Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from former special counsel Jack Smith, the man who investigated Donald Trump's criminal effort overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Mr. Smith testified, under oath, about how the President pressured State election officials and Members of Congress to reject the results of the election, even though Trump had privately admitted that Joe Biden had won in 2020.

The President's subversion efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when an armed mob, that he incited, stormed the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

Mr. Smith testified yesterday that it was Donald Trump who caused that violence, that he foresaw what would result from his conspiracy theories and that he sought to exploit it to remain in power.

We remain a democracy today because of the brave public servants, many of them Republicans, who refused to cooperate with the President's attacks on our democracy, as well as the men and women in uniform who defended this building and all of us inside on that dark day.

Now, in his second term, the President is again sowing chaos and doubt in our electoral process. He is attempting to exceed the authorities granted to him by the Constitution, which clearly gives primary authority over election administration to the States.

In March, President Trump signed an illegal Executive order which directed the Department of Homeland Security to overhaul the so-called SAVE database with incorrect and out-of-date citizenship information so it could be used to determine voter eligibility.

It was a reckless solution in search of a problem. Yet last week, the Supreme Court's conservative majority permitted part of this dangerous plan to move forward, allowing States to use the flawed database to verify the citizenship of registered voters.

This will inevitably lead to voter purges and disenfranchisement of eligible voters in States that choose to use this faulty system.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration's efforts to interfere with the upcoming midterm elections go far beyond the SAVE database. Just look at the Department of Justice.

In January, the FBI used widely debunked conspiracy theories to justify a raid on an elections office in Fulton County, GA, seizing ballots and voter rolls from the 2020 Presidential election.

Later, in March, the FBI seized election materials from a partisan, Republican audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, AZ.

In July, reporting emerged that the FBI obtained the IP address of an individual in South Carolina who registered to vote online.

In response to that last case, a former senior Justice Department official noted that, ``it's not typical and it's not appropriate'' ``for the FBI to be calling state election officials and just asking and conducting a fishing expedition to see private voter data.''

The FBI has also raided the office of a voting rights organization in Ohio, and they showed up at the home of a poll worker in Milwaukee to ask questions about the 2020 election.

These are unacceptable and unprecedented steps by the FBI, all in an effort to relitigate the 2020 Presidential election.

But it isn't just FBI Director Kash Patel. Other components of the Justice Department have joined these efforts to support the Big Lie.

DOJ's Civil Rights Division, often called the ``crown jewel'' of the Department, is responsible for enforcing the laws that protect the right to vote. But that mission has been effectively abandoned.

Instead of protecting voting rights, the Civil Rights Division currently seems focused on intimidating eligible voters and election officials.

In April, the Division sought to obtain election materials from Wayne County in the swing State of Michigan.

The Division has filed 31 lawsuits against States in an effort to obtain access to unredacted voter rolls, filled with sensitive voter data.

The Division is also planning to deploy 1,000 election observers across the country; the election observer program has historically played an important role in protecting the right to vote, but it is ripe for misuse under this administration.

Additionally, the Division has sent letters to election officials across the country threaten to file criminal charges against officials if a noncitizen casts a ballot in an upcoming election.

As the Republican-appointed Utah elections director noted in response to one of those letters, ``The federal government can best assist the State of Utah by allowing us to perform our required duties without unjustified interference, as intended by Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.''

Across the country, voters are beginning to receive ballots for early voting. I understand why some of those voters may look at this landscape and wonder if they should even bother trying to vote.

It is indeed frightening to watch this weaponization of Federal law enforcement. But that makes it all the more critical for Americans to make their voices heard, loud and clear.

And there is good news that should give voters confidence. While the Trump administration has had some victories, like the case before the Supreme Court last week, most of their interference efforts have been shut down by the Federal judiciary.

Those DOJ lawsuits to obtain sensitive voter roll data? Courts have rejected them in every ruling so far.

And countless State attorneys general, State and local election officials, and community organizations stand ready.

They have been tirelessly preparing for this election for months, and they will be working to protect every eligible American's right to access the ballot and have their vote counted.

