Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Blumenthal for bringing us together on the floor this afternoon and also Senator Schiff for his excellent statement on this issue, which is so timely and important.

I speak to this issue in the usual, personal position. My State, my home State of Illinois--the State that I am elected to represent in the Senate, a State that I love--is under siege by this administration. If you think I am exaggerating, imagine, if you will, for a moment a President who has decided to declare that your town, your State is somehow on his list to face punitive action by the delegation of military force. That is what is happening in Illinois. That is what is happening in Chicago.

This last Saturday, we had the No Kings rallies across the United States. Millions of Americans took the time to peacefully protest this administration's policies.

In Chicago, I cannot tell you the number of people in the crowd because no one is sure. I am sure it was over 100,000. My wife and I looked at that sea of people at the Petrillo band shell in Grant Park and thought, how many people could possibly be here? They were there, and they marched peacefully, nonviolently, to really use their constitutional rights to express themselves.

The President has designated Chicago as uninhabitable, unlivable, violent. It is just a fraud and a lie. It is not true. Does Chicago have its problems? You bet it does. So does a city in the State of California or Connecticut or even Utah. Each of our cities has its challenges. There will always be someone who will break the law and disappoint you. But to argue that the city is dangerous and needs to be occupied by National Guard troops from Illinois and the State of Texas is completely, completely wrong.

I recall that the President was right in one respect. Two weeks ago, there were people running through the streets of Chicago--53,000 of them, as a matter of fact, in the Chicago Marathon and thousands of others who came there to witness and cheer them on. It was a beautiful scene on a Sunday morning and afternoon in the city of Chicago, and it certainly didn't tell the story that President Trump and others are trying to tell about the city.

Just last week, President Trump called the Insurrection Act ``the strongest power a President has.'' President Trump is known for exaggerating, but this time, he wasn't. In his hands--the hands of a man who wants to be King, who nearly every day undermines checks and balances in the Constitution--the Insurrection Act as it stands today would serve as another tool for dangerous Executive overreach.

Since its enactment in the 1800s, Presidents of both parties have relied on the Insurrection Act selectively, and, as we have discovered over time, the law is dangerously outdated, vague, and vulnerable to abuse if wielded by a President who refuses to act in good faith.

President Trump talks frequently about the so-called enemy within in the United States. He has no qualms about spreading baseless lies about a rebellion or an emergency in American cities to justify his abuse of power. Whether it is unleashing Federal agents to detain people based on the color of their skin in Chicago or improperly deploying marines for civil law enforcement in Los Angeles, you see example after example.

The Founders of this Nation designed the Constitution to protect generations of Americans from abuses unfolding before our eyes today. To prevent Presidents from using the military as a weapon of tyranny, the Framers of the Constitution constrained the role of the military in civilian affairs, gave Congress control over when the military may be deployed, and barred the Federal Government from usurping State powers.

While the Insurrection Act gives the President greater authority to deploy the military within the United States, it was never meant to be used for the purpose President Trump is proposing.

Congress must act to update this law to ensure it can only be used to safeguard the Nation, and I want to commend Senator Blumenthal for taking steps with legislation he has introduced along those lines.

If you don't agree with me, listen to what Jack Goldsmith, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bush, wrote in the New York Times with Bob Bauer just this last Monday. He wrote:

The Insurrection Act was written for a different century

and a different conception of the presidency and presidential

self-restraint.

Listen to what experts at the libertarian think tank CATO said:

The sweeping language of the Act makes it a potentially

decisive and lethal tool in the hands of an authoritarian

chief executive.

Earlier this month, the Republican Governor of Oklahoma criticized the deployment of Texas Guard troops to Illinois as a violation of ``States' rights.'' He went on to say further--to rightly call out the hypocrisy of his own Republican Party. Imagine the outrage, this Governor of Oklahoma said, if Governor ``Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.''

I can imagine it, and you can too.

Republican Senators who are quiet about the President's misuse of his office and misuse of power would not be quiet if their own State and their own towns were at stake in this debate.

The reform bill my colleague from Connecticut has introduced preserves Presidential discretion to respond to genuine crisis while ensuring accountability and oversight and reducing the risk of abuse.

I don't exaggerate when I tell you that, having spent my life in government service, I am more worried now than I have ever been about the fate of this Republic. But I see the possibility

of the use of the Insurrection Act by this President. I worry that our democracy will struggle to survive.

I believe so dearly in this country that I have taken an oath willingly and happily to uphold its Constitution. I have turned to military leaders under President's Trump first term that I respected, like General Milley, and asked him basic questions such as: Given a choice, are you going to take your orders from the Commander in Chief or from the Constitution?

He said: Always the Constitution.

We have a lot at stake now in this national debate. It is about a lot more than who gets the morning headline and who wins the next election. What is at stake is the future of our democracy, and this Insurrection Act can be misused by this President in ways unimaginable. We have seen evidence of it already in my State of Illinois and the city of Chicago.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for leading us in this conversation that must continue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Judge Moe is another example of President Trump's focus on nominating jurists who rule in favor in big business and conservative special interests, instead of serving as a neutral arbiter on the bench.

