Richard Durbin

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 Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, did you see over the weekend Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, dancing on a stage with a chain saw? Did you see that? Most Americans did. That was his approach to DOGE government efficiency--take a chain saw to it, put an Agency like USAID in the ``wood chipper,'' in his words. Does this sound like a thoughtful approach to making government more efficient or does this sound like a meat-ax approach from a man who has no business being there, an unelected individual who somehow has been given authority by this President to lop off tens of thousands of jobs day in day out? Yes, we have gone to court. Many of the Agencies in the government-- the employees and their representatives--have gone to court to question this ham-handed approach to making this government work, and they have been successful in the overwhelming percentage to receive temporary restraining orders and the like because on its face, serious questions are raised as to the authority of this President. We have time-honored traditions when it comes to things like impoundment of Federal funds. The President cannot make that decision unilaterally. The power of the purse happens to be with the article I agency of the government, the legislature, not with the article II agency, the executive. As a consequence, when the President decides to do this unilaterally, he is being challenged in court, and he should be challenged in court. This is not just a political issue, as one Senator just described; it is more importantly a constitutional issue and a legal issue, and it is going to be resolved ultimately by the court. Perhaps the President will win some of his cases and lose others. But this is a legitimate exercise of the authority in the Constitution. I might add that this notion that we are going to start lopping off air traffic controllers and people who are responsible for aviation safety--I would just say to those who are for that and believe that is draining the swamp: Pay attention to what is happening across America. These terrible aviation disasters like the one that happened here in Washington, DC, should be taken seriously by us every day, and putting people in charge of these Departments who don't have adequate staff to monitor the flights of our Nation is active irresponsibility, as far as I am concerned. The same thing is true with avian flu. Yes, the price of eggs is terrible. One of the reasons is avian flu is killing off the flocks of laying hens. As a consequence, we have fewer eggs and higher prices. It is a very real concern because the avian flu is going to jump from these birds and fowl into the human chain, and we will face another pandemic. Do we want that? For God's sake, no. But the notion that we are going to lop off employees that are responsible for public health one after the other and somehow make this a safer nation is irresponsible on its face. Should it be challenged in court? Of course it should be, and I stand by that. I just want to say to the Senator and others who make these comments: Think about what you are inviting here, to give the President the authority this Congress has, the authority under the Constitution--to just give it away. Are we going to give away our responsibility under the Constitution because of the popularity of this President with some Members? I pray that we won't. (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 710 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, now on a totally different subject, I would like to tell you about one of my constituents. He is a man from New Lenox, IL, in the suburbs of Chicago. Late last year, he received an urgent phone call from someone claiming to be a deputy in the Will County Sheriff's Office. This self- proclaimed deputy informed my constituent that he had missed jury duty. As a result, the deputy said, there is a warrant out for your arrest. The man was stunned. Don't worry, the deputy further explained. The man could avoid arrest, put the whole matter behind him. All he had to do was pay the fine. But he couldn't pay it by check or credit card. The deputy directed the man to a local cryptocurrency ATM machine and told him to deposit $15,000 into the machine, pay the fine, and all would be forgiven. If you have been following the news, you might have guessed by now that the man on the phone wasn't a sheriff's deputy at all; he was a scammer. Once my constituent deposited his money into the crypto-ATM, it was gone--gone. There was no way to trace the transaction to the scammer and no way to get the money back. This is just one example of a growing and alarming trend of crypto- ATM fraud. There are now more than 30,000 crypto-ATMs in this country, and they are being used by criminals to cheat Americans out of their hard-earned savings, to the tune of $114 million in 2023 alone. Most of the victims are senior citizens. While these scams aren't all identical, they generally play out just like the one I described. A stranger calls and pretends to be from the government or the victim's bank. They make claims of unpaid fines, a frozen bank account, a credit card in default, or even threaten arrest. The scammer then tells their victim that they must immediately go to a crypto-ATM at a nearby grocery store, gas station, or convenience store. Often, the scammer will try to stay on the phone with the victim throughout the scam, warning of dire consequences if they don't make the payments immediately. It is a way of preventing their victim from getting a moment to take a breath and just maybe realize what is going on. Once the victim arrives at the crypto-ATM, the scammer will walk them through the process of depositing real money--cash--into the machine, buying Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, and sending it to the scammer's digital wallet. Last summer, a small business owner in my hometown of Springfield, IL, removed a crypto-ATM from the store after witnessing senior after senior walk in, talking on their phones, looking stressed, and depositing huge sums of cash into the machine. He said: One hundred percent of the time that we saw somebody at the machine they were being scammed. This is in a small store in Springfield, IL. It wasn't just happening there. There are tragic stories of seniors losing their savings through these machines in every State in America. A South Carolina retired couple lost $390,000 over the course of several months through a scam involving crypto-ATMs. Just this month, a sheriff's office in Walton County, FL, reported a resident that was cheated out of $129,000 through a crypto-ATM. It is past time that we put some commonsense guardrails in place to stop fraud in this largely unregulated industry. That is why, today, I am joining with Senators Blumenthal, Reed, and Welch to introduce the Crypto ATM Fraud Prevention Act. This bill will require crypto-ATM operators to warn consumers about scams and take reasonable steps to prevent fraud at their machines. It will also put in place measures to limit the amount that consumers lose when they do fall victim to scams and would give law enforcement new tools to track down and fight back