Official Congressional 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. 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. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill, with the opponent time under the control of the Senator from New Jersey. The Senator from Connecticut.