In a case involving a Florida law that makes it harder for plaintiffs to prove the amount of damages in a personal injury or wrongful death action, Judge Moe ruled in favor of defendants who sought to apply this law retroactively, despite the clear language of the law stating otherwise.

Her explanation for why she ignored the clear language of the statute strains credulity.

Republicans also claimed that Biden nominees who did not pass the Kennedy bar exam were not fit to serve on the Federal bench.

When asked where the Privileges and Immunities Clause is in the Constitution, Judge Moe could not correctly answer the question, nor could she answer what the Privileges and Immunities Clause does. And when asked about the Privileges or Immunities Clause, she similarly could not recall which amendment it is in, nor could she explain what it does.

As I have said many times before, there cannot be one standard for Democrats and one for Republicans. While the Kennedy bar exam is daunting for many nominees, if failing to answer questions for Biden nominees is disqualifying, the same should be said for Trump nominees.

I will oppose Judge Moe's nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, through the Chair, I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership in bringing this issue before us.

We have something in common. Both of our States are facing militarization from the Federal level of government. Not only in Chicago--the President argues that the city is unsafe. I watched

this last Saturday as 100,000 people gathered for the No Kings rally and parade--a peaceful, nonviolent gathering of Americans expressing their constitutional feelings and right to express themselves in this Republic.

I know that you are facing the same threat in the State of Oregon, and recent court decisions seem to suggest that there is more time in the courtroom ahead.

I would just say to the Senator from Oregon, thank you for leading this conversation. There are so many aspects of this Presidency that you could address, and I would like you to address, if you will, this militarization issue.

We have carefully crafted in our existing laws prohibition against the use of military force for law enforcement. It makes sense on its face because these men and women--as good as they are--in the National Guard units around our country are not trained primarily in law enforcement. Theirs is a much different type of training.

Secondly, to overcome State and local sources of law enforcement is a major constitutional step, and yet this President has initiated it in my State of Illinois, in your State of Oregon, and in the State of California.

Would you address this aspect of your comments this morning.

If the Senator from Oregon would yield for another question.

Do you recall, as I do, how many times Candidate Trump and President Trump spoke before rallies supporting his cause and railed about the murderers, terrorists, rapists, criminally insane, and sexual predators who are coming across the border and threatening us?

And his argument was it was that fear of criminal activity by them that warranted this Federal intervention in many States, including our own.

I just wanted to give one example that is timely and tells a story. First, let me say that fewer than 30 percent of the people who are being detained by ICE--fewer than 30 percent--have any criminal conviction whatsoever. These people may be here out of status. For example, they came in on a student visa and stayed when they should have left, or came in here on a tourist visa and stayed when they should have left.

But to brand these people that are being detained on the streets of Chicago, for example, as criminals--violent criminals, as the President described them--is totally unfair.

I tell the story of a church that I visited just a few days ago in Chicago--Christ Lutheran Church on Wilson Avenue in the Albany section, which is a largely Hispanic section of the city of Chicago.

The pastor of that church Tom Terrell told me that after his service, a few days before, it ended at noon. And as parishioners were leaving-- they walk home in the neighborhood as they do every Sunday--ICE arrived in an unmarked truck and stopped this gathering of his parishioners and started questioning them and asking them for identification papers. This is becoming common in Chicago.

When others noticed it, they came to their front porches and out their front doors and started blowing whistles to let people know that ICE was in the neighborhood conducting this. ICE panicked, and as a result of it, threw down

a tear gas canister in front of these people who had just come out of church and got in their unmarked vehicle and left.

This kind of activity is far beyond protecting us from the most dangerous criminals who might have come across the border in times past. It is intimidation in an effort to have people so afraid that they will either not participate in the economy, that they will not be going to church, and many of them are afraid to send their kids to school.

Where is this leading and why? I will tell you I think you shared what you said, the Senator from Oregon, my feelings that this is not the end of it. It is not a temporary thing. It is a long-term commitment by the President to militarize neighborhoods, particularly those in blue States and cities like Chicago.

What is the purpose? Not just to spread fear but when the election comes, which is another few months away, of course, but when the election comes, to discourage people from voting in those neighborhoods, if not disqualify them.

Does that sound like an outlandish idea, the President who will refuse to accept the fact that he lost an election? It doesn't to me, and it becomes a reality every time I come home.

This President argues that there are dangers in the streets of Chicago. Two weeks ago, the streets were overrun by 53,000 people that didn't live in Chicago. It is called the Chicago Marathon, and they had 53,000 participants. This was a calm, peaceful, quiet, and great and happy day in the history of Chicago.

And for him to characterize this as a criminal city and one that needs military occupation is totally unfair, and it doesn't reflect the reality. This past Saturday, as I mentioned, over 100,000 gathered without violent incident, a reminder that cities like that that are being besmirched by the President are still solid places to live--with their challenges and problems, of course--but beyond that, it certainly doesn't merit the military presence the President is suggesting.

So I would ask the Senator from Oregon: Do you feel that there is a long-term plan to this militarization by the Presidency?

I thank the Senator from Oregon.

First, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his endurance and determination in hanging in there.

He is bringing up a critical issue and subject for America at a critical moment, but I would like to return to an issue we discussed this morning when I was visiting, and that is the issue of the militarization of our Federal Government and its impact on States like yours of Oregon and mine of Illinois.

