Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, pending before the U.S. Senate is the nomination of Darrel Papillion, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I want to say a word about this nomination because it indicates a positive development in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which the Acting President pro tempore and I share membership in, and the fact that this is a bipartisan nomination.

On May 11, Darrel Papillion was voted out of committee by a vote of 15 to 6. Senators on the Republican side--Graham, Cornyn, Kennedy, and Tillis--joined all committee Democrats in voting for this nominee. He received the unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association, and he has the obvious support of the two Louisiana Senators--Cassidy and Kennedy--both of whom returned positive blue slips, which is committee process, and both of whom are Republican.

Papillion had a B.A. from Louisiana State University and a J.D. from LSU's Paul M. Hebert Law Center before clerking for Associate Justice Catherine Kimball on the Louisiana Supreme Court.

He entered private practice in New Orleans where he specialized in the defense of products liability actions. Since moving to Baton Rouge in 1999, Papillion's main areas of practice have been personal injury and wrongful death litigation. Papillion has tried at least 33 cases to verdict, including more than a dozen jury trials. He has been a special prosecutor for the East Baton Rouge District Attorney's Office and a mediator for mediation cases in South Louisiana. He has served as a special master in State court on three different occasions.

He is deeply involved in the Louisiana legal community in having served as the president of both the Louisiana State Bar Association and the Baton Rouge Bar Association. Let me repeat that--the president of the Louisiana State Bar Association.

The committee received several letters of support from individuals and organizations on his behalf: the former

President of the Louisiana State Bar Association, the former president of the New Orleans Bar Association, six former opposing counsels, and the treasurer of the New Orleans Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The reason I read that in detail is that, if I went back home to Illinois, like I did last week, and told people we are considering judges before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, their first reactions are, can't you find a judge that both Democrats and Republicans agree on?

Here is one. He wouldn't be here before us today but for the fact that the two Republican Senators from Louisiana reached an agreement with the Biden White House for this man to have a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.

Now, in case that sounds like front page news, it happens, and it happens more often than not. And the reason I come to the floor at this moment is to make sure it is a matter of record.

During the Trump administration, Democrats approved what we call blue slips for 120 nominees for Federal court. Some of those were with two Democratic Senators, in a State like Illinois, but there was a level of negotiation and cooperation. As the senior Senator from Illinois, I had to sit down with the legal counsel from President Trump's White House and put nominees on the table, saying: Here is one that we want, and here is one that you want. I think we can agree on those two. Let's move forward.

And we did it. That happened, as I said, over 120 times with Democratic Senators working with the Trump White House. We filled all of the vacancies of Illinois--virtually all of them--during the Trump administration with that bipartisan agreement.

Today, we have another one, two Republican Senators with a Democratic President. It happens. And for it to happen, you need two things: the will for Members to move, to put nominees on the bench; and, secondly, a person so qualified that both sides don't feel they will be embarrassed by them. There are more judges and attorneys than there are politicians, and, in this case, I think we found just that kind of nominee.

Now, we have a lot more to go. There are roughly 87 pending vacancies in the district courts across the Nation. Almost half of them are in States with two Democratic Senators, and the other half in States with at least one Republican, maybe two Republican Senators.

We are trying to reach a point where we have an agreement on this, and I think we can do it. I could list some other Senators whom I am working with on the Republican side to fill those vacancies as well. I think that is what the American people are looking for--more evidence that we are trying to find some common ground, despite the obvious political differences in this Nation.

This is an issue that I think is timely, and I wanted to bring it to the attention of the Senate and do it on the floor this afternoon.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Darrel James Papillion to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Born in Eunice, LA, Mr. Papillion received his B.A. from Louisiana State University and his J.D. from LSU's Paul M. Hebert Law Center. He then clerked for Associate Justice Catherine D. Kimball of the Louisiana Supreme Court before entering private practice at a law firm in New Orleans. In 1999, he moved to Baton Rouge, where he has maintained a busy trial and litigation practice. He has significant experience in both State and Federal court, and he has tried over 30 cases to verdict, including more than a dozen jury trials.