against criminals. I want to share a few key measures in this bill with you. First, the bill will provide special protection for consumers during the 2 weeks after they make their first transaction at a crypto-ATM, the period when a consumer is most likely to be a victim of fraud. During this time, customers will be limited to deposits of $2,000 per day and $10,000 total. While this is still a lot of money, it ensures people's entire life savings are not put at risk. The bill will also require crypto-ATM operators to obtain verbal confirmation via a live phone call for any transaction with a new customer over $500. Do you remember when I told you scammers often stay on the phone with victims until the money has been deposited in their digital wallet? Well, this requirement will break that communication, give victims a chance to think, perhaps reach out to another member of the family, and make sure crypto-ATM operators can assess whether the customer is being scammed. Next, the bill requires crypto-ATM operators to give prominent, clear warnings about the risk of fraud and tell consumers about common types of scams. While warnings alone are not enough, they are part of the key to preventing fraud. Operators also will be required to issue paper receipts to customers after each transaction. The receipt will include, among other things, the date, time, and amount of the transaction and the transaction hash, which will allow law enforcement to more easily trace the transaction, collect evidence of the crime, and maybe even recover the stolen funds. Next, operators will be required to use the analytics to screen for suspicious, illicit transactions. Some companies are effectively using this technology already. It should be used across the board. Finally, crypto-ATM operators will be required to issue refunds to consumers who are victims of fraud. As long as victims make a sworn report to law enforcement and notify the operator within 30 days of the transaction, they will be entitled to a full refund. New customers will get full refunds. All other customers will be entitled to a refund of, at minimum, any fees associated with the transaction. These measures are commonsense guardrails that will prevent countless Americans, particularly senior citizens, from losing thousands of dollars of their hard-earned savings to criminal scams. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me to pass this bill into law. We don't have any time to waste. 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 Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the years, Federal funding for medical and scientific research has helped split the atom, defeat polio, create the internet, map the human genome, and so much more. No nation has ever made such a significant investment in science and medicine--none. And no nation's researchers have done more to approve the quality of life, not only here but around the world. But we are in a pivotal moment in history. All the progress we have made--all the progress we hope to make--is in danger because of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. That is right. These two men promised to bring down the price of eggs and gasoline and make housing more affordable. Well, none of that has happened. Instead, they are carrying out an unprecedented and devastating campaign to cut research on cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, dementia, and infectious diseases. Instead of making life better for Americans, they want to slash research funding for the National Institutes of Health. If you have never heard of this Agency, I hope you will Google it or take a look and research to figure out who they are and what they do. It is the premier medical research agency in the world. If you or someone you love receives a dreaded diagnosis, you turn to the doctor and ask: Is there a cure? A surgery? A medicine? I know I have been there and asked those very questions. There is a difference between the doctor saying, ``I'm sorry, there is nothing we can do'' and ``I have got some good news; there has been some research at NIH we should look into.'' You know all the miracle drugs you see on TV? You can't get away from them, can you? And 99 percent of those drugs approved in the last 10 years were the product, in some way, of NIH research. NIH funding is why people are beating cancer, why babies are being spared from preventable diseases, why HIV is no longer a death sentence, why progress is being made on dementia and other neurological diseases. Since the start of this administration, we have seen the White House unleash a lawless chaotic attack on everything from funding for farmers to biomedical research. Planes are crashing, and they are cutting aviation safety. Avian flu is on the rise and threatening to make that leap to humans, and we are cutting public health experts. Elon Musk dances across the stage with a chain saw; people laugh and cheer. First, let me tell you this: There is nothing to cheer about when it comes to medical research. It was this bizarre memo from Office of Management and Budget that illegally froze Federal grant funding. They even prohibited the recipients of Federal grants and medical research from physically meeting in the same place. Oh, you are going to hear arguments: We have got to cut back on the waste and fraud and abuse. I am all for that. But having researchers unable to even sit down and talk about the next breakthrough, how can that possibly be good for our country? These cuts that were announced by this administration were quickly halted by a Federal judge in a Federal court. There was comment on the floor earlier today that too many people are going to courts. Thank God they went to courts to keep this policy from being implemented by this administration. But it seems, even though the court made a ruling, this administration is still holding up funding in violation of the court's order. As a result, NIH is delayed awarding approximately $1 billion in grant funding, delaying research at institutions nationwide. Does the delay hurt? Not unless you are the one sitting in that waiting room at a doctor praying to God there is a breakthrough to save your child. Listen to what is at stake for one of my constituents, Dr. Timothy Koh, professor of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois in Chicago. For 15 years, Dr. Koh has been researching why people with diabetes develop wounds that do not heal, as well as researching treatments to address these wounds. While having steady Federal funding for his research through the years, Dr. Koh was recently informed in the last few weeks that his NIH grant application is on hold because of the Trump-Musk Federal funding freeze. His current grant is scheduled to end on Friday of this week. And if his grant is not renewed, he will have to lay off his lab staff and will see major setbacks in the research he has been involved in. Dr. Koh said: It's going to potentially put an end to my research career and we won't be able to develop these new therapies for diabetic [patients]. Is diabetes research important? If it is someone in your family, it is very important. Make no mistake, under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse--that is what it reads. But