What I am finding as I read the newspaper accounts is that the ICE operation from the Department of Homeland Security in Illinois continues to intimidate people who live in the city, in their neighborhoods, and all around, and bring fear to parts of the city of Chicago. Little Village and Pilsen are the ones most well known.

It is a legitimate point.

Will you yield for a question--

--for the Chair?

The point I am trying to make is there are areas of the city of Chicago and I am sure in your State of Oregon where the intimidation factor has reached a point where people are worried about literally going to church, going to work, taking their kids to school. It is a genuine problem.

Just last week, an individual took his child to daycare, left the motor running in his car and took the little toddler into daycare. He came out the door and was arrested and detained and removed from that scene, specifically, while the motor was still running in his car. That is the kind of thing that is happening. It isn't as if they are targeting criminals; they are going after people who look like they are Hispanic. There are many who live in our city, and I am glad to have them. They are wonderful people.

I would like to ask, in your State, what kind of intimidation, if any, is taking place through this military operation of the President?

Or more.

If the Senator would yield?

Over the course of my service in the Senate, one of the things that I was proudest of and am still proud of was the formation of the so-called Gang of 8--four Republicans and four Democrats who sat down to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Senator McCain led the effort on the Republican side, and Senator Schumer joined me with others on the Democratic side. We produced a measure that had the support of business and labor and Democrats and Republicans.

We brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate and passed it with over 60 votes. It was a glorious day and a great celebration. What was it all about? It was all about the 11 million undocumented people in the United States coming forward and registering with this government who they are, where they live, and they pay a fine for coming to this country without documentation. They then don't automatically become citizens, but they are allowed to work. They wouldn't be deported, and they can live a normal life, paying their taxes and doing what people who are in this country do normally.

It was an attempt to try to regularize the information, to account for the 11 million, and to say that was going to be an accounting, which would give us some stability in this country on the issue of immigration. The fact is, it would have done just that.

Unfortunately, it was never taken up by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. We passed it here in the Senate. It included the Dream Act, and it was a step forward.

I contrast it today with what we are faced with: full-scale battles and war over immigration in cities across this country. It is unnecessary. There are ways to resolve this fairly, humanely, and in an American fashion. I hope the Senator from Oregon agrees with me.

It is time for us to sit down and do this. Hiring more ICE agents is not going to resolve the issue of immigration. Having a law that is enforceable, rational, humane, and American in its nature is the best way, as far as I am concerned.

I ask the Senator for his reaction.

I would like to just make one last comment, if I can--

--in the nature of a question.

Just a few feet away from where we are in the Chamber is my Capitol office, and on my credenza behind my desk is my mother's naturalization certificate for all to see. I am a proud immigrant.

She came to this country at the age of 2. Her mother did not speak English but brought three children on a boat from Germany to Baltimore and ultimately to Illinois, where I grew up and my mother spent her life. It was an indication of the American dream, as far as I am concerned. Her son not only got a government job but was elected to the Senate, so good things happen.

But I think it is a story of immigration--a story that is repeated over and over again by families that come into this country, determined to succeed. It makes us a better nation and always has.

Has the Senator run into that in the State of Oregon?

In the nature of a question, I ask the Senator from Oregon, is he aware of the fact that we have approximately 700 immigration judges facing that backlog you just described, and the Trump administration has dismissed 100 of them? So instead of adding more judges so we can expedite the hearings and resolve them, the opposite has been the case. Was the Senator aware of that?

It certainly is.

I would also ask the Senator, when it comes to--

In the nature of a question, when it comes to the issue of due process, the question is whether or not we can, in this country, offer due process to the people who are asking for their fate to be resolved. That has been part of our Constitution applying not only to citizens but those who are in our country petitioning to become citizens.

Does the Senator agree with me that due process is a critical part of our democracy?

We face this reality now with children. I just described it earlier. The question I would ask you is this--

--does the Senator believe that these unaccompanied children need to have humane treatment at all times?

You told the story earlier of going down to the border and watching what happened under previous administrations. Would the Senator recount that story at this point?

Would the Senator yield for another question? It would be my last question.

Is the Senator aware of the fact that 2 weeks ago ICE offered to children under the age of 18--and they were children--an option of a $2,400 reward if they would leave the country and go back to the country of their birth? Children were being asked to sign a contract to give up any claim to citizenship in the United States, and the $2,400 was available to an adult that they would identify in their country who would meet their airplane.

With all of the trafficking that has been going on, it was a ridiculous idea to take children and ask them to make that decision and to give them a financial reward if they went along.

Was the Senator aware of that?

That was the detail.

I am going to yield the floor and thank the Senator.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I often think about times when government resources played an important role in my family's life, long before I became a U.S. Senator.

When I was in high school, shortly after my father passed away, my family received a Social Security disability assistance check. That check helped send me to college. But when I arrived at Georgetown, the costs of tuition, books, and housing became more than that check could support.

Luckily, I was able to borrow money under the National Defense of Education Act of 1958. This money had to be paid back to the government, but it helped put me through college. Had the government not been there in my time of need, I may not be addressing you from the Senate floor today.