In addition to his legal practice, Mr. Papillion has served as a special prosecutor for the East Baton Rouge District Attorney's Office, as a mediator, and as a court-appointed special master in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. He has also taught law school courses at both LSU and Southern University in Baton Rouge. And he has served as president of both the Baton Rouge Bar Association and the Louisiana State Bar Association. The American Bar Association rated Mr. Papillion as unanimously ``well qualified'' to serve on the Eastern District of Louisiana. He has the strong support of both of his home State Senators--Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Kennedy--as well as the Louisiana legal community.

During Mr. Papillion's confirmation hearing, Senator Kennedy called him a ``lawyer's lawyer.'' I couldn't agree more. Mr. Papillion has deep ties to Louisiana and decades of legal experience that will serve him well on the Federal bench. I strongly support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, we are coming down to the wire here. June 1 looms over us and the threat that on that date, unless Congress takes action, the United States will default on its debt for the first time in the history of our Nation. All the people who are in the know tell us it would be a disaster of such proportion that it would harm individuals, families, and businesses across the United States and would ultimately diminish the United States reputation for the most stable currency--the U.S. dollar--in the world. Individual families would see their 401(k)s and savings accounts diminish, the interest rates for purchases go even higher; businesses would fail, and workers would lose their jobs.

You have to ask yourself: Why would we even consider approaching that kind of calamity? Well, you take a look at the agenda that is being offered by Speaker McCarthy in the House of Representatives, and he spells out exactly what his goals are. First, he wants to cut spending in areas that he thinks are wasteful. For example, he would wipe out 30,000 law enforcement and Border Patrol jobs.

How many times has the Speaker's party reminded us that we have a crisis on our southern border and need to marshal our resources to protect America? Whether he is exaggerating or simply stating a fact is your own decision, your own conclusion; but can any part of his warning be answered by eliminating our personnel--our national personnel--on the border? I don't think so.

This approach by Speaker McCarthy would also threaten housing and food security for tens of thousands of American individuals, including many veterans. It would deprive 1 million senior citizens of access to Meals on Wheels. That is what his goal is in terms of cutting the budget.

And I might add a couple of other things for your consideration. He would cut money for medical research in the United States by 25 percent. I have tried to work over the last 6 or 7 years with the goal of increasing medical research spending by 5 percent real growth every single year. We have gone from $30 billion to $48 billion in annual appropriations for what is considered the most sophisticated and successful medical research program in the world.

And, now, the Speaker has told us: We want to cut back on medical research. Tell that to the families of cancer victims. Tell that to the families who are trying to cope with diseases that are life-threatening on a daily basis. The breakthroughs that come about because of this medical research should inspire us to spend even more--even more--on research.

To think that we may be close to a vaccine against pancreatic cancer. That was unthinkable a few weeks ago or months ago, but now there are reports that NIH research is leading in that direction with some promising conclusions.

To think that we have the possibility of finally dealing with those maladies of the brain which haunt us in every family in this country. The notion that the researchers, because of NIH grants, at Northwestern University in Chicago have now found a successful way to breach the blood-brain barrier and have medications go directly into the brain, what can that do? Well, it might deal directly with brain cancer-- glioblastoma and similar maladies. But, in addition, they are looking at the possibility that it has applications for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and other brain-related diseases like Lou Gehrig's.

Do we want to stop research on that? I ask the Speaker: Do you really want to achieve that? That is your goal: to slow down and stop research by the U.S. Government which leads the world in these fields?

Mr. President, I think what really is at stake here is the Speaker is calling for these dramatic cuts in critical American programs in an effort to preserve the tax cuts that were instituted during the Trump administration. These are tax cuts that benefited corporations which were not paying their fair share of taxes and continue to receive blessings from the Trump administration to pay even less; and wealthy individuals who were doing quite well for themselves got a tax break at that time. Speaker McCarthy wants to preserve those tax breaks even at the expense of law enforcement, Border Patrol, helping our veterans, Meals on Wheels, and medical research. Well, that is not my priority in serving in the U.S. Senate.

There is one other item that I want to mention that is part of the Speaker's agenda that is bringing us to the brink on our national debt, and that is that the House Republican bill is really a gift-wrapped present for the fossil fuel industry. The bill that they are proposing guts critical environmental protections to fast-track new fossil fuel projects. It mandates the sale of new oil and gas leases and accelerates drilling both on- and offshore.