over the decades, bipartisan Members of Congress have worked in concert on a bipartisan basis to do something about NIH funding. It was a little over 10 years ago--Francis Collins, I consider to be an American hero and a saint. He headed up the NIH. And I went out to see him, and I said: I can't double your appropriation. I would do it if I could. What can I do to help you? He said: Give the NIH Agency 5 percent real growth every year, and I will tell you this: Two things will happen. We will line up the scoreboard with breakthroughs and cures for diseases in America; and, secondly, my researchers will take heart because one of the things that destroys their interest in pursuing a career is the uncertainty of Federal funding. Well, we went from $30 billion to $48 billion in 10 years because we had a bipartisan team to do it. Patty Murray joined me on the Democratic side. She has always been a champion of medical research; and on the Republican side, Senator Blunt of Missouri was the leader. He was the best. When he chaired a subcommittee on Appropriations that funded this Agency, he was committed to the 5 percent. And then Lamar Alexander of Tennessee--both of those gentlemen have retired. The four of us put together an effort to raise the NIH funding from $30 billion 10 years ago to $48 billion--a dramatic, dramatic increase. We did it because we all agreed this is not a partisan issue. It should never be. We knew that NIH funding leads to new cures and treatments for patients in need. It supports well-paying jobs nationwide. And it cements our global leadership. Illinois universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.2 billion in NIH funding a year, which supports 14,000 jobs in our State and 3.5 billion in economic activity. But I will tell you, Mr. President, virtually every State in the Nation can tell that story in one form or another. Each year, the State of Wyoming receives approximately $12 million in NIH funding. Now, Wyoming is a small State, but they clearly have good research facilities that merit NIH grants. This money supports 265 jobs in Wyoming and $49 million dollars in economic activity. The top NIH funded institution in Wyoming is the University of Wyoming. With this NIH funding, researchers at the University of Wyoming have recently conducted the following projects. See if any of these sound close to home or close to your family: No. 1, why Alzheimer's disease and dementia can worsen at specific hours of the day. No. 2, a project in Wyoming, links between menopause and cardiovascular disease in women. And developing a new noninvasive tool to help treat people suffering from epilepsy, schizophrenia, anxiety, and autism. They all sound like worthy projects to me. Unfortunately, President Trump and Elon Musk aren't finished there. They tried indiscriminately to slash how NIH pays for indirect costs. Without funding, universities wouldn't be able to afford the technology that allows them to conduct research. Cuts to indirect costs are, simply, cuts to research, period. The other day, we had a debate on the floor on this NIH. One of the Republican Senators talked about the outrageous outlying indirect cost in this country. Let's look at them. Let's review them. But to stop all meetings of all medical researchers while we do this, to stop the funding for all the grantees, to stop all of the medical research because there might be 1 or 2 or 10 schools that ask for too much or hospitals--thankfully, the Illinois Attorney General, along with 21 other States' leading attorneys general, sued and secured a temporary reprieve for universities and researchers. Trump and Musk illegally froze Federal medical research funding. They tried to illegally cut funding for medical research, and now they are firing the medical researchers themselves. Reports indicate that 1,200 NIH employees have been fired so far, from experienced vaccine researchers to the next generation of scientists to the Acting Director of the NIH's Alzheimer's and dementia program. Further, Trump and Musk have reportedly ended a popular trainee program that brought 1,600 young scientists just out of college to the NIH world-renowned campus in Maryland to get them started working in labs and eventually running labs. They are our future when it comes to medical research, and the Trump and Musk chain saw of chaos of budget cuts has made them victims. How does this make us a greater nation? How does this make us a healthier nation? A better nation? It doesn't. NIH research leads to new cures and treatments that extend, improve, and save lives, which is why I am introducing this resolution today to simply say to Senators of both sides of the aisle: Let's pledge our support to make NIH an exception. Let us not let wanton cuts stop something very valuable. The resolution is straightforward. It says: The work of NIH should not be subject to interruption, delay, or funding disruption in violation of the law--in violation of the law. And it reaffirms that the workforce at NIH is essential to sustaining medical progress. Can we really debate that point? Do we think the best medical research Agency in the world is being staffed by people who aren't the best? This is not controversial. It shouldn't be. Americans get sick on a bipartisan basis; shouldn't we support medical research on a bipartisan basis? For as long as I can stand and for as long as I can speak, I will fight to protect NIH and medical research. I hope my Republican colleagues wake up and join me before it is too late. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 93, submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if standing in this Senate and asking Republicans and Democrats to come together to preserve and build medical research is a waste of time, what in the world are we doing here? If you were asked to take the Federal budget and put your priorities in there, maybe No. 1 would be national defense. Well, I might make that No. 1 as well; but I can tell you, No. 2 is medical research. Because what happens when you reach a point where you cut off medical research? These researchers leave the laboratories and say: Honey, I don't know if I will have a job here next year. Let's start looking someplace else. That is not an unusual thing to occur. So the next generation of researchers are being discouraged by the uncertainty of funding, and this notion that we have to get spending under control--how much does it cost to find a cure? What does it cost to have no cure? Let's get down to the bottom line here. We are talking about how long people stay in the hospital or whether they are alive at the end of the experience or not. Some of these medical treatments they have to turn to are extremely expensive, unless you can find a cure at the front end of it. And you don't find it by saying, Well, maybe next year we will spend some money on medical research. That isn't the way it works. You want to have a good doctor you can trust from year to year, not a new one every year with a question mark. The same thing is true with researchers. If you have the best researchers, why in the world would you discourage them from their continued work? I listened to this comment about $48 billion. It is a lot of money, for sure. That is