Millions of Americans have similar stories when there was a time they needed a helping hand. Maybe they needed help paying for groceries, finding safe and affordable housing, or accessing healthcare--and in all those experiences, the government was there to give them a lifeline.

But, since his inauguration, President Trump and his enablers have taken a chainsaw to the Federal Government, hacking away at the support systems that everyday Americans rely on. And at the President's direction, congressional Republicans have plunged the Nation into a government shutdown.

Rather than address a looming healthcare crisis that will cause healthcare costs to soar, the President--and Project 2025 mastermind Russell Vought--have used it as cover to settle petty political scores against Democratic-led cities and States. Don't believe me? Let me show you.

Look at this chart from the New York Times. Since the start of this Republican-led shutdown, the Trump administration has frozen or canceled nearly $28 billion across 87 Democratic districts. How does that compare to Republican districts? Look at this, just $738 million across 14 Republican districts.

This is petty, unfair, and wrong. The administration is using these projects as pawns in their crusade against Democrats and denying communities the benefits these projects would have provided residents regardless of their political leanings.

As part of this administration's attacks on Democratic-led States, Director Vought announced the cancellation of $8 billion in clean energy and grid enhancement grants--including almost $700 million for the State of Illinois.

Bringing down energy costs and preventing power outages are not partisan issues. But the Trump administration wants you to believe these dollars were going to radical climate policies. In Illinois, more than $150 million of the

canceled awards were going to upgrade the power grid. These upgrades would have made our grid more reliable in the face of rising energy demand. Now, that work is in jeopardy. Other canceled awards in Illinois are for methane detection and leak prevention along natural gas pipelines.

When the government refuses to upgrade the grid and protect our pipelines, it does not mean utilities don't need these enhancements anymore. Instead, utility companies will pass along these costs to consumers. You will soon be forced to pay more for your electricity and heat because the Trump administration wants to punish Americans for the candidate they voted for last November.

The administration also has aggressively targeted billions of dollars of previously approved transportation funding. Wreaking havoc in Chicago neighborhoods with cruel immigration raids and sending the military in to patrol the city's streets is not enough for this President. Two weeks ago, the President further escalated his feud with Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker--whom he has called to be jailed-- by withholding $2.1 billion in funding for Chicago infrastructure projects.

The Red Line project has been decades in the making, would finally extend mass transit to the far South Side of Chicago, and would generate tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. But Donald Trump is fine with ripping this away as long as he scores a few political points.

For decades, State and local governments have been able to compete for grant awards for projects--no matter where they live or who they vote for. The Trump administration is taking that tradition and tearing it at the seams. Even some of my Republican colleagues have publicly stated how wrong this is, and I applaud them for bravely coming forward to say so.

I urge the President to stop targeting resources that help everyday Americans and negotiate a reopening of government. Every day that goes by, Americans face increased healthcare costs while the President remains hyperfixated on inflicting as much pain as possible on his political opponents and the communities they represent.

We owe it to the American people to fund the government in a manner that protects their health coverage and ensures government funding and the resources that so many rely on are there in their time of need.

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

Mr. President, last Friday, I went back to the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, and over the weekend, I had two experiences I want to share with you. There was a real contrast, but there was a recurring theme in both.

The first was at a church in the city of Chicago on Friday, the Christ Lutheran Church. It is on Wilson Avenue in a section of Chicago known as Albany Park. The church was built in 1911. You look around at the houses outside of the church, and you think: This neighborhood has seen a lot of change, a lot of different people who have come through with waves of immigration. Today, it is predominantly Hispanic, but I would imagine that the march of history would take you through many other groups who have lived in the Albany Park neighborhood.

The pastor there is named Tom Terrell. I was meeting him for the first time. We had a press conference inside his little church, and he told us a story of what had happened at his church, Christ Lutheran Church, on the previous Sunday. There aren't as many people in his church as there were just a few months ago because a lot of them are too afraid. They are Hispanic families. They are afraid, if they go to their church, they might be detained or arrested or that something else terrible might happen, but some brave souls made it to the Christ Lutheran Church on that Sunday.

Pastor Terrell told us this story: At the end of the ceremony, at 12 noon, the people were leaving, heading home, walking away from church, when an unmarked van pulled up, and ICE agents came out of it and started to ask questions of the people who had just come out of church. It was noticed in the neighborhood, what is now becoming more common in Chicago. The neighbors started coming out with whistles. They were standing on their front porches and blowing whistles because the ICE agents were intimidating these people who were just leaving church.

Eventually, enough people started blowing whistles that the ICE agents decided to tear gas the people coming out of church. They threw the tear gas canisters and got in their van and left. Going to church on Sunday, in Albany Park, in the city of Chicago, was an opportunity for an ICE raid. That is what is happening in the city of Chicago. It is not confined to that neighborhood. It is happening there and in the surrounding suburbs.

Are the people afraid? You bet they are. They are afraid of what is going to happen to them and their families. The stories come pouring in one after the other.

Remember how we got started in this conversation? Remember when the President said at his rallies, over and over again, that we are going after rapists, terrorists, murderers, those who are criminally insane, and those who are predators of children? They came into this country illegally, and they are not going to stay.