Here in Congress, I am working with my colleagues to hold Trump administration officials accountable when they try to interfere with our constituents' rights.

The reality is the President's biggest fear is coming true: Americans are fed up with this administration's broken promises.

And if Donald Trump thinks that he will overturn the will of the people with a conspiracy-fueled attempt to void the election, he should be ready to once again lose in courtrooms across the country.

We Americans will not allow our collective voices to be silenced.

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

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

Madam President, before I start my remarks this afternoon, I would like to make note of two interesting events this weekend. I was asked to speak at a dinner in St. Louis right across the river from my hometown of East St. Louis, and it was known as a Harry Truman dinner.

And I told a story about the former President from Independence, MO; that when he returned from Washington in 1953 to his home State of Missouri, he and his wife moved back into their home in Independence, and he reported to the press that when they arrived, he took the ``grips'' up to the attic.

For those who don't know the term ``grips,'' it was the word that was used to describe luggage. So former President Harry Truman was reporting that he was back home again now, and his life would be much the same.

He proceeded to also tell how he had turned down many opportunities for payment, salaries, fees, rewards that were available to former Presidents even in the early 1950s.

And he said at the time that as far as he was concerned, although it was perfectly legal to do the things he was asked to do--to serve on boards, for example, or be chairman of various undertakings, or even to play the piano on television, and he was offered money for that--he just didn't think it was appropriate.

In his words, it reflected poorly on the prestige and integrity of the Office of the President, the prestige and integrity of the Office of the President.

Doesn't that sound quaint these days, when we have a President who, in his first year of his second Presidential term, made $1.4 billion from his investments, particularly with the cryptocurrency bunch?

Think about that for a second. Here are this President and his family, who are making billions of dollars--if you include the family-- from investments that directly relate to his office.

The most recent one that was reported was just 2 weeks ago when Donald Trump, Jr., had his wedding reception on some island somewhere, and it leaked to the press that the entire festivity reception was paid for by a Russian oligarch who is close to Vladimir Putin.

Surely, Senator Durbin, you are making this up.

No, I am not. We are virtually at war with Putin and Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, and the son of the President of the United States gets married, goes to a private island for a lavish reception, and it is paid for by a Russian oligarch. That picture is so wrong from the start.

As my colleague Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, said when he heard of this: You expect a toaster for a wedding gift; you don't expect a Russian oligarch to pay for the reception. But that is what happened.

I might add, Senator Curtis--and I praise him for this--said: Why wouldn't the Senate Judiciary Committee be looking into this?

I have the same question. I approached the chairman of the committee and other members of the committee and said: You know, if such a thing had happened with Hunter Biden, for goodness' sake, you would have had much more than a hearing; you would have had a subpoena and depositions and God knows what.

But the fact of the matter is, there is scarcely a peep when Senator Curtis, a Republican Member of the Senate, made what is a perfectly reasonable suggestion--that Congress look into any possibility of corruption and self-dealing when a member of the President's family receives such a lavish gift from a Russian oligarch.

I might add so that the record is clear that Senator Curtis said he wanted Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, to also face the same questions as to whether he used his connection with his father to make any money or to receive any gifts during the Biden Presidency. What was the reaction of Hunter Biden? He said: ``Bring it on.'' I have had two sworn depositions before Congress on the subject. I am happy and content with my answers, and I will do it again if necessary. And I will sit right next to Donald Trump, Jr. We can both testify under oath as to our personal experiences.

That was Hunter Biden's response. What was Donald Trump, Jr.'s response? Crickets. Crickets. I wish I knew the Russian word for ``crickets.'' Not a word. Nothing to suggest anything happened that was wrong. We know better. We know exactly what happened, what was wrong.

I thought of the President one other time this week. I have a Ford F- 150 truck--it is an older truck--in the driveway of my home in Springfield, and I took it into the gas station to fill up. I am sure that most Americans had the same feeling I had at that moment: For God's sake, what is happening to gasoline prices? I believe I paid $4.59 a gallon for the lowest octane gas for my old truck. But I can just imagine what families and individuals are facing as they go to the gasoline pumps every day and witness these dramatic increases in gasoline and energy prices under the Trump administration.