taxpayers' money, and I take it very seriously. But how much do you think it would cost if we didn't find these cures, didn't find these drugs? What would it cost in human terms and the experience of families who would give up hope because there is no place to turn? That is the reality. We all have friends--and I had one today--I won't get into the details--who has just learned that he has pancreatic cancer. We don't have a cure yet. If we could find one, do you know how that would change the lives of so many people and their families? Is that worth putting our research into, our tax dollars into, or is it, as the Senator who objected to my resolution said, just wasting time here on the floor? Well, I am going to come back and waste time over and over again. I am not giving up on this. I am not giving up on families who are waiting for cures and research. I am not giving up on the researchers who dedicate their lives to finding them. Of course, if we have some overspending, whether it is at Harvard or Illinois or even the University of Wyoming, let's clean it up. But is it possible to clean that up without jeopardizing the basic mission of the National Institutes of Health? I certainly hope so. To think that we would have to close down the whole Agency because a handful of schools are overcharging the Federal Government--and there is no proof that they are--I think that is part of the reality. This is an issue that is important to every single American whether they know it or not. We can get spending under control and do it thoughtfully but not at the expense of the best researchers in the world and the expense of cures which would give families hope once and for all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, now on a totally different subject, I would like to tell you about one of my constituents. He is a man from New Lenox, IL, in the suburbs of Chicago. Late last year, he received an urgent phone call from someone claiming to be a deputy in the Will County Sheriff's Office. This self- proclaimed deputy informed my constituent that he had missed jury duty. As a result, the deputy said, there is a warrant out for your arrest. The man was stunned. Don't worry, the deputy further explained. The man could avoid arrest, put the whole matter behind him. All he had to do was pay the fine. But he couldn't pay it by check or credit card. The deputy directed the man to a local cryptocurrency ATM machine and told him to deposit $15,000 into the machine, pay the fine, and all would be forgiven. If you have been following the news, you might have guessed by now that the man on the phone wasn't a sheriff's deputy at all; he was a scammer. Once my constituent deposited his money into the crypto-ATM, it was gone--gone. There was no way to trace the transaction to the scammer and no way to get the money back. This is just one example of a growing and alarming trend of crypto- ATM fraud. There are now more than 30,000 crypto-ATMs in this country, and they are being used by criminals to cheat Americans out of their hard-earned savings, to the tune of $114 million in 2023 alone. Most of the victims are senior citizens. While these scams aren't all identical, they generally play out just like the one I described. A stranger calls and pretends to be from the government or the victim's bank. They make claims of unpaid fines, a frozen bank account, a credit card in default, or even threaten arrest. The scammer then tells their victim that they must immediately go to a crypto-ATM at a nearby grocery store, gas station, or convenience store. Often, the scammer will try to stay on the phone with the victim throughout the scam, warning of dire consequences if they don't make the payments immediately. It is a way of preventing their victim from getting a moment to take a breath and just maybe realize what is going on. Once the victim arrives at the crypto-ATM, the scammer will walk them through the process of depositing real money--cash--into the machine, buying Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, and sending it to the scammer's digital wallet. Last summer, a small business owner in my hometown of Springfield, IL, removed a crypto-ATM from the store after witnessing senior after senior walk in, talking on their phones, looking stressed, and depositing huge sums of cash into the machine. He said: One hundred percent of the time that we saw somebody at the machine they were being scammed. This is in a small store in Springfield, IL. It wasn't just happening there. There are tragic stories of seniors losing their savings through these machines in every State in America. A South Carolina retired couple lost $390,000 over the course of several months through a scam involving crypto-ATMs. Just this month, a sheriff's office in Walton County, FL, reported a resident that was cheated out of $129,000 through a crypto-ATM. It is past time that we put some commonsense guardrails in place to stop fraud in this largely unregulated industry. That is why, today, I am joining with Senators Blumenthal, Reed, and Welch to introduce the Crypto ATM Fraud Prevention Act. This bill will require crypto-ATM operators to warn consumers about scams and take reasonable steps to prevent fraud at their machines. It will also put in place measures to limit the amount that consumers lose when they do fall victim to scams and would give law enforcement new tools to track down and fight back against criminals. I want to share a few key measures in this bill with you. First, the bill will provide special protection for consumers during the 2 weeks after they make their first transaction at a crypto-ATM, the period when a consumer is most likely to be a victim of fraud. During this time, customers will be limited to deposits of $2,000 per day and $10,000 total. While this is still a lot of money, it ensures people's entire life savings are not put at risk. The bill will also require crypto-ATM operators to obtain verbal confirmation via a live phone call for any transaction with a new customer over $500. Do you remember when I told you scammers often stay on the phone with victims until the money has been deposited in their digital wallet? Well, this requirement will break that communication, give victims a chance to think, perhaps reach out to another member of the family, and make sure crypto-ATM operators can assess whether the customer is being scammed. Next, the bill requires crypto-ATM operators to give prominent, clear warnings about the risk of fraud and tell consumers about common types of scams. While warnings alone are not enough, they are part of the key to preventing fraud. Operators also will be required to issue paper receipts to customers after each transaction. The receipt will include, among other things, the date, time, and amount of the transaction and the transaction hash, which will allow law enforcement to more easily trace the transaction, collect evidence of the crime, and maybe even recover the stolen funds. Next, operators will be required to use the analytics to screen for suspicious, illicit transactions. Some companies are effectively using this technology already. It should be used across the board. Finally, crypto-ATM operators will be required to issue refunds to consumers who are victims of fraud. As long as victims make a sworn report to law enforcement and notify the operator within 30 days of the transaction, they will be entitled to a full refund. New customers will get full refunds. All other customers will be entitled to a refund of, at minimum, any fees associated with the transaction. These measures are commonsense guardrails that will prevent countless Americans, particularly senior citizens, from losing thousands of dollars of their hard-earned savings to criminal scams. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me to pass this bill into law. We don't have any time to waste. 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 Virginia (Mr. Kaine) 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. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

