Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mrs. Duckworth) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the new Secretary of Education Linda McMahon made some money on the professional wrestling business--at least, that is what I was told. If that is true, she clearly is ready to rumble when it comes to cutting money for American schools. It appears that the formula for greatness, which the President is pushing, includes reducing Federal aid to education and cutting medical research. How can you build a greater nation by reducing investment in schools for kids and closing down laboratories that are developing cures for diseases? For my way of thinking, that is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing as a nation. Of course, I want to stop waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency. We are all signed up for that. But eliminating the Department of Education? Press reports that people in this administration are jubilant with the idea of closing down a whole Federal Agency. What are the impacts of that closure? What about the money that is going to school districts in Illinois and across the Nation? If there is a cutback in Federal funds for our school districts--and that would be part of eliminating the Department of Education--that would put more pressure on local property taxpayers to pay more for the schools or to cut back on the salaries of teachers and increase the number of kids in the classroom. How can that be good for the future of this country? How could you build greatness by closing down schools or increasing the number of kids in a classroom? Penny-wise, pound foolish. It is ridiculous. It is not the only area. The National Institutes of Health now--I have talked to the researchers in Illinois and across this Nation--they are at their wits end to figure out what to do. This is the leading medical research Agency in the world. And 99 percent of all the new drugs--you know all the drugs you see on television, 99 percent of all these new drugs started at the National Institutes of Health, a Federally supported Agency of researchers who set the standard for the world in medical research. And now they are facing closure of many of their laboratories because of DOGE and Mr. Musk. So they want to cut money to schools. They want to cut money to medical research. My way of thinking is that is shortsighted as can be. You can't build a great nation that way. That is not the only research. I want to tell a story about a young lady whose name is Jeannie Klein-Gordon. Jeannie grew up on a dairy farm in Oregon. During her undergraduate years at Oregon State, she became interested in plant pathology or the study of plant diseases and spent time assisting with research at the USDA Agriculture Research Services. ``I really appreciated the environment there,'' Klein-Gordon said, of working at ARS during her undergrad years. ``Everybody was super nice, very passionate about science and agriculture and helping growers.'' Then it was on to 5 years of doctoral work at the University of Florida before moving to Michigan State University for two shorter postdoctoral stints. From there, she applied for a position as research plant pathologist at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria, IL, commonly known as the Ag Lab. Here is what she said: I spent 11 and a half years [to get] this position, and I got the position of my dreams. This is my dream job. Jeannie Klein-Gordon moved her family from Michigan to Peoria in December of 2023 and set out to work on research projects. She recently focused on red crown rot, a disease that appeared in Illinois in 2018 and presents a significant threat to the State's multibillion-dollar soybean industry. The team's experiments looked to develop products for farmers to fight the disease. That all ended on Thursday, February 13. Klein-Gordon's employment was terminated by email at 10:05 p.m. She was 15 months into a standard 3-year probationary period for government scientists, and she wasn't alone. Other Ag Labs across the United States lost their researchers as well. You know what else--this is not unique to this young lady--they put on the termination notice that these employees were terminated for poor performance when exactly the opposite is true. They were receiving awards for achievements that they had witnessed and been part of in a short period of time. They were probationary employees, but they were on the track to become full-scale senior researchers. And now they have been terminated, and it has been announced it was done for poor performance. Why would Elon Musk and the DOGE group want to put poor performance on this? So it disqualifies the employee from receiving unemployment insurance. Poor performance, when it is not true, is now going to be part of her resume record. The good news is, the courts have stepped in and said, once again, that the Trump administration has overstepped in closing these jobs down. You know, this Ag Lab may sound--as I describe the projects, they sound so farfetched you wonder, Would we really miss that? Can't the farmers take care of themselves? Well, the honest answer is they need help in research, good research, and the Ag Lab in Peoria is one of the best. Most people don't know it, but the Ag Lab in Peoria is responsible for one of the dramatic breakthroughs of the 20th century. They helped to develop penicillin during World War II. Penicillin was known before, but it just wasn't developed to the point where it could be administered when a person needed it. It was the Ag Lab in Peoria that took up that challenge, and as a result of taking it up, penicillin was available for our troops in World War II and saved countless lives. Is research worth it? I think it is. Whether it is ag research or medical research at the NIH, it is fundamental to our future. And these researchers, they don't make a fortune. This young lady put 11 years- plus into her education so that she would have this opportunity to come to Peoria and the Ag Lab. And as far as DOGE is concerned, she is expendable--just another probationary employee, let her go. And, incidentally, on the way out the door, stamp poor performance on her resume so she has to answer for that for the rest of her applications. Why? To deny her unemployment insurance. Well, I think that is cruel and I think it is shortsighted and I don't think that it builds greatness.