Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for those kind words about our mutual friend. We are both going to miss him.

I have given a tribute to him today in the committee and partially on the floor, but it is still hard to imagine the Senate without Lindsey.

(The remarks of Mr. DURBIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 4979 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on a separate topic.

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to try something. The idea was to create a pension plan for every American. Why? Because many people, despite working hard their whole lives, doing their best to save money, ended up almost penniless when they retired, when they were forced to quit working.

Those were the days when Grandma and Grandpa moved into the spare bedroom in your house. If that didn't happen to you, ask your father or even grandfather--they will remember those times.

So Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's create a pension system so that after you retire, there will be some money coming in. You pay into it all your working life. When you reach the age of retirement, you get a benefit from it.

They called it Social Security. It was passed into law in 1935. It made its first payment 5 years later in 1940.

I think it has become arguably the most important social program in America. Certainly, more Americans have participated in Social Security than almost every other program. And they should. They earned it. They worked for it. They were promised. The promise should be kept.

How is Social Security doing? Well, that is why I am standing here before you today. Last month, the Social Security Board of Trustees released an alarming report about the status of Social Security's finances. That Board found that Social Security will be unable to make full payments to eligible Americans by 2032. That is not that far away--6 years. This is alarming, and it is a call to arms to Congress.

I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Scared to death that I was going to be a one-term Congressman, I was looking over my shoulder every 5 minutes to see what was going to knock me out of my perch there.

Well, they came in and said: There is news for you, new Congressman. Social Security is about to go broke.

The year was 1983, and we could see in the short term, Social Security unable to make its benefit payments. That would have been a disaster in 1983. We rose to the occasion. We had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. We had a Democratic House of Representatives with Tip O'Neill. We set out to write a change in Social Security that would save it so it could keep making payments. Well, it took a long time, it took several months, but we got it done, and we passed it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security, make changes to the program so that it would last, keep paying its benefits as promised for 50 years.

That was 1983. I voted for it. Democrats and Republicans all voted for it. To my knowledge, not a single Member of Congress lost reelection over that vote. People said: We had to do it. There was no question about it. It was a tough vote, but it was the right vote.

It was 1983. Fifty years of solvency--where does it take you? To 2033. And what is the situation we were just told? This program that we value so much is going to last until the end of 2032. It worked. Fifty years of changes worked.

Now the question is basically this: Can we respond with the same bipartisan effort to buy 50 years more of solvency in Social Security? I think we can. Social Security unable to make its payments in 2032 is an alarm bell. It is a call to action for Congress, both political parties--not just Democrats but Republicans as well.

Social Security is the bedrock promise of secure retirement and has been for over 90 years in America. Americans pay into the system throughout their careers of hard work, and come the time, that same program was supposed to be there to give them peace of mind when they seek retirement. Well, we know we have 6 short years to achieve that.

What is going to happen at the end of that 6-year period? The Board of advisers tells us Social Security will only be able to pay 78 percent of benefits.

Translate that, Durbin. Put it in English.

That means the average senior citizen faces monthly--monthly--benefit cuts of $450--$450 a month cut from Social Security. For some, that is quite an inconvenience. For others, that is quite a disaster. It would force many seniors to choose between purchasing groceries, paying their utility bills, or filling their prescriptions. Honest to goodness, it is that basic.

Seventy million Americans, including seniors and people with disabilities, rely on Social Security to afford the basics in life: food, medication, housing, utilities, and so many other things.

In my home State of Illinois, more than 2 million people receive Social Security. Twenty percent of Illinois seniors rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. That is it, that Social Security check.

If Congress sits on its hands and does nothing to respond to this crisis, millions of Americans will be expected to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars each month.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has known about this issue of insolvency for quite some time, but year after year, Congress has avoided confronting the question, instead kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to show the courage to step up and save the program. That is unacceptable. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our reputation. We know that the longer we wait, the more drastic the policy changes become. We owe it to every American to save Social Security.

Today, I am doing something that is rarely done in the Senate: introducing a bill sponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans. Our goal is to protect and strengthen Social Security. Our bill is called the PROMISE Act. It seeks to create a fair, bipartisan process to ensure Congress finally debates and votes on the future of Social Security.

Under our proposal, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would collect public input and send a proposal to Congress that would keep the trust fund for Social Security solvent for 50 years at least. That would kick-start a process in both the House and the Senate to do something we rarely, rarely do around here. It is called legislating--writing a law, passing a law. Under our bill, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings, offer amendments, debate competing proposals, and ultimately vote on them.