Well, Christ Lutheran Church was not the place to visit if you were looking for those categories. Those people there were not guilty of any crime other than going to church. If that is a crime in the eyes of some, it certainly isn't in my eyes. That is the reality, as 70 percent of the people who are being detained and arrested in the city of Chicago have no criminal record--no criminal record. Yet they are being intimidated. The restaurants in many parts of the city are not what they used to be. People are not going shopping. They are afraid to go outside at all. That is the reality.

My second experience this week in Chicago is on the same theme.

On Saturday, an estimated 7 million Americans across this country took to the streets, peacefully, with a singular message to President Trump and his enablers: We have no Kings in the United States. That included 100,000

people in Chicago, and I was proud to be one of them. That is the frontline, as we know, of the President's assault on our democracy, our civil liberties, and our rule of law. Now, I have been in Congress for four decades, so believe me when I say that the turnout at this march was the largest that I have ever seen at any political gathering. It was amazing.

The President is trying to tell the world that it is unsafe to be in the city of Chicago. Well, the weekend before this, we had our 53,000 runners in the Chicago Marathon, with tens of thousands of supporters and families cheering them on. They weren't afraid to be in Chicago, and neither was I.

On this last Saturday, this gathering of people in the city of Chicago--without violence, expressing themselves as Americans, disagreeing with our government, which is part of democracy--was a peaceful gathering by and large. I joined the march in the city of Chicago and carried the sign that read ``Hands off Chicago,'' and I meant it.

Chicago is a great city. It faces challenges, but all cities face challenges. These challenges must be addressed with solutions that are consistent with our American values. This President is abusing his power by fueling this cruel immigration raid policy in unleashing the military, bringing in National Guard men and women from the State of Texas against immigrants and citizens alike.

Don't believe me? I will show you.

The President claims his actions are meant to round up ``the worst of the worst,'' but that has been anything but the case. A few weeks ago, Chicago and the Nation watched in horror as women and children-- immigrants and U.S. citizens alike--were dragged from their homes in the South Shore of Chicago and detained with the use of zip ties. Imagine your child being rousted out of bed in the middle of the night when the front door of your apartment is crashed down and that child is taken downstairs, separated from his mother and father, with a zip tie holding his hands together. When one witness complained that these children were being mistreated, I am sorry to tell you that the person from ICE said: ``F--- them kids.''

Then, just last week, ProPublica reported that, in the first 9 months of the Trump administration, ICE held over 170 American citizens across the country--kicking, dragging, beating, and detaining some of them for days. Let me repeat: They were American citizens.

Take Maria Greeley, a Chicagoan and U.S. citizen detained by Federal agents earlier this month in Chicago. She showed them her passport, but they zip-tied her and held her for hours because she ``didn't look like someone named Greeley.''

Let me give you another example. On October 3, Juan Munoz, a trustee for the township of Oak Park in Illinois, stood with protesters outside of the ICE Broadview processing facility along with other elected officials. Federal agents picked him out of the crowd, shoved him to the ground, and arrested him, while they left his colleagues alone. They held him for 8 hours. Why did they hold Juan Munoz for that long and not his colleagues? He was a person of color.

Does this sound like the work of an administration set on reducing violent crime? I think not. This cruelty is all for show.

While Americans continue to pay inflated prices at the checkout aisle and face the prospect of skyrocketing healthcare premium costs, this is what our President is focusing on.

We the people stood up this weekend to the President's abuses of power. I hope the Supreme Court, when the time comes, will do the same.

The Founders of this Nation designed the Constitution to protect generations of Americans from the very abuses we are watching unfold before our eyes today. They understood the dangers of a military turned against its own people and limited its role in civilian affairs.

President Trump's claims of so-called invasions, rebellions, or emergencies to justify calling the military into American cities like Chicago are baseless. They are simply attempts to bypass laws and the checks and balances of the Constitution.

Judges in Portland, OR, and Chicago, IL, appointed by Presidents of both political parties, have agreed.

In upholding a ruling temporarily barring the deployment of troops in Chicago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded:

[T]he facts do not justify the President's actions in

Illinois. . . . Political opposition is not rebellion.

In fact, the court noted that the Department of Homeland Security itself claims that the protests have not slowed down their operations and that ICE has increased its deportations and arrests.

Political opposition, peaceful protests, and even nonviolent civil disobedience are not rebellion; they are the bedrocks of our democracy. If there are legitimate concerns with maintaining law and order, protecting public safety, and controlling crime, the Constitution preserves the power to address that for the States, not the Federal Government.

Whether in Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, Memphis, or the District of Columbia, it is civilian authorities--State and local law enforcement--that have the primary responsibility for enforcing the law.

I am glad to see Federal judges, including judges appointed by President Trump himself, upholding their constitutional responsibility to interpret the law and apply it to the facts.

It is no surprise that President Trump is now asking the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority to green light his abusive power and allow him to deploy troops regardless of statutory limits or the actual facts on the ground.

The Supreme Court should reject the President's petition. There is no emergency that would justify bypassing the regular appeals process and resolving this case on the Court's shadow docket, without the full public scrutiny that it deserves.