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today we honor the 100th anniversary of the Federal Probation Act of 1925, the pivotal law that established our Federal probation system, thereby helping to reduce unnecessary detention and crime. This is a prime example of criminal justice reform designed to make our communities safer and allow offenders a second chance to reintegrate into society. Probation, like many other criminal justice reforms, did not happen overnight. Some Federal judges were in favor of a probationary system, seeing it as an alternative to the sometimes-harsh penalties they felt constrained to impose. Other Federal judges were against probation, believing it too lenient. Congress could not reach agreement on a national plan. While the first Federal probation bills were introduced in Congress in 1909, it was not until 1925--after more than 30 bills had been introduced--that the Federal Probation Act came to fruition. Since passage, we have seen the life-changing effects of probation as an alternative to prison. This is especially true for past offenders suffering from substance abuse and mental health challenges. Our probation system provides these individuals with structured supervision and access to treatment programs that offer the tools they need to lead productive lives. In the United States alone, approximately 90,700 dedicated probation officers and correctional treatment specialists work every day to reduce recidivism and promote public safety. I want to thank them for their hard work and dedicated service. Last December, on the sixth anniversary of the First Step Act, another landmark piece of criminal justice reform legislation, I highlighted that most people who are incarcerated will ultimately be released, so we must prepare them for a successful reentry. The First Step Act is bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation designed to make our justice system fairer and our communities safer by changing sentencing laws and providing opportunities for incarcerated people to prepare to reenter society successfully. I was proud to champion this landmark legislation alongside Senators Grassley, Booker, and Lee. It took months of bipartisan negotiation and compromise. But the result was a historic victory that significantly improved our justice system. I can safely say that the Federal Probation Act laid the groundwork 100 years ago for legislation like the First Step Act. Today, we are all responsible for advancing this work through the passage of fair and effective criminal justice reforms. And I would like to thank the Administrative Office for the Courts' Office of Probation and Pretrial Services and the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services Officers Association for their continued partnership in leading this work. It is an honor to celebrate 100 years of this pivotal law.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, since he took office, President Trump, his unelected billionaire buddy Elon Musk, and their DOGE bros have begun to systematically dismantle the Federal Government. In their efforts to root out so-called ``government waste,'' President Trump and Elon are targeting and illegally terminating the Federal workforce, the employees who make our country run. These are the air traffic controllers who make sure your flights land safely, the workers responsible for sending Social Security checks out the door for millions of older Americans, the national security experts who keep our Nation safe from threats. These people are not loyal to any party or President. They are career civil servants devoted to serving Americans and answering to the Constitution. And they are being abruptly and illegally fired from critical positions across the government. Today, I will share the stories of four Federal employees with ties to Illinois who have been terminated in the President's DOGE rampage. One of my constituents has devoted his career to transit safety. He dreamed of working for the Federal Government. After working for a decade to make the Illinois transit system safer, he landed a job with the Federal Transit Administration in safety assurance, where he was hired to start a program that looked into transit safety hazards across the Nation. But after President Trump took office, he started to receive strange emails about his job. He was still on probation, but his performance was excellent, and even his managers did not know who was sending the emails. That was until February 14, when he was emailed that he had been terminated for poor performance, despite there being zero documentation suggesting lackluster work and glowing appraisals from his managers. He was given no severance or benefits. He was gutted. He had never been fired from a job before, and he loved his work. And more importantly, he worries about how he will take care of his two children--both of whom have autism. We need Federal employees to ensure our public transportation systems are safe. But now, his job investigating transport hazards sits vacant. Public transport is less safe as a result. How will firing transportation safety experts make America greater? If you live in Chicago, you will remember last July's derecho, when a record-breaking 32 tornadoes ripped through the Chicagoland area. Eric Carothers remembers it well. At the time, he was an intern for the National Weather Service in Chicago under their Pathways student program, which allowed him to gain experience at the National Weather Service while he was earning his graduate degree in meteorology. Eric has long been passionate about public service and meteorology. A career at the National Weather Service was a dream come true for him, and he expected to join its staff full-time after graduating from school this spring. That is until he was terminated last week--without cause. Americans rely on the National Weather Service for everything from knowing when to pack an umbrella to avoid being caught in a thunderstorm to staying safe during tornado clusters. Eric explained that meteorologists at the National Weather Service are already understaffed and overworked. He fears for what the terminations of younger staff will mean for expertise when more senior forecasters retire. Without passionate, dedicated, trained meteorologists, Americans' lives and property are at risk. How will firing workers in charge of warning the public of weather emergencies make America greater? Few of the President's actions have been as repulsive as putting veterans in the crosshairs of so-called ``government waste.'' I want to share the story of one employee, a woman who worked at the Marion VA Medical Center in southern Illinois. Every year, this facility serves 43,000 veterans. Like many VA employees, she received an email in the middle of the night informing her that she was fired from her logistical job that ensured the rural hospital's lab had what it needed for patient care. Her supervisor had no idea this was coming. Her coworkers were shocked. Her role was valuable to the lab, and she did good work. According to the cookie-cutter email, she, too, was being fired for ``poor performance.'' But how could that be true when she had just received an outstanding performance evaluation? It