You say at this point: OK, Senator Durbin. What is this plan to save Social Security?

That is the beauty of this proposal. We create an opportunity for alternative plans to be offered, and the one with the most votes--as long as it gets 60 votes in the Senate--the one with the most votes will prevail and will be the work product of the Senate on Social Security.

Our legislation does not lower the 60-vote threshold of the Senate, nor does it predetermine any specific outcome.

It may not work. We may not be able to put together any bill that gets 60 votes. But goodness gracious, we were sent here to try, weren't we? It simply guarantees that the American people, through their elected representatives, are finally going to have an open, transparent debate.

I have gone to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle and said: What we want to do is give you your day in court, give you your day in the Senate. You bring your best idea and the Parliamentarian looks at it and says there is proof here that this has at least 50 years of solvency for Social Security, you can offer this amendment, Senator. Give it your best.

Members would be able to offer substitute proposals provided that it is at least 50 years of Social Security solvency.

Let me say it another way. Every Member with a serious proposal for the most important social program in America would have the opportunity to bring their idea to the table, to the floor, and get a vote. That is so rare around here. It restores the Senate to debating, amending, and voting under regular order--compared to what we see today.

Many of my colleagues have been working on proposals for a number of years. Many are broadly popular. I will note that the senior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat, recently shared their idea to shore up the program, a bipartisan plan. They may offer an amendment to do just that.

Congress has no shortage of ideas; we simply have a lack of will on both the left and the right. Many stakeholders would rather wait for that perfect political moment. Well, that is a mistake. I worry that moment will never come, and Americans will suffer because of that calculation.

The PROMISE Act finally creates a pathway for those ideas to receive the consideration they deserve.

Americans sent us to Congress not to observe the problems but to solve the problems, and that is what I am trying to do with the PROMISE Act.

There is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than preserving Social Security. No excuses--we can do it this year.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to set up the process, the procedure, to bring it to the floor and have alternative substitutes for Social Security's future offered for consideration, for debate, and for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally kick-start the process of tackling this important issue.

We will be working to pass this measure before we depart for the August recess. Is it a long shot? Maybe it is. But I think, when we understand the gravity of the challenge and the important responsibility we shoulder when we accepted this position as Senators, we will understand that we have to rise to that challenge. The eight of us--four Democrats, four Republicans--are willing to step up and say: Let's move forward. Let's not be afraid to legislate. Let's do it for the good of Social Security and the millions and millions of Americans who count on it.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak on a separate topic.

In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to try something. The idea was to create a pension plan for every American. Why? Because many people, despite working hard their whole lives, doing their best to save money, ended up almost penniless when they retired, when they were forced to quit working.

Those were the days when Grandma and Grandpa moved into the spare bedroom in your house. If that didn't happen to you, ask your father or even grandfather--they will remember those times.

So Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's create a pension system so that after you retire, there will be some money coming in. You pay into it all your working life. When you reach the age of retirement, you get a benefit from it.

They called it Social Security. It was passed into law in 1935. It made its first payment 5 years later in 1940.

I think it has become arguably the most important social program in America. Certainly, more Americans have participated in Social Security than almost every other program. And they should. They earned it. They worked for it. They were promised. The promise should be kept.

How is Social Security doing? Well, that is why I am standing here before you today. Last month, the Social Security Board of Trustees released an alarming report about the status of Social Security's finances. That Board found that Social Security will be unable to make full payments to eligible Americans by 2032. That is not that far away--6 years. This is alarming, and it is a call to arms to Congress.

I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Scared to death that I was going to be a one-term Congressman, I was looking over my shoulder every 5 minutes to see what was going to knock me out of my perch there.

Well, they came in and said: There is news for you, new Congressman. Social Security is about to go broke.

The year was 1983, and we could see in the short term, Social Security unable to make its benefit payments. That would have been a disaster in 1983. We rose to the occasion. We had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. We had a Democratic House of Representatives with Tip O'Neill. We set out to write a change in Social Security that would save it so it could keep making payments. Well, it took a long time, it took several months, but we got it done, and we passed it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security, make changes to the program so that it would last, keep paying its benefits as promised for 50 years.

That was 1983. I voted for it. Democrats and Republicans all voted for it. To my knowledge, not a single Member of Congress lost reelection over that vote. People said: We had to do it. There was no question about it. It was a tough vote, but it was the right vote.