My warning to my Republican colleagues is this: Durbin of Illinois is standing on the floor of the Senate today telling you what is happening to the State and people I love to represent. If the President is allowed to send the military against his own citizens in Chicago without regard to the laws enacted by Congress, what guardrails are left to prevent him from doing it to you in your home State, to the people that you are proud to represent here in the Senate?

We cannot sit idly by while a person who wants to be King takes us down a path to authoritarianism.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, last week we learned that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado had won this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

This is a photograph of her. She did so for her steadfast and courageous fight for democracy in the once-proud Nation of Venezuela that, unfortunately, now under a man named Maduro, has descended into chaos and dictatorship.

I had the chance to visit Venezuela in 2018, just before the country's strongman Nicolas Maduro staged a sham election. The years that followed were a predictable disaster, bringing further suffering on the Venezuelan people.

In late 2023, under severe repression, the Venezuelan opposition organized a primary election that selected Ms. Machado as its candidate for the July 2024 Presidential election. Using a tired old playbook, the Maduro regime refused to allow her on the final ballot. Undeterred, her colleague Edmundo Gonzalez was able to run in her stead. Not surprisingly, given the country's near-failed state status, he won over Maduro with two-thirds of the vote in a process meticulously documented by domestic election observers.

What did the Maduro regime do? It, shamefully, refused to swear him, as his successor, into office and forced him to flee the country. But Maria Corina Machado refused to leave. She stayed while the regime arrested key opposition supporters and threatened her as well.

While she remains in hiding for her own safety, she has continued to fight for those election results to be respected and a return to democracy in Venezuela. That steadfast courage in the face of such cruelty is incredible and certainly worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen and I were on the telephone yesterday with this brave young lady. She was determined as ever to see a better future for the people of Venezuela. She has my continued admiration and support in that effort.

Middle East

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about events in the Middle East and Ukraine. Over the long weekend, the world saw what is, hopefully, the beginning of the end of the war in Gaza.

I want to congratulate President Trump for the historic agreement that made this possible. There are still critical elements to be negotiated and settled. But the first phase, which included the release of Israeli hostages and a cease-fire, is a good-faith start to a more inclusive agreement. It won't be easy. The remaining steps will be difficult and require sustained attention from President Trump and our allies that helped make the beginning of this agreement a reality.

As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wisely wrote this week, ``You don't have a second to rest. As someone who wants you to succeed, I have to remind you: As hard as the first state was, you have not . . . seen hard yet.''

I agree. There has been so much pain and suffering sparked 2 years ago from Hamas's brutal October 7 attack and the ensuing war, and it will take a long time, if ever, to heal. But this is the best chance in a long time toward a more hopeful future where both people, Palestinians and Israelis, can live in peace.

Similarly, I hope President Trump will now focus momentum from these events and equal attention on seeking an end to the war in Ukraine. I have said before, I don't begrudge President Trump for trying to engage Russian President Putin to negotiate an end to this terrible conflict. But it should be clear to everyone, and I hope it is clear to President Trump, that Putin isn't interested nor serious. In fact, Putin has only increased his deadly attacks on Ukraine since such good-faith outreach by the United States.

Similarly, it is long overdue that the Senate pass bipartisan Russian sanctions, a bill that now has 80 bipartisan sponsors, a bill I am happy to support.

Putin only responds to force--military and economic--and it is time for the President and Congress to stand behind the people of Ukraine and to increase his pressure on President Putin.

Government Funding

Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments made by my colleague and friend Senator Barrasso from Wyoming on the floor this morning.

Why is this government shut down? Why? What is the reason for it? The President's party is in control in the White House, in the House, and in the Senate and yet we stopped and the government shut down. Why? Because there is a fundamental issue we are trying to resolve for the good of the American people.

Well, let me give you an illustration.

What if I told you, if you live in Illinois, that, on October 27, your health insurance company is going to send

you a notice at your home; that it is going to announce what is going to happen to your health insurance premiums on your insurance, on January 1 of this coming year; and that it is also going to tell you, for many people, that there is going to be a dramatic increase-- dramatic--of 114 percent; that your premium is going to more than double?

Some people will say: That is all right. I have got plenty of money in the bank. I am not worried about it a bit.

But most people will say: Doubled? It is already too high. What am I going to do? How am I going to afford this? What is it going to do to my family's budget if I have to pay twice as much on January 1 for my health insurance? How did this happen? Who did this?

It is called the ``Big, Beautiful Budget Bill'' of President Trump. That is what did it.

There is a tax credit that is available for millions of American families to help them pay for their health insurance premiums. The Republicans eliminate it, and when they eliminate it, people are on their own to come up with money to pay for their health insurance.

Is it important? I think it is critical.

It is one of the most basic questions you are going to ask when you ask: How is your family doing? Are you doing OK when it comes to health insurance? If you have an unexpected, large medical bill, do you have insurance to cover it?

Well, for thousands--maybe millions--of Americans, the new health insurance plan is going to be too expensive for them to pay the premiums.

So what do you do?

Well, you look for a plan that has a lot of money in out-of-pocket expenditures for the people who are covered. It is the skinny policy, only in catastrophes and calamities. That, unfortunately, is all you have.

In the meantime, you are in a situation where your family, tomorrow, may face a medical bill which will break the bank. That is what it comes down to.