Why is this the case? Well, it is the case because we are in the eighth month of the first year of President Trump's war in Iran. Do you remember when he came to the American people and said he was going to invade Iran? Of course you don't. He didn't do that. He just did that. He ignored the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, and went forward and invaded and attacked Iran. We have lost--I believe 18 is the last count of brave American service men and women who have died as a result of that conflict. There is no end in sight.

Every day you fill up your gas tank, a trucker fills up their diesel tank, a farmer goes out in the field--and we are harvesting now in Illinois--and sees the cost of diesel fuel, every day, you remember this is a creation of the President of the United States for a war that was unnecessary, illegal, and didn't follow the Constitution at its outset. No end in sight.

The President has reported over 40 times that we have Iran on the ropes, that they can't wait to negotiate a settlement, and it never happens. This is affecting U.S. families and businesses, but it is affecting countries all over the world, this unnecessary and illegal war, as far as I am concerned.

Now more and more, Republican Members of Congress, who have not stood up in Washington to assert the responsibility and right of Congress to declare war, are going back home, campaigning for reelection, and saying they got it wrong; war is a mistake. Where have they been for 8 months while we have been having these votes on the floor as to whether Congress approves of the war of Iran? Democrats, but for one or two, consistently voted against this war. The Republicans now, in the closing days before the midterm election, have found religion on the subject.

Rescissions

Madam President, on Friday night, the Trump administration announced the President has unilaterally rescinded nearly $1 billion in funds Congress had approved for spending on a bipartisan basis. This funding was meant for education programs, health research, assistance for businesses, immigration services, and support to other countries-- particularly those we have an obligation to help.

This move is an illegal power grab by the Trump administration, plain and simple. We have seen this movie before.

Last year, President Trump canceled $4.9 billion in foreign aid with his so-called pocket rescission maneuver. Earlier in 2025, my Republican colleagues supported President Trump's rescission request that clawed back $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcast funding.

Rescission requests are made under a fast-track process in which a President can request Congress to rescind Federal funding with a simple majority vote in each Chamber. The law requires that if Congress does not pass a bill rescinding the funding within 45 days, the President must release it.

However, President Trump--surprise--is attempting an unlawful maneuver called the pocket rescission. He is seeking to rescind funding less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, believing this provides him with power to cancel funding with or without the approval of Congress.

Here is the surprise ending to this scenario: He will be challenged in court, as he has been again and again and again. Overwhelmingly, he has lost in court with his ideas of what the Constitution really means again and again.

The Government Accountability Office has stated that the President's pocket rescissions are illegal.

Democrats fought for pocket rescission protection in the continuing resolution we passed earlier this year to prevent the White House from doing exactly what they have done. Not surprisingly, Republicans in the Senate and the House refused to stand for the law for fear that they would anger their President.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might express some concern now about the items that have been cut by the administration, but where were they this summer when they had a chance to fix it?

For Donald Trump, billion-dollar ballrooms are full speed ahead. Money for schools? Cut. Vanity projects like the Trump golden arch are priorities, but medical research is cut. Taxpayer-funded political ads of the wartime President looking very resolute are a must. Medical care for children? Cut.

Over the past 20 months, Republicans have continuously bent the knee, kissed the ring, and handed Donald Trump more power and authority on a silver platter. Now the question is whether they will finally find their collective backbone and do something about this illegal Executive maneuver.

Special Counsel Jack Smith

Madam President, tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to hear from Special Counsel Jack Smith. This is a historic event, and let me tell you why. Jack Smith is a nonpartisan career prosecutor appointed to investigate President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election as well as his effort to illegally retain highly classified government documents.

In 2020, President Trump spent months spreading the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I have heard this so many times, I can understand what was going on in the Soviet Union when the communists were in control. If they had an item in history that was embarrassing in the history of their country, they would simply change the history textbooks.

