Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the past five decades, Americans have relied on Amtrak to travel our great Nation. From shuttling President Biden between Delaware and Washington during his early days as a Senator to giving people across the country a way of getting to work and special destinations, Amtrak is an invaluable service to our Nation. And Raymond Lang, who recently retired from Amtrak after 30 years of service, has been an invaluable part of Amtrak. Ray's career at Amtrak started from humble beginnings, as an intern in Amtrak's government affairs office in 1994. From the start, he was hard-working, reliable, and he loved the work. So, when Amtrak created business units, Ray saw an opportunity to join the company full time, and in 1996, he was dispatched to the Chicago-based intercity business unit's government affairs office. His territory was broad and challenging to manage, with many relationships that required careful attention. At the time, Amtrak was experiencing significant financial challenges, resulting in reduced service. But Ray worked tirelessly-- almost always traveling by train--to meet with local and State officials, bringing their perspective and experiences back to Amtrak leadership. In the end, Amtrak restored much of their service. Ray carried this specialized knowledge with him for the rest of his career with Amtrak. Learning about the communities his company served helped them to become some of the strongest advocates for the future of rail. There were very few mayors, city managers, State legislators, or rail advocates in towns served by Amtrak who did not know Ray. He and his team were ambassadors for rail, mobilizing mayors to speak up on behalf of expanding and improving Amtrak service and making station revitalization a priority in their communities. Over the years, Ray left his mark on Amtrak, resulting in promotions into positions with greater responsibility and authority. He was integral to keeping the legendary Southwest Chief--a long-distance route between Chicago and Los Angeles--on its current route, thereby keeping rail service in several Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico towns. He provided testimony to State legislatures and formed partnerships with State departments of transportation staff and leadership. He helped inaugurate service on countless routes and was instrumental in helping Illinois double its service in the 2000s. And, by the early 2000s, he was running the Chicago government affairs office, later becoming responsible for all State and local government affairs and leading a staff based in New York, New Orleans, Seattle, and Oakland. Ray was a visible, respected, and accessible leader. And he truly cared about Amtrak and all of the communities it served. He worked for eight CEOs, all of whom relied on Ray for guidance across the network. Ray, always sharply dressed, would escort them to meetings, hearings, and local communities. On one such trip, Ray was traveling to communities along the California Zephyr route with CEO David Gunn. Visiting a mayor in Mount Pleasant, IA, Gunn chose to wear a shirt and slacks while Ray wore a suit and tie. When the mayor welcomed them, he went straight to the man in the suit, shook Ray's hand first, and said: ``It is a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Gunn.'' In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amtrak promoted Ray to be vice president of State supported services. His vast experience and relationships with communities across the country made him the right person for the job, and he was a steadying hand through Amtrak's pandemic recovery. Highlights of his tenure in leadership include new service in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Ray's career has been nothing short of exceptional. He has been a trusted partner to my office over the years, and Amtrak is better off because of Ray's leadership--as are the millions of Americans who depend on Amtrak. I wish Ray and his wife Brenda the best of luck in this next, well-deserved chapter of their lives.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate topic, later this week, Senate Republicans have scheduled a vote on the confirmation of Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee for FBI Director. It is a 10-year appointment, unusual by Senate standards, but it was designed to be 10 years so it would be depoliticized. It is unfortunate that the Republicans are moving ahead despite the many problems with Mr. Patel's record. Mr. Patel has no experience-- none--in administration and management, particularly of an organization like the FBI that has 38,000 agents in place--38,000. It is the premier criminal investigative Agency in our country, perhaps the world. After meeting with Mr. Patel and reviewing his record and questioning him under oath at his hearing, I am deeply concerned about his fitness to serve as FBI Director. He has neither the experience, the judgment, nor the temperament to lead the FBI. My Senate Republican colleagues, sadly, are willfully ignoring myriad red flags about Mr. Patel, especially his recurring instinct to threaten retribution against his political enemies and President Trump's perceived enemies. This is an extremely dangerous characteristic for someone who seeks to lead the Nation's most powerful domestic investigative Agency for the next 10 years. Mr. Patel, on day one, plans to--I quote him directly. He said this, now. On day one, as Director of the FBI, he plans to ``shut down the FBI Hoover Building and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep State.'' He even wrote a book on the subject that I punished myself by requiring that I read it from cover to cover to understand exactly what this man believed. He has peddled outrageous conspiracy theories that benefit President Trump, claiming that January 6, the assault on the Capitol, the insurrectionist assault, was ``never an insurrection'' and that the FBI--get this; this is Kash Patel--the FBI was ``planning January 6 for a year.'' Where is this man coming up with these wild theories? And, incidentally, he compiled an enemies list and published it in the back of his book--60 names--``members of the . . . deep State,'' which includes distinguished public servants from both political parties. Patel named former Attorneys General Bill Barr and Merrick Garland, former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and Chris Wray as the so-called members of the deep State, whatever that may be. And he has even produced and sold recordings of a song--understand this for a moment: 1,600 people prosecuted for assaulting law enforcement officials here in this Capitol Building, who were working, as they are at this very moment, to keep us safe and our visitors safe. What did Patel decide to do? He decided to assemble a choir of the January 6 individuals who were prosecuted. Then he was involved in making a recording of a patriotic song that these prisoners were singing, and then he was selling this recording and playing it at the rallies for President Trump. I am not making this up, ladies and gentlemen. This is exactly what this man, who wants to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was doing and which he denied before our hearing under oath. He has even produced these recordings and called the choir, the January 6 prisoners, political prisoners. Let