That is not just bad for the planet; it is bad for our people, our economy, as well as our Nation and the hopes of becoming energy independent. If this MAGA manifesto becomes law, it would eliminate 140,000 clean energy jobs across America, jobs which were promoted with the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Republican proposal would cut billions of dollars in clean energy investments, the majority of which benefit businesses and workers in their own States. Importantly, these investments are not only job creators; they are vital to our Nation's capacity to remain resilient in the face of an environmental crisis.

Just yesterday, the World Meteorological Organization warned that the next few years will be the warmest on record for planet Earth. Temperatures may even breach the targets set by the Paris Agreement-- not in the next five decades but in the next 5 years. What we see coming from this are not only warmer days but more extreme weather events. You have to be sensitive to that if you are paying any attention at all. We need to make sure that every community in America is prepared for this challenge.

The House Republican proposal would make us more vulnerable in a climate crisis. It would cut funding for projects that expand access to clean air and clean water, especially in western States with chronic drought, and it

would roll back programs to curb pollution in low-income communities across America.

Whenever we debate energy policy in Congress, Republicans tend to revert to the same old arguments. They say: Think about the economy.

These Republicans insist that, if we want to become energy independent, we have no choice but to invest more in oil and gas. In their view, America is hopelessly addicted to fossil fuels, and forcing us to remain beholden to foreign oil giants is the Republican answer to this challenge.

But, the truth is, they are wrong. Fossil fuels are not the future. We will need a transition; that is for sure. The future is going to be seen in communities like my own hometown of Springfield, IL. Last month in Springfield, an American-owned solar company broke ground on a project called Double Black Diamond.

Now, if you are a skier, you have to wonder what that has to do with flat land in Springfield, IL. Well, it has nothing to do with skiing. What they are talking about is building one of the largest solar farms in America in the area, and the energy produced will be sent to the residents of Chicago. It is amazing. These communities that have committed themselves to green energy are making massive investments in clean, sustainable, renewable energy.

Solar is the fastest growing, most affordable source of new electricity in America. Last year, my wife and I decided to install solar panels on our home in Springfield. It was a decision which was guided more by determination to see if it worked and to do something positive in our family to help with the climate crisis that we face. Well, we installed them, and the good news is this: In the first couple of months, we started to see our electricity bill disappearing. What was $115 a month turned into $15 a month. And, of course, there were tax credits available for that decision for our family and for every family that moves in that direction.

We estimate that 230,000 homes in Illinois will do what we did: put solar panels on the roof. With net metering, they will find it is a benefit in their monthly utility bills and a benefit to our environment.

Right now, if we don't do this, China and other countries will. They are going to pursue solar energy and the next generation of technology, and we will be left behind if the Republicans have their way with their budget bill.

So I would conclude by saying fossil fuels had their day. There is still a transition period where they will be needed, but we have got to point to the future where we can tell our kids and grandkids: We are sensitive to this climate crisis. We are investing in the right kind of energy for the future. We are not going to have America take second place to China or any other country when it comes to competition for this technology.

The Republican approach is yesterday. We have got to think about tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the members of this Senate have a chance to make history. We will vote to confirm Nancy Abudu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

A graduate of Columbia University and Tulane Law School, Ms. Abudu has dedicated her career to defending the civil rights of all Americans. She has experience litigating and overseeing complex civil matters. She also has significant appellate experience, filing a number of briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and arguing five cases before Federal courts of appeals.

Throughout her career, Ms. Abudu has defended voting rights, protected religious freedom, and advanced criminal justice reform. Her perspective and experience will be a valuable addition to the Eleventh Circuit, which currently has no former civil rights lawyers on the bench. And when confirmed, Ms. Abudu will also be the first Black woman ever to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. She was rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association and has the strong support of her home state Senators: Mr. Warnock and Mr. Ossoff.

As a lifelong champion of equal justice under law, Ms. Abudu will make an exceptional appellate judge. I am honored to support her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Jeremy C. Daniel to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

A native Chicagoan, Mr. Daniel received his bachelor's degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and his law degree from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Mr. Daniel has served his country in more ways than one. As an undergraduate student, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps Reservist. After he graduated, Mr. Daniel served as a first lieutenant in the Marine Corps and completed tours in Japan and South Korea.