That is what this shutdown is about. We believe the Republicans should help us in helping the families across America.

As I said, October 27 is the day of reckoning in Illinois for people who are policyholders there. It is going to happen across the United States. It is a policy they created on the Republican side, and we should work with them to change it--the sooner, the better.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, the Republican Party controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Despite that trifecta, the government has been shut down for 15 long days and counting.

As Americans suffer, Majority Leader Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson insist that congressional Republicans will address expiring Affordable Care Act health insurance premium tax credits after the government reopens. But do the American people have any reason to believe that congressional Republicans really are going to work to help save healthcare for millions of Americans? Not if you look at the record.

In the past 8 months, Democrats have repeatedly tried to extend these ACA premium tax credits. What does it boil down to? Health insurance is expensive. For some families, it is too expensive. We created a program to provide tax credits for many families who otherwise couldn't have a good health insurance policy.

The Republicans, in the big, beautiful, blue budget--whatever they call it--ended up basically eliminating these tax credits, which means the burden will fall on these families, without any help in the Tax Code, in a matter of weeks.

In the past 8 months, we have tried to extend these tax credits, which were eliminated in the Trump big, beautiful budget.

In February, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire offered an amendment to the first budget resolution to protect these tax credits. Senate Republicans voted against it, and the amendment failed.

In April, Senator Shaheen went again and offered another amendment to the second budget resolution doing exactly the same thing. Once again, the Republicans had a chance to correct the error they made in this big, beautiful budget, but they voted against it.

In June, Senator Jon Ossoff from Georgia offered an amendment to the Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill to save the enhanced premium tax credits a third time. You know what happened. You can guess it. Every Senate Republican voted against the amendment. It failed.

Let us not forget that for the past 15 years, the American people have been waiting for the Republican Party's Affordable Care Act replacement plan.

In Donald Trump's first term, he made an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He wouldn't describe to the American people what he was going to replace it with, but he was damned determined to get it repealed.

It led to a moment I will never forget on the floor of the Senate. It was about 2 or 3 in the morning. All the Members were in their seats. It came down to one person as to whether or not the Affordable Care Act would be repealed under the Trump administration, in his first term. It was a moment of high drama because we knew what was at stake: Millions of American families, without the help of the Affordable Care Act, couldn't buy or afford health insurance.

So it came down to the vote of John McCain--former Senator, Republican from Arizona. He went through those doors to my right and was gone for a few minutes. People said: He is talking to President Trump. Trump is trying to convince him to put an end to ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act once and for all.

John McCain was his own man. He wasn't a creature of membership in an organization. He voted his conscience.

He walked through that door. A hush fell over the Chamber. He stood in the well right on the corner of that table and lifted his right arm as far as he could--remember, his arm was broken many times when he was a prisoner of war--and came down hard with a ``no.'' With that single vote, John McCain saved the Affordable Care Act for millions of Americans and gave them health insurance they can afford for their families. The Republicans had failed again to put an end to the Affordable Care Act.

Well, here they are doing the same thing with the big, beautiful budget bill. And what does it mean for families? Chuck Schumer was on the floor earlier this morning talking about the impact on the premiums.

Each State has a target date when the health insurance industry is going to announce the new premiums for the new calendar year, which starts in just a few weeks.

Our date in Illinois is October 27--12 days from today. Those who are part of healthcare.gov, those who are part of the Affordable Care Act will find out what happens to their premiums.

If history is an indicator, it shows that my Republican colleagues have no plan. They didn't have one in Trump's first term; they certainly don't have one now.

The President said, when he was asked point blank ``What is your plan to replace ObamaCare?'' he had concepts of a plan in his mind--nothing in writing--to make healthcare more affordable for the American people.

So it is a bit over the top for the Republicans to ask Democrats and the American people to wait and trust them to fix this issue, to let the premiums go up, and then maybe they will get around to changing the law.

That is what this is all about. There are a lot of words used on the floor of the Senate to describe the government shutdown. I am sorry it has reached this point, but I think there is a reason for it, and it is a good one. We believe that 20 million American families will see the cost of health insurance go up because of the Trump budget and reach a point where it is not affordable for many families to have health insurance. How about that?

What about your family? If you are a person who has health insurance, children, perhaps someone in your family with a serious illness, you understand the value of health insurance, and you understand your vulnerability. One broken bone, one automobile accident, one bad diagnosis, and you are going to end up with a bill you cannot pay. It will exhaust your savings. That is the reality of the cost of health insurance.

My Republican colleagues, like the one who just spoke, don't seem to understand that, and I think he should. What is at stake here is not a political custom match. What is at stake here is a decision by this body to help millions of American families. If Republicans in Congress fail to extend the enhanced premium tax credits before the end of this year--and that is just a few weeks away--premiums for 22 million Americans will double. Take a look at what you are paying each month for health insurance for your family, multiply times two, and that is the result of the Big Beautiful Bill that was passed by the Republicans.

Let me give you an example: In Illinois, a 60-year-old couple with an income of $82,000 could see their annual premiums increase $17,000 a year if the enhanced premium tax credits are not extended. That is an increase of $1,400 a month. Ask any family, working family, whether paying $1,400 a month more for health insurance will have an impact on the family budget. You know the answer.

