Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Murray), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch), 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 New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and, the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wanted to join my colleagues from Wyoming. I heard they were paying a tribute to Al Simpson who recently passed away. It was my good fortune 15 years ago to be a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission where Al Simpson, who had been retired from the Senate, cohosted that with Erskine Bowles in a bipartisan effort to deal with the deficit. I never had a better time and a more educational experience than to be on that Commission. And, of course, you can't talk about Al Simpson's public service without referring to his sense of humor. I said to a friend the other day on the floor of the Senate, I miss that part of the Senate. There used to be, you could count on several Senators to always have a joke, and he was one of them. And good joke-tellers, I have found, have two qualities. First, they tell the same joke many times, but it seems like it is the first time. And, second, they usually start laughing before the punchline because they are enjoying the joke so much themselves. But in addition to his good humor and nice way about him, he was a wonderful person to work with--really bipartisan. Being a Democrat, I didn't know quite how I would deal with him since we had never served together in the Senate, but he took me under his shoulder like any Member of his own party or family. I might also mention for the record that Al and his wife were close friends with Paul and Jeanne Simon from Illinois, my predecessor; and Ann Simpson attended the funeral service for Jeanne Simon in Carbondale, IL, and I thought that was a nice tribute family to family. I am sorry we don't have people like Al Simpson still serving. Maybe it is an incentive for all of us to learn a joke or two. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on January 6, 2021, a solemn constitutional proceeding was disrupted when a mob of thugs, egged on by President Trump, attacked and trashed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election. The grimmest results of the insurrection were the subsequent deaths of five of our law enforcement officers and the injuries to approximately 140 others, many of whom are still paying the price for that day. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised that he would pardon January 6 insurrectionists--but it still came as a shock when, on the first day of his second Presidential term, he issued a blanket pardon and 14 commutations to all of those who had been charged or convicted for their involvement in the attack on the Capitol. And listen to what President Trump said about his pardons at a recent press conference ``I pardoned people who were assaulted themselves. They were assaulted by our government . . . They didn't assault. They were assaulted, and what I did was a great thing for humanity.'' Trump's decision is highly unpopular, with 83 percent of Americans opposed to these pardons. This includes 70 percent of those who lean Republican. And not only that, but these pardons also highlight the hypocrisy of President Trump when it comes to his claimed crackdown on antisemitism. Just days after pardoning these rioters, he signed an Executive order outlining his administration's efforts to combat ``the explosion of antisemitism'' in the U.S.. But, many of the rioters who Trump pardoned openly embrace violent antisemitism. Take Robert Keith Parker, who wore a black hoodie emblazoned with ``Camp Auschwitz'' on that horrific day. Robert Keith Parker was pardoned by President Trump. Or consider Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, whom prosecutors identified as a ``white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer.'' He told his coworkers that ``Hitler should have finished the job'' and frequently dresses up as Adolf Hitler. At Hale-Cusanelli's sentencing hearing, Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, said ``Statements and actions like yours make [Jewish people] less safe and less confident they can participate as equal members of our society.'' Timothy Hale-Cusanelli was pardoned by President Trump. And what is more? After his release from prison, Mr. Hale-Cusanelli was welcomed as a speaker at two events held by the President's supporters last year at his Bedminster club. At one of these events, he received an award from Ed Martin, now serving as President Trump's interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Martin called Hale-Cusanelli an ``extraordinary man'' and an ``extraordinary leader.'' Does that sound like the actions of an administration that cares about protecting the Jewish community from antisemitism? Seems more like lip service to me. But the hypocrisy doesn't end there. President Donald Trump, in his speech to the joint session of Congress last week, said he would, ``Get police officers nationwide the support, protection, and respect they so dearly deserve.'' He said those words in a chamber that was protected by the very officers who were violently assaulted on January 6 by the rioters who he egged on and later pardoned. Trump talks a big game about ``backing the blue--but his pardons of the very rioters who beat and brutalized hundreds of cops on January 6 show that he has no idea what ``support, protection, and respect'' for the police means. He continues to tout bringing back ``law and order'' while releasing violent criminals onto the streets--the scope of his dangerous pardons continues to grow. Two weeks ago, a Justice Department prosecutor struggled in court to explain the administration's view of the scope of Trump's mass pardons, arguing that the relief should apply to separate criminal conduct committed by Capitol rioter Dan Wilson, in Kentucky in 2023. U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, questioned a Justice Department attorney about the government's shifting position on the scope of Trump's January 6 pardons. Judge Freidrich said, ``[p]ardons have to have a fixed meaning'' on the day they are issued, and there has to be a ``clear definition of the pardon that doesn't evolve or change.'' Unfortunately, these individuals continue to pose a dangerous threat to our democracy--and law enforcement. Just last month, dozens of former January 6 offenders joined forces on social media to compile and publicize the identities of at least 124 individuals who had been involved in their cases--including prosecutors, judges, and FBI agents. The post, which has received at least tens of thousands of views, includes names, photos, disparaging remarks, and demands for accountability. In January, another pardoned January 6 defendant who pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with pepper spray, Ryan Nichols, Sr., identified in a Twitter post ``officers in the D.C. Jail who need to be investigated for corruption and abuse,'' adding the names and LinkedIn profile photos of two DC Jail employees. The men and women who bravely defended us on January 6 deserve better than this--and we should honor them for their heroic efforts that day, not excuse the thugs who attacked this body and the ideals it represents. Law enforcement officials should not fear for their safety or that of their families just for simply doing their jobs. I hope that all of us, regardless of our political persuasion, can agree on two things: that violence has no place in a democracy, and that our law enforcement officers are worthy of our respect and support.