It was 1983. Fifty years of solvency--where does it take you? To 2033. And what is the situation we were just told? This program that we value so much is going to last until the end of 2032. It worked. Fifty years of changes worked.

Now the question is basically this: Can we respond with the same bipartisan effort to buy 50 years more of solvency in Social Security? I think we can. Social Security unable to make its payments in 2032 is an alarm bell. It is a call to action for Congress, both political parties--not just Democrats but Republicans as well.

Social Security is the bedrock promise of secure retirement and has been for over 90 years in America. Americans pay into the system throughout their careers of hard work, and come the time, that same program was supposed to be there to give them peace of mind when they seek retirement. Well, we know we have 6 short years to achieve that.

What is going to happen at the end of that 6-year period? The Board of advisers tells us Social Security will only be able to pay 78 percent of benefits.

Translate that, Durbin. Put it in English.

That means the average senior citizen faces monthly--monthly--benefit cuts of $450--$450 a month cut from Social Security. For some, that is quite an inconvenience. For others, that is quite a disaster. It would force many seniors to choose between purchasing groceries, paying their utility bills, or filling their prescriptions. Honest to goodness, it is that basic.

Seventy million Americans, including seniors and people with disabilities, rely on Social Security to afford the basics in life: food, medication, housing, utilities, and so many other things.

In my home State of Illinois, more than 2 million people receive Social Security. Twenty percent of Illinois seniors rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. That is it, that Social Security check.

If Congress sits on its hands and does nothing to respond to this crisis, millions of Americans will be expected to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars each month.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has known about this issue of insolvency for quite some time, but year after year, Congress has avoided confronting the question, instead kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to show the courage to step up and save the program. That is unacceptable. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our reputation. We know that the longer we wait, the more drastic the policy changes become. We owe it to every American to save Social Security.

Today, I am doing something that is rarely done in the Senate: introducing a bill sponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans. Our goal is to protect and strengthen Social Security. Our bill is called the PROMISE Act. It seeks to create a fair, bipartisan process to ensure Congress finally debates and votes on the future of Social Security.

Under our proposal, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would collect public input and send a proposal to Congress that would keep the trust fund for Social Security solvent for 50 years at least. That would kick-start a process in both the House and the Senate to do something we rarely, rarely do around here. It is called legislating--writing a law, passing a law. Under our bill, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings, offer amendments, debate competing proposals, and ultimately vote on them.

You say at this point: OK, Senator Durbin. What is this plan to save Social Security?

That is the beauty of this proposal. We create an opportunity for alternative plans to be offered, and the one with the most votes--as long as it gets 60 votes in the Senate--the one with the most votes will prevail and will be the work product of the Senate on Social Security.

Our legislation does not lower the 60-vote threshold of the Senate, nor does it predetermine any specific outcome.

It may not work. We may not be able to put together any bill that gets 60 votes. But goodness gracious, we were sent here to try, weren't we? It simply guarantees that the American people, through their elected representatives, are finally going to have an open, transparent debate.

I have gone to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle and said: What we want to do is give you your day in court, give you your day in the Senate. You bring your best idea and the Parliamentarian looks at it and says there is proof here that this has at least 50 years of solvency for Social Security, you can offer this amendment, Senator. Give it your best.

Members would be able to offer substitute proposals provided that it is at least 50 years of Social Security solvency.

Let me say it another way. Every Member with a serious proposal for the most important social program in America would have the opportunity to bring their idea to the table, to the floor, and get a vote. That is so rare around here. It restores the Senate to debating, amending, and voting under regular order--compared to what we see today.

Many of my colleagues have been working on proposals for a number of years. Many are broadly popular. I will note that the senior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat, recently shared their idea to shore up the program, a bipartisan plan. They may offer an amendment to do just that.

Congress has no shortage of ideas; we simply have a lack of will on both the left and the right. Many stakeholders would rather wait for that perfect political moment. Well, that is a mistake. I worry that moment will never come, and Americans will suffer because of that calculation.

The PROMISE Act finally creates a pathway for those ideas to receive the consideration they deserve.

Americans sent us to Congress not to observe the problems but to solve the problems, and that is what I am trying to do with the PROMISE Act.

There is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than preserving Social Security. No excuses--we can do it this year.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to set up the process, the procedure, to bring it to the floor and have alternative substitutes for Social Security's future offered for consideration, for debate, and for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally kick-start the process of tackling this important issue.

