Floor Statements

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.

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

Mr. President, last Friday, Senator Tammy Duckworth, my colleague from Illinois, and I went back home to Illinois, to Broadview, which is a suburb of the city of Chicago. It has become quite well known around the country because it is a detention facility for ICE. I have been there many times in the past.

Every Friday morning, two wonderful women, Sister Pat and Sister Joanne, used to go to the Broadview facility and pray a rosary and then go inside and say goodbye to the detainees who were being deported by plane that very morning. It was a peaceful and reassuring experience because so many people were praying for those folks who were going to see their lives turned upside down.

The people who ran the facility couldn't have been more cooperative. They had a lawful responsibility, but they did not object to my entering the Broadview facility in years gone by, saying goodbye to the detainees and a few words of encouragement with the nuns who would accompany me. It became kind of a ritual which we were very proud of.

How things have changed. How things have changed. Senator Duckworth and I were simply asking if we could go inside and see what the facility looked like. Reports are that there seem to be large groups of people moving through there. There are only two cells and one bathroom. Those are the sorts of things which are part of oversight for us--to look at facilities and make sure they are humane, consistent with our values. But, unfortunately, over and over again, ICE has refused to allow Senator Duckworth and myself access to their operations in Chicago. I don't understand why. If they thought these operations were compliant with the law and accomplishing something good for America, they would certainly want the people to see them--those who are responsible for funding their Agency. The opposite has been true.

It was 3 or 4 weeks ago that we went up to the Great Lakes naval training station north of Chicago because it had been disclosed that they were leasing a

building to ICE. Senator Duckworth and I went there because this is a critically important Department of Defense facility. Every sailor in the U.S. Navy goes through training at Great Lakes--every one of them-- and we are very proud of the good work that is done to train them to serve our Nation. We wanted to know what ICE was going to do if they came to Great Lakes naval training station, as they promised. We have a legitimate concern.

Every Thursday, 900 to 1,000 of these sailors go through a graduation ceremony, commencement ceremony, and their proud parents sit in bleachers with their cameras following the events of the day, which are historic for each family.

So we understand that with 900 to 1,000 graduates, families come from all over the United States to witness this moment in family history that will be talked about forever--the day their son or daughter graduated from Great Lakes. We were concerned if ICE is going to go through and check everybody who looks suspicious--the Kavanaugh test: Do they look like they are Hispanic? What impact is that going to have on Great Lakes, on the men and women who work there, on the young graduates of the training course? What impact would that have if someone from ICE decided to start asking for identification papers-- passports, driver's licenses--of those sitting in the bleachers? It is not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, it is a real possibility because we are watching what ICE is doing in the city of Chicago. It is terrible. It is indefensible. It is embarrassing.

I don't know if the ICE agents who are responsible for this conduct have been well trained, whether they are veterans of the force, or whether they answer the ads that show up on Chicago television all the time that ``If you will sign up for ICE, we will give you a $50,000 check, a bonus, to sign up.'' I don't know who is signing up. I don't know how many are signing up. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security refused to disclose that to Congress or to the American people.

They say it is justified. It is justified, the tactics they are using--wearing masks, with no insignia on their person that shows that they work for any Federal Agency whatsoever. They justify this by saying that it is so dangerous in the city of Chicago--dangerous in the city of Chicago.

I thought about that this weekend. They say in criticism of Chicago that people are fleeing the forces of violence. Well, there was some fleeing going on in Chicago this weekend: 53,000 runners came for the Chicago Marathon.

We are told that it is so dangerous in the city of Chicago that this President has to send in National Guard volunteers from the State of Texas who have been federalized and controlled by the Federal Government. Fifty-three thousand runners and over half a million tourists. Dangerous city? Not what I see. Can we do better when it comes to reducing crime? You bet. Isn't that true for just about every city in America?

When it gets down to it, the danger is not in the streets in the city of Chicago; the danger is what is happening when troops are being sent in to stand on street corners with rifles.

I am a fan of the National Guard. Tammy Duckworth, who was with me, spent 24 years in the Guard before she was shot down in Iraq. She loves those Guard men and women, considers them her brothers and sisters. I am sorry they are being dragged into this political theater being created by President Trump.

The reality is, what the ICE agents are doing in the city of Chicago is nothing short of outrageous. Innocent people involved in peaceful, constitutional, legal conduct are being assaulted by these officers. We live in an age of cell phones and videos. This is not something that we are making up; it is on the news every night. The people of Chicago resent it, and they should, and I join them in that feeling.

Yes, follow the law, but to abuse people who are simply there to protest the presence of these ICE forces--that is guaranteed acceptable and legal by our Constitution. Article I of the Bill of Rights makes that very clear.

So we left water for the volunteers who were there and those who were participating.

We asked to go into the Broadview facility, and once again, we were turned down. We are doing our best to make sure we continue to keep an eye on what is happening.