me take one example of a so-called political prisoner. Guy Reffitt was sentenced to 87 months in prison for his role in the January 6 assault on the Capitol. His 19-year-old son Jackson turned him in to law enforcement after the attack on the Capitol, despite Reffitt's threats to shoot his son and his son's sister if they reported him to authorities--a father threatening to kill his son and daughter if they turned him in. After being pardoned, Guy Reffitt decided to come back to the Capitol and attend Kash Patel's confirmation hearing. He posted on social media afterward: Present and in support of @Kash__Patel as the leftist commies continue to spew lies, misinformation and disinformation. My man Klean House Kash. This man, who brought a weapon into the Capitol, was prosecuted for that, serving time, given a complete pardon by President Trump, then comes back to the Capitol to attend the hearings and cheer on Kash Patel's nomination for Director of the FBI. Before even being confirmed as FBI Director, Mr. Patel is already seeking retribution on behalf of President Trump, despite Patel's status as a private citizen. Multiple whistleblowers have disclosed highly credible information to my staff indicating that Mr. Patel has personally directed the ongoing purge of senior law enforcement officials at the FBI. Senior leaders with, collectively, hundreds of years of experience have been forced out at the FBI, creating a leadership vacuum. Mr. President, this has never happened in the history of the United States and the history of the FBI, that a new President would come into office and decide to clean the ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This has been an apolitical Agency. There is only one political appointee to the FBI: the Director. All the others are professionals who have been dedicating their lives to law enforcement for years. Senior leaders who have shown their dedication to the United States are now being accused of suspect. Suspect for what? They were engaged in the investigation of the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, an assault which I witnessed at this desk as I watched the Secret Service agents pull the Vice President from that chair and take him out of the Chamber as this mob assaulted the Capitol. It was real. In the FBI's long history, this has never happened before. Never. Keep in mind: The Director, the only appointee of the FBI, and the leaders have been forced out despite their career commitment to law enforcement. This purge has dramatically weakened the FBI's ability to protect the country from national security threats, and it has made America less safe. If these whistleblower allegations are true, that Kash Patel, as a private citizen, has been orchestrating the purging of the ranks at the FBI because of political loyalty questions, I will tell you that he came dangerously close to perjuring himself during his nomination hearing when asked about the possible firings of the FBI officials and he answered under oath ``I don't know what's going on right now'' at the FBI. Mr. President, we are told that is not true; he was personally involved in it, despite the fact that he said the opposite under oath before our committee. Mr. Patel has been open about his plans to dismantle the FBI and seek retribution against his and President Trump's enemies. His directives as a private citizen have already thrown the Bureau into absolute chaos. Mr. Patel's recent actions and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirm my belief that he is dangerous, inexperienced, and he has been dishonest in portraying his role in what is happening at the FBI. It will be a political and national security disaster if he is confirmed. And let me take it to a personal level. The FBI Agents Association came to me with this and talked about the very real personal and family concerns of dedicated FBI agents. They are fearful that an environment and climate has been created which puts their own safety in question. Let me give you an example of another one of these 1,600 people who were prosecuted for the assault on the Capitol: Edward Kelley, convicted of assaulting law enforcement and other felony and misdemeanor offenses related to his conduct on January 6. The men and women who came in and were beating on the law enforcement officials who protect this Capitol, Kelley was one of them. As I said, he was convicted, scheduled to be sentenced this April, until he was pardoned by President Trump last month. While awaiting trial on his January 6-related charges, Kelley was separately charged and convicted in his home State of Tennessee of conspiracy to murder law enforcement, including FBI agents and employees who participated in the investigation of his insurrectionist conduct. Kelley's Tennessee murder conspiracy case remains pending sentencing, but Kelley argues that the case is related to his Washington, DC, charges and thus covered by President Trump's blanket pardon. Kelley is a perfect example of the danger of publicly releasing the names of FBI agents who worked on January 6 cases, and there were some 5,000 employees of the FBI and the Department of Justice who were engaged in that. If we value these men and women who risk their lives every day for the safety of the United States, we cannot allow Kash Patel to become Director of that Agency, and we cannot run the risk that he will use their names publicly, as he has in his book, identifying his enemies list to the detriment of these agents and their families. We owe it to them to stand by them, as they have stood by us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain touted the now-infamous Munich Agreement as a way to stave off Hitler's Nazi Germany. Prime Minister Chamberlain claimed it would ``secure peace in our time.'' A year later, Hitler invaded Poland and triggered World War II, a devastating conflict that left Europe in ruins and millions dead and displaced. Over time, Chamberlain's name became synonymous with the word ``appeasement'' for good reason. You see, while Chamberlain's goal of peace may have been honorable, he was dangerously naive about the human nature of a tyrant in Germany who was bent on territorial ambition, pursuits that could only be thwarted with a show of strength. Well, President Trump's ``Art of the Deal'' opening negotiation with Vladimir Putin has the same odor of appeasement. Last week, Donald Trump announced he was ready to make a deal with Russian President Putin over Ukraine while, apparently, ignoring Ukraine's key demands for peace. In fact, Trump and his fledgling Defense Secretary publicly gave away huge concessions at the start, signaling they would not insist on a return to Ukraine's sovereign 2014 borders or future NATO membership. It is also not clear from the administration's bewildering Munich Security Conference's remarks if President Trump plans to even include Ukraine or our European allies in the negotiations for the future of Ukraine. It is no wonder that, in the United Kingdom, where they remember Chamberlain's folly all too well, Donald Trump's early pronouncements were lambasted for their misreading of history by leaders across the political spectrum. Let me share some of the things that have been said by our ally United Kingdom about Trump's opening bid to end the war in Ukraine. One member of Parliament lamented that the West now ``might be facing the