made no sense. And get this: She is a veteran. And her spouse is Active-Duty Army. Not only does this senseless firing hurt someone who so bravely served our Nation, but it will impact the ability of other veterans to receive the healthcare and benefits they need, earned, and deserve. How will firing veterans responsible for caring for other veterans make America greater? Last, I want to reiterate that what we do here at home reverberates around the world. One of my constituents spent 10 years dedicating his life to U.S. foreign policy at the State Department and USAID. He was already among the last staffers at USAID, where rounds of firings have hollowed out the Agency. But despite working for years to improve food security in countries of need around the world and despite exemplary performance reviews, he was fired. Further, he was posted overseas with a fellow public servant spouse. Now, he is essentially stranded abroad, fearing for his livelihood and future of his family. How will firing and abandoning Americans dedicated to helping others make America greater? Our Federal workforce is the backbone of this Nation. And their indiscriminate, unjust firings not only hurts them, but all Americans who rely on the government for critical services. It seems that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have mistaken the Federal Government for Silicon Valley. The old adage ``move fast and break things'' might ring true in the tech industry. But, in Washington, ``moving fast and breaking things'' leads to chaos that everyday Americans bear the brunt of and suffer from.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 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 Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks, several Federal judges have issued orders blocking unlawful actions taken by the Trump administration. In response, the administration's officials and allies have made worrisome statements criticizing Federal judges and the process of judicial review. Elon Musk, an unelected bureaucrat who is assisting this administration, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Federal judges and questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges that is enshrined in article III of the Constitution. President Trump's choice of Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, suggested on a podcast that the President set up a fake courtroom in the White House where ``he can just start making judicial decisions.'' Mr. Bongino added: If the judge is the executive, why can't the executive be the judge? Ask your stupid liberal friends that. As a reminder, Mr. Bongino is second-in-command at the FBI, the most powerful investigative Agency in the world. If he sounds like a political animal out of his element, you would not be wrong. But Mr. Bongino is not alone. Last week, a nominee to a senior position at the Department of Justice testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance, a public official is bound by a court decision. Let that sink in for a moment. This is a person who wants a senior position at the Department of Justice testifying under oath and saying: There is no hard and fast rule about whether, in every instance, a public official is bound by a court decision. In a social media post, Vice President 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 can defy court orders. President Trump himself recently posted: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law. That is a line that echoes others who believed they were above the law, a rationalization more common to leaders of a political coup in a banana republic. Let me repeat that quote from President Trump: He who saves his Country does not violate any Law. These efforts to intimidate judges and undermine the rule of law do not stop with these statements. The Speaker of the House said he agrees with Vice President Vance and urged the courts to ``take a step back.'' Three Members of the House of Representatives have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Federal judges simply because they ruled against the Trump administration. These remarks that I have quoted are not only wrong, they are constitutionally dangerous, and they pose a serious threat to our constitutional order and the separation of powers. Since the Supreme Court's landmark Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, there has been a broad bipartisan consensus throughout our history that, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, and I quote: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, the courts have the last word, and that responsibility takes on an outsized importance when the executive branch shows little regard for the limits of its constitutional power, as this administration already has. Under article II of the Constitution, the executive branch is charged with ``taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' but President Trump and his administration have ignored that responsibility. Let me give you one clear-cut, unequivocal example. President Trump summarily fired 18 inspectors general weeks into his Presidency. He wanted these investigative officials out of the picture. He did this despite the law that requires him as President to inform the Congress of the decision to dismiss or transfer an inspector general and provide a detailed explanation for doing so--that is what the law requires--at least 30 days before taking any action against them. When the executive branch blatantly violates the law, it is essential that the other branches of government fulfill their constitutional role and responsibilities. Thankfully, in the first weeks of the new Trump administration, the judicial branch has lived up to its responsibility. Judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, where appropriate, provided a check on the administration when it oversteps. Now, the fact that a court has made a decision does not mean you have to agree with it. John Kennedy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana, recently admonished two Trump nominees who suggested the executive branch can ignore a court order. Here is what my colleague Senator Kennedy 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. Now, I have disagreed with judicial decisions, including decisions of the Supreme Court. When that happens, I explain why I disagree. But I have never advocated ignoring or defying a court order. I never will. More than 60 years ago, President John Kennedy spoke about the importance of the rule of law in a speech at Vanderbilt University. As President Kennedy put it, ``for one man to defy a law or court order he does not like is to invite others to defy those which they do not like, leading to a breakdown of all justice and all order.'' We cannot allow any administration to defy a court order, period, and