Restaurants in Chicago feel that the ICE agents are making things worse, not better. They started putting notices on the windows and doors and entries to some restaurants that ICE agents are not welcome-- and for good reason. When ICE shows up, people know it. Word spreads quickly, and people flee and hide for fear of what is going to happen to them. That is the reality of the strategy in Chicago, and it is the strategy which has to come to an end and should very soon.

If these men and women who are representing our government and ICE are proud of what they are going to do, let's have full disclosure. Let's find out what they have done, how they are spending the billions of dollars we are sending their way, and why that money isn't being spent on law enforcement now. If you want to help reduce crime and violent crime and murder, work with the police and law enforcement. But, no, that is not what the administration wants to do. They want their own show. They want their own theater.

I have tried to visit these facilities many times. Once again, I was disappointed this last Friday, but that is not the end of my effort. As long as I am serving in this capacity, I will accept my constitutional responsibility to watch how the money is being spent.

On Saturday, I spoke to peaceful protesters who have been demonstrating at Broadview for weeks. I went to St. Eulalia Church, which is just on the outskirts of Chicago, near Broadview. Hundreds of people showed up at that church to begin a holy procession to the Broadview facility and to ask if they could be allowed to go in and, if not, if they could distribute communion among the demonstrators as well as the law enforcement who were there.

It was a peaceful demonstration, and I was proud to be a part of it. It was an effort to bring to light, publicly, what is going on and to make it clear that Chicago is not a dangerous city and that the presence of troops sent by this President and this administration was totally unnecessary. Protesters facing tear gas and pepper spray from DHS is not making America any safer or Chicago any safer.

Hundreds of people rallied outside the ICE facility in Broadview, peacefully protesting. Were some arrested? Yes. Last Friday, of the hundreds who went there, how many were arrested? Four--four. Does that seem like a situation where you want to call in the National Guard from Texas?

And to think that the President claims that using a Federal military force will improve the situation. The reality is that the opposite is true. While the Guard is in Illinois now, it could be in your State next. It could be your family taken from their homes and their beds in the middle of the night, in a violent raid, as happened on September 30 in the 2200 block of the South Shore.

While I will continue to do everything in my power to push back on the President's military intrusion into our cities, I implore my Republican colleagues to stop and reflect on what is happening; to reflect on the deployment of troops into States which are not asking for help at all and don't need it. This is an illegal, unconstitutional power grab by the President, who is determined to consolidate his power and stifle any dissent. It does not make America safer.

Remembering Sister Jean Dolores Schmidt

Mr. President, on a separate topic, the phrase ``cura personalis'' is the lodestar of Jesuit education. It means ``care of the whole person,'' and it emphasizes the need for teachers to cultivate not just a person's mind but their spirit as well. No one embodied this ethos better than Sister Jean Dolores Schmidt, and it is with a heavy heart that I share the news of her passing.

For more than half a century, Sister Jean shared her faith with her community in Chicago. She was a teacher--a professor--at Mundelein College before it affiliated with Loyola University, where she became an academic advisor.

She was famous on the basketball scene. Basketball players might remember Sister Jean as the de facto chaplain and mascot of the Loyola

Ramblers of the city of Chicago. Her cheers were louder than anyone else's in the arena. She helped to lead the Ramblers to the Final Four in 2018.

She was a wonderful person, and it was my good fortune to get to know her. Students at Loyola remember her as the person who always kept her office door open, a symbol of her constant willingness to take care of students, the whole person. In her pregame prayers with the team, Sister Jean would ask for God's grace in one sentence and give coaching advice to individual players in the next. She was more than a loyal fan and a coach. She was Loyola's spiritual captain.

I had the great fortune of working with former President Biden to obtain a Presidential proclamation to honor Sister Jean and the thousands of lives that she touched.

In thinking of her passing, I am reminded of Job 14:7. This passage speaks of the tree that was cut down and reminds us that it may, one day, grow again.

While Sister Jean is no longer with us, her legacy of kindness and grace will continue to push others to serve just as she did for her entire life. Her tender branch will sprout once more, embodied in those who choose faith, service, and love. Sister Jean will be dearly missed.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois Senator Duckworth for inviting me to join her on the floor to discuss what is happening in our State.

Before I do, I want to make sure it is well known for those who follow this debate to explain how she became my Senate colleague.

There was a day some 20 years ago when I was given two tickets to the Presidential State of the Union Address, and my staff had asked me if there was any particular guest I would like to invite. I said: No, why don't you call out to Walter Reed military hospital and see if there is an Illinois veteran who can come and join us. They told me, shortly after that, that they had found someone who was coming.

I didn't know that person. Her name was Tammy Duckworth. She was in full dress uniform when she came into my office, merely a few weeks since her helicopter had been shot down over in Iraq, and she had gone through some terrible surgeries and was recovering. But she came into my office with a large smile on her face and her husband Brian pushing her wheelchair.