worst betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945.'' And another said: Surely, in Europe, we understand that no matter what we give Vladimir Putin, he is always going to want more. And one final member of Parliament, in a refrain, I think, that best summarizes the situation, said: [There] is less the Art of the Deal and more a charter for appeasement. President Trump has always had a strange affinity for autocrats and dictators, a troubling character weakness for the leader of the free world to have. He almost seems to want their adoration and admiration, especially compared to the clear-eyed leadership of previous leaders even on the Republican side, like Ronald Reagan, who knew how to deal with the Soviets. But there are real consequences to Trump's autocratic liaisons for America and allied security, ones that Republicans in the Senate ought to take pretty seriously. His crazy rants about Greenland, Canada as the 51st State, Panama, and the so-called Gulf of Mexico may be amusing to some, including himself, but it certainly does not portend well for a foreign policy of the United States. Simply caving in to Putin and walking away from Ukraine--just as Chamberlain did to Hitler--is an invitation for more confrontations in the future. Before I was elected to the House of Representatives in the 1970s, I was a guest of an organization known as the American Council of Young Political Leaders, ACYPL. They take young men and women who are aspiring to public office on trips to various parts of the world where you spend an extra amount of time to come to understand the situation. I was lucky. I had an opportunity to visit the Soviet Union in the worst Cold War atmosphere and environment--more than 2\1/2\ weeks in the Soviet Union moving from one city to the other and seeing what Soviet communism looked like. During the course of that trip, we visited what was then the Soviet Republic of Lithuania. It had a personal appeal to me for family reasons. My mother was born in Lithuania and was an immigrant to the United States at the age of 2. I had never been there before, and I was shocked by what I saw. This once great country had become a vassal of the Soviet state, and the poor people there were struggling to maintain the most basic of freedoms. Lucky for me, a few years later, I was elected to Congress, serving first in the House and now in the Senate, and I have been able to see a dramatic rebirth of Lithuania. Of course, at the end of the Soviet Union, they had their chance and fought for democracy. They gave lives and blood for that purpose, but it worked. They won their freedom, their independence. Lithuania is not a big country with a big military budget. It is a small nation with a good military but certainly no match for anyone like Russia today. They have been concerned ever since that the day would come when Russia would reassert its ownership of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. So that is why they became members of NATO. And what a celebration that brought on to realize, finally, that they were allies of the United States and had a NATO treaty to back them up, to protect them. The same is true of Poland. Of course, Poland means a lot to Chicago and Illinois, and they are worried about the same fate: Now having won their independence, will they see it threatened by Russia in the future? And so this decision by President Trump to reach out directly to Putin and negotiate is worrisome to me in many respects. First, what does it say if the NATO alliance, an alliance which used to bring together some of the greatest nations in the world to stand by their side one by one and protect the future of their country--President Trump is not even engaging the NATO alliance in this conversation about the future of Ukraine. In fact, he is hardly engaging Ukraine in this conversation. I worry about where this is going to lead. I hope it leads to peace in Ukraine, the right kind of peace that we can count on. And I hope that the people of that country, who have shown such extraordinary courage with the support of the United States and NATO up until now, realize that we are still committed to the values that they value as well. That is in our future. But I worry the opposite will occur, that President Trump will give in to Putin and his demands and Putin will then target the Baltics, Poland--and I don't know where--in his next assault on sovereignty. That is the reality of the moment.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) 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 Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) 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. Mr. President, the greatest threat to American prosperity is not food aid to kids in Sudan or a diverse workforce; the greatest threat to our country is the abuse of power by a small group of people--an unelected group of people--who happen to have a billion dollars. Our Founding Fathers created a government with checks and balances, but they didn't anticipate a U.S. Congress--now currently under Republican control--that would voluntarily give away its constitutional authority. That is where we find ourselves, as hospitals and medical researchers in blue and red States are in chaos over the Trump administration's attempt to usurp Congress's power of the purse. When Senate Republicans abandon another constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for Cabinet officials, we are presented with such things as the bizarre nomination of Robert Kennedy, Jr., to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. It has been my honor to know members of the Kennedy family and particularly to serve with one of them, Teddy Kennedy. He used to sit right back there. He was an amazing man. He probably had more impact on the legislative agenda and the outcome of legislation than anybody I witnessed in the time I have been in the Senate. I counted him as a friend, and I still mourn his loss. But today we are considering a Kennedy that I don't believe is qualified to follow in his uncle's footsteps. Health and Human Services is a life-and-death Department of government. Every day, Federal health officials decide whether to approve new medications after they have been proven--clinically tested and proven to be safe and effective. We count on the HHS to initiate recalls of contaminated food. We count on that same Agency to investigate new therapies for cancer clinical trials. We count on HHS to alert doctors about an emergency disease outbreak. Think about the gravity of those situations and how much is vested in the Secretary of that critical Department. In any of these tasks--critical, often historic tasks--Robert Kennedy, Jr., would find himself unqualified, unfit, and dangerous to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Kennedy masquerades as a crusader for healthy foods and someone who just wants to--``I just want to ask some questions. I just want to study the science.'' America, the Senate, don't be fooled. Mr. Kennedy has spent the past 30 years ignoring science and lying to parents about vaccines, all the while enriching himself by the doubt he has created. He declared: I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, better not get that baby vaccinated. Can you imagine that for a moment, that he would walk up to a person he didn't know and counsel them: Don't vaccinate your child. Look at this quote. Does this sound like the kind of person you want to lead the premier health Agency of our Federal Government? He states: There's no vaccine that is safe and effective. No vaccine safe and effective. And he wants to head the Health and Human Services Department? The organization he founded sells newborn onesies that have printed on them ``Unvaccinated, Unafraid.'' Another one says ``No Vax, No Problem.'' To him, it is a novelty, a game that he can say these things about vaccines that literally have been proven over and over and over again to be safe and save lives. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Senator, of course, and a medical doctor who has the distinguished record of service to poor people in his State, practically begged Robert Kennedy, Jr., to state unequivocally that the hepatitis B and measles vaccines do not cause autism. Kennedy couldn't bring himself to do it. When confronted during his hearings with false statements he has made linking vaccines to autism, he feigned ignorance to decades of research findings and suggested he just needed to be shown the data. Well, that data has been around for decades. Mr. Kennedy approaches this job with bias--a deadly, dangerous bias-- and he is unwilling to consider information that contradicts his preconceived conspiracies. If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, he won't be just speaking to one parent on a hiking trail; he will be speaking to all American families from a podium with a U.S. Government seal on it. That is a terrifying prospect. Since 1974, the measles vaccine has saved 94 million lives, and since its creation, the smallpox vaccine has saved 200 million lives--2 proven, successful vaccines, and we have to sell them to a man who wants to head the HHS and says that there is no vaccine that is safe and effective? Measles is one of the most contagious pathogens on Earth. When I was a kid in the fifties going to school, it was common for kids to get measles. I had them. I stayed home from school a few days and usually got through it all after waiting at home for all those red spots to go away. Yet, with Mr. Kennedy's megaphone online, we are seeing the danger of conspiracy theories. Last year, a record share of kindergartners across America had nonmedical exemption from vaccines. Right now, there is a measles outbreak tearing through Gaines County, TX. Seven kids are hospitalized--all unvaccinated. Gaines County has one of the highest rates in Texas of school-age children opting out of vaccines. Why are parents in that county in Texas and a few other counties forgoing lifesaving vaccines? Because of fraudsters like Mr. Kennedy. What about polio? I know that issue personally. I see Senator King on the floor. He remembers it as well. Since 1955, the polio vaccine has prevented 20 million people from becoming paralyzed and saved 1\1/2\ million lives. Most Americans are lucky never to have ever experienced the fear of polio. I remember, as a kid, it scared the hell out of us. A kid could go to school healthy and be paralyzed at dinnertime. A constituent of mine, Mary Ellen from Union County, wrote to me. Mary Ellen said: When I was in kindergarten, my best friend disappeared for weeks. When I asked about her, people shook their heads-- saying polio. When she returned, she couldn't walk without heavy leg braces. . . . We could hear her cry and scream with pain. I remember that era--iron lungs, leg braces, paralysis, and worse. Had Mr. Kennedy been our Nation's Health Secretary at that time, would American families have access today to lifesaving measles and polio vaccines? I am afraid the answer is clearly no. This isn't speculation; look at the record. Mr. Kennedy and his associates have filed petitions with the Food and Drug Administration to remove the COVID, hepatitis B, and polio vaccines from the market. In 2019, Mr. Kennedy flew to Samoa during a measles outbreak to question whether the vaccines themselves were causing the illness. As a result of that, 83 people died in Samoa. When asked by Senator Warren, Mr. Kennedy said he would not do anything differently about that dangerous trip. Eighty-three people died as he spread those falsehoods about the vaccine. Senator Cassidy aptly wondered: Does a 70-year-old man who spent decades criticizing vaccines and was financially vested in finding fault . . . can he change his [attitude]? Mr. President, I am sorry, but we know the answer. Listen, I understand we have a great health system in this country, but I also understand it is flawed in many ways. I spent years in my Senate and House career to lower drug prices, rein in Big Pharma's influence, and stop Big Tobacco from peddling poison to our kids. But just because he might talk about the right problems doesn't mean Mr. Kennedy has the right solutions. In fact, over 2 days of hearings, he did not offer a single concrete idea on how to improve the delivery of primary care or preventive healthcare services. It was clear Mr. Kennedy didn't understand the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Mr. President, I will tell you, that is an issue that you take up in Congress 101. Nobody believes Kennedy will stand up to President Trump or Elon Musk on medical research. I understand the urge to shake things up, to address failures in our healthcare system, but Mr. Kennedy brings an unacceptable prejudice that will only cause harm and be dangerous to American families. Neil Steinberg writes for the Chicago Sun-Times. He wrote that when you are claiming you want to ``study'' the issue where the science is settled, that is code for dismissing facts that don't serve your personal bias. I fear there is a sense that being an outsider is qualification enough, but how far could Senate Republicans be willing to go if they pursue that dangerous path? Make no mistake, if the political tables were turned and it were Democrats proposing this man for this job, he wouldn't get a single Republican vote in the Senate. He would be decried as a pro-choice, anti-vax, uninformed, conspiracy theorist who trades on his family name to peddle dangerous misinformation that benefits him financially. And guess what. This nominee is all of those things. But because he was nominated by President Trump and has the MAGA seal of approval, my Republican colleagues can't wait to march down and support his nomination. Many of them secretly, privately, quietly know better. Some of them are doctors or parents themselves who trusted doctors to vaccinate their kids or people who spent their lives trying to really improve our health system. They know Mr. Kennedy is not the right choice for the job, and they know our children will suffer the most if he becomes HHS Secretary. I hope they will find the courage to join me and reject his nomination. Let me add this point that is related to this issue, and I will make it brief. On Friday, the Trump administration issued an illegal order to impose an arbitrary cap of 15 percent on ``indirect costs'' that the NIH pays to grantees for essential research expenses. Without this funding for specialized equipment, data processing, safety materials, and the maintenance of labs, universities and hospitals nationwide will not be able to afford the technology that allows them to continue lifesaving research. This is a critical moment in America's history. After the progress