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. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is not unusual in this job of ours in the U.S. Senate to run into a reporter in the hallway. It happens all the time. They are trying to write a story, and they want to ask a question or two to get a quote, possibly, for the story. Today, I came out of one of our hearing rooms on the Committee on Agriculture, and one of the more prominent reporters for one of the cable news networks said to me: Can you give me a reaction to the suggestion by President Trump, yesterday, that, somehow or another, the United States of America is going to take over control of the Gaza Strip and develop it? Well, I had read that in the morning papers, that assertion, and all I could say to him was, If you follow his suggestion to let Canada become the 51st State; that we take over the Panama Canal--if necessary, by force--that somehow or another we come into ownership of Greenland, then the notion of developing hotels on the ocean on the Gaza Strip is just one of the Trump suggestions we are dealing with. For those who argue, ``Well, the American people voted for it,'' were they voting for those things? The point I am trying to make was made earlier by Senator Schumer. There are efforts afoot that go way beyond the issues of this last Presidential campaign, where the American people, I believe, said: We want a change. We are going to vote in the majority for Donald Trump because we want to see a better lifestyle for ourselves and our kids. Those things make sense to me, and I will tell you, in my life, as I reflect on things that have happened to me, there were times when the government played a very important role in my life. I recall when my father passed away when I was in high school. There was a Social Security Disability assistance check that helped me go to college. Then, of course, there was something called the National Defense Education Act, where I could borrow money from the Federal Government. That had to be paid back, but I could borrow the money to pay for my school expenses. Had the government not been there in those two instances, I am not sure if I could have completed college or where I would be today. I didn't start off with a litmus test of whether I love the government or don't. I needed a helping hand, and there was a program created by this government, by this Senate, that came to my rescue. What we are discussing now is the nomination of Russell Vought. I don't know the man personally, but I have read plenty of what his philosophy consists of. I believe he is being offered one of the most powerful jobs that most Americans don't even know--the Office of Management and Budget. One of the essential powers of the Senate, under our Constitution, is advice and consent, which means the Founding Fathers said the President can pick his team, but the Senate has to approve that team. It has to advise and consent when it comes to that person. The constitutional authority gives the Senate the power to review and approve Presidential nominations and, with it, the responsibility to ask hard questions. Well, that has been the case, in the last several weeks, as the nominees for the President's Cabinet have all come forward to be reviewed by Members of the Senate. Our Nation's Founders viewed this as a check on the power of the President, ensuring that the country's most important leadership posts are filled by truly trustworthy, qualified, law-abiding Americans. I take that responsibility seriously. I probably, as I reflected on running for the Senate, did not reflect on how many times I would be called to judge a person as part of my job. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--the ranking member at this point--I have had to review the resumes and interview literally hundreds--sometimes thousands--of applicants for lifetime positions with the Federal Government. When I reflect on it, it is an awesome responsibility, but you have to project as to what that person will do once they have the power of office, and that is what we are doing today. I join with my colleagues in opposing the nomination of Russell Vought to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He has been nominated by President Trump to run this Agency. It is the largest office within the executive branch of the government. Its job is to oversee Federal Agencies and administer the Federal budget. Now, most of the time when we are called on to evaluate nominations, we do our best to take a look and review the nominee's qualifications and experience. We meet with the candidates--I have done that today several times with several nominees--and ask them questions to determine their fitness for the roles. Sometimes, you can tell this is the first time they have ever really, seriously, considered serving in government in their lives. We try to imagine what they will do with that power. But for Mr. Vought, there is no need for imagination. He already served as Director of OMB during the last half of President Trump's first term in office, and I believe he proved who he was in that period of time. When he served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget during President Trump's first term, Mr. Vought illegally refused to release hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine, and he delayed $20 billion of disaster aid for Puerto Rico. If that sounds like a lot of power, it is. There was literally a question as to whether Ukraine would survive the invasion of Vladimir Putin. Our government had committed to helping, but Mr. Vought decided, in his capacity as the head of OMB, to withhold the funds, and there was a serious question as to whether Ukraine--in fighting for its life--would survive. The $20 billion in disaster aid for Puerto Rico after the hurricanes that struck and that did such great damage to that nation was a life-and-death proposition, and he decided that he would withhold these funds. When he left that role, Mr. Vought went on to become a key architect of what has been referred to many, many times as Project 2025--a policy proposal written by a conservative think tank, outlining a sweeping, extreme vision of America's future. Project 2025 included policies to consolidate power in the executive branch and to undermine critical services the Federal Government provides to American families. If that sounds familiar, perhaps you are following the President's ongoing attempts to freeze Federal funds legally appropriated by Congress. That is no coincidence. Mr. Vought is the MAGA puppet master in this administration, and, 2 weeks ago, we saw it at its worst. I see Senator Murray of Washington is here on the floor. She is our Democratic leader when it comes to Appropriations. I sit on that committee and respect her judgment. I am sure she remembers, as I do, when the word came out that there was a pronouncement from OMB that they were going to put a freeze on Federal spending. It didn't sound real to think that they would stop spending across the board. They made a few exceptions--but to stop spending in so many areas? Then the phone started ringing from the State of Illinois. They started calling Senator Duckworth's office and my own office, and we were telling people exactly what was involved. This involves programs like Head Start. Head Start is a critical program that began in the 1960s. It is for kids who are prekindergarten to spend a day under supervision in a learning experience and in a socialization experience that can make all the difference in their lives. For their parents, it is a great opportunity. Last Friday, I visited one of these Head Start facilities in the city of Chicago. It is known as El Valor. It is remarkable. Seeing those kids and the experiences they are going through is heartwarming. These kids