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, it was nearly 40 years ago President Ronald Reagan went to the Brandenburg Gate, the Berlin Wall, and he said to the Soviets, ``Tear down this wall.'' Ronald Reagan understood all too well what the Soviet regime was all about: It was a regime that had seized Eastern Europe and condemned millions of individuals to live under a cruel and repressive communist dictatorship. My mother's family originally came from Lithuania, once an independent country, then a republic of the Soviet Union, now an independent democratic country again. That country meant a lot, and still does, to my family. I certainly recall the stories of my grandparents leaving the Russian domination and coming to America. Until recently, Americans across the political spectrum, including Republican Presidents and Members of Congress, saw Russian tyranny for what it was--until now. Today, we see President Trump doing the bidding of Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin. That is right: The President of the United States of America is using talking points that sound like they were whispered in his ear by the Kremlin, all while denigrating and bullying our true allies in the region. If you don't believe me, listen to these quotes and try to guess whether Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump said them. First, outrageously claiming Ukraine started the war with Russia: It's they who have started the war. Or: You've been there for three years. You should have ended it. You should have never started it. How about attacking the legitimacy of heroic wartime Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy, who was democratically elected in a free and fair election--something that has never taken place in Russia. The legitimacy of the incumbent head of state of Ukraine is over. Or calling him ``a dictator without elections.'' In each of these stunning examples, one was spoken by Putin, the other by Trump. It is impossible to guess which is which, but you would be hard-pressed to figure it out because they are both using the same Kremlin propaganda. It gets worse, with Donald Trump having negotiated away in public the key concessions to Russia to end the war, including appeasement of Ukraine's sovereign borders or possible future NATO membership. Trump, with not even a phone call, gave those away without even negotiating and certainly didn't involve the Ukrainians, who have lost 46,000 brave Ukrainians who have died because of Putin's invasion. Today, in a stunning, shameful move, the United States voted with Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and a handful of other dictatorships at the United Nations against a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. I want to repeat that because it is so historic and so mind-boggling. There was a resolution before the United Nations condemning Russia on the third anniversary of their invasion of Ukraine, and the United States' representative voted against it, joined in that effort by Russia, itself, North Korea, Belarus, and a handful of other dictatorships. What in the world is going on here? Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said of this tragic and unbelievable state of affairs that it sounded like there was a handout prepared by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov from which the Trump administration was reading. He warned if Trump continues to back Russia: Threats to Ukrainian security will grow immensely. Putin will get braver. Meaning, there will be more war, more invasion, more death in Moldova, the Baltics, Georgia, maybe even Poland. President Trump's affinity for autocrats like Putin and selling out or bullying our allies isn't going to make America stronger or our world safer. Nor will his petulant and bumbling weekend gutting of our top military officers--a troubling act that raises serious questions about politicizing our proud, professional fighting force in America. Let me be clear: We cannot let President Trump rewrite history or upend proven alliances with decades of bipartisan support. Because of the NATO alliance, we have avoided a third world war for more than 75 years. That is a fact. Ultimately, only the Ukrainian people can decide Ukraine's future. For the United States to be party to any other scheme or conspiracy is just unacceptable. Doing the bidding of foreign dictators and playing politics with our own military only undermine America's ability to be safe. Today is the third-year anniversary of Russia's unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am glad to join Senators Shaheen, Tillis, Wicker, and others in leading a simple resolution that expresses continued solidarity with the people of Ukraine and condolences for the loss of thousands of lives to Russian aggression. I would think that every Senator of both political parties would sign on, but fortunately we do have a few, and it is bipartisan. The resolution goes on to reject Russia's attempts to militarily seize sovereign Ukraine territory. It reaffirms U.S. support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. That used to be so obvious and so easy, no one would enter a resolution into the Record, but because of the new statements by President Trump and Vice President Vance, it is necessary to state unequivocally that Ukraine must be at the table for negotiations over its future. Think of that--46,000 people in Ukraine died to stop Putin's advance and invasion of Ukraine--46,000--and there was a suggestion that the negotiations for peace in the country would take place without Ukraine seated at the table. How can that be possible? This resolution is straightforward. It expresses what would have-- before this current administration--been seen as a cut-and-dried statement of American values when standing up to bullies and tyrants like Vladimir Putin, a known war criminal. I am also introducing a bill to grant Ukrainians who fled the war and are already legally present in the United States with temporary guest status. Oh, I know, it is immigration. It is an explosive issue. How in the world could we consider it? Let me tell you what happened in the city of Chicago. The Governor of Texas sent 50,000 migrants in buses--800 buses--to the city of Chicago to dump these migrants into a situation where there was no place for them to stay, no provision for their food. It was an emergency situation. We did the humane thing. We did our best to