Well, we have the same thing going on when it comes to the 2020 election. This President, who cannot bring himself to even consider the possibility--the possibility--that he lost an election, continues to hammer away at the Big Lie, but he lost by 7 million votes. Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

This President has pressured State officials, his own Vice President, the Justice Department, and Members of Congress to overturn the results of the election. This culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, where President Trump's supporters tried to violently prevent the constitutional certification of the 2020 election.

I was here, right here at my desk when this happened, when the mob started coming into this Chamber, and we filed out that door with police protection to avoid this effort to overturn the 2020 election. These MAGA Trump loyalists were trying to defy the Constitution, and they haven't quit to this day.

Instead of condemning this egregious criminal conduct on January 6, my Republican colleagues are spreading baseless conspiracy theories and attacking career prosecutors and FBI agents, claiming the so-called deep state is out to get Donald Trump--the deep state.

Now, after years of criticism and multiple hearings about the investigations, Senate Judiciary Republicans are finally holding a hearing with Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated these matters.

You say to yourself: Well, he must have resisted, hired some lawyers, fought the Republicans, refused to appear, wouldn't stand and answer questions under oath.

Exactly the opposite is true. Jack Smith asked the Republicans in Congress, who continually berate him for his conduct, for an opportunity to testify under oath to the committee, the Judiciary Committee. He asked for that opportunity a year ago--October of 2025. They ignored it.

At the time, Judiciary Committee Democrats--of which I am proud to say I am the ranking member--sent a letter urging the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to stop complaining about Jack Smith and bring him before the committee under oath. Stop making speeches and ask the man, who you believe to be responsible for wrongdoing, questions that he has to answer truthfully.

He had agreed to do that a year ago. Yet they would rather give a speech than actually hear a man under oath defend his position.

We made this request again in February of 2026. Well, soon, in just a few days, Jack Smith will appear under oath before the Judiciary Committee. The chairman had declined to bring him before, claiming they needed more time--more time--to gather information. Still, Republicans on the committee have made no effort to obtain a copy of volume 2 of Jack Smith's report, which details the findings from the criminal investigation into President Trump's alleged mishandling of classified materials.

You remember the classified information that was found near the bathroom in Mar-a-Lago? I remember it.

If this hearing is really about getting answers, we will finally get our chance--Jack Smith will get his chance to tell his side of the story under oath.

Despite these impediments, I am glad my Republican colleagues will finally address these concerns directly. It is about time and, in fact, it is well past time for this committee, the Judiciary Committee, to move on and stop spreading political rumors and get down to the truth.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until December 1, 2026: Megan Griffin, Melissa ``Mel'' Harris, Andrew Lee, Hannah O'Koon, and David Pelikan.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, for 25 years I have come to the Senate floor with a simple request--for Congress to protect children who know no other home than the United States of America.

I first made this request after I heard from a constituent, a young high school graduate in Chicago and a brilliant, brilliant piano prodigy. She was brought to the United States when she was 2 years old. She didn't know how to fill out her college applications because of her undocumented status.

I couldn't believe, when we looked up the law, that our Nation had no path to citizenship for a young person like her so I introduced a bill to change it.

Shortly afterward, I received a call from my colleague Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. He said that he was working on similar legislation. I asked him if we could join forces, and we did. Together, Senator Hatch and I introduced the DREAM Act.

Now, isn't that how Congress is supposed to work? Two senators of opposing parties, who didn't agree on much, came together to work on legislation to provide a pathway to legal status for these young people brought to the United States as children. These young people came to be known as Dreamers.

Since I first introduced the DREAM Act, I have come to the Senate floor over 150 times to share the stories of these Dreamers, who, today, are doctors, nurses, business owners, educators, parents, and so many other professions. I have pushed for this legislation to make them legal in the eyes of the law, to be included in bipartisan efforts like the 2013 Gang of 8 immigration bill which passed the Senate with 68 votes.

Over the years, the DREAM Act has passed the Senate and it has passed the House, but never at the same time so that we couldn't send it to the President's desk to have it signed into law.