Following law school, Mr. Daniel worked in private practice on intellectual property cases for several years before clerking for Judge Virginia Kendall on the Northern District of Illinois. In 2014, Mr. Daniel returned to public service, becoming an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois. In this role, he has prosecuted a wide range of Federal crimes, including violations of drug and firearm laws, gang cases, and financial crimes. Since 2019, Mr. Daniel has served as deputy chief of the Narcotics and Money Laundering Section. In addition to prosecuting his own cases, he supervises other attorneys in the section. The American Bar Association rated Mr. Daniel unanimously ``well qualified.''

Given his breadth of experience practicing in the Northern District of Illinois and his expertise in intellectual property and criminal law, Senator Duckworth and I strongly support Mr. Daniel. He will be an outstanding judge. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, 10 days ago, America lost a visionary public official, and I lost a friend. He was 97 years old. His name was Newt Minow.

He was 35 years old in the year 1961 when President John Kennedy tapped him to chair the Federal Communications Commission. At the time, Americans were involved in big change--moving from their radios to this new thing called television.

In his maiden speech as FCC Commissioner, Newt Minow famously described much of commercial television as a ``vast wasteland.'' He was especially concerned about the effects of endless commercials and violent cartoons and other programs on the minds of our children. He said the public airwaves should serve the public interest and that the FCC should use its power to ensure that this emerging new technology of television met that standard.

Fast-forward six decades. Social media now fills the role that broadcast TV once did in the lives of our kids. Yet Federal laws currently allow social media companies to endanger our children with near total immunity. Social media companies can and regularly do sell children's personal information for profit, allow bullies to hound children mercilessly, and allow drug dealers and sexual predators to hunt for child victims on their platforms.

Our laws, as they are currently written--as we have currently written them--make it nearly impossible for victims to hold these companies accountable. This has to change, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking bipartisan action to see that it does.

Virtually every parent I know is concerned about how much time their kids spend online, looking at screens, how it is affecting them, and the dangers that kids can stumble into. Parents have a right to be concerned. Look around the next time you are in a grocery store or in a mall or at a family restaurant. You will see kids who are transfixed by smartphones and tablets. I have seen this happen. I will bet the Presiding Officer has seen it. Many kids learn how to scroll before they learn how to walk.

I know two children in New York who are quite adept at navigating the online world. They are 11 years old. Their

parents have talked to them about the dangers lurking online. Both parents monitor their kids' screen time as much as they can, but they still worry that they are missing dangers. I know these children because they are my grandchildren. My wife and I visited them recently.

I sat down with my grandkids, and I asked them: What do you know about staying safe online?

Well, they both assured me they ``knew all about it, Papa.'' They knew all the danger signs to steer clear of.

But we cannot continue to place the responsibility for protecting children online entirely on these children, even their parents, and even child advocacy groups alone. No matter how concerned and vigilant they are, parents stand virtually no chance against social media companies that use powerful algorithms to hook kids and make a profit off of them but cannot be held accountable in a court of law for the harm that their products cause.

Well, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want to change that. Over the last 2 weeks, we have voted out of committee a package of four bipartisan bills that would require Facebook, Snapchat, and other social media companies to adhere to new online safety standards for children or pay a price. The price would be anything from significant fines to civil judgments to criminal prosecutions. I say enough is enough.

STOP CSAM Act

Mr. President, last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to advance a bill I am sponsoring, called the STOP CSAM Act. CSAM stands for ``Child Sexual Abuse Material.''

Before I go any further, I want to say a word about this 23-member committee.

We have some pretty strongly held political opinions among the membership of that committee, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. It is rare, if ever, that we agree on everything, but these four bills about social media passed with unanimous rollcalls in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every Democrat and every Republican voted for it.

Sadly, the online spread of violent material is exploding, and it is a call to action for us. It is far beyond the ability of victims, of child safety organizations, or even of law enforcement to stop it under current law. The STOP CSAM Act, which I introduced, would protect victims and promote transparency and accountability for social media companies.

Here is how it works: Companies that fail to remove child sexual abuse material and related imagery after being notified about them would face significant fines, and companies that promote or facilitate the online sexual exploitation of children or host or store child sexual abuse material could face new civil and even criminal penalties.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children-- the recognized national experts--there are an estimated 84 million images of child sexual abuse material on the internet--84 million. That figure is increasing exponentially each year. These images are traded, sold, and shared online around the world.