that we have made, after the leadership we have shown, are we going to, under this new President, turn our backs on medical research? God forbid. If you go through the misfortune of a terrible diagnosis for yourself or someone you love, you pray that you can then ask the doctor: Is there anything--a new medicine, a new cure, a new surgical procedure? And you are hoping that medical researchers lead that answer to yes that one moment in your life. In 2017--the last time President Trump attempted to cut NIH funding-- the now-House Appropriations Committee chair, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, called the proposal ``arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultimately destructive of the research enterprise.'' Chairman Cole understood that cutting funding means clinical trials will be delayed, new breakthroughs in cures will be put off, and promising researchers will get discouraged and leave the field. A constituent and doctor from Palos Heights, IL, wrote to me: I care about this issue because I know new research on immunology kept my stage-4-cancer-patient wife alive for 10 years, enough to see our youngest son graduate from high school. This sudden, indiscriminate cut to medical research violates Federal law, which blocks NIH from deviating from its current indirect cost policy. Thankfully, my attorney general in Illinois, Kwame Raoul, and 21 other States filed a Federal lawsuit to temporarily halt this senseless cut. Remember, tweets from Elon Musk forced a bipartisan pediatric cancer research bill to be cut from a government spending bill just a few weeks ago. Now Mr. Musk is at it again; only this time, he is targeting cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. If Elon Musk were to get sick, I will bet the richest man in the world would find the doctor he wanted. I am sure he would. For the rest of us, for the parents facing a devastating diagnosis of someone we love, this is a cruel political decision. A University of Chicago researcher put it this way: This attack on the very structure of . . . academic research . . . is threatening a system that every other country in the world has tried to reproduce. . . . It seems spiteful and targeted at those of us who just want to contribute to a better society. Mr. President, I don't know that this will continue to be a problem and challenge, but I promise you this: As long as I have the power to stand and speak out in favor of the National Institutes of Health, I am going to do it. This country is a great country. It has greatness that includes medical research--maybe the best in the world. Why in the world would we give up on that? And why would we choose someone so bizarre to head up the Health and Human Services Agency and trust with him life-or-death decisions? It is a bad choice. I will be voting to oppose Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and doing everything in my power to restore the spending for medical research in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do you remember where you were on September 11? Most Americans do. I do. I was right outside that door. I was in a meeting at 9 in the morning. And as we had the meeting, we looked down the Mall. We were watching a little television set, and we saw these planes flying into skyscrapers in New York. Nobody could quite understand what was going on. First, we thought it was an accident, as most people probably felt the same way. Then, when the second plane hit, we knew there was more. Then, there came a moment when somebody said: Look down the Mall. We looked down the Mall and saw black smoke billowing across the Mall here in Washington from the Pentagon, because a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. And there was this moment where people didn't know which way to turn, where to get answers, what was going on. Someone came racing into the room and said: Evacuate the Capitol Building. Another plane is coming directed toward this building. We all raced out down the steps and stood on the lawn outside, didn't know which way to turn, had no idea what was going on. Tourists were coming up to me because I had a suit and tie on and saying: Where are we supposed to go? I told them where the Metro stations were and pointed in several directions. That is a day you won't forget. Most of us, I am sure, felt at that point that we had to figure out what happened first and to stop it from ever happening again. So where did we turn? First, we turned to law enforcement, for obvious reasons. That is who you call--9-1-1--to see if they can give you any information, give you any advice, keep you safe. But also in this town, you think: We hope our intelligence Agencies, the ones that collect information, know who those people were so we can stop them from ever doing this again. Those intelligence Agencies are critical, not just for the security of this country but the survival of this country. In the wake of September 11, the most historic terrorist attack in our Nation's history, we learned the hard way that Agencies within the intelligence community need to be good, effective, and coordinate what they are doing. So we embarked on several projects--and one that I was a small part of--in rewriting the laws creating intelligence Agencies and making sure that each of our intelligence Agencies, as good as they are, speak to one another. It seems so obvious. They need to coordinate. But they had what they called smokestacks where they kept their information to themselves and didn't share it with other Agencies. Well, that changed. It changed the whole attitude towards intelligence and coordinating information. We created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It oversees 18 different intelligence Agencies that span the CIA, Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, and others. It is now essential to modern safety in America. Yet the President, Donald Trump, has selected a person to run this critical Agency, coordinating 18 different intelligence Agencies, who has little or no experience leading this critical American security apparatus. Her name is Tulsi Gabbard. During President Trump's first term, he made clear of his fondness for certain leaders in the world that were controversial, such as Viktor Orban of Hungary, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. So he ends up picking a person to run his intelligence network who shares a similarly terrible judgment on critical leaders. Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman, is infamous for spending time with despots and autocratic leaders of the world, including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and traitors to the United States like Edward Snowden. Her fondness for these oppressive, anti-democratic regimes does not go unreciprocated. They know her, they like her, and they say quite a few things about her. Let me show you one of these posters. Hosts of Russian state media have cheered her nomination. Russia is cheering her nomination as Director of National Intelligence because it will ``dismantle America.'' Some on Russian state channels have even referred to her affectionately as their ``girlfriend.'' Russian state TV also called her a Russian ``comrade'' in Trump's emerging Cabinet. A pro-Putin propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, once called Gabbard ``our friend.'' Later, when asked if she was ``some sort of Russian agent?'' he replied, of course, ``yes.'' What is going on here? This woman wants to head up the intelligence Agencies, and she is being cheered on by the Russians? In a glowing profile in a Russian state newspaper, it said of Tulsi Gabbard, ``The C.I.A. and F.B.I. are trembling,'' noting that Ukrainians consider her ``an agent of the Russian state.'' Imagine that--the person tapped to head America's intelligence community being called a puppet of an adversary's country by that very same country. It seems too ridiculous to be true, but I am sorry to say that it is. To merely join America's intelligence community, never mind lead it, candidates have to go through a vigorous background check and earn a security clearance. I will just tell you that based on what she has done since serving in Congress, she could not pass a routine security clearance. If Tulsi Gabbard were applying for an entry-level position, her relationship with Russia alone would disqualify her for the job. Why, then, would we trust our entire intelligence network to the No. 1 friend of our No. 1 enemy? Why, then, would we want to put that sort of person in charge? Given the examples that abound of Tulsi Gabbard proving publicly, shamelessly, and carelessly her sympathies for nations that undermine U.S. interests and security, that is unexplainable and irresponsible. Perhaps this is summed up best by one of her people who worked with her for years. Here is what he had to say, according to The Atlantic magazine: She was willing to do or say whatever. It was [like] she had [absolutely] no moral compass. And to head up all of our intelligence Agencies? It is as controversial as choosing Kash Patel to head up our Federal Bureau of Investigation--no experience which qualifies him, nor does she have any experience either. You see, our allies depend on us as much as we depend on them for security and to share critical intelligence. Now they are looking at us in disbelief that we would let someone like Tulsi Gabbard, with such an appalling record, anywhere near the leadership of the intelligence community. Intelligence professionals from Canada and the United Kingdom-- members of the critical Five Eyes intelligence alliance along with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand--have expressed concern about even working with her if she is in charge. In order to keep Americans safe throughout the world, we need to have the trust of our allies and their cooperation. This position she is aspiring to at DNI does not just impact the collection of intelligence; it also impacts the action taken on it. Because of this, I have great concern about the impact Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation would have on our support of Ukraine in defending itself against Russia. Since Russia's full-scale invasion, Gabbard has taken Russia's side many times, claiming, in reference to Ukraine and Russia, ``Russia had legitimate security concerns.'' The words of Tulsi Gabbard. And then she blames NATO, our alliance--one of the most significant security alliances in the world. Let me be clear. Supporting democracies has not historically been a partisan matter. For example, contrast Tulsi Gabbard's nonsense with former President Ronald Reagan's clear-eyed understanding of the danger of the communist Russia empire. Nearly 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and famously challenged the Soviet Union to ``tear down this wall.'' Reagan understood the true nature and threat of the Russians. We have all seen the horrific costs of Russia's war in Ukraine and increasing attacks on NATO allies. Is there a deal to be made to end this war? Perhaps. Doing so must be with the best intelligence available, a clear eye about who we are negotiating with and for, and long-term guarantees of the security of Ukraine, of Europe, and the transatlantic alliance. One would think any American President navigating such difficult waters would want a top official to serve as the head of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard fails that test. She would not be qualified for an entry-level position within the intelligence community and is certainly not qualified to lead it, period. Some of the President's Cabinet nominees are hard to imagine because they are so unqualified, but for the position of Director of National Intelligence, putting someone unqualified in charge is not funny at all; it is life-or-death dangerous. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague and friend from Wyoming, and I am struggling to understand his point of view. He announced at one point that the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate. Well, that is a fact. I know it. The Presiding Officer does as well. So to say that you are in the majority suggests that you are in charge, and it also suggests that if there is going to be a budget for the U.S. Government, which we need next month, the majority party in both the House and the Senate has that responsibility to come forward with a budget. That is a simple fact of life. It is a fact of political life. To blame the minority for no budget is to ignore the obvious: The majority of votes in the House and the Senate belong to the Republican Party. If there is going to be a budget, it is fair to assume that they would have to lead in that effort. I look forward to seeing that leadership. We have seen precious little of it so far.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following detailees in the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 119th Congress: Allison Kent and Dorothea Lay.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, Pam Bondi was sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in the United States of America. She is now the U.S. Attorney General. Unfortunately, as many of us feared, Attorney General Bondi took immediate steps to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice. President Trump, after Bondi was confirmed, even said: I know I'm supposed to say she's going to be totally impartial with respect to Democrats. . . . I'm not sure if there's a possibility of totally. On day one in office, Attorney General Bondi created a so-called Weaponization Working Group--a task force to investigate ``the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority over the last four years.'' Bondi said that she would ``investigate the investigators'' and ``prosecute the prosecutors,'' and now she is doing exactly that to seek ``retribution'' against political enemies, real and perceived, that President Trump has repeatedly threatened. I wish I could say I am surprised by Attorney General Bondi's actions, but last week, I stood at this very spot sounding the alarm just before her confirmation vote. The writing was on the wall. Attorney General Bondi has made it clear that her foremost loyalty is to one person--President Trump--and she kept her promise on day one after being sworn into office by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. Bondi's directive is only one step in misusing the powers of government to carry out President Trump's retribution against those he perceives to be his enemies, and the list is long. Even before Attorney General Bondi was confirmed, the Trump administration purged dozens of senior career law enforcement officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. Many of