As I near the end of my time in the Senate, Congress continues to fail these young people who are American in every sense of the word, not just to me but to the vast majority of the country.

The American people have heard about the DREAM Act for many years. Eighty-one percent of the American people support citizenship for Dreamers--81 percent--including 56 percent of Republicans.

Despite its overwhelming popularity, the DREAM Act is still stuck in Congress.

And so, instead of celebrating legislation, establishing a legal pathway for these Dreamers, I come to the floor today to highlight my 153rd Dreamer story.

This is Karen Montes Gaga, who arrived in Seattle from Mexico when she was 3 years old. She loves school, dreamed of becoming a teacher one day.

In high school, she was an honor student and a tutor to her peers, but she knew her options beyond high school were limited. Without legal status, she could never get the education she needed to become a teacher. Then DACA was announced by President Obama. Karen jumped at the chance to enroll in the program and go back to school.

So that you understand what DACA is, it says to young undocumented people like Karen that they have to--every 2 years--apply for a work permit and go through a criminal background check and pay what is now a $600 fee every 2 years. So there is no question about people harboring criminals under the DREAM Act or DACA today. There is a criminal background check required every 2 years.

She immediately enrolled in college classes after qualifying for DACA and obtained her bachelor's degree in education. But she didn't stop there. Karen went on to receive her master's in education curriculum and instruction.

Karen has now been a proud elementary school teacher for almost a decade. She serves on her school's leadership team. She has been nominated twice for the Teacher of the Year Award.

As a DACA recipient, Karen, of course, is responsible for renewing that work permit every 2 years. But there is a problem. This year, she filed in a timely manner and expected her most recent renewal to be like every other one for the last 14 years she has been qualified for DACA, but this renewal process was different. The Trump administration failed to process her DACA renewal in time, even though she had filed it months in advance. As a result, Karen's work permit expired, and she was forced to walk out and

leave behind her classroom, abandoning her students in the middle of an academic year for months at a time.

In a world of rising costs and inflation, losing a single paycheck could be the difference in keeping a roof over your head and food on the table. But you know what Karen is most worried about? Her 27 students that she had to leave behind.

Let me quote her:

It is so heartbreaking because, as any teacher will tell

you, it is more than a job. It is a responsibility. It is a

commitment that I make each school year to the children that

depend on me every single day and I was not there.

That is whom this administration and Republicans are failing: a teacher--a teacher--who is committed to instilling strong values and work ethic into her students and whose heart was broken when she could not.

To my Republican colleagues, I ask you, if you went out looking for the worst of the worst, would you choose Karen? If you wanted to remove from the United States rapists, murders, terrorists, child predators, would you identify Karen as one of those people? Of course not.

Karen put it best when she said:

Behind every pending application number there is a person,

a family, a story and this is mine.

There is still time to help Dreamers in the final months of the 119th Congress.

To all my Republican colleagues, please join me and Senator Murkowski in standing up for these young people who epitomize the meaning of the American dream. Stand up for Karen, stand up for her students, and stand up for what is right.

I may be leaving this Senate in a few months, but I am not leaving this fight.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if a person walks the Halls of the U.S. Capitol, there is a pretty good chance you will bump into a reporter. They are seemingly around every corner with their phones out ready to ask your opinion on a recent statement or the news of the day.

Those of us who serve in this Chamber have become used to their presence, and their many, many questions. While we may bristle when they press us, we know that these journalists serve an indispensable purpose; they shine a light on the Senate, and they keep the American people informed about their government.

The work these reporters perform is a great service to our Nation, one that deserves our thanks. Yet, you won't hear that kind of gratitude coming out of the Trump White House.

Since President Trump returned to the Oval Office, he has done more to undermine, belittle, and attack the free press in America than any President in modern history.

Last year, after the Associated Press refused to use the President's invented name for the Gulf of Mexico, the President barred the organization from access to the Oval Office and to Air Force One.