I have spoken before about a young woman called Charlotte. Like many naive young people, when Charlotte was 16 years old, she shared intimate images of herself with a man she met online whom she thought was a friend. That man then posted those images of Charlotte online. They have haunted Charlotte ever since--for more than 10 years. She has attempted suicide three times. She has lost jobs when those images would appear in communities where she was trying to work. The images of Charlotte have been shared around the world. She has endured years of online harassment and abuse because of it.

She and her mom and child advocacy groups have asked social media companies in dozens of nations to take down the images, with almost no luck. Charlotte lost a teaching job she loved because of the images. She attempted suicide, as I mentioned. She says she doubts that she will ever feel safe.

Other children and teens have been bullied mercilessly online. Sadly, some have taken their own lives to escape the torment. We had a hearing at which some of the mothers came in, holding the color photographs of their kids, some who were induced to try choking exercises in their closets, ultimately taking their own lives by hanging themselves.

EARN IT Act

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, our committee passed another child online safety bill--again, unanimously. It is called the EARN IT Act. It would modify section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Here is why we need it: Section 230 currently shields media companies, such as Facebook and Snapchat, with very rare exceptions, from being held accountable when material that is posted on their platforms results in harm to kids and others. It gives social media companies a pass and denies their victims their day in court.

Section 230 was written when Mark Zuckerberg was in the sixth grade, long before social media existed. It was passed when internet companies were small and struggling. Today, social media companies are some of the richest, most powerful companies in the history of the world. Yet they still benefit from the shield of section 230 to deny victims their day in court.

The EARN IT Act eliminates immunity and creates accountability. Its cosponsors are our colleague Senator Blumenthal, from Connecticut, and Senator Graham.

Big Tech can no longer disregard its role in online child exploitation. Many of the rest of our committee members, Democrats and Republicans, are cosponsors. I am happy to be one of them.

We also passed two additional child online safety bills in our committee, the SHIELD Act and the Project Safe Childhood Act. Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn are the lead sponsors of both bills, and both of them have bipartisan sponsorship.

We can, and we will, balance the need to protect free speech with and the need to protect our kids from harm. What we will not do is accept the status quo where some social media companies continue to destroy lives and make vast fortunes by exploiting a legal loophole that can no longer be justified.

We hope our colleagues will join us in protecting America's children and teenagers from online horror.

S.J. Res. 18

Mr. President, we are going to vote on a resolution in a few minutes that I would like to speak to. It is called the ``Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility.'' I oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

This resolution aims to overturn a Biden administration regulation on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This regulation provides immigrant families--especially those with U.S. citizen children--with stability and certainty.

It does not make a single immigrant eligible for public benefits. Instead, it restores and qualifies the longstanding practice that an individual is ineligible for a green card if the individual relies on public benefits for income.

Four years ago, the Trump administration upended that definition, creating a new, vague test. For the first time, receiving supplemental public health benefits like nutritional assistance and Medicaid could be considered part of a public charge determination. Most immigrants, even those with lawful status, have been ineligible for means-tested programs since 1996. Immigrants who apply for these benefits are usually doing so to obtain central healthcare or food assistance for a U.S. American citizen child.

In 2016, 5.8 million U.S. citizen children with an immigrant parent had Medicaid or CHIP coverage, for example. The Trump administration rule forced these parents to make a choice: Deny their kids essential services or risk losing their status and being deported.

When that rule was announced, school districts reported massive drops in school lunch enrollment. Healthcare providers also reported pregnant women were afraid to receive assistance for fear of losing their status or putting at risk the immigration status of a loved one.

For example, one healthcare center reported that immigrant parents here on a student visa were afraid to obtain Medicaid for their disabled child. Although the child was a U.S. citizen and it was perfectly legal for the child to receive Medicaid, the parents worried that they could lose their status and be

separated from their child if they applied for this assistance.

A 2021 report found that even after the Trump rule was rescinded, nearly 50 percent of Americans with an immigrant family member believed that applying for assistance for any family member could cause immigration problems.

The Biden administration tried to resolve this. Their regulation makes it clear that an immigrant cannot be eligible for a green card simply for receiving healthcare or food assistance for their U.S. citizen child. That is why the American Hospital Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Illinois Department of Human Services, and countless other healthcare organizations support the Biden rule. These experts believe that the rule provides clarity and certainty to immigrants, as well as medical professionals, ensuring that kids get the basic access to food and healthcare they need.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this harmful resolution and protecting families and children.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, it is graduation season in America--a time when many of us in this Senate head back home, gather with students and families to celebrate amazing accomplishments.

