospital in this town with my wife and baby and waited in what they called the charity ward for the opportunity to see some doctor--any doctor--that might be able to treat my little girl. I never felt more worthless as a parent without health insurance with a sick little child. It is a terrible feeling. I have never forgotten it to this day. I wouldn't wish it on anybody. And I certainly wouldn't take health insurance away from somebody who couldn't afford it otherwise in order to give a bigger tax cut to a wealthier person. I want to help working families, that is for sure, but tax cuts for Elon Musk--come on, he doesn't need it. He wouldn't even notice it. What we ought to be focusing on is that family and their needs. And for other children, elderly, and disabled Illinoisans who depend on Medicaid may no longer be able to access lifesaving medical treatment with the cutbacks that are being proposed. The Republicans are ignoring another obvious point. Medicaid is the absolute lifeline for children's hospitals and rural hospitals in their communities. You pick a State, in Illinois, 60 percent of our 102 counties are classified as rural, smalltown America. Rural hospitals are the backbone of communities in downstate Illinois. Rural hospitals anchor the local economy. They often are the largest employer in town, in the county, sometimes. And they are critical access points for healthcare. If you suffer a farm accident or face a complication with a birth in your family, you can't afford to drive that extra hour or two to find the nearest hospital. That is why I worked for years to improve access to healthcare in rural areas, working to strengthen rural hospitals and recruit more doctors, dentists, and nurses. But rural hospitals in Illinois and across this country could be at risk of closure if Republicans put Medicaid on the chopping block. Last week, I had a series of press conferences back in my State. I first went to Taylorville, in Central Illinois, and then down to Cahokia Heights, near the St. Louis area, and met with hospital administrators who told the story: They didn't know whether they could keep the doors open if the cutbacks proposed by the House Republicans go through. It will be a cutback that they feel personally. Already, half of rural hospitals in America operate in the red. They are not getting by with current reimbursement, and with even less, fewer hospitals will be available. For many rural hospitals, Medicaid covers a large percentage of their patients and accounts for a large portion of the hospital's budget. For HSHS St. Francis Hospital in Litchfield, IL, Medicaid pays for 53 percent of all hospitalizations. For OSF St. Clare Hospital in Princeton, IL, Medicaid pays for 45 percent of all hospitalizations. It is 22 percent for Jersey Community Hospital in Jerseyville, IL. And the list goes on and on. And it isn't just rural, smalltown areas affected by these Medicaid cuts. It also goes to the inner city. Hospitals struggling to survive won't be able to. So do you see the picture here? Cuts to Medicaid put rural hospitals and inner-city hospitals in danger. And if rural hospitals close because of Republican budget cuts, communities will suffer, and families will suffer. Children seeking cancer treatments won't be able to access local care when they need it. Pregnant women will have to drive further to deliver their babies. And your grandparent will have to wait months to get in to see that diabetes specialist. Of course, Americans of all political affiliations rely on Medicaid, and, increasingly, Republican Members of Congress are recognizing how unpopular it is going to be to cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama acknowledged in an interview that cutting Medicaid would ``decimate'' his home State of Alabama, where three out of five kids are on Medicaid. He then said that Congress has to find a way around cutting it. Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas similarly expressed his support for Medicaid, saying that, rather than cutting it, ``we will try to strengthen Medicaid for the future of all those who need it the most, the most vulnerable.'' And Senator Marshall, of course, is a medical doctor. Slashing lifesaving healthcare will hurt Americans in blue and red States. I hope my Republican colleagues will not cave in to the President's pressure and legislate away the health and well-being of the people they represent. If Republicans push forward with their cruel and unpopular funding plan, working families will lose, and a handful of billionaires will win. It is simple and devastating math. It is not too late. As we consider the budget resolution, as soon as this week, Congress has the ability to do the right thing and protect Medicaid from cuts in our Federal budget. The numbers in Congress make the difference. In the U.S. Senate, of 100 Members, there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. When it comes to these budget decisions, three Republicans moving over to vote with Democrats to save Medicaid can save and keep open these hospitals I have talked about, can give these kids access to healthcare, can help families pay for mom's and their grandmother's nursing care, can make sure that we have counseling for mental health and addiction. Three Republicans--that is all it takes. We hope that they will listen to the people they represent, carefully. I have. I think it is clear. Medicaid is a popular program. Over 80 percent of the American people reject the idea that we should cut Medicaid--over 80 percent. That goes way beyond any single party. They understand that this gets down to the basics. How would you like to be sitting in that waiting room with no health insurance, at a hospital far from your home, hoping that your child is going to survive? Stick with the families of this country. The billionaires will take care of themselves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that DeNay Adams, Quentin Mansfield, Victoria Esparza, and Kelsey Handschuh be granted floor privileges until April 3, 2025.