are from working families. They are not from families who have a lot of wealth. But they have an opportunity in Head Start to have a good, clean, positive classroom experience that prepares them for school and prepares them for life. One of the parents made a point of coming in and telling me his story. He talked about what a transformation it was that took place in his little boy when he became part of this Head Start Program. I have such positive feelings about that because I can't think of a better investment of my tax dollars and anybody's tax dollars than in making sure those kids--that next generation--have a fighting chance, and Head Start gives them that chance. Well, when OMB announced the freeze, some of the first agencies that felt it were the Head Start Programs. They started realizing they couldn't keep their doors open because they don't have a lot money to turn to if they didn't get the regular infusion of Federal funds that had been guaranteed to them over the years. Some of them actually thought ``Maybe we could last a day or two without that Federal funding,'' but most of them realized they couldn't last at all without it. So why in the world would OMB turn to a program like Head Start and say: That is where we want to freeze Federal spending. For goodness' sake, I will be the first to admit that there is waste in our government. There is waste in corporations. There is waste in many directions. But to start with kids, struggling kids from working families, and to say: We are going to cut off their program--that is your first priority for cuts? Meals on Wheels. What is Meals on Wheels? Well, it is something most people with an elderly parent or grandparent know full well. It is that one time each day when someone knocks on the door and brings literally a hot meal to someone who is living alone usually and has to depend on that--not just for food but for socialization and that friendly smile once a day that they just dream of and live for. To cut that program, along with Head Start--come on. But that is what I learned. I learned that this freeze from OMB that started with the Trump administration involved Meals on Wheels. It isn't just these programs that touch my heart and I hope touch yours; we had calls from medical researchers, from hospitals across the city of Chicago. And I am proud of those hospitals. We have some of the best in the world. They do key research, critical research--cancer, heart disease, and so many other things. They work with the National Institutes of Health, the premier medical research Agency in the world. Well, it turns out that when the OMB of President Trump wanted to start turning out the lights, they decided to do it on medical research as well. What were they thinking? If you have ever been in a terrible moment in your life where someone you love is seriously ill and you are wondering if they can survive, one of the first things you are going to ask that doctor: Is there a medicine? Is there a process? Is there a surgery? Is there some breakthrough that maybe can save the life of somebody I love? That is one of the first questions you ask when you face that awful moment. So what did this OMB decide to do under President Trump? They decided to cut off funding for medical research. These are researchers who literally said: We were told at 5 o'clock to go home. That means walking away from an experiment which I have been working on for a long time and losing all the progress I have made. Really? That is your priority? I don't think the American people thought that was what they were voting for when they voted for Donald Trump in this last election. Mr. Vought has made his beliefs perfectly clear. He believes the President can refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated for the American people despite this being in direct violation of the law. The law is known as the Impoundment Control Act. Some have naively claimed that Project 2025 is nothing but a thought and an expert. It is clear that since the President took office, it has been a blueprint for a radical rewrite of the principle of the balance of power in our Constitution. It is no surprise that as a key author of Project 2025, Mr. Vought continues to lead that charge. Knowing this as we do, placing him in charge of OMB would be irresponsible--you saw what they did initially with the freeze just a few weeks ago--and it would entirely undermine the role of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the U.S. Senate itself. What I find disappointing and discouraging is that so many of my Republican friends who worked so hard to be elected to this Chamber are willing to give away our constitutional rights and our constitutional authority. This idea of impoundment gives away the power of Congress to appropriate. This latest attempt to put a sweeping freeze on Federal funds is far from the first time Mr. Vought has broken the law and undermined Congress's power of the purse that is set forth in the Constitution. It is clear from Mr. Vought's comments and actions that he has contempt for Congress as a coequal branch of government. It is appalling that so many of my Republican Senate friends voted to advance his nomination as he actively attempts to strip Congress of our congressional authority. We are not opposing Mr. Vought solely because he poses a threat to our ability to do our jobs in Congress. Mr. Vought has made it clear that he is targeting working families across the country. Both in his previous tenure as OMB Director and in policy proposals, Mr. Vought has proposed budget cuts that slash the social safety net resources for tax cuts for the wealthy. It is being reported today that representatives of Elon Musk's so- called Department of Government Efficiency are now inside the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where they have gained access to key payment and contracting systems. I know Elon Musk. I have met him on two or three occasions one on one. We had conversations. I respect him in many respects for achievements with his car, as well as with SpaceX and solar energy projects. He has done some remarkable things, making him the wealthiest person in the world. Having said that, I don't believe he has any qualification to sit here in judgment of our government and its future. He has been given an outsized role in the Trump administration although he has no authority from the American people. He hasn't been elected to a damn thing, but he has currently won over the heart of the President and is making decisions which affect people's lives every day. Each representative of DOGE--the Department of Government Efficiency, which isn't even a Department--is looking at the systems technology in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the spending that flows through them. That means every hospital, every senior in a nursing home, and every child with a serious health condition is at the mercy of what Elon Musk's minions consider to be worthwhile spending. The Director of OMB should manage funds that serve everyday Americans, not billionaires. Moreover, Mr. Vought clearly intends to politicize the Federal workforce. While serving as OMB Director during President Trump's first term, he was the architect of ``schedule F,'' a plan which would allow the President to fire nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with partisan loyalists. On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive order reviving schedule F--another move right out of Mr. Vought's Project 2025 playbook--effectively stripping thousands of career civil servants of job protections. Mr. Vought has called civil servants ``villains,'' and he has advocated for their mass termination. But more than 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves in national security roles. His plan--Vought's