We will be working to pass this measure before we depart for the August recess. Is it a long shot? Maybe it is. But I think, when we understand the gravity of the challenge and the important responsibility we shoulder when we accepted this position as Senators, we will understand that we have to rise to that challenge. The eight of us--four Democrats, four Republicans--are willing to step up and say: Let's move forward. Let's not be afraid to legislate. Let's do it for the good of Social Security and the millions and millions of Americans who count on it.

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

Mr. President, last week, I joined several of my colleagues from the Senate and from the House at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye. It was a historic meeting in terms of the future of NATO and the future of Ukraine and so many other issues that relate to that critical and important alliance.

Last Wednesday, we had a dinner that was hosted by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkiye, Tom Barrack. There must have been 50 or 60 people there who all shared concerns of the summit conference. Among them were Members of Congress, Turkish leaders, and representatives of other countries around the world who had gone to that famous summit.

At the heart of that dinner was my colleague and friend Senator Lindsey Graham. When I arrived that night, it was no surprise that he had been there before me and had been working the crowd. He had been speaking to each and every person who was there--business leaders and political leaders from all parts of the world--about his concerns.

Lindsey was walking them through, one at a time, his vision on how we could end the war in Ukraine and the legislation we needed to accomplish that, which was typical of Lindsey Graham. We all shared that concern, but he was buzzing around that crowd like an aspiring candidate, convincing everybody that there was a way to end this war the right way.

Only a few days after that dinner, my friend Lindsey Graham passed away. It was a shock. I would like to take a moment to recognize his lifetime of public service both in the State of South Carolina and for our Nation.

I served with Lindsey Graham in the Senate for more than two decades, and during that time, I counted him as a trusted friend. I will tell you that my friends and supporters back in Illinois many times would just shake their heads and say: Durbin, what are you doing with Lindsey? You shouldn't be working with him.

They didn't know how the Senate works, and they certainly didn't know him.

Lindsey, for many years, was the only Republican who was willing to cosponsor the DREAM Act, a bill that I introduced over 20 years ago and had reintroduced in successive Congresses, which provided protection to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to this country as children. His support took guts. At a time when issues surrounding immigration were becoming politically toxic, Lindsey stuck his neck out for me and for these young people. I will never ever forget it.

I will also never forget a meeting that Lindsey and I had with President Trump in his first term in 2018. It was a meeting to discuss a possible comprehensive immigration reform package. It didn't go well at all. President Trump made what I considered to be profane comments about some immigrants, but I won't repeat them here.

Lindsey, while sitting next to me in the Oval Office, passionately, vocally, and with real commitment disagreed with the President, arguing that America is not defined by race or color but by its ideals and of the many contributions that immigrants have made to our Nation. He said to the President, as I sat right next to him in the Oval Office, that he was just wrong; that these people who are immigrants make a difference in America. It was the story of our country, and Lindsey said it was the story of his family.

Lindsey spoke publicly about this interaction after it occurred, and despite the scorn that he earned from certain segments of the Republican base, he stuck to what he believed was right.

When I happened to become the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 4 years, Lindsey Graham was my ranking Republican. He sat right next to me in every session of that committee. We had our share of disagreements over issues and nominees, but I knew that his word was always good. If he told me he was going to vote for something or some person, he did--he delivered--and we had a good working relationship between us--no cheap shots, no stabs in the back.

He voted in favor of 75 percent of the judicial nominations that we considered while I was chair, and there were 235 lifetime appointments that came out of that committee. Even though they were nominated by a President from a different political party, he announced early on that, if I expect Democrats to vote for Republican nominees, I have to support Democratic nominees to show the same spirit of cooperation. And he did. He kept his word. That was who Lindsey was. He was proud to be a fierce Republican partisan, but he never lost sight of the need to work across the aisle to make a difference in the lives of Americans.

Loretta and I send our condolences to Lindsey's family and his legion of friends in South Carolina and around the world.

He was an extraordinary Member of the Senate. He helped to make it work. There was never any bipartisan meeting of a gang--or however you would characterize it--during which Lindsey wasn't within its ranks.

I remember when John McCain and he led the Republican side of an immigration reform effort, and I was part of that on the Democratic side. After months--literally months--of negotiating, we brought a package to the floor, which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, showing that we could do things like that and that we should still be able to. For those things to occur, it is not just a matter of having a good idea; you need good people who are willing to be respectful of one another and to work hard to find common ground. Lindsey was one of those people.