Now, compare that additional cost of the tax cuts that some billionaires will enjoy because of this so-called Big Beautiful Bill that was passed by the Republicans. Billionaires will receive a tax cut of more than $310,000 a year. I am sure Elon Musk needs that money-- $25,000 a month in tax breaks. Contrast those two numbers, an increase in health insurance premiums of $1,400 a month because of the Republicans' vote and an increase in the tax breaks, the reduction of taxes for billionaires in America of $25,000 a month. That includes more than 100,000 people in my home State of Illinois who will be forced to make the impossible decision that most Americans pray they will never have to make, like whether to purchase groceries or insulin or whether to pay the mortgage or take the kids in for their checkup.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what my constituents have written to me. Stephanie from Evanston, IL, is a business owner. And many business owners count on health.gov for their health insurance. Stephanie told me if her enhanced ACA tax credits are allowed to expire, the result of the Big Beautiful Bill with the Trump budget would ``cripple'' her budget and that she is ``not sure [she] could cover the doubling of this cost.''

Most people wouldn't be able to. She asked me how ``our country claims to support business owners if [they] can't afford to take care of their family's health?'' More than 4 million other small business owners who get their health coverage through the Affordable Care Act are asking the same question.

Take Jennifer, she is a mother and a small business owner from Illinois who told me her costs have skyrocketed under this President. She told me her food costs are up and ``utilities are up, gas is . . . expensive, [and] the costs of supplies for my business have tripled.''

Jennifer is concerned her ACA premiums will double next year unless we do something.

That is what the shutdown is all about. It is not some source of pride for politicians to argue back and forth. There is a purpose in this debate. The purpose is to make sure we come to the rescue of tens of millions of Americans who face the doubling of their health insurance premiums. Jennifer is concerned her ACA premiums will double, as I mentioned, next year. If that happens, she would have ``no choice but to pass those costs on to my customers or to close my doors.''

As you know, small businesses employ almost 50 percent of private sector workers. They are the engine of our economy. If our Nation's small businesses start closing, there will be a ripple effect throughout our local economy, and it will happen, in part, because Republicans in Congress refuse to lower healthcare costs.

I like John Thune. He is the Republican leader here in the Senate. We have known one another for years. We have our differences politically, but I think he is basically a good person. I heard him come to the floor over and over again saying pass this clean continuing resolution, open the government, and, by golly, we are going to sit down and talk to you about health insurance.

Why can't we do that now? Why can't we do that this morning? There are enough tables in this building for people to gather. Now that the House of Representatives is back in town, they can participate as well. We need the President at the table, as well, as far as I am concerned. There are many Republicans who basically will wait for a signal from the President to agree to anything. Bring him to the table. He brought a cease-fire to the Middle East. Let's see if he can bring a cease-fire to the Senate and House.

It is past time to address this issue. Insurance companies are making their final decisions about monthly premium costs for next year right now. They sent out notifications, and people will soon be picking their healthcare plans based on these costs. As I mentioned, October 27 is the target date for this announcement in Illinois. I guarantee you, if we don't bring some relief to these families, we are going to see premiums increase dramatically.

That is what this government shutdown is all about. We want to sit down and deal with healthcare costs directly and now. Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson seem to have made the political calculation, when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, they have no problem moving fast and breaking things. But when it comes to healthcare for more than 24 million Americans, that can wait. My constituents, like Stephanie and Jennifer and their families, can't wait any longer. It is time to get this done.

One last point: I am from Downstate Illinois. I live in Springfield, 200 miles south of Chicago. I am honored to represent the city of Chicago. I, basically, do my best to represent the entire State. We have problems downstate because of these healthcare costs as well. Nearly 400,000 Illinoisans currently receive the ACA tax credits, which are at risk of disappearing because of the Republican vote. If the tax credits are not extended, eligible enrollees will pay an average of $1,032 more per year in Illinois for healthcare coverage, $1,700 more per year in rural areas. Smalltown, rural Illinois is going to feel this as well.

These increases will be higher for families. A 60-year-old couple earning $82,000 a year would see an annual increase of $17,000, $1,400 a month. A family of four earning $64,000 a year in Downstate Illinois would see an annual premium increase of 226 percent, $2,571. Counties that will be hardest hit financially are conservative, Republican- dominated counties, by and large. Hamilton County will see an increase of $2,772 a year; White County, $2,496 more a year; Union County $2,400 more a year. Counties with the highest number of enrollees impacted: Cook County, our largest, 170,500; DuPage County, 35,900; Lake County, 23,200. We estimate we will lose up to nine hospitals in Downstate Illinois because of changes in Medicaid and because of these increases in health insurance premiums. Is that of concern? It is to me. I represented these Downstate Illinois counties for many years.

I know what it means to lose a hospital. I know what it means to add 45 minutes to an hour to your drive time for the delivery of that baby or critical traumatic care. It really makes the difference between life and death. That is what we are fighting for.

Before the Sun sets today, let us hope that at some table here in the U.S. Capitol, the leaders of Congress will meet, and the President will promise to join them in an effort to get this solved. There is no reason we can't do

it. We hear from the Republicans that they want to make some changes. Let's make those changes now and make sure we get this done quickly.

I yield the floor.