plan--would jeopardize American security. To my Republican colleagues, for the sake of the institution in which we work for, the constituents we were elected to serve, and the constitutional foundations of our Nation, please don't vote for Mr. Vought. Maya Angelo once said: When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Well, from his tenure running OMB to his authorship of Project 2025, Mr. Vought has shown us exactly who he is and what he believes. He is a man with little respect for the Constitution and limited understanding of the plight of real working Americans. Giving Mr. Vought the reins of OMB is an invitation to a policy battle at the expense of our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are some Americans who go above and beyond in service to our Nation. Major General William D. Cobetto, chief of staff for the Illinois Department of Military Affairs, is one of those individuals, and he recently retired after a decades-long career of dedicated service to Illinois. Our State and our Nation are better because of him. General Cobetto is Illinois through and through, and he represents the very best of us. He was born in Hillsboro, IL; grew up in Taylor Springs, IL; attended Hillsboro High School; and holds a bachelor of science in aeronautical administration from Saint Louis University. In 1985, he received his commission from the Academy of Military Science in Knoxville, TN, but it did not take him long to return to serve the State he loves. He spent the next 30 years with the Illinois Air National Guard, including serving as commander of the 183rd Mission Support Group from 2004 to 2007, and eventually providing leadership across the State as the Assistant Adjutant General-Air beginning in 2011. General Cobetto also attended the Air War College, and in 2003, he served at the Pentagon in support of the Air Force Crisis Action Team, as well as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller. In 2015, General Cobetto retired from military service with several awards and decorations under his belt, including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and several Illinois National Guard awards. Despite his military retirement, General Cobetto was not ready to stop serving Illinois. Seemingly not satisfied with only 30 years of service, he returned to the Illinois National Guard in a civilian capacity, serving first as legislative liaison and later as chief of staff for the Illinois Department of Military Affairs. In these roles, he continued to remain an incredible leader and advocate for our National Guardsmen and their families. He was always a reliable resource to my office and a trusted partner. I know General Cobetto is now looking forward to spending more time with his family, including his wife Kelly, their children Ashley, Jacob, Adam, and Emily, and their two grandchildren Adeline and Mason. I am forever grateful for General Cobetto's invaluable contributions to the great State of Illinois. My wife Loretta and I wish him all the best in this next, well-deserved chapter of his life.

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 want to thank my colleague from Arizona, originally from Chicago, for taking time to come this morning to the floor of the Senate. Let me also thank the Presiding Officer and the staff who have weathered this experience as we consider the nomination of Russell Vought for the Office of Management and Budget. I know it has been a personal and demanding sacrifice on their part, and I thank them for being here. Why are we doing this? We are hoping to call attention to this nomination. Most people in America, if asked, would not be able to identify the initials of OMB, Office of Management and Budget, and if they could identify it as a Federal Agency, they would be hard-pressed to know what it does. I have been in politics in the congressional government for a number of years, and I have insight into what the Agency can do. I want to tell you, the head of the OMB, although not a very known figure across America, has more power than almost anyone in the President's Cabinet. This person decides policy and spending supports across the Federal Government and can make a serious, serious difference. Russell Vought has had a chance to show America what he will do if given another chance to head the OMB. You see, in the final 2 years of the first Trump administration, he had the same job, so we saw him in action, and we saw what his philosophy might be. I want to read you something which sounds incredible, but I am afraid it is true, from the press release by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is what they wrote in their position paper branding Russell Vought as a ``dangerous choice to head OMB'': As director of the OMB-- Under President Trump's first term-- Vought would occupy a powerful position over federal agencies and the federal civilian workforce. Here's what Vought had to say in 2023 about his intentions for these hardworking civil servants under a second Trump administration:-- I am now quoting Russell Vought-- ``We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.'' Russell Vought, what he would do if head of the OMB. Honest to God, is that what we want in America--a person who takes a look at Federal employees that do a myriad of responsible tasks in our Federal Government and treats them as villains, traumatizes them? For Mr. Vought, this sounds like a political game, but for many of these people, first, it is their lives and their careers that they have dedicated to their country and their government to do the best they can, and some critical jobs, which we may take for granted on a regular basis until that moment when we realize how important they will be. It was just a few weeks ago when we had a horrible plane crash near Washington National Airport. I followed that closely because I will tell you, literally, I have flown that flight pattern a thousand times--a thousand. I returned home to Illinois every week that I served in the House for 14 years and then in the U.S. Senate now 28 years, so I know that piece of real estate pretty well. Planes come down the Potomac River to avoid noise in the city of Washington, and some have to make a rather abrupt turn into the runway 33 that is available to them. The evening of the accident, an American Airlines plane made the turn and came into contact with an Army helicopter. Sixty-seven people died. We checked to see what was going on with air traffic control, and we realized that the air traffic controller was doing double-duty that night. He had to do not only the civilian side but the military side. It is not beyond a person's capacity, but it is not preferable. There should have been more air traffic controllers on the job. Air traffic controllers are Federal employees, Mr. Vought. Want to traumatize our air traffic controllers? I don't. I want to feel safe in an airplane. I want to be able to travel with my family with the comfort of knowing that a professional who works for the Federal Government is doing his or her job well. Of course, if you are going to traumatize and call them villains and make them the object of your political fantasies, that is what you get with Mr. Vought and the OMB. It is not fair. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to the American people. These people who work in our Federal Government do responsible, important jobs day in and day out. My staff advised me yesterday that this is reaching a point where no one seems to be in control. They have decided to save money by eliminating the publication of public health brochures that are put out regularly on a weekly basis to notify people all around the United States and the world of outbreaks of illnesses and diseases that could be dangerous. For the first time since 1961, we have stopped publishing those in the last 2 weeks. The Trump administration has decided to ``save money'' by reducing the information available to medical professionals all over the world. They used to look to us, count on us every single week to put out this publication. We stopped doing it ``to save money.'' I am afraid the day is going to come when we regret that decision and a lot of things that flow from it. I want to say a word, too, about the Department of Justice. Yesterday, I had an individual come to see me who is seeking to be the Deputy Attorney General--a good fellow. I had never met him before. And he talked about his career in the law and what he had done as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. His resume is certainly strong. I asked him a question: When he worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office, was he given assignments, or did he choose his caseload? Oh, when you are brand new, you take what they send you. They put me to work on files and cases as they wish, and I did them willingly. That was my job as a member of the Department of Justice. So I said: So you have had no, really, personal decision over these cases? You just did what you were given by your superiors? And he said: That is exactly right, and that is how it works. And I said: Would it be fair to say that when it came to the assignment of these cases, some hierarchy made that decision, not yourself. He said: Of course. I said: Do you know what is going on in the Department of Justice now? They are asking the employees of the Department of Justice to fill out a questionnaire. The Trump administration wants to know: Did you play any role in the prosecution of those accused of violence here in the Capitol on January 6, 2021? And clearly this is being done to separate out those who prosecuted those thugs who came into this building and attacked us. And I don't know where this is going to lead. We are going to have to watch it closely. It has not been done before. If they are dismissed, terminated, it is fundamentally unfair. As this individual who wants to be part of the Trump administration told me, he had nothing to say about the assignment. He did what he was told, and he did the best job he could. And now to fire these individuals because of the January 6 rioters is just fundamentally unfair. Mr. President, you are new to this Chamber, and I have been here a while. And I will tell you that day, January 6, 2021, is one that I will remember for the rest of my life. I was sitting at this seat on the floor of the Senate. Vice President Pence was the Presiding Officer. We were going about our responsibility under the Constitution to count the electoral votes and to announce who won the Presidential election. It was a rather routine assignment in the past, and people haven't noticed. But it has taken on new importance and attracted more attention now because of disputes over votes in various States. And 2020 was one of the most graphic examples of that, when President Trump announced afterward that he did not lose the election; that it was stolen. And he gathered together his supporters who believed that point of view into a rally on January 6 on the Capital Mall. Thousands of people showed up at the President's invitation, and he invited them to come to the Capitol and go wild. They sure did. They went wild by beating down the doors, breaking the windows, crashing through the doors, coming into the U.S. Capitol Building while we were meeting here. Vice President Pence, at about 2:10 p.m.--I saw him turn to one of the Secret Service agents who was protecting him, and the agent grabbed his arm and pulled him out of the chair you are sitting in right now and took him off the floor. And we were sitting here with no one presiding. Chuck Grassley, President pro tempore, was going to take the Chair, and a member of the Capitol Hill police, instead, walked up to where you are sitting and announced to all the Senators in the Chamber and the staff people to stay in this room. This was going to be a protected room, a safe room, and that other people were going to join us. Meanwhile, outside, you could hear the roar of the crowd as they were crashing through the doors and beating up on Capitol Hill policemen. We were here for about 10 minutes when the same Capitol Hill policeman came up and said: Change of plans. We can't keep this room safe. Grab your belongings and leave quickly through that door, which we did. We went to a building nearby and waited to see what would happen next. I was part of the leadership that was called to a secure location, and I was with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. As we followed the proceedings of what was happening on the floor, it was a horrible scene. We were able to see the Senate Chamber through C- SPAN and realize that the thugs who were taking over the building were sitting in your chair, going through my desk, posing for pictures, jumping off the balconies. It was a scene you couldn't image. It was sickening to me. This building means something to me. It has been an important part of my life. I went to college here in Washington. I used to come up for my assignments in my part-time job and get a chance to steal away for a few minutes and sit in the Gallery and follow what was going on, on the Senate floor. Just to be in this building, I considered a privilege, and I still do. And here were people doing horrible things in the building and beating up on the Capitol Hill policemen and the DC policemen who were trying to keep us safe. That was the reality of what happened. These people who work for the Senate and the House are Federal employees. In Russell Vought's view, the villains--the villains--that is what he calls them. Risking their lives to keep us safe and being called villains by Russell Vought, for goodness sake--has he no sense of responsibility for the men and women and their families who risk their lives for this building. Those who were prosecuted for this ended up being in the hundreds of individuals--some for misdemeanors, for trespass; others for more serious crimes, assaulting police officers. One of them already has been released by a pardon from President Trump. He went on to defy a policeman in Indiana, and there was a gunfight that followed, and this individual was shot dead on the scene just a few days after he was released by the President's pardon. The point I am trying to make is that there are important and serious jobs taking place here in Washington and around the Nation. We count on Federal employees, and we count on people to be held accountable if they violate the law. I am sickened by the fact that these men and women in uniform, whom I have come to know over the years, are considered to be disposable, dispensable. In my mind, they are not. Their lives are worth something, and those who attacked them should be held responsible. So when the wheels of justice turned, and these individuals were held responsible, it was through the Department of Justice. Now, there is a hunt on in the Department to find out each and every one of their names. If they are going on a list to be terminated, I would just say to the Trump administration, you are in for a fight. These men and women did their jobs. They were responsible for prosecuting the individuals who raided this Capitol, and they did it well, as far as I am concerned. I am sad to report that Kash Patel, who is President Trump's nominee to head up the Federal Bureau of Investigation, does not agree with me, and I will tell you why. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has 28,000 Federal agents around the world, 400 different field offices. These individuals are the premiere law enforcement Agency of the United States of America and have an international reputation. Mr. Patel wants to be the person to head that Agency. And yet what he decided to do--this is Kash Patel--was to make a project out of music from those who were convicted of crimes on January 6, 2021. He gathered together a number of them--he swears he doesn't even know their names--and created a recording, a song that he wrote and proudly played at President Trump's rallies, a song to be sung by the prisoners, and they call them the J6 Choir. We asked Mr. Patel to tell us more. He said: Well, all the proceeds of the album go to the families of the prisoners. I said: Did you ever consider the proceeds going to the families of the men and women in uniform who were risking their lives to keep this building safe? No, he said. He focused on the families of the prisoners. He called them political prisoners. Of course, they were convicted under the court of law. Many of them pled guilty. They couldn't deny the fact of what the videotape showed of their conduct. So Mr. Patel was raising money through this recording being played at the Trump rallies of these individuals. He said he just didn't know their names or who they might be. And we are considering this individual to head up the FBI. What would morale be like at the FBI if a person is put in charge who was entertaining America with the songs by the prisoners in jail who raided this Capitol? I often think--I wonder what we would have thought if the tables were turned a little bit on January 6, and it didn't happen here in Washington, but happened in London. If we heard that a mob had crashed down the doors of Parliament and taken control of the House of Commons. My reaction would have been: It is impossible. I have been there. I have seen that. It is carefully guarded and watched, and it is a venerable institution when it comes to parliamentary law. I can't imagine that a mob would take over the House of Commons in London. Well, think about America, and think about the impression of what happened on January 6 to other people around the world, and that this happened in our time, in this building. We have to go back to the War of 1812 to find an invasion of an enemy force. And now we come to January 6, 2021, so-called political prisoners-- some call them tourists--who came in and desecrated this building. That was the reality. I am only making that point because I think it is a serious, historic event, and one that we will think about many times again. Individuals who were involved in that were Federal employees, and they were doing their job and risking their lives in the process for doing it. So what is going on through the Office of Management and Budget? There is a man named Matthew Vaeth, V-A-E-T-H, who issued an order. He called for a freeze on Federal spending not that long ago, 2 weeks or so. I don't know if he thought through what he was doing, but he said he was doing it to make sure that there would be no Federal spending which would support transgenderism--that was one of them--or what he called Marxian--capital M--Marxian equity or some Green New Deal. So he wanted to make sure there was no political investment in those causes across America. Do you know what he shut down? He shut down a Head Start Program in Chicago, IL. It is called El Valor. It has been in business for many years. Families of moderate income who live in the neighborhood send their kids to the Head Start Program, and they are very proud of the results. These kids are learning how to read. They are learning how to socialize. They are going to be ready for kindergarten and ready for school as a result of it. Well, Mr. Vaeth at OMB decided to shut it down and cut off their funds. And at least overnight, there was a fear that that was exactly what would happen. It was only when there was a national response in opposition to that, that they reversed their position and decided to keep some of the things open. Head Start is open in Chicago, which I just mentioned, but there are others that are questioning whether they are open as well. I got a phone call, as well, from some doctors in Chicago during this shutdown--this OMB shutdown under President Trump. And I said: What impact has this had on you? They said: We are researchers for the National Institutes of Health. We work in laboratories looking for cures for diseases--heart disease, cancer, all sorts of different challenges. And we, frankly, were told at 5 p.m. on the day of his order to stop working on what we were doing. Most of the projects that we are involved in are long-term projects involving a lot of work that goes beyond regular work hours. But we were told to stop--stop medical research--because of this order from the Federal Government that came out of the OMB. So when we consider what happened, just a few days ago--and it is still reverberating around country--and consider the nomination of Russell Vought, you have to ask yourself, honest to goodness, do you consider that to be a villain who is working at that laboratory in Chicago for a National Institutes of Health project? I consider that person to be a great professional, and I wish them all the success and luck in the world. To characterize them as villains, as Mr. Vought has done, is unfair to them and an indication of his values. So we are trying to appeal to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us with a few votes to stop Mr. Russell Vought from taking over the Office of Management and Budget. This is an important responsibility, and it is one that needs to be left in the hands of those who will accept that responsibility personally. I see that my colleague has joined me from Maryland. I am glad she is here. I am going to wrap up by just saying: We are going to rue the day if we put Russell Vought in this job as to what he is going to do. When he characterizes our Federal employees as villains and says we will put them in trauma--do you want our air traffic controllers to be in trauma? Do you want the men and women who are responsible at the FBI for keeping our country safe from terrorism to be in trauma? I want them working for America's future, as they have in the past, and to characterize them as the enemy is unfair. I will be voting against Russell Vought, and I hope other colleagues will join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to talk about the chaos that has been created by the announced proposed freeze on Federal funding and loans. I want to share a few stories about what I have seen and heard since I spoke on the floor last week. Sharpsburg is near my home town of Springfield, IL. It has a water system in Christian County. It is in phase 3 of construction of a rural water project. It contains 18 miles of pipeline providing water to 50 new rural customers. The work is underway. The project is nearly complete, and it will be in jeopardy if there is a freeze permitted to take effect. What does it mean? It means that these 50 homes and families will be without clean, safe, and affordable water. That is unacceptable. The freeze also means that scientists at universities across the State are worried about their jobs and research. Parents of children with disabilities are worried about losing resources for their kids. Adults are worried about losing access to healthcare and social services. Since then, not one but two judges have issued temporary restraining orders blocking President Trump's measure. As of yesterday evening, that pause has been extended. But let me remind you: This freeze is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the power to Congress, not to the President--the power of the purse--and the President has no legal authority to withhold funding that was signed into law for Americans on a bipartisan basis. In the 1970s, former President Nixon tried to impound or withhold funding appropriated by Congress, and, in response, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, or the ICA. The ICA is still the law of the land, and it prohibits Presidents from withholding funds unless Congress approves the decision through outlined procedures. But consider this: The current administration, apparently, does not care. The President and his people are ignoring the law, creating chaos in hopes that amidst the confusion, some part of his power grab will stick. He is testing the limits of how much he can chip away at our system of checks and balances. There are reports that unelected Elon Musk and his ``government efficiency team'' now have access to the payment systems of the U.S. Treasury, which is essentially the checkbook of the entire Federal Government. Elon Musk tweeted to say he is planning to cut $4 billion in Federal spending every single day from now to September 30--$4 billion a day. I am appalled to see so many of my Senate Republican colleagues falling in line as President Trump and Mr. Musk attempt to strip Congress of our constitutional authorities and cause this kind of pain to our constituents. I am disappointed to see so many of my Republican colleagues vote to advance the nomination of President Trump's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought. If this funding stunt is any indication, he is not fit to run that office. The damage from the freeze extends beyond our shores. Bipartisan, congressionally appropriated funds to provide lifesaving humanitarian aid and freedom in places like Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea have been ground to a halt. For example, programs like PEPFAR, started by President George W. Bush--and I give him credit for that--with the support of the evangelical community and its partner, the Global Fund, have dramatically curtailed the AIDS epidemic ravaging parts of the world. The program has saved more than 25 million lives. It has been so effective that some have forgotten just how devastating AIDS happened to be in that part of the world, killing more than 2 million a year globally and leaving 14 million--14 million--orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. Further, USAID clean water and sanitation programs have provided more than 70 million people with first-time sustainable access to clean water in the last decade--programs that have a 6-to-1 return in dollars saved in health, economic, and educational returns. Low-cost vaccination programs eradicated smallpox and almost eradicated polio from the face of the Earth--something that was unimaginable just a generation ago. Food grown by American farmers helps save millions of lives when war and natural disasters strike. Gutting such programs puts innocent lives and American influence across the globe at risk. It is senseless, counterproductive, ill-informed, and increases the likelihood of costlier interventions that don't respect borders, including pandemics, war, and failed states. The United States cannot and should not stand alone in the world. We are a global leader, and we have an obligation to continue to act like it. But over the weekend, in what sounded like a dystopian story from an otherworldly dictatorship, the Trump administration and Elon Musk tried to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development without congressional approval. Try to imagine that disgraceful scene, as one of the world's richest men gleefully guts programs for some of the world's poorest people. And don't be fooled--this isn't about reform, and the U.S. budget deficit won't be solved by gutting USAID. The foreign assistance budget is only 1 percent of our Federal spending--a small, powerful investment that is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do to prevent conflict and famine and failed states as well as to build alliances and friends around the world. Gutting such programs is a betrayal of American values. Already, nations like China sense a strategic opportunity under President Trump. When these programs go away, the Chinese will step in. Are Republicans going to roll over and cede congressional power on these bipartisan programs? I sincerely hope not. There is a lot at stake in the first few weeks of this new administration. I want to give the President a chance to show his values, but so far, I have to tell you, there is a lot of disappointment. This temporary freeze hurt a lot of innocent people, and this notion now of shutting down USAID--I can't imagine Elon Musk would have it on his conscience that so many helpless people would lose the basics of life for his budget plan. He wasn't elected to anything, and I think we should return to the Constitution, which still guides us today and should. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, shortly, Senate Republicans will confirm the nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as Attorney General and lead the Department of Justice in the new administration. Yesterday, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the Trump administration's decision to purge Department of Justice officials and warned that Ms. Bondi's record suggests that she will aid in this effort to pack the Department of Justice with loyalists seeking retribution against President Trump's political rivals. Since the Watergate era, there has been bipartisan support for the principle that the Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions must be independent from the White House. Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have asked many individuals seeking the office of Attorney General one basic question: Will you be willing to tell the President no? Given that Ms. Bondi, when speaking about President Trump's criminal indictments, threatened ``the prosecutors will be prosecuted, and the investigators will be investigated,'' I have serious doubts about her willingness to really say no to this President. This concern is even more pressing because, over the last 16 days, the Trump administration has purged dozens of senior career law enforcement officials at the Department of Justice and at the FBI. This purge has been particularly focused on dedicated, nonpartisan prosecutors and investigators working in the National Security Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On its first day, the Trump administration removed or reassigned as many as 20 experienced professionals with invaluable national security expertise, without any comparable replacements, including the veteran career Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in the National Security Division. These are men and women we have entrusted with the responsibility to keep America safe. They were summarily dismissed by this new President just days into his administration. Those who have been reassigned are reportedly being put in roles concerning immigration enforcement, for which they have little expertise. We had a hearing this morning about fentanyl and talked about some 70,000 Americans each year losing their lives to this terrible drug. We are all concerned and expressed it at this hearing. But some of the very people who are working in drug enforcement are going to be removed and put into mass deportation of immigrants. We have said over and over again that if the President is setting out to do what he promised he would do, he needs more personnel to get it done or he will have to cut back invaluable functions of our law enforcement community at the risk of endangering the families and businesses in America. Since that warning, dozens more senior officials have been removed. At the FBI, at least six FBI Executive Assistant Directors, or EADs, have been removed, including the EADs who oversee the National Security Branch, Intelligence Branch, and the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. The Trump administration has also removed 