take care of them and the children--50,000 from Texas. It was a controversial issue, and there were some who said ``Don't spend a penny on them; spend it just on American citizens'' and others who said ``We have an obligation that goes beyond simple citizenship. It is a human obligation, a moral obligation,'' and we did it. At the same time that took place, there were 50,000 Ukrainians coming into the city of Chicago as well--different circumstances. They had to have a host family that would stand by them as they settled down in the city of Chicago, and they had to find jobs. Do you know how much controversy there was about those 50,000 Ukrainians? None. They were assimilated into the economy and have become an important part of the city and our State, and I am proud that they are there. So now what happens to them? The uncertainty of the continuing war in Ukraine, the embracing of Putin by President Trump--what is going to happen? With this United Nations resolution today, where we were just asked to acknowledge the war of 3 years and to stand by the Ukrainians, the United States voted no. The United States voted with Russia, with North Korea, and with Belarus. We have to do something to help these Ukrainians who are here, who escaped the invasion of Putin and found peace and security in our country. When the war started, across the country, Republicans opened their arms and hearts and communities to these desperate Ukrainians, even actively petitioning President Biden to protect them from deportation. So far, not a single Republican has cosponsored my bill. It is a new day in Washington. But I urge them to join this simple act of American compassion. Standing up to dictators and speaking out for victims of war should never be a partisan issue. I want to end with a photo. The year was 2014 when the late Senator John McCain and I led a bipartisan delegation to Ukraine that included current colleagues from Rhode Island, Wyoming, and North Dakota. At the time, Russia had begun its attempts to seize Crimea and capture additional territory in the eastern part of Ukraine. Ukrainians had just bravely stood up for their own democracy, many paying with their lives in Maidan Square--an aspiration for freedom and democracy that frightened Putin and confirmed my belief in the strength of the human spirit. You see here in this photo we are laying flowers on the makeshift shrines to those Ukrainians who were killed in the earliest days of their heroic effort to save their nation. We should show no less courage here today on a bipartisan basis in making sure Ukraine's sovereignty and future are secure and not giving in, in appeasement to Putin--a move that could cost us dearly in the future. It is personal to me. I mentioned to you earlier that my mother was born in the Baltic nation of Lithuania. It has been my good fortune to visit it during Soviet times and see the terrible impact of communism on the freedom of those people and to be standing by their side when they fought to have the day when they could have their own democracy and their own elections. They survived. They prospered. They are great nations--Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia--and I know that their future is at stake by this decision by President Trump. You cannot embrace Vladimir Putin and ignore the obvious. He is a thug. He has sent his invading troops in and killed 46,000 Ukrainians. Well, they say he has lost 800,000 of his own. Well, I am sorry that happened in a way, but he asked for it. He invaded Ukraine--don't make any mistake. It didn't happen the other way around. The Ukrainians didn't invade themselves. What kind of nonsense was that being spoken by the President? We have to stand by the people of Ukraine and for the people of the Baltics, Moldova, and other states, like Poland, that are vulnerable to attack by Vladimir Putin. This is not a political charade. It is not a political game. It is the life-and-death reality of this dangerous world we live in. Once again, the United States should be leading in democratic values and certainly not embracing the war criminal Vladimir Putin.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in about 2 hours, the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Kash Patel to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the next 10 years--10 years. If Senate Republicans confirm Mr. Patel, I believe they will come to regret this vote--probably sooner rather than later. I, for one, am convinced that Mr. Patel has neither the experience, the judgment, nor the temperament to lead this amazing criminal investigative Agency. It appears my Senate Republican colleagues are ignoring the many redflags in Mr. Patel's record, probably because they fear retribution from the President and Mr. Musk. Let me be clear: This is not a partisan issue. During my time in the Senate, I have voted for four FBI Director nominations before this one. Each one was clearly a Republican, and I voted for them nevertheless. Historically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been apolitical. I oppose Mr. Patel because he is dangerously politically extreme. He has repeatedly expressed his intention to use our Nation's most important law enforcement Agency to retaliate against his political enemies. Even before President Trump took office, Mr. Patel announced that he would force out FBI Director Chris Wray, whom he nominated in his first term before firing former FBI Director Jim Comey. The Director is the only political appointment at the FBI. Congress took steps to ensure that this Agency remains as apolitical as possible by providing for a single term of 10 years for Director and subjecting the appointment to the advice and consent of the Senate. Fifty years ago, we made this reform. We may see it all fall to ashes today. As we have seen for weeks now, the Trump administration's purge of the FBI is a political exercise that has spread to service career officials. There is the FBI Agents Association, and the two leaders of that association came to see me recently in my office to talk about the situation. Both of them are women. One is serving 17 years in the career job at the FBI and the other, 22. They were quick to add that their fathers had been FBI agents before that. It was clearly in their blood. They came to tell me about the situation at the FBI today because of this transition and because of the prospect of Kash Patel heading their Agency. They said morale has never been lower. They have gone through many Presidential transitions and have never seen anything like this. The declaration that is required now of FBI agents is to whether they will participate in the investigation of the January 6 rioters who assaulted this United States Capitol Building. Let's be honest about what is going on here. There is an effort to have Soviet-style historical revision. The Trump administration and the people they are pushing into leadership have to, basically, pass a loyalty of--in terms of the outcome of the previous Presidential election and what happened on January 6. They are somehow asked to ignore the obvious that we see on the videotape over and over again. The rioters that assaulted this Capitol are so dangerous that the Vice President of the United States