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote on passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act. Opioid addiction has had a devastating impact on communities all across the country. We have an overdose crisis in the United States, and we should be doing everything possible to combat it. In just a decade, fentanyl has emerged as the deadliest drug in American history. All it takes is 2 milligrams--that is a fraction of the size of a penny--to cause an overdose. But we must do more than simply pass this bill. Since fentanyl- related substances were originally scheduled by the DEA, in 2018, Congress has never allowed this authority to expire. So, by passing this bill, we are merely maintaining the status quo. We must also address how this poison gets into the hands of the most vulnerable: our children. Too often, fentanyl is peddled in the open on some of the world's largest social media platforms. When the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up the HALT Fentanyl Act last month, I filed amendments that would finally hold these companies accountable and demand they put safeguards in place to protect our children. One of my amendments would have repealed the liability shield that Congress granted Big Tech nearly 30 years ago, known as section 230. At that markup, Chairman Grassley agreed to work with me to finally-- finally--allow these companies to be sued by their victims' families so they can be held accountable in a court of law. I hope the full Senate will join us in this effort. Enough teens have died due to Big Tech's deliberate indifference. If we are going to stem the fentanyl crisis, we also must acknowledge the role the United States has played in arming cartels to the teeth-- sending hundreds of thousands of firearms south in an ``iron river''-- and facilitating the cartels' use of violence to traffic fentanyl into the U.S. That is why I filed my Stop Arming Cartels Act as an amendment to this bill. The HALT Fentanyl Act fails to account for the role that America's lax gun laws play in arming and enabling drug cartels to traffic fentanyl. Consider this: An estimated 200,000 to 500,000 American-made guns are trafficked into Mexico annually. A study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives found that 70 percent of crime guns recovered in Mexico from 2014-2018 and submitted for tracing were from the United States. My Stop Arming Cartels Act would prohibit future manufacture, sale, and possession of .50-caliber rifles--a particularly powerful weapon favored by Mexican drug cartels. These high-caliber weapons smuggled from the United States have allowed cartels to shoot down police helicopters, attack military convoys, and undercut public faith in law and order. My bill would also allow victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers who engage in firearm transactions prohibited under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. We also must provide local and Federal law enforcement with the resources they need to fight against the highly armed cartels. These Agencies are on the frontlines protecting our communities from fentanyl and other opioids. But detection is getting more difficult. Fentanyl is so potent and moved in quantities so small that high-value shipments are easily hidden. As a result, law enforcement needs access to technology and resources to quickly and efficiently detect these drugs. This includes expanding nonintrusive inspection capabilities, making lifesaving Naloxone widely available, and adequately funding State and local law enforcement. I am also gravely concerned about the negative impact of President Trump's recent order diverting Federal law enforcement agents, including from the DEA and ATF, away from combatting fentanyl and firearms trafficked by cartels and onto working on the President's mass deportation efforts. As a reminder, the vast majority of fentanyl and other illegal drugs entering the United States are smuggled by American citizens through legal ports of entry. And lastly, I am concerned about the negative impact of President Trump's mass removals and reassignments of senior career law enforcement at DOJ and FBI and how that will affect our ability to hold traffickers accountable and cut off the supply of fentanyl. Today, I will vote for the HALT Fentanyl Act. Still, it is only a starting point, and there is so much more that we can do, like stopping the trafficking of American guns that arm the cartels and holding social media companies accountable for peddling fentanyl to our kids. Getting fentanyl off the streets is a herculean task that will require us all to come together and work across the aisle to make this country a healthier, safer place to live. I hope this bill is a sign that all of my Senate colleagues are willing to continue working on this task with me in the future.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Wyoming mentioned the New York Times this morning and reports, articles, on the economy, and so I took a quick look to see if I could find the column that he was referring to, though I couldn't find it, I did find this on page B2. Headline: ``Stocks Decline Further As Investors Struggle To Make Sense Of Trump's Latest Tariff Talk.'' The article says: Markets whipsawed on Tuesday, as investors puzzled through President Trump's commitment to tariffs, with stocks dropping in early trading before recovering late in the day. The S&P 500 index fell 1.5 percent at its low point before recovering some ground and ending the day 0.8 percent lower. Same page B2: Business confidence falls as uncertainty sets in. The confidence level of small businesses dropped for a third straight month in February wiping away much of the gains notched in the aftermath of President Trump's election victory. I don't think the Trump plan for this economy is all that clear, and it appears that the writers of the New York Times agree. Many of the people in the business community are puzzled. Some are alarmed by the tariff talk of this administration and the zigzagging approach to the economy. So I would say, at this moment the jury is still out and sending messages to the court that they are dubious about this policy at all. If the Presiding Officer has any question in his own mind, I suggest he starts with the farmers in his State and ask them what they think of this tariff policy. I have been meeting with them over the last several days, and they are very skeptical, to say the least.