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 dozens of career DOJ prosecutors, stating: Given your significant role in prosecuting the President, I do not believe that the leadership at the Department can trust you . . . in implementing the President's agenda faithfully. The Trump administration has even asked line attorneys and agents to retire, resign, or be fired simply for handling tasks linked to the investigation of President Trump or prosecution of his misconduct. The Acting FBI Director informed the entire FBI workforce that he was reviewing the files of ``all current and former FBI personnel assigned at any time to investigations and/or prosecutions'' relating to January 6 and unrelated terrorism cases. Mr. President, if you are a student of history, you know that when the communists took over the Soviet Union, one of the things that they gloried in doing was rewriting history, trying to make the bad chapters, the embarrassing chapters, the sad chapters different so that future generations never were really quite sure what happened. That is exactly what is going on with January 6, 2021. Despite the graphic video evidence of what happened on that day when this insurrectionist mob tried to take control of this Capitol and stop the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joseph Biden--despite the clear evidence to the contrary, they continue to believe that this is a hoax, that somehow these were just tourists coming by the Capitol. Those of us who were there, those of us who remember the danger that was brought by these mobsters and thugs, know that is a lie. Now they are going through the Department of Justice and saying: If you were involved in prosecuting any of these people who beat up on the policemen in this building, tore down the structures, broke the windows; if you were involved in any prosecution involving them, you are not welcome at the Department of Justice. They want to rewrite history. They want future generations to believe the lie that they have perpetrated about what happened on that day. Those of us who were there will never forget what actually did happen. The interim U.S. attorney for DC also ordered an internal review of staff handling cases relating to January 6, moved to dismiss all pending charges against those defendants, and has already fired dozens of prosecutors and investigators who worked those cases. The people who were spared by the pardon of Donald Trump include individuals who are dangerous. One had a record of 38 convictions for crimes, and they are now back out on the street. Over the past weekend, thousands of FBI personnel across the country were told to complete a questionnaire that asked a series of questions about their involvement in the prosecution and investigation of January 6. This shameless partisan retribution is only the beginning. It has been reported that future FBI Director Kash Patel, if he is chosen by the Senate, will be guided by an advisory committee composed of solely partisan political operators, including an associate of Elon Musk's. Elon Musk. Who elected him? By what authority does he have any voice in the administration of our government? Why should he or his minions have access to the private records of American citizens? It is happening. These actions will cripple FBI field offices and U.S. attorneys offices across the country by increasing the caseload for the remaining agents, dramatically slowing down critical investigations and prosecutions. The Trump Department of Justice is taking this partisanship beyond the President's personal grievances, as many as there may be. They are already dropping criminal investigations against the President's allies, such as Congressman Andy Ogles. They also have begun systemically stripping the Department of Justice of vital, substantive expertise by reducing personnel from the law and policy sections of various divisions, such as the Environment and Natural Resources Division, which pursues polluters who poison our communities. As America faces a heightened threat landscape, these shocking removals and reassignments of hundreds of employees deprive the Department of Justice and FBI of experienced leadership and decades of experience fighting violent crime, espionage, and terrorism. For years, my Republican colleagues claimed they ``back the blue'' and accused Democrats of being soft on crime. We heard it over and over and over. But now, as President Trump is gutting our Nation's law enforcement Agencies and putting our national security at risk, my Republican colleagues do not complain. They are nowhere to be found. Instead of condemning these actions, they will likely come to the Senate floor tonight and confirm an individual to lead the Department of Justice who is in lockstep with this policy of President Trump and was chosen for the role specifically because she is loyal. More than anything else, she is loyal. I urge my colleagues to consider what a danger President Trump and Pam Bondi present to this Nation. I will oppose her confirmation and hope my colleagues will do the same. I will also say letters went out today asking for further hearings on Kash Patel. I have been reading his response to the questions for the record--QFR--and I can tell you, they raise more questions than they answer. He has an attitude. To think this man will be in charge of 38,000 FBI agents and personnel, 400 field offices across the Nation and around the world, is going to have the authority to investigate those whom he chooses, is a frightening thing. His message in politics is ``get even.'' I read his book. It is called ``Government Gangsters.'' This book, in specific detail, talks about his view of politics. He has a long list of grievances, political and personal, and he plans to get even. That is not the kind of person we need in charge of the FBI. He has no experience to point to of any significance which qualifies him for this job. We have had many Directors of the FBI chosen for long periods of time because of our change in the law. We now have a 10-year period of service for the Director of the FBI, and we also do our best to make sure they are apolitical since they bridge various administrations, not just one or two. That is part of the law, and that is the reason we did it. Now we are going to put a man in that position who has no experience, no background, and a political chip on his shoulder. I am afraid that is just a recipe for disaster. I urge my colleagues to think twice about Pam Bondi and Kash Patel. This is not what we should expect or want from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on another equally important matter, this week, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as Attorney General. Given the Trump administration's ongoing purge of Justice Department officials, I urge my colleagues to look very carefully and closely at Ms. Bondi's nomination. President Trump has repeatedly made it clear that he values loyalty above all else when it comes to Attorneys General. Don't take my word for it. Look at what happened in his first term. He fired his first Attorney General and forced out a second for insufficient loyalty; and he said as much. President Trump has said time and again he expects the Justice Department to seek ``retribution'' on his behalf. In Ms. Bondi, I am afraid, the President has finally found someone who passes his loyalty test. Now, look, if you look at the resume of Pam Bondi, you will find that she served as attorney general for the State of Florida for two terms. She has experience as an attorney general of our third largest State. You are not only going to hear that over and over, but it appears that she is prepared to break with bipartisan tradition when it comes to a nonpartisan Department of Justice--one that upholds the rule of law and is free of undue political