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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I first want to acknowledge this extraordinary moment in the history of the Senate. I believe you have been holding the floor now for more than 10 hours, and perhaps we will go on even longer. You have been joined by your colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut. I am sorry to take the early morning shift, but I didn't want to miss this moment in history, not just for the historic nature of it but for the substance of it as well. I just remind my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was only maybe 3, maybe 4 weeks ago that we had witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, and I asked a question. One of them is pending on the calendar, the Executive Calendar, on the floor. His name is Dean Sauer of Missouri. He is seeking the position of Solicitor General of the United States. Along with him was the lady aspiring to be the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, and Aaron Reitz, who has been approved by the Senate for a legal policy position. The questioning went to the basics of our Constitution, which you have noted here today; that is, what is the check and balance on a President? What is the accountability of a President under the Constitution? As I read it--and I don't profess to be expert; I am still learning-- as I read it, the accountability of the President is in article II--in article III, I am sorry, article III, the judiciary. Ultimately, the President can be held accountable by impeachment in Congress or by decision of the court. Some of the orders that he is promulgating are inconsistent with law and the Constitution. The question that was asked of the witnesses who are seeking positions in the Department of Justice: Can a public official defy a court order? It seems so fundamental and basic. The answer is no, of course, but these three witnesses all equivocated in their own ways, which raises a question: If this President is not held accountable by court order, what, then, can control a President who misuses their office, to the detriment of the Nation, of the people who live here? That, I thought, was a fundamental question. It was interesting to note--you may remember--that one of our Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, after hearing these witnesses equivocate on whether a public official can defy a court order, came to the committee and basically said: What are you saying? The answer is obvious. You can criticize a decision of the court within the bounds of propriety as a member of the bar. You can appeal a decision of the court, but if that doesn't satisfy you, your recourse is to quit, resign, leave. The Constitution has the last word. The courts have the last word. And I think that is a question that you are raising today. Where is the accountability of the President of the United States when he misuses the power of office? In the cases that you have mentioned, the Alien Enemies Act--it is a law that has been around since 1807 or somewhere around that time--I think it is clear, unless you have declared a war or unless you are invaded, you cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act as this President has done, and he is being challenged in that regard. Yesterday, our friend Senator Grassley, who chairs the Judicial Committee--and I say ``friend.'' Some people back home say: Don't say that anymore. We don't talk to those people. They are wrong. This is a body where we do talk to one another, and we should for good reason. Well, he raised the question yesterday, why is President Trump being challenged so often in court? Well, he has issued 102 Executive orders. I don't know if that is a record, but I will bet it is, 102 Executive orders. Questioning something as basic as birthright sovereignty, birthright citizenship. And so the point that I am getting to is in obvious situations here where President Trump has gone too far, where is the accountability? It is not going to be an impeachment. We are realists. We know that the Republican House of Representatives is not likely to ever consider that. It could be in the courts. And if it goes to the courts, the question is, Will this President follow a court order if it goes against his policy? And if he won't follow that court order, where is the accountability? Where is the check and balance? Where is the constitutional framework which is supposed to be at the foundation of this democracy? I think you are raising important questions, and the Insurrection Act, the use of our military for political purposes, is a frightening prospect. It is something we have avoided throughout our history and should continue to. And I just commend you for raising this point because I believe it is timely. It is timely as the questions that we ask of these Department of Justice nominees about the enforceability of court orders. And the question is now, Will the American people speak up? I am counting on some of our Republican friends to speak up too. Throughout history, there have been moments when the party, other than the President's party, showed extreme courage, political courage, and spoke up. We need that kind of voice now. I thank you for raising it on the floor this morning. My question to you is, at this moment in time, as we ask these nominees whether they would follow a court order or defy a court order, doesn't that get to the basics of our constitutional democracy?