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the second time over the past few weeks, I have come to the Senate floor to talk about the importance of medical research funding at the National Institutes of Health--NIH. Last week during his address to Congress, President Trump unveiled a new member of the U.S. Secret Service; a 13-year-old named DJ who had always dreamed of becoming a police officer. It was a touching moment because DJ wasn't supposed to be alive today. You see, in 2018, he was diagnosed with brain cancer and given just a few months to live. Because of advances in science and medicine, because of medical researchers conducting lifesaving work, because of new treatments and cures, thank goodness this young man is alive today. And he is alive because of the work of the National Institutes of Health. But that work, for a lot of other desperate families, is in danger because of President Trump and his unelected assistant, Elon Musk, who are carrying out a cruel campaign to cut research funding for diseases such as childhood cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, dementia, and so many more. I don't know young DJ or his family, but I can just imagine what they went through when they were told their son had brain cancer. Who can imagine, as a parent, what that must have been like. And I bet you one of their first questions to the doctor was basic: Is there a cure? Is there treatment? Is there something we can do? Thankfully, the answer was ``yes'' because of medical research. You know, all the miracle drugs you see on TV, a constant deluge of ads about new drugs--99 percent of drugs approved in the last 10 years benefited from NIH research. NIH funding is why kids like DJ are beating cancer, why babies are being spared from preventive illness, why HIV is no longer a death sentence, why progress is being made on ALS and so many neurological diseases. Since the start of this administration, we have seen the White House unleash a lawless, chaotic attack on everything from our Federal Aviation Administration to biomedical research. First, President Trump and Elon Musk ordered a freeze on most Federal grant funding, including medical research funding. You see, after extensive review of grant applications, the NIH awards approximately $38 billion a year in funding to the best and brightest medical researchers and universities in all 50 States, Illinois included. But Trump and Musk inexplicably view this as wasteful and needless. While this freeze was found illegal by a Federal judge, the administration has continued to defy court order. To this day, we are taking actions to prevent medical research funding from going out to scientists in labs with breakthrough ideas. As a result, NIH has delayed awarding approximately $1 billion in grant funding to institutions nationwide. What alarms me is that NIH funding has not historically been a partisan issue. This used to be the most bipartisan thing in the Senate. Over the past decade, bipartisan members of Congress--Roy Blunt, Republican Senator from Missouri; Lamar Alexander, Republican Senator from Tennessee; and Patty Murray, Democrat from Washington--joined with me in an effort to increase funding for the NIH. This bipartisan team, which I was proud to be part of, increased NIH funding over the last 10 years by 60 percent. We did this because we know sickness does not respect partisan lines. We need cures on a bipartisan basis, and NIH funding leads to new breakthroughs for all patients in need, supports good-paying jobs in red and blue States, and cements our global leadership. Illinois universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.3 billion in NIH funding every year that support 16,000 researchers in our State and $3.6 billion in economic activity. Our State is the rule, not the exception in this regard. But Trump and Musk aren't finished here. Next, they tried to indiscriminately slash how NIH pays for indirect costs. What is an indirect cost? It helps medical researchers operate their laboratories, it pays for new computers, microscopes, and the handling of hazardous materials. They are negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the Federal Government and each hospital and university. Look, I am open to discussion about reforms to how indirect costs are calculated, but just arbitrarily and illegally slashing all indirect cost allotments will stop medical research in its tracks and many laboratories. Thankfully, Illinois' attorney general and 21 others sued and secured temporary relief for universities and researchers. Now Trump and Elon Musk have focused their efforts on firing the medical researchers themselves. Reports indicate that 1,200 NIH employees have been fired so far, experienced vaccine researchers, the next generation of scientists and the acting director of the NIH's Alzheimer's and dementia program. Further, Trump and Musk have ended a popular trainee program that brought 1,600 young scientists out of colleges to the NIH world- renowned campus in Maryland. NIH research leads to new cures and treatments that extend, improve, and save lives. That is why I am once again trying to pass a resolution pledging just basic bipartisan support for NIH. This resolution is simple. It says the work of NIH should not be subject to interruption, delay, or funding disruptions in violation of the law, and it reaffirms the workforce of the NIH is essential to sustaining medical progress. For kids like DJ, for people like my friend Brian Wallach who is fighting ALS, for every family out there dealing with a life- threatening diagnosis, we cannot--we must not--stay silent in the face of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's assault on medical research. I will never stop fighting to protect NIH and the medical research it supports. I hope it once again will become a bipartisan effort. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 93; further, that the resolution be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this point, I hope I can appeal to my friend from Oklahoma. It is important to every single State, but it is certainly important to my State of Illinois where we have thousands of researchers and millions of dollars being spent. But it is also important to his State. Oklahoma has very valuable laboratories and hospitals that do research as well. I would like to just give you some examples. Each year, Oklahoma receives $160 million in NIH funding. This money supports 2,500 jobs in the State of Oklahoma and $450 million in economic activity. The top NIH funding research in Oklahoma is the University of Oklahoma. It receives $80 million a year. With this funding, researchers in Oklahoma recently conducted research on slowing kidney disease progression, improving brain function after strokes, and how changes in cell activity can slow the progression of Alzheimer's. Senator Mullin, I know, is a graduate--a proud graduate, I am sure-- of Oklahoma State University, which receives $50 million in NIH funding. Mr. President, I hope I can appeal to my colleague and others to take a close look at their own home States on this medical research. It makes a difference in their States, and it makes a valuable difference in the quality of life for Americans across the board. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 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.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today stands out as a critical moment for the country, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution. In recent weeks, Trump administration officials and allies have made statements and engaged in troubling conduct that threatened judicial independence and our very system of government. Elon Musk, a senior adviser to President Trump, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Federal judges whose decisions he disagrees with, and he has questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges that is enshrined in article III of our Constitution. In a social media post, Vice President JD Vance falsely asserted that: Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. This is merely the latest in a long line of claims by the Vice President that a President of the United States can defy the orders of the court. In 2021, Mr. Vance went so far as to say he would suggest to President Trump that ``when the court stops you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, `The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.''' This was an obvious reference to the apocryphal story about President Andrew Jackson suggesting he would defy the Supreme Court ruling. And President Donald Trump himself recently posted: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law. Let me repeat that post, personal post, by the President: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law. Those 10 words are a rationale for tyranny and are an assault on our Constitution. This disregard for judicial review has not been limited to words alone. In multiple cases, administration officials have dragged their feet or failed to comply with Federal court orders. The administration has also nominated individuals to senior positions at the Department of Justice who seem to have little regard for separation of powers. One Trump nominee recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said: There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance, a public official is bound by a court decision. Fortunately, my colleague, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, admonished this nominee, and he said: Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever. Now, you can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign. And it isn't only the executive branch that is threatening the independence of the judiciary. In the past month, three members of the House of Representatives have introduced articles of impeachment against Federal judges for no reason other than they ruled against this administration. These actions and comments constitute a clear and present danger to the separation of powers and our Constitution. Instead of favorably quoting the apocryphal words of Andrew Jackson, our political leaders and their allies should reference the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 decision. As we all learned in law school, Judge Marshall said: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. There has been a broad, bipartisan consensus on that point for more than two centuries. When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, the judiciary has the final word. Last week, on this floor, I tried to pass an S. Res. simply affirming the rule of law and finality of judicial review. I thought and hoped every Senator would support it. Regrettably, a Republican Senator objected, and the Senate missed an opportunity to say with one voice that we support the Constitution and judicial branch. Thankfully, the judicial branch has demonstrated its independence, even without the support of the other branches of government. Judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, in some cases, provided a check on the administration when it overstepped. For that, I commend the judiciary. Alexander Hamilton called the article III judiciary, the courts, ``the least dangerous branch'' because it has neither soldiers nor money to enforce its decrees. That is why the courts' legitimacy in the eyes of the American people is so critical to its continued vitality, and that is why I continue to support an enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Recent efforts by the Trump administration and its allies to intimidate and impeach Federal judges have been based on those judges' decisions and the President who appointed them. In contrast, an enforceable code of conduct would apply to all Justices equally, no matter who appointed them and no matter how they rule on a particular matter. I first proposed that the Court adopt an enforceable code of conduct 13 years ago in 2012, prior to the existence of the Court's current conservative super majority and prior to many of its controversial decisions. The fact that many sitting Justices have publicly endorsed an enforceable code of conduct underscores that it does not pose a threat to the independence of the judicial branch. An enforceable code of conduct would bolster public confidence in the judicial branch. And by ensuring the judiciary is held to high regard, we can assure that so-called least dangerous branch of government maintains a position of strength now and in the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.