we cannot stand idly by as the President and his allies undermine the judiciary by attacking judges. That is why I introduced the resolution we are considering today. I want to thank my colleagues who cosponsored it and are joining me on the floor in this block of time. Our resolution simply affirms that the Constitution vests the judicial power in the Federal courts and affirms that both the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. These are not partisan talking points; they are basic principles of constitutional law, so fundamental and so essential to our constitutional order that they should go without saying. But in light of recent comments and actions by President Trump, Vice President Vance, and his administration and allies, some things must be said. So I ask my colleagues to say with one clear voice: The U.S. Senate supports the Constitution, the judicial branch, and the rule of law. Every Member of this body has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to fulfill their oaths today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my great honor to represent the State of Illinois in this Chamber for many years, and I have been present for a lot of proceedings which are memorable, some historic. I can't think of one, in its simplicity, that is as important as what we have witnessed in the last hour of debate. We are literally asking a fundamental question about our democracy that is seldom asked. It is rare that we have a circumstance where we have to ask it, but we certainly understand in this situation that it must be resolved. What I tried to do in establishing this resolution was to make it as pointed, as direct, and as simple as possible. There are ``Whereas'' clauses, which are of little or no consequence, but the resolution clause is so simple and direct that I want to repeat it before I make my request for unanimous consent: Resolved, That the Senate affirms that-- (1) Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests the ``judicial Power of the United States . . . in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish''; (2) as Chief Justice Marshall held in the Supreme Court's landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is''; and (3) the Constitution of the United States and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. That is it. It acknowledges article III establishing the courts. It acknowledges Marbury v. Madison, one of the very first cases any student of law in the United States must understand. And, No. 3, it says clearly the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. I am sorry that we have reached a point in our history where we even have to ask the question, but shame on us if we don't. This is not a political resolution. I have tried to make it as apolitical as possible because it gets to these basic principles. I want to thank my colleagues who came forward on the floor to say a word in support of this resolution. Now, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 108, Affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, which is at the desk; further, I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask a question of my friend the chairman when it comes to the modification which he is suggesting. Does this include, in one, request, both modifications?

Mr. DURBIN. So I want to make certain particularly that I understand the modification to the resolution clause. If I understand it correctly, you are adding a word. Perhaps you could clarify that as to whether or not there is a requirement of the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. Do you modify that particular sentence?

Mr. DURBIN. And do you add the word ``lawful''?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think I want to clarify for the record and for history so there is no dispute. There have been differences of opinion about court orders in the past. I would say without fear of contradiction that although President Biden's name has been mentioned repeatedly, particularly when it comes to the forgiveness of student loan debt, there was never any acknowledgement of defiance of any court order, period. There was a court order against the Biden administration, and President Biden did not agree with it but went forward with a different approach to the law. He was never found in contempt, nor was any suggestion made that he violated a court order. His name has been mentioned many times, but that just doesn't square with the reality. Here is the difficulty. Think about this for a second. Under Marbury v. Madison, we basically said it is the province and duty of the judicial department, judges and courts, to say what the law is. Then the modification being made by the Senator from Iowa says: You only have to abide by lawful court rulings. Did I state that correctly?

Mr. DURBIN. That is a fair criticism. I want to make it clear I am not saying that President Trump has violated a court order. I don't know that he has. The question is, Whenever an order is issued either for him or against him, will he obey the order? Will he acknowledge that that is his lawful responsibility? That is what it comes down to. I am not looking prospectively or in history--his brief time in the Presidency this round--but, rather, saying that whatever the court order in the future, whether for him or against him, he is bound by that court order. You have added the word ``lawful'' court order. I am not sure--if the court is to decide the law, and they decide in his favor, then the law is acknowledged to be binding on him and his actions. Conversely, if the ruling is against him and the court order is against him, I hope you would acknowledge that that is lawful and that he has to follow it even though they ruled against him. That is simple constitutional law. I am not presuming how the court will rule. I am saying that however it rules, he is bound by that ruling. Do you agree with me, Senator?

Mr. DURBIN. I acknowledge that as well. The question is, Does that mean that the executive branch is bound by the decision of the court and has to follow a court order, whether it is for or against the administration?

Mr. DURBIN. That is basic midwestern philosophy, which we share, and I don't disagree with you. But I think the addition of the word ``lawful'' in the final sentence equivocates on what the Constitution's clarity is. So I am going to object with the possibility that we can work on this together to see if there is a way to reach a conclusion. I think this is so basic. You have served honorably in the U.S. Senate for your entire career, and the point that I am getting to is that we ought to make certain that, moving forward, there is clarity on this most basic checks-and-balances constitutional provision.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is necessarily absent.