This past Saturday I had the honor of joining students at Loyola University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine for their commencement ceremony. It was an inspiring and hopeful celebration.

These graduates--doctors--I met this last weekend are heroes in the making. As future practitioners and medical researchers, they will dedicate their lives to healing our communities and families. And we couldn't be prouder of their accomplishments.

Let me also note two things. First, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine was the first school of medicine in the United States to allow students with DACA status to apply for admission. They didn't set any quotas. But they said to these young people who have received recognition by our government that they can stay legally in the United States. Though they were not born here, they have received recognition by our government and been held back from many of their ambitions.

So when Loyola University of Chicago opened their doors for applications from those DACA students, young people--remarkable young people--from all over the United States applied. So far, 32 graduated before last Saturday and another 6 this past Saturday. Think of that: 38 DACA students who finally got a chance to go to medical school proved themselves worthy, did great, and now headed for their residencies and beyond.

They will become an important part of America's future. And I am so proud of Loyola University of Chicago for its leadership in doing that. I encourage all other schools to offer the same opportunities for these extraordinary DACA students to have a chance to continue to be part of America.

The second person I want to mention is a hero that is of a special nature. She was tragically missing from Loyola's campus this past weekend. Her name is Areanah Preston.

On Sunday, Chicago Police Officer Preston was set to receive her Master of Jurisprudence from Loyola's School of Law. But just days before her graduation ceremony, she was shot and killed outside of her home, right as she was returning home from a late shift on patrol.

Officer Preston was one of the best of Chicago. At only 24 years of age, she had served with the Chicago Police Department for 3 years. And during her time on the force, she worked to build trust between law enforcement and the communities that she served.

Officer Preston was inspired to become a police officer after taking a trip to Europe as part of her undergraduate criminology studies. Her class visited former concentration camps in Germany and Poland, the sites of some of the worst atrocities in human history.

The stories of the Holocaust compelled Areanah Preston to the change she wanted to see in the world. She wanted to be part of it. In her words:

When I got back [home], I wanted to be an officer. I felt

like I could be a person to fight for justice.

And during her time on the force, that is exactly what she did.

On Saturday--the day before Mother's Day--Officer Preston's mother Dionne and her other family members walked on stage at Loyola University's ceremony to accept her diploma.

I want to extend my deepest condolences to each and every one of them. Officer Preston and her family should be together today, celebrating her amazing accomplishments and her courageous service to our city. Instead, they are mourning her loss. She is yet another victim of America's epidemic of gun violence.

Officer Preston's loss is especially poignant this week as we mark the beginning of Police Week. It is a time when law enforcement officers across the country travel here to Washington to meet with lawmakers and honor their peers who lost their lives in the line of duty.

The murder of Officer Preston in Chicago--as well as hundreds of other police officers who have died by gunfire in recent years--is a sobering reminder that no American is immune to the scourge of gun violence in this country.

It was just 1 year ago this weekend when a White supremacist marched into a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, with an AR-15 assault-style rifle and opened fire, killing 10 Black Americans.

The first victim in that shooting was a man named Aaron Salter. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Salter--a former police officer--was working as a security guard at the grocery store.

When the gunman showed up, Mr. Salter did not hesitate to leap into action. He opened fire on the gunman. There was only so much he could do. You see, Mr. Salter was armed with a handgun. The assailant had an AR-15-style rifle and was wearing a tactical vest.

In this case, Mr. Salter was a good guy with a gun, but the bad guy had a bigger gun. Mr. Salter was forced into a position that no police officer, no security guard, should ever find themselves in--being outgunned by a violent criminal. But this happens with alarming frequency. And it is because lawmakers have failed to do enough to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands.

If we truly want to honor the sacrifices of heroes like Mr. Salter and officer Preston, we need to do more than offer our prayers and condolences. We need to take action.

At this point, I want to salute you, Mr. President, because you and your wife and family have worked so hard to make this issue an important part of our agenda in America.

In the years since the mass shooting in Buffalo, we have seen more than 650 mass shootings across America. A mass

shooting takes place when four people are either killed or wounded in one incident. During that period, more than 40,000 of our fellow citizens have died from gunfire, which is now the No. 1 killer of our Nation's children. The No. 1 killer of children under the age of 18 in America is gun violence. That is a fact.