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 Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes and that Senator Merkley be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the State of the Union Address was quite a performance by President Trump. Maybe one of the highlights of humor was when he focused on the Social Security Administration. Remember what he told us? There were 4.7 million ``Social Security members''--that is the term he used--4.7 million Social Security members who were between 100 and 109 years old. He went on to say that 1.3 million Social Security members were between the ages of 150 and 159 and that 130,000 were over the age of 160. These were the President's words. He goes on to talk about 1,039 between the ages of 220 and 229--even one who is a 360-year-old person. The place was rocking with laughter to think that a Federal Agency as important as Social Security could be defrauded by people claiming to be this age and still receiving checks--what a great joke, what a misrepresentation of the truth. What the President said was not true. It was misleading. It was overblown. It was inaccurate. In fact, it was just plain wrong. He delivered this address to a joint session of Congress to the American people--the one time each year when we are focused on the President's words--and he made these deliberate misrepresentations of the Social Security Administration. He claimed that the unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, and his DOGE boys had identified ``shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud within Social Security.'' Mr. Musk then claimed at a later point that tens of millions of dead people over the age of 100 were still receiving Social Security benefits. Outrageous. Outrageous and untrue. In his speech, President Trump claimed there was a 360-year-old somehow receiving Social Security benefits as a member. I am not sure what that means. Obviously, it raised eyebrows. How could somebody born in the 1600s be receiving Social Security benefits? It turned out it wasn't true. What the President said was misleading and untrue, not truthful. The Social Security Administration has databases that include the information of millions of Americans. Some of those records lack a recorded date of death, but of course, that certainly doesn't mean that the people are still alive, and it certainly doesn't mean, further, that they are receiving any Social Security benefits. The Washington Post obtained internal records which showed the Social Security Administration looked into this very issue last month. What did they find? Only 1,300 Americans over the age of 100 were still receiving benefits. That is far short of the ``shocking levels'' the President said ``of incompetence and probable fraud.'' The truth is, you would be hard-pressed to find another Agency that is more closely scrutinized than Social Security. It routinely audits benefit payments to make sure they are accurate. The Office of Inspector General conducted a report in 2024 which found that less than 1 percent of Social Security payments were improper--less than 1 percent--but President Trump's statement made it seem like Social Security is riddled with fraud and incompetence. Payments to a 360- year-old individual? Outrageous. Untrue. You wonder why he said these things to the American people in his State of the Union Address. I believe President Trump and Mr. Musk are intentionally misrepresenting the challenges Social Security faces as the rationale to implement their harmful policies. The Trump administration's disdain for Social Security is clear. Elon Musk, the President's unelected buddy, describes Social Security as the ``biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,'' said Mr. Musk, and shared a post on Twitter that called those who benefit from Federal programs-- get ready--the ``parasite class.'' The ``parasite class'' are Social Security recipients. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick called Americans who were calling in to report missing Social Security benefits ``fraudsters.'' This same billionaire, Mr. Lutnick, bragged that his mother-in-law wouldn't care if she didn't receive a monthly check from Social Security. Well, perhaps, if your son-in-law is a billionaire, you don't care, but most people don't live that kind of life. These comments are not only wrong and misleading, they are sickening--sickening. These people work their whole lives paying into Social Security with the promise that it will take care of them when they decide to retire, and now the question is being raised as to whether they were parasites throughout their lives. First, this disdain for Social Security and the Americans who rely on it can be found in the policies that are being pushed by the administration. The President announced that 7,000 workers at Social Security will be terminated--7,000. That is 12 percent of the total Social Security workforce at a time when the Social Security Administration is facing a 50-year staffing low. Second, the President announced that Social Security will limit 1-800 phone services. It already takes a half an hour to reach a representative at Social Security. Now there are reports it is taking several hours to get a call picked up if you have a question. Nearly 9,000 people become eligible for Social Security benefits every single day. They should not have to wait hours to speak with someone if they have a legitimate question. Third, President Trump announced the closure of Social Security offices across America, including some in my State of Illinois. I ran into an individual in the coffee shop in Springfield a few weeks ago. He is retired now. He said: Senator, it was smarter for me to get in the car and drive 40 minutes each way to Litchfield, IL, to the Social Security office rather than to wait in line for hours at the Springfield office. Each one of the actions taken by the Trump administration has made it more difficult for seniors