sitting in your chair was physically removed by the Secret Service for fear that he was going to be hurt if he stayed in his position. Those of us who were on the floor of the Senate on January 6 were asked to evacuate this Chamber as quickly as possible. This was not simply a question of tourists getting out of line. These people who assaulted this U.S. Capitol Building were hell-bent on stopping the constitutional process of counting the electoral votes in the 2020 election. And now the FBI and others are being asked to say the opposite, that this wasn't somehow a breach of law, a horrendous, terrible chapter in the history of this country, and that there was danger afoot. Because the President has given a sweeping pardon for the 1,600 that were prosecuted for trespass, seditious conspiracy, and use of firearms in the Capitol and the like, we are supposed to somehow discount this as a significant moment in American history. It was. For the FBI agents who participated in the investigation of that day, I say they were doing their job, they did it well, and now to remove them from the FBI because of that has obviously hurt the morale of the FBI Agency. When you stop and wonder what the future holds for them if another President comes in with another political agenda, will they be victims again? As we have seen for weeks now, the Trump administration's purge of the FBI is a political exercise that has spread to senior current officials. In the FBI's long, long history, this has never happened before. This purge has dramatically weakened the FBI's ability to combat national security threats and make America less safe. Senior leaders with collectively hundreds of years of experience have been forced out, creating a leadership vacuum. Thousands of line agents fear losing their jobs simply because they were assigned to work on cases involving the January 6 attack by President Trump. I have heard directly from FBI agents who now fear for their safety and the safety of their families. To understand why, let me tell you about a January 6 rioter named Edward Kelley. Mr. Kelley was convicted of assaulting law enforcement during the attack on the U.S. Capitol. We saw it, didn't we, in terms of the videotapes that showed our law enforcement agents trying to stand their ground of this Capitol Building being beaten back and assaulted by these mobs? Mr. Kelley was convicted of assault on law enforcement, and he was given a full and unconditional pardon by Donald Trump. But Mr. Kelley has also been convicted in his home State of Tennessee of conspiracy to murder the FBI agents who investigated his role in the January 6 attack. Understand this: Now he is arguing that President Trump's blanket pardon--Mr. Kelley--should cover his attempt to kill FBI agents. When asked about the possible firings of career FBI officials at his confirmation hearing, Mr. Patel under oath--under oath--said ``I don't know what's going on right now,'' at the FBI. Mr. President, that is not true. Thanks to multiple brave whistleblowers, we now know that Mr. Patel likely committed perjury in making that statement. Even before being confirmed as an FBI Director, Mr. Patel is already directing the ongoing purge of honorable, career public servants, despite his status as a private citizen. He has no right to be part of this awful process. I urge my Republican colleagues to seriously consider these credible whistleblower allegations before you vote on Mr. Patel's nomination. Mr. Patel's claim about an FBI purge were not his only misleading statements under oath. At his hearing, Mr. Patel implausibly told me he could not recall Stew Peters, a man who has been identified as an anti- Semitic Holocaust denier. I asked him repeatedly: What about Stew Peters? Don't know the man, don't recognize the name. This is simply not true, considering that Mr. Patel appeared on Mr. Peters' podcast eight times, Mr. President--eight times and he couldn't recall the man's name. Mr. Peters has since revealed that he and Mr. Patel directly communicate via their personal cell phones ``constantly''-- ``constantly'' was the word he used. As far as Patel is concerned under oath: Never heard of the man. Why in the world would he do that? Why wouldn't Mr. Patel admit the obvious--eight podcasts and constant communication with this man. And an even larger question: What is he doing as the man who wants to direct the FBI in concert with anti-Semitic Holocaust denier Stew Peters? What is going on here? Is he showing good judgment? Is this the kind of person you want to put in charge of 38,000 criminal investigators? Mr. Patel also claimed he ``didn't have anything to do with'' the recording of the so-called January 6 prison choir, which included at least six rioters who violently assaulted police officers. Mr. Patel thinks there is something interesting, maybe even amusing, about the fact that he created a choir of these individuals who had been prosecuted for what they did on January 6. Here is what Mr. Patel said to Steve Bannon after he denied knowing anything about this recording before the Judiciary Committee's recently. He said to Steve Bannon: We got this idea to record the January 6 prisoners who recite the national anthem every night from the D.C. prison. Then we took that to the studio. So we mastered and digitized that. So as Steve Bannon showed, he is the mastermind behind this recording of these prisoners saying something about the national anthem every night. That particular tape that he created of the January 6 choir was taken to Trump rallies to be played as some kind of interesting display of what Patel insists are just political prisoners. One of Mr. Patel's choir boys, Julian Khater, K-H-A-T-E-R, was convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers with pepper spray. One of those officers was Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Brian Sicknick suffered multiple strokes and died a day after the attack. Mr. Khater was one of the people who assaulted him. Mr. Patel has called these violent January 6 rioters political prisoners. That includes Guy Reffitt. Guy Reffitt was sentenced to 87 months in prison for his role in the January 6 assault--87 months. Mr. Reffitt brought a gun to the Capitol on January 6 and recorded himself saying the following, which I will paraphrase because I don't want to use profanity on the floor of the Senate: We are all going to drag them out kicking and screaming. I just want to see Pelosi's head hit every effing stair on the way out and Mitch McConnell, too. Eff them all. Mr. Reffitt's 19-year-old son Jackson turned him into law enforcement after the attack, despite Reffitt's threats to shoot Jackson and his sister. Here is what Reffitt said to his own children: If you turn me in, you're a traitor, and you know what happens to traitors? Traitors get shot. Mr. Reffitt received a full and unconditional pardon from President Trump. Guess where he was on January 30 this year? Back at the Capitol complex at Mr. Patel's confirmation hearing. Here is what Mr. Reffitt posted on social media from the hearing room: Present and in support of @Kash<Patel as the leftist commies continue to spew lies, misinformation and disinformation. My man Klean House Kash . . . Stew Peters: constant