these senior officials are reportedly being reassigned to immigration cases for which they have little or no expertise. Last week, FBI law enforcement personnel across the country had little over 48 hours to answer a survey about their work on any case related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, including whether they handled arrests, led operations, testified in trials, and more. Consider this for a moment. I don't know if you were here, Madam President, on that day, but those of us who were will never forget it. An insurrectionist mob left a rally for President Trump and came to Capitol Hill, crashed down the doors and windows, invaded the Capitol, and started beating up on the Capitol Hill Police. The net result: Four policemen died and 140 were seriously injured. They took control of the U.S. Senate Chamber and the House Chamber and went through their antics, posing for pictures sitting in the chair you are sitting in. They went through my desk and other desks too. It was their day, these so-called tourists, so-called political prisoners. I have said on the floor before and I have thought about this many times. If we were told that in the House of Parliament in London, a mob had a beaten down the wooden door and taken control of the House of Commons, what would have been the reaction in the United States? First, incredulous: That can't happen. England is a powerful nation. It has a rich history. A mob took over Parliament? That is exactly what happened on January 6. A mob took over the Congress of the United States, invaded the Capitol Building like the British in the War of 1812, and forced control at the expense of a lot of people who were prepared to die to defend us that day. That was a horrible incident. It is a horrible chapter in American history. Now the Trump administration is setting out to erase that history. The Soviet revisionists would look at this with some pride, to think that politicians in America are engaging in the same historical rewrite that they did for so many decades. This rewrite is to erase January 6 as a reality, to whitewash it, to describe it as something that isn't. How they will ever overcome the hours and hours of videotapes which verify exactly what happened that day, I don't know, but they are going to start by cleansing the ranks of those in law enforcement who had anything to do with the 1,600 criminal defendants who were charged because of that day. Apparently, they wanted disclosure of the names of all those who took the assignment given to them at the Department of Justice or the FBI to investigate that crime of January 6. At the FBI, at least six FBI Executive Assistant Directors have been removed, including those who oversaw the National Security Branch, the Intelligence Branch, and the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. The Trump administration has also removed the Special Agents in Charge of at least four major field offices and the Assistant Director of the Washington Field Office. The Acting Attorney General has also issued a memo firing a dozen career Department of Justice prosecutors. She is quoted as saying: Given your significant role in prosecuting the President, I do not believe that the leadership of the Department can trust you in implementing the President's agenda faithfully. The Bureau's acting leaders are career FBI public servants who have reportedly resisted the push from Trump administration officials to punish FBI agents who were simply doing the work that was assigned to them to investigate the January 6 attack. If I am not mistaken, it was the largest criminal prosecution in history, and to think that many of the Assistant Attorneys General and members of the FBI had some role in its pursuit is no surprise whatsoever. So now the Trump administration wants these people to be outed-- publicly disclosed--with names and addresses. This weekend, the Bureau turned over the personnel details of thousands of FBI personnel. Thankfully, a temporary court order was issued on Friday that is keeping the Department of Justice from revealing those names. Is there any danger to these women and men who swore allegiance to the United States and its Constitution and pursued the official duties of the Department of Justice? Why, of course, there is. The previous head of the FBI told us that the situation is grim when it comes to domestic terrorism in the United States. So is he suggesting that, perhaps, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers can't wait to get this list the Trump administration has produced--a list of those who did their duty under the Constitution and pursued these cases on the January 6 outrage? I am afraid that is a fact. That temporary court order is the only thing between these White nationalist-extremist groups and the men and women who dedicated their lives to law enforcement in this country. That is where we have come to in just a few short days of the new Trump administration. Tomorrow, FBI probationary agents and personnel stationed around the world are required to submit justifications for their continued employment. This could lead to the firing of up to 3,000 law enforcement officials. Don't tell me you want to fight crime. Don't tell me you want to stop narcotics and then dismiss 3,000 FBI and Department of Justice officials. These mass layoffs, forced retirements, and involuntary reassignments of experienced Department of Justice and FBI officials represent an outright attack on public safety by President Trump. America will be less safe because of this political charade that is going on in the Department of Justice. These mass layoffs of these experienced people mean that your family, your town, your neighborhood will be less safe. The purge is already leading to widespread disruption and delay in prosecutions, investigations, and sensitive operations. The Joint Terrorism Task Forces have been asked to focus on President Trump's immigration-related initiatives, which means valuable resources and personnel will be shifted away from State and local and Federal partners fighting foreign and domestic terrorism. As America faces a heightened threat landscape, these removals and reassignments are crippling not only to the Justice Department and the FBI but to the 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the 55 FBI field offices across the country. The loss of potentially thousands of Federal law enforcement jobs will put a burden on local field offices; slow ongoing casework; increase the unemployment rates nationwide in law enforcement; and harm local economies. President Trump may claim to back the blue--he may pose with men and women of law enforcement--but, apparently, he is only interested in doing so when it is politically convenient and consistent with his political agenda. Before Ms. Bondi's confirmation, my concerns about how she would lead the Department were based on her history as President Trump's personal lawyer, but the leadership of Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, is no longer hypothetical. Her directives and actions are now impacting a lot of innocent people and a lot of good Americans who have dedicated their lives to public service and law enforcement. We need to work together on a bipartisan basis to push back against these attacks on the Department of Justice and the FBI to protect the national security of the United States.