and people with disabilities to access their benefits. Americans are worried, some are even terrified, questioning whether or not they will continue to have access to earned benefits and essential services. How do I know? Many have written to me. Carolyn from Chicago recently told me she tried to call Social Security to make an appointment. She was told the wait time on the phone was 120 minutes. She waited the 2 hours but still didn't get to speak to someone. She hung up and tried again later and was told again it was another 120-minute wait. Imagine waiting on hold for 2 hours for your phone call not to be picked up. Carolyn told me the level of service from Social Security right now is unacceptable. She is kind, and she is right. Americans depend on Social Security and its workers to pick up the phone, answer their questions, and help them secure their benefits. Social Security is a bedrock of American society. It is a promise. Almost all of us contribute to it throughout our lives and expect it will be there when we need it, but as usual, President Trump is making the problem even worse. Since 2010, Social Security's customer service budget has been reduced by 20 percent when counting for inflation. Staff has fallen by 11 percent while 13 million additional beneficiaries have started to receive benefits. For too long, we have asked the Social Security Administration to do more with less, and now President Trump is taking that to an extreme, so I am calling on him to abandon these plans. If you actually want to make Social Security more efficient, it needs more well-trained people, more resources, more funding. We do not need the recent college graduates in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to take Social Security for a joyride while their grandparents are in the back, holding on for dear life. We certainly don't need the sage advice of billionaires who cannot begin to understand what it means to live month to month while waiting for a Social Security check as so many Americans do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some people come to Congress to check a box, collect a credential, and then head to where the big bucks are: lobbying firms. For others, working as a Capitol Hill staffer is part of a lifetime of public service. Kevin Cronin was one of the latter types. He believed in public service, and I consider myself lucky that Kevin chose to work for me. It was during my years in the House of Representatives. Kevin was my lead staffer on the House Budget Committee. He was hard-working, clever, and smart as a whip. Sadly, Kevin passed away earlier this month in Cleveland, OH, the place where he grew up and where he first learned about politics and public service. Kevin was the middle son in a family of proud Irish American Democrats. Both of his parents were involved in the civil rights movement during the 1960s and 70s. His mom also was quite active in the women's movement. John Glenn, the astronaut hero turned U.S. Senator, was a family friend. So was ``Battling Bella'' Abzug. Kevin's father worked for Carl Stokes, the first Black mayor of Cleveland. His mother worked on campaigns for Jane Campbell, Cleveland's first woman mayor, and Mary Boyle, the first woman commissioner for Cuyahoga County. Kevin received his own introduction to shoe-leather politics when he was in middle school. He and his two brothers would knock on doors seeking to turn out the vote in elections. Kevin was also an avid tennis player in the National Junior Tennis League, a program founded by Arthur Ashe that used tennis to teach city kids important life skills. He graduated from Columbia University with a double major in political science and fine arts and earned a law degree from the University of Wisconsin. After that, he came to Washington. He served as a congressional aide for a decade and worked for some giants, including John Conyers, chair of the House Budget Committee, and the late Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. He was a whiz with budget details and parliamentary rules. He understood how to turn good ideas into good laws. Somehow, he always found time to encourage and teach younger staffers, including a Capitol Hill newbie named Pat Souders, who is now my chief of staff. But Kevin's real passion was grassroots organizing, so he moved back to Cleveland and poured himself into civic campaigns and causes. He worked as a pro bono attorney for a group called Bike Cleveland that pushed successfully for new bike lanes to connect Cleveland and its suburbs. He also offered legal guidance to environmental groups working to expand the use of renewable energy sources, including harnessing the great wind power potential of Lake Erie. He helped to preserve Cleveland's history, especially the city's links to the abolitionist and civil rights movements. He worked to raise awareness for the Cozad-Bates House, a stop on the Underground Railroad. He also was working to raise support to save Jesse Owens' childhood home and turn it into a museum. His main job for 15 years was working as an ad litem attorney in the Cleveland City Courts, representing children who had been removed from their family homes and, very often, had suffered neglect and trauma. It was difficult, heart-rending work, but he did it because he believed the children needed someone on their side. Kevin was diagnosed with severe aplastic anemia 15 years ago. It is a condition, similar to leukemia, in which one's body cannot produce enough white blood cells to protect against infection. He was able to lead a full life for years, thanks in part to an NIH clinical trial for a drug that kept his illness in check. But a few months ago, the drug stopped working. Kevin was 61 years old. I want to offer my condolences to his brothers Kiely and Rob and their families, to Kevin's friends, and to the countless people whose lives he touched and enriched, from Capitol Hill to Cleveland and far beyond. He was a good man, and he will be missed.