influence from the White House. I am not convinced that she is dedicated to these ideals. She was the leader in an effort to overturn the 2020 election. To this day, she still clings to the basic loyalty oath that was required of those who were a part of that effort. She refuses to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the Presidential election in 2020--she can't get over it--and she echoed the President-elect's calls for prosecuting his political opponents, including a pledge she made publicly that the ``prosecutors will be prosecuted, and the investigators will be investigated.'' Sadly, Ms. Bondi's threat is already coming to fruition. Since President Trump's inauguration, his administration has purged dozens of senior career civil servants at the Department of Justice and the FBI, including longtime nonpartisan leaders of the government's counterterrorism and counterespionage efforts. These career civil servants are responsible for coordinating the Justice Department's fight against international terrorism and foreign spies. These removals substantially diminish America's ability to respond to national security threats. Quite simply, they are a danger to the public. The Trump administration's purge of these officials is a naked political move. In firing a dozen career prosecutors, the Acting Attorney General issued a memo that said in that memo: Given your significant role in prosecuting the President, I do not believe the leadership of the Department can trust you. How blunt can you be? Line attorneys and agents are similarly being bullied now simply because their assigned tasks were linked to the criminal investigation of the President or the January 6 riots--one of the largest prosecutions in the history of the United States when an insurrectionist mob came to the floor of this Senate, rifled through my desk--I saw this on tape--assumed the chair that is being held now by the President of the Senate, posed for pictures, made all sorts of signs, left notes behind, and tore up the Capitol Building. At the end of the day, 140 law enforcement officers were hurt, and 4 lost their lives. That was the reality of what happened on January 6. Do we expect the Justice Department to do nothing about the hundreds of people who stormed this Capitol? We saw it on videotape. Nobody is making this up. What they did was to prosecute them for the crimes that they committed. Many of them were sentenced, and many of them pled guilty when they saw the videotapes that portrayed exactly what they did on that day. The Justice Department prosecuted them, and many of them ended up in jail--some of them with serious sentences for their serious misconduct. Now comes the new President, Donald Trump, and on his first day in office, he absolves them from criminal guilt and tells them they are free to go. A question has to be asked of the American people: If someone came bursting into your home or your church or your school and tore it up, beat up those who were trying to maintain order and did it all on videotape, should they be held responsible for it? I certainly think so. That is certainly true when it comes to this building, which represents the symbol of America and our democracy. If you want to desecrate this building, you should pay the price. The American people deserve an Attorney General who will acknowledge that reality, who will protect the fundamental rights of this country, demonstrate independence and integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution, the country, and the rule of law. Ms. Bondi, during the course of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was also asked about Kash Patel, the President's nominee to head up the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She made it clear that she supports him. I don't. I don't because he doesn't have the experience to hold the job. He certainly has nothing in his background to suggest that he can supervise 38,000 FBI agents and employees and 400 field offices around the world trying to keep America safe every single day. Yet she stood behind him. I fear Ms. Bondi will only protect and remain faithful to one person throughout this whole experience, and that is the President who is giving her this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at her record and the record of Kash Patel. They are a team in this effort, and they should be held accountable for what they have said and written and the positions that they have taken in support of the President, even when his positions are not consistent, in my mind, with the equal and free administration of justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks. It has been 2 weeks with the new President. The inauguration seems so far in the distant past. It is hard to believe. What this administration has tried to do during the first 2 weeks is almost impossible to describe in a very short period of time--so many Executive orders, so many changes, so many speeches by the President, so many threats, so many changes in the way this government is run--and many of them raising serious questions that even go to the heart of the Constitution. Since President Trump took office 2 weeks ago, he has sown chaos across the Federal Government, but despite his campaign promises, something has been conspicuously absent from his agenda: lowering the cost of living for Americans. The unprecedented, economically questionable tariffs he announced on Friday on three of America's largest trading partners--25 percent on Canada and Mexico and 10 percent more on China--show just that. I said to my staff, when they handed me a copy of this speech which was written this morning, that there have been some developments during the course of the day when it comes to Mexico--at least a postponement of the imposition of tariffs on Mexico for a month. Canada is still a work in progress, as far as we know. Despite campaigning on a promise of lowering prices, these tariffs will not do that. They will do just the opposite. American families will find things more expensive. Don't take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that tariffs will ``only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.'' That is the Chamber of Commerce. The National Association of Manufacturers said: Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk. The President himself even admitted that these economic measures will cause pain for many American families. Trade between my home State of Illinois and Canada and Mexico are essential to the strength of our economy. More than 1 out of 10 workers in Illinois works for the export market. Illinois is the fourth largest exporter State in the Nation. And what are our first and second largest export markets? Canada and Mexico. As a result of these tariffs the President is proposing, working families will feel the pain. These tariffs will drive up costs for manufacturers; it will disrupt our supply chain; and they have already inspired retaliatory tariffs which American consumers will feel at the store. Clearly, our outrage at this senseless policy may be working. Today, the President announced he will delay the tariffs with Mexico for a month. I am glad to hear that. Let's be clear about one thing: Unless you are a tech billionaire or you are helping someone to get rich through the crypto market, the President does not care about making your life better. He only cares about enriching himself at the expense of everyday Americans. So, when you wonder why the stock market is dipping and the price of eggs and potatoes goes up at the grocery store and when your oil change is marked up, know that it was because of the policy of the new President who has been in office for 2 weeks.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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