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after the Great Fire destroyed much of central London in 1666, the city was rebuilt with even grander and stronger buildings than before. The most majestic building of all in the new London was St. Paul's Cathedral, designed by the great architect Sir Christopher Wren. There is no monument to Wren. But on the dome of St. Paul's, written in Latin, is an inscription. It says: ``If you seek his memorial--look around you.'' There is no monument in Chicago to Dan Levin, either. But if you want to see what he meant to Chicago--and what Chicago meant to him--just look around our great city. Daniel Levin was a visionary real estate developer, civic leader, and generous philanthropist who loved Chicago, its neighborhoods, and its people. Sadly, he died a few weeks ago. Over half a century, Dan Levin's real estate development and management company, the Habitat Company, built structures that redefined Chicago's skyline. Drive into Chicago on the Kennedy Expressway, and you will see the Presidential Towers, four soaring skyscrapers of upscale condos and apartments in the West Loop. Take a cruise along the Chicago River, and you will pass the East Bank Club, one of the finest health and fitness clubs anywhere in America. Follow the river to where it meets Lake Michigan and you will come to Cityfront Plaza, another tower of apartments and condos surrounded by a bucolic green oasis of a park. He created other landmark buildings including South Commons, Columbus Plaza, ONE333, and many others. But Dan Levin didn't build and manage only luxury properties. His faith in Chicago's people and their extraordinary potential led to Habitat's creation of nearly 25,000 rental housing units for people of all incomes. His ``North Star,'' his family says, was his belief that all people deserve to live in a home and a neighborhood they can be proud of. He described his business philosophy this way: ``No project is only an investment in real estate. It is an investment in the future of the community and the lives of the people who live and work there.'' His confidence and his love for Chicago led him to take risks and to invest in parts of the city that others overlooked. And time after time, those risks paid off. His buildings attracted other new investments that transformed once blighted areas into vibrant neighborhoods. Dan had a rare gift to see potential where others saw only problems. The Presidential Towers, for example, stand on what was once Chicago's Skid Row. The East Bank Club was built on the site of an abandoned railroad yard. In a once-gritty neighborhood that many Chicagoans feared to drive through even during the day, Dan created a world-class fitness club and an outstanding restaurant, where he loved to host Seders every Passover. You never knew who you would see at the East Bank Club. You might find yourself in a Pilates class with Oprah when she was a member. Years ago, Dan became friends with a young law professor from the University of Chicago who used to come to the club to play basketball. That young hoopster-professor went on to become President of the United States, Barack Obama. Dan Levin was a ``social entrepreneur'' decades before anyone had ever heard that term. He believed that he could make money and do good, and that is exactly what he did for 50 years. He almost certainly would have made more money if he had concentrated exclusively on upscale buildings. But Dan Levin wasn't in business to make a killing; he wanted to make communities. Probably his biggest professional challenge came in 1987 when a Federal judge appointed the Habitat Company to serve as a receiver for the then-bankrupt and badly mismanaged Chicago Housing Authority. The job was massive: Manage all of Chicago's public housing, except senior housing, and rehab or replace thousands of dilapidated housing units. The receivership lasted 23 years. 23 years. By the time it ended, hundreds of blighted apartment buildings across the city had been torn down, including high rises that had become towers of poverty. With Dan as chairman and Valerie Jarrett as the company's CEO, Habitat replaced the high rises with townhouses and replaced concrete with green spaces. All told, the company built or rehabbed 4,000 units of public housing. Many developers might have been intimidated by such a massive undertaking. But Dan Levin saw it as a civic responsibility and a chance to give back to a city that had given him so much. You see, Dan wasn't born in Chicago. He was born and grew up in Detroit, the grandson of Jewish Lithuanian immigrants. His father was a Federal judge. His brother became a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. And two of his cousins, whom he thought of almost like his brothers, became distinguished members of Congress, Senator Carl Levin and Representative Sander Levin. Dan assumed he would follow in the family footsteps. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. After a prestigious clerkship for a Federal judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, he returned to the family law firm, where he worked on a project with a renowned real estate developer whose company constructed many buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe, one of the giants of 20th century architecture. It proved to be a good fit, and Dan signed on as the company's in- house counsel. In 1960, the firm's founder, Dan's mentor, died in a plane crash. Dan stepped in to finish the project his boss had been overseeing, another van der Rohe building--and he discovered that he loved creating buildings. So he left the law and became a developer. A short time later, he moved to Chicago, the birthplace of skyscrapers and other architectural marvels. His buildings now stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the great architecture of the 20th and 21st centuries. In addition to his work, Dan loved classical music. He was a devoted supporter and board member of WFMT, Chicago's classical music station. He was also a trustee of WTTW Public Television, vice chairman of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and a generous supporter of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, and the Harris School of Public Policy at his alma mater, the University of Chicago. He was kind, modest, and generous with a happy spirit and a twinkle in his eye. He was equally at ease speaking with Uber drivers as with Presidents. He was devoted to his family: his son Josh Levin; his daughters Jil Deheeger and Betsy Bernardaud; and their spouses; his 11 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren; and his step-children Alyssa Rapp and Jeffrey Rapp. Most of all, he adored his wife and partner, former Ambassador Fay Hartog-Levin. The only time they were separated was when Fay served as U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, and even then, Dan crossed the ocean many times to be by her side. Loretta and I offer our deep condolences to Fay and all of Dan's family in this sad time. Daniel Levin was a good man, a visionary leader, and a true mensch. Loretta and I, and the people of Chicago, will miss him. But, as I said, if we want to see his legacy, all we have to do is look around. We are a better city because Dan Levin lived among us.

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. For medical researchers at NIH, I vote no.