communication, holocaust denier; this gentleman he has become a hero to for his appearance before the committee; and we are all commies for questioning Kash Patel's politics and what it has led to. These are Mr. Patel's allies: Stew Peters; Julian Khater; and Guy Reffitt. On the other hand, consider who is warning us about Mr. Patel: former Trump officials who know him, like Attorney General Bill Barr, CIA Director Haspel, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and National Security Adviser John Bolton. All of these were Republican appointees who worked with Patel, who know him well, and warn us not to do this, don't give this responsibility to this man--all Republican appointees. Mr. Patel has left a long trail of grievances, lashing out at anyone who is not completely aligned with him. He calls Democrats ``vindictive, evil, and vicious'' and repeatedly attacks Republican Senators who don't toe the MAGA line. I read Mr. Patel's book ``Government Gangsters.'' It includes an enemies list at the end of the book, 60 names, ``members of the deep state'' in the word of Kash Patel, which includes distinguished public servants for both political parties. What do they all have in common, the 60 people on this hit list? From Attorney General Bill Barr and Merrick Garland to former FBI Directors Bob Mueller and Chris Wray, they all had the misfortune of crossing paths with the vindictive Kash Patel. Mr. Patel claims he respects law enforcement, but his words and actions demonstrate his disdain for the FBI. He said on day one he plans to ``shut down'' the FBI headquarters, and he has falsely claimed that the FBI ``was planning January 6 for a year'' beforehand. There is no truth to that statement, Mr. President. He is casting aspersions on the FBI that are undeserved. Mr. Patel's record demonstrates that he is dangerous, inexperienced, and dishonest. He should not and cannot serve as an effective FBI Director. Mr. Patel has been crystal clear that he plans on using the FBI's vast surveillance and investigative authority to ``come after'' the President's enemies. It is shocking that my Republican colleagues are willing to support him, despite the serious threat he poses to our national security. And I am sorry to say I believe that we will quickly come to regret this vote. When I think of giving this man a 10-year--10 years as the Director of the leading criminal investigative Agency in the world, I cannot imagine a worse choice. You want the person who has that job and that power to destroy people simply by investigation to show some temperament and some judgment. Kash Patel shows just the opposite. He is neither qualified nor prepared to assume this responsibility. I will be voting no and plead with my Republican colleagues: Please think twice before creating this situation and making it even worse. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues know, as I do, that President Trump's cuts, freezes, gag orders, and firings are devastating medical research at NIH. Since we get sick on a bipartisan basis, shouldn't we stand together on a bipartisan basis for medical research at NIH?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, it was nearly 3 years ago that the world watched in horror as Russia pursued a bloody, full-scale invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. I was in Vilnius, Lithuania, with my colleague Senator Chris Coons on that cold, dark morning in the airport when we heard reports first trickle out that the war was, again, starting in Europe. Three years ago, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not a partisan issue in the United States. Congressmen, Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed on the basic facts: Russia was waging an unprovoked, illegal war and must be stopped at all costs. And for the past 3 years, we have supported Ukraine with the funding it needed to beat back Russian aggression and defend the frontline of democracy in Europe. And the Ukrainian people have done just that. Forty-six thousand Ukrainian lives have been lost--46,000 defending their Nation against Putin. We have joined with our NATO allies and many other countries around the world standing by Ukraine, and they have shown an extraordinary courage, a courage for the history books. But it turns out that the new President of the United States, Donald Trump, does not see this the same way as I do and as we have for 3 years. The fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump is a pushover for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has always been, and he will always be. Since Trump took office, he has played right into Putin's hands. The outrageous comments he posted today on Truth Social make that painfully clear. In the post, Trump attacked not Putin for the invasion but the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy--blaming him for Russia's invasion which, as I said, has killed more than 46,000 Ukrainians and displaced millions more. It is disgusting to say that President Trump called Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, a ``dictator without elections.'' Can you believe it? An American President is selling out a democratic leader who is bravely defending his country from an actual dictator, Putin--a former KGB apparatchik at that. It is insulting to say that--it is shameful--but from this President, it is no surprise. President Trump is doing nothing more than parroting criminal propaganda and spreading lies that Putin whispers into his ear. I could call on Trump to apologize to the people of Ukraine, who have suffered so much because of this disruption to their nation, but it would be a waste of breath. Let me be clear to President Trump: You don't make America great by selling out our Nation and our allies to a Russian dictator. Most of my Republican colleagues know this. I have spoken with them over the years. They have joined me in a bipartisan coalition to be part of the Ukrainian Caucus in the Senate, but it is time now for them to speak up. I know they are politically fearful of Donald Trump and his power. If they say the wrong thing, he, with Elon Musk's money, will come in and take them out in the primary. But there has to be a point where they stand up and say what they really believe and have the courage to do it. I am reminded of a quote from a fellow Illinoisan, our Nation's 16th President. It was 1865. Our Nation had been torn apart by the bloodshed of the Civil War. Ahead of his inauguration for a second term, President Abraham Lincoln addressed the Nation--right out there. He said: Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive . . . and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. Although President Lincoln was referring to the two factions of the Civil War, I believe it applies here as well. Putin has made war rather than let Ukraine survive, and Ukraine has had no choice but to accept war rather than see itself perish. President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people have led that noble effort with strength, fortitude, and determination. As their ally and fellow democracy, which Putin certainly is not, and as a nation committed to freedom, the United States of America has an obligation to stand by Ukraine, not to appease Putin.