That was how we met. She was my guest at the State of the Union Address.

We became friends. I became an ombudsman for Walter Reed. She had soldiers calling me from all over the United States asking for help. I didn't regret it one bit. I was honored to do it.

So I worked up the courage to ask her if she would consider running for Congress, and she said to me: I would have to talk it over with Brian.

I thought, I have got a live one here. She sounds like she is interested, which she was.

Her first try for office was not successful for Congress, but she later became head of the Veterans' Administration for the State of Illinois and then ran successfully to serve with me as a Member of the House. When there was a vacancy available for the U.S. Senate seat, I not only encouraged her but endorsed her and did everything I could to help. I am honored to have her as my colleague.

She is an extraordinary person, has more bravery than any 10 people I know, and she has shown her devotion for this country by serving in the Guard for over 20 years--23 years?--23 years in the Guard.

So when it comes to issues involving the Guard, there is no better expert that has ever served in the U.S. Senate. Illinois is lucky; America is lucky to have Tammy Duckworth, and I am lucky to be able to join her today.

We are proud of our heritage in the State of Illinois. We call it the ``Land of Lincoln,'' and I recall an incident that is worth repeating.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Edwardsville, IL. That is downstate near St. Louis. In this speech, he asked:

What constitutes the bulwark of our liberty and

independence?

Lincoln emphasized that it was not America's army or the power of our weapons. The founder of the Republican Party Abraham Lincoln said:

[It is] the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty

as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.

This is what is responsible for the maintenance of our freedoms. How the Republican Party has changed from those early days.

Yesterday, President Trump deployed 500 National Guard troops to our State of Illinois. The President ignored the pleas from elected officials across Illinois that these deployments were unnecessary and unwanted and a dangerous escalation of a situation the President himself has created.

Leaders of the chamber of commerce and businesses in our State held a press conference and begged the President: Don't send in the troops. You are sitting here peddling a message which is not true. It is not unsafe in Illinois. People there are proud to be part of that State. We know we are not perfect. Like every other place, we can be

better and safer. But the use of Guard troops from Illinois or even from Texas is totally unnecessary and creates unwanted pressure.

That message was clear from the business leaders in my State, but President Donald Trump didn't care what they had to say. He wanted to deploy our Nation's military to Illinois to spread fear and sow chaos. And in both those efforts, sad to say, he succeeded.

The President has no legal basis for deploying Federal troops to Illinois against the wishes of the Illinois Governor. There is no rebellion or insurrection happening in our State. Americans have the right, under the First Amendment, to protest this administration's cruel and misguided immigration policy. There is no room for violence whatsoever in this exchange of information and points of view, but it is part of our constitutional guarantee.

There is no argument, as some of my colleagues claimed during our Judiciary Committee markup meeting this morning, that this is anything like the civil rights-era abuses of the National Guard by multiple Presidents to enforce desegregation laws when segregationist Governors in the South were defying Federal law and court orders.

President Dwight David Eisenhower, a general himself, federalized the Arkansas National Guard after the Governor outright refused to comply with the law and was preventing the Little Rock Nine from entering the previously all-White Central High School, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

There is no argument and no evidence whatsoever that the Governor of Illinois is disobeying any Federal law or court order. There is no historical analogy between the situation in the 1960s and the situation in Illinois today.

In fact, the current administration has sued Illinois to attempt to commandeer State law and force Illinois to implement this administration's immigration policies. Courts have repeatedly found that Illinois does not have a responsibility to implement Federal immigration laws.

There is no statute or provision in the Constitution that allows the President to use the National Guard as props in his political theater or to suppress constitutionally protected dissent against his inhumane immigration crackdown.

In addition, the Trump administration has recklessly surged hundreds of Federal law enforcement officers who are employing increasingly aggressive tactics against immigrants and their families and those suspected of being immigrants. They have said quite boldly: We are looking for people who look like this, subject to jurisdiction.

They have pulled FBI, DEA, and ATF agents from their assignments to carry out the President's immigration agenda, taking them away from the mission to combat crimes like terrorism, gun violence, human trafficking, and drug smuggling.

How does this make America safer?

We all know the litany that Donald Trump has repeated over and over again at political rallies and meetings since he was reelected as President. He is trying to stop murderers, rapists, terrorists, criminally insane people, and sexual predators from coming into this country.

Look what is happening with this mass deportation effort that he has authored. Over 70 percent of those who have been detained by ICE so far--over 70 percent--have no criminal record whatsoever, none whosoever.

This is not about stopping crime. This is about going after immigrants. If the Trump administration truly wanted to help my city of Chicago and our State of Illinois, it wouldn't defy Illinois-elected leaders; it would work with us. It would restore the millions of dollars that it suspended in crime prevention and public safety grants.