Time and again, we hear lawmakers argue in Washington and other places that guns really aren't the problem, often claiming the real problem is mental illness. Well, here is the truth. Every nation on Earth struggles with mental illness, but America is the only advanced nation that sees more mass shootings than there are days in a year. I want to deal with mental illness honestly, but to say that is the problem alone is to ignore the obvious.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on the crisis of gun violence in America. One of the witnesses we heard was former Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams.

During that hearing, Chief Williams told the committee that our Nation's gun laws are failing members of law enforcement like her. Here is what she said:

We are outgunned. We're outmanned. We're out-staffed.

We do need responsible gun legislation . . . there should

be a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in

order for us to properly serve and protect our communit[ies].

Chief Williams was right. Smart gun safety laws work. We even have recent proof of it.

Last year, this Senate finally passed the bipartisan Safer Communities Act--the most important gun safety law in nearly 30 years. Thanks to that law, the Justice Department is able to perform enhanced background checks on buyers under the age of 21.

According to the Department of Justice, these enhanced background checks have already prevented more than 160 firearms from falling into potentially dangerous hands.

But that is not enough. We need to do more. Without more robust legislation--like reining in assault weapons--we are not going to make the progress we need in protecting the lives of our families and communities.

Friday afternoon, I had a visit in my Chicago office from four people. One was a mom and three were pediatricians from the Highland Park area north of Chicago. We remember Highland Park because of the last Fourth of July parade where a shooter got on the roof of a building and, in a matter of 60 seconds, fired off 83 rounds into an innocent crowd. And 7 people died, over 50 were injured. One 8-year-old boy was paralyzed for life.

They came to talk to me about the AR-15 assault weapon crisis that we face in America. What they said to me I cannot repeat on the floor of the Senate because they went into graphic, painful detail of what an AR-15 weapon does to the human body and particularly what it does to children. Those small bodies, those compact little bodies, hit by an AR-15 round, are forever damaged, and some of them are in an impossible situation when it comes to medical care.

They talked about the fact that--and we hear this so often--at the scene of these mass shootings, particularly in schools, they collect DNA evidence from the parents to identify what is left of the body of the children after the assault weapons had been fired into the bodies.

That is just a horrible thing, unimaginable thing, when it comes to imagining your own children or grandchildren and what might happen to them.

This mother came as part of this group, which is known as March Fourth, broke down in tears and told me that every single day now since Highland Park a year ago, she worries about sending her kids to school: Will this be the day that they don't come home?

No family, no parent, no grandparent should ever face that fear as we do in America--uniquely in America--because of the bewildering explanation of our Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, instead, moving forward on sensible gun safety laws, some people in the other party would move backward. Right now, the House MAGA majority is trying to erase a regulation that restricts braces that turn pistols into short-barreled rifles.

That is the same kind of weapon carried by mass shooters in Dayton, OH; Boulder, CO; and recently in Nashville, TN.

These weapons are a danger to law enforcement and ordinary citizens. And now this Republican effort in the House wants to make it easier to access these deadly weapons, not harder.

Does that make any sense at all?

Moreover, at this very moment, MAGA Republicans are threatening to default on America's debt unless we pass Speaker McCarthy's bill to wipe out 30,000 law enforcement jobs.

Talk about defending the police. The McCarthy approach in making deep budget cuts not only affects the number of law enforcement who are on the beat trying to protect us every single day but also makes a 25- percent cut in medical research in this country, something that is essential for every family's future.

That is right. House Republicans are threatening to trigger an economic crisis unless Democrats support their proposals to defund the police and basically eviscerate medical research in this country. That is coming from the same Republicans who spent years falsely claiming it was the Democrats who wanted to defund the police. Now we have clear evidence otherwise. Here they are supporting budget cuts that would leave law enforcement behind and make communities less safe. This is no way to honor the service and sacrifice of police officers across the country who have journeyed to Washington.

If you are going to talk a big game about supporting law enforcement during your political campaign, you have to back up your action when you are elected. Threatening a disastrous debt default unless we make massive budget cuts is no way to protect America.

Let's make sure officers have all the funding and resources they need to keep America safe, and that includes sensible gun safety laws that help keep weapons of war off American streets.

I yield the floor.

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

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