At the same time, he launched an unprecedented number of baseless defamation lawsuits against respected news outlets for their factual reporting on his failed businesses, his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection right here in this Capitol.

On Friday, President Trump took his war against the press to new depths and banned CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO reporters from the White House grounds because of his personal disagreements with their coverage.

No President in the history of the United States has ever stooped this low.

This Trump decision has no modern precedent. A credentialed media outlet has never been banned from the entirety of the White House. This ban is unconstitutional retaliation for actual reporting. It is something you would expect to read about in the communist Russia days with Pravda and Izvestia or perhaps in North Korea, but not in the United States.

This assault on the press is a dangerous effort by the President to distract American public opinion away from his failed agenda, his endless Iranian war, and his self-defeating tariffs.

Trump has broken countless promises made during his campaign for President. Chastising CNN won't lower the price of diesel fuel; punishing POLITICO won't end the Iranian war; and maligning MS NOW won't save the President's free-falling approval ratings.

Yet, the President seems determined to double down on his assault on the First Amendment. Yesterday, the White House announced the creation of Trump TV, a news channel designed to spread propaganda from the Trump White House.

I would have thought the creation of a state-run media platform to serve as the President's megaphone would have generated some sort of response, some sort of outcry from my Republican colleagues who condemn communism and authoritarianism, but they are afraid to say a word lest this press operation and President Trump turn on them.

I urge all my colleagues to speak out against this ban and the President's continued assault on the free press. The future of our democracy demands us standing up for the Constitution, even if the President won't.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Kim), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have been through a lot of events on Capitol

Hill in my life. There was one, last night, that was worth remembering. It was a gathering for a rally for medical research investment by Congress and the President for the good of all of our country and beyond, and there was one presentation which really had an impact.

A former colleague of ours in the U.S. Senate, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, is fighting a heroic battle against cancer. He was diagnosed quite a few months ago with pancreatic cancer, and it spread throughout his body.

I recall when it was first reported. Senator Sasse was candid, honest, and levelheaded in saying this is considered a death sentence, but we are going to fight it.

Well, there he was last night and in communication with this group that gathered on Capitol Hill--doctors and researchers and scientists from all over the United States--to report on his progress. Nine months after they predicted he would not survive, he has survived.

He talked about the fact that he was going to enjoy a meal with his family, and he counted every meal that he had with his family as a triumph over the early predictions that it would never happen.

The reason I raise that point is that there are a lot of issues that come before us in Congress, and there are a lot of political opinions on those issues. What I have found over the years is that a few issues transcend politics.

Medical research is one of those issues. It is a situation where I don't care if the researcher, scientist, or doctor is a Democrat or a Republican or even votes. I want to know if they are doing worthwhile research that can lead to cures, can save lives.

Most every one of us has been in the circumstance where some terrible diagnosis comes out affecting someone in your family or someone you love. One of the first questions you ask, of course: Is there anything we can do? Is there a drug? Is there a surgery? Is there a procedure? Hoping beyond hope that there will be good news and at least the promise, the possibility of the one you love being spared--medical research does that.

When I had a chance, about 12 years ago, to go to the National Institutes of Health, which is the premier medical research agency in the world--in the world--I met with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a legend. He served under Presidents of both political parties, headed up the NIH, and was really part of the solution and cures of so many things in front of us.

And I asked him, when I visited 12 years ago: What can I do, as a Member of the Senate, to help medical research in America?

And he said: Senator, if you can just give us 5 percent growth each year on a consistent basis, my researchers will have confidence that they can stick with their research and maybe find that cure. But when you go up and down with the research money, it is almost impossible to get that level of confidence.

That inspired me to come back to Capitol Hill to meet with then- Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who chaired the subcommittee that funds NIH, and I told him that story about Dr. Collins.

So Roy Blunt and I, a Republican and a Democrat, reached out to enlist people to gather support in our cause, 5 percent real growth each year. Among those who were contacted was Patty Murray, who has been committed to medical research throughout her Senate career, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is now chairperson of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and many others.