As I noted, Mr. President, our trip last week to Turkiye was an effort to discuss some of the war and peace issues of our time. Lindsey knew the stakes at play in Ukraine and the importance of standing up to Russian tyranny. This topic was top of mind for all of those who attended the NATO summit, which concluded in Turkiye last week. I attended the summit with a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Mike Rounds, Chris Coons, and Congressman Mike Turner. Senator Graham joined us as part of the visit as well.

With the war in Ukraine entering its fifth bloody year, the timing of this event was important, as tides begin to turn in Ukraine's favor. Not only did Ukraine repel the initial invasion by one of the world's largest armies, but it is increasingly showing progress in winning this conflict. Russia has been unable to seize additional land and is suffering staggering, staggering losses--losses that no political leader can sustain for a war of folly. Ukraine has also increasingly taken the conflict to Russia, weakening its energy and military infrastructure and turning Russian public opinion against the war in Ukraine. And unlike Russia, Ukraine is careful not to strike civilian targets.

I am happy to report from the NATO summit that the alliance remains determined to see Ukraine defend itself from Russia. Most of the 32- member bloc--formed from the ashes of World War II--have notably increased their defense spending. They are contributing more funding, equipment, and personnel and are reminding one another of their commitments to and the importance of this historic alliance.

I was glad that President Trump attended the summit. He and President Obama were right to push our allies to pay more of their fair share for the cost of NATO. But President Trump's constant rhetoric of belittling the alliance and his dreams of conquering Greenland and other follies have been ill-timed, boorish, and counterproductive. They send exactly the wrong message to President Putin about American resolve and commitment. They put countries such as the Baltic States and Poland at even greater risk of future Russian aggression.

Already, Putin is testing the alliance through sabotage, hybrid attacks, misinformation, and assassinations. And with the war turning against Russia, Putin may lash out further. This is not the time for President Trump to show Putin any weakness.

So I was heartened by the incredible solidarity and resolve on full display at the NATO summit. Quite simply, NATO is alive and well, as is allied support for Ukraine. Congress continues to show strong bipartisan support for NATO, including through funding, troop level requirements, and the Baltic Security Initiative. But we can do more-- notably, by helping Ukraine with desperately needed air defense. We should also continue to keep U.S. troop deployments as part of NATO efforts in frontline NATO member states. And we can, at long last, pass one of two bipartisan Ukraine bills pending in this Chamber--one of them being a sanctions package that Lindsey Graham worked with Senator Blumenthal tirelessly to build support for. I understand that Lindsey had finally arranged for this measure to be introduced even this week. I hope we will still go forward with the bill without delay.

Mr. President, lastly, after the NATO summit, we had a chance to visit Hungary, one of our NATO allies.

There was a recent election in Hungary that unseated Viktor Orban after 16 years--a period that included democratic backsliding and being a thorn in the side of European efforts to help Ukraine.

I want to congratulate the Hungarian people on this peaceful transfer of power and decision to play a more constructive role in European security, including standing with Ukraine. Theirs is a welcome choice that we should support here in the Senate, something I will do in my remaining time.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Arthur Roberts Jones to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Mr. Jones' association with a far-right organization and refusal to disavow that organization's extreme views on firearm safety are disqualifying.

Mr. Jones joined Gun Owners of America in 2025. This group has criticized the National Rifle Association for being too moderate, called for ATF to be abolished, and argued that all gun safety laws are unconstitutional.

I gave Mr. Jones the opportunity to explain his choice to join this group. In response, he disputed that Gun Owners of America has radical views on firearms and stonewalled on the question of whether he believes the Second Amendment renders all gun safety laws unconstitutional.

His refusal to admit that the Supreme Court has, in fact, upheld various regulations on firearms under the Second Amendment is unacceptable for someone who seeks a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

I cannot support his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are 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.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Michael Hendershot to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Mr. Hendershot's record reflects his partisanship. In the Ohio Attorney General's Office, he defended the State's laws restricting abortion access. He continued to defend the State even after Ohio voters enshrined reproductive rights in the Ohio Constitution in 2023.

He also represented Ohio officials against challenges to the State's gerrymandered State legislative and congressional maps as they were struck down five times by the Ohio Supreme Court for violating the Ohio Constitution.

Finally, Mr. Hendershot is yet another Trump judicial nominee who is an election denier. In November 2020, he joined an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to grant cert and reverse the underlying decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that allowed for the counting of absentee ballots received after election day.

I oppose Mr. Hendershot's nomination and ask my colleagues to join me.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New York (Mr. Gillibrand), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.