How can this President say with a straight face that he wants to reduce crime in our State and cut back the very programs law enforcement counts on to train and be prepared and effective in the field when reducing crime? He has chosen to put boots and guns on the street and call in the military from Texas.

At the end of the day, these deployments are about President Trump and Stephen Miller's personal agenda to send troops primarily into blue cities and to deport immigrants without any criminal history at the expense of national security and public safety.

Nearly a quarter of all FBI agents--a quarter of them, one out of four--are now focused on immigration. How can this possibly make America safer? The tactics that are being used by ICE and others in support of the President's mission are outrageous.

On Tuesday, September 30, there was a raid in the middle of the night on an apartment house in South Shore in the city of Chicago. Three hundred ICE agents flew in Black Hawk helicopters and rappelled down to the roof of an apartment building. It was a scene made for the movies. That is exactly what it was.

They ransacked apartments that people were living in, crashed down their doors and pulled them out of bed and lined them up on the street. They bound the children with ties--plastic ties or handcuffs--and they decided to make it all a movie production for television and video.

It was supposedly to stop drug activities by gangs. No evidence whatsoever has been produced of that. It was a horrible scene. I am sure these children will never forget as long as they live being pulled out of bed in the middle of the night and watching their parents being interrogated, arrested, and detained.

That is the idea of this administration in enforcing the law. It just goes too far. Steve Miller, the President's domestic adviser, is the architect of this travesty. For any of you who may not think these deployments may not affect you, it is just Illinois' problem, you are wrong.

The very act undermines our Constitution and belief in liberty above all. As President Lincoln warned us in that same speech, ``Destroy this spirit [of liberty] and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors.''

While the Guard is in Illinois now, it could be in your State next; it could be your family taken from their homes and their beds in the middle of the night in an indiscriminate raid.

Does it sound preposterous? The 2,200 South Shore apartment building people can tell you it is not preposterous. It is actually what happened--have tear gas and guns pointed at you for speaking out.

Congress must act and speak out against this increasingly authoritarian administration. We are a coequal branch of government, and it is time we act like one. I implore my Republican colleagues--and I know they are loyal to President Trump--I implore them to join Senator Duckworth and me and describe these deployments for what they are; they are an illegal, immoral power grab by a President determined to consolidate his power and stifle any dissents.

If we here in this Senate Chamber, fortunate enough to represent the people in this country, will not stand up, then who will?

Once again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Duckworth for calling us down to the Senate floor to raise this issue. She and I are hoping, if the Senate schedule allows, we will be able to get back to Illinois this weekend and then have an opportunity to learn even more about this grave situation.

In the meantime, I ask people involved to show courage, to understand that the odds are against them, and the people who are trying to harass them are well-armed and can be very serious with what they do. But America's values will prevail over this President and this situation, and my State of Illinois will return to a situation where it is not being invaded by the Guard of other States.

Incidentally, I will close by saying this: I have no animus against members of the Guard, either in Illinois or in Texas. They are good men and women who put their hands in the air and swore an oath to our Constitution to serve our country. They are in a situation where they are being used, unfortunately, for a bad situation with this President, but we need them, and I continue to look forward to working with them in the future.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Jennifer Lee Mascott, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Ms. Mascott is a nominee who was selected for her loyalty to President Trump and her extreme view on expansive Presidential power, which she has advocated for many years.

At a Federalist Society event in 2018, she agreed with John Eastman, President Trump's disgraced and disbarred lawyer, in stating that any independence of independent Agencies is ``too much.'' And just days before she joined the White House Counsel's Office, she stated that the Supreme Court should overrule Humphrey's Executor, the landmark 90-year precedent establishing the constitutionality of laws protecting the heads of independent Agencies from being fired. She claimed that ``the President needs to be able to . . . get rid of folks who don't follow his instructions'' at independent Agencies.

If Ms. Mascott's arguments carry the day, President Trump will be free to continue his holy war against bipartisan independent Agencies entrusted with protecting the rights and safety of Americans like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If he succeeds, something as important as consumer protection will be based on the whims of the political party in power, not the valued expertise of subject matter experts.

Just last year, Ms. Mascott told this committee that the Supreme Court's outrageous decision granting sweeping immunity to President Trump was ``modest.''

I am also troubled by Ms. Mascott's selection process for this Delaware seat. Nominees are required to provide details about how they were selected, but Ms. Mascott failed to provide the dates when she was interviewed by the White House Counsel's Office. Notably, the Delaware Senators suggested to the White House several well-qualified conservative jurists who had strong ties to the Delaware legal community. Ms. Mascott was selected although she has never lived in Delaware nor any State in the Third Circuit; she is not licensed to practice in Delaware; and she was only admitted to the Third Circuit this May.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose her nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.