It was a bipartisan effort, and it was successful. Over the last 10 years, we have increased the spending for medical research at NIH from $30 billion a year to $49 billion a year. That substantial 60 percent increase was what Dr. Collins was asking for.

Now, we have challenges that we have to face. The administration, in the first two budgets of the second Trump administration, has asked for dramatic cuts in medical research.

You didn't hear me wrong. They have asked for dramatic cuts in medical research.

And you say to yourself: Why? Why in the world would we take a step backward when it comes to medical research?

Our former Senator Ben Sasse is living proof--living proof--that ``research leading to cures'' works. It is the right investment.

Ask any family who is facing a terrible disease if research is important to them, and you know the answer already.

So now comes a proposal from the Trump administration, not only on the budget to cut the NIH, but the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health have supposedly reached a 10-year agreement--these two Agencies.

The Department of Defense, of course, is the largest Department in the Federal Government. The NIH is far from the largest.

The agreement sets up a path for the Department of Defense and NIH to collaborate on chemical and biological defense research and development.

That is a good thing, isn't it? Of course, it is.

But who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for this research? The Department of Defense, which has a trillion-dollar annual budget--a trillion-dollar annual budget? Or is it the NIH, an Agency that struggles at $49 billion to fight off cuts in the budget proposed by the President?

If you guessed the NIH, you are right. You see, what the announcement failed to mention was that this so-called agreement at the Department of Defense and NIH, which costs as much as $2 billion, is being paid for by virtually eliminating the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Let's be honest about this. A move to siphon funds away from the Nation's premier medical research Agency, which struggles with lifesaving research, to further bankroll the Pentagon, the most heavily funded Agency in our government--what is wrong with this picture?

By implementing this agreement, the Trump administration will, once again, undermine the NIH, when they should be boosting it, supporting it, on a bipartisan basis.

Since day one, the Trump administration has been hellbent on cutting NIH funding. This latest decision is another foolish gesture on their part, which should be stopped in its tracks.

For years, this investment and research at NIH have been worthwhile. This proposal to transfer one-third of the Agency's budget on infectious diseases is a mistake.

DOD is increasing its investments in medical research, and that is a good thing, I have been a supporter of that myself, when I chaired the subcommittee of appropriations on defense spending. But we need to be committed all the way when it comes to funding NIH.

Federal Aviation Administration

Mr. President, I want to talk about the treatment of air traffic controllers by this administration.

Later this afternoon, I will take an airplane ride from Washington to Chicago. I think it is likely to happen today, if the Senate schedule allows it.

Once again, as I have done hundreds of times--literally thousands of times--I will entrust my safety, my future, and my survival to a competent aircrew, as well as the air traffic controllers of America.

It is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. They work 6-day weeks. Unfortunately, there have been proposals that they should not receive the pay raise that was promised.

In April, Congress authorized a 2.8-percent pay increase for our Nation's air traffic controllers. It should be a priority. Instead, they have only received 1 percent of the 2.8 percent.

This wasn't a mere oversight. It was intentional, and the administration admitted it.

In a recent interview, the FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was asked what was delaying this payment to the air traffic controllers. He told the reporter the administration needs to ``unlock more productivity,'' and that the data regarding controller productivity is ``really, really poor.''

I would like to quote Secretary Duffy back to his own Agency head, by saying: ``[Controllers] need support [and] they need money. . . . ''

We are currently understaffed when it comes to air traffic control. They are working 6 days a week on one of the most stressful jobs. Give them the pay

raise that we promised, and do it in a timely fashion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Kasdin Mitchell to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Ms. Mitchell's record demonstrates that she prioritizes corporate interests over people. In private practice, she has represented Big Tech companies and industrial polluters. She also represented the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in the 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which led to gun safety laws across the country being struck down.

Ms. Mitchell previously litigated against reproductive rights, and she argued for gutting the Voting Rights Act in a brief she submitted in Shelby County v. Holder. In addition to her professional record, she has strong ties to the Federalist Society and other